Worlds of Design: Citing Your Sources

In the early 1980s I wrote a column in Dragon Magazine called “The Role of Books.” I described nonfiction books so that Dragon readers could decide whether to read them as a source of ideas. But people have changed how they their ideas and inspiration.


Keep in mind this was only a decade after the invention of fantasy role-playing games. The expectation was that players and GMs would come up with their own ideas for the characters in their campaigns, perhaps derived from books and film rather than from game specific publications. There were certainly game specific publications around, but most of them cost money and the distribution system still followed the distribution of the games: in game shops or direct. Of course, there was The Lord of the Rings as well.

So I found nonfiction books, like a book about medieval life that you might find in a library, and described it for the readers so that they could decide whether it was worth reading. When Dragon changed its submissions to require purchase of all rights, I stopped writing anything for it, and that was the end of my contributions to that column.

I would not write such a column nowadays because of changes in how people get their ideas and inspiration:

  • There are a lot more fantasy films and novels than there used to be
  • There are vastly more game specific supplements
  • There is an immense amount of free material available via the Internet
  • Most people don’t try to make up their own adventures, that expectation is gone
Addressing these points in order...

There are a lot more fantasy films and novels than there used to be
, both from increased popularity and from more than 35 years of additional releases. Improvements in computer graphics have a lot to do with it as well. For GMs, it’s fairly easy to adapt incidents or entire plots from a film or novel to an RPG. Yes, some of that went on with The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit 40 years ago, too much some people would say, but with the advent of the LOTR films there are surely more people since 2001 who have seen the films than have read the books.

There are vastly more game specific supplements: some adventures, some settings, some descriptions of particular elements of fantasy (such as castles, or Vikings, or pirates). This is a result both of the ease of production with modern computers, but also the accumulation of 35 to 40 years. Many fantasy supplements don’t wear out; for example, even a supplement for first edition D&D can be applied without too much trouble to fifth edition.

There is an immense amount of free material available on the Internet. The Internet includes sites that will generate new characters, new dungeons, new cities, even character names and backgrounds, such as donjon.bin.sh (well worth a look). Many of the “old-time” supplements are now free, or “free.” I remember talking about music to one college student who said, “why would I bother to buy any, it’s all on YouTube?” We don’t quite have a YouTube equivalent for RPGs, but the material is certainly out there. For example: all the issues of Dungeon magazine.

Another reason for the change is that most people don’t make their own adventures as much anymore. They use existing ones whether free or at a cost. But even the cost is relatively low because of PDF distribution online (quite apart from piracy). This tendency to rely on the publisher helps keep them in business despite the wealth of free material available. In my experience, most RPG players don’t expect their GMs to make up their own adventures. I expect ENWorld readers are much more likely to make up their own stuff; but here we have an atypical group of RPGers!

Of course, the kind of nonfiction I wrote about in my old column may be more popular nowadays, and is more common because we have 35+ years of additional work to choose from. But why read something not closely related to games when you can read something made for games?

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. Lew was Contributing Editor to Dragon, White Dwarf, and Space Gamer magazines and contributed monsters to TSR's original Fiend Folio, including the Elemental Princes of Evil, denzelian, and poltergeist. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

Koloth

First Post
One reason to read 'non game material' would be to source ideas from material unlikely to be on your player's reading/viewing lists. If players are familiar with your source material, they may be able to short cut the plot lines or more easily solve the mystery.

Even with the vast amount of material available today, such an article would still be useful. Without this site, I would never have known about the Renault D&D themed video even though it is very likely searchable.

Idea from video - Group of kids returning from Universal Harry Potter park. One of them is playing with a wand purchased in one of the park shops. Lightning strikes nearby. Bolt of something jumps from wand to car's nav system, forming portal seen in video. Kids now in D&D universe.....
 

MGibster

Legend
I'm one of those weird people who likes to make up my own adventures though I'm not too proud to use a published adventure. You're absolutely right that we've all got greater access to game supplements and fantasy media than we did back in the 1980s. I can hit up Youtube and watch other people gaming whereas back in 1987 the only way to learn how to play was to just do it.

I do think there's still value in looking at non gaming sources for gaming material. We can still find interesting ideas looking at modern fiction as well as historical stuff.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
most people don’t make their own adventures as much anymore

This is a bold claim - is there any evidence for it? As you say we're a bunch of weirdos around here so our anecdotal evidence would be biased, but is there evidence that in the wider gaming market folks aren't making their own adventures as much? That would be interesting to know, since the anecdotal evidence is that folks are coming into gaming - and especially D&D - from watching Actual Play podcasts, which are almost always original material. Is this something that has been measured somewhere, or is this just an impression that you have? (And when I say "almost" it's because the one example I can think of where it isn't true is the first few episodes of The Adventure Zone, which were just the McElroys playing Lost Mine of Phandelver from the Starter Set as an episode of their MBMBAM podcast - any of the Actual Play podcasts I've tried beyond that have been original material).
 

