D&D 4E 4e Design and JRR Tolkien

[MerricB]

Maybe it would be more correct to say that early D&D was more focused on ongoing narratives, while the later versions of the game have focused more on contained narratives.

I think you're misinterpreting why campaigns last 1-2 years.

It's not because they are self-contained arcs: rather, it is often because the group disintegrates by then. Stable games that keep the same players for years on end are the exception, not the rule.

Cheers!

 

[PeterWeller]

I think you're misinterpreting why campaigns last 1-2 years.

It's not because they are self-contained arcs: rather, it is often because the group disintegrates by then. Stable games that keep the same players for years on end are the exception, not the rule.

Cheers!

This is a good point, and you're right, group stability does play a huge role in the length of a campaign.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Funny I'd always interpreted the "prophecy" as like much of what JRR wrote using Man in the sense of 'the race of Man' and that Eowyn was completely superficial it was actually the Hobbit who dealt the deathblow, being the only one who struck him that wasn't Man.

And IMO, it's obvious that Eowyn kills the Witch-King, and that Tolkien absolutely intends this to be so. Merry's stab that hamstrings the Nazgul, making him miss Eowyn and giving her the opening to strike, wounds the Witch-King not because it's a hobbit striking the blow (although it is his hobbit resilience and loyalty that make him capable of doing so, instead of freezing in terror) but because he's using an ancient Arnorian blade that was forged, long ago, to be used against the Witch-King and his forces.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

And IMO, it's obvious that Eowyn kills the Witch-King, and that Tolkien absolutely intends this to be so. Merry's stab that hamstrings the Nazgul, making him miss Eowyn and giving her the opening to strike, wounds the Witch-King not because it's a hobbit striking the blow (although it is his hobbit resilience and loyalty that make him capable of doing so, instead of freezing in terror) but because he's using an ancient Arnorian blade that was forged, long ago, to be used against the Witch-King and his forces.

Just goes to show why college libraries are full of enormous volumes of literary interpretation. There isn't any right or wrong answer only people's usually disagreeing opinions.

 

[Lorthanoth]

Hobbits are Men, in so much as they are "of the human species"... again it's all in the interpretation...

 

[Raven Crowking]

And IMO, it's obvious that Eowyn kills the Witch-King, and that Tolkien absolutely intends this to be so. Merry's stab that hamstrings the Nazgul, making him miss Eowyn and giving her the opening to strike, wounds the Witch-King not because it's a hobbit striking the blow (although it is his hobbit resilience and loyalty that make him capable of doing so, instead of freezing in terror) but because he's using an ancient Arnorian blade that was forged, long ago, to be used against the Witch-King and his forces.

This is an intentional "take" on Shakespeare's Macbeth.

In Macbeth, "No man of woman born shall harm Macbeth"....so Shakespeare has the character born by Cesaerian section. Tolkein's solution is better. Tolkein also does a take on "Great Burnham Wood to High Dunsinane Hill Shall Come", using ents and huorns rather than people carrying boughs.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/C/Janet.B.Croft-1/bidthetree.htm

RC

 

[Plane Sailing]

I just want to say that there is some fascinating literary discussion going on in this thread.

I love ENworld!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can you expand on that? I'm not rebutting it, but 1e was so long ago I can't remember what it was about, other than orc-killing.

PeterWeller is correct when he says, "Maybe it would be more correct to say that early D&D was more focused on ongoing narratives, while the later versions of the game have focused more on contained narratives."

Examine, if you have the opportunity, any non-tournament early D&D module. They were not designed as "adventures"; they were designed as "modular areas you could find adventure in". Who is the BBEG of Keep on the Borderlands, for example? What encounters were you to have, and in what order?

This is similar, in many ways, to your average Tarzan novel. Tarzan may or may not have a goal when he wanders into some strange area. What Tarzan wants intersects with what the inhabitants want, and he has a number of interesting encounters (which are not always necessary to read in the order they occur in....ERB was truly the King of the Wandering Monsters"). Tarzan reacts to the inhabitants and area based on his goals, gets what he wants, and leaves. Sometimes rulers topple because of him; sometimes not. Sometimes when captured he is happy to escape; sometimes he wants payback.

