Of Roads, and Rome, and the Soul of D&D

[pawsplay]

So? It isn't as if being borrowed should discount them. It simply suggests that the "soul" was established early, and transferred from early games to later. You somehow expect it to be different than that? Like each would have it's own soul, developed independently, but they'd somehow be the same? Unless you can time travel, this is what you'd expect to see - the soul being passed down over time, with modifications as it goes. Hobby reincarnation, if you will.

The relationship is reciprocal insofar as the game's real "sacred cows" are generally not new, but old. In terms of outright iconic critters, it seems to me the majority, the things that pop into people's minds first, come from the early days, not the later days.

Except that lineage only extends back as far as AD&D. Thus, the bulk of my formative D&D experiences do not include many of those supposed sacred cows. The Red Box was probably the hottest selling D&D product of all time; my experience is not unusual.

So from my standpoint, the "sacred cows" are new, not old. I'm not sure if you're just not understanding what I'm saying or what, but the "reincarnation" you are talking about does not travel through one of the most popular, if not the most popular, editions of D&D ever published.

To my eye, this sinks your point, rather than supports it. To me, 2/3 is beyond a solid majority. While not literally 99%, the spirit is there. Pick a monster at random, and chances are good that it crosses the edition boundaries.

Say only 2/3 of the BECMI monsters are in AD&D. Now, what percentage of AD&D monsters are in BECMI? AD&D has a much larger published bestiary. If you have 68 BECMI monsters, 129 shared monsters, and another 143 (for instance) AD&D monsters, then only 129 out of 340 monsters are shared, which means any given random monster is LESS than 50% likely to cross the edition boundaries. Once you throw in 4e, forget about it. And 143 AD&D monsters is a random number I just came up; it's probably a paltry estimate. There is a Monstrous Compendium for each AD&D setting. The Creature Catalog forum hosted on this site is, if you will pardon the expression, monstrous.

So "chances are good that it crosses the edition boundaries" is very likely false. If you pick a particularly well-known monster, it actually gets worse, because "iconic" creatures like the drow and the devilish hordes were almost never backported to BECMI. So even saying that's true for entire editions of D&D is false, which is a pretty generous interpretation of "the spirit." I'm pretty sure "the spirit" should include specific campaigns, because we are talking about the soul of D&d experience, not the sum of the D&D pantry.

So when you say

In terms of outright iconic critters, it seems to me the majority, the things that pop into people's minds first, come from the early days, not the later days.

I'm betting your thinking things like: drow, death knight, Asmodeus, draconian, roper, umber hulk, silver dragon, Tiamat, Bahamut, slaad, otyugh, rot grub, tiefling, modron, flumph, kuo-toa, sahaugin, mind flayer, intellect devourer, piercer, etc. and you just aren't registering that none of those things exist in the Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[Umbran]

I'm betting your thinking things like: drow, death knight, Asmodeus, draconian, roper, umber hulk, silver dragon, Tiamat, Bahamut, slaad, otyugh, rot grub, tiefling, modron, flumph, kuo-toa, sahaugin, mind flayer, intellect devourer, piercer, etc. and you just aren't registering that none of those things exist in the Rules Cyclopedia.

You'd have lost your bet.

Tieflings I had hardly heard of before 4e. Draconians, as far as I am concerned, are particular to one setting, and so couldn't be part of the general soul. Any particular unique critter (Asmodeus, Bahamut, etc.) is not likely to show up in any particular game, and so again, could not be part of the basic "soul".

Only two of those were in my mind (drow and mind flayers). I was thinking things more basic to the experience, like orcs and dragons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was thinking rust monsters, owlbears, bugbears, gnolls (for starters).

I have no problem with the idea that the "iconic monster pool" becomes larger over time. Grells are cool. Gricks are cool. Fezzes are cool. If I was running Rules Cyclopedia, I'd add them in a heartbeat.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Say only 2/3 of the BECMI monsters are in AD&D. Now, what percentage of AD&D monsters are in BECMI? AD&D has a much larger published bestiary.

I don't see that as a problem. I am not looking to define a set where, "If you have this specific bunch of monsters, you're D&D. If you don't, you aren't."

As I've said before, this is an issue akin to genre definition. You don't have to have some exact specific set of elements to be in a genre - you just have to have enough of the many commonly elements, and use them in genre-appropriate ways. Missing elements does not knock you out of the genre, unless it comes to the pont where you have so few of the common elements that the influence isn't obvious. You can have a Western where no horses appear, and still have it be recognized as a Western.

