Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms

[SSquirrel]

Well a completely separate division of the company gave us the name 'Gleemax'. The arm that actually brings in most of the profits. That came from the MTG developers, not the D&D people - I don't think there's any crossover in terms of people working on both games aside from artists. I've never heard any D&D fans saying it was a good name, nor any D&D developers either. Yet the complaints about it are probably insignificant compared to the number of people that like it. It isn't a D&D web site, it's a gaming web site, and you have to understand that D&D has very little clout compared to MTG. Money talks.

Pretty sure I've seen WOTC comments stating that everyone in their R&D department has had some hand in the new game, even if just playtesting. I can't really see bad things about getting guys like Mark Rosewater involved in the D&D brand. He's come up w/a lot of interesting things in the M:TG world. I could be misremembering the blurb as it's been a few months, but I'm pretty sure they're using as many people at WOTC for this as they can. More ideas are always a good thing IMO. You can always pare the bad ideas down or polish the marginal ones into something better and have a better product as a result.

 

[rounser]

But I like laughing to myself at people who don't know what they're talking about, but really think that they do and believe very ardently about it to boot.

So I suppose that someone with such a patronising demeanor as yours that you've read early fantasy like The King of Elfland's Daughter, Three Hearts and Three Lions, and know the mythology that all this business comes from, and aren't just assuming that I'm just getting it all from Tolkien? Because that's a presumptious, arrogant position to take, that everyone but you is ignorant.

Even if Tolkien never existed, elves and magic go together like...well, let's just say it's difficult to have one without the other (or at least some fey, dwarfish, elemental, ogrish or goblin critter of some sort...it comes with the territory). Other fantasy has stuff like the ghouls and Melniboneans, which are custom jobs on the "magical race" stuff, but it's a strong part of S&S fantasy* no matter which way you cut it.

I think that one of the main reasons why a lot of modern fantasy avoids elves and dwarves like the plague is because Tolkien did it, and they want to distance themselves from comparisons and accusations of lazy borrowing (although there are exceptions). It's easy to unTolkienise the elves, though - simply make them more fey or more dark, which is more of a classic mythological take on them anyway, from what I gather.

*: Yes, I know that there's high fantasy, epic fantasy, dark fantasy, pulp fantasy etc., but I'm going to use the term S&S fantasy for D&D's type and not split hairs over it, because just saying "fantasy" is meaningless, and includes Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land, which is worse than gettting the subgenre wrong. And D&D is clearly all about swords and sorcery.

 

[VirgilCaine]

D&D, IMO, isn't Sword & Sorcery, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy or anything else. It's D&D-Fantasy. Farmers becoming godlike heroes, Beholders, Prismatic dragons, spells with very concrete uses... These are things we don't see in fiction, not even in most D&D-related fiction (FR novels et al).

In fact, my main fear about 4th Ed is that they might kill enough 'sacred cows' to make a good fantasy RPG of it, but not a good 'D&D-fantasy' one.

Copy and paste that.

I want my D&D fantasy, and I want it to be exactly the same as 3.5 with 3.0 spells and magic item prices but better put together.

Mostly, I just want people to stop telling everyone their sick, twisted, venal desires for 4e that conflict with what I want.

D&D is all of the above.

High Fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, et al are all just "templates" that you apply to your own particular campaign.

Sorry, wrong answer, the one we're looking for here is GURPS. GURPS, Generic Universal Role Playing System.

But you do get the consolation prize, a years supply of free leg wax!

 

[pawsplay]

It's interesting because I define "high fantasy" by being opposed to "low fantasy", and for me, that has to do with the amount of fantasy (magic, magical creatures, spells and so on) involved in the tale considered.

Hence my assertion that LOTR is not "high fantasy".

It's great that wikipedia defines sub-genres of fantasy the way it does. It doesn't stop said sub-genres and their definition to still be subject to debate, though.

Well, Tolkien invented the term "high fantasy" and to him it meant, "Fantasy in a fantasy world, as opposed to mythological romance set in our world."

 

[Baby Samurai]

Incidentally, when are we going to see Bigby's Bitch Slap?

After we see Bigby's Haul My Foot In Your Ass.

 

[Desdichado]

So I suppose that someone with such a patronising demeanor as yours that you've read early fantasy like The King of Elfland's Daughter, Three Hearts and Three Lions, and know the mythology that all this business comes from, and aren't just assuming that I'm just getting it all from Tolkien? Because that's a presumptious, arrogant position to take, that everyone but you is ignorant.

I have read those works, and they're not Sword & Sorcery either.

And well,that's not the position I'm taking. I'm just taking the position that you are ignorant, not everyone. Or at least guilty of conflating definitions and over-generalizing. Maybe you're not ignorant and you're just ignoring the differences between S&S and high fantasy, but I think that's really at the heart of the topic, unless I've completely misunderstood what we're talking about, so doing so does nothing but sow confusion and misinformation rather than allowing us to find some common ground on which we can build a discussion.

I think that one of the main reasons why a lot of modern fantasy avoids elves and dwarves like the plague is because Tolkien did it, and they want to distance themselves from comparisons and accusations of lazy borrowing (although there are exceptions). It's easy to unTolkienise the elves, though - simply make them more fey or more dark, which is more of a classic mythological take on them anyway, from what I gather.

