D&D 5E Any authors you think should be in Appendix E but are not?

[Dausuul]

There are just too many to list. I mean, what are the criteria? Fantasy books that are in any way vaguely D&Dish? That would be thousands of novels.

The main charm of the original appendix is that it was Gygax's own - stuff that he said influenced him in creating D&D (and presumably Arneson). I can't remember if Lord of the Rings was in the original appendix, but Gary seemed to have a strange distaste for Tolkien, to the point where he downplayed his influence in a way that spoke of some kind of hang-up with Tolkien on his part. But is this list Gygax + Mearls? Whose influences does it represent?

Gygax + Mearls is probably accurate. So I suppose what we are listing in this thread is "Stuff that I'd put in the list if it were Gygax + Mearls + me."

With regard to Tolkien... it's pretty clear that a) Gary Gygax didn't much like "The Lord of the Rings" (he said as much on multiple occasions), and b) he was surrounded by Tolkien fans who demanded elves'n'dwarves'n'orcs, so elves'n'dwarves'n'orcs they got. Obviously, you can't have elves, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, and half-orcs as five of your seven core races and not acknowledge Tolkien as a major influence on the game! But it's not surprising that Gygax would sound a little defensive about it. In this community, it takes guts to admit not liking LotR, especially for someone as prominent as Gygax.

(I sympathize, since this is a pet peeve of mine, too. I was brought up on "The Lord of the Rings," but the mandatory inclusion of elves'n'dwarves'n'orcs in every freakin' D&D setting grates on me. Tolkien put them in his world because he was Doing Things with them. Each one had a place in his cosmology and a reason for being. In most D&D settings, they're just sort of... there, because, well, Tolkien had 'em so we gotta have 'em too. Okay, rant over.)

 

[Mistwell]

I consider George RR Martin to be a bit of a hack, no matter how popular he becomes. It drives me crazy when he has a character act in a certain way for 800 pages and then suddenly jump the shark.

I appreciate your consistency.

 

[Mistwell]

And the lack of Cook's Black Company is totally baffling.

Only in that you might need reading glasses Cooks name is cleverly hidden under C.

 

[Mistwell]

With regard to Tolkien... it's pretty clear that a) Gary Gygax didn't much like "The Lord of the Rings" (he said as much on multiple occasions),

Do you have a quote where he says he didn't like it? All I have seen is, " I was not as enamored of The Trilogy as were most of my contemporaries. While I loved Bombadil, the Nazgul too, the story was too slow-paced for me...Indeed, who can doubt the excellence of Tolkien’s writing?"

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I was surprised they put on Elizabeth Moon, but not for Deed of Paksenarrion, which is probably the best fictional representation of a paladin ever.

The inestimable Ari Marmell, of course.

I didn't see her name on the list. And if there was one author I think deserved to be on it, she was. I mean, c'mon, Paksenarrion even had Hommlet and the Moat House!

 

[Mercurius]

(I sympathize, since this is a pet peeve of mine, too. I was brought up on "The Lord of the Rings," but the mandatory inclusion of elves'n'dwarves'n'orcs in every freakin' D&D setting grates on me. Tolkien put them in his world because he was Doing Things with them. Each one had a place in his cosmology and a reason for being. In most D&D settings, they're just sort of... there, because, well, Tolkien had 'em so we gotta have 'em too. Okay, rant over.)

Tolkien and Gygax are two of my most revered artists/creators in that what they both did, in different ways, deeply influenced what I love. But whereas Tolkien was a great artist of the imagination whose sub-creation was so vividly envisioned and finely wrought and balanced, Gygax was more of an eccentric madman whose sub-creation was a chaotic smorgasbord of random components, often without rhyme or reason. Both have their place, but they're on very different sides of the creative spectrum. Maybe Gygax realized this and resented the two being fused together. I'm guessing Tolkien wouldn't have thought much of Gary's chaotic amalgammation of themes and ideas.

But I hear you about elves, dwarves, orcs and such. I think one thing that is over-stated is that Tolkien "created" these ideas when what he really did was create a fresh version of archetypal ideas. Just about everything in Tolkien has been around for thousands of years in fairy stories, legends, and myths. Tolkien had his own unique, and truly exquisite, vision of this "mythopoeia" which has proven to be the most influential in the history of modern fantasy literature, at least going back to Shakespeare if not the Arthurian stories.

The best of post-Tolkien fantasy taps into the same archetypal depths and may even include elves, dwarves and orcs--or some variation on those themes--but crafts them into new, unique forms. It is too bad that most fantasy authors and RPG designers focus mainly on secondary influences, which ends up leading to derivative sub-creations. I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, but I think creative works become more vital and alive to the degree to which the creator is able to form their own relationship with the imaginal and creating from that, rather than simply re-assembling pre-fabricated parts into slightly new packaging.

End of my own rant!

