Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Hussar]

It's fine to examine the conceits, it's just that some of the attempts to "fix" these inconsistencies and idiosyncracies involve a cure worse than the disease.

I don't know what version of the game you play on the moon, but down here on earth, D&D's implied setting is firmly rooted in sword and sorcery fantasy.

Pardon?

How many elves are there in Conan? Or dwarves? Ho... I mean Halflings? How many wizard protagonists are there in Sword and sorcery fiction? How many intelligent races? When is the last time you saw a spell casting, talking dragon in pulp S&S? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons after all.

How many spell casting priests are there? Bards? No? Paladins then. Surely there must be paladins in there?

How many times did Conan walk around in magical armor, with a magical shield, swinging a magical sword, shooting a magical bow, all the while wearing a magical helmet that protected his mind? All at the same time?

Because, on the Earth that most games get played on, this is EXACTLY what happens.

You can get as snarky as you like, but, trying to pass off your personal views of the game as any sort of fact is ludicrous. Yes, DnD takes inspiration from Sword and Sorcery fantasy. I do not deny that all all. But, ignoring the HUGE amount of the game that has zero to do with SnS is just blind.

 

[rounser]

How many elves are there in Conan? Or dwarves? Ho... I mean Halflings? How many wizard protagonists are there in Sword and sorcery fiction? How many intelligent races? When is the last time you saw a spell casting, talking dragon in pulp S&S? The game is called Dungeons and Dragons after all.

Oh my, Conan lacks elves! What about King of Elfland's Daughter or (of course) Lord of the Rings? D&D is notorious for taking material from one (1) example in novels at a time, such as Vancian magic, Leiber theives guilds, Moorcockian chaos/law and those trolls and paladin from that Holger book (Three Hearts and Three Lions?). And then there's mythology, which is chockers with dark elves, dwarves, boggits, guttersnipes, what have you. Smaug talks and halflings are borrowed from Tolkien's hobbits, but I expect you're going to tell me that Tolkien "isn't S&S fantasy". Ho hum.

Now you're going to get all genre nazi on me, and tell me how Conan is the only true example of S&S fantasy, and that Tolkien is epic fantasy, Moorcock dark fantasy etc. Save it, you'd just be blowing hot air. I encompass all of the above in my definition of S&S fantasy, and it's a necessary descriptor because otherwise people make nonsense out of D&D's implied setting being "big F" Fantasy, which encompasses everything from Alice in Wonderland to Fantasia (and yes, I know about those Greyhawk modules that went to a D&Desque wonderland, but that was a special occasion, a bit like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and far from a typical example of the implied setting).

You cannot win this point except by splitting hairs on definitions, but I expect you'll try.

 

[Hussar]

encompass all of the above in my definition of S&S fantasy

Ok, now this makes things make a little more sense. It's not a case of being limited to one sub-genre, rather you are inventing new definitions of names. Sorry, but, under no circumstance have I ever seen Tolkein referred to as Sword and Sorcery fiction. I was working under the assumption that in a discussion of genre, we would actually use the words as they are meant to be used, not inventing new definitions.

Also, I would certainly never equate mythology with S&S fiction.

To me, DnD has always been Big F Fantasy as you call it. I have never been under the assumption that we were to limit ourselves to dead authors. While Conan is certainly not the only example of S&S fantasy, he is a well known one Leiber also comes to mind. As do a few others. But, I don't place them in the same genre as Tolkein either.

 

[rounser]

To me, DnD has always been Big F Fantasy as you call it.

I put it to you that D&D is a lousy choice for handling "big F" Fantasy, because it's clearly so specialised towards pseudomedieval shenanigans involving wizards and warriors running around slaying fantasy monsters with swords and spells, drawing it's "mythic resonance" from the tropes associated with that (i.e. "the genre formerly known as sword & sorcery fantasy").

I doubt "big F" Fantasy would benefit from any rules at all, being so broad, setting non-specific and potentially so nonsensical or surreal.

 

[Hussar]

I doubt "big F" Fantasy would benefit from any rules at all, being so broad, setting non-specific and potentially so nonsensical or surreal.

Potentially, true. But, then again, I include all fantasy in big F fantasy. From Tarzan to Fantasia. All of fantasy is a good source for inspiration, not simply as small subset of the genre.

Or, look at it another way. Would you call Dracula S&S fantasy? To me, that's stretching the word beyond any recognition. Dracula is solidly 19th century Romance. Yet, Ravenloft is one of the more successful settings out there. It draws very little from what you call S&S fantasy, yet does pretty well. Planescape as well draws almost nothing from what you call S&S fantasy, yet is not considered a bad setting. Mystara, one of the very first settings, featured six shooter pistol crossbows, flying ships and loads of magic. And that was based on OD&D. Spelljammer is another example of a setting which owes very little to what you are calling S&S.

