D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[MerricB]

Gregorian Chant, Baroque Music, Classical Music, Romantic Music, Opera Music, Contemporary Music, Film Music, Broadway Music, not to mention a lot of other older types of music, are still around decades or centuries after being written.

What is good, endures.

Indeed they do. However, you don't get many people writing Gregorian Chant these days.

In fact, music shows why D&D will change and indeed must change: people's tastes do not remain the same.

I've been involved in the classical music scene for most of my life - I'm currently rehearsing for a performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (I'm a bass chorister) - but it certain that the audience we get will primarily be of the older generation.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed they do. However, you don't get many people writing Gregorian Chant these days.

You do, however, see modern forms of older fantasy, from the gothic vampire novel to the hero quest to sword & sorcery. There are outlets for all of these fantasy types, and a lot of old fantasy is being turned into films, or being re-released in print.

And, after comments about urban fantasy, I took a quick look. What we tend to call "urban fantasy" is, indeed, a new moniker, but it isn't quite as recent a trend as you might think. The ancient world thought of cities and urban centers as a place of refuge against the outside, but the modern world has definitely reversed that, and the earliest work in this sub-genre begin appearing at least as early as the 20s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_fantasy

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fantasy

RC

 

[MerricB]

You do, however, see modern forms of older fantasy, from the gothic vampire novel to the hero quest to sword & sorcery. There are outlets for all of these fantasy types, and a lot of old fantasy is being turned into films, or being re-released in print.

Indeed... but two things:

* Film (etc) is a new method of presentation.
* Most of the rereleases are not the dominant form of fantasy of the day. They have appeal, but not quite as broad as when they were first published.

By the way, related post on Gleemax by Steve Winter, mentioning how Modern fantasy often puts reluctant heroes in the spotlight, rather than the "proactive" heroes of older fantasy (Achilles, Beowulf, etc.)

I disagree with his categorization of Corum as an active hero, though: he's only pushed into the role because of the Mabden attacks on his people.

Note that I don't think older forms of fantasy are irrelevant...

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, most of the stuff you see written now has at least been influenced by what came before. Of course. My point is that you simply don't have the sheer volume then as what you have now.

According to Locus Magazine, in 2000, there were about 200 fantasy novels published. In 2001, there were almost 300. There weren't 300 fantasy novels written in entire decades before 1980.

Yes, we should keep some of the older stuff. Hell, I like some of the older stuff, but, dismissing newer fiction is a serious mistake.

One thing I find very curious actually is this idea that somehow D&D was based on small sections of fantasy previously. That's just false. D&D has ALWAYS been the kitchen sink game. Whether it's Gygax throwing WWII nazis at his D&D players, or Lost World pastiches like Isle of Dread (and no, The Lost World is not fantasy), gothic horror like Ravenloft, SF elements in Barrier Peaks and high fantasy in Dragonlance, classic children's lit in Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror; on and on you've had D&D incorporating pretty much anything and everything.

That's D&D's greatest strength. That you can use the system to borrow from pretty much every fantasy tradition. However, that comes at a cost. D&D doesn't emulate genre very well. You can do high fantasy for example, but, D&D is too lethal to do it well - thus we have Raise Dead spells. You can do traditional Sword and Sorcery, but, D&D is too high magic to do it well - too many races, too many spell casters. You can do steampunk, but, not particularly well. On and on.

D&D does D&D very, very well. And what D&D is, IMHO, is a fantasy that isn't really any single genre. It's Fantasy (big F) with all sorts of fantastic elements jammed together to allow people to have a blast killing things and taking their stuff.

I can't imagine D&D designers suddenly closing doors and ignoring wide swaths of fantasy out there. They never have in the past, why should they start doing so now?

 

[WhatGravitas]

I kinda wish SF and fantasy were melded together the way they were in the old days. I read the Chronicles of Amber, or the Books of Lost Swords, or whatever, and it's like a breath of fresh air. I wish we had more of that.

Give Miéville's Bas-Lag stuff a try. It's fantasy-steampunkish, but certainly has sci-fi concepts, like many inventions and fantastic technology - as AI.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JohnSnow]

By the way, related post on Gleemax by Steve Winter, mentioning how Modern fantasy often puts reluctant heroes in the spotlight, rather than the "proactive" heroes of older fantasy (Achilles, Beowulf, etc.)

I disagree with his categorization of Corum as an active hero, though: he's only pushed into the role because of the Mabden attacks on his people.

That's a good point. It's also worth noting that when Peter Jackson made the film version of The Lord of the Rings, he took the story's proactive hero (Aragorn) and made him reluctant. Aragorn in the books had NO problem with his destiny and embraced it wholeheartedly. It's a bit different (to say the least) in the Jackson movies.

Whether that's a positive or negative change seems to depend on how you like your fantasy.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Gimli was also made relectant in the Movie. In the book it was Gimli who wanted to go to Moria and was realy pushing for that option, while in the film he was scared of going.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Gimli was also made relectant in the Movie. In the book it was Gimli who wanted to go to Moria and was realy pushing for that option, while in the film he was scared of going.

That was my main bone of contention with the films, is relegating Gimli to comic relief. All of that ho ho ho and falling down all the time – embarrassing. In the books he was a bad-ass, but in the films he was like a crap Santa, but meanwhile they felt the need to elevate Legolas to demigod-hood.

 

[Raven Crowking]

* Film (etc) is a new method of presentation.

Define "new".

Certainly, fantasy film predates the 80s by quite a long stretch. Does the name "Ray Harryhausen" ring a bell? How about Nosferatu? There were, what, a dozen Tarzan films starring Johnny Weissmuller alone.

* Most of the rereleases are not the dominant form of fantasy of the day. They have appeal, but not quite as broad as when they were first published.

Sure. They have other things to compete with, and we live in a culture where "newer is better" is a dominant (market-driven) meme.

However, it is important to note just how much of the "new" material on offer is a re-envisioning & repackaging of older material. Because of the "newer is better" meme, we are constantly being given "new" work that is disguised "old" work. How many movies have been made of Shakespearian plays? Would the average viewer recognize My Own Private Idaho as such? How many times has War of the Worlds been made? Did the average viewer recognize H.G. Wells' penmanship in Independence Day? Would there have been a V For Vendetta without a Count of Monte Cristo? I think not.

RC

 

[Maggan]

Would there have been a V For Vendetta without a Count of Monte Cristo?

Heh, I never made that connection. Is it confirmed that it was an influence on "V for vendetta"? I love the theme of "V for vendetta" as well as that of "Count of Monte Cristo", so it seems to fit.

/M