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.
You were disagreeing with Cadfan's characterisation of REHoward's Conan as "mighty thewed barbarians hewing things in twain". I think that characterisation is entirely correct. There is a mighty-thewed barbarian and he does hew things in twain. His thews are described many times. He hews things in twain many times. .
You seem to be intentionally ignoring the point. The argument is not the Howard never says thews, or that Howard's Conan is non-violent. The argument is that the pastiches stripped Howard's works down to little more than a caricature -- as you're doing now.
If you have not read Howard's original stories, you should not judge them based on the shallow pastiches.
If you have read a Howard story or two, and you did not like them, that's fine. But's that very, very different from saying, "I don't want to read a story about might thews."
Great thread! l I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on the new and old authors on the list. Despite being pretty well read in the fantasy genre, I've never read any Howard. I'm going to change that shortly.
I'm surprised Zelazny's names hasn't appeared anywhere in this thread. The (1st) Chronicles of Amber, Jack of Shadows, The Changing Land, and a host of other books and stories by him are as much the source material of DnD as anything that Vance and other's wrote. He was the best of what I read in high school. He's also an acknowledged major influence of Gaiman's and no doubt others.
I'd put a shout out for some of Anne McCaffery's early dragon books as great adventure stories with a distinct DnD vibe, what with all the smiths and bards and leatherclad dragon riders.
Sad to see Jordan so high on the list, but he is an obvious entry level author. Somebody mentioned not seeing the need to read some of the older authors, but doing so helps to see later writers like Jordan as aimless imitators rather than creators.
To be honest, I think the only Jordan I've read are his Conan ones.
John Carter's red martian might be the good guys, and the green ones are the bad ones, but, it's pretty obvious what's going on.
But, you are perfectly right in that a lot of those old stories are pretty brutal on the social morals scale. And that is kinda my point. D&D despite it's age and popularity, is still predominantly a suburban male thing. Do we want to tie the game to stuff that is so obviously bigotted?
Again, we read Shakespeare, true, but, where? We read Shakespeare because he's arguably the greatest writer in the English language. (Whether that's true or not, it's generally held) And, at least where I grew up, they removed Merchant of Venice from the school curriculums.
We don't play D&D to get educated by and large.
__________________ 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.
To be honest,
Again, we read Shakespeare, true, but, where? We read Shakespeare because he's arguably the greatest writer in the English language.
Tolkien hated Shakespeare (and all literature after 1066). After reading Macbeth, he dreamed of a day when the trees really would march off to war . . .
__________________ 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.
Tolkien hated Shakespeare (and all literature after 1066). After reading Macbeth, he dreamed of a day when the trees really would march off to war . . .
Hang on, "all literature after 1066"? What English literature is there BEFORE 1066? Or do you just mean that Tolkien loved his Greeks and whatnot and nothing in his native language was worth reading?
I'm not much of a Tolkien buff, so, I'm just curious.
__________________ 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.
Hang on, "all literature after 1066"? What English literature is there BEFORE 1066? Or do you just mean that Tolkien loved his Greeks and whatnot and nothing in his native language was worth reading?
I'm not much of a Tolkien buff, so, I'm just curious.
Tolkien considered England's native language to be the Old English from before the Norman/French invasion (both physically and culturally). Tolkien was upset about the Norman invasion as if it had happened during his lifetime.
His creation of Elvish languages and subsequent stories was an attempt to create a "real" language and mythology for England instead of the borrowed Norse, Celtic, and French-Arthurian legends.
__________________ 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.
To be honest, I think the only Jordan I've read are his Conan ones.
John Carter's red martian might be the good guys, and the green ones are the bad ones, but, it's pretty obvious what's going on.
Well, sort of. In the first book it is not made clear, but later it turns out that red martians are the result of the interbreeding of all the other "colors" of martians: white martians, black martians, yellow martians, and so on. How that results in red-skinned descendants, I don't know, but they apparently do. This sort of interbereeding seems to be a fairly anti-racist stance to take.
And the white martians are vile bad guys, and apparently irredeemable. The black martians are bad guys, but honorable and end up changing sides. The yellow martians are led by an insane king at the beginning, but once that problem is removed turn out to be okay. The green martians are savage, but highly honorable (and turn out to be stalwart allies of Carter's).
