Dwarves don't sell novels

[Zander]

As I said before, if you pulled out everything from the MM that was pure fantasy, you'd have about fifteen pages.

Was or wasn't? Whichever, that depends what one considers "pure fantasy".

Zander, a question. Do you disallow clerics in your game?

I'm not the DM in either of the two campaigns I'm in at the moment so the choice isn't mine but if it were, the answer would be "no". In fact, one of my PCs is a cleric.

 

[Kesh]

I think that portability is a great thing. And it goes both ways. I've drawn from sci-fi concepts in my homebrew fantasy game, and fantasy elements can be translated very well into sci-fi. Heck, you can draw them into other genres as well.

There's a thread over on RPG.net where someone threw out a challenge to translate Star Wars into other genres. First thing that popped into my head: a spaghetti Western based on "A New Hope."

If that ain't portability, I don't know what is.

 

[Turjan]

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

I used Tolkien as an example of literature that influenced the D&D game (the choice of races comes to mind) but is a counterpoint against your unwillingness to accept changes in racial descriptions in D&D over time. I just pointed out that D&D's sources saw similar changes and are as much examples of fantasy concepts in flux as D&D itself.

And even if you mentioned other authors, like Howard or Leiber, you ignore others that are similarly important as a source of D&D.

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.

Well, Gary Gygax mentioned that he considered Jack Vance as one of the main influences of D&D. In the end, you find these technical wonders in the same small (120 pgs.) collection of fantasy stories that defined the D&D magic system and some of the spells. To get from the "Excellent Prismatic Spray" to a high-(bio)tech city, you just need to take a ride in a flying car from Kaiin to Ampridatvir . And this is similar with other fantasy roots of D&D. If you care to ignore those, that's your call. Nevertheless, it's an important and, as far as D&D goes, influential branch of fantasy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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).

No, I'm fixated on the fact that DESPITE mentioning Howard and others, you completely discount the validity of fantasy written by those who DO include significant techno/anachronistic elements as somehow not "pure," "genuine" or "legitimate" fantasy, or at least, not legitimate sources for D&D.

Moorcock's Million Spheres was one of the major sources for D&D cosmology, magic items, etc.. Lieber gave us PC and plot archetypes. Vance gave us his magic system and items.

All included sci-fant elements, and Lieber's writings definitely predate Tolkien.

The influences on the gnome in previous editions extend beyond name and size.

No, not really- the popular redcaps that dominated the gnomish lore of Western Europe are not really well represented in 1Ed or 2Ed. If they had been, they would be iconically Druids and not Illusionists.

Smurfs are closer to Western European gnomish lore & legend than any D&D gnome.

RE: Tolkien as Iconic Writer:

IMHO, he IS an Icon, without a doubt. He is very creative- especially in linguistics- but he's not a good writer. In his efforts to capture the elements of Heroic Epics in the form of a Novel (LoTR, natch), he succeeded too well. If, as many of my writing teachers said, great writers do not waste words- anything that does not advance the plot is ultimately useless and/or narcissistic- then JRRT is NOT a great writer. While he did convey the epic nature of the task at hand, he also included much that is dross- pointless details (like involved lineages of nonexistent people), bad poetry, etc. that can glaze one's eyes over quite quickly. Those elements in Epic poetry served a purpose- they put the protaganists within the context of the other legends and historical figures of the day (remember- the Epic was at least partially reportage). In LotR, there is no external context for those lineages etc. to link up with. They are merely meaningless mimics of the form.

 

[Warbringer]

Heh, we've got to remember how lame WHFB elves are though...

... You obviously haven'r read any Malus Darkblade novels

 

[Hussar]

Was or wasn't? Whichever, that depends what one considers "pure fantasy".

I'm not the DM in either of the two campaigns I'm in at the moment so the choice isn't mine but if it were, the answer would be "no". In fact, one of my PCs is a cleric.

Considering that clerics have NO literary source, how do you justify their existence in the game? They are purely a construct of the game and are only present because someone needs to heal the party. Yet, they've been part of the game for a very long time.

