Dwarves don't sell novels

[Turjan]

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.

Yes, Midichlorians are silly. But the SW universe is silly, anyway. I'm not sure why nobody gets upset about his planets, which defy the basics of geometry. Anyway, as D&D treats magic as a science, it's not that different from midchlorians in the sense you brought up. But there's nothing to worry, because D&D already has its antimagic equipment and methods built in .

 

[Turjan]

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.

That looks correct. I'm always reminded of UO roleplaying servers, where you usually have to apply seperately for being allowed to play a different race than humans in order to make sure that you don't play them as humans. Except it's humans and dwarves; as the latter are basically grumpy and slightly short human miners, there is no adjustment necessary .

 

[Zander]

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.

As I've said already, science isn't just the effects, it's also the mode of investigation. If magic missile works in a particular way, what is the rationale? What are the principles? What is the theory?

If you start to ask those types of questions of fantasy elements, you'll soon find inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the fantasy. The reason it works in Star Trek and the like is that ST uses as its base real world science and builds consistent pseudo-science on top of it.

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.

You and Danny seem to think that my view of fantasy is either arbitrary or personal. It's neither. It's the accumulation and distillation of a tradition over which I have had no influence that dates back thousands of years. Also, just to clarify, I'm not opposed to that tradition growing and developing through addition, accumulation and future distillation.

 

[Zander]

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.

We got here because I suggested that WotC didn't know how to make dwarves appealing because they lack an appreciation of fantasy.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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".

Oh for crying out loud. I wasn't accusing you of "amateur psychoanalysis", I accused you of setting up straw men.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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.

See, I don't hold WotC in such high regard that everything they touch somehow sets a new definition for it. They are just one more publisher who presents fantasy elements with their own spin. They have no obligation to ensure purity of concept.

I also think that someone cannot make an accurate claim that a corporation "thinks" monolithically. That somehow unnamed forces make it do what it does. *shrug*

 

[Victim]

If you start to ask those types of questions of fantasy elements, you'll soon find inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the fantasy. The reason it works in Star Trek and the like is that ST uses as its base real world science and builds consistent pseudo-science on top of it.

No it doesn't.

Besides, doesn't the issue go beyond WotC? WotC novels aren't exactly the only fantasy reading around. Granted, not all of them have dwarves (or elves), but of those novels that do, do they also find that dwarves are less effective at selling books?

 

[vulcan_idic]

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.

I think dwarves could be packaged in a very interesting sort of novel, at least for a marketable set of readers, it's just waiting for the right writer with the right take to reignite interest in them as a culture.

For example, just thinking a bit, I can imagine a really fun fantasy novel with dwarves. Now here I'm imagining dwarves' stoutness less as being "fat" then in being incredibly densely muscled - a lot of stuff in a smaller package. The same amount of muscle mass as on an average decently strong human on a shorter frame. The organization of the dwarves may lend them well towards a fantasy version of popular novels that key on highly organized groups - a la a Tom Clancy style military novel, fantasy style. I could see it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But the SW universe is silly, anyway. I'm not sure why nobody gets upset about his planets, which defy the basics of geometry.

Count me as upset.

Phantom Menace sucked so hard and on so many levels, I stopped liking SW after the first 3 movies (as in, Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi).

You and Danny seem to think that my view of fantasy is either arbitrary or personal. It's neither. It's the accumulation and distillation of a tradition over which I have had no influence that dates back thousands of years.

There are clear literary distinctions between the modern genres of fantasy, horror and science fiction and their forbears of legend and mythology. I've pointed some of those delineations in this thread. Those differences mean that the tradition of genre fiction is not thousands of years old, but merely around a hundred or so.

You have continuously denied this.

There are clear examples within the genre of fantasy that include sci-fi elements going all the way back to the foundation of the modern genre.

You have continuously denied their validity.

This does indeed seem arbitrary and personal.

We got here because I suggested that WotC didn't know how to make dwarves appealing because they lack an appreciation of fantasy.

That's right! That's when Hussar and I started suggesting that WotC may just appreciate DIFFERENT fantasy than you do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I don't hold WotC in such high regard that everything they touch somehow sets a new definition for it. They are just one more publisher who presents fantasy elements with their own spin. They have no obligation to ensure purity of concept.

This bears repeating.

Especially the part that I bolded.

Did Dante have no respect for epic when he put centaurs in a river of boiling blood and harpies in hell?

No. Much like everyone else, he takes a concept and mutates it for his own use.

There is no pure concept of, say, a dwarf. There is no Iconic Dwarf Form that every dwarf must live up to or be considered "not a dwarf."

Note the central issue:

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.

The fallacy here is that fantasy elements have a definition that D&D is obligated to use outside of what D&D does define them as. That dwarves have to be a certain way, based on Zander's (IMO, very selective and puzzlingly arbitrary) selection of what dwarves have been in the vast annals of history to the present.

They have none. There is no iconic dwarf, no typical dwarf, no standard mythic dwarf or standard fantasy dwarf. There is an often-used stereotype, but even the stereotype has significant variations.

In other words, the D&D definition of "dwarf" is what they decide it is, not what observers of fantasy tradition think it ought to be. The dwarf is an inkblot. It's subjective, not objective.

WotC can't redefine fantasy because fantasy never had much of a definition to begin with. They can make their own fantasy, and they do it, and it sells books. They continue to do it, and it continues to sell books. WotC dwarves are not a redefinition of dwarves any more than Dante's centaurs are a redefinition of centaurs.