__________________ I don't know if I would consider being smashed into a pulp by a giant mace to be a "good result".
Tolkien hated Shakespeare (and all literature after 1066).
That's overstating it, I think. You're right about Tolkien wanting to create an Anglo-Saxon mythology that could have been if the Norman invasion never happened. But he read, admired and was influenced by a number of post 1066 texts such as medieval French romances, EA Wyke Smith's Land of the Snergs (probably the source for hobbits) and the writings of William Morris, George Macdonald and others.
The real question is whether these authors have survived the test of time- whether now, with many more competitors than they once faced, they're still considered worth reading. I'm pretty sure that Leiber and Howard have not passed this test. Howard has at least created an archetype that everyone knows and loves, but they tend to know it and love it through the effects its had on other writing or on secondary materials based on his, rather than through his actual words on paper.
That both are still in print many decades later will be proof enough for you.
John Carter's red martian might be the good guys, and the green ones are the bad ones, but, it's pretty obvious what's going on.
I guess I'm dense. What's going on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
But, you are perfectly right in that a lot of those old stories are pretty brutal on the social morals scale. And that is kinda my point. D&D despite it's age and popularity, is still predominantly a suburban male thing. Do we want to tie the game to stuff that is so obviously bigotted?
You're concerned that D&D -- a game about killing quasi-people of other races and taking their stuff -- might be tied to stories of pre-modern people who see foreign tribes as outsiders?
I'd find it more disconcerting if pre-modern warriors behaved like modern humanities grad students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
And, at least where I grew up, they removed Merchant of Venice from the school curriculums.
I'm suprised how much of Appendix N isn't on the poll. No Lord Dunsany? No Lovecraft?
My answers, including omitted Appendix N authors: I've read Lieber, Howard, Tolken, Rowlings, Jordan, Mieville, Pratchett, Lovecraft, Lord Dunsany, and probably some Derlith. I also have Carter, de Camp, Moorcock, and Burroughs stuff at home on my stack of "things to read".
Lovecraft is notorious for his racial intolerance, but I've never known that to stop anybody from appreciating his work anyways.
Incidentally, I had read none, and probably heard of very few, of these authors when I started playing D&D. I love a great deal of the Appendix N material to death - in fact, I'm on vacation now, and my reading material consists entirely of Lovecraft and Lieber - but while such material has certainly inspired me at times in D&D affairs, I wouldn't dream of saying that any of it should be read by D&D players. I've never thought of Appendix N of being a "suggested reading" list so much as a "if you were curious" or "you may also enjoy" list. I've read comics where the artist mentioned in an afterward what music he was listening to when he drew it.
I'm 24 so voted in the poll. To be honest though, I'd say that despite having most of the listed authors (although Vance is the only one of the top three I've read) they haven't had the hugest impact on my games.
The authors I'm most influenced by would be George Martin, Brandon Sanderson, and Jennifer Fallon. Sanderson especially, every time I run or play in Eberron I think of his Mistborn series.
Feist, Jordan, Tolkein, and Eddings have a certain amount of influence, although it'd be more subconscious as I try to avoid overt reference due to the number of my players who've read them. Martin's starting to get to that state now, with the number of friends I've lent him to, and I expect within a year or so I'll be getting pulled up on the amount of Sanderson's stuff I wholesale lifted into previous campaigns.
One thing I'll add to the conversation, is that outside of reading pleasure, if you game, you should be making notes for gaming use. There is no reason why a piece of fiction can't be used to serve multiple purposes. For example, I occassionally throw some thoughts up over here discussing various books and what I try to bring to the game from them. These range from the 'popcorn' reading of the Forgotten Realms to older material like Doc Savage.
Even fiction you find cumbersome to read may yield some gems to the game table in the form of names, places, events, descriptions or some other inspiration.
You're concerned that D&D -- a game about killing quasi-people of other races and taking their stuff -- might be tied to stories of pre-modern people who see foreign tribes as outsiders?
I'd find it more disconcerting if pre-modern warriors behaved like modern humanities grad students.
Wait, are you saying that's a good thing?
Granted, I'm no John Carter knowledge well. I only read A Princess of Mars. That the martians may be different color coded, it's not too thick of a veneer to see where the politics behind the writing lies.
Well, to me, a game about whacking imaginary monsters for money doesn't carry a whole lot of moral or ethical issues. I don't expect great social commentary from House of the Dead either. By and large, you are killing the "evil" monsters because they are team evil and you're team good.
