General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I haven't read Rowling, Brooks or Jordan, though I'll read the first few novels of Rowling's some day I suspect. I'm actively avoiding Brooks and Jordan. What stories I read of Vance, I did not enjoy, nor did I really enjoy Leiber's work.
I'm 25, and I voted for Tolkien, Jordan (only read the first three books before I lost all interest in the Wheel of Time, though), and Brooks (my brother read more of his stuff than me).
The lack of Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, Mercedes Lackey, Lloyd Alexander, and especially C. S. Lewis means that many of the authors I spent a lot of my youth reading are not on this list. Even Piers Anthony was more significant to my exposure to fantasy than anyone on that list short of Tolkien. In fact, these days Shakespeare might be a more important influence on my view of fantasy than anything on that list short of Tolkien (Prospero is pretty much the definition of the classic fantasy wizard, after all). If we are moving past fantasy (which seems reasonable considering that the Discworld guy gets mentioned), then mentioning Isaac Asimov is simply a necessity.
Of course, my fondness for myth and folktales predates my interest in fantasy literature, and my interest in fantasy has been fueled just as much by videogames and anime as books. I never understood why the "fantasy canon" in these threads is always limited to just books...
Oh, this was never meant as an exhaustive list by any stretch. I picked 5 "old skool" authors which get touted about quite often in threads and 5 popular new authors off the top of my head.
I'm not really, honestly, a big fantasy fan. I read a lot more SF than fantasy. But, the whole point of this thread was a talking point towards a point in that I wanted to show that focusing the inspirations for the game on dead authors wasn't really a great idea for attracting younger gamers. What's the point in using Vancian casting when no one's read him? Why focus on Lieber when he's far and away less read by younger readers than Jordan?
Mearl's recent inspiration thread pretty much speaks to my point. The inspirations he drew for the classes he designed were not, by and large, the traditional fantasy that gets trotted out every time.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Last edited by Hussar; 14th July 2009 at 05:46 AM..
I miss your cutoff by a year, but I've read books from all of those authors.
It is worth noting that i didn't seek out the older ones until I'd been exposed to the via ENWorld and blogs, so I already had a year or two of D&D under my belt.
Ultimately, though, you're asking the wrong question - movies and games are likely a much more significant influence on my generation than books, and I say that as an avid reader.
I miss your cutoff by a year, but I've read books from all of those authors.
It is worth noting that i didn't seek out the older ones until I'd been exposed to the via ENWorld and blogs, so I already had a year or two of D&D under my belt.
Ultimately, though, you're asking the wrong question - movies and games are likely a much more significant influence on my generation than books, and I say that as an avid reader.
Well, perhaps. I note that this story in Newsweek is certainly promising.
But, sure, your point is certainly valid. Unfortunately, I couldn't add that many lines to my poll. Really, I think I've shown my point rather well to be honest. The fact that more younger readers have read Harry Potter than have read Vance, Lieber and Howard COMBINED points to newer gamers probably recognizing Potteresque elements far easier than Vancian magic or "steely thews".
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I'm about three years too old for the poll. I'm sort of a cheat, since I've been making an effort to read some of the pulp fantasy that originally inspired D&D.
I've read a little of Leiber, Howard, Rowling, Jordan, Pratchett, and Brooks; and I've read more of Tolkien and Moorcock. I've meant to read some Vance and Mieville, but I haven't gotten to either yet.
I've also read Peake, Martin*, Novik, Bojold, Butcher, and Gaiman. My most recent fantasy read was Jay Lake's book Mainspring.
* Actually two Martins--George RR and Charlie--but the later recently changed his name to Brooks.
I'm... er... a bit over 25. I've read at least something from all of them.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I necessarily think that D&D should reflect something from all of them, regardless of how old I am, and regardless of what I've read. And in many cases, it's the older stuff that I like least... I dislike Vance and Moorcock both, for example.
Course I also dislike Pratchett, Jordan, Mieville, and Brooks, so I don't know where that gets us. I don't know where Pratchett and Brooks are supposed to fall, since the peak of their popularity was quite a while ago too... just not as long ago as the peak of Howard or Leiber's popularity.
I haven't read anything from J. K. Rowlings,China Mieville, or Terry Pratchett.
I hope to get to them sometime soon but hardly a priority. There's a ton of fiction.
As to what authors you should have included, R A Salvatore, hated or not, with Drizzit, as a New York Time bestseller on multiple occassions, with numerous graphic novel adaptations, etc... etc..., should be on here.
I'm... er... a bit over 25. I've read at least something from all of them.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I necessarily think that D&D should reflect something from all of them, regardless of how old I am, and regardless of what I've read. And in many cases, it's the older stuff that I like least... I dislike Vance and Moorcock both, for example.
Course I also dislike Pratchett, Jordan, Mieville, and Brooks, so I don't know where that gets us. I don't know where Pratchett and Brooks are supposed to fall, since the peak of their popularity was quite a while ago too... just not as long ago as the peak of Howard or Leiber's popularity.
Well, both Pratchett and Brooks still regularly top best seller lists when their books come out, so, I don't think they're past their prime really. But, in any case, I was pointing to authors that started either in the very late 70's (Terry Brooks) or in the late 80's (Pratchett) or later as a comparison to the "giants" of the field.
In other words, don't get too hung up on the specifics, but rather look at the numbers.
Jones: Why is 4e doing well? What is it about 4e itself that is selling well?
