D&D General Exploring new locations for an Appendix N

[bedir than]

In the past D&D listed the Appendix N in the back. It was a large bundle of inspiring materials, absent from direct connections to various archetypes or concepts. Within Dragon magazine and various other essays official creators with TSR/WotC might share a more specific set of inspirations behind a class or a monster, but never within the books (this may be due to the fears related to repeating Deities & Demigods or Hobbits, etc).

But what if a class, species, monster, etc included its inspirations as a footnote?

Want to learn more about what a 5e 2024 Goliath is? Check the associated footnotes, which would likely include a lot of past WotC/TSR material, but also partner organizations, books, comics, video games, card games and movies.

Citing sources in academic literature helps gain readership of old material. Web 1.0 was built on crosslinking (imagine a small author getting linked on DnDBeyond!). Should creators not-WotC share their inspirations in line? as footnotes? at the end of the document?

 

[Parmandur]

Appendix N was really neat in the context of the 70s, when book recommendations could be hard to come by (still true in the 90s when I was a kod!), but now it might bot be worth the trouble for WotC to do one, unfortunately.

 

[Scribe]

I'm a big fan of calling out such references.

I don't know about footnotes, but I am a fan of very basic page design.

 

[bedir than]

When I release backgrounds and subclasses on my blog I always mention the inspirations, but usually in a section at the bottom.

I may shift that to an in-line mention with links when relevant.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

If WotC was explicit about all of their influences, what would the faculty of comparative mythology departments have to talk about in their abundant spare time?