However, I don't think the game should start from a viewpoint where orcs are a stand in for a particular social group who deserve to be killed because they are just "lesser races". Nor should women be depicted as the prize to be taken by the victor.
I understand where you're coming from, but, me, I'd prefer to keep any political commentary out of the game. If a given table wants to add that in, fine, no problem. But, killing goblins as a stand in for Red Commies isn't what I want to base my RPG's on.
__________________ 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.
Granted, I'm no John Carter knowledge well. I only read A Princess of Mars. That the martians may be different color coded, it's not too thick of a veneer to see where the politics behind the writing lies.
Could you spell out the "politics"? I'm not sure what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
By and large, you are killing the "evil" monsters because they are team evil and you're team good.
Right -- which is how most humans have seen the world from the beginning of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
However, I don't think the game should start from a viewpoint where orcs are a stand in for a particular social group who deserve to be killed because they are just "lesser races".
I don't think anyone's been recommending a thinly veiled Nazi allegory, with Nazis as the heroes, and I certainly don't think Howard's Conan works support that point of view at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
Nor should women be depicted as the prize to be taken by the victor.
In a pre-modern setting, women generally are a prize to be taken by the victor. I can understand not wanting to emphasize that in your own game, and I can understand not reveling in the idea, but I would never fault a story for depicting non-modern characters behaving in non-modern ways. That's practically the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussar
I understand where you're coming from, but, me, I'd prefer to keep any political commentary out of the game. If a given table wants to add that in, fine, no problem. But, killing goblins as a stand in for Red Commies isn't what I want to base my RPG's on.
I don't see pre-modern characters, in a pre-modern setting, acting in a pre-modern way as playing out some distasteful, modern ideology. If quasi-Romans defeat quasi-Celts and sell the survivors into slavery, that seems perfectly reasonable -- and not a justification for enslaving anyone today (or in our recent past).
I'm 25 and have read Leiber, Howard, Tolkien, Moorcock and Pratchett. Loved all of them, but Howard's my clear favorite. I've got Dying Earth, but have yet to read it. I'd love to read Mieville.
Granted, I'm no John Carter knowledge well. I only read A Princess of Mars. That the martians may be different color coded, it's not too thick of a veneer to see where the politics behind the writing lies.
What politics? No, really? A man on the losing side of the civil war gets sent into the past of Martian history where he encounters more war and is forced to survive in a literally alien world based on his own skills. He finds races of men in a continuous war, finds the most gorgeous girl in the universe and sets off on an adventure to rescue her from a race of giant green bug-men with four arms.
Quote:
However, I don't think the game should start from a viewpoint where orcs are a stand in for a particular social group who deserve to be killed because they are just "lesser races". Nor should women be depicted as the prize to be taken by the victor.
1. You obviously haven't really read this book because Dejah Thoris is hardly a prize to be taken by the victor. She has just as much guts and gumption as John Carter. 2. No race is killed by any other race because they are "lesser," EXCEPT the white race which does kill all the other races because the Therns think they are superior. Indeed, they are the ultimate villains on Barsoom.
Quote:
I understand where you're coming from, but, me, I'd prefer to keep any political commentary out of the game. If a given table wants to add that in, fine, no problem. But, killing goblins as a stand in for Red Commies isn't what I want to base my RPG's on.
Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from Edgar Rice Burroughs "A Princess of Mars" which was written before the Communist threat even existed and was serially published in 1912.
There was no communist threat in 1912? Really? Considering The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, I think you might find that Communism really was a major issue in many countries by 1912.
Reread A Princess of Mars. The Green martian martial culture where no one knows their parentage, all children are communal, all property is communal. Sound familiar? Then add the idea that the Green Martians are completely immoral, have no pity, the only time they laugh is at other's pain. It's a pretty thinly veiled commentary on Communism.
But, you are right, the whole Red Commies thing is anachronistic.
BTW, my point about the "lesser races" wasn't meant as a comparison to Burroughs actually. Sorry, was moving on to a different topic. I meant that I didn't want to play in a thinly veneered racist game. I wasn't trying to say that A Princess of Mars was racist.
__________________ 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.
On Burroughs, and all caught up in that nexus here: There are complex subjects not really done justice in the context of treating them as mere rhetorical ammunition for propaganda in furtherance of one thesis or another.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
