TSR Appendix N Discussion

[Ralif Redhammer]

So, spinning off from the Not-TSR thread, I thought I'd try starting a separate thread for specifically discussing Appendix N's influences on the game.

@Mannahnin said that "the game itself is definitely not a particularly good Tolkien emulator." Very true, but I would go further in that it's not really great at directly emulating any single Appendix N work. It's hard to picture Conan, for example, striding into a dungeon and getting dissolved by green slime - the indomitable Cimmerian is, I would posit, far more easily brought to life in 5e with its nigh-superheroic characters.*

And that's okay - what makes D&D so great is that it is not any one single thing, but a stew of influences. Tolkien, REH, Anderson, Leiber, Vance, et al. It's all of them and none of them.

*This is also something I think about a lot with DCC RPG. It frequently emulates the high lethality of early D&D, but if you look at Appendix N, characters frequently survive against all odds, again and again.

 

[el-remmen]

I think there is an important difference between playing a game influenced by that literature and playing a game that is trying to emulate that literature.

Personally, the D&D I run is not meant to emulate particular stories. It may use elements of various stories to create an adventurous experience, but to me (as I have said many times) the story is what comes after when my friends and I discuss the events and fondly remember our triumphs (and defeats).

In fact, what I love most about playing D&D and its adventures is the many ways in which what happens is not like a story because of the strange things that happen that would seem disruptive or meandering in a narrative.

But as Ralif said, that's what great about D&D - not that it is a specific ruleset for a particular kind of play but that is is capacious and flexible and tweakable enough to create a wide variety of play experiences.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And that's okay - what makes D&D so great is that it is not any one single thing, but a stew of influences. Tolkien, REH, Anderson, Leiber, Vance, et al. It's all of them and none of them.

There's another factor at play, though.

Tolkien is still omnipresent. Both because of the books and the more recent movies. So when people today are looking back at the origins of D&D, all they see are the Tolkien bits.

At the time, it was much more obvious that "the other bits" were the lion's share of the influence. But there aren't a lot of people that read Leiber, Vance, Zelazny, Anderson, REH, Saberhagen, de Camp, Moorcock, St. Clair, and so on.

 

[Willie the Duck]

@Mannahnin said that "the game itself is definitely not a particularly good Tolkien emulator." Very true, but I would go further in that it's not really great at directly emulating any single Appendix N work. It's hard to picture Conan, for example, striding into a dungeon and getting dissolved by green slime - the indomitable Cimmerian is, I would posit, far more easily brought to life in 5e with its nigh-superheroic characters.*... *This is also something I think about a lot with DCC RPG. It frequently emulates the high lethality of early D&D, but if you look at Appendix N, characters frequently survive against all odds, again and again.

It's certainly been a point I bring up for a while that D&D was made as a fun little treasure-hunter game first, and a specific genre of fantasy literature second, third, or just-shy-of-last. The game is super lethal* because the primary game loop is tough decisions about 'engage this challenge' or retreat, keep pressing forward or heading back, and the primary lose-condition for misjudgment is death.
*or at least significantly more lethal to its protagonists than Appendix N literature.

TSR D&D (at least the gp=xp part, 2e diverges a bit) is certainly more Conan (or better yet The Hobbit, as it is more team-play) than it is Lord of the Rings or other Appendix N material in that the protagonist is often not necessarily the most virtuous (protagonist, not hero); they after a high-risk,-high-reward payout; and the story often ends with the payout and it doesn't overly matter what is done with it (except that they always end up hungry for more by the time for the next adventure). If anything, I would say that Conan or the like would be after-the-fact stories about a D&D adventurer-- one that happened through good luck never to be dissolved by green slime. If Hyboria is flush full of Donans, Monans, and Ronans who also set out for fame and fortune and ended up in some beast's belly (with no stories made about their mighty thews), then it could be a proper D&D-esque world.

 

[Parmandur]

So, spinning off from the Not-TSR thread, I thought I'd try starting a separate thread for specifically discussing Appendix N's influences on the game.

