# Mearls talks about his inspiration for the 4e classes



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 10, 2009)

Over at RPG.net, someone started a thread for creating a "Appendix N - suggested reading" for 4e. Some people used that as an incentive to post about what they think can inspire you for 4e and what they think has inspired 4e.

In post #11, Mearls talks about his inspiration for designing the 4e classes


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2009)

Interesting read.  Good catch.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 10, 2009)

> Ranger: Surprise! Drizzt was a big inspiration for the design direction...




So, Drizzt was (in part) the inspiration for the D&D Ranger, but Drizzt _is_ a D&D Ranger, so the (old school) D&D Ranger is the inspiration for the D&D Ranger. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 10, 2009)

Thanee said:


> So, Drizzt was (in part) the inspiration for the D&D Ranger, but Drizzt _is_ a D&D Ranger, so the (old school) D&D Ranger is the inspiration for the D&D Ranger.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




*Head Explodes*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> *Head Explodes*



Relique, your head does that a lot! You should ask a doctor about it.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 10, 2009)

I did... but he mistook what I meant..


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 10, 2009)

mearls @ RPGnet said:
			
		

> Invoker: As this class shaped up, it became increasingly clear that Gandalf was our best model, both from Tolkien's books and Jackson's film version.



Does this make any sense to any of you 4e-heads? That is not, by the way, a confrontational query! I simply don't know _anything_ about the Invoker. Um, except the name, and that it's not in the core 3. . . and this new reveal from Mr. Mearls.

So. _Why_ (or even _how_) is the Invoker anything like Gandalf?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 10, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Does this make any sense to any of you 4e-heads? That is not, by the way, a confrontational query! I simply don't know _anything_ about the Invoker. Um, except the name, and that it's not in the core 3. . . and this new reveal from Mr. Mearls.
> 
> So. _Why_ (or even _how_) is the Invoker anything like Gandalf?




I was thinking this myself. Apart from uber-geeks, it seems likely to me that Gandalf should be the quintessential wizard - probably the most well known 'fantasy wizard' alongside merlin.

(caveat: while I like about half of the PHB2 classes, I can't stand the invoker which seemed like merely a reason to do a 'divine controller' aka divine wizard. It seems _to me_ to be a 'fill in the grid' class, which I have no value for. Especially since its at-will powers out-shine the wizard)

Cheers


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 10, 2009)

Considering Gandalf was a creature of light send by the gods and Merlin was mostly a druid with some arcane spells, no neither of the archetype wizards was actually a wizard . . .


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I was thinking this myself. Apart from uber-geeks, it seems likely to me that Gandalf should be the quintessential wizard - probably the most well known 'fantasy wizard' alongside merlin.
> 
> (caveat: while I like about half of the PHB2 classes, I can't stand the invoker which seemed like merely a reason to do a 'divine controller' aka divine wizard. It seems _to me_ to be a 'fill in the grid' class, which I have no value for. Especially since its at-will powers out-shine the wizard)
> 
> Cheers



The "problem" is that neither Merlin or Gandalf are quintessential Wizards as described by D&D. Merlin and Gandalf don't cast fireballs. (Maybe Pyrotechncs, in Gandalfs case). 
Moreover, Gandalf specifically is not a "Human Wizard" but a kind of angelic creature, if I understand the Middleearth lore correctly. 

Invokers have powers that often thematically inspire "awe" - Utility Powers that grant you bonuses to Intimidate/Diplomacy, powers that force the enemy to hold back or suffer damage, powers that an enemy can avoid if he falls to his knees before the Invoker. That is the kind of powers that fit to Gandalf. Especially thinking of the movies. The scene where he raises his voice with terifying side effects, the time where he rides into battle parallel to the suns first beams. 

It is not a perfect match, but it is an inspiration, not a copy-cat.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Moreover, Gandalf specifically is not a "Human Wizard" but a kind of angelic creature, if I understand the Middleearth lore correctly.




In fact, if I were creating a "D&D Gandalf," not only would I make him an invoker, but I'd probably make him a deva, not a human.  (Again, as you say, it's not a perfect match, but there's definitely thematic overlap.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> In fact, if I were creating a "D&D Gandalf," not only would I make him an invoker, but I'd probably make him a deva, not a human.  (Again, as you say, it's not a perfect match, but there's definitely thematic overlap.)



With that agreed and raising the topic of Devas, my question would be - how would you build "The Doctor". (Of course accepting that he will necessarily be far more violent in nature than the "real" Doctor is.*) [/tangent]

The Doctor doesn't kill people and take their stuff. He gets some people killed but then figures stuff out, thwarts the villains and saves the world*.
**Whatever world is around at that time.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> With that agreed and raising the topic of Devas, my question would be - how would you build "The Doctor".




Off the top of my head? (And understanding, as always, that we're looking for "a rough thematic match," not "a perfect recreation"...)

I'd probably say deva for race, and for class I'd go with a hybrid of the psion and the artificer. (Or possibly whatever the psionic leader turns out to be, if it winds up not being inappropriate, to better mesh with the artificer and to better focus on his "inspirational" abilities.)

Edit: I've started a new thread, where we can explore more of the "how to create Character X" ideas without derailing this any further.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Off the top of my head? (And understanding, as always, that we're looking for "a rough thematic match," not "a perfect recreation"...)
> 
> I'd probably say deva for race, and for class I'd go with a hybrid of the psion and the artificer. (Or possibly whatever the psionic leader turns out to be, if it winds up not being inappropriate, to better mesh with the artificer and to better focus on his "inspirational" abilities.)
> 
> Edit: I've started a new thread, where we can explore more of the "how to create Character X" ideas without derailing this any further.



*scribble notes* I should try that. My first takes were Deva Wizard and Human Wizard, focusing on illusions, with lots of Skill Training, Jack of all Trades, Linguist... But that was before the Psion and before the EPG. (My goal was to get the Planeshifter Paragon Path, because that one befits someone traveling in time and space.)

Now better back to our original topic. Ahem.


----------



## Baz King (Jul 10, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Over at RPG.net, someone started a thread for creating a "Appendix N - suggested reading" for 4e.




That someone was me. I'm really glad Mike came by to contribute. A brave decision in some ways. 

I think I'll try the same thread here and see who bites.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 10, 2009)

My point is made, geek-dom 

Of course people _here_ know that Gandalf is really an angelic being with powers from a magic ring.

But, to the world at large, he is a wizard. He is continually described as a wizard. That's why he is an odd inspiration to use for a divine class.


----------



## FDM (Jul 10, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> My point is made, geek-dom
> 
> Of course people _here_ know that Gandalf is really an angelic being with powers from a magic ring.
> 
> But, to the world at large, he is a wizard. He is continually described as a wizard. That's why he is an odd inspiration to use for a divine class.




But it's not overt. It isn't like they reference him in the Invoker class description. In light of that, what was used as inspiration isn't relevant to the fans who don't know about Gandalf's divine roots.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 10, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Does this make any sense to any of you 4e-heads? That is not, by the way, a confrontational query! I simply don't know _anything_ about the Invoker. Um, except the name, and that it's not in the core 3. . . and this new reveal from Mr. Mearls.
> 
> So. _Why_ (or even _how_) is the Invoker anything like Gandalf?



I get the comparison.

In LotR, Gandalf is a lot more of a divine figure than a simple wizard.  He doesn't have a spellbook, he doesn't have a tower, and his magic is usually not flashy.  Instead, whenever he does something supernatural, it's calling upon his divine nature...  You know, Keeper of the Flame of Udun, etc.

I don't necessarily think Gandalf when I think Invoker though.  Frankly, I think Moses is a better model for the class. 

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> My point is made, geek-dom
> 
> Of course people _here_ know that Gandalf is really an angelic being with powers from a magic ring.
> 
> But, to the world at large, he is a wizard. He is continually described as a wizard. That's why he is an odd inspiration to use for a divine class.



And people _not here_ have never seen Wizard cast Fireball or Lightning Bolt or Bibgy's Clenching Fist or Mage Armor. And not even something close to it. The D&D Wizard (and not just the D&D Wizard - most RPG Wizards) is not Gandalf or Merlin.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 10, 2009)

I wonder if the _actual_ wizard had any wizardy inspiration. Not that cribbing Gandalf for the Invoker makes him illegal to use as a wizard, of course, but D&D wizards haven't been very Gandalf-y ever.

I also wonder if mearls's experience of fantasy inspiration coming later is something that the rest of the team had, as well -- in other words, that they might start with, say, a mechanical inspiration or a 3e class that needs an analogue, and only worry about the fantasy you can distil from that after the initial inspiration.

Something like "We need a healer who is not the cleric" -> Warlord, or "We have all these neat cleric attack spells that didn't get used" -> Invoker/Avenger. 

I also wonder how much their inspiration matches the ideas that come later. Thinking about it after mearls's comment, Gandalf = Invoker makes some sense, but before then, what was Gandalf to you in D&D? And what was the Invoker?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

I thought Gandalf was a fifth-level magic-user?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if the _actual_ wizard had any wizardy inspiration. Not that cribbing Gandalf for the Invoker makes him illegal to use as a wizard, of course, but D&D wizards haven't been very Gandalf-y ever.
> 
> I also wonder if mearls's experience of fantasy inspiration coming later is something that the rest of the team had, as well -- in other words, that they might start with, say, a mechanical inspiration or a 3e class that needs an analogue, and only worry about the fantasy you can distil from that after the initial inspiration.
> 
> ...



Well, D&D spells and magic system is kinda based on Vance books, and I suppose the wizards in his Dying Earth novels must have bee kinda like the D&D Wizards. At least that's what I gather from the various discussions on "Vancian Magic". 
The mechanical roots supposedly were Artillery pieces from war games. I don't know if that is really true, though it kinda makes sense. (And it is probably not coincidence that many 4E monsters that are Wizards/Spellcasters by fluff do have the Artillery role).

Imagine just a world where it was not Vance and Artillery pieces as inspiration, but really Gandalf or Merlin. What would we have? Spellcasters more like Beguilers, Druids or Bards? Magic that is often subtle, confuses the mind of people, or having power about the elements (like the elements of Weather, not like bat guana explosions) and animals or plants? 

---

The Invoker to me would probably have been a Cleric that focuses not on buffs, healing or melee enhancement spells but on stuff like Flame Strike or Command. I visualize Invokers as Stargate SG1 Ori priests. 
A "real" Wizard might have been somethig like a Beguiler, Bard or Druid, with a lot less fleshy spells for the Druid (no Flame Strike).

A Warlord to me might be someone like Roy from Order of the Stick. I know he is supposedly a Fighter, but frack, he is consistently smart and charismatic, he is the one leading the team and the guy with the plan. He is like many movie and literary characters in charge of a team. Of course, in movies, this leader guy is also the protagonists and will often be found alone, which damages this image, of course.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 10, 2009)

Gandalf is an older bearded man in robes with a pointy wide brimmed hat who never wears armor. He carries a staff and smokes a pipe. He is very learned, actively adventures, and uses magic (though very conservatively). He is called a wizard.

I can see him as an archetypal inspiration for wizards throughout D&D's history.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2009)

Gandalf is a parfect match for an Invoker (robe + staff + subtle magic + divine origin).

I don't know the character that inspired the Avenger, but I get a strong "Solomon Kane" vibe from it.

I totally agree on the Conan-as-Fighter-Rogue thing. And he DID wear armor every now and then (mostly in his days as a mercenary).


----------



## Voadam (Jul 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I thought Gandalf was a fifth-level magic-user?






I read that article too and agree.

Spells include: Pyrotechnics, knock, ventriloquism.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 10, 2009)

The model for the Avenger should be this guy.







