Dwarves don't sell novels

[Turjan]

As someone used a "Full Frontal Nerdity" strip in a different thread, I had to think of this one:

I actually like the explanation .

 

[Hussar]

ROTF. FFN is a fantastic strip.

"You got crappy sci fi all over my fantasy rpg" Great.

 

[Zander]

There have been a lot of comments about what I said since I was here last. Time permitting, I'll do what I can to address those comments.

D&D is popular and enduring.

Not nearly to the same extent as, for example, Tolkien for popularity or, as another example, Homer for endurance.

I wish D&D were that popular but sadly it isn't.

 

[Zander]

I see. Straightforward conservatism, is it? "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff"?

I'm personally quite glad that Wizards of the Coast has decided to make D&D its own thing, with its own take (several takes, actually, when you consider the settings they produce as well as the flavour surrounding their "capsystem" books on psionics, incarnum, and the like) on fantasy.

Perhaps I'm biased - well, no, I know I'm biased. You keep mentioning Tolkien as "tried and true", while I'm thoroughly sick of the Tolkien imitations that have choked the fantasy genre for fifty years and am very happy that D&D is not just yet another "tired and through" Tolkien rip-off marching in lockstep with the rest of the logjam.

Fantasy isn't locked into a particular author's view. As I've already pointed out, fantasy has a very long history with successive waves of contributors and audiences. I'm glad that there are many contributors to the genre both past and present. My concern is not that WotC may not be adhering to Tolkien in particular; it is that WotC is moving D&D away from fantasy in general.

You're making nonsense up and raging against it.

I'm not forcing you to respond to my comments. If you think I'm "making nonsense up", ignore me.

 

[Zander]

Eh. Even Tolkien had very different views of fantasy races in his different publications. Just look at the elves from "The Hobbit" and compare them to the elves from LotR. Those elves from "The Hobbit" are much nearer to folklore than his later concepts. They live under a hill, dance in the moonlight and drink lots of wine in their constant partying. There's also a distinct cruel streak. This fits very much Irish folk tales as they have been collected by the Grimm brothers in 1826. This is completely different from the elven image in the LotR. In principle, you could accuse Tolkien to have left the ground of folklore, because that's what he did. His LotR elves are his unique creation, and he changed his view of elves as he saw fit.

In the end, Tolkien's view of elves collides with the view of many other fantasy authors. "Sweeping Tokien aside" doesn't mean much. He is one author among many. He has a very specific view of elves, which is bound to his setting (and a different one in his older work). He hardly uses any magic, which is also much different to a lot of other fantasy literature. In this sense, Tolkien represents a very small niche of fantasy literature; a very popular niche, but a niche, nevertheless.

One other point: It is remarkable that none of the LotR RPGs, be it MERP or Decipher's LotR game, have been overly successful. The problem is that LotR as a book makes for a bad fantasy RPG without major changes. This means that the publisher's choice is more or less between a truthful, but boring adaptation of the books, or the introduction of major changes to make the game interesting (like MERP), which in turn upsets the fans.

I never said that Tolkien was the be all of fantasy but you seem to have fixated on it as if I had.

And this is the gist of the argument: D&D, from its very beginnings, did not take its basic concepts from LotR. It took some of the racial concepts and a bit of window dressing, but the main influences are from distinctly different fantasy sources. And those included electric elevators, flying cars and supercomputers.

D&D is, or at least was originally, a fantasy game. If you consider supercomputers part of fantasy, I think the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. My worry is that WotC may be more inclined to your viewpoint than mine.

 

[Zander]

So, we should ignore the VAST amount of fantasy literature of the past 50 years? There were more fantasy novels produced since 2000 than have been produced in the 20th century. Even if many are crap, sheer volume means that there are some real gems in there. The sun doesn't rise and set on Tolkein.

I agree. What those gems are will become apparent in time. We shouldn't rush to abandon the long and distinguished fantasy tradition in D&D. Change for its own sake is not necessarily a move for the better.

BTW, you've mentioned Matthew Sernett more than once. What exactly did he say and where did he say it?

Scale Mail, Dragon Magazine No.325. I don't have the issue to hand but the gist of what he said was that while they enjoyed Tolkien, Howard et al, they didn't regard that view of fantasy as the way D&D should be heading, rather it should include more techno-'magic' etc.

 

[Zander]

And the authors we have alluded to (Moorcock, Lieber, Vance, et alia) who frequently meld sci-fi elements into their fantasy works are also "tried and true" by the very same standard you allude to- some dating back pre-JRRT (OMG! PEOPLE WROTE FANTASY BEFORE TOLKIEN?!) and sweeping them aside is no less hubris on your part.