@Mannahnin said that "the game itself is definitely not a particularly good Tolkien emulator." Very true, but I would go further in that it's not really great at directly emulating any single Appendix N work. It's hard to picture Conan, for example, striding into a dungeon and getting dissolved by green slime - the indomitable Cimmerian is, I would posit, far more easily brought to life in 5e with its nigh-superheroic characters.*

And that's okay - what makes D&D so great is that it is not any one single thing, but a stew of influences. Tolkien, REH, Anderson, Leiber, Vance, et al. It's all of them and none of them.

*This is also something I think about a lot with DCC RPG. It frequently emulates the high lethality of early D&D, but if you look at Appendix N, characters frequently survive against all odds, again and again.

Good thread, some disjointed thoughts.

DCC isn't all that deadly once Level 1 is achieved, which takes one session. After that, the PCs are more like traditional al pulp story protagonists.

I think a major component of the D&D "secret sauce" is the war gaming origins: pulp heroes have to win, but war games require a potential failure state. That changes the narrative possibilities, but in an exciting way.

 

[Oofta]

D&D is kind of it's own thing. Much like Cocaine Bear was "inspired by a true story" (in reality the bear just died), D&D is only "inspired by" other genres. I agree that that flexibility is part of it's enduring appeal, you don't have to follow the conventions of any specific genre which gives the game more freedom. It also means it probably can't do some of those genres quite as well, but I think it's worth the trade-off.

As far as lethality, I think that's changed over the years based on player preference. Once you get attached to a PC many people want that PC to be the main hero in their story and that can't happen if the PC dies. Probably doesn't hurt that D&D wasn't inspired by stories from J.R.R. Martin.

 

[Stormonu]

The very best things are often made from taking a flawed precursor and rewrapping and refining them.

D&D is very much this - it steals from the rest, retains the best and (attempts) to throw the flaws to the curbside. It's not any one fantasy thing, it's dozens. And over its existence it has warped into its own thing as well. Sometimes becoming self-referential or referenced by other works as its source. I don't like it any less, and instead I want it to pull in those things from other fantasy works so I can use them in D&D.

GW's Warhammer 40K is similar - it's a pastiche of a wide variety of science fiction co-mingled to become its own thing.

To me, the only crime to come from such systems is to try and claim that they are unique and do not stand on the shoulders of former giants.

A bit of a rant

Spoiler

That's a bit of what I was getting perturbed about over in the other thread. The lore of D&D was lifted from a hundred other sources and not created wholecloth from nothing. Sure, Lanasa is cribbing from other systems, but those systems he cribbed from got their stuff from other sources (more legitimately and accredited, sure, but even D&D has gotten in trouble from not getting the proper permission while generously lifting from other IPs - and not just Tolkien, Elric and Lovecraft - and not doing so in just 1E or 2E).

 

[Deset Gled]

The game is super lethal* because the primary game loop is tough decisions about 'engage this challenge' or retreat, keep pressing forward or heading back, and the primary lose-condition for misjudgment is death.
*or at least significantly more lethal to its protagonists than Appendix N literature.

While the "super lethal" aspect definitely had it's roots in the war games that D&D came out of, it's worth noting that it is also very similar to the horror influences in Appendix N. Lovecraft is probably the one I'm most familiar with, and he's very lethal to his characters. I seem to remember a fair amount of death in Abraham Merritt's work as well.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think there is an important difference between playing a game influenced by that literature and playing a game that is trying to emulate that literature.

Personally, the D&D I run is not meant to emulate particular stories. It may use elements of various stories to create an adventurous experience, but to me (as I have said many times) the story is what comes after when my friends and I discuss the events and fondly remember our triumphs (and defeats).

In fact, what I love most about playing D&D and its adventures is the many ways in which what happens is not like a story because of the strange things that happen that would seem disruptive or meandering in a narrative.

But as Ralif said, that's what great about D&D - not that it is a specific ruleset for a particular kind of play but that is is capacious and flexible and tweakable enough to create a wide variety of play experiences.

I often wonder if Gygax had gotten the rights and, instead of D&D, made Swords & Sorcery, a Lankhmar RPG? Would it have done so well?

There's another factor at play, though.

Tolkien is still omnipresent. Both because of the books and the more recent movies. So when people today are looking back at the origins of D&D, all they see are the Tolkien bits.