The idea that there are good and bad inspirations for a game is simply not true. While there are inspirations I personally might not like, I would never say that my tastes are any objective measure of value. To me, the best thing that designers have done with the current incarnation of D&D is remove as much as possible of any "implied" setting, thus allowing exploration into other settings without the rules constantly getting in the way.

 

[rounser]

To me, the best thing that designers have done with the current incarnation of D&D is remove as much as possible of any "implied" setting, thus allowing exploration into other settings without the rules constantly getting in the way.

I don't get you. The classes, races, spells, and assumptions about pseudomedieval technology level equipment & pseudomedieval S&S fantasy demographics in some world littered with dungeons and monsters are all still firmly entrenched in the PHB and DMG. Those things, along with what the contents of the monster manuals imply are wandering around in a D&D world, describe the implied setting. They can be switched out for other stuff (or more commonly, tweaked and/or extended), but the implied setting is still there, more or less intact.

 

[Hussar]

I don't get you. The classes, races, spells, and assumptions about pseudomedieval technology level equipment & pseudomedieval S&S fantasy demographics in some world littered with dungeons and monsters are all still firmly entrenched in the PHB and DMG. Those things, along with what the contents of the monster manuals imply are wandering around in a D&D world, describe the implied setting. They can be switched out for other stuff (or more commonly, tweaked and/or extended), but the implied setting is still there, more or less intact.

The reason you aren't understanding is because you have defined S&S as such an enormous genre that it encompasses pretty much every fantasy novel written in the past century. If S&S is defined so broadly as to include Howard, Tolkein, Moorcock and Leiber in the same genre, then the label is more or less meaningless.

The implied setting as you call it, defined by the classes, demographics and Monster Manual looks absolutely nothing like any of the above authors. Howard was low fantasy, sword and sorcery in its true meaning, as was Leiber. About the only thing they have in common with Tolkein's works are technological level. Moorcock is all over the place, some fairly low fantasy S&S stuff like the Warhound and the World's Pain while much of it is absolutely high fantasy like the Chronicles of Corum and Elric.

If you think that that's an implied setting, then, well, I guess I'd have to agree with you. If you include the definition to mean so many different forms, then, sure, DND will do it. But, if you include those four authors, then what reason do you have to exclude newer authors like Donaldson, Tad Williams, and, yes, Rowlings? What about these novels, for you, removes them from this uber-genre you've created? About the only difference I can see is the fact that the latter three are all still alive.

 

[rounser]

But, if you include those four authors, then what reason do you have to exclude newer authors like Donaldson, Tad Williams, and, yes, Rowlings? What about these novels, for you, removes them from this uber-genre you've created? About the only difference I can see is the fact that the latter three are all still alive.

Um...maybe because I haven't said I exclude them from it, so you're tilting at windmills?

Rowling's Harry Potter fits better into something I personally call "contemporary fantasy", and includes stuff like Buffy and Charmed...lots of S&S fantasy stuff hidden in a modern world setting. I don't know what other people call it.

 

[Hussar]

Now I really am confused.

What is the beef then with DND becoming self reflexive? Many, many fantasy authors are doing precisely that. I picked Tad Williams for precisely that reason - a fantasy author who creates worlds where magic is both very "scientific" and still cool. The War of the Flowers is a good example of this. As is, to some extent, the Dragonbone Chair series. He doesn't handwave elements that don't make sense, he actually goes out of his way to examine them.

Granted, Harry Potter's world is more contemporary, but, only sort of. Since the school has no elements from the Muggle world, technology is right out. No guns, no computers. But, there are frequently magic parallels to the same thing. The school is massively warded (something every DnD player should relate to), houses fantastic amounts of magic, magic is repeatable and more or less predictable, monsters are suitably monstrous.

In what way ISN'T Harry Potter like a bog standard DnD campaign other than the fact that Harry doesn't kill as much stuff? If Harry Potter was written for an adult audience, say a Wizard University, then it would likely look an awful lot like DnD.

 

[rounser]

What is the beef then with DND becoming self reflexive? Many, many fantasy authors are doing precisely that. I picked Tad Williams for precisely that reason - a fantasy author who creates worlds where magic is both very "scientific" and still cool. The War of the Flowers is a good example of this. As is, to some extent, the Dragonbone Chair series. He doesn't handwave elements that don't make sense, he actually goes out of his way to examine them.

Yes, and you can find examples of where psionics takes the place of magic in S&S fantasy, so some would argue that it's as legitimate to the genre as magic is. Or S&S fantasy that involves sci fi or renaissance technology, or whatever...

Besides, in Tad Williams' case, he has free rein to make an internally consistent world, whereas D&D doesn't have that luxury because it has elements that are only there because they're useful to allow D&D to be played as a game. Exploring the implications of them will only draw D&D further away from relevance to anyone but hardcore gamer types, but hey, you probably like stuff on your pizza that I don't.

I just don't think that your idea is going to serve to help D&D any, just harm it.