Who are Howard and Leiber?

[Felon]

Well, imagine my surprise to see a quote from me become the basis of a multi-page thread.

Once upon a time, you could possibly make the assumption that Howard and Leiber were read widely amongst the youths who would be interested in D&D. That time has long since passed.

Howard and Leiber are two names I dropped specifically because they preceded D&D and had a clear influence on what the genre was for the folks who got the game off the ground. If you want to insert a couple of other modern names like Jordan or Martin for a more young, hip fantasy crowds, feel free. The point about D&D slowly developing into more of a slow video game than being influenced by literature or cinema remains.

I look at my (extensive) book shelves, and I see names like Robin Hobb, Anne Bishop, Terry Pratchett, Jennifer Roberson, George R.R. Martin, Steven Erikson and Lynn Flewelling. The range of worlds these authors have created is astonishing. This is what the people of today are reading. There are some who will go back into the past and dig up the classics of yesteryear, but [ED we can't assume that people will read the books of the past. D&D cannot afford to ignore that.

Well, I don't know who any of those folks are besides Martin, and I didn't really enjoy his stuff. All the same, I will bet that D&D's designers aren't paying any of those folks any heed either, so if the basis of this thread is to take a deconstructive approach to my comments, what's your point? D&D cannot afford to be inaccessible to fantasy fans, whether that be a fan of Conan or Scribbledeedoo the earthy priestess-heroine of some other more modern and politically-sensible fantasy series. Specific names had little to do with what I was discussing.

Cannot Janelle of the Dark Jewels trilogy create her own magic rings - and Elayne do likewise in the Wheel of Time?

Is the creation of a magic item special in those worlds, Merric, or does everyone have an extensive panoply of magic toys? So much so that possessions eventually eclipse the characters who possess them? Is there some point where every major character, from barbarian to wizard, can take to the sky with a ring of flying like they were in the Legion of Superheroes? Is every major character individually more wealthy than the GNP of the three richest countries of their world? Are there adventures ultimately free of any consequences--death included--other than monetary expenses? Are they solving every mystery with the casting of a spell and then teleporting to wherever they need to go so they can cut to the chase, eliminate the boring stuff, and get down to what matters: blowing stuff up and killing things?

Now, I have to be clear here: those questions are more of a rhetorical nature. Their purpose is to be demonstrative, not inquisitive. I say this because I expect the usual battery of deconstructive response from folks iif not necessarily Merric, quoting each sentence above individually and picking nits and going on about rule zero, etc. rather than actually trying to address the actual source of my consternation--namely, that D&D is adopting the conventions of a video game. That's not healthy, because no matter what lengths the designers go to provide easy methods of removing long-term consequences for players' actions, no matter how much they encourage a "cut-to-the-chase" mentality, the pace of RPG's just don't move fast enough to compete with that market.

Moreover, removing those long-term consequences and cutting to the chase constantly does decrease its accessibility for some, even to someone like me who's been playing a long time. Now, how many "some" represents is wide open to speculation.

 

[MerricB]

As I partially mention above, video games have adopted the conventions of D&D! From the early days of D&D, it was essential for PCs to get the biggest magic weapon they could find, just because of things like golems and demons that couldn't be hurt otherwise!

And I'd say that D&D has indeed been influenced back - the slot form of magic items is a convenient way of representing it in computer games, but as with all good game design, it has been adapted back to D&D because it works.

Design moves both ways.

Are computer games as legitimate an influence on D&D as novels? I'd say so. I do think there's a large chasm between playing a computer game and playing D&D, but I also believe that there's a large chasm between reading a novel and playing D&D.

I don't see the magical item aspect as being overly troubling in of itself. Although it isn't directly presented in that form in most books I know, high levels of magic *are*, and it's just a logical progression from that.

What it is more of an aspect of is the "let's kill everything and have the best PCs for doing that" mentality. When you come down to it, magic items are primarily useful in combat. When the game focuses on that, of course magic items rise in importance.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with that style of play! It's a particularly good one for younger people, just as games like chess are. They hone strategical and tactical thinking, which are useful abilities. Is it video-gamey? Not quite: it's gamey! It's the playing of a game - without too many of the added elements that make D&D more than that.

