D&D (2024) No Appendix N Equivalent?

[Hussar]

The other issue is that previously people took Appendix N to be some sort of bibliography of D&D. These works were the "source material" for the game. That's not what the list was ever meant to represent. It was a list of inspirational works, not a historical or academic list of works.

In other words, for example, leaving off Lovecraft isn't saying that Lovecraft isn't important to the genre. It's meant as a list of "Here's stuff that we think you should read that will inspire your games." It's not and never was meant as "here's a list of the definitive works that shaped D&D". It's not a bibliography.

But many people took it to be a bibliography. A list of the the influential works that shaped the genre. In a list like that, of course Lovecraft would be included. It would have to be.

However, since people can't distinguish between the two and constantly use Appendix N as a bludgeoning tool for gatekeeping the hobby, well, I can't blame WotC for deescalating the discourse. Appendix N has been weaponized for years, so it's a good idea to just not have one.

 

[Older Beholder]

Remember when Strixhaven got announced/released and people said that if D&D was taking it's influences from Harry Potter the game was no longer for them?

 

[Cadence]

The other issue is that previously people took Appendix N to be some sort of bibliography of D&D. These works were the "source material" for the game. That's not what the list was ever meant to represent. It was a list of inspirational works, not a historical or academic list of works.

In other words, for example, leaving off Lovecraft isn't saying that Lovecraft isn't important to the genre. It's meant as a list of "Here's stuff that we think you should read that will inspire your games." It's not and never was meant as "here's a list of the definitive works that shaped D&D". It's not a bibliography.

But many people took it to be a bibliography. A list of the the influential works that shaped the genre. In a list like that, of course Lovecraft would be included. It would have to be.

However, since people can't distinguish between the two and constantly use Appendix N as a bludgeoning tool for gatekeeping the hobby, well, I can't blame WotC for deescalating the discourse. Appendix N has been weaponized for years, so it's a good idea to just not have one.

"The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you."

- E. Gary Gygax, 1979, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224

 

[Hussar]

"The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you."

- E. Gary Gygax, 1979, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224

Oh, i get that. But, again, that's not how people have chosen to take the list. Far too many people have seen these lists as proscriptive. THIS is what D&D is about. Which, again, has been weaponized repeatedly in discussion. Like @Older Beholder mentioned, people losing their poop about Harry Potter inspirations. Or, Magic the Gathering influences. Or any of a bunch of other influences that aren't shackled to the corpses of dead authors.

 

[Gradine]

 

[Maxperson]

and people would still argue that it is solely based on Tolkein.

Tolkien is the center of all things.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

See I strongly disagree, and all the art and description in the 5E 2024 groups also disagrees.

The art direction in D&D hasn't supported "gritty realism" since 1st edition, but people still play that style of game. The art exists to sell books, not tell you what your home game should look like (otherwise 1st edition would look like black and white pencil drawings). People ignore the art all the time. My Eberron is big on 1920s fashion, despite it not being in any of the official art. The current art style simply reflects current fashions in fantasy art - compare it to The Veilguard for example.

D&D has no rules that support it being played as "sci-fi horror"

And yet I use it all the time, and it appears in official D&D products like Rime of the Frostmaiden. It's a style. It doesn't need specific rules.

This is particularly true with D&D 2024, which no longer provides the DM with much in the way of optional rules

The whole focus of the 2024 DMG is on making the game your own. Which means ALL rules are optional rules, so singling out specific rules as optional makes no sense. 1st edition took the same approach.

See, you get it. We don't need to make up stuff about using D&D to run Carry On Cleo or Alien, neither of which WotC would now find "suitable" to mention, even were they both very direct inspirations for D&D (which would be wild)

Slaad say hello, whilst laying eggs in your chest. And Alien is even more directly referenced in the aforementioned Rime of the Frostmaiden. John Carpenter's The Thing is an even bigger influence. Also not something suitable to point children towards. And no one needs to suggest basing your game on a Carry On movie for you to include joke names (Grand Duchy of Geoff, Verbobonc) or innuendo-laden jokes (I generally leave that to the players). The Saw franchise is a great inspiration for trap design, so maybe we should reference that?

So WotC themselves clearly use source material which has never been mentioned, and cannot be mentioned, in any Appendix N. So what would be the point?

The Xill, actually new art for the Fiendish Folio, around 2022:

Addendum

If you want D&D that is influenced by both sci fi horror and Carry On humour, look no further than Baldur’s Gate 3!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh, i get that. But, again, that's not how people have chosen to take the list. Far too many people have seen these lists as proscriptive. THIS is what D&D is about. Which, again, has been weaponized repeatedly in discussion. Like @Older Beholder mentioned, people losing their poop about Harry Potter inspirations. Or, Magic the Gathering influences. Or any of a bunch of other influences that aren't shackled to the corpses of dead authors.

Michael Moorcock aint dead!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is why I think D&D might be a tiny bit short-term doomed honestly (long-term no way), because WotC are so utterly focused on making it completely child-oriented, and are unable to perceive that this is a great way to make unattractive to older teenagers and young adults

Doctor Who managed to work round that issue in 1970s (although not without attracting criticism) by not being too explicit, and having ropy FX. We had Genesis of the Daleks (Nazis), The Ark in Space (Alien before Ridley Scott) and The Seeds of Doom (The Thing before John Carpenter), amongst others.

But WotC does have adult oriented stuff as well, like Baldur's Gate 3, and there is adult focused D&D-adjacent media, like the Critical Role cartoon. I wouldn't say current D&D is aimed squarely at children, it just avoids anything that is likely to upset parents in the core products.

It’s not a new issue though - the D&D cartoon was too childish for me when it was shown in the UK in the 80s.

 

[Retros_x]

I don't think you read all the comments then.

I think I did. All I remember is "I got good reading recommendations" in different variations. But I won't read them again. Good talk.