Agreed on all fronts. Tolkien blazed the trail with what it means to be modern high fantasy, and authors following in his footsteps largely don't have his devotion (or time) nor his unusual training, and therefore compare unfavorably if they try to hew too closely to what he did.

That said, there are plenty of other directions high fantasy could have gone. E. R. Eddison and William Morris, for example, blaze a more "High Medieval" trail with a different feel that doesn't rely on things like elves and dwarves, and draws from different sources entirely---much less Germanic mythology and much more classic Arthurian in feel.

*: Yes, I know that there's high fantasy, epic fantasy, dark fantasy, pulp fantasy etc., but I'm going to use the term S&S fantasy for D&D's type and not split hairs over it, because just saying "fantasy" is meaningless, and includes Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land, which is worse than gettting the subgenre wrong. And D&D is clearly all about swords and sorcery.

Personally, my favorite type of fantasy involves the Dallas Cowboy's cheerleaders and reads like a Penthouse letter. But I think the distinction and unique particulars of S&S specifically are pretty relevent to the discussion. I agree that D&D is more S&S with an overlay of high fantasy, but what you're really saying---in so many words, if I can be so bold as to attempt to paraphrase for you---is that you want to minimize the actual S&S elements in D&D and go for something more like high fantasy. The unique D&Disms are usually the elements that most strongly correllate D&D to the S&S subgenre.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes, I know that there's high fantasy, epic fantasy, dark fantasy, pulp fantasy etc., but I'm going to use the term S&S fantasy for D&D's type and not split hairs over it, because just saying "fantasy" is meaningless, and includes Donald Duck in Mathemagic Land, which is worse than gettting the subgenre wrong. And D&D is clearly all about swords and sorcery.

Well, save that you'd simply be using the term incorrectly. There's a fairly clear demarcation between Sword and Sorcery, High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Romantic Fantasy, and the dozen or so other fantasy sub-genres. In other words, no, you don't get to just slap an already established term onto a thing that doesn't meet those criteria. I can call Eberron a Comedy of Manners setting all I want and that doesn't change the immutable fact that it simply is not one; I might (and have) chosen to run parts of it like that, but the setting itself isn't written to simulate that literary genre.

D&D as written is a mish-mash of genres that let the GM emphasize what he wants out of the general cloud of possibility. D&D wasn't written to simulate any particular genre, so it's a blend of high fantasy, horror, science-fiction, King Arthur, middle-ages folklore, modern folklore, and a dash and sprinkle of three or four other genres. It was certainly never meant to be a specific simulation of the Sword and Sorcery genre (ie, Conan, Kain, Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser, etc) or it would be a very different duck indeed.

 

[Desdichado]

I think D&D comes closest, if I had to say as much, as being S&S with the trappings of high fantasy brought very much to the fore.

But I agree; D&D specifically doesn't limit itself to imitating one fantasy subgenre. Which is why I guess I'm missing the point or purpose of rounser's complaint. What good does more generic do you, anyway? D&D may not necessarily be generic, but it certainly is extremely broad, which gives you almost all of the same advantages. True, it's littered with D&Disms, but there so much freakin' material to work with that you can turn D&D into almost whatever you want with a minimum of work.

Just for laughs, I've been "Ray Winningering" up a setting that's specifically designed around the premise that magic doesn't exist at all and in its place we have psionics. Since that changes the feel so significantly, I decided that the standard elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. racial array doesn't feel right either. But I can do all this with stuff that's already in print easily. D&D is so broad that complaining about D&Disms seems futile. Rather, if you don't like them, just don't use them. The idea that, "well eladrins are now 'core' and it's harder to take them out" doesn't seem to hold much water. Like I said, I've been developing a campaign that gets rid of elves, dwarves, half-elves, halflings, gnomes, paladins, wizards, druids, etc. Literally 75% of the PHB is gone. I don't understand the notion that it's "hard" to do so.

The D&Disms that bother me more and are harder to get out are system, not flavor issues. Hit points and levels, for example.

 

[rounser]

I have read those works, and they're not Sword & Sorcery either.

And well,that's not the position I'm taking. I'm just taking the position that you are ignorant, not everyone. Or at least guilty of conflating definitions and over-generalizing. Maybe you're not ignorant and you're just ignoring the differences between S&S and high fantasy, but I think that's really at the heart of the topic, unless I've completely misunderstood what we're talking about, so doing so does nothing but sow confusion and misinformation rather than allowing us to find some common ground on which we can build a discussion.

Over generalising is better than splitting hairs? That's pretty subjective. Most of the sub-sub-subcategories of fantasy are arguably a load of BS, but YMMV. I know they exist, I just don't necessarily buy into them, because they lead to hair-splitting, chinstroking threads like this where there's no good term to explain a very common concept.

 

[hong]

Incidentally, when are we going to see Bigby's Bitch Slap? Isn't it an obvious avenue?

Ooh, AND it's alliterative! A winnar = yuo!

WTF is the problem with eladrin, ppl. It sounds a helluva lot better than yugoloth, tanar'ri, baatezu or a zillion other stupid D&D names I could think of. Can we get back to complaining about the erinyes now? kthxb