One of my contentions is that we need to think about what are the elements that go into a good non-combat-based game. We need to explain how to construct adventures that bring the game out of being merely one combat after another.

I can see in the published Eberron adventures the attempt to introduce intrigue into the mix. I've run all of them, and I can now see how woefully it was done. Whispers of the Vampire's Blade is probably the poster child for this - although they all have big problems. WotVB does at least have big set pieces that aren't all about combat - there is investigation and roleplaying to be done. This is great.

WotVB is closest in form to a James Bond adventure. Where it fails is that at no time do the PCs ever get to know what's going on! Thus, the adventure devolves into a set of chases and combats without ever getting the real pay-off of fitting the jigsaw together. Indeed, they never get to address the real cause of the problem - there's a lot of background information that the DM knows, but the PCs never will. I think that's a huge flaw.

I'm sure others can think of more elements that can be added to take D&D away from merely being killing monsters - and that many of you do it all the time. (I may find the DMG2, which I'm still waiting on - stupid, incompetent Wizards Australia! - covers this, though I'd be somewhat surprised).

Cheers!

 

[Turjan]

...rather than actually trying to address the actual source of my consternation--namely, that D&D is adopting the conventions of a video game. That's not healthy, because no matter what lengths the designers go to provide easy methods of removing long-term consequences for players' actions, no matter how much they encourage a "cut-to-the-chase" mentality, the pace of RPG's just on't move fast enough to compete with that market.

The conventions of which computer game? Spending days and weeks tayloring leather armor after leather armor in Ultima Online? Or hunting for virtues in one of the other Ultima titles? Uncovering the whole map of a part of the Sword Coast in Baldur's Gate? Solving gnomish family problems in the sequel? And I can tell you that I'd probably buy a setting book based on Tamriel from the Elder Scrolls, although printing all those books from the games would probably very costly. It's not all bleak; that's why I don't see the video games as the main threat to the flavor of D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

address the actual source of my consternation--namely, that D&D is adopting the conventions of a video game.

Well, in the first instance, I want to say this is WAY off base. Check the link in my sig, and you'll see the first steps of actually translating D&D to take more of a video game feel into account. And I've been working at it for years. The two are FAR different beasts, and even making D&D "more like a videogame" has warranted an entirely new game system that bears only superficial resemblance to D&D.

Video games are simplistic elements of button-pushing that achieve on-screen results. The core of a video game involves pushing a button and getting a reaction, a peg-and-slot kind of formula of mathematical simplicity. In a video game, you advance the plot by pushing buttons. Everything is abstracted -- doing things because "it is a game" is perfectly fine, because the game is the main reason it is being played. Verisimilitude always runs a constant second to the ability of the player to push a button and see pretty lights.

D&D is a complex game of rescource management and strategy wherein the plot adapts to the needs of the party, where the choices of the players drive the story in a demonstrably powerful way. Verismilitude is ac ore concern, and demands a certain complexity from the rules. Everything is made more concrete -- doing things because "it is a game" is only fine if it doesn't ruin the feel that "this is a role-playing game." It is only partially being played to roll dice -- it is also played to tell a story that changes, fluctuates, and moves with the powers and descisions of the players.

D&D is NOWHERE NEAR a video game.

That's not to say that D&D hasn't gained some qualities for feedback, namely in the realm of complexity and miniatures combat. D&D has been made, to some extent, a SIMPLER game by the use of some videogame ideas (such as body slots).

Is the creation of a magic item special in those worlds, Merric, or does everyone have an extensive panoply of magic toys? So much so that possessions eventually eclipse the characters who possess them? Is there some point where every major character, from barbarian to wizard, can take to the sky with a ring of flying like they were in the Legion of Superheroes? Is every major character individually more wealthy than the GNP of the three richest countries of their world? Are there adventures ultimately free of any consequences--death included--other than monetary expenses? Are they solving every mystery with the casting of a spell and then teleporting to wherever they need to go so they can cut to the chase, eliminate the boring stuff, and get down to what matters: blowing stuff up and killing things?