And the inspiration for the Wizard in D&D was never a fantasy wizard - it was a person copied from the real world: the angry, book-loving nerd that really wished that he could kill you with his brain.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 10, 2009)

Klaus said:


> I totally agree on the Conan-as-Fighter-Rogue thing. And he DID wear armor every now and then (mostly in his days as a mercenary).




Why do you see Conan as a multiclass rogue in 4e? I have only skimmed the 4e PH but my understanding is that rogue powers work only with light weapons while Conan uses big swords and axes with which these would not work. Also anybody can pick up skills like stealth and fighters already get the physical one which takes care of his super climbing. What does 4e rogue multiclass give the build besides the name association with Conan's time as a thief?

Rogue multiclass as the 4e Conan concept seems a holdover to old edition mechanics when that was how you could simulate Conan's skills (plus the fact that he was a thief).


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 10, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I get the comparison.
> 
> In LotR, Gandalf is a lot more of a divine figure than a simple wizard.  He doesn't have a spellbook, he doesn't have a tower, and his magic is usually not flashy.  Instead, whenever he does something supernatural, it's calling upon his divine nature...  You know, Keeper of the Flame of Udun, etc.
> 
> I don't necessarily think Gandalf when I think Invoker though.  Frankly, I think Moses is a better model for the class.



(and this goes for several others, most likely) _I wasn't saying or implying that he's meant to be a Wizard_, btw.

But thanks, for at least kinda vaguely referring to what the Invoker is about. That's more than most have given out.

So, invokers call upon their divine nature? Sure, I can see that then. And they look the part as well, someone said?


----------



## deganawida (Jul 10, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> (and this goes for several others, most likely) _I wasn't saying or implying that he's meant to be a Wizard_, btw.
> 
> But thanks, for at least kinda vaguely referring to what the Invoker is about. That's more than most have given out.
> 
> So, invokers call upon their divine nature? Sure, I can see that then. And they look the part as well, someone said?




Invokers are Old Testament prophets, basically.  They use rods and staves to symbolize the sovereignty of their gods, and call down fire from the heavens to smith their enemies.  Think Moses and Elijah in a fantasy setting, and you probably have a great idea of what they're like.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Why do you see Conan as a multiclass rogue in 4e? I have only skimmed the 4e PH but my understanding is that rogue powers work only with light weapons while Conan uses big swords and axes with which these would not work. Also anybody can pick up skills like stealth and fighters already get the physical one which takes care of his super climbing. What does 4e rogue multiclass give the build besides the name association with Conan's time as a thief?
> 
> Rogue multiclass as the 4e Conan concept seems a holdover to old edition mechanics when that was how you could simulate Conan's skills (plus the fact that he was a thief).



You know what? You're absolutely right.

Fighter trained in Stealth, Athletics, Endurance, Nature, Perception, Intimidate maybe also Insight, cover just about anything Conan might do. He might even be a Battlerager fighter. He might be multiclassed as Ranger for Hunter's Quarry (and this would get him the training in Nature or Stealth).


----------



## mlund (Jul 10, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And the inspiration for the Wizard in D&D was never a fantasy wizard - it was a person copied from the real world: the angry, book-loving nerd that really wished that he could kill you with his brain.




There is probably some very brutal truth to that, but there are some fantasy wizards that D&D could draw from just fine.

Sure, the D&D model for the Wizard was never anything like the way Gandalf or his fellow "wizards" rolled in The Lord of the Rings. Heck, they called them "Magic-users" back in the day - not Wizards. They drew much more from some romantic notions of Merlin the Magician, Rasputin, and even some implications from C.S. Lewis. The notion was of an Arcane Academic who, though years of study of arcane formula and forbidden secrets could manipulate the fabric of the universe for good or for ill. Thanks to Dragonlance, Raistlin Majere became the signature character for the Magic-user.

Invoker is much more along the lines of what Gandalf was. The comparisons to Old Testament prophets such as Elijah and Moses are apt. The similiarity is no coincidence considering the history, interviews, and notes pertaining to Tolkein's writings.

- Marty Lund


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 10, 2009)

Yeah all the confusion with Gandalf and Wizard comes from the simple fact that the majority of the characters in Hobbit/LotR _thought_ he was a Wizard. He was never a Wizard but, obviously, the way he appeared and used magic etc was very similar to what a real Wizard would be like in Middle Earth.... ipso facto Gandalf is a Wizard 'role model' without being a Wizard 

But the book learning stuff has to come from good old Vance doesn't it.


----------



## mlund (Jul 10, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Yeah all the confusion with Gandalf and Wizard comes from the simple fact that the majority of the characters in Hobbit/LotR _thought_ he was a Wizard.




He was a Wizard, so much as that definition applied to Middle Earth. There were all of 5 Wizards in that world. They were all immortal servants of the divine - a race called Maia. Wizard was not a job or a character class in Middle Earth, but a Race. On top of that, pretty much all magic in the setting was Racial, not Professional - Elves, Angels, and Dunedain as opposed to Warlocks, Wizards, and Clerics.

Note how in Dungeons and Dragons characters we now call "Wizards" were originally called "Magic-users," as a class, not Wizards. Then they were called "Mages" - still not Wizards. It wasn't until 3rd Edition the class was finally called "Wizard."



> He was never a Wizard but, obviously, the way he appeared and used magic etc was very similar to what a real Wizard would be like in Middle Earth....



His appearance, scholarship, wisdom, and equipment were a model for Wizards. His spells and background, however, were definitely not. They are also extremely contrary to the general identity of Wizards in fiction prior to The Lord of the Rings.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 10, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> could kill you with his brain.




I thought that was what psionics was for.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

Voadam said:


> I read that article too and agree.
> 
> Spells include: Pyrotechnics, knock, ventriloquism.



Also, defeating a balrog in single combat.

But let's not get into that.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 10, 2009)

On a side note-

Mearls gets alot of flack at times (at least around here he has) but I *really* dig his perspective. He knows his oldschool themes/modules/tropes to a "T" (and I have seen him post occasionaly on some of the OSR blogs-so he follows them to some extent) and then puts his 4E interpretation on these old school ideas/themes/tropes.  I've been enjoying his commentary on the various D&D podcasts that I've managed to listen to as well as his articles and such.

So props to Mike!


----------



## Hjorimir (Jul 10, 2009)

Klaus said:


> I don't know the character that inspired the Avenger, but I get a strong "Solomon Kane" vibe from it.



I've never read any of the Solomon Kane books (and I'm sure you're probably spot on from what I know about the character), but when I think avenger I think of Pale Rider.


----------



## The_Fan (Jul 10, 2009)

Though he's a two-weapon fighter instead of a great weapon fighter, I always think of Paladin Alexander Anderson when I think of an Avenger. He's fast, he teleports, he likes to fight opponents one on one and uses powers to isolate and cut them off from their allies and sources of magic. Also, he's Unaligned while working for an (ostensibly) Lawful Good organization.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

Mike's a little to gamist at times for me, and I don't think I can forgive him after making the 4e Monster Manual 90% useless to me (), but he's always got interesting ideas. 

As an aside, I like the idea of a Wizard as a "combat librarian."

The idea is that in a world where literacy is rare, those who can control words -- the written language -- shape reality. Runes in the Norse, or philosophers and scholars in the Greek, or Egyptian heiroglyphics, or Buddhist words of power, or even the "truename" motif...

This is the most appealing archetype of the D&D wizard to me.

The 4e wizard doesn't really fill this role, but if they ever pump out an archivist, chances are that it will.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 11, 2009)

I think it's worth pointing out that the terms "wizard", "mage", "sorcerer", "invoker", etc are pretty much interchangeable outside of the D&D game.  They have distinct meanings for us gamers, but do not in literature, myth, and in mainstream public opinion.

It's not like, within the story of Middle-Earth, there are some learned elves discussing what to call Gandalf.

Elf 1:  Well, I know we all _call_ him a wizard, but really, if you think about it, he's actually an invoker.

Elf 2:  Really?  Wizard works fine for me, although I've always thought of the old stormcrow as more of a sorcerer . . .

Gandalf IS a wizard, because that's what he is called in Tolkien's works.  I've certainly used him as inspiration for PC and NPC characters, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  But if you want to try and model his powers and abilities within the D&D game, you probably should choose the invoker class rather than the wizard class.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jul 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if the _actual_ wizard had any wizardy inspiration. Not that cribbing Gandalf for the Invoker makes him illegal to use as a wizard, of course, but D&D wizards haven't been very Gandalf-y ever.
> 
> I also wonder if mearls's experience of fantasy inspiration coming later is something that the rest of the team had, as well -- in other words, that they might start with, say, a mechanical inspiration or a 3e class that needs an analogue, and only worry about the fantasy you can distil from that after the initial inspiration.
> 
> ...



The original D&D wizard, or "magic-user", was taken almost whole cloth from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth". Read just the first 10 pages or so and you'll understand. Tolkein's work inspired som e of the monster selection in D&D, the hobbit(aka halfling), and the ranger, and that was about it.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 11, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Why do you see Conan as a multiclass rogue in 4e? I have only skimmed the 4e PH but my understanding is that rogue powers work only with light weapons while Conan uses big swords and axes with which these would not work.




Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.

Also, Conan as the axe-weilding maniac wasn't really how he was presented in the original Robert E. Howard stories. More than anything, he used a dagger -- simply because it was convenient.

However, Conan wasn't a backstabber, and not really much of a trap-springer, though he had a very good sense of perception. He was also a legendary climber and all around sneaky guy.

So yeah, he doesn't really need to multiclass as a Rogue to be a "thief" at all, but if he wants the stealth skill, he'd be better served by multiclassing than by taking the skill feat.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 11, 2009)

w_earle_wheeler said:


> Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.




I'm not sure that's _entirely_ accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe _or_ dagger.

But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 11, 2009)

w_earle_wheeler said:


> Conan rarely went heavily armored. He usually went nearly naked or lightly covered.
> 
> Also, Conan as the axe-weilding maniac wasn't really how he was presented in the original Robert E. Howard stories. More than anything, he used a dagger -- simply because it was convenient.
> 
> ...




If anything, I think the tendency to quantify everything in strict game mechanics has caused the "confusion" as to what class(es) Conan might be. After all, the games inspired, at least in part, by REH's Conan stories didn't get so fiddly with character abilities. Sneaking around, climbing walls and ambushing enmies weren't the province of a class, they were things anybody could -- and probably should -- do when confronted with the same situations Conan found himself in.

Remember, "Hide in Shadows" and "Move Silently" were, in AD&D (OD&D didn't even have a "thief") weren't "stealth" -- they were literally super special ways of being sneaky (and you couldn't do both at once). "Climb walls" was actually "climb sheer surfaces" -- any idiot with some brains and some brawn could try and pull himself up a rugged cliff or a stonework wall.  Players were expected to be creative, and in return they expected that the game world worked "realistically" and their mighty thewed barbarian (aka 3rd level fighter with a 17 strength) would have a reasonable chance of scaling the tower wall to get to the gem encrusted crown.

It wasn't until the advent of skills/proficiencies/what-have-you that the classes really started to be restrictive in this regard. Once mechanical elements were added to determine exactly what a character was capable of, the list of what the character wasn't capable of became huge. Suddenly, Conan *had* to be a fighter-thief because fighters just couldn't climb walls.

I think one of the reasons that the retro-clone, and similar games like the new Hackmaster, have come back into vogue is that with movies like Jackson's Lord of the Rings, players once again expect to be able to *do stuff* that a hero of their type and caliber should be capable of. Aragorn performs many varied tasks -- riding, healing, fighting, leading men, tracking, diplomacy -- because he is a Dunedain Ranger.  He doesn't lack for skills because he *isn't* something else.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> could kill you with his brain.






Leatherhead said:


> I thought that was what psionics was for.




...or the Corruption Corpse Zombie


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 11, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm not sure that's _entirely_ accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe _or_ dagger.
> 
> But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.