Does the Rules Cyclopedia have a lot of monsters a 3e player would recognize? Yes? Then it probably fits the genre.

Genres change over time, the list of elements allowed often grows (until someone can seriously discuss The Dresden Files not as urban fantasy, but as pulp/noir/gumeshoe). That's okay, as it doesn't mean that the old examples no longer fit the genre.

 

[pawsplay]

I was thinking things more basic to the experience, like orcs and dragons.

Does the Rules Cyclopedia have a lot of monsters a 3e player would recognize? Yes? Then it probably fits the genre.

And so does Warhammer Fantasy, Palladium, The Arcanum, Shadowrun, Swordbearer, Lord of the Rings, etc. If the "soul of D&D" is orcs and dragons, then the soul of D&D is nothing more than genre fantasy. I can certainly agree that D&D does fall into the category of generic fantasy, and to some extent has shaped that genre. I do not agree that "iconic D&D monsters" are what make something recognizably D&D. Many versions of D&D lack them (including Krynn, Dark Sun, and Mystara, three of the big ships in the fleet), while other games happily pastiche them or draw from the same sources (Warhammer, Swordbearer, etc.). I reject the idea that D&D A Mighty Fortress is "less D&D" because it lacks many of the usual creatures and races; on the contrary, it is very much the most D&D version of a swashbuckling setting ever published.

As I have pretty exhaustively criticized that criterion from my perspective, I will offer a competing criterion:

- D&D generally includes weird and fantastical monsters that draw on a mix of fairy tale, ethnographic, and SF/Fantasy sources for inspiration and re-interprets them as inhabitants of a world that is a crossroads of supernatural activity

That would include somes games that are not D&D, but would not exclude any that I believe are. It does disfavor things such as the AD&D A Mighty Fortress campaign, but does not outright exclude them.

 

[Umbran]

If the "soul of D&D" is orcs and dragons, then the soul of D&D is nothing more than genre fantasy.

I didn't say the soul of D&D is orcs and dragons. I have already said I am not sure the soul of D&D exists at all. I am saying that, if it exists, the soul of D&D includes orcs and dragons.

I'm thinking pantries, remember - orcs and dragons are common elements used in many D&D games, but don't need to be in all of them.

But, then again, the soul of D&D may also be genre fantasy, and that's about it. I don't think I'd prickle too much at that idea, and I don't mind if other fantasy games share a soul with D&D. The body and spirit/personality may change with games, and between campaign settings and individual campaigns. I may even wind up favoring that idea.

 

[pawsplay]

I didn't say the soul of D&D is orcs and dragons. I have already said I am not sure the soul of D&D exists at all. I am saying that, if it exists, the soul of D&D includes orcs and dragons.

I think that suggests against the likelihood of discovering a "soul" of D&D, by your criteria, since everything includes dragons, and D&D seems to work fine without orcs.

On the other hand, I'm going go with: if the soul of D&D exists at all, it probably has very little do with a specifc bestiary, since that doesn't seem to relate one D&D to another, or reliably differentiate non-D&D branded games from D&D-branded games. I mean, seriously, I mainly stopped buying DDM because the boosters were full of monsters that not only didn't fit in my campaign world, but that I was not inclined to include if given the opportunity.

You seem to have very specific ideas about the nature of a soul you're not sure exists.

 

[Umbran]

I think that suggests against the likelihood of discovering a "soul" of D&D, by your criteria, since everything includes dragons, and D&D seems to work fine without orcs.

In the pantry form, that's okay. You can share elements across different pantries, just like fictional genres have some overlap.

On the other hand, I'm going go with: if the soul of D&D exists at all, it probably has very little do with a specifc bestiary, since that doesn't seem to relate one D&D to another, or reliably differentiate non-D&D branded games from D&D-branded games.

You seem to have very specific ideas about the nature of a soul you're not sure exists.

Well, you have some very specific ideas about it, too. From what you say above, it must differentiate D&D from other games. I am not convinced that's required.

In order to exist at all, the soul of D&D must extend over several things that are clearly not exactly the same game. In the process, it may also include under its umbrella things that have not been marketed under the D&D name.

 

[pawsplay]

From what you say above, it must differentiate D&D from other games. I am not convinced that's required.

Unless D&D includes everything that has ever existed in the universe, it logically must differentiate it in some way. There may or may not be useful yes/no criteria, but there must be some kind of criteria. Otherwise you can't tell your donkeyhorse from the bend of your arm.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pawsplay, I accept your counter-proposal as superior to my proposal.