You point these out as evidence that D&D has suffered from an inclusion of videogame motifs, but it just doesn't ring true. Extensive panoplies of magic toys have been in every edition of D&D, and they never have taken over from someone who was invested in their own character. Never have video games given carte blanche mobility (because in a videogame, this would be impossible) like an enire flying party. Characters have never been richer than towns becuase towns never have riches in video games -- they are plot devices. The adventures are never free of consequences in a video game, rather the consequences are dictated (while in D&D the conesquences are in the players' hands). Video games don't have divination. They have VERY limited teleportation. What matters is not blowing up stuff and killing things but advancing the plot of the world or developing your character's next ability.

This is not evidence for your main beef. There is nothing in what you have said to support your hypothesis. Video games have none of these symptoms, yet D&D does. It's obviously not video games that are the PROBLEM here. At most, the problem is D&D having too much magic (which has been a beef against it since day 1), at least the problem is you not liking to deal with the complications that lots of magic introduces (and who can really blame you)?

Video games are not the problem.

 

[Hussar]

I would just like to add a further thought to that if I may.

For people coming from different literary traditions, their expectations of a fantasy RPG is going to be very different. For someone coming in from Tolkein or Howard, they are going to expect a fairly low magic world where spells are rare and feared. For a reader coming from Martin or Erikson or Donaldson, or Pratchett they are going to expect a much higher magic world where magic is far more commonplace.

The problem is, DND has always favoured the second over the first. Magic in DnD has never been rare or feared. Anybody with a 10 Int can cast spells. The modules featured vast amounts of magical items. While the appearances of classic fantasy have been imported into DnD - Elves, orcs, hob... err ... halflings, vorpal swords and barbarians - that's all it ever has been; window dressing.

In any edition, at least a third of the PHB, a good chunk of the DMG and a large number of the Monster Manual have been devoted almost entirely to magic. And, much of that magic is simple and persistent. A Continual Light spell would have a massive impact on a feudal society. Free (or almost) light that lasts forever and gives off no heat? Good grief, that would revolutionize society. Yet, we're supposed to sit back and poo poo the idea of magic shops or "high" magic. The game has always been designed around high magic. The only thing limiting that is the DM. Logically, because of the way the magic system is set, every campaign world should be high magic.

 

[Aldarc]

For a reader coming from Martin or Erikson or Donaldson, or Pratchett they are going to expect a much higher magic world where magic is far more commonplace.

Higher magic in Martin? Where? All the magic in Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is rather dubious and subtle. Magic in Donaldson's The Land is definately higher, but nowhere near the levels of D&D. The Lord of the Land do not have a great array of spells, and what little spells they do cast put great strain on them. Erikson and Pratchett however supports your statement. Even in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, where magic is common place, the magic is relatively unstable and can have terrible consequences.

I do prefer one where magic is rarer and feels like magic. A world where magic is not always a gimmick to get out of a tight spot or to short-cut the storytelling. Magic should be the primal shaping of energy, not a safe pseudo-replacement for technology.

 

[Turjan]

While the appearances of classic fantasy have been imported into DnD - Elves, orcs, hob... err ... halflings, vorpal swords and barbarians - that's all it ever has been; window dressing.

This sentence reduces the term "classic fantasy" to Tolkien, Carroll and Howard. There's not much other classic fantasy that contains the elf/orc/hobbit mix besides Tolkien. D&D's magic level is also taken from classic fantasy works; just from different ones.

*edited for accuracy*

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Well, be fair. Vorpal swords are from Jabberwocky and D&D-style barbarians are from Howard. You're right, though. I'm sick and tired of seeing people yammering about how D&D should be All Tolkien, All The Time.

 

[Turjan]

Well, be fair. Vorpal swords are from Jabberwocky and D&D-style barbarians are from Howard.

Of course, you're right . I just wanted to point out that it's kind of cherry picking to attribute some elements to "classic fantasy" and to see others as unfitting. Classic fantasy is a wide field. *(edited original post)*

 

[Akrasia]

.... I'm sick and tired of seeing people yammering about how D&D should be All Tolkien, All The Time.

You're right. It should be all Tolkien -- and Howard, Vance, and Leiber ... All The Time.