At the time, it was much more obvious that "the other bits" were the lion's share of the influence. But there aren't a lot of people that read Leiber, Vance, Zelazny, Anderson, REH, Saberhagen, de Camp, Moorcock, St. Clair, and so on.

Context is a very important thing, absolutely. About the only other Appendix N authors that come close to Tolkien's persistence in popular consciousness are Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft.

I would say that Conan or the like would be after-the-fact stories about a D&D adventurer-- one that happened through good luck never to be dissolved by green slime. If Hyboria is flush full of Donans, Monans, and Ronans who also set out for fame and fortune and ended up in some beast's belly (with no stories made about their mighty thews), then it could be a proper D&D-esque world.

Poor Taurus, the thief that found out what happens when you run on ahead of the Fighter to get the gold in "Tower of the Elephant."

DCC isn't all that deadly once Level 1 is achieved, which takes one session. After that, the PCs are more like traditional al pulp story protagonists.

Good point. Much of its deadly reputation comes from Funnels.

While the "super lethal" aspect definitely had it's roots in the war games that D&D came out of, it's worth noting that it is also very similar to the horror influences in Appendix N. Lovecraft is probably the one I'm most familiar with, and he's very lethal to his characters. I seem to remember a fair amount of death in Abraham Merritt's work as well.

Agreed. Lots of people die horribly in the horror stories of Appendix N. I would also point to the unofficial Appendix N author, Clark Ashton Smith, whose stories are filled with adventurers coming to inglorious ends.

 

[codo]

There's another factor at play, though.

Tolkien is still omnipresent. Both because of the books and the more recent movies. So when people today are looking back at the origins of D&D, all they see are the Tolkien bits.

At the time, it was much more obvious that "the other bits" were the lion's share of the influence. But there aren't a lot of people that read Leiber, Vance, Zelazny, Anderson, REH, Saberhagen, de Camp, Moorcock, St. Clair, and so on.

There is a bit more to it than that. Look at the default player facing options. The races are a 1 for 1, exact copy of Tolkien's. The classes are also heavily influenced by Tolkien as well. Ranger, Fighter, Thief, Paladin, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Magic User, Illusionist, Assassin, and Monk. Really only Cleric and Monk aren't a great fit for Tolkien's world, but even they could be shoehorned in with out much effort.

There is lots of other influences in D&D, but a lot of it is in Monsters and world building that are not immediately visible. Just looking at character creation, the first part of the game that most players experience, the game really does look like Tolkien.

With Tolkien being default fantasy at the time, it probably wasn't a bad idea. It was what most players were looking for from a fantasy game at the time.

 

[overgeeked]

So, spinning off from the Not-TSR thread, I thought I'd try starting a separate thread for specifically discussing Appendix N's influences on the game.

@Mannahnin said that "the game itself is definitely not a particularly good Tolkien emulator." Very true, but I would go further in that it's not really great at directly emulating any single Appendix N work. It's hard to picture Conan, for example, striding into a dungeon and getting dissolved by green slime - the indomitable Cimmerian is, I would posit, far more easily brought to life in 5e with its nigh-superheroic characters.*

And that's okay - what makes D&D so great is that it is not any one single thing, but a stew of influences. Tolkien, REH, Anderson, Leiber, Vance, et al. It's all of them and none of them.

*This is also something I think about a lot with DCC RPG. It frequently emulates the high lethality of early D&D, but if you look at Appendix N, characters frequently survive against all odds, again and again.

This is a regular point of tension in the community. How well do RPGs emulate stories? How well can they emulate stories? How much of a game is really left the closer you get to emulating stories? And how many people would actually want to play the resulting game?

A lot of gamers actively avoid anything and everything that would make for a good story and complain loudly and frequently when the referee (or players) do things that would push story over random game elements, optimization, "winning," and various other gamer habits. There are several active threads by both players and referees complaining about the people on the other side of the screen doing things that make perfect sense if the game emulated stories, but are antithetical to gaming.

DCC RPG brings in a lot more of the Appendix N vibe and elements than early D&D did, but it's also terrible at emulating story. Random die rolls can kill any character at any time. Anti-climactic results abound. Magic is chaotic. A good crit can kill anyone. To me, DCC RPG is a terrible Appendix N emulator if you use the main characters of Appendix N stories as your baseline. It's not possible to play as Conan in the DCC RPG. Nor is it possible to play Frodo or Sam or Gandalf. Nor Elric. Nor Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser. But, it is possible to play characters within nearly identical worlds as those characters.

