D&D is its own Genre of Fantasy?

[CruelSummerLord]

If LotR was written as a D&D novel, the climax would have been a battle with Sauron himself, and the Ring would have been used in that climax. Nothing less would satisfy the "players"! Also, the DM would have had to keep admonishing the group not to split the party after Boromir tried to take the Ring.....maybe by sending a lot of orcs to show them that they needed to stick together.

"Beware what you own, lest it own you" was a major theme for Tolkein, emphasized most in the Ring, but also in Smaug's treasure and with the Silmarils. I doubt that would be a happy theme for most D&D players.

That said, I find that my players enjoy talking to creatures as much as having big cinematic battles. Discussing philosophy with evil clerics, or chatting up a strange abberation hanging from the ceiling are as important to them -- more important, actually -- than saving the day or getting the gadget.

(Shrug)

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


RC

I think I'm on a different wavelength than many people. For me, "D&D Fantasy" doesn't mean writing a novel as if it were a campaign-it means using all the standard elements of the genre (magic, sentient nonhuman races, medieval weapons and armor, a pseudo-medieval setting based on the 11th-15th centuries, etc.) and setting the stories in there.

For instance, this one British author wrote a variation on The Count of Monte Cristo set in the modern 21st century, as opposed to the 20th. A Japanese anime sets the story in the far future. Who's to say you can't do the same thing with D&D fantasy by changing some of the characters into elves or dwarves, have some of them know magic or own actual magical items, or something like that? If you wanted to write A Tale of Two Cities, what's to stop you from using Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate as stand-ins for London and Paris? If you want to write Macbeth, why not substitute something like the Kingdom of Nyrond for Scotland, and have the villain tighten his grip on power and further confirm his descent into tyranny by making alliances with orcs and goblins to oppress the people?

Not every story needs to be about a party of adventurers or something that would fit as a campaign; surely it can't be that difficult to write something like Romeo and Juliet, remaking the cast as two feuding clans of dwarves instead of two feuding clans of humans? It's not exactly the sort of thing you'd gather around the gaming table for on a Friday night, but it could still make for a touching story.

Monsters like storm giants, lammasu, ki-rin, chimeras, cloakers, can all play their parts. If you enjoy the comic book The Crow, recast the protagonist as a revenant or some similar undead creature. Need something to substitute for Caliban? How about a hill giant or a gnoll? Who's to say a Doctor Frankenstein-like wizard couldn't have accidentally given life and sentience to an iron or stone golem instead of a flesh one?

This is what I mean by using D&D fantasy in new ways-stories that don't just revolve around what people normally come up with in game campaigns. Such things can be enjoyed, of course, but who's to say that adventurers have to be the only focus of a story set in a fantasy world with all the stereotypes of pseudo-Tolkien RPG fantasy?

Don't just write from the perspective of a DM creating a plotline for his players-the D&D motifs could be used for so much more...

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It might be more accurate to call the genre "RPG Fantasy" because a lot of games other than D&D, in many media, use the same sword and sorcery-high fantasy-Tolkien Pastiche mash up. Early in the days of D&D, I would say it wasn't its own genre, just a mixture of a lot of fantasy sub-genre tropes and cliches. over time, though, as both D&D and derivatives of D&D grew in both popularity and sophistication, a distinct sub-genre of fantasy crystalized. And, like different high fantasy novels or whatever, different RPG Fantasy games and such vary more than a little in the details, but overall they are more alike than different

But, you see, you must remember that this is so because they ALL derived from D&D. Naturally, so many of them are going to be similar. The greater the popularity and the more well-established the D&D fantasy tropes became, the more D&D became it's OWN sub-genre. Call it RPG Fantasy if you like but D&D is undeniably, directly responsible for its establishment.

 

[Reynard]

But, you see, you must remember that this is so because they ALL derived from D&D. Naturally, so many of them are going to be similar. The greater the popularity and the more well-established the D&D fantasy tropes became, the more D&D became it's OWN sub-genre. Call it RPG Fantasy if you like but D&D is undeniably, directly responsible for its establishment.

True. For those interested, both Dungeons and Dreamers and Masters of Doom are books about the development of the video/computer gaming industry and D&D is prominent in both.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Steven Brust's Jhereg series pretty much seems to go there IIRC. However, people threatened by people with such tactics usually have the resources to put up defences.

