Dwarves don't sell novels

[Fenes]

It's easy to consider psionics as another form of magic. The rules even allow it. And they do not look that different from a silent, still spell.

 

[Zander]

Meh. Psionics is magic by another name. There's absolutely no actual science there. Might as well call it The Force. It's about the same thing. How is "I think it and it happens" substantially different from, "I say this funky word and it happens"? Psionic ability is used in SF because SF writers can't call it magic.

Why not? Why can't sci-fi writers call something magic? Is that because the reader may think it actually is magic and therefore question how something impossible can happen in an otherwise scientifically rational world? Wouldn't there be an analogue in the fantasy genre, i.e. the problem of having scientific reason in a world of the impossible?

 

[Fenes]

It's a question of semantics. Psionics or magic or the force - it's magic, basically.

However, science has a place in fantasy, it's just usually not as advanced as to have much of an impact compared to magic. Often, the setting of a novel assumes that technology is lacking due to people not having invented something, not because it would be impossible.

 

[Zander]

That's not a retort to what I was saying.

Please expand so that I can better understand your point. Thanks.

So you cannot say that D&D is not as enduring as Homer. The Iliad and the Odissey survived from their creation to nowaday. D&D survived from its creation to nowaday. Therefore, D&D is as enduring as the Iliad and the Odissey, because all survived from their creation to nowadays.

No because the Odissey is thousands of years older. Hundreds of years from now, the difference in age between D&D and, for example, LotR will be small compared to the overall ages of either one of them.

[Tolkien] also didn't say they don't have elephant trunks and a pair of antlers. If I was starting, say, a webcomic were elves have a trunk and antlers; and then a few years later many other comics/novels/games/movies/whatever depicted elves with antlers and trunks, I could argue that my elves influenced pop culture, and you would be there, arguing that it's actually Tolkien's elves, not mine, because Tolkien never wrote the elves didn't have such protuberancies...

Illustrations of Middle Earth elves existed during his day. None AFAIK had trunks and antlers. If they were supposed to have them, I think he would have said.

As was pointed out, there are no clear description for Tolkien's orcs either.

That depends what you mean by "clear". There are various aspects of orcs (also called goblins by Tolkien) described in his stories as well as a fuller description elsewhere in answer to questions from fans. He does make them seem simian, or at least degenerate humans or elves.

No. Psionics is rooted in the idea that a cheap pseudoscientific explanation was needed to insert magic into the sci-fi genre.

You're mistaken. My description of psionics' roots is accurate. I would encourage you to look into its Campbellian origins.

 

[Zander]

I'll add my confusion to the issue. I don't understand which things make it "in" as fantasy in your world and which don't and why. I understand what I think are some examples of the lines you wish to draw (knights on horses = fantasy, knights on schwins = not fantasy), but I don't understand how those lines are valuable, useful, or even sensible. There's no useful distinction, as far as fantasy genre or game is concerned, between a knight on a horse, a knight on a unicycle, a jedi riding a giant lizard, a wizard pedaling a bike through the streets of modern London, a soldier on a chocobo, snakes on a plane, or a ninja on a skateboard. I can tell you think that one is better than the other and should be supported more, and that you think that D&D not only should cater to that, but that it would be denying it's very nature by not cating to that, and that not catering to that would be economically unwise.

Marketing trends would disagree vehemently with you.

I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular. On the contrary, it's my belief that it would cause D&D to become less so.

They would say that D&D should absolutely abandon Tolkien to the age of musty old academics and embrace, say, the ninja on the skateboard. This is the essence of the OP, in which dwarves don't sell novels -- mythologically authentic gnomes don't sell games.

Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.

What D&D wants to be is a game where you can pretend to be a fantastic hero for a few hours, beat up some monsters, gain power, and repeat, telling some sort of story as you go.

And none of THAT requires or even suggests that D&D has to or would even benefit from preserving anything that does not serve this purpose. Note that there is very little genre stricture there, because D&D has not ever had any kind of solid genre stricture, nor has it ever really seemed to want it.

Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.

