[Forked Thread: How Important is Magic..?] 5 things you need to know

[Cadfan]

Dude... I'll explore some morally gray areas, but I don't want my son to look through my D&D books and see a "Beats Women Before Lunch" Heroic feat in my D&D corebooks.

Didn't say it should, though I do think that some of the... lets call it "political" overtones of modern dark fantasy provide some fertile ground for updating the game.

The fans of modern dark fantasy would tell you that the things that happen in their books are really the same things that happen in sword and sorcery, minus the cartoonish avoidance of reality. So where a sword and sorcery book might glamorize warfare and create a fantasy reality where what amounts to sexual violence on women is given a romantic tinge (to their great delight the blushing temple maiden is ravished by the barbarian, buxom tavern wenches throw themselves at the hero), the modern dark would depict these things in a more... grim and realistic manner. Temple maidens are raped, and the buxom tavern wenches are worn, wretched women doing what they have to do to feed their families.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Hmmmm.


I have to say I disagree with the choices of the OP and many in this thread.

I fear I may have entirely misunderstood the point, but as I read it, I'm not sure it is that. The alternative would be a very different view on what D&D is from what many have posted.


There is far, far too much steampunk mentioned. China Meiville? No.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE steampunk. But that's not what D&D has been, and changing it to steampunk would, in my opinion, make it no longer D&D (see the thread I started on "why aren't these other games/settings D&D?"

Can steampunk be done with 3e rules? YES. I've seen it done well. Can it be done with 4e rules? I have no doubt the answer is yes, but I haven't seen that.


But D&D is about swords and sorcery. It's about classic fantasty. That can be "modernized" in the sense that there are great modern classic fantasy books coming out. I'd use those, frankly.

I'm thinking Lord of the Rings Movies, Narnia, maybe Bridge to Terabithia are all good representations of older, and very classic books, that have been done with a modern eye...but that's not what I'm shooting for.

Eragon, The Thief Lord, Bartimaeus (less so here), The golden compass...these are more "fantasy" than what I've seen mentioned in this thread so far, IMO.


If I have misread, please tell me. And if so, I certainly apologize. In any case, I feel as though it is missing the mark to draw upon the non-fantastic to define D&D. Say I like Star-Trek. Why not draw upon that?

 

[Mallus]

Say I like Star-Trek. Why not draw upon that?

I take it you've never encountered a DM who ran orcs like Klingons. That was quite popular were I'm from.

 

[Mallus]

But D&D is about swords and sorcery. It's about classic fantasy.

I have the opposite take. I see the rise of D&D as the death-knell of classic fantasy. More than anything else, D&D helped usher in genre-blended, gonzo, kitchen-sink style fantasy, which you see in everything from the works of writers as diverse as Ray Fiest, China Mieville and Steve Erickson.

 

[Mark]

I think movies (and the books they are based on) like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Narnia series, The Golden Compass, the Underworld series, all have fantasy motifs and traditional elements, often represented with modern sensibilities, that serve to capture wide audiences. Some of the themes I see being discussed up thread are sure to alienate large portions of the general public.

 

[Umbran]

I love me some good steampunk..

...but steampunk doesn't generally have dungeons or dragons. Sorry, but those aren't in the steampunk genre's usual tropes. I'd love a good steampunk game, but it shouldn't be D&D. Same for modern urban fantasy (like Hellboy) - it's a fine genre, but not what I want when I pick up this particular game.

I am not convinced that one really needs to be familiar with the fiction/media that inspires a game to like the game, or for the game to be particularly accessible.

 

[jmucchiello]

New Weird is Mieville, but also Gaiman and Gilman and Swainston and maybe Alan Campbell and some others. Its hallmark tends to be taking something really "weird" and making it common place, then delving deep into realistic world building based on a weird premise. There are usually political overtones, since the world building tends to be more society and politics oriented than "monsters go here," but I'm not sure that's intrinsic to the sub genre rather than just the tendencies of certain authors.

Again a bunch of unknown names (other than Gaiman as I did once read comic books but his only literary work I've read was co-authored with Terry Pratchett: Good Omens). However, taking a weird twist and rendering it onto society sounds far more like scifi (in its speculative fiction aspect) than fantasy. I don't think D&D should cater toward anything scifi.

Modern Dark tends to be Sword and Sorcery, except bitter, angry, and hateful. Not everyone divides Dark fantasy into older and modern. Examples include Joe Abercrombie or Richard K. Morgan.

Another pair of "Who?"s. Does this subgenre follow from Moorcock? Nothing you wrote about these guys sounds worse than stuff Moorcock was writing 30-40 years ago.

J. V. Jones is great, as is the Ice series. We have a character inspired by her writing in our current game- he's from a Hammer Lodge. I'm not sure where to classify her. She's got a little bit of a dark edge. If you like her books but want more blood, try Joe Abercrombie. If you want more angst, try Carol Berg.

Her Book of Words trilogy was also dark. It is the typical farm boy saves the world story but in the end you wonder if he should have bothered. Can't say I'd want more Angst than she delivers though.

I don't know Recluse.