Sure- if I go into B&N or Borders and peruse the sci-fi/fantasy books, JRRT's books outmass any other authors' work save perhaps Asimov's. Why? Because like Stephen King, his works have been made into movies and everyone- even non-fans- knows his name. His stuff sells because of his notoriety. In fact, sometimes I have trouble finding classic authors on those shelves, they are crowded out for want of space...I count 6+ editions of his Magnum Opus on the shelves on a good day, with multiple copies of each. Does that make JRRT more important than Howard or Lieber?

I refer you to my reply to Turjan above. Like him, you seem to be fixated on the fact that I mentioned Tolkien to the point of ignoring that I brought up Howard (or anyone else).

You mention the gnome...

The gnome of D&D- in ANY edition- shares mainly physical stature and name with the gnomes of European legend.

The gnome of 1E owes its roots to a number of sources including European folklore. The influences on the gnome in previous editions extend beyond name and size.

 

[Zander]

...to try to say that Tolkein was some sort of iconic writer of fantasy is ludicrous.

Can I quote this in my sig? Please?

 

[Infernal Teddy]

He's right, however.

 

[Hussar]

I have Dragon 325 in my grubby little hands, so, let's see what Mr. Sernett had to say shall we?

Thanks for your thoughts, Alexander.

We agree more than you might think. You're absolutely correct that D&D relies on the appeal of hooking people into fantasy that they already know. My point in the editorial was that the youth of today share a common knowledge of fantasy that is different from what we grew up with. Their foundation isn't Conan, King Arthur and Tolkein: it's Final Fantasy and Harry Potter.

It's not about fashion; it's about where the genre of fantasy is going. Sci-fi has changed enormously over the past thirty years due to the tdevelopment of the genre and changes in our society. Is it so od to think that the same could happen to fansy?

We do differ quite markedly in our opinions of what will keep the hobby alive though. You've been playing D&D for twenty0one years, but the die-hard gamers like you and I do stop playing (and more importantly for the continuation of the hobby, stop buying products), and even if we don't stop playing, we eventually die. Younger poeple tend to be more active as players, buyers and recruiters for the game, so its important to the hobby that they become involved.

The danger D&D faces is that people of all ages can become directly involved in fantasy in far more ways than were available twenty or thirty years ago. As time goes on, the online environment will offer better, more sociable and more customizable options. To survive in the future, D&D must draw in not a few teens, but hundreds of thousands of them - continually. Each new generation must take up the game.

I'll be happily playing D&D when I'm in a retirement home, but I'll be happier if the teenagers I'll be complaining about play too. I'll be happier still if we both play the same edition of the game; then I can invite them to share a few raucous hours playing the best game in the world.

Something you wrote, caught my eye.

Ultimately, it is through us, not the fickle revisionists, that D&D will thrive over the next three decades.

((BTW, any typoes and bad grammar and whatnot in the above is entirely mine.))

This I disagree with most strongly. I'm sorry, but it is not those who remain stuck in "traditional" fantasy that will see the game thrive.

to try to say that Tolkein was some sort of iconic writer of fantasy is ludicrous.

I do stand by this. I love Tolkein, but, his writing quite frankly, sucks. It's drawn out, boring and dry as a bone. The Hobbit was a fun read. The LOTR had an awful lot of skippable parts. The Simirallian? Gack, I've read stereo instruction manuals that were more exciting. Tolkien's brilliance lay in his ability to create worlds. Not his prose.

Little hint, if you have a giant, huge, evil bad guy that's threatening your entire world, let the reader actually see him once or twice. And, maybe, after the wise old man delivers the dire warnings, don't let sixty years pass. Things like that.

I'm still confused though as to why we should be fixated on dead writers.

/edit - cleaned up some very fuzzy thinking.

It is ironic though that the same issue that this letter appears in features a Novel Approach article featuring Dune. It gives rules for using Spice and Sandworms in your campaign. Good article and certainly a good idea. I've run a few campaigns set in deserts with worm riders. The recent Sandstorm book even features them as a PrC. Here's an idea from one of the most iconic SF books ever written that is easily portable into D&D. Yet, we should limit ourselves to pure Fantasy authors? I'm sorry, but, that's just not what my game has ever been about.

As I said before, if you pulled out everything from the MM that was pure fantasy, you'd have about fifteen pages. Zander, a question. Do you disallow clerics in your game?