I've been reading through the original Robert E. Howard Conan stuff fairly recently, and it seems that in almost every story, Conan makes use of a dagger -- and just as often, he ends up losing it. 

As for the chain hauberks and so forth, you're right -- whenever Conan was working as a sellsword and riding to war, he wore armor. It was when he was working as a "thief" that he was scantily clad.

In either case, I remember that my first reaction to 4e was "Wow -- you could run a great Conan style campaign with this, especially since everyone has some kind of healing ability, it lessens the need for Clerics."

And back to the original influences, I certainly saw lots of the Grey Mouser in the 4e Rogue, which I thought was awesome.

The 4e rules already presented lend themselves to a pretty wide range of campaigning, from light-magic Lieber/Howard Sword and Sorcery to high-fantasy stuff. 

All we need now is the ability to change the names and fluff text of powers in the Character Builder! I'd love to replace all the flavor text with classic fantasy quotes.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jul 11, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm not sure that's _entirely_ accurate. Having reread a lot of the stories lately, I was surprised at how often he was described as wearing a chain hauberk or its equivalent. And I think I recall him using a sword far more often than either axe _or_ dagger.
> 
> But yeah, there's certainly room for interpretation.




I agree with this, he was often armored in what he could find, same with weapons. He tended to wear weapon and armor, of the area he was in at the time


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

I will not enter the Gandalf debate, but I'll support the idea that Conan is really a Fighter with several extra trained skills.

In the original stories, he is often described wearing armor (except when he's a pirate) and usually wields a sword.

It is the comic book Conan the one that wears the furry thong

Also, one of my first observations when I read the 4E PHB was "Rogue = Grey Mouser", so I guess its nice to be confirmed.

Another observation is that Aragorn is best modeled in this edition by the Warlord class (maybe with the Warrior of the Wild multiclass feat)


----------



## Rechan (Jul 11, 2009)

> Avenger: Ripping aside the ethereal nature of Wolf's Book of the New Sun and treating it as a comic book of sorts, Severian the torturer was a major influence on this class's initial feel and direction. Obviously its divine roots steered in a different direction, but I can easily see playing an avenger based on fantasy's most famous torturer.
> 
> Bard: Fflewddur Fflam from Alexander's Prydain books provided a fair amount of inspiration.



I'm unfamiliar with either of these.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jul 11, 2009)

Relique du Madde said:


> *Head Explodes*





since I happen to have this handy...

(edit: the exploding head gif from *SCANNERS* is not as someone else pointed out grandmother safe.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 11, 2009)

REH was always coming up with excuses as to why Conan would be practically naked in a fair number of the stories. I think the real reason was so he could perv over the Cimmerian's mighty thews. With the dancing girls I don't recall Howard even bothering with an excuse. They'd just be naked. Like her clothes all fell off in a strong wind or whatever. Who cares? Get describing her lithe suppleness pronto!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I'm unfamiliar with either of these.




You can be forgiven for the former, but lack of familiarity with the latter is cause for having your Geek Card revoked.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The "problem" is that neither Merlin or Gandalf are quintessential Wizards as described by D&D. Merlin and Gandalf don't cast fireballs. (Maybe Pyrotechncs, in Gandalfs case). )




Actually, Gandalf DOES cast fireballs.  He burns worgs and goblins alike in The Hobbit.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jul 11, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> It is the comic book Conan the one that wears the furry thong




... but, daggers I tells ya! Millions and millions of daggers!


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 11, 2009)

Grimstaff said:


> The original D&D wizard, or "magic-user", was taken almost whole cloth from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth". Read just the first 10 pages or so and you'll understand. Tolkein's work inspired som e of the monster selection in D&D, the hobbit(aka halfling), and the ranger, and that was about it.




I just finished reading the entire dying earth series (a couple of days ago).  Great series.

I'd say it's really not taken whole cloth from Vance's dying earth.  It's only vaguely taken from it in most respects.  You essentially get two elements - memorization of spells, and naming of spells after famous spell-makers.

The rest seems to be mostly or entirely ignored.  The power of spells (every wizard can kill any other non-wizard with a single spell unless they have magic to protect themselves), the nature of spells as living things that are wrestled with, their origin as demon-powered, the use of Ioun stones to further power spells themselves, etc... none of that actually was carried over to D&D.

So yeah, inspired by some Vance stuff, but not wholly carried over in my opinion.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

I am not sure that the nature of Gandalf (or the Ring, or other things) had yet been pinned down to their later definitions when Tolkien wrote _The Hobbit_. Certainly, I see much in a very different light when reading the book through the lens of TLOTR and the posthumously published works than I did when first it enchanted me -- and I know that Gygax liked TH better.

The D&D magic-user owes, I think, much of its inspiration to the war-game context in which it originated (as part of the Fantasy Supplement to _Chainmail_). Portions of the spell lists reflect the figure's role as basically an artillery piece.

That was of course just part of it, but perhaps a bigger part now in 4E. The scholarly aspect really came to the fore in AD&D, as the character started with but a few spells and had to seek more in scrolls and codices recovered from the depths of dungeons. Questing for enchanted wands, rings and other artifacts of power was also key. The first pages of Howard's _The Hour of the Dragon_ tell of such undertakings.

The druid class has often seemed to me most evocative of Gandalf, Merlin and other enchanters in old tales -- but of course it is no perfect fit.

The mightiest mortals of Middle-Earth (at least in the Third Age) might well best be modeled in old D&D (even 3E) terms as 5th or 6th level.



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> IMNSHO, the rogue has been saddled with the status of "class that has to suck since it's the only one that can deal with traps."



Well, there's a problem of misunderstanding (or conscious deviation from) the original idea. It would be a deadly one, too, considering that a 1st-level human thief was (per Supplement I) 9 times as likely to blow it as to succeed at trap removal -- and even a dwarf thief had odds of 3 to 1 against! Moreover, the thief's dice-roll applied only to "small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)". However were adventurers to deal with pits full of poisoned stakes, scything blades, spring-launched spears, vials of poison gas, collapsing ceilings or crushing walls, death rays ... ? 

The chief inspiration for the thief's class functions seems to me likely to have been Zelazny's Jack of Shadows. Cugel and Mouser also shaped the composite archetype, of course -- but the powers of hiding _in shadows_, moving _silently_ and climbing _nearly sheer surfaces_ (even, in AD&D, _horizontal_ surfaces, i.e., ceilings!) are qualitatively more than mundane.

The literally roguish qualities of Vance's and Leiber's characters (Cugel in particular being a silver-tongued rakehell) have never really come to the fore.

Now, the rogue (along with the ranger) has been largely transformed into a combat specialist of the sort lately categorized as a "striker". That is quite an about-face from the thief's former strategy of generally avoiding open combat (lacking puissance, armor and hit points).

I would characterize the Mouser first as a fighter (and then as a lover) -- very accomplished (and aided by his slight stature and customary garb) at stealth, and possessed of a rudimentary education in sorcery. Yes, I think the 4E rogue fits rather nicely.


----------



## Orius (Jul 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, D&D spells and magic system is kinda based on Vance books, and I suppose the wizards in his Dying Earth novels must have bee kinda like the D&D Wizards. At least that's what I gather from the various discussions on "Vancian Magic".
> The mechanical roots supposedly were Artillery pieces from war games. I don't know if that is really true, though it kinda makes sense.




That's about right.  The wizard goes back to Chainmail where it originally was a special hero unit or something that could cast fireballs and lightning bolts.  Mechanically, the fireball was equivalent to a catapult and the lightning bolt to a ballista.  The whole spells per day was inspired by Vance.  So that's the basis of the original wizard (MU if you prefer), whose powers got fleshed out as spells were added little by little to the system.

The thing is though, Vance is pretty obscure.  I'd say most people hear about him after playing D&D.  The closest things I can think of to the whole magical scholar type that would be widely known to peple who'd be interested in D&D would be the Aes Sedai from the Wheel of Time, Pratchett's Unseen University (I'm surprised you didn't mention that), and/or Harry Potter, but all three come after D&D.



Keefe the Thief said:


> The model for the Avenger should be this guy.




I'm thinking...assassin?  

Though yeah, the holy slayer thing is I guess close to the Avenger, right?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I think one of the reasons that the retro-clone, and similar games like the new Hackmaster, have come back into vogue is that with movies like Jackson's Lord of the Rings, players once again expect to be able to *do stuff* that a hero of their type and caliber should be capable of. Aragorn performs many varied tasks -- riding, healing, fighting, leading men, tracking, diplomacy -- because he is a Dunedain Ranger.  He doesn't lack for skills because he *isn't* something else.




I think it is also a reason for the Star Wars Saga and the D&D 4 skill system. Every character can basically roll on any skill. And with level, you get better. QUite simply because that all the skills in the system are skills every adventurer has to has. Like in A-Team - everyone of them can do mechanics, can disguise himself, can engage in a con, can wield an automatic rifle. They have specialists that might do some of this stuff better (Hannibal is their disguise expert, Face is, well, their face man, BA might be their mechanic, Murdock their pilot) , but they all have a "basic proficiency" that allows them to through at least the average situation. There should never be a time where you don't dare to take a overpowered enemies uniform to sneak into the enemies base just because no one has spend 15 skill points in Bluff and Disguise. 

The only "flaw" might be that if using skills against equal level foes, you need training to have a good chance to succeed (as good as a chance as one might expect from movies, TV Shows and novels at least). If you use the (errated!) skill challenge DCs, you probably come a lot closer to the desired success changes.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 11, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> I will not enter the Gandalf debate, but I'll support the idea that Conan is really a Fighter with several extra trained skills.
> 
> In the original stories, he is often described wearing armor (except when he's a pirate) and usually wields a sword.
> 
> ...



Or the Bard class, which can be as warlordish as the Warlord. Valorous Bard, even.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Or the Bard class, which can be as warlordish as the Warlord. Valorous Bard, even.




True dat... Aragorn apparently spends all his free time singing

...but then again, EVERYBODY in LOTR spends all their free time singing (the Bath Song, anyone?) 

This looks like another argument against the Perform skill (why have one if everyone can sing already?)


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 11, 2009)

Well I can sing many songs, but I wouldn't call it 'performing'...

....in fact most people would call it torture!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

mearls said:
			
		

> Avenger: Ripping aside the ethereal nature of Wolf's Book of the New Sun and treating it as a comic book of sorts, Severian the torturer was a major influence on this class's initial feel and direction. Obviously its divine roots steered in a different direction, but I can easily see playing an avenger based on fantasy's most famous torturer.
> 
> Bard: Fflewddur Fflam from Alexander's Prydain books provided a fair amount of inspiration.






Rechan said:


> I'm unfamiliar with either of these.






Mouseferatu said:


> You can be forgiven for the former, but lack of familiarity with the latter is cause for having your Geek Card revoked.



Wait... I think my Geek Cred card is in jeopardy!  While I certainly know of Wolfe and the Book of the New Sun (not for the casual reader, BTW, but excellent nonetheless) I didn't know of Lloyd Alexander until today.   Did I miss an important part of my childhood? I was a young fantasy reader in the mid-late 70s and early 80s.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I didn't know of Lloyd Alexander until today.   Did I miss an important part of my childhood? I was a young fantasy reader in the mid-late 70s and early 80s.




Um, yes. Yes you did. 

In the pantheon of Classic Fantasy You Darn Well Better Have Read, Lloyd Alexander is only one step below Tolkien, Howard, or Moorcock in importance. Heck, he's also the only semi-modern writer I can think of to have inspired a Disney movie. (The Black Cauldron, while neither a fantastic movie nor particularly loyal as an adaptation, at least pushed the books further into public consciousness for a time.)