I find the "most" in "most people don't make their own adventures" suspect as well. How could you even find such data without doing blind surveys? Self-reporting surveys would be biased.
 

I

Immortal Sun

Guest
Though I suspect many here will take issue with the "most people don't make their own adventures" line, I suspect the author is correct. Lew also notes that we are an a-typical sampling of TTRPGing as a whole. Given the other threads and commentary on this board, I suspect he's absolutely right on that call.

I do agree with an earlier post that material outside pop-culture is more likely to be "unknown" to players. But on the same token, things that are unknown to players means that you'll have to do more explaining when they encounter it. The value of sourcing material that is "in the know" is that it is easier for players to "get it". Which, given how much work I do as DM already and how quickly players bore of narration, exposition and so on, has great value.
 

"why read something not closely related to games when you can read something made for games?"

Or do like every group that I've played/Dmed with for the last 25 years, and make up your own worlds, settings, stories. Where do you think all those fantasy authors get their ideas? You can't limit yourself to what is already published... It's so limiting. It makes it sound like everyone is playing the same thing.
 

Aaron L

Hero
I loved reading The Role of Books!

"But why read something not closely related to games when you can read something made for games?"

I much prefer to rely on original sources for my gaming material than to just take things from gaming specific books, for very harsh reason; Ever here of the band Pop Will Eat Itself? Well, Gaming Is Eating Itself. So much of modern D&D isn't based on any kind of historical, mythological, literary, or pulp sources, but rather on ideas from other games or older versions of itself, or from books based on D&D, and get endlessly recycled and watered down with each use to the point where players don't even understand the origins and implications of the original ideas.

As an example, not long ago we had characters end up entering Faerie and my character warned everyone to be careful about accepting any gifts or eating any food offered by the inhabitants because accepting gifts from or eating the food of the faeries might cause them to be trapped there forever. And one of the other players stopped the game and asked me what book that idea came from, so I had to explain that it wasn't from any D&D book and I had no idea if it applied to the game, but it was from the actual real world mythology of faeries so I thought it might have been a legend my character had heard, and I had to go into a discussion about Fairyland and the Sidhe and explain the mythological origins of the D&D concept of fey creatures. I was shocked that no one had ever heard of the concept, hadn't they ever read any fairytales, or Rip Van Winkle, or at least read The Sandman and the Books of Magic?

I just feel that the same ideas get mindlessly recycled over and over again in D&D without any understanding or knowledge of their sources, and end up being Disneyfied, by which I mean a tamed, toned down, mass-consumer version of the original ideas, like how Disney takes real myths and legends and sanitizes and whitewashes them into bland, saccharine versions, and then that become the standard because no one ever reads the originals anymore. (As with how the generic default for gnomes in fantasy literature has pretty much now become standardized as Dragonlance Tinker Gnomes, absent-minded professors building crazy inventions that blow up in their faces, instead of being the wise fey Earth spirits with black senses of humor of actual myth. UGH. I cannot stand what Gnomes have become thanks to Dragonlance.) How many people have ever read the actual bloody Brothers Grimm version of Snow White, compared to the sanitized Disney version? Or The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Or Beauty and the Beast? Not to mention the actual real story of Pocahontas compared to the whitewashed Disney travesty.

People really need to read the original mythological and historical and pulp sources of D&D concepts so they can understand and appreciate the full meaning of the ideas behind D&D, because they're almost always more nuanced, deep, and meaningful, and there are always more ideas to be mined from the original sources, and so that gaming doesn't lose its heart and roots by regurgitating the same ideas over and over in increasingly bland permutations. Instead of just repeating empty RPG tropes without understanding the actual meanings behind them, we need to appreciate the classics behind the gaming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hussar

Legend
OTOH, [MENTION=52548]Aaron[/MENTION]L, I'm really not a fan of fantasy literature. I'm a much larger fan of SF, and, frequently, I read short fiction more than not. And, frankly, while I have read a lot of the pulp sources of D&D, I'd rather read stuff that doesn't make me want to wash my eyes out with bleach afterwards. The rampant racism, misogyny and outright bigotry of the pulps just puts me off so much. I read the works, but, I certainly didn't enjoy the experience.

Sometimes, it might be better to let history die.

And, yeah, I have to echo the question about the number of folks that rely on published gaming material instead of making up their own stuff. WotC has stated in the past that 50% of gamers use home-brew worlds, so, right there, you've got a big group of gamers that isn't using published stuff. And, even folks using a pre-published world might still be creating their own adventures for that world. Personally, I tend to go about 50:50. I'll use modules, and I'll make up my own stuff. And, really, back in the day, it was about 50:50 too. We played the crap out of modules back then too.

To put it another way, you don't sell a million copies of Keep on the Borderlands if no one is playing modules.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top