L. E. Modesitt Jr. He is a world builder. Recluse is a 15-20 novel series that has built a very rich world. His Spellsong series involves a completely different world, as does his Corean series. He's also a scifi author and some of his fantasy has scifi underpinings.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I am not sure I understand the question of the OP. Is this about what a modern vanilla fantasy rpg should relate to or what modern fantasy sources the 4e PHB invokes on a person?

State 5 works of fantasy from any medium that may contain influences which D&D should sooner or later acknowledge in its approach toward fantasy.

To participate in this thread without getting angry or annoyed, you do have to accept:
- that many D&Ders see tradition as vital for the game, but for as long as we are discussing this, it has taken a prolonged vacation somewhere far away.
- that the influences which shaped D&D will over time be replaced by more modern influences.
- that this is a good thing.


And most importantly (this is re: the steampunk comments): We are NOT talking about taking a new approach / genre / subgenre / authors vision and dropping it wholesale into D&D. We are talking about integrating influences based on the idea that (for instance) Full Metal Alchemist may contain concepts D&D is currently sorely lacking.
Again, this is NOT about forcing this into D&D, but about the inevitable process of enriching D&D with modern influences. And it is NOT about "i don´t like this" (though you can state that of course) but rather about "hey, i think this would work..."

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I love me some good steampunk..

...but steampunk doesn't generally have dungeons or dragons. Sorry, but those aren't in the steampunk genre's usual tropes. I'd love a good steampunk game, but it shouldn't be D&D. Same for modern urban fantasy (like Hellboy) - it's a fine genre, but not what I want when I pick up this particular game.

I am not convinced that one really needs to be familiar with the fiction/media that inspires a game to like the game, or for the game to be particularly accessible.

It seems I was not misunderstanding and just not in agreement with the majority of the posters before me. I quoted the above for two reasons.

1. It states what I wanted to state, but much more succinctly.

2. The second part. I got into D&D loving the idea of magic, and having read and watched lots of fantastical, but very little fantasy. I'm in agreement with Umbran that you don't NEED to be familiar with the inspiration to enjoy/get into the game. Even now, my friends try to get me to read fantasy, but it doesn't seem to happen much. I've read here and there, but actually prefer to read rulebooks/game supplements. I get my stories from my imagination and from movies. Frankly, and I know I may be blaspheming here, I HATE the lord of the rings books. I find them boring, not focused enough on characters, plot, or events, and not particularly well written. That said, I do find that there is some GREAT fantasy out there that I much admire and enjoy as fine and interesting stories as well as good literature.


A third point unrelated to the quote above, but bringing in most of the thread before my last post:

If these are the sources that people think lead to 4e d&D, no wonder there is such a schism in the consumer base. While I love steampunk, and I even love d20 steampunk (Iron Kingdoms anyone), I have to say, it just isn't D&D. I find it absurd that others would suggest that it is (but that's my opinion, and it's based on what I have come to know D&D to be based on looking at the prior editions and my own experiences). I don't mean to say that equating D&D with steampunk is foolish or wrong per se. But I do think there are limits based on history and even the name of the game that make Steampunk a bit of an outlier, at best.

How far could we take this? If you liked "The Fast and the Furious" you'll love D&D? It has action and excitement just like stealing cars and racing them...just with wizards and knights...oh, and Dragons and Dungeons.


I'm not trying to be rude at all. But as with my other post, I feel as if I'm not just looking at the same picture with different lenses, but at a different picture that was rendered in a different medium, with different lenses, and from a different angle and distance. I can't relate in the slightest here.


Edit: I notice that different people have different ideas of what D&D is. That's cool, and to be expected. I do wonder, though... do people who embrace 4e have a more "modernist" perspective on adventure? I'm personally not a huge fan of it, and I also feel like a dissenting voice regarding the genre splitting that I'm seeing here. I wonder if 4e does a fair bit of genre splitting itself, which is one reason (or maybe even THE reason) I have troubles with it?

Do the people who think that Meiville's work (or steampunk/weird tech) is appropriate as an "influence" on D&D believe that's true for all editions, or see that as a (perhaps positive) change in the most recent edition?

 

[Ulthwithian]

I take a slightly different look on this. I will give what I think are five important influences that D&D should incorporate into their worlds (world-building) and character options.

1) A _deep_ understanding of the Epic. Virtually all D&D campaigns take this form. (Those that don't generally aren't campaigns, per se.) This would include, in the fantasy genre, Lord of the Rings and any derivative works.

2) An understanding of how to create a serial. The best example these days would be fantasy anime, as anime by its distribution pattern is serial, yet also epic. The three best anime I can think of as inspiration for D&D would be Slayers (more the reverse here), Inuyasha, and El-Hazard.

3) Anything Chesterton wrote about fairy tales, or the fairy tales themselves in general. I highly recommend Chapter 2 of Orthodoxy to anyone who wants a good look into fairyland. Narnia enters here as essentially a fantasy fairy tale land.

4) The making and breaking of archetypes. Understand how archetypes work (this is sort of a branch-out of 1)). Understand what you can and can't do with them. The Belgariad and other Eddings works beat you over the head with this.

5) Understand that the world is really just there to give a setting for the players. Order of the Stick is incredible in this regard, as is World of Warcraft.