----------



## The_Fan (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um, yes. Yes you did.
> 
> In the pantheon of Classic Fantasy You Darn Well Better Have Read, Lloyd Alexander is only one step below Tolkien, Howard, or Moorcock in importance. Heck, he's also the only semi-modern writer I can think of to have inspired a Disney movie. (The Black Cauldron, while neither a fantastic movie nor particularly loyal as an adaptation, at least pushed the books further into public consciousness for a time.)



Ohh! I remember that now! That's the movie with the puppets and the vulture-things called skeksis, right?


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

The_Fan said:


> Ohh! I remember that now! That's the movie with the puppets and the vulture-things called skeksis, right?



That's _Labyrinth_.  Everyone knows that.


----------



## The_Fan (Jul 12, 2009)

Double post


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

The_Fan said:


> Ohh! I remember that now! That's the movie with the puppets and the vulture-things called skeksis, right?




Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Okay Mouse, I think you should educate us about these here books.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Okay Mouse, I think you should educate us about these here books.




But someone else has done it for me. 

The Chronicles of Prydain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip the descriptions of the individual books, though, as they contain spoilers.

For those who don't want to read the entire entry, the Chronicles is a five-book fantasy series. It's technically written for adolescents and young adults, but I've found it to be enjoyable as an adult, and it's much darker than what we consider to be YA-material today. (It was written back in the 60s.)

It draws _heavily_ on Welsh mythology, particularly for names and locations, and even includes some characters from said mythology (though they're often reimagined for the books).

I don't know if modern readers will find all that much _new_ in it--it is, as I said, nearly 50 years old--but it really is part of, if not the _foundation_ of today's fantasy, then at least the first or second floor.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 12, 2009)

Fflewddur Fflam was the first 'Bard' (in this sense) I came across, as a kid. Loved those books.

Anyway, regardless of how I might feel about the game in general, that's a pretty righteous source, right there.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 12, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> That's _Labyrinth_.  Everyone knows that.




You're being facetious, right?


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> ...I didn't know of Lloyd Alexander until today.   Did I miss an important part of my childhood? I was a young fantasy reader in the mid-late 70s and early 80s.




Yes. Start reading the Chronicles of Prydain yesterday.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

Brennin Magalus said:


> You're being facetious, right?



Right.  I don't use smilies on principle, which can make it uncertain sometimes.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> For those who don't want to read the entire entry, the Chronicles is a five-book fantasy series. It's technically written for adolescents and young adults, but I've found it to be enjoyable as an adult, and it's much darker than what we consider to be YA-material today. (It was written back in the 60s.)




Decent books, just don't expect too much, they are written for kids (IMO).


----------



## Shroomy (Jul 12, 2009)

I loved the Chronicles when I read them in middle school; I should read them again as after 20 years, my memory has become very fuzzy.  I do remember a couple of years ago that _Dragon_ had an article about adapting the Chronicles to 3.5e D&D.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 12, 2009)

The only contact I had with Prydain was The Black Cauldron, and Ffleudderr Flan (or however it's spelled) was by far the most annoying character (even more than the pseudo Gollum).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

Klaus said:


> The only contact I had with Prydain was The Black Cauldron, and Ffleudderr Flan (or however it's spelled) was by far the most annoying character (even more than the pseudo Gollum).




Judging the Chronicles of Prydain by the Disney version of _The Black Cauldron_ is like judging D&D by the Dungeons & Dragons movie with Marlon Wayans and Jeremy Irons.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Judging the Chronicles of Prydain by the Disney version of _The Black Cauldron_ is like judging D&D by the Dungeons & Dragons movie with Marlon Wayans and Jeremy Irons.



Awgh, don't do that! You brought back memories I tried to forget.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jul 12, 2009)

When I was younger the Cauldron-Born were the freakiest villains I had ever read in a book.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 12, 2009)

Punnuendo said:


> When I was younger the Cauldron-Born were the freakiest villains I had ever read in a book.




What about those hunting packs (whose name I forget), where the members get progressively stronger as you kill other members, until the remaining few are nigh invulnerable?

I think about that notion quite often, but have never really gotten around to actually fleshing it out in game terms.


----------



## Garnfellow (Jul 12, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> What about those hunting packs (whose name I forget), where the members get progressively stronger as you kill other members, until the remaining few are nigh invulnerable?
> 
> I think about that notion quite often, but have never really gotten around to actually fleshing it out in game terms.




The Huntsmen of Annuvin -- a very cool idea. Lewis Pulsipher did a 1e AD&D interpretation that appeared in _Dragon_ magazine No. 40 (August 1980). And I did my own 3.5e conversion of Pulsipher's take.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

Wow.... OK, then. As a kid, I read as much Moorcock (Elric, Corum, Hawkmoon), Leiber (Fafhrd & Grey Mouser), Donaldson (gotta love Thomas Covenant), and Eddings (Belgariad, Malloreon) as I could, but strangely never heard of the Chronicles of Prydain.

I may have to find the first one on ebay and read it.


----------



## Punnuendo (Jul 12, 2009)

I had forgotten all about the Huntsmen until you mentioned them. Okay, those might have been scarier.

Back to the OT though, whichever episode of the Atomic Array podcast covered the PHB2 had one of the designers mention Batman as an influence on the Avenger as well.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Judging the Chronicles of Prydain by the Disney version of _The Black Cauldron_ is like judging D&D by the Dungeons & Dragons movie with Marlon Wayans and Jeremy Irons.



Alas, I live in the wrong hemisphere for fantasy literature. The first fantasy books I read were the Dragonlance Chronicles, imported from Portugal, back in 1990. The only Lieber I read were the Epic Comics adaptation by Chaykin and Mignola (also imported), I never read any Moorcock, and I only read Howard for the first time two years ago, when they released two volumes of his Conan stories here.

I did manage to read lots of Ravenloft, Eberron and Song of Ice & Fire, though.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Judging the Chronicles of Prydain by the Disney version of _The Black Cauldron_ is like judging D&D by the Dungeons & Dragons movie with Marlon Wayans and Jeremy Irons.



To be fair to them, neither Marlon Wayans nor Jeremy Irons were the worst parts of that movie.


----------



## Turjan (Jul 12, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> I just finished reading the entire dying earth series (a couple of days ago).  Great series.
> 
> I'd say it's really not taken whole cloth from Vance's dying earth.  It's only vaguely taken from it in most respects.  You essentially get two elements - memorization of spells, and naming of spells after famous spell-makers.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess that's why Grimstaff mentioned the "first 10 pages". I would say the first two stories, "Turjan of Miir" and "Mazirian the Magician" are the most influential. These are the early stories that leave out the demon and ioun stone stuff.

But I agree with the power level. D&D's "Prismatic Spray" is much less potent than Vance's, but that's understandable if you deal with a game, where certain death or certain survival are less fun. The element of guessing the right spells for the day is certainly there, and what you see is general purpose spells. Turjan, for instance, selected "The Excellent Prismatic Spray, Phandaal’s Mantle of Stealth, and the Spell of the Slow Hour" before he went on a dangerous journey. So, yes, you get two very high power spells and one medium, and that's about it. It's similar to D&D, but to make the game work, the power levels had to be adjusted from the literary source.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 12, 2009)

I think my geek card will be revoked.  Not only have I had not read  The Chronicles of Prydian, I have not read Howard's Conan,  Jack Vance, or L. Sprague de Camp (I tried the Complete Compleat Enchanter and put it down),

I think my entire list of fantasy books read (excluding Greek Mythology) is the following:

Lord of the Rings
The Hobbit
Chronicles of Narnia
Once and Future King
Book of Merlin
Le Morte d'Arthur
Idylls of th King
Riddle Master of Hed Trilogy
Guardians of the Flame (first three or four books)
Myth Adventures (entire series)
Xanth (the first six books)
Jack of Shadows
Chronicles of Amber (first five books)
Eye of the Dragon
The Misenchanted Sword
Magician: Apprentice
Mists of Avalon
Dragonlance Chronicles
Dragonlance Tales 1-3
The Prism Pentad (first three books)
Icewind Dale Trilogy
Dark Elf Trilogy
Saga of Old City
A little bit of Fritz Leiber's Fahfrd and Grey Mouser
A little bit of the Elric cycle.

On my book shelf to read are the first three Shanarra books, the first three Hambly Darwath books,  Salvatore's The Spear Wielder Trilogy, and the  Hardy's  Master of Five Magics.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wow.... OK, then. As a kid, I read as much Moorcock (Elric, Corum, Hawkmoon), Leiber (Fafhrd & Grey Mouser), Donaldson (gotta love Thomas Covenant), and Eddings (Belgariad, Malloreon) as I could, but strangely never heard of the Chronicles of Prydain.
> 
> I may have to find the first one on ebay and read it.



The Chronicles of Prydain are marketed for young adults.  The five books include a Newbury Medal and a Newbury Honor.  Along with Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising Sequence, they played a critical role in igniting my love for fantasy as a kid.  I think the books are still worth reading as an adult, although at the time I considered myself to be "graduating" when I picked up the Dragonlance Chronicles.

BTW, the Chronicles of Prydain are still in print.  Amazon has the first book in paperback new for $7, used for under a $1.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Wow.... OK, then. As a kid, I read as much Moorcock (Elric, Corum, Hawkmoon), Leiber (Fafhrd & Grey Mouser), Donaldson (gotta love Thomas Covenant), and Eddings (Belgariad, Malloreon) as I could, but strangely never heard of the Chronicles of Prydain.
> 
> I may have to find the first one on ebay and read it.




I'm pretty sure they're in print.

His Westmark trilogy is also pretty good, and surprisingly dark.

Brad


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 12, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> What about those hunting packs (whose name I forget), where the members get progressively stronger as you kill other members, until the remaining few are nigh invulnerable?




Sort of an explicit version of the Inverse Ninja Law?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Greg K said:


> ...Salvatore's The Spear Wielder Trilogy...



Replace this with some of Vance's Dying Earth stories, or his Planet of Adventure series. Your brain with thank me.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Punnuendo said:


> When I was younger the Cauldron-Born were the freakiest villains I had ever read in a book.



Oh man, I haven't read any of these books in ages but just your mention of the Cauldron-Born gave me a bit of a shiver. I need to reread them to see if they hold up.


----------



## MinionOfCthulhu (Jul 12, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> What about those hunting packs (whose name I forget), where the members get progressively stronger as you kill other members, until the remaining few are nigh invulnerable?
> 
> I think about that notion quite often, but have never really gotten around to actually fleshing it out in game terms.




Sword & Sorcery did a monster like those in one of their monster compendiums. I'll see if I can find it, if you want.

On a (somewhat) related note to the topic at hand, where should I start with books about Fafhrd and Grey Mouser? Are there any omnibuses I should look for?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

If you use this search, you can read them like I did those many years ago:

Amazon.com: lankhmar

Just get Lankhmar Book 1 and go through Lankhmar Book 5.  Book 6 - 8 came later, and I only sporadically read them over a few years.


----------



## FriarRosing (Jul 12, 2009)

Now I'm worried I can't properly play D&D. The only fantasy books I've ever read were some R.A. Salvatore stuff in middle school, The Hobbit, and the first half of the Lord of the Rings. I am now concerned that I am doing it wrong.

I tried to read Wolfe's New Sun series, but didn't get too far. I've been meaning to read Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea books (which no one has mentioned, I don't think. I have no idea how D&D they are), but have yet to get started. That's all I've got for fantasy.

Maybe I need to read more.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Just get Lankhmar Book 1 and go through Lankhmar Book 5.  Book 6 - 8 came later, and I only sporadically read them over a few years.




I'll second the first part of this--get books 1 through 5.