 

[Dausuul]

Do you have a quote where he says he didn't like it? All I have seen is, "I was not as enamored of The Trilogy as were most of my contemporaries. While I loved Bombadil, the Nazgul too, the story was too slow-paced for me...Indeed, who can doubt the excellence of Tolkien’s writing?"

Hmm - okay, I went too far, he didn't ever actually say "I don't like 'The Lord of the Rings.'" Probably the closest he got was when he said "I'm not a big Tolkien fan, though. I did love the movies, but I yawned through the books. I found them very droll and very dull. I still don't give hoot about Hobbits."

Obviously, that was relatively recently, since he referred to the movies. Other quotes going back to 1974 suggest various takes on the subject; he claimed at one point to be a big fan of "The Hobbit" (which cuts against "I still don't give a hoot about Hobbits"). However, there's a consistent theme: He found "The Lord of the Rings" slow-paced and dull. While he conceded Tolkien's skill as a writer and enormous popularity, it wasn't really for him.

Not that much, although he certainly assisted in popularizing it because I did put Tolkien-esque things in there. I'm not a big Tolkien fan, though. I did love the movies, but I yawned through the books. I found them very droll and very dull. I still don't give hoot about Hobbits.

Oh-oh! I am going to be in trouble from the get-go! I loved THE HOBBIT, read it once to myself, then about three or four times aloud to my children.

As a Swords & Sorcery novel fan from way back–I read my first Conan yarn about 1948, was a fan and collector of the pulp SF and fantasy magazines since 1950, I was not as enamored of The Trilogy as were most of my contemporaries. While I loved Bombadil, the Nazgul too, the story was too slow-paced for me.

How did it influence the D&D game? Whoa, plenty, of course. Just about all the players were huge JRRT fans, and so they insisted that I put as much Tolkien-influence material into the game as possible. Anyone reading this that recalls the original D&D game will know that there were Balrogs, Ents, and Hobbits in it. Later those were removed, and new, non-JRRT things substituted–Balor demons, Treants, and Halflings.

Tolkien includes a number of heroic figures, but they are not of the “Conan” stamp. They are not larger-than-life swashbucklers who fear neither monster nor magic. His wizards are either ineffectual or else they lurk in their strongholds working magic spells which seem to have little if any effect while their gross and stupid minions bungle their plans for supremacy. Religion with its attendant gods and priests he includes not at all. These considerations, as well as a comparison of the creatures of Tolkien’s writings with the models they were drawn from (or with a hypothetical counterpart desirable from a wargame standpoint) were in mind when Chainmail and Dungeons & Dragons were created.

Take several of Tolkien’s heroic figures for example. Would a participant in a fantasy game more readily identify with Bard of Dale? Aragorn? Frodo Baggins? or would he rather relate to Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or Elric of Melnibone? The answer seems all too obvious.

 

[GrayLinnorm]

Lewis Carroll
L. Frank Baum
J. K. Rowling
C. S. Lewis
James Branch Cabell
Madelin L'Engle
Sir Thomas Mallory (La Morte d'Arthur)
Mark Twain for A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court
Mary Stuart

 

[Dausuul]

The best of post-Tolkien fantasy taps into the same archetypal depths and may even include elves, dwarves and orcs--or some variation on those themes--but crafts them into new, unique forms. It is too bad that most fantasy authors and RPG designers focus mainly on secondary influences, which ends up leading to derivative sub-creations. I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, but I think creative works become more vital and alive to the degree to which the creator is able to form their own relationship with the imaginal and creating from that, rather than simply re-assembling pre-fabricated parts into slightly new packaging.

Indeed. One of the things I really loved about "Dark Sun" was that, while it did include the Standard Races, it put a totally new spin on each of them. Dwarves were monomaniacal artisans obsessed with the pursuit of single, individual goals. Elves were sneaky, untrustworthy nomads. Halflings were freakin' cannibal tribesmen*. Gnomes were stomped flat and left for dead.

I hope to see more of that in future D&D settings. (Or just don't include those races at all, but I'm a realist, that won't happen.)

[size=-2]*Technically not cannibals since they didn't eat other halflings, but that was the idea.[/size]

 

[wedgeski]

What about M John Harrison's Viriconium books or Karl Edward Wagner's Bloodstone? Or Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant books? I would also have included Patricia McKillip's Riddlemaster series. There are just so many, and any list is highly subjective.

Given the reaction to most mentions of "Covenant" on this board, I would think they'd consider them a bit inappropriate. But, I agree. It's my favourite fantasy series by far.

Surprised not to see JK Rowling on there, for sure. I would think Potter is an awesome gateway to RPG's (which is why the lack of an official license is so aggravating!). Also would have liked to see Tad Williams on there; "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn" is a stone cold classic.

But, this was always going to be a hugely subjective list, and there are certainly some on there I've never heard of and will look up!