Dwarves don't sell novels

[vulcan_idic]

If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.

It seems to me that the most likely result of the theorized alternate history would be the smae number of complaints, but different complaints, rather than fewer overall. But that is neither here nor there. I have been watching this thread for some time. I have been tempted to speak up, but I have quited myself because this argument seems to me to lack a productive direction. Zander has stated that he has no desire to change the minds of others and is merely stating his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion and, as it is obviously deeply entrenched there is little point arguing about it. He may think as he wishes. My personal opinion falls more in line with Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, but so what. If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.

I am curious though if Zander would be interested in creating a set of parameters defining what fantasy means for him, perhaps something along the Three Unities of classicism/neo-classicism, so that we can help him find the sort of D20 material he's looking for rather than continue making the same sorts of arguments to no effect.

 

[Zander]

The important thing Star Wars shows us stands though: Technical gimmicks don't hurt fantasy a single bit!

I previously said that in media where the audience is relatively passive such as books and movies, the writer (and in the case of films, the director as well) can keep the audience from asking rational or scientific questions that would undermine the fantasy. In the Star Wars, Lucas slipped up, however. When he introduced midichlorians as the biological basis for the force, he opened a can of worms (see here). As a movie-maker, he was able to minimise the damage by not revisiting them in the subsequent Star Wars films. But as a GM in an RPG, they're even more problematic. What is to stop a PC from investigating midicholrians with a vue to creating a biological agent that counters them thereby neutralising someone's use of the force. And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.

 

[Zander]

Psychic powers have been with us as long as modern fantasy has; Howard (coming, as he was, just after the greatest upticks of interest in psychic powers - the Spiritualism craze of the late Victorian period and the similar interest in the US during the 1920's - not to mention that his own father used hypnotism in his practice and heavily annotated books on Eastern mysticism - psychic abilities were tremendously influential in his writing) uses them as extensively as he does actual magic and ritual sorcery: mesmerism, hypnotism, astral projection, 'force of will' and various other psychic powers are all intermixed with magic in his writing.

Psychic abilities that became a subject of considerable interest in the 19th c. came from a different tradition than psionics. The Victorian understanding of most of these abilities was that they were the manifestation of spirits, i.e. ghosts/the spirits of the dead. The balance being the interest in mesmerism/hypnotism, were not so much credited to a mental ability of the hypnotist so much as a natural vulnerability of the subject/patient/victim.

 

[Zander]

Why? I don't want to attempt amateur psychoanalysis. But you did nonetheless.

You didn't offer an explanation (the one you have now presented and I have quoted below) when you described my arguments as strawmen. You cannot expect me to read your mind. There really was no need to accuse me of attempting "amateur psychoanalysis".

KM wasn't saying D&D should encourage knights on bicycles. He said it wasn't useful to set a limit that knights on bicycles be forbidden without examination. He wasn't saying that D&D should ditch elves, dwarves, giants, dragons, etc., to be more popular. He was saying that a heritage shouldn't forbid blending new additions that are already proven popular. He wasn't saying that D&D should add Uzis and lasers, his point was that the game should make allowances that there could be.

That's why I called them strawmen. He didn't make those arguments, you made them up and implied that he argued such.

Perhaps I was misreading Kamikaze Midget but it seems to me that he was being fairly prescriptive in his argument that D&D should not have genre boundaries:

If D&D wants to make the big bucks, they should punt out Merlin...

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...

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.... The old sources don't need to go away entirely, but they do need to be pushed to the background...

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).

If he (and you) are arguing that there should be a place for Uzis and laser blasters in D&D, then I agree. I don't want to limit anyone else's fun. If WotC put out a supplement with those elements, I wouldn't complain. The problem is that WotC believes that they can redefine any fantasy element without regard to its past adding not just supplements but changing D&D's core.

 

[Zander]

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...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).

You could say that but your causal reasoning wouldn't be right. Halflings were not the only thing that changed between 2E and 3.x. Therefore, you can't conclude that it was the change to halflings that made the game more popular or even contributed to it. The rise in D&D's popularity may have occurred despite that change.

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.

I agree that each of those genres is popular for the reasons you state. But I suspect that the desire to be extremely strong, or agile, or good at hand-to-hand combat appeals to a baser, more animalistic, more primal aspect of human nature than the desire to solve puzzles, discover the world or feel afraid.

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?

Because in a world where you can push a button and vaporise your opponent from half a light year away, it really doesn't matter how strong, quick or able you are at face-to-face combat. All wish-fulfilment fantasies are not mutually compatible.