Based in part on Brust's original D&D game by the way.

 

[Shades of Green]

I see D&D as a toolkit for creating heroic fantasy games rather than a specific genre all by itself; you could have widely varying campaigns that are all D&D but use different elements of the D&D material.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Again, I'm sorry, but I just get very, very annoyed at the suggestion that "D&D fantasy" automatically equals crap.

D&D fantasy or RPG fantasy is terrific, but it works for games in a way that it cannot for a narrative like a novel or movie.
I would argue that an ensemble is harder to identify with and follow than a single chief protagonist or pair thereof.
Fire-and-forget spells seem clumsy in a narrative, but game mechanics in general should probably never intrude on the readers' (or viewers') experience, even if the author does keep them in mind.
The sudden acquisition of heretofore unknown powers seems jarring in an ongoing narrative, but for a game, that's levelling up - a big part of the game experience. New feats, skills, spells, etc.


Worse though, are the things that are hand-waved for a game that cannot be for a novel:

The milieu of classical/pulp/wuxia/swords-and-sorcery punk/ reconstruction era anachronism that enriches a game is just muddied and confusing in most narratives. Worse is the "town is where we buy stuff before we go back to the dungeon" trope that feeds a hack-and-slash game so nicely, but leaves a novel on the bookshelf.

The theme is unimportant - the characters' main goal is "to get stronger." Good and Bad stuff happens depending on the roll of the dice and on strategy, but never on ethical outlook. "Good guy" means somebody on our side, while "Bad guy means monster or NPC without a name.

Characters are each of a distinct skill set, often of a distinct (and frequently antagonist) race, of relatively equal importance (each thinks he is the star), and disposable (One character dies, the story goes on.) Worse yet, characters sometimes disappear mid-narrative, to be inexplicably replaced by other, more exotic, yet less believable characters. (We busted our butts for three months fighting, infiltrating, and negotiating our way past numerous challenges to get to the fourth level of this dungeon. How is it that Regdar just decided to go back home when his mom called? And how is it that Gimble just popped in here by himself, in perfect health and without preamble? He doesn't seem like much of a combatant. For that matter, why does Devis seem to be so miffed at Gimble's arrival? You'd think he'd be happy to see a fellow musician.)

Finally, what's already been touched upon, the relentless physical action of an RPG. Adventurers are beset by lycanthropes, abberations, undead, bandits, wizards, law enforcement and the crown everywhere they go. At some point, verisimilitude is stretched too far. "How much bad stuff can really happen to one group?" the reader asks.


I've seen movies that felt like a game log - "ohh! that's a failed reflex save!" and I felt like I could follow every die roll, but they are generally disatisfying.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But I'll point out that what you described isn't any closer to the LotRs books. You're still on "big events", not focusing on days and weeks of details along the way. You're just describing different types of big events to gravitate toward.

I would say that the LotR books also focus on the big events, they merely offer more descriptive text of the day to day stuff between the big events. I try to offer enough description to make the texture of days understandable to the players (they know what sort of food is eaten, where they slept, and they deal with little things as well as big things), but I would agree that a game as detailed as LotR in terms of minutia would be extremely difficult to DM in an enjoyable manner.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

D&D fantasy or RPG fantasy is terrific, but it works for games in a way that it cannot for a narrative like a novel or movie.
I would argue that an ensemble is harder to identify with and follow than a single chief protagonist or pair thereof. Fire-and-forget spells seem clumsy in a narrative, but game mechanics in general should probably never intrude on the readers' (or viewers') experience, even if the author does keep them in mind. The sudden acquisition of heretofore unknown powers seems jarring in an ongoing narrative, but for a game, that's levelling up - a big part of the game experience. New feats, skills, spells, etc.


Worse though, are the things that are hand-waved for a game that cannot be for a novel:

The milieu of classical/pulp/wuxia/swords-and-sorcery punk/ reconstruction era anachronism that enriches a game is just muddied and confusing in most narratives. Worse is the "town is where we buy stuff before we go back to the dungeon" trope that feeds a hack-and-slash game so nicely, but leaves a novel on the bookshelf.

The theme is unimportant - the characters' main goal is "to get stronger." Good and Bad stuff happens depending on the roll of the dice and on strategy, but never on ethical outlook. "Good guy" means somebody on our side, while "Bad guy means monster or NPC without a name.

