D&D (2024) No Appendix N Equivalent?

[EzekielRaiden]

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

QED

....the fact that it is in contention means you can't use it as the basis for why you're right and someone else is wrong. That's called circular reasoning.

Which is what was to be demonstrated. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Acoording to @Paul Farquhar:

Ah. Didn't see that post.

I think that's a load of horseradish.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Stating that Conan is bad doesn't nullify it's influence on the creation of D&D

No, it does not. But would you choose to include it on a reading list for new (and mostly young) player’s because it was a big influence on early D&D? Or would you leave it out on the basis that it is unsuitable? And how does knowing about the history of the game actually help new young players play to game? Do you need to know the history of golf to be able to play golf?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Today an "Appendix N" is impossible. It would need to mention almost every scifi (including fantasy) novel that people read today, and even more importantly every movie and tv series.

Nah.

Games have been doing similar for decades, and they still do - the very recent and excellent Mothership does, for example.

It doesn't have to exhaustive, and obviously silly business to pretend that it does. You could just list some representative work through time, which wouldn't even be hard to do. I'm unsurprised to hear WotC have eliminated this, though, because from a cynical perspective, it points people outside the "WotC ecosystem", and gets people doing stuff that isn't paying WotC, so why would they include it?

Nothing. Pretty pictures help to sell glossy books though.

I feel like this is the attitude of a man very far divorced from his childhood or even youth.

Art might not help you to play an RPG, but I think it does help an awful lot of people to get a sense of what the game is supposed to be like, what the vibe is, gives them some fire for their imaginations, and so on. That can be huge, and it can significantly impact the success of games, frankly. I don't think Planescape would have been much more than a blip without DiTerlizzi back in the day, and I really doubt the original World of Darkness would have done anywhere near as well without several artists, but particularly the now-seemingly-vanished Joshua Gabriel Timbrook.

My contention is that art absolutely helps you to play RPGs, by firing your imagination and sending it in particular directions. Text descriptions will never match brilliant art for that. That's one of the ways 2024 is doing the right thing.

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

Among whom is it divisive? Grogs? Because that's really the only group I've seen be particularly mad about it. My brother and friends with kids all got them the PHB 2024 and the kids adore it and the art in it - and it's definitely more appealing to them than the 2014 PHB was, which some of them already had. I honestly don't think anyone much under about 35 is moaning about excessively friendly-looking orcs or the like.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

This is just flatly misusing the term "gatekeeping".

Gatekeeping means actively attempting to limit access, and making a list of some significant influences and/or further reading is absolutely not gatekeeping. Claiming that it is doesn't make it so. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the person claiming that doesn't understand what they're reading, and is applying a completely inaccurate and unhelpful interpretation to it.

The only exception would be if the list of influences was prefaced with text essentially stating "These are the sole influences on this work, and represent the only styles and tones appropriate for it to be played in!", which is actually a thing that has happened! But it's the exception, not the rule - I'm trying to remember what pompous and ridiculous RPG did do that (pretty sure it was between 1997 and about 2010).

But the vast majority of Appendix N-type influence lists openly say the exact opposite - they point out that they are not exhaustive, and that in fact, they're merely some examples. To read that as gatekeeping is, at best a failure of basic reading comprehension and media literacy, and at worst, malicious and intentional misrepresentation of what is being said.

You also don't need even need to list actual influences - you can just list stuff that fits the tone and ideas of what you've written.

Even then, is a corporation willing to attach its reputation to authors from a previous century who are sometimes problematic?

I think this is closer to the real reason, but it's still off the mark. It's pretty clear which authors would be "problematic", and you could obviously either acknowledge that, or just skip those. I think the real issue 5E faces is that WotC essentially wants the new 5E (and indeed pretty much all 5E for the last 5+ years) to be family-friendly and PG (not even PG13, really). But any list of fantasy novels, like any list at all, is going to have some stuff on it that some zealous parent is going to find objectionable. And parents are a million times more likely to read or learn of the Appendix N equivalent today than decades ago. If D&D were aiming at older kids or adults, I don't think this would cause WotC to even blink, but because WotC really wants to get younger kids, not teenagers even necessarily, involved in D&D, it is.

 

[Immeril]

No, it does not. But would you choose to include it on a reading list for new (and mostly young) player’s because it was a big influence on early D&D? Or would you leave it out on the basis that it is unsuitable? And how does knowing about the history of the game actually help new young players play to game? Do you need to know the history of golf to be able to play golf?

Golf is an unsuitable analogy here. In the case of most sports, knowing its history doesn’t give an added value to playing because it’s only the current rules that matter. Whereas in RPGs, if players and GMs want to create character backstories and such, inspiration from other sources is an added value (even though it isn’t necessary).

As for Conan: since I never read Howard, I can’t say whether or not I would recommend it to someone else. But since we’re talking about divisive books/authors, and the Star Frontiers suggested reading list was brought up a couple of pages ago: I would, for example, recommend Starship Troopers to my friends. Even though I don’t agree with the general point of view of the author (or at least: the point of view in this particular book), its themes and ideas are still relevant to this day.

 

[delericho]

IMO, the value of a list like that is less for the "big hitters", and more about the smaller titles that someone might not be aware of: while GRRM, JRRT, and Pratchett would obviously have their place on the list, something like "The Black Company" is less likely to be known, and worth the shout out.

That said, while it's a shame it isn't there, I can well understand WotC not including a list. In particular, it's really hard to see how Lovecraft could appear on any modern list, and yet his influence on the game is so profound (even now) that omitting him would also be controversial.

WOTC is avoiding controversy and so it makes sense they don't include a list of media, Lots of older fantasy has issues.

Not just older fantasy, and WotC themselves aren't entirely innocent - they've had missteps in "Tomb of Annihilation", and the original printing of "Spelljammer", and even with the fixes to the Vistani in newer printings, there are still issues with "Curse of Strahd."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Games have been doing similar for decades, and they still do - the very recent and excellent Mothership does, for example

Mothership is very much focused on being only one thing though (like the majority of non-D&D RPGs). So it is perhaps worth pointing out other examples of sci fi horror that are not as well known as Alien.

D&D is more like GURPs though. It’s all things to all people. It might be sci fi horror, it might be Carry on Cleo, and anything in between.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As for Conan: since I never read Howard

I have. I definitely wouldn’t want my grandchildren reading it!

Always remember, WotC are making products that would not be deemed unsuitable for children.

 

[Queer Venger]

There are 2 problems of it for me.

1. There is so much out there including lots of great movies and TV shows that inspiration can be pulled from that I don't think there is as much use for it and they would also end up leaving out so much good stuff.

2. I think it is better to not define D&D that much and let people be define it for themselves based on the descriptions and artwork.

If it were to have such a list I think a great rule would be to have no works that are less than 100 years old and prioritize ones that are much older than that. Esp. if they are the first known inspirations of some themes and ideas like our oldest fae folklore and such.

this.
My appendix N may not be your appendix N.