Dwarves don't sell novels

[Hussar]

There's another issue to point out here as well. Genre is not applied before the story is written, but afterward. Author's don't set out to create a work for a genre (usually), but to tell a given story. When enough of similar styles of stories are created, then genre comes into the picture.

But genre is not static. Genre is simply an easy label to apply to works that gives a general idea of what the work is about. This is why you can't apply the fantasy genre label to epic poetry - epic poetry doesn't fit into the fantasy genre. There are similarities, true, but, they are not in the same class.

To use a biology example, insects and arachnids are similar, but, that doesn't mean that they are the same.

Zander points to WOTC as not being able to "sell" dwarves. Name another author who has? It's called "The Hobbit" for a reason. I actually can't think of any novel which features dwarves as the primary focus for the text. Terry Pratchett's Thud, I suppose. Other than that, not too much. I would hardly be blaming WOTC for failing to sell what no one else can sell either.

 

[Gez]

Please expand so that I can better understand your point. Thanks.

My point is that novels and RPGs are a completely different kind of things, and that they can't be compared directly by number sold. (Unless, of course, you're a publisher. Then it makes sense because for you they're just things you print and sell. But technical manuals should be included in the mix, too, and that's how we'd get a movie adapted from Photoshop for Dummies.)

You say "however, they share a common inspiration." Great. But that doesn't lessen the fact that a novel and an RPG are different things for different audiences that are read and used differently.

I don't have numbers to give, but I wouldn't be surprised if D&D sells much better among RPG books than LotR sells among fantasy books.

No because the Odissey is thousands of years older.

Time only goes in one direction, you know? Unless you build a time machine. You can't say D&D isn't as enduring as Homer's most famous works, because D&D isn't dead yet. If one day in our lifetime D&D dies, then you could say "see, I was right." But in the meantime, just because Iliad & Odissey have a headstart doesn't mean anything.

Illustrations of Middle Earth elves existed during his day. None AFAIK had trunks and antlers. If they were supposed to have them, I think he would have said.

Trunks and antlers were just me being silly, I could have taken something more subtle, and maybe then I would find some ME illustrations that would support my claim.

That depends what you mean by "clear". There are various aspects of orcs (also called goblins by Tolkien) described in his stories as well as a fuller description elsewhere in answer to questions from fans. He does make them seem simian, or at least degenerate humans or elves.

Yeah, we get it they're degenerate. But it doesn't go much farther. Skin color, for example?

You're mistaken. My description of psionics' roots is accurate. I would encourage you to look into its Campbellian origins.

Just like I would encourage you to look into the Zoroastrian origins of magic.

I've read plenty of sci-fi novels featuring psionics, notably Cordwainer Smith's excellent Instrumentality novels. In fact, I haven't read many sci-fi novels that didn't sneak in psionics somewhere, even if it wasn't exactly refered to as such (Asimov, for example, doesn't use the word "psionics" but still uses telepathy and even mental storage of data inside of rock; Van Vogt doesn't use the term either IIRC but various aliens exhibit mental powers in the journey of the Space Beagle, and there's the Slans, too). I don't remember reading anything by Campbell, though that's possible I did long ago.

If I have never been exposed to Campbell, is Campbell relevant? No. He isn't. The same way nobody needs to read up on Zoroastrian priests to understand Harry Potter; nobody needs to read Campbell to understand Mister Spock.

My description of psionics is accurate. It's magic inserted in sci-fi. It's raw power of the mind. It's a form of solipsism, as the sheer strength of the will directly reshape the world. Does it work through psychic electronics? Maybe, maybe not. The story never revolves around the internal of psionics. It'll have different causes, such as learning a new way of thinking or being genetically engineered for that or taking a drug that is found only on one planet or being exposed to strange radiations or even maybe simply being the next step in human evolution (you can hardly make a concept less scientific than that). These causes may be central to the story. But they're the why. Not the how.

 

[Hussar]

As I've said already, science isn't just the effects, it's also the mode of investigation. If magic missile works in a particular way, what is the rationale? What are the principles? What is the theory?

However, you can certainly include SF elements without the mode of investigation. Heck, there's tons of lighter SF stories that do this. Star Wars comes to mind. Star Trek buries any sort of investigation under Treknobabble which is about as scientific as, "I wave my hand, throw a bit of sand and they fall asleep".

Actually, I remember, back in 1e days, one DM saying that sleep spells shouldn't work in a high wind. The sand would get blown away. We all switched to crickets for spell components.

So, yes, I do agree with the point that we should be wary of trying to come up with actual, explainable, working systems for much of D&D and fantasy. But, fortunately, we don't have to. We have magic to handwave all that and we don't have to explain anything.

In SF, a golem is an android or robot. In D&D, it's an elemental powered construct. At the end of the day, they are identical. There is functionally no difference between the two. What's the difference between a ray gun and a wand of magic missiles? Or a wand of light and a flashlight? I remember Snarfquest actually used a flashlight for a wand of light way back when.

If we can include all of these non-traditionally fantasy elements into fantasy, then any cut off point is entirely arbitrary. Black Puddings are obviously the result of someone watching The Blob. A horror movie set in modern times serves as an inspiration for an iconic D&D monster. When you think about it, I cannot recall oozes, slimes or jellies, as envisioned in D&D in any fantasy work. But, metal eating slimes certainly exist in SF. Blobby chunks of goo are a staple of Horror. But not Fantasy. Should we excise oozes from D&D because it doesn't appear in the genre?

 

[Hussar]

Two reasons why dwarves don't sell:

Reason #1

and

Reason #2

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Two reasons why dwarves don't sell:

Reason #1

and

Reason #2

I think this discussion is over. We have our definite answer

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If nothing else, this thread has taught me that if I ever have an NPC bookseller in a D&D game, it's going to be a dwarf.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I ever have an NPC bookseller in a D&D game, it's going to be a dwarf.

And his books will all be about beer, gold, armor, axes, hammers, beards and (for the health conscious) gut reduction?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

and (for the health conscious) gut reduction?

Now you're being silly.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, in my Shelzar campaign, my introduction adventure was a MacGuffin retrieval of a book of Dwarven erotica.

 

[Elfdart]

Tolkien was wrong, and his style of fantasy has choked the genre with terrible imitations of what was never a particularly revolutionary product in the first damn place.

I'm deeply grateful that Wizards of the Coast is willing to continue TSR's exploration of what fantasy can be beyond the narrow confines of pseudomedieval Tolkien pastiche, thank you very much.

Amen.