The world has changed since Gygax and Arneson and Blackmoor and Chainmail. The audience has changed. The game itself has changed (and will continue to do so). There are still those old fantasy novels mildewing in your mother's basement, but D&D has to come OUT of your mother's basement into the bright and loud light of pixels and spikey hair and allegorical boy-wizards in modern London. The old sources don't need to go away entirely, but they do need to be pushed to the background, because they aren't why new people are picking up D&D. They will always be one of the influences, but they have no sacred place in canon because there can be no sacred canon.

Dwarves might not sell D&D novels because dwarves aren't cool right now (for whatever reasons). Dwarves have no value. I know at least a half-dozen people who would drop $40 on a 260-page Naruto hardback sourcebook THIS VERY WEEKEND who wouldn't bother with finding the money for a 260-page "Inspired by actual Irish legends!" hardback sourcebook. Because actual Irish legends have no value (or at least, significantly less value).

You can make the artificial distinction between magic and science as much as you'd like, but the truth is that the majority of the buying public sees nothing whatsoever fundamentally flawed with elemtental druids who watch TV, or leiterhosen-wearing, Meg-Ryan-Looking sports celebreties who save a world in which dark wizards wear leather straps, or paladins in spaceships, or merlin being a powerful psychic and the lady of the lake being a powerful wizard in the same world. They have a fantasy world where cars with internal combustion engines can be enchanted to fly and where hidden ninja villages watch TV and eat instant noodles. Their sword-wielding knights can ride into furious combat on a motorcycle and they feel no great need to re-write the entire laws of physics for their setting just to do it. Magic can be a science (I cast a spell and this 747 flies!) and science can accomplish magic (It's ALIVE!) side by side and even together on the same day of the week. Magic can also be ofuda-wielding monks next to cowl-wearing wizards adjascent to tiny sprites all doing different things with different magic, too.

There simply IS NO PROBLEM WITH THIS in the minds of the people with money to burn. And D&D would be smart to follow suit. I'm not the biggest fan of the warforged, but I'd be a marked fool to say that they don't belong as the focus of what D&D is about at the moment. Because playing character archetypes such as "questioning my origins" and "mighty brute with a muddled past" has a LOT of value for the game.

There is a thriving market for sci-fi: books, movies, TV shows, toys etc. There has been for many years now. Despite this, there remains an interest in fantasy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the last fifty years, both have gained in popularity. Perhaps fantasy has been enjoyed for so long (thousands of years) and continues to be entertaining because it appeals to fundamental aspects of human psyche more directly than other genres. For example, you might desire to be as strong as Hercules. In a sci-fi world with missiles that can be fired from one planet to another, the physical strength of any individual probably isn't that important. And if you tried to change D&D into a game which no longer appealed to those fundamentals, you might lose more fans than you gained. It is worth pointing out that despite some hugely popular sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5 etc), none of them have been turned into RPGs that rival D&D's popularity among gamers. Moreover, I understand that many of the most popular MMORPGs are fantasy (though I'm no expert in computer games) which is probably not a coincidence.

By the way, my mother doesn't have a basement.

 

[Turjan]

It is worth pointing out that despite some hugely popular sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5 etc), none of them have been turned into RPGs that rival D&D's popularity among gamers. Moreover, I understand that many of the most popular MMORPGs are fantasy (though I'm no expert in computer games) which is probably not a coincidence.

Just a remark: Star Wars does not belong into the sci-fi genre, but is generally considered to be fantasy. The original film is the classical fantasy story par excellence.

 

[Zander]

Just a remark: Star Wars does not belong into the sci-fi genre, but is generally considered to be fantasy. The original film is the classical fantasy story par excellence.

Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.

And there have been D&D movies and they haven't been as popular as Star Wars movies. Neither's failure to be as popular as the other in particular media has little to do with the content, and almost all to do with the execution of the creators. Indeed, in computer games Star Wars and D&D have been almost equally successful.

I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular.

Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.

Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.

Straw men, all...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular. On the contrary, it's my belief that it would cause D&D to become less so.

That's simply because no popular fantasy setting nowadays uses knights on bicycles.

If they encouraged their heroes to storm into battle on raging motorcycles, though, perhaps ones that shot missles....D&D would become more popular. It's a basic marketing premise: you take something good, add something that will sell, and you have something good that will sell. The horse market is not rip-roaring....now the automotive market....if we could get the people who watch American Chopper to play D&D because we involve in-deapth motorcycle design rules, we've got a hit.

