Who are Howard and Leiber?

[Captain Tagon]

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

Or...none of the above? Base DnD doesn't accurately reflect any of their stories. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Akrasia]

Or...none of the above? Base DnD doesn't accurately reflect any of their stories...

No it doesn't. D&D was originally based on a mixture of elements from those authors' works (and some others as well, of course).

3e has some evolved from those origins -- but I'm not sure if it has any new literary sources.

 

[Reynard]

No it doesn't. D&D was originally based on a mixture of elements from those authors' works (and some others as well, of course).

3e has some evolved from those origins -- but I'm not sure if it has any new literary sources.

Let's not forget that as much as fantasy literature shaped D&D, so did the games from which it descended. The whole resource management, class and level structure was based on ways to quantify abilities to fit within a rules structure. to ignore this and concentrate solely on the literary influences -- however varied they may be -- cannot possibly lead to an understanding of why D&D is the way it is.

 

[Captain Tagon]

No it doesn't. D&D was originally based on a mixture of elements from those authors' works (and some others as well, of course).

3e has some evolved from those origins -- but I'm not sure if it has any new literary sources.

And in my mind, that is a good thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

3e has some evolved from those origins -- but I'm not sure if it has any new literary sources.

I think it obviously has MORE sources. How new they are, how literary they are...that's been up in the air. Keep in mind 3e came out before the most recent boom in fatansy (spurred in part by LotR and HP), in an era where many of the "core books" were D&D novels themselves. So it could be said that some of the literary sources for D&D3e, some of the books they were trying to emulate, were the D&D books, which show their own formation in an earlier era of D&D...this could be why 3e harkened back to earlier editions after 2e, rather than continue down 2e's divergent path.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

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

Good sir! Don't me wrong, I adore Tolkien, but the others just speak to me more, gets the blood pumping. But indeed, cheers to ye olde myths!

A point that I'm trying to make regarding the stories is, don't give up on the young ones they can surprise you. I think a bunch of people quite a few years removed from being teenagers themselves making assumptions on what young people who are geared to playing D&D (foremost and gaming second) are only, and purely constructs of the kinds of fantasy that is available in popular culture right now is erroneous. D&D is a big game, and there's lots of room for many kinds of ideas and variants. Add more ideas, more influences but don't take away or down play not a single damn thing.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Leiber, Howard, Moorcock, and Lovecraft all have a flavor to them, so to speak. It is a shame if young readers aren't exposed to them, because they are unique. Luckily, the only one that doesn't have an existing RPG is Leiber, and there are plenty of excellent fantasy (and sci-fi) available to inspire the new generation.

BTW, some of my favorites not already mentioned include Orson Card's Prentice Alvin series, Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionovar Tapestry, Roger Zelazny's Amber, Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, and Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series. Some of it is technically SciFi, but there is a strong fantasy feel to them.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think D&D should be inspired by some elements of fantasy literature while not feeling beholden to them.

Novels are different from games. There has to be a compromise in translation - and there's a reason there's never been a licensed role-playing game that's truly lasted and succeeded.

 

[Felon]

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.

This massive, gargantuan gulf between video games and RPG's that you're trying to paint doesn't exist. D&D can and often is played by the logic of a video game. Players often do things because "it is a game". Verisimilitude may be a core concern for you in your game, but to portray that as inherent to every D&D game played everywhere is blatantly fallacious. Likewise, to claim that it is absent from video games is also erroneous. Many MMOG's have servers where people can talk and behave "in character" and immerse themselves into the world as much as they like.

This is not evidence for your main beef. There is nothing in what you have said to support your hypothesis.

You seem to have a penchant for speaking in absolute terms by bandying about a lot of "nevers" and "nothings". It doesn't strengthen your position as much as you seem to think it does. There's quite a bit of support in my post, which I'm guessing you didn't really read. If you want to slap on your blinders of ignorance +8 and ignore it, that's your call. Quite obviously, when I'm talking about the lack of long-term consequences and the "cut-to-the-chase" mentality, I was discussing the rules that provide the foundation of the game for all players, not some abstract, self-imposed notions about immersion and verisimilitude that the PHB actually covers in very little detail.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This massive, gargantuan gulf between video games and RPG's that you're trying to paint doesn't exist. D&D can and often is played by the logic of a video game. Players often do things because "it is a game". Verisimilitude may be a core concern for you in your game, but to portray that as inherent to every D&D game played everywhere is blatantly fallacious. Likewise, to claim that it is absent from video games is also erroneous. Many MMOG's have servers where people can talk and behave "in character" and immerse themselves into the world as much as they like.

Just because there are vague similarities does not make it an equality.

Weren't we talking in broad generalizations? Piles of magic items? More wealth than countries? Parties with rings that let them fly? No consequences?

Are you going to tell me that it's not as generally true that verisimilitude is more important in D&D than in video games while at the same time telling me that it is generally true that D&D adventures have no real consequences?

If you want to talk specifics, we can, but...

quoting each sentence above individually and picking nits and going on about rule zero, etc. rather than actually trying to address the actual source

...seemed to be something you weren't really interested in.

There's quite a bit of support in my post, which I'm guessing you didn't really read. If you want to slap on your blinders of ignorance +8 and ignore it, that's your call. Quite obviously, when I'm talking about the lack of long-term consequences and the "cut-to-the-chase" mentality, I was discussing the rules that provide the foundation of the game for all players, not some abstract, self-imposed notions about immersion and verisimilitude that the PHB actually covers in very little detail.

If there's support, give it. I can't ignore what isn't there. Quite obviously, you weren't clear what you were actually talking about.

Specifically:

"Lack of long term consequences": This doesn't come from a videogame. Resurrection magic existed in D&D long before 16 bits used them. Lack of long term consequences is inherent in D&D, not a bi-product from a video game. EVIDENCE: Was there a resurrection spell in any edition before 3rd? Perhaps one even pre-dating 1980? And did it remove a "real consequence" from the game? Furthermore, there is much in the way of long term consequences in video games. EVIDENCE: In most MMO's, a character death will undo hours of game play that you will never get back. This is a long term consequence, no? A permenant loss of your playing time invested?

"Cut-to-the-chase mentality": Do you mean the desire for players to not want to waste time on the boring stuff? Because I think you can find THAT inherent in D&D, too. EVIDENCE: DM's are supposed to gloss over days, hours, weeks, months, DECADES of game time to, in effect "cut to the chase." Largely, I believe, becuase people don't want to waste time. EVIDENCE: Cutting to the chase is not often supported in video games, where hours of game play will be spent beating up minor monsters in order to build skills, with nothing related to any sort of major world issues resolved. Often, this is even required to simply succeed...thus getting to "the chase" is often held up by many roadblocks that D&D isn't constrained by.

If you're going to assert something, you're going to have to back it up. You haven't shown that D&D has suffered undully from any video game taint. I'll gladly agree that there have been some things from D&D that have come from video games, but none of the things you are complaining about are those things.