Avoid anything later. _Especially_ avoid the _last_ book. Seriously. Pretend it's the Black Plague, carrying a gun. It's not only awful, it'll seriously damage your appreciation for the earlier stories if you let it.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'll second the first part of this--get books 1 through 5.
> 
> Avoid anything later. _Especially_ avoid the _last_ book. Seriously. Pretend it's the Black Plague, carrying a gun. It's not only awful, it'll seriously damage your appreciation for the earlier stories if you let it.



So it's like The Dark Tower 4-6, eh?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 12, 2009)

Sandwich said:


> Now I'm worried I can't properly play D&D. ... Maybe I need to read more.




All joking aside, I doubt very much that you're playing the game "wrong" because you're not familiar with a lot of the fantasy genre. If you're enjoying the game, you're playing right.

But I think you'll enjoy it _more_ if you've read more--and I think, if you're the type to enjoy D&D at all, you're _probably_ the type to enjoy the reading for its own sake. So I wouldn't say you ought to feel _obligated_, but I'd certainly recommend it.

(Of course, like anything else, there's a lot of fantasy that's crap, too. And tastes differ. So don't take _anything_ you hear as holy writ. )

(Except for my own books. You can take those being worth buying as gospel. )


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

There are so many books, movies, and games that I SHOULD play that I know I'd never get to them all in two life times.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 12, 2009)

It's nice to be hearing some talk about the Chronicles of Prydain here. For me, it was the series of books that bridged the gap between reading the Chronicles of Narnia when I was in elementary school and reading all of Tolkien's works when I was in high school. Which, interestingly enough, means I probably read it around the same time that I was working my way through all of Asimov's stories.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 13, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> ...  Which, interestingly enough, means I probably read it around the same time that I was working my way through all of Asimov's stories.



I was gobbling up Asimov (well, the Foundation series, at least) right around 9th - 10th grade, with my Moorcock and Leiber.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 13, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Well I can sing many songs, but I wouldn't call it 'performing'...
> 
> ....in fact most people would call it torture!




Ah, but you are not a Tolkenian hero, are you?

All joking aside, I am going to make a recommendation for [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Wish-Andrzej-Sapkowski/dp/0316029181/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247443915&sr=1-2"]The Witcher[/ame] books by polish author Andrzej Sapkowski

They are just beggining to be published in English, and I haven't yet read that edition, but the Spanish translation is just wonderful... Snarky, grey-and-grey morality D&D-style fantasy with great characters and story


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Ah, but you are not a Tolkenian hero, are you?
> 
> All joking aside, I am going to make a recommendation for The Witcher books by polish author Andrzej Sapkowski
> 
> They are just beggining to be published in English, and I haven't yet read that edition, but the Spanish translation is just wonderful... Snarky, grey-and-grey morality D&D-style fantasy with great characters and story



There is also a computer RPG out for it. It was pretty good.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2009)

Count me in with the crowd that loves Lloyd Alexander.  And, TwinB, yeah, totally with you on the bridge between Narnia and Middle Earth.  Very much.  Excellent series.  I tried to add Cauldron Born to every campaign I ran.  Statted up the Hunt any number of times.  And the ape thing - Gigly, Gilli - what the heck was its name?  Loved that.  And the pteradactyl critters too.

But, it was a really smart series as well.  Well worth the read.


----------



## chintznibbles (Jul 14, 2009)

Hmm, this makes me want to go back and try the New Sun books again.  I started reading the first and got a little squicked out by the, uh, degloving (or de-booting or whatever the foot equivalent is) scenes and kind of drifted enough to leave it buried in the everpresent stack on my nightstand.

I will bring a dose of squick-resistance elixir (aka. Maker's Mark) with me this time. 

And, come to think of it, maybe I ought to go dig out the Prydain books from the dusty recesses of my bookshelves...


----------



## Baron Opal (Jul 14, 2009)

Gene Wolfe is a tough read. I've found that you have to be in the right frame of mind. When I started reading Severain's story with focus rather than as a light read I could get into the story better. You also need a good dictionary. Being able to have the different beasties in mind, and knowing that Gene didn't make up any of the words out of whole cloth helps.


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And the ape thing - Gigly, Gilli - what the heck was its name?



"Ah, poor Gurgi, he has not the intellect of man or the wisdom of the animals."


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 14, 2009)

Baron Opal said:


> "Ah, poor Gurgi, he has not the intellect of man or the wisdom of the animals."



My sister, whom I love dearly, sparked my love of all things literary by reading novels to me when I was a nipper, usually just before bed. Susan Cooper and Lloyd Alexander were among the stories she narrated, so I'll always have a fondness for them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 14, 2009)

mlund said:


> There is probably some very brutal truth to that, but there are some fantasy wizards that D&D could draw from just fine.
> 
> Sure, the D&D model for the Wizard was never anything like the way Gandalf or his fellow "wizards" rolled in The Lord of the Rings. Heck, they called them "Magic-users" back in the day - not Wizards. They drew much more from some romantic notions of Merlin the Magician, Rasputin, and even some implications from C.S. Lewis. The notion was of an Arcane Academic who, though years of study of arcane formula and forbidden secrets could manipulate the fabric of the universe for good or for ill. Thanks to Dragonlance, Raistlin Majere became the signature character for the Magic-user.




Which leads us back to the "angry, book-loving nerd that really wishes he could kill you with his brain." Because that's _exactly what Raistlin Majere is_.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Which leads us back to the "angry, book-loving nerd that really wishes he could kill you with his brain." Because that's _exactly what Raistlin Majere is_.




Interesting way to look at it... Never really thought about that one.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Awgh, don't do that! You brought back memories I tried to forget.





Quick, imagine Zoe McClellan naked!


----------



## Herschel (Jul 14, 2009)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> To be fair to them, neither Marlon Wayans nor Jeremy Irons were the worst parts of that movie.




I would vehemently argue Marlon was. It's hard to imagine a worse performance in a theatrical movie.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 14, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I would vehemently argue Marlon was. It's hard to imagine a worse performance in a theatrical movie.




Hmm. I'd argue--not to derail the thread any more --that his actually wasn't the worst performance in that movie.

Thora Birch and Jeremy Irons, both of whom are capable of _so_ much better, were actually worse than Marlon in that particular film.

In fact, between her under-acting and his horrendous over-acting, they probably averaged out to one adequate performance.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> In fact, between her under-acting and his horrendous over-acting, they probably averaged out to one adequate performance.




I know we all think of our campaigns and games as thrilling A+ stuff, but in reality the average DM and Players aren't high talent authors/actors.  

I'd say the majority of players out there have on numerous occasions faced evil wizards that are pretty much just like the performance by Irons... Overacted caricatures complete with insane  overcomplicated plots. 

The movie was bad, I wont argue that, but I kind of feel like it represents the average D&D campaign out there. 

The average campaign is overused cliche plots and poorly acted caricature villains, opposed by equally poorly acted random hodgepodge heroes that stick together and do things... just because. 

And that's part of the fun. It's goofy pulp style fun.  It doesn't matter at the table that the trap is riddled with ways fpor the PCs to defeat it- because well... the sharks have frikkin laser beams!

I used to read all the D&D books- they were great (at the time I don't know if I'd still think so...) But they were never "really" like the average D&D campaign. 

If you set out to make a "cool" movie you're going to have to make one that doesn't match the experience at the table really, like the books. It's a cool story, but is it REALLY D&D?

Which I think is the REAL problem. 

I think there's a reason why things like KoTDT and OoTS and the PvP podcasts are so popular. They capture the feel of the game as it's played but they don't shy away from spoofing it. They embrace the silliness- we empathize with the story because it's just like our own experiences (slightly exaggerated.) 

If you try to capture the experience but treat it too seriosuly at the same time, you just end up with a B movie (at best.)

I often wonder if Irons and the writer took inspiration from actual game play but the director thought he could still try for the "cool" side.


----------



## rogueattorney (Jul 14, 2009)

Orius said:


> The thing is though, Vance is pretty obscure.




I'm sorry, this was posted a while ago, but...

Jack Vance is obscure?

50+ published works, 2 Nebula awards, a Hugo award, an Edgar award, one of only 26 authors inducted as a Grand Master by the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Writers Association, and he's obscure?

Wow!  If Jack Vance is obscure, who besides Steven King isn't obscure?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> I'm sorry, this was posted a while ago, but...
> 
> Jack Vance is obscure?
> 
> 50+ published works, 2 Nebula awards, a Hugo award, an Edgar award, one of only 26 authors inducted as a Grand Master by the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Writers Association, and he's obscure?



I can see it. If I had never played D&D, I would never have heard of him. If you're really info sci-fi/fantasy, you might be familiar with all the award winners, but for me the list of winners of the Nebula, Hugo and Edgar awards is pretty hit-and-miss.

Vance is pretty big among fans of sci-fi/fantasy, but that does not preclude him from being generally obscure. Unless the original post was referring only to the sci-fi/fantasy genres and I missed it, in which case I would disagree.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 14, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> Jack Vance is obscure?



Yeah, he's obscure, and getting obscurer by the day. Less well known than Tolkien, Rowling, Pratchett, RA Salvatore, Moorcock, CS Lewis, Ursula K LeGuin, Frank L Baum, REH, ERB, George RR Martin, Edgar Alan Poe and Thomas Malory, to name but thirteen.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 15, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> I'm sorry, this was posted a while ago, but...
> 
> Jack Vance is obscure?
> 
> ...




Jack Vance is an older author. 

As such, he tends not to fall into the 'flashy' of newer authors, even those whose works might not be considered 'good'.

In addition, the works most closely associated with D&D, don't have '50+ published' works to them. It's a handful of novels.

Given a poll to D&D players who started playing with 4e and give them R A Salvatore and Jack Vance, I strongly suspect the former would quickly outpace the latter.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 15, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> I'm sorry, this was posted a while ago, but...
> 
> Jack Vance is obscure?
> 
> ...



If none of your works are currently in print?  Yeah, that makes you obscure.

Vance didn't get the comic book and film treatments of Howard, nor did his fame extend from a different creation than the fantasy one (Tarzan being more famous than John Carter, for instance), and wasn't a huge popular figure like Heinlein whose books are still in print.  Indeed, the first I heard of Vance was long after I started playing D&D in the early 90s, and it was in the context of discussing magical casting systems--ie Psionics vs. Vancian.

The same is true of Lieber.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 15, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> _If none of your works are currently in print? _ Yeah, that makes you obscure.
> 
> Vance didn't get the comic book and film treatments of Howard, nor did his fame extend from a different creation than the fantasy one (Tarzan being more famous than John Carter, for instance), and wasn't a huge popular figure like Heinlein whose books are still in print.  Indeed, the first I heard of Vance was long after I started playing D&D in the early 90s, and it was in the context of discussing magical casting systems--ie Psionics vs. Vancian.
> 
> The same is true of Lieber.




Eh?

No, really, eh?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 15, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Eh?
> 
> No, really, eh?




Check the years on most of those 1999 (re-issues after the other went out of print) and later or 1984 and earlier (initial print runs).  Also consider that there was no such thing as Amazon, wikipedia, or, hell, the internet with which to find those books.  There were bookstores and word of mouth.

So, sure, I'll eat the "out of print." However I'll replace it with "widely unavailable."  Just for comparison of books available now, I just did a search at four local Barnes and Noble (based on my ZIP code of Revere, MA) for both Leiber and Vance.  In stock at the stores are Lankhmar Book 1 and Book 2.  Literally none of Vance's work, and nothing else by Leiber.  I also checked the Boston Public Library for "The Dying Earth."  The Boston Public Library has exactly 2 copies, neither of which can be checked out of the library.

You'll note the resurgence of pulp fiction authors in the late 90's and early 00's, authors most people coming of age in the 80s and early 90s hadn't heard of because the books weren't in current printing.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 15, 2009)

I agree to a point.