If they encouraged their wizards to ride around the streets of modern London on bicycles, it would also become more popular. Because what sells to people interested in fantasy nowadays are tales of wizards as a hidden organization RIGHT NOW, not in medieval europe, and if we could get the people who watch Harry Potter to play D&D because we put bicycles in the equipment list, we've got a hit.

Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.

It doesn't need to abandon the words, it needs to abandon the specific pigeonholes that they have been put into. Arguably, 3e got rid of hobbits as PC races. Now, 3e sells better than any previous edition. You could say, perhaps with some accuracy, that it is because people get to play roguish adventurers instead of Bilbo Baggins. That the fantasy heritage of halflings-as-hobbits is worthless to a successful game, and so the game has only gained by getting rid of it.

Barbarians could be raging nordic whatchamajigs or Conan-inspired whatevers, but, hey, the kids love this drug culture, and there is a recent trend toward pop tribalism (lots of piercings and tatoos, these are very popular), and then there's the rap music, so how about we make them body-art loving druggies on the streets of the inner city. Edgy sells.

Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.

It all depends on what the audience wants. Guns and dragons tend to be seperate (though I bet it would be a great selling supplement!), people like swords and axes, shafts of metal are sexy and they sell, and they lead to interesting combat, which sells even better. But space ships and wizards go together. Dragons and aliens from dimension X blend nicely. Wizards and Psychics can get along just fine. And putting them together is going to sell more than keeping them seperate, because one of D&D's great things is that you can mash up the fantasy you like into one big pot and they all play nice together.

The audience definately didn't want Tolkienesque halflnigs, judging by the popularity of the editions (which is the only real measure of what the audience wants that we have).

Perhaps fantasy has been enjoyed for so long (thousands of years) and continues to be entertaining because it appeals to fundamental aspects of human psyche more directly than other genres. For example, you might desire to be as strong as Hercules.

You keep insisting upon a definition of fantasy which includes things that are LIGHTYEARS away from fantasy. Epic poetry is epic poetry. It's not fantasy just because it involved tales of the gods.

Now it has inspired modern fantasy, including D&D. And people like it,so it's good to include it in D&D. But it has never been and will never be fantasy itself. The roots of and inspiration for, perhaps. But if you're going to be tight about genre definitions, epic poetry is not fantasy.

More to the point, this "appealing to the fundamental aspect of human psyche more directly" is highly dubious. Mystery as a genre appeals to our human desire to figure out puzzles. Horror, to our human desire to feel afraid. Sci-fi, to our human curiosity about our world (and the consequences thereof). If fantasy is connected to wish-fullfillment (which, it must be stated, also sperates it from things like epic poetry), that's no more or less fundamental or direct than any other genre's appeal.

Now, if a game based on playing fantasy roles is based on wish-fullfillment (which D&D is, to a fairly large extent), what does it gain from only adhering to a specific and limited subset of people's wish-fullfillment? If people want to be as unbreakable as Naruto, then one of the things that will appeal to them is television sets and ninjas side-by-side, because in their fantasy, such things exist. Vacuum tubes and mystical magic.

People do want to be as clever as Bilbo. However, they don't want to be as fat or grumpy or boring. So halflings are lithe and clever and adventurous. And it sells better. By going away from it's roots, it has made it more popular. One would have to think that, given what the majority of the buying demographics want, becoming THEIR vessel for wish-fullfillment (rather than remaining like an artifact from the mid-seventies) would be not only wise, but nessecary. And if their imaginations see rocket ships and spirit shamans side by side, then it is nessecary to place them side by side.

 

[Turjan]

Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.

The important thing Star Wars shows us stands though: Technical gimmicks don't hurt fantasy a single bit! I don't think that you can doubt that Star Wars is a very successful brand, even more so than D&D.

And the point that the Star Wars RPG is not as popular as the D&D RPG does not prove anything. D&D has the advantage of being first, and as it doesn't suck, it's hard to push it from the top spot. Star Wars as a setting specifically suffers from canon and NPC problems, like many other settings modeled after books or films (think Dragonlance). The setting is also quite limited; the contents of 6 films is a bit sparse for an RPG. And, last not least, the RPG suffers from how the specific license with Lucasfilm is set up. As the mini games is more popular, the RPG has to stick back. All these points taken together make your statement moot.