S&S fiction is very similar. It is about (very often) the intersection of goals of self-interested parties. Conan doesn't fight the Black Circle because he wants to prevent them from overrunning Middle Earth; he fights them because they interfere with his goals.

The "sandbox style" of gaming that you hear of so often in reference to 1e was basically "Create an area in which adventures can take place, seed it with potential allies, potential villians, and strange places. Then let the PCs develop goals, sit back, and watch what happens."

(This is why, for example, big dungeons were so cool back then; the PCs weren't forced into them. When a PC's goal meant entering the dungeon, he entered the dungeon to meet that goal. There was a level of personal involvement that just doesn't exist when you, as a player, are told what you must do if you want to do any gaming at all.)

For my money, "sandbox style" is the absolutely best style of gaming, on either side of the screen. It requires less work to DM (unless, of course, statting takes forever, as in 3e....), requires more player involvement, and is far more rewarding. YMMV. Certainly, the mileage of some (many?) varied, or this style would still be the norm.

I am very, very happy to see sandbox style returning with 4e (points-of-light is a crucial sandbox element, preventing the DM from having to create too much upfront). Apparently, we might see the Forbidden City from I1 fully fleshed out as a sandbox setting in 4e. Even if I didn't switch, that's a product I'd buy!


RC

 

[Darkwolf71]

For my money, "sandbox style" is the absolutely best style of gaming, on either side of the screen. It requires less work to DM (unless, of course, statting takes forever, as in 3e....), requires more player involvement, and is far more rewarding. YMMV. Certainly, the mileage of some (many?) varied, or this style would still be the norm.

I am very, very happy to see sandbox style returning with 4e (points-of-light is a crucial sandbox element, preventing the DM from having to create too much upfront). Apparently, we might see the Forbidden City from I1 fully fleshed out as a sandbox setting in 4e. Even if I didn't switch, that's a product I'd buy!


RC

Indeed. That's one of the things I do like about 4e. It seems that it will lend itself very well, to 'on the fly' creation. I'm hopeing that with the new monster concepts it will be very simple to update old modules with new monsters and such. I have the entire run of Dungeon magazine. And none of the guys I play with have been through any of those adventures. I could have a very long winded, and open ended campaign with those alone. Toss out some seeds, and they can take what they want. Leave the rest. Except for Flame, of course. They will fight Flame. :evillaugh:

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Unless the world of literary criticism has completely changed since I was in college 15 years or so ago, your definition and usage of genre is completely inconsistent with everything I've ever heard on the subject.

It hasn't completely changed in 15 years, but it is much more along the change that started in the 1960s. Literature professors have always been a little bit eccentric, as a group, and have never been shy about interjecting politics, religion, etc. into their literary criticism. There were some pretty strange birds out there. But over the last 50 years or so, they have gotten more, "orthodox," in their eccentricities. So it has gotten harder to trust that a literary critic actually believes what he is telling you on literary grounds, and not on some agenda (that he shares with his peers, and fidelity to will affect his tenure/social standing). Defining the terms to constrain the debate is a big part of that.

Note that I am not accusing anyone here, on either side of the debate, of doing any such thing. I am simply noting that literary criticism has changed a great deal during our lifetimes, and this makes relying on expert opinion somewhat difficult. After all, a guy with an agenda could be giving you his best, semi-objective take on the matter. Or not.

As for the larger question, I could find lots of fantasy (in rural North Alabama, no less), in the mid to late 70s. You had to look for it, though. Fortunately, there was always a librarian or book store owner or such that shared the interest, that gave pretty good advice--down to what was age appropriate. I particularly liked some of the Clifford D. Simak stuff written in the 40s, and usually sitting next to his more current SciFi stuff on the shelf. From my perspective, fantasy has steadily increased (with a few spikes ) since LotR got popular. I'd say something new worth bothering to read is about as available as it has always been. That is, increases in material have been direct result of pap being dumped on a market that would support it. (For example, I don't see how Sara Douglass every got a second contract. If I were an Australian, I'd sue over the blurb on her first book that excitedly claims her as one of the stars of the new Australian writers. )