 

[Dioltach]

(with no stories made about their mighty thews)

Just chiming in to say my next Barbarian PC is going to be called Thews the Mighty.

 

[CleverNickName]

Oh, true. His later books definitely moved away from Tolkien. Of course, the fact that it was Sword of Shannara that made him a name in the genre didn't hurt at all.

I mean, Dragonlance as a ripoff of Tolkien? Really? Sure, it contained some of the same DNA because it was baselined in D&D. But, other than a few bits and bobs here, it would be pretty hard to draw any real correlations between LotR and Dragonlance. OTOH, Sword of Shannara is virtually word for word a copy of Tolkien. And it's not like this was subtle at all.

Funny thing is, I really like Terry Brooks. His Magic Kingdom series was a blast. He definitely has the chops.

Sure, but Wagner's The Ring Cycle has them all together almost exactly like the plot to Hobbit. A non-human unstable figure kills his brother for a cursed ring of power? Might as well call him Hagen instead of Gollum...

Anyway, for someone to say Brooks copied Tolkien while ignoring how the Hobbit is closer to The Ring seems a bit odd to me. It's like people want to hate on Brooks for some weird reason while ignoring how not only did Tolkien do it as well, he did it more blatantly than Brooks did.

Now, I'm not blaming Tolkien. I mean, he was right up front how he wanted to create a fantasy epic for white people because he loved how other cultures had great stories, so he admitted he pulled everything from European folklore and mythology. I just think it's disingenuous to knock Brooks down and say Brooks just copied Tolkien when a) Tolkien did the same, and b) Brooks was told to do that by his publisher.

The only thing I can contribute to that discussion is that I've met Terry Brooks (he lives nearby), and found him to be an excellent human being. He's patient with his fans, he's very supportive of derivative works, and apart from the occasional bit of shade he throws at George R. R. Martin's publishing schedule, he never has anything bad to say about other fantasy authors.

He's not flawless, and neither are his books, but if you're hunting for inspiration in your D&D game you can do much worse than Terry Brooks.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Just chiming in to say my next Barbarian PC is going to be called Thews the Mighty.

Make sure the party also has a Reaver A. Slayer, Jewel D. Thrones, and Crusher N. Emies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There is a bit more to it than that. Look at the default player facing options. The races are a 1 for 1, exact copy of Tolkien's. The classes are also heavily influenced by Tolkien as well. Ranger, Fighter, Thief, Paladin, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Magic User, Illusionist, Assassin, and Monk. Really only Cleric and Monk aren't a great fit for Tolkien's world, but even they could be shoehorned in with out much effort.

There is lots of other influences in D&D, but a lot of it is in Monsters and world building that are not immediately visible. Just looking at character creation, the first part of the game that most players experience, the game really does look like Tolkien.

With Tolkien being default fantasy at the time, it probably wasn't a bad idea. It was what most players were looking for from a fantasy game at the time.

No, that's not correct.

Let's use your example and go to the classes. They are absolutely NOT Tolkien-influenced (with one major exception, of course).

Where did the classes come from? Funny you should ask me of all people!

-Assassin. Not Tolkien. Arneson's group (Hammock) by way of Kask, but based on the historical model.
-Bard. Not Tolkien. Doug Schwegman mixed together histrocial references fors a skald, a bard, and a minstrel.
-Cleric. Not Tolkien. This was Bishop Carr (guess who?) designed from Hammer Horror films to defeat Sir Fang, as modified by Gygax's conception of Bishop Odo.
-Druid. Not Tolkien. This one is Dennis "Chariot of" Sustare, and swirling the 70s ideas about Druids that came from the Romans.
-Illusionist. Not Tolkien. Peter Aronson really loved the illusions Magic Users could cast and wanted to create a whole class based on it.
-Monk. Not Tolkien. This is Remo Williams, as Brian Blume wanted.
-Paladin. Not Tolkien. This was Poul Anderson.
-Thief. Not Tolkien. The players at Aero Games wanted a "Box Man" and created one, which was then appropriated by Gygax who added a little Vance and Zelazny.
-Figher (fighting man)/Magic User. Not Tolkien. Based on generic archetypes.