However, as Sony's eReader and Kindle, etc... become more and more... accessible (Kindle on the iPhone now for free), the whole 'print' issue is going to become moot.

People will read what's new, what's being supported, what's happening now.

However, a movie or tv show could easily bring one of those old bastiches back from the grave.

With modern audience, to discount the internet... well, on an electronic message board, doesn't seem completely feasible.



Mercutio01 said:


> Check the years on most of those 1999 (re-issues after the other went out of print) and later or 1984 and earlier (initial print runs).  Also consider that there was no such thing as Amazon, wikipedia, or, hell, the internet with which to find those books.  There were bookstores and word of mouth.
> 
> So, sure, I'll eat the "out of print." However I'll replace it with "widely unavailable."  Just for comparison of books available now, I just did a search at four local Barnes and Noble (based on my ZIP code of Revere, MA) for both Leiber and Vance.  In stock at the stores are Lankhmar Book 1 and Book 2.  Literally none of Vance's work, and nothing else by Leiber.  I also checked the Boston Public Library for "The Dying Earth."  The Boston Public Library has exactly 2 copies, neither of which can be checked out of the library.
> 
> You'll note the resurgence of pulp fiction authors in the late 90's and early 00's, authors most people coming of age in the 80s and early 90s hadn't heard of because the books weren't in current printing.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 15, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> With modern audience, to discount the internet... well, on an electronic message board, doesn't seem completely feasible.



Sure.  I was talking more about what was available when I was first getting into roleplaying, kind of piggy-backing a bit on the "generation gap" thread, than meaning currently.

I think in 10 years people might look back at Keith Baker's movie inspiration list and go, "Huh?"  Especially for things like "Brotherhood of the Wolf" and "The Name of the Rose."  Heck, I'd be shocked if more than a few people had ever watched "Casablanca" or "The Maltese Falcon" which exist more as names than actual entities to many people.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

To be fair, Jack Vance is currently coming into a bit of a renaissance.  He's got a massive retrospective tome out (which I am squirreling pennies away to buy), and there are a number of authors doing "Vancian" fiction in the magazines.  For example there is Subterranean Press which is releasing "Songs of the Dying Earth" as I write this which is a big tribute book of Vance style prose set in the Dying Earth.

The online mag's also got one for public consumption:  Sylgarmos Proclamation by Lucius Shepard  Really fun read.

But, let's be honest here.  Jack Vance is a very, very obscure writer that very few outside of D&D gamers have ever heard of.  I love his stuff, but, let's not kid ourselves here.


----------



## resistor (Jul 15, 2009)

Wow, lots of love for Lloyd Alexander.  Glad to see that other people liked him too.  In YA fantasy, I also _really_ loved Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising sequence.

Of the "classic D&D authors," the only one I've read is Moorcock, and only because I heard of him through D&D.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 15, 2009)

I've long wanted to read Vance's fantasy stuff but never have. I regularly look at the V section of the Sci-Fi and fantasy and the fiction sections of my libraries but I've only ever found his Demon Princes sci-fi books. Zelazny no longer shows up there either, or just one or two books of his.

Lloyd Alexander I avidly read in grade school and was able to listen to them recently on audio CDs from the library.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

Well, it makes sense that Vance and Leiber would be hard to find at a local bookstore/library.

There's a finite amount of space and with new books constantly being released, older authors unless they are insanely popular or are copied will not be remembered.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 15, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Sure.  I was talking more about what was available when I was first getting into roleplaying, kind of piggy-backing a bit on the "generation gap" thread, than meaning currently.
> 
> I think in 10 years people might look back at Keith Baker's movie inspiration list and go, "Huh?"  Especially for things like "Brotherhood of the Wolf" and "The Name of the Rose."  Heck, I'd be shocked if more than a few people had ever watched "Casablanca" or "The Maltese Falcon" which exist more as names than actual entities to many people.




The remakes of them by Michael Bay will bring those movies back to the public consciousness.

But in terms of your own 'getitng into RPG's.', hell, how about Clark Ashton Smith eh? Eh? I'm getting my hardcopies as they're being reprinted by the old Night Shade Books.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I know we all think of our campaigns and games as thrilling A+ stuff, but in reality the average DM and Players aren't high talent authors/actors.
> 
> I'd say the majority of players out there have on numerous occasions faced evil wizards that are pretty much just like the performance by Irons... Overacted caricatures complete with insane  overcomplicated plots.
> 
> The movie was bad, I wont argue that, but I kind of feel like it represents the average D&D campaign out there.




My new favourite televisual representation of D&D has to be Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire!

Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire | Comedy Central

I've been laughing myself silly at this, and it is partially because it SO reminds me of many D&D games.

Cheers


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 15, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The remakes of them by Michael Bay will bring those movies back to the public consciousness.
> 
> But in terms of your own 'getitng into RPG's.', hell, how about Clark Ashton Smith eh? Eh? I'm getting my hardcopies as they're being reprinted by the old Night Shade Books.



I have yet to see one of those in a brick-and-mortar bookstore, and I've been looking.  I keep hoping some will pop up on Project Gutenberg sometime in the near future.


----------



## Saracenus (Jul 16, 2009)

As a 42 year-old who started gaming in 1979 (Basic/AD&D and Traveller) when I was a lad my list of inspirations were only partially covered in Appendix N of the 1e DMG. 

It wasn't until a few years ago that Erik Mona inspired me to fill in the gaps of my Appendix N reading queue. I picked up the following from Amazon:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Tales-Dying-Earth-Jack-Vance/dp/0312874561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247698929&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Tales of the Dying Earth: Jack Vance: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/First-Lankhmar-Millennium-Fantasy-Masterworks/dp/1857983270/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247699013&sr=1-27]Amazon.com: The First Book of Lankhmar (Millennium Fantasy Masterworks): Fritz Leiber: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Second-Book-Lankhmar-Fantasy-Masterworks/dp/0575073586/ref=sr_1_29?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247699013&sr=1-29]Amazon.com: The Second Book of Lankhmar (Fantasy Masterworks): Fritz Leiber: Books[/ame]

My wife has complete collections of HP Lovecraft and Moorcoc's Elric Saga.

I still need to collect the Howard Conan stories.

I am currently in process of collecting all of the Thieves World books (a couple more and I will start reading through in order).

Author's not mentioned:

Anne McCaffrey
Ursala LeGuin (if you haven't read the Earthsea Trilogy, boot to the head).
Emma Bull
Terri Windling (editor on the The Boardertown town series. Essential urban fantasy reading)
Charles DeLint
Frank Herbert (Dune warped my 10 year-old brain)
Elizabeth Moon (The Deed of Paksenarrion is the template for my wife's Paladins).
William Morris (The House of the Wolfings was an influence on Tolkien).
Neil Gaiman (anything)
Jim Butcher (Dresden Files should be a primer on what not to do in the Feywild)
Brothers Grimm (the origional stuff, not the Disney crap)
Richard Burton (The Arabian Nights: Tales from a Thousand and One Nights)


----------



## tmatk (Jul 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> My new favourite televisual representation of D&D has to be Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire!
> 
> Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire | Comedy Central
> 
> ...




Seriously a funny show! I hope it gets picked up for another season!!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> The movie was bad, I wont argue that, but I kind of feel like it represents the average D&D campaign out there.
> 
> The average campaign is overused cliche plots and poorly acted caricature villains, opposed by equally poorly acted random hodgepodge heroes that stick together and do things... just because.



Don't forget scantily clad wenches!  (or manches, or whatever the male version of a wench is... don't want to be politically incorrect).


Weird.... My disclaimer about political correctness was longer than my original statement.  What kind of world is this!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 16, 2009)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> To be fair to them, neither Marlon Wayans nor Jeremy Irons were the worst parts of that movie.




True, it is the scriptwriters and the director who should be put in front of the firing squad


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I wonder if the _actual_ wizard had any wizardy inspiration. Not that cribbing Gandalf for the Invoker makes him illegal to use as a wizard, of course, but D&D wizards haven't been very Gandalf-y ever.



Look to Vance's _Dying Earth_ stories and Camp & Pratt's "Harold Shea" (as well as Camp's _Fallible Fiend_ and "Reluctant King" stories) to find direct inspiration for the D&D wizard.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 16, 2009)

Brennin Magalus said:


> Yes. Start reading the Chronicles of Prydain yesterday.



Yes! Yes! With readings and gleamings for wisdom!


----------



## FriarRosing (Jul 21, 2009)

So, when I went to my local used bookstore to sell off some of my old 3.X stuff (it was too much clutter), I picked up a copy of the first Lankhmar book and the first Elric book. So far, I don't know how much I think of Moorcock as a writer, but Leiber seems excellent. 

I was once an aspiring creative writing major, and Moorcock's book in the first few pages broke so many things we were taught. The tense was seemingly randomly changed, point of view has changed, there are so many adverbs and awkward run on sentences. Looking at it from that direction, it's just crazy. At first I wasn't sure if I could read it, but I've made my way through it a bit, and I can't really say I don't like it. I can't say I totally like it either (yet), but I certainly like it more than I dislike it.

I've only read of a few pages of the Lankhmar book, and so far I'm impressed with Leiber. He has a much clearer, and prettier, writing style. 

It's cool to me that this thread could list so many books for me to look into. My girlfriend, who has no interest in D&D, is a big fan of the Lloyd Alexander books, and just randomly mentioned them to me the other day. I mentioned that I was reading about them in relation to D&D, and I'll probably borrow those from her some day.

But anyway.

I figured it'd be cool to let fans of the old school know that a young dude of the new school is checking out their recommendations.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

I find the idea of Vance as "obscure" to be beyond bizarre. Not only is he namedropped repeatedly in AD&D, where his "ioun stones" are appropriated and for which he supplied a framework for spellcasting, and not only was he cited as a direct inspiration for Sechi's Talislanta game, but there is a _Dying Earth Role-Playing Game_ written by Robin Laws, John Snead, and Peter Freeman with its own magazine. But that's not all... there's also a GURPS sourcebook, _GURPS Planet of Adventure_, based on Vance's planetary romances. Fire-and-forget spellcasting is known in RPG circles as "Vancian" magic. Short of getting his own sitcom on the Disney Channel, what could he do to be less obscure? 

As for the Invoker/Gandalf... We all know who the real inspiration for the Invoker is... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NTAAvJIGrs]YouTube - Angel summoner and the BMX bandit Part 1[/ame]


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Short of getting his own sitcom on the Disney Channel, what could he do to be less obscure?




He would be less obscure if he was known or discussed outside the niche market of roleplaying gamers.  There's a big leap in fame between "mentioned* in several roleplaying games, most of them pretty obscure even inside that market" and "sitcom on the Disney Channel".  lol

*I wouldn't even really count D&D as a game that "mentions" Vance.  Sure, several items and the spellcasting system were inspired by his works, but unless you already knew about him, how would this make him more well known?  I personally didn't know ioun stones were a Vance thing until this thread, and I only knew what "Vancian magic" meant by context until I read Dying Earth this spring.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I find the idea of Vance as "obscure" to be beyond bizarre. Not only is he namedropped repeatedly in AD&D



I played exactly one adventure in AD&D at age 11 in 1990.  The first gaming book I owned was "Price of Freedom" and the first D&D book was "The Complete Thief" for 2E.  AD&D as a source wasn't in print at the time I started gaming.



> Sechi's Talislanta game



Eh? Never heard of it.



> _Dying Earth Role-Playing Game_ written by Robin Laws, John Snead, and Peter Freeman with its own magazine.



Until a few years ago, I'd never even heard the title of Vance's work.  I knew he was a writer that had his magic system pilfered for D&D, but beyond that?  Nada.


> there's also a GURPS sourcebook, _GURPS Planet of Adventure_, based on Vance's planetary romances.



