D&D (2024) No Appendix N Equivalent?

[Paul Farquhar]

AFAIK they have never wasted ‘pages’ on inspirational lists. The appendix was only half a page in 1e DMG, and 1 page in 5e PHB.

And the one in 5e was a wasted page. The 1e one was useful because the genre was obscure in 1979 and there was no internet where you could look it up.

What’s so divisive about it? People make it divisive because they apparently are unable to understand what the appendix is, even though it’s literally stated on the page.

If you can't understand why either the inclusion, or exclusion, of Conan (for example) would be highly divisive, then it's a good job you aren't making books for WotC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've used all of them, plus Treasure Island, the Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Tailspin, Se7en, Scream, Agatha Christie, the Godfather and dozens of other things. The last thing the DMG should be doing is trying to limit player's imagination by telling them what is and is not suitable for D&D.

What does a list of suggestions do to limit anyone?

 

[Immeril]

And the one in 5e was a wasted page. The 1e one was useful because the genre was obscure in 1979 and there was no internet where you could look it up.

If you can't understand why either the inclusion, or exclusion, of Conan (for example) would be highly divisive, then it's a good job you aren't making books for WotC.

IMHO, full or even double page art spreads are wasted pages in an RPG book. But I don't like speaking in absolutes because I understand why other people would like them.
Stating that Conan is bad doesn't nullify it's influence on the creation of D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It isnt that "all literature is equal". It is that diverse approaches to fantasy are legitimate.

Yes. That's why you give several different examples of possible sources, for different ideas, to give others a model both for each of those individual things, and for how to do the same thing themselves.

Unless the list is sprawling and encyclopedic, any kind of "abbreviated" "essential" is defacto gatekeeping.

Citations, please. This is not objective fact. It's exactly the point in contention. You keep saying this. Until it's actually established to be true, your argument boils down to claiming victory by insistence.

For example, I was looking thru the Star Frontiers "gate keeping". Some of the authors I love are there, like Asimov, Norton, and Bradbury. But some of the scifi authors I love are missing, like Stasheff. And some on the list I dont particularly care for.

So obviously it's completely useless to help show people the ways they can put together their own lists?

Meanwhile, most of the list is from a half a century ago. None of them are talking about accelerating technology, which is something scifi today needs to think about a.s.a.p.

If you don't think Asimov considered the effects of accelerating technology, I'm not really sure what to tell you, but that's frankly beside the point. This is a complete non-sequitur, because again, it depends on this idea that every list is always, necessarily, inherently a condemnation of anything that isn' ton the list and a command from on high to never ever think about anything else but this one list.

It isn't, it never has been, and anyone who actually cared about teaching new DMs--which is something I care very much about--would not write it that way. So it'd be really nice if you'd stop putting words in my mouth and accusing me of condemning anything at all, because that is literally the exact opposite of the point.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What does a list of suggestions do to limit anyone?

What does it do to HELP anyone play D&D?

If you can answer that, you have also answered your own question.

 

[Immeril]

What does a list of suggestions do to limit anyone?

Acoording to @Paul Farquhar:

Because people who play D&D are massively literal. If it’s not on the list it ain’t D&D. As already stated, it’s just people looking for reassurance that the stuff they like is the RIGHT kind of inspiration.

 

[Immeril]

What does it to to HELP anyone play D&D?

If you can answer that, you have also answered your own question.

What do art spreads do to HELP us play D&D?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's exactly the point in contention.

If it's a point of contention that it's a point of contention, then it is clearly a point of contention.

QED

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What do art spreads do to HELP us play D&D?

Nothing. Pretty pictures help to sell glossy books though.

And the art is also highly divisive. See the arguments over the wizard illustration in the PHB.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What does it to to HELP anyone play D&D?

If you can answer that, you have also answered your own question.

I have already answered. Several times. People benefit from having models, guidance, and explanation for how and why those models were put together and what they personally can do to build their own models.

Having a list on ENWorld or D&D Beyond or whatever else? Totally useless for the vast majority of people who pick up a DMG. They'll guaranteed never see it. That's the critical problem with this alternative. The vast majority will never see it, so it is completely wasted effort.

By instead having a section about developing YOUR OWN campaign thematics, finding YOUR OWN sources and concepts, you can show people how someone else did that process. This arms them to go through that process themselves. Perhaps they'll use some of the same resources you did. Perhaps they won't. Perhaps they'll go read or watch or listen or whatever, to see if it would help them. Perhaps it will help them realize this process is personal, rather than passed down from on high--especially if you emphasize how personal this process is when it's done well. Etc.

What about this is gatekeeping? Why do these suggestions and advice LIMIT people?