That leaves one - the Ranger, which wasn't Gygax, but was Joe Fischer, who read the Paladin and thought- "I want that, but Aragorn."


This is the issue I pointed out- if you don't know not only the D&D history, but also the antecedent fantasy history, it all looks like Tolkien.

It isn't. Races? Sure. The rest? Not so much.

 

[Cadence]

Whenever Appendix N comes up, I think about the six author list in the middle of this post...

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-shorter-appendix-n.674084/#post-8066806

... by this thread's OP.

Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS;
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series; et al
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS;
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; "Ring trilogy"
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Whenever Appendix N comes up, I think about the six author list in the middle of this post...

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-shorter-appendix-n.674084/#post-8066806

... by this thread's OP.

Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS;
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series; et al
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS;
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; "Ring trilogy"
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al

Any list that leaves out Zelazny is doping a disservice. At a minimum, I would recommend the Amber Series and Jack of Shadows.

(I would also recommend Lord of Light to get a feel for the magi-tech that was so prominent and resulted in, inter alia, a lot of the sci fi / fantasy that we saw in the 70s).

 

[Cadence]

Any list that leaves out Zelazny is doping a disservice. At a minimum, I would recommend the Amber Series and Jack of Shadows.

(I would also recommend Lord of Light to get a feel for the magi-tech that was so prominent and resulted in, inter alia, a lot of the sci fi / fantasy that we saw in the 70s).

The OP of that other thread (@Doug McCrae ) did have Zelazny in their Shorter Appendix N that they lead off that thread with:

Anderson, Poul: Three Hearts and Three Lions
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: A Princess of Mars; The Gods of Mars; The Warlord of Mars
de Camp, L Sprague and Pratt, Fletcher: The Roaring Trumpet; The Mathematics of Magic; The Castle of Iron
Howard, Robert E: Conan stories
Leiber, Fritz: Swords and Deviltry; Swords Against Death; Swords in the Mist; Swords Against Wizardry; The Swords of Lankhmar
Lovecraft, HP
Merritt, Abraham: The Moon Pool; Dwellers in the Mirage; Creep, Shadow!
Moorcock, Michael: The Stealer of Souls; Stormbringer
Tolkien, JRR: The Hobbit; The Lord of the Rings
Vance, Jack: The Dying Earth; The Eyes of the Overworld
Zelazny, Roger: Jack of Shadows; Nine Princes in Amber; The Guns of Avalon


(from https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-shorter-appendix-n.674084/ )

 

[CleverNickName]

If I were going to write my own Appendix N, to include only the authors/sources that have contributed meaningfully to my current D&D campaign, it would be as follows:

Andrews, Shirley. "Atlantis: Insights from a Lost Civilization."
Brooks, Terry. "The Heritage of Shannara" (Trilogy)
Dumas, Alexandre. "The Three Musketeers"
Ellsworth, Shawn. "The Seas of Vodari"
Haggard, H. Rider. "King Solomon's Mines"
Hope, Anthony. "The Prisoner of Zenda"
Square Enix Co., Ltd. "Final Fantasy" (Game franchise)
Stevenson, Robert Lewis. "Treasure Island"
Verne, Jules. "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"
Westerfield, Scott. "Leviathan"
Wizards of the Coast, "Unearthed Arcana - Ixalan"

And if I were going to write my own Appendix N to include all of the authors and sources that have contributed meaningfully to all of my D&D campaigns I've run over the years, it would have tens of thousands of entries.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The OP of that other thread (@Doug McCrae ) did have Zelazny in their Shorter Appendix N that they lead off that thread with:

Weirdly, thought from that list if you had to narrow it down to six, I'd probably take off Poul Anderson.

I know, Three Hearts and Three Lions has some major BDE when it comes to D&D. But ... eh.

(That said, if you take Gygax at his word, which is always a tricky proposition, de Camp & Pratt and Merritt are the ones to look to for immediate D&D influence, in addition to REH, Leiber, Vance, and Lovecraft)