Never used GURPS.  Never been interested in the game system.  I think if I went out onto the streets of Boston and mentioned D&D to everyone I met and then GURPS to everyone I met, say 100 people in a few minutes, maybe one or two people would recognize GURPS and 50 or 60 would know D&D.  Citing GURPS as a way to fight a claim of obscurity is absurd.



> Fire-and-forget spellcasting is known in RPG circles as "Vancian" magic.



Indeed, that's the only way I'd ever even heard of Vance.



amysrevenge said:


> He would be less obscure if he was known or discussed outside the niche market of roleplaying gamers.  There's a big leap in fame between "mentioned* in several roleplaying games, most of them pretty obscure even inside that market" and "sitcom on the Disney Channel".  lol



Exactly.



> I only knew what "Vancian magic" meant by context until I read Dying Earth this spring.



Ditto (well, partially.  I just finished Dying Earth and am part way through "The Eyes of Overworld" (which I find is a much better read anyway).


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> *I wouldn't even really count D&D as a game that "mentions" Vance.  Sure, several items and the spellcasting system were inspired by his works, but unless you already knew about him, how would this make him more well known?




Well, apart from Appendix N, and being "mentioned" in the AD&D DMG Credits and Acknowledgements, Jack Vance is "mentioned" by name on p.40 of the rulebook as the inspiration of the magic system and on p.112 under ongoing campaigns. _Eyes of the Overlord_ and _Planet of Adventure_ are "mentioned." I suppose technically you can claim AD&D is not D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Well, apart from Appendix N, and being "mentioned" in the AD&D DMG Credits and Acknowledgements, Jack Vance is "mentioned" by name on p.40 of the rulebook as the inspiration of the magic system and on p.112 under ongoing campaigns. _Eyes of the Overlord_ and _Planet of Adventure_ are "mentioned." I suppose technically you can claim AD&D is not D&D.




Yup, buried amonst what 300 ish pages of Gygaxian prose is the name of Jack Vance.  In a book that's been out of print for twenty years.  

Sure, among D&D players, and a very, very small subset of those who've actually READ the 1e DMG, Vance might be known.  But a common name that's recognized outside of that subset?  Let's be realistic here.

Why is it so hard to believe that an author that has been out of print for longer than most players have been alive is obscure.

Next you're going to tell me that Leigh Brackett is a household name as well.  Can you tell me what she wrote without looking it up?


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

More than 10 of Jack Vances books are in print. If you count the omnibuses, more than that. And that's off the top of my head and not from an Amazon search or something. It's your point, so you can do the basic research yourself.

I wouldn't argue Leigh Brackett is a household name, but she wrote the first draft of The Empire Strikes Back and co-wrote the screenplay to The Big Sleep with William Faulkner. 

Whom, I trust, is a big enough in print writer for your tastes. 

--Erik


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> More than 10 of Jack Vances books are in print. If you count the omnibuses, more than that. And that's off the top of my head and not from an Amazon search or something. It's your point, so you can do the basic research yourself.
> 
> I wouldn't argue Leigh Brackett is a household name, but she wrote the first draft of The Empire Strikes Back and co-wrote the screenplay to The Big Sleep with William Faulkner.
> 
> ...




Kudos to you Erik.  Now, how many people do you think could name who Leigh Brackett was?  I did actually know the answer.

Out of curiousity, when did those 10 Jack Vance books come back into print?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow, holy crap.  I had no idea that Vance was still producing in the 90's.  Damn.

I gotta go to some better bookstores. But, to be fair, the print runs, doing some homework here, were extremely small.  It's not a big surprise that they would not be widely found.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Out of curiousity, when did those 10 Jack Vance books come back into print?




I started looking for Vance books in used book stores in about 2005, at the same time I started looking for Ted Sturgeon books.  I found over 20 Sturgeon books and only 1 Vance book (Dragon Masters, which was very good).  The two actually compare reasonably well, as they both use language in a similar way (where the construction of a sentence says almost as much as the words it contains) and did similar things for the early days of their genres.

I finally found Dying Earth as an omnibus in the UK this spring (a brand new omnibus in a new bookstore).  Got about 2/3 of the way through it, didn't like it, and hastily moved back to SF without finishing it (Joe Haldeman FTW).

I greatly prefer Sturgeon to Vance, but I consider them both to be of about equal fame - in other words, completely and utterly unknown outside their respective genres (edgy golden age SF and old-school fantasy respectively).


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> He would be less obscure if he was known or discussed outside the niche market of roleplaying gamers.




How does a multi-page profile in this Sunday's New York Times rank?

--Erik


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> How does a multi-page profile in this Sunday's New York Times rank?
> 
> --Erik




I'm not a member of the NYT online so I can't reread it right now, but I did read the article earlier this week linked to another site.  Isn't the title of that one "The Genre Artist"?  And isn't it basically about how unknown/unappreciated he is?  I remember a quote about how if he was from another country he'd have won a Nobel Prize for Literature (do they really give out one for this?), but since he was American nobody cared (very vague paraphrase of course, since I only barely remember the quote).


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Kudos to you Erik.  Now, how many people do you think could name who Leigh Brackett was?  I did actually know the answer.
> 
> Out of curiousity, when did those 10 Jack Vance books come back into print?




Mostly over the last 10 years or so. When I moved out to join the Wizards staff in 1999, almost all of his work had fallen out of print for one reason or another, a fact that many of his fans found maddening. The Demon Princes omnibus came out and stayed in print (it is _still_ in print, in fact) and the Dying Earth Omnibus followed, I believe both from Orb. A lot of other stuff followed, including a new Best Of from the Science Fiction Book Club that re-exposed some of his best short works to the modern audience. 

A lot of us chipped in and picked up the Vance Integral Edition a while back, which came just in time for my mostly un-earned WotC Pokemon bonus. A lot of my friends who had worked there longer than me got cars and houses and stuff. My bonus was much smaller, so I got a complete set of Jack Vance's creative work, in hardcover. 

I know a lot about Leigh Brackett, and the Planet Stories fiction imprint I manage at Paizo has brought five of her books back into print in the last two years.

--Erik


----------



## FriarRosing (Jul 21, 2009)

I have looked, and have yet to ever see a book by Vance in my local bookstores. Even the used books stores, including the one that is essentially a pile of hundreds of obscure, ancient books (including tons of old Science Fiction, fantasy and various pulps), don't have it.

They don't carry any Lord Dunsany either, which has always been a pretty big letdown. I guess I'll just have to order them off Amazon or something.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Short of getting his own sitcom on the Disney Channel, what could he do to be less obscure?



Be as well known as Tolkien or Terry Pratchett or JK Rowling or RA Salvatore or L Frank Baum or Robert Jordan or etc, etc, etc. I'll give him this, he's less obscure than G. G. Pendarves. But that ain't a high bar.

Not only is Vance unknown outside the sci-fi/fantasy ghetto, I'd wager the vast majority of D&D players haven't heard of him.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I'm not a member of the NYT online so I can't reread it right now, but I did read the article earlier this week linked to another site.  Isn't the title of that one "The Genre Artist"?  And isn't it basically about how unknown/unappreciated he is?  I remember a quote about how if he was from another country he'd have won a Nobel Prize for Literature (do they really give out one for this?), but since he was American nobody cared (very vague paraphrase of course, since I only barely remember the quote).




Yes, that's the one. My point wasn't to refute that he was more obscure than someone like Tolkien or Salvatore, only to refute the idea that he is only discussed among Dungeons & Dragons nerds on messageboards.

That is simply not the case. 

--Erik


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I gotta go to some better bookstores.




Yes.

Some of Vance's in-print material is from small houses running sub-5000 print runs (which in today's market is hardly "small"), but Orb has kept those Demon Princes and Dying Earth Ombinuses in print for most of the decade, and I've seen both of them, numerous times, in places like Barnes & Noble. Both are respectable evergreens for their publisher.

--Erik


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> How does a multi-page profile in this Sunday's New York Times rank?



A profile which spends the first two paras talking about how obscure he is.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I greatly prefer Sturgeon to Vance, but I consider them both to be of about equal fame - in other words, completely and utterly unknown outside their respective genres (edgy golden age SF and old-school fantasy respectively).




The Dying Earth cycle is one of only a handful of books by Vance that can be categorized as fantasy. Some deep-geek science fiction fans will balk at calling The Dying Earth stories sword and sorcery, instead inventing a "Dying Earth" genre for them to inhabit (perhaps because S&S is too much of a literary ghetto, and perhaps because many of the stories do contain genuine science fictional elements).

The huge majority of Vance material would likely be classified as science fiction by most readers rather than fantasy. The justly famous Demon Princes series, for example, involves space ships and high-tech weaponry and stuff.

--Erik


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> Yes, that's the one. My point wasn't to refute that he was more obscure than someone like Tolkien or Salvatore, only to refute the idea that he is only discussed among Dungeons & Dragons nerds on messageboards.
> 
> That is simply not the case.



The whole point of the article is - this guy is only discussed by D&D nerds on messageboards and that's a bad thing, he deserves to be better known.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> Yes, that's the one. My point wasn't to refute that he was more obscure than someone like Tolkien or Salvatore, only to refute the idea that he is only discussed among Dungeons & Dragons nerds on messageboards.
> 
> That is simply not the case.
> 
> --Erik




Fair enough.  Maybe I'm guilty of some hyperbole, but, not by a whole lot I don't think.  

Vance is seeing a major resurgence of late though.  Probably why he's in the NYT.  Subterrainean Press has just done a tribute book this month (IIRC) that looks amazingly scrumptious.

My whole point was that Vance is a pretty obscure SF and Fantasy author outside of some pretty narrow niche's. 

So, Erik, you'd know far better than I, how well known would you say Jack Vance is outside of D&D players?


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> A profile which spends the first two paras talking about how obscure he is.




Again, yes, I'm not arguing that his renown does not match his genius or talent. Just pointing out that a guy who has enough fame to get covered like that in the times is not truly obscure in the way that, say, most of the FR novelists are or most publishers of independent RPG companies are.

Someone posted a few pages back that Vance was obscure and getting more obscure every day. The latter contention is demonstrably false, as his profile has risen in recent years and an increasing amount of his output is coming back into print.

Since the topic genuinely _is_ obscure to a lot of readers of this thread, I wanted to add a little perspective from someone who has been paying a LOT of attention to Vance over the last decade or so.

--Erik


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> The whole point of the article is - this guy is only discussed by D&D nerds on messageboards and that's a bad thing, he deserves to be better known.




Except the part where it talks about his influence among professional science fiction authors and the science fiction reading community in general without regard to Dungeons & Dragons, sure.

--Erik


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, Erik, you'd know far better than I, how well known would you say Jack Vance is outside of D&D players?




I'd say he's probably best known by general science fiction fans in their 40s and older, fans of D&D, and general readers of science fiction, in that order.

I don't suspect most general readers have ever heard of him, but then they've probably never heard of a lot of the authors discussed on this thread, including R. A. Salvatore and certainly including Fritz Leiber and Robert E. Howard. 

If you say "the Conan guy," you'll probably get a nod of recognition from most fantasy fans or people familiar with the Arnold Schwartzenegger movie (which is everyone), but if you asked people at random to point out Conan's creator on a list of names, I'll bet most of them wouldn't know.

But I'll bet most D&D players couldn't do it either.

--Erik


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

Really?  You'd say that R. A . Salvatore is that obscure?  I'll admit he's not my cup of tea (I think I read one of his Ravenloft books way back when) but, I do see his name hit the best seller lists fairly often (although not as much of late).

Again, not arguing with you, just surprised.

And, really, you think Howard is that obscure too.  Heh.  Guess I'm letting my own preferences color my perspective to much.  Was a HUGE fan of Savage Sword of Conan way back when, so, I knew who Howard was from an early age.  