Characters are each of a distinct skill set, often of a distinct (and frequently antagonist) race, of relatively equal importance (each thinks he is the star), and disposable (One character dies, the story goes on.) Worse yet, characters sometimes disappear mid-narrative, to be inexplicably replaced by other, more exotic, yet less believable characters. (We busted our butts for three months fighting, infiltrating, and negotiating our way past numerous challenges to get to the fourth level of this dungeon. How is it that Regdar just decided to go back home when his mom called? And how is it that Gimble just popped in here by himself, in perfect health and without preamble? He doesn't seem like much of a combatant. For that matter, why does Devis seem to be so miffed at Gimble's arrival? You'd think he'd be happy to see a fellow musician.)

Finally, what's already been touched upon, the relentless physical action of an RPG. Adventurers are beset by lycanthropes, abberations, undead, bandits, wizards, law enforcement and the crown everywhere they go. At some point, verisimilitude is stretched too far. "How much bad stuff can really happen to one group?" the reader asks.

I've seen movies that felt like a game log - "ohh! that's a failed reflex save!" and I felt like I could follow every die roll, but they are generally disatisfying.

Apparently what I consider "D&D fantasy" is different from what others view it as. What I had in mind was rather the telling of stories that may or may not have to do with adventurers, only based in a setting with dragons, elves and wizards. I see no reason why classical stories and legends, when they are adapted for the modern 21st century or the far future, could not also function as well in a swords and sorcery setting.

When adventurers are involved, the goal is not to replicate the same kind of hack and slash dungeons, desire to "get stronger" and acquire more feats or magical items, or to have a selection of characters with distinct skill sets. The emphasis is more on ethical and moral outlook rather than how much damage a character can dish out in one round. Some small liberties might be taken with the rules to better fit the narrative. Characters do not always have clearly delineated roles-"named" prestige classes do not figure heavily in the descriptions of characters, besides their roles as "shaman", "samurai", "barbarian" and other traits that can appear as often in the real world as in a fantasy world.

I suppose the stories I would have in mind might center around a group of adventurers who encounter various Conan or Fafhrd-and-the-Gray-Mouser type plots, anchored in a continuing narrative by the personal conflicts and growth of the adventurers themselves. They might travel across the continent, make new friends and enemies, and learn more about themselves, but this is the emphasis, not whether their magical sword has the flaming or ghost touch abilities. Metagaming doesn't count for much in the actual writing of the story.

And, of course, a reader might wonder why Conan, Elric or Fafhrd are continuously beset by problems and perils. The argument that having so many bad things happen to the same party strains versimilitude doesn't work, I think; were that the case, the heroes of Lieber, Moorcock, and Howard would have stretched their credibility, but I haven't ever seen anyone complain about that.

Some may wonder why I insist on incorporating a D&D mythos into such stories, instead of simply creating my own. Well, in some ways, doing so might seem horribly contrived and artificial. Besides which, I rather like many of the races and monsters that appear in D&D, irrespective of edition; I enjoy thinking up creative ways in which a lone thief or a wizard with no physical support might defeat a creature like a cloaker or a tempest, and I also enjoy having many of the racial details already sorted out. Besides their functions for gaming, they also have potential as a fully-fledged mythos of their own, to rival any of our modern myths, such as Lovecraft or Rowling, for example.

That's why I consider D&D fantasy to be something more than just a framework for gaming. It certainly has that role, but it can take on a life of its own and be used for writing deep works of artistic merit, fitting the needs of both the group of gamers and the lone author quite nicely.

 

[shilsen]

I would say that the LotR books also focus on the big events, they merely offer more descriptive text of the day to day stuff between the big events. I try to offer enough description to make the texture of days understandable to the players (they know what sort of food is eaten, where they slept, and they deal with little things as well as big things), but I would agree that a game as detailed as LotR in terms of minutia would be extremely difficult to DM in an enjoyable manner.

That's because you aren't singing enough. If you stop in the middle of the minutiae of the day to deliver a stirring ode about porridge, it'll all flow much more smoothly. Really.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's because you aren't singing enough. If you stop in the middle of the minutiae of the day to deliver a stirring ode about porridge, it'll all flow much more smoothly. Really.

How do you know I don't?!?!