Goodman: Good question. You can answer this question in a thousand different ways, depending on your perspective as an active fan, a grognard, a retailer, a publisher, a creator, or someone else entirely. I can relate something of my own experience as well as that of many retailers I’ve spoken to, which is that 4E truly seems to be reaching a new audience.
Maps are more important. Stats are a totally different ballgame. You have to consider the digital side more. There are new graphics, new game play, and new support structures that are all intended to connect to a generation whose sense of mythology is influenced not by reading J. R. R. Tolkien and Robert E. Howard, but by viewing movies and playing video games several steps removed from that original source material.
I see that in the fact that Goodman Games has new customers who didn’t previously play D&D – which is exactly what 4E is supposed to be accomplishing.
Bold mine.
So, it looks like I'm not alone in this little theory.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I'm over 25, by a bit, so I didn't vote in the poll but I did look at the results. Way more votes for Tolkien than Rowling? Ummmm, those Harry Potter books have a massively larger audience than LoTR/Hobbit, especially for people under 25. (And they are incidentally a much better read, IMO.) Any theory on this?
I'm 28, so I didn't pollute the results by voting.
I've only read Tolkien, half a book by Jordan, and Terry Brooks.
By far, I enjoyed Brooks the most. I have watched all the Potter movies with my g/f who owns all the Potter books, but never bothered to read them, though Steph swears they are much better novels than movies.
I prefer the Russians (Tolstoy, Doestoyevsky, Bulgakov) and Camus if I'm reading for value. If I read fantasy novels, they tend to be Eberron, Dragonlance, or FR light reads I can finish in one or two sittings.
I'm too old for this poll, but I've read almost every single book published by every one of those authors and probably all the short stories as well, with the exception of one: Miéville. I would think anyone who considers themselves a fan of fantasy fiction would have a similar experience.
I'm too old for this poll, but I've read almost every single book published by every one of those authors and probably all the short stories as well, with the exception of one: Miéville. I would think anyone who considers themselves a fan of fantasy fiction would have a similar experience.
Why?
Why do I have to read dead authors in order to consider myself a fan?
Do all mystery fans have to read A.C. Doyle and Agatha Christie before they can gain "fan cred"? Do all history fans have to read James Clavell before they can be considered fans?
In 2007 alone, there have been almost THREE HUNDRED fantasy novels published, and that does not count media tie ins or reprints. (you can find the stats here if you wish). Why in Hell do I have to read Fritz Leiber to consider myself a fantasy fan?
Hey, I like Leiber, I love Howard. But, I also realize that these writers are a very, very niche love of a very large genre.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Why do I have to read dead authors in order to consider myself a fan?
You don't have to read dead authors to be a fan. The issue is not whether they're dead or alive. You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Do all mystery fans have to read A.C. Doyle and Agatha Christie before they can gain "fan cred"?
I would think so. A mystery fan who had never read any Sherlock Holmes story would be... odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
In 2007 alone, there have been almost THREE HUNDRED fantasy novels published, and that does not count media tie ins or reprints. (you can find the stats here if you wish). Why in Hell do I have to read Fritz Leiber to consider myself a fantasy fan?
Most fantasy novels are crap. (90 percent of everything is crud, of course.) You should try reading the best works by the masters of the genre before reading whatever happens to be new right now.
I would dispute many of these author's status as "masters of the genre." "Guys who came first in history and to whom we owe a lot," I'll give them. "Dudes who got copied and improved on," definitely. "Masters of the genre..." no. If I want to read Vancian fiction, I'll read Matthew Hughes.
The only "master of the genre" I'll concede is Tolkien, because he's so good at worldbuilding. Worldbuilding ruins far more books than it ever helps, so the fact that he managed to pull it off so incredibly well is a genuine accomplishment for the ages.
One of my fondest wishes is to be wealthy enough to send every player of D&D a copy of Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories (The Dying Earth, Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel's Saga, and Rhialto the Marvelous).
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
By the way Hussar, you have the large omission of E. R. Burroughs from your list.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
It warms my heart to see mention of Lloyd Alexander in this thread. My own campaign is a general synthesis of Prydain, Middle-Earth, and the Hyborean Age.
__________________ Words of wisdom from Gary Gygax:
From my perspective wanting less in the way of rules constraints comes from being a veteran Game Master who feels confident that more good material comes from imagination and player interaction with the environment than from textbook rules material.
more words of wisdom:
Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.
Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing Candyland with their little sister
First and foremost, munchkinism arose as a contemporary of the OD&D game. Nothing in the rules of that or any other version of the game was needed to make it flourish.
There is no relationship between 3E and original D&D, or OAD&D for that matter. Different games, style, and spirit.
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.
Here's your generation gap, right here. If I had to pick one book to list with Gibson, it'd always be Neuromancer.
Oh, absolutely. If anything, "The Difference Engine" made me want to burn every Gibson novel ever written. I haven't detested a work of fiction with that level of vehemence since the last "literature" book I had to read in grad school.
You don't have to read dead authors to be a fan. The issue is not whether they're dead or alive. You should, on the other hand, read the acknowledged masters of the genre.
I would think so. A mystery fan who had never read any Sherlock Holmes story would be... odd.
Most fantasy novels are crap. (90 percent of everything is crud, of course.) You should try reading the best works by the masters of the genre before reading whatever happens to be new right now.
Really, I think I've shown my point rather well to be honest. The fact that more younger readers have read Harry Potter than have read Vance, Lieber and Howard COMBINED points to newer gamers probably recognizing Potteresque elements far easier than Vancian magic or "steely thews".
If I had to pick one book to list with Gibson, it'd always be Neuromancer.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
