TSR Appendix N Discussion

[Parmandur]

My regular D&D group in college had a friend who had never played D&D drop in for one game. His assessment, of his expectation as a big Fabtasy fan, was that he "felt like a Tolkien character who tripped into a Joseph Conrad novel."

I feel that captures some of the feel of D&D.

 

[Hussar]

The only thing I can contribute to that discussion is that I've met Terry Brooks (he lives nearby), and found him to be an excellent human being. He's patient with his fans, he's very supportive of derivative works, and apart from the occasional bit of shade he throws at George R. R. Martin's publishing schedule, he never has anything bad to say about other fantasy authors.

He's not flawless, and neither are his books, but if you're hunting for inspiration in your D&D game you can do much worse than Terry Brooks.

Oh, hey, as I said in the other thread, I've read a ton of Terry Brooks. His Magic Kingdom for Sale serious was a blast. Fantastic stuff.

One thing that came up in the previous discussion is why we throw shade at Terry Brooks for ahem drawing from Tolkien but we don't throw shade at Tolkien for his sources. There is a major difference between the two.

Tolkien would have been the first in line to point to his sources. If you walked up to Tolkien and told him that he was copying stuff, he'd be the first to agree with you. It was never a secret or even hidden that he was drawing inspiration from other sources. That was largely the point of the stories - that the Lord of the Rings was a retelling of an other story. Sword of Shanara, OTOH, wasn't supposed to be a retelling of Lord of the Rings. It was supposed to be an original story and was marketed as such.

That, to me, is the primary difference.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, hey, as I said in the other thread, I've read a ton of Terry Brooks. His Magic Kingdom for Sale serious was a blast. Fantastic stuff.

One thing that came up in the previous discussion is why we throw shade at Terry Brooks for ahem drawing from Tolkien but we don't throw shade at Tolkien for his sources. There is a major difference between the two.

Tolkien would have been the first in line to point to his sources. If you walked up to Tolkien and told him that he was copying stuff, he'd be the first to agree with you. It was never a secret or even hidden that he was drawing inspiration from other sources. That was largely the point of the stories - that the Lord of the Rings was a retelling of an other story. Sword of Shanara, OTOH, wasn't supposed to be a retelling of Lord of the Rings. It was supposed to be an original story and was marketed as such.

That, to me, is the primary difference.

I mean, Brooks and Del Rey were pretty honest about it being Tolkien pastiche, from everything I've seen. Del Rey's primary motivation for wanting to publish it was to prove to publishing industry people that the Lors of the Rings was not an oddball fluke, but something that people would like to see more of.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree. My preferences seem to align with yours.

But it's not really a question of preferences. It's a question of capability and functionality.

It's not "should RPGs emulate stories?"

It's "can RPGs emulate stories?"

And "to what degree can RPGs emulate stories while still remaining something we'd recognize as a game?"

To me, RPGs can badly mimic a few features of stories, but they cannot emulate stories while remaining a game. The closer we get to emulating a story, the less of a game the activity becomes. To achieve things like a satisfying climax to the story you have to remove the game elements that could cause an anti-climactic resolution, like player choice and random chance.

It's remarkable the amount of authority with which someone can declare something I have been doing for the last forty years impossible.

 

[Hussar]

It's remarkable the amount of authority with which someone can declare something I have been doing for the last forty years impossible.

I mean we’ve got what, twenty years of Adventure Path adventures that prove you absolutely can emulate fiction.

But I guess those don’t count.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

twenty years of Adventure Path adventures

Forty three years: Descent into the Depths of the Earth - Wikipedia

 

[Hussar]

Forty three years: Descent into the Depths of the Earth - Wikipedia

To be fair, the GDQ series is less Adventure pathy than a typical Adventure Path. OTOH, we've certainly got the Dragonlance modules sitting right there are a prototype for Adventure Paths. As well as things like the Slave Lords adventures.

In any case, the notion of a series of adventures, each with internal narratives, linked together in a broader narrative, culminating in a satisfying climax is hardly an alien notion in gaming.

 

[el-remmen]

In related news, I started the Three Hearts and Three Lions audio book last night (narrated by Bronson Pinchot!) and despite only getting 3 chapters in, it is already not what I was expecting.

 

[Parmandur]

In related news, I started the Three Hearts and Three Lions audio book last night (narrated by Bronson Pinchot!) and despite only getting 3 chapters in, it is already not what I was expecting.

It's a wild ride.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In related news, I started the Three Hearts and Three Lions audio book last night (narrated by Bronson Pinchot!) and despite only getting 3 chapters in, it is already not what I was expecting.

TIL Bronson Pinchot has narrated over 400 audiobooks. Go, Balki!