Who are Howard and Leiber?

[The Grackle]

Another similarity between D&D magic and Dying Earth's is that there were only a limited number of spells, created long ago, that all wizards learned, shared, traded, or kept secret. A common pool of spells. This changed in D&D, and now it's not unheard of for a wizard to create a new spell, but pretty much they are all pulling from the same catalog.

 

[Voadam]

I have to admit, I've never picked up a Leiber story in my life. And I'm a pretty ardent SF reader. Just, not an ardent reader of things written several decades before I was born. I loved Conan, and lots of other pulp fantasy, but, really, why shouldn't DnD change with the times?

I think the fact that DnD is moving farther and farther away from its origins is a good thing. Why should I be stuck playing in a game where magic in no way resembles what I'm reading? Pretty much every fantasy novel you pick up today has pervasive magic that is used by nearly everyone. So, if I'm coming off of those novels, into DnD, wouldn't I be pretty disappointed to find out that my DM considers a +1 sword to be the rarest of finds for a 10th level character?

I started playing in the 80s and I have never read a Vance fantasy novel. So for over 20 years and four editions of D&D I've played with a magic system that "in no way resembles what I'm reading" in fantasy novels. There have been various options for various ways to do things differently since back then as well but I think the game should be based and evolve more around what works for a game more than trying to mimick the style of any particular book or genre.

For instance I'm primarily happy with the sorcerer class in 3e because it dispenses with the game issues of lots of time for high level spell prep, not because it mimicks any particular novel I've read.

 

[The Grackle]

I think that back in the day D&D had to reference fantasy books so people could get what the game was all about. Now, I don't think that's necessary. D&D has enough material on it's own that a newcomer could get it w/o ever reading a classic fantasy book (or a current one). I don't think that's bad, b/c I don't think the game was ever trying to mimic those stories so much as draw from some of the same fantasy conventions.

The younger generation of D&D players have A LOT more fantasy than we did- in movies, TV, video games, and books. They don't really have to hunt down books by old authors in the back of the DMG to get their fix. Most of them aren't going to read Leiber, but there are so many more of them, I'm sure the Grey Mouser will never be forgotten. No worries here.

 

[Blustar]

Well, about Howard, et. al. being an influence on younger readers, I remember when I was a teenager in the 90s I went all out to track down Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, and Lovecraft. I mean, heck, Leiber was reprinted by White Wolf's imprint not too long ago. I had to work at tracking down original Howard stories though, and at the time, it was all mixed with De Camp stories. At any rate, this stuff still has a much more profound influence on me and my D&D gaming than Tolkien or any modern writer has (though I love Guy Gavriel Kay's and Patricia McKillip's stories).

The point is, to make a blanket assumption that young gamers are going to lose these influences or not seek out these influences is bull. If the stuff is out there, and the word is out there, young people will seek these stories out. I did. Lots of my gaming friends did. To just throw up your hands and say "Well! Kids don't read this stuff! There's no point to referencing these stories at all!" just makes sure that these fundamental influences are flat-out lost. Talk. Young people do listen. Give them at least some credit. Sheesh.

First off I would suggest reading a lot more Tolkien, until your eyes bleed! Howard is great, and Leiber, yadayadayada, but please don't fall into the "snob" trap that all these other author's are somehow superior to Tolkien. (They are not!!! )
Unfortunately, I am a high school teacher and I would have to concur it doesn't make a difference with our current youngen's because more than half of them can't even read a book written by Howard, Vance, or even Tolkien. Sad but very, very true. You , I would say, are an exception to the rule. The level of reading comprehension ( at 12th grade!!!) these kids come in with is very depressing and demoralizing. (and I teach in an affluent district!)
I think D&D should keep to its roots or they will lose their old fan base who care little for "new" fantasy. But financially it might be better to cater to the "younger" generation but of course I will not be playing "Modern" D&D flavor because most, not all, recent fantasy works leave me high and dry. Anyways, here's hoping D&D doesn't abandon "Ye Olde Myths"!

regards,

Alex

 

[Akrasia]

... For example, someone mentioned the Conan reprints along with Howard's other work. The bad news is only the first book sold very well. The others have been... troubled from what I've heard on various posts and boards.

Well that's disappointing to hear. Of course, claims made in posts and boards should be taken with a boulder of salt. I hope it's not true.

 

[The Grackle]

But why? My point is that people, young people can and do find these classics out and read them regardless if they're in print or not

Agreed. "A Princess of Mars" came out in 1917, and how many of us have read it? The first Conan story came out in the early 30s. Some of the kids today are going to find this stuff and keep it alive.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Agreed. "A Princess of Mars" came out in 1917, and how many of us have read it? The first Conan story came out in the early 30s. Some of the kids today are going to find this stuff and keep it alive.

And if you discovered that over say, 70% of the readers didn't read that book or the Conan one, would you feel that your point was valid or that more people needed to go out and read those books? Just asking because I have no idea what the actual % would be, but John Carter of Mars and Tarzan are other books that go in and out of print all the time.

 

[Mark CMG]

And the Lankhimar stuff was the early 80's no? There was a comic book series by First I believe and other good stuff for Laknhimar, in addition to actually being in print and easy to find.

Times change.

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&....com&sitesearch=acaeum.com&q=Lankhmar&spell=1


http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/Fritz_Leiber.htm

 

[The Grackle]

And if you discovered that over say, 70% of the readers didn't read that book or the Conan one, would you feel that your point was valid or that more people needed to go out and read those books? Just asking because I have no idea what the actual % would be, but John Carter of Mars and Tarzan are other books that go in and out of print all the time.

No I think it would be valid. As long as they are never entirely forgotten, I'm happy.

I'm not of the opinion that other people have to or should read the books that I love. They don't appeal to everyone, and that's okay. If they did appeal to everyone they'd never go out of print. And books that, apparently, do appeal to everyone, like Harry Potter, I don't really like.

Basically, I don't get mad that everyone doesn't share my taste in books.

Also I don't get mad that D&D doesn't conform to my (admittedly narrow) taste in fantasy books. (That's what Grim Tales is for.)
-----------------------------------


What I'm curious about is how many new fantasy books have actually been influenced by D&D. Either because they were written by roleplayers, or certain elements just sort of leaked out into the collective mind.

I've definitely read some... not so great books that were like reading boring campaign notes.

 

[rogueattorney]

What I'm curious about is how many new fantasy books have actually been influenced by D&D. Either because they were written by roleplayers, or certain elements just sort of leaked out into the collective mind.

China Mieville (Perdido Street Station, The Scar, Iron Council) was definitely influenced by D&D, and has said so in various interviews. Many of his monsters aren't too far removed from the original Fiend Folio.

I like this quote in particular:

They were immediately and absolutley recognizable as adventurers... They were hardy and dangerous, lawless, stripped of allegiance or morality, living off their wits, stealing and killing, hiring themselves out to whoever and whatever came... Most were nothing but tomb raiders. They were scum who died violent deaths, hanging on to a certain cachet among the impressionable through their undeniable bravery and occasionally impressive exploits. China Mieville, Perdido Street Station

I'm certain there are dozens of others, but he was the first that came to mind.

R.A.