 

[Zander]

It seems to me that the most likely result of the theorized alternate history would be the smae number of complaints, but different complaints, rather than fewer overall. But that is neither here nor there. I have been watching this thread for some time. I have been tempted to speak up, but I have quited myself because this argument seems to me to lack a productive direction. Zander has stated that he has no desire to change the minds of others and is merely stating his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion and, as it is obviously deeply entrenched there is little point arguing about it. He may think as he wishes. My personal opinion falls more in line with Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, but so what. If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.

I said in reference to a specific point earlier on that the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. It may be, as you say, that that is the best we can hope for overall.

I am curious though if Zander would be interested in creating a set of parameters defining what fantasy means for him, perhaps something along the Three Unities of classicism/neo-classicism, so that we can help him find the sort of D20 material he's looking for rather than continue making the same sorts of arguments to no effect.

I appreciate the offer but I respectfully decline. I'm not seeking to be sidelined. I'm trying to preserve fantasy at the core of D&D because, IMO at least, it's worth it.

 

[vulcan_idic]

I appreciate the offer but I respectfully decline. I'm not seeking to be sidelined. I'm trying to preserve fantasy at the core of D&D because, IMO at least, it's worth it.

I apologize if my offer was percieved as an attempt to sideline you. This was not the intent. Going back to one of your earlier comments where you said, "As I've already mentioned in this thread and in Dragon Magazine, if some people want that in their fantasy, I'm perfectly happy. I'm certainly not some authority to manage your fun and I don't want to be." In that spirit I thought perhaps working together we could find a way for you to get what makes D&D fun for you and to enjoy the game while at the same time helping you to achieve your goal of not being someone who manages the fun of others. This is why I was hoping you could provide us with your definition of fantasy. If we had your concrete definition of what fantasy was for you we could help you fullfill that. A definition of Fantasy that is an end all and be all I think is impossible at best, due to each individual having their own idea of what comprises fantasy and what is right out - and as you say none of us are authorities to dictate or manage other individuals definitions of what fantasy is because it is something so dependent upon point of view.

And I do agree with you that I fear we shall have to agree to disagree on the issue as a whole as both viewpoints seem to be entrenched far too deeply to avail further discussion much good - no matter what arguments Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, and others produce, your opinion will not change. And no matter what evidences you produce it seems obvious to me that those others are unlikely to ever agree with you. In any event this entire discussion, while and interesting academic issue, has little or nothing to do with why Dwarves Don't Sell Novels.

To sum up - if you can provide a concrete definition of you want from this discussion and/or a concrete definition of what you think fantasy should be, then perhaps we can help you find what you want and or achieve your goal. If this is impossible then perhaps we could agree do disagree or move the discussion to a move aptly named thread.

 

[Hussar]

And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.

For exactly the same reason we don't have continual light lit cities - people don't really want it and are willing to suspend disbelief that far. Heck, Forgotten Realms has The Weave to explain magic. We already know from the rules that gods are created through belief. Magic in D&D has functioned as science throughout the history of the game.

Any effect which is verifiable and repeatable qualifies as science. I cast magic missile and out pops a glowing dart. Every time. No matter what. If I cast spell X, effect X occurs. That's science. It's not real world science, but, it's still science.

I'm still very curious as to how you can include all of these elements in fantasy, but exclude the elements that you don't like.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.

I'd be tempted to live & let live, except that his opinion involves him repeatedly and arbitrarily excising a whole subgenre of fantasy as illegitimate.

So we let him have it.

In any event this entire discussion, while and interesting academic issue, has little or nothing to do with why Dwarves Don't Sell Novels.

Much truth here.

I think how we got here is that there were intimations that "elves" as stereotypically depicted in current art and writing are, in a sense, us as we would like to be, a normative us- in harmony with nature, physically attractive. As such, they hold a special attraction to a great number of fantasy readers- they are a bankable pull. They are an attractive fantasy.

Dwarves, OTOH, are perceived to be us as we are, or at least, more like us than elves, resulting in less of a draw than the elves. Dwarves simply don't generate the same escapist feel for the average reader/gamer.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, so we want to go back on topic. Heh.

I think Danny pretty much hits the nail on the head here. Dwarves don't sell because they don't pull on the right strings.

For example, I'm pretty sure I could sell half-orcs. I remember reading Grunts! Great read. Novel's based on half-orcs could likely go in either a sort of parody style or into the whole Klingon mode as well. Rough and ready heroes, pretty dirty and grimy ones at that, do sell.

But dwarves have nothing going for them. They aren't individualistic, which, right there, is a big knock against them. You can't do the "lone hero" thing with dwarves. Dwarves travel in packs. Or, at least that's how we envision them. The other problem is that dwarves aren't rebels. They prefer stability and order. Again, big strike. Add to that an unappealing physique - short, fat and bearded - and you've got some pretty boring novels.