This is exactly my point. D&D has drawn on whatever works. There has never been any sort of "purist" concept to the game. It's always been a kitchen sink approach with whatever developer grabbing whatever idea and stuffing it into the game. Many of the elements you seem to be attributing to fantasy are nothing of the sort.

Let's see, Monster Manual elements with little or no fantasy link (note, I'm doing this from memory):

• Beholders
• Mind Flayers
• Githyanki
• The Blood War
• Rust Monsters
• Umber Hulks
• Most Golems

Just to name a handful. You seem fixated on maintaining some sort of purity that never existed in the game in the first place. Classes, races, monsters, spells - all elements drawn from non-fantasy sources.

And, DannyAlcatraz, quit bloody doing that. Wut he said is what I meant about Tolkien, it's just he stole my brain.

 

[pawsplay]

According to this site you would be mistaken.

As well as this list which also lists the Silmarillion as Tolkien's only best seller.

This site also agrees.

This one too

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point.

You can certainly think that. However, most of those lists are just top tens of all fiction, not lists of all best-selling books. But the more important point is the historical one; the Simarillion was published posthumously, so claiming the popularity of his other books rests on that is ridiculous. The Silmarillion would never have been published at all if LOTR hadn't sold millions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

<is secretly an Illithid sent from the future to hasten the rise of the Mind Flayer Hedgemony>

 

[Hussar]

You can certainly think that. However, most of those lists are just top tens of all fiction, not lists of all best-selling books. But the more important point is the historical one; the Simarillion was published posthumously, so claiming the popularity of his other books rests on that is ridiculous. The Silmarillion would never have been published at all if LOTR hadn't sold millions.

The problem is, LOTR wouldn't[/b] have sold millions if Tolkien hadn't gotten it put on required reading lists at schools.

Look, I know it looks like I'm bashing Tolkien, I don't mean to. Try this for an example. Walk outside and ask ten people if they know who Stephen King is. Now try Tolkien. I'll bet that probably six or seven know Tolkien. Now try Moorcock. You'd be lucky to get one. Now ask about Jack Vance. You'd be lucky to get one in a hundred and he's probably a D&D player.

Heck, ask people to name a famous Homer and far more will reply Simpson than "Epic Greek poet".

We are a niche hobby of a niche genre. Fantasy's popularity is a very recent thing. Sure, there's lots of LOTR books in the bookstores right now. Three hugely popular movies did that. Go back to about 1994 and look at the store shelves. There's still be a copy of the LOTR. One. Among the bazillion other books on the shelf.

Again, my question remains - why should our hobby be restricted to dead authors?

 

[Zander]

Considering that clerics have NO literary source, how do you justify their existence in the game? They are purely a construct of the game and are only present because someone needs to heal the party. Yet, they've been part of the game for a very long time.

This is exactly my point. D&D has drawn on whatever works. There has never been any sort of "purist" concept to the game. It's always been a kitchen sink approach with whatever developer grabbing whatever idea and stuffing it into the game. Many of the elements you seem to be attributing to fantasy are nothing of the sort.

Let's see, Monster Manual elements with little or no fantasy link (note, I'm doing this from memory):

• Beholders
• Mind Flayers
• Githyanki
• The Blood War
• Rust Monsters
• Umber Hulks
• Most Golems

Just to name a handful. You seem fixated on maintaining some sort of purity that never existed in the game in the first place. Classes, races, monsters, spells - all elements drawn from non-fantasy sources.

I'm not opposed to developments in fantasy but any additions should at least not compromise the integrity of the fantasy of any particular game world (or if they do, they should be restricted to particular game settings).

Clerics are fantasy versions of Templars or Hospitallers. For the most part, the monsters created by Col P filled niches for monsters that were previously vacant and didn't violate the logic of the fantasy milieu.

Incidentally, most of the early golems (sc. clay - Jewish, metal - Greek, and flesh - gothic) in D&D existed before the game was invented. You could add owlbears to the list as well as bullets. There are no doubt others.