Does go to show why I'd think Vance was so obcure.  I'm just smidgeon too young for your criteria.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really?  You'd say that R. A . Salvatore is that obscure?




I only know him because I read his books out of a sense of completeness. As a name of interest mainly to FR fans, he's far more obscure than Vance in the sense of having an audience outside hardcore D&D players.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

You think there's enough hardcore D&D players to put someone at the top of NYT's best seller lists, repeatedly?


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And, really, you think Howard is that obscure too.  Heh.  Guess I'm letting my own preferences color my perspective to much.




I'd go as far as saying that pre-2001 Tolkien himself was reasonably obscure outside fans of the genre.  Less so than any other genre author you'd care to name certainly, but really to "outsiders" we're a pretty marginal bunch at the best of times.  There's a whole wide world out there of people who have no idea (or who know but don't care) that Lord of the Rings was a book first.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I only know him because I read his books out of a sense of completeness. As a name of interest mainly to FR fans, he's far more obscure than Vance in the sense of having an audience outside hardcore D&D players.




Salvatore more obscure than Vance?  Not in this universe!  Vance IS obscure (but as Mona points out, not as obscure as some of us might have assumed), but Salvatore regularly makes the NYT Bestseller Lists with practically every book he pens, and has been prominently displayed on bookstore shelves since The Crystal Shard was released back in . . . ah, the 90s? (too lazy to look up).

Salvatore is why the Forgotten Realms is one of WotC's biggest properties and Drizzt is the most popular D&D character of all time . . . tons of folks who couldn't care less about D&D read the man's books.

Although, he's no Stephen King . . .


----------



## MerricB (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And, really, you think Howard is that obscure too.  Heh.  Guess I'm letting my own preferences color my perspective to much.  Was a HUGE fan of Savage Sword of Conan way back when, so, I knew who Howard was from an early age.




You have authors whose names are more famous than that of their work, and you have the other way around as well.

I feel Vance's name is more famous than his work (thanks in no small part to "Vancian magic"). However, Conan is more famous than his creator.

Tolkien and Lord of the Rings pretty much go together. 

Tarzan > Edgar Rice Burroughs > John Carter ?

Cheers!


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Yup, buried amonst what 300 ish pages of Gygaxian prose is the name of Jack Vance.  In a book that's been out of print for twenty years.




I was not making that his claim to non-obscurity. I was just mocking the scare quotes about D&D "mentioning" him. Which, you know, it "does."



> Sure, among D&D players, and a very, very small subset of those who've actually READ the 1e DMG, Vance might be known.  But a common name that's recognized outside of that subset?  Let's be realistic here.




How many truly obscure authors get omnibus reprints of their books? There are plenty of non-obscure authors whose works are basically never republished.



> Why is it so hard to believe that an author that has been out of print for longer than most players have been alive is obscure.
> 
> Next you're going to tell me that Leigh Brackett is a household name as well.  Can you tell me what she wrote without looking it up?




For all I know, Leigh Brackette *is* obscure. But I'm not going to make the argument on the basis of my ignorance.

Quick, name two other fantasy authors who have been received credits or dedications on roleplaying games that were not the licensed RPGs of their works. Heck, name one that is credited thusly on one game; I can't think of any. Then there's that whole "has two official roleplaying game products based on his writing published by two different publishers" thing; how many authors have achieved that? 

Anything not current is "obscure" in a certain sense, but I'm not going to call Ella Fitzgerald obscure because most modern listeners don't know who she is. Comparing Vance to Tolkien would be like claim someone without Mozart or Bach's fame is "obscure." Using the 100 random people test, we can easily demonstrate that Stravinsky is an obscure composer, Hayao Miyazaki is an obscure filmmaker, Havarti is an obscure variety of cheese, Yuri Gagarin is an obscure astronaut, and Pompey is an obscure Roman general.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I'd go as far as saying that pre-2001 Tolkien himself was reasonably obscure outside fans of the genre.  Less so than any other genre author you'd care to name certainly, but really to "outsiders" we're a pretty marginal bunch at the best of times.  There's a whole wide world out there of people who have no idea (or who know but don't care) that Lord of the Rings was a book first.




Huh?  Practically everyone I've met had to read The Hobbit in junior high!  That's anecdotal, I know, but I really can't see Tolkien as obscure in anyway at all!  Once Tolkien's works became popular in the US in the 1960s, they became American classic literature!

You could argue that everything Tolkien wrote outside of the Hobbit and the Rings trilogy was obscure, I'd buy that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

I suggest you read more RPG books.

Blue Rose mentions a number of authors.  Forgotten Futures mentions more (and some REALLY obscure ones).  Savage Earth name drops.  And, I'm very sure Spirit of the Century does as well.

Your point would be?

I suggest you read the rest of the thread before you answer me.  It's not like I'm pulling this out of my hat here.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

Tolkien does manage to become something of a household name for the simple fact that he's on a very large number of academic reading lists.  I know I read The Hobbit in Grade 8.  The fact that the Professor was an Oxford Professor helped greatly in getting his works onto reading lists, which, I think, helped greatly in saving him from obscurity.

I still love the line from Friends:

Joey:  Why do you call him Gandalf?
Ross:  Because he's the party wizard.  You know.  Gandalf.  Didn't you read The Lord of the Rings in High School?
Joey:  I was having sex in high school.

Always makes me giggle.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really?  You'd say that R. A . Salvatore is that obscure?  I'll admit he's not my cup of tea (I think I read one of his Ravenloft books way back when) but, I do see his name hit the best seller lists fairly often (although not as much of late).




It depends on what you mean by obscure. Salvatore rules the roost of the game fiction tie-in world, which is a very reliable world complete with the potential for sales that even the "big boys" like TOR would be impressed with. A huge-selling D&D novel is a huge-selling fantasy novel, period. 

The more popular books Salvatore FR novels do occasionally hit the best-seller lists, and he was also very successful with a Star Wars novel as well. In both cases the built-in audience value of the associated brands _underscored_ and propped up whatever audience an "R.A. Salvatore" book would have in its own right. Salvatore (and Greenwood, and Weis and Hickman, and others) have published books in their own universes, with other publishers hoping to cash in on their success elsewhere, and in the main these books do NOT sell as well as books they wrote for their D&D (or Star Wars) brands. 

Salvatore is hugely influential with the D&D crowd (perhaps moreso than any author save Tolkien and probably eventually Rawling). But if you ask your parents about him, or non-science fiction fans, and they won't know who you are talking about. All of them know Tolkien, and I'll bet they've probably heard of Ray Bradbury or Isaac Asimov. I don't know how many have heard of Salvatore. 

I realize that that's a difficult standard for any author to achieve, but I felt that was the benchmark being laid earlier in this thread regarding Jack Vance. If Salvatore is known primarily to readers of gaming tie-ins, his audience would seem to be still relatively obscure, insofar as sci-fi fandom and culture in general is concerned.

But really it's counting angels on the head of a pin stuff, and subjective as hell. I am starting to lose interest in the semantics part of this conversation, and will soon be drawn back to VH1 reruns.



Hussar said:


> Again, not arguing with you, just surprised.
> 
> And, really, you think Howard is that obscure too.  Heh.  Guess I'm letting my own preferences color my perspective to much.  Was a HUGE fan of Savage Sword of Conan way back when, so, I knew who Howard was from an early age.
> 
> Does go to show why I'd think Vance was so obcure.  I'm just smidgeon too young for your criteria.




I don't think Howard is obscure at all among fans of sword and sorcery, but I think your average reader of fantasy like A Game of Thrones or The Wheel of Time or Dragonlance didn't know who he was or was only dimly aware that he had created Conan didn't know much about Howard until the recent Del Rey re-issues.

That's because Conan, even in its mangled, L. Sprague de Camp Lin Carter perversions, was starting to fall out of print around the same time the Red Box came out and brought many of us, as little kids, into the hobby. I think Robert E. Howard and Conan and (for that matter) Jack Vance and Edgar Rice Burroughs were more influential to the D&D gamers who are in their 40s or older at this point (a lot of the OSR crowd) than in my own age cohort or younger (I'm 34) because those books were not as reliably in print and available to us during the time we came into the game as adolescents and even into high school. 

Anyway, I know that a huge handful of game designers currently working at both Wizards of the Coast and Paizo had not read Robert E. Howard until the Del Rey collections came out, because most of them have come up to me and told me how awesome it was, as I've long been an advocate of the books.

Furthermore, I think the kind of nerd who dedicates his career to fantasy gaming or who spends a large portion of his leisure time talking on page 9 of EN World threads is a subset even of total D&D players worldwide. Every campaign I've ever been in has featured only a couple of "uber" players, and a lot of casual fans who enjoy the game but don't live or die on its every nuance. A lot of those guys might read The Wheel of Time, but their connection to fantasy isn't strong enough that they know the difference between Robert E. Howard and Jack Vance or how to correctly spell Fafhrd. 

I happen to suspect that that more casual fan is actually the majority of D&D _players_ (not active customers, mind you), and that most "D&D Players" don't care about things like edition wars, authors of products, or really much of anything best described as "minutia" related to the game. 

So we are talking semantics here and we're talking subsets of subsets of subsets of customer cohorts, and I see some lovely ladies in bikinis on my television so I am out.

--Erik


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> You think there's enough hardcore D&D players to put someone at the top of NYT's best seller lists, repeatedly?




Yes.

Don't kid yourselves. Dungeons & Dragons (and especially the associated novels business) is one of the most reliable, steady publishing operations in the science fiction and fantasy field today.

It doesn't get nearly the critical reception other "mainstream" novels receive, but it doesn't need it, because it is swimming in money. 

How many other companies can you think of that have an entire shelf in almost every Barnes & Noble in the country filled top to bottom with their products? In science fiction and fantasy? 

The only one that is even close (and growing increasingly closer) is Games Workshop's Warhammer novel line, which is patterend entirely off the Wizards of the Coast (really TSR) business model.

--Erik


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

LOL Erik.  Thanks for that.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I suggest you read more RPG books.




I'm not sure to whom this post is addressed, but I suspect this suggestion is probably misaimed toward the majority of participants in this thread.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I'd go as far as saying that pre-2001 Tolkien himself was reasonably obscure outside fans of the genre.  Less so than any other genre author you'd care to name certainly, but really to "outsiders" we're a pretty marginal bunch at the best of times.  There's a whole wide world out there of people who have no idea (or who know but don't care) that Lord of the Rings was a book first.




From the LoTR Wikipedia page:
"In a 1999 poll of Amazon.com customers, The Lord of the Rings was judged to be their favourite "book of the century."

Not sure that trilogy is as marginal as you think.

--Erik


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I'm not sure to whom this post is addressed, but I suspect this suggestion is probably misaimed toward the majority of participants in this thread.




It was addressed to you.  You asked to name two names that have been mentioned in RPG books.  I name four or five RPG books that namedrop.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It was addressed to you.  You asked to name two names that have been mentioned in RPG books.  I name four or five RPG books that namedrop.




I said to name two authors that have had role-playing products dedicated to them, that were not licensed RPGs of their works. For instance, _The Chronicles of Talislanta_ says, "Dedicated to Jack Vance, pre-eminent author of science-fiction and fantasy."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 21, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I said to name two authors that have had role-playing products dedicated to them, that were not licensed RPGs of their works. For instance, _The Chronicles of Talislanta_ says, "Dedicated to Jack Vance, pre-eminent author of science-fiction and fantasy."




Ahh, apologies, misread that.  I'll certainly grant that one.

Hey, look, I LIKE Vance.  I do.  I find reading Vance a true joy.  

But, I'm still going to stand here and say he's a pretty obscure figure in the genre.


----------



## Midnight Dawns (Jul 21, 2009)

Just adding my own two cents here. I think Vance is obscure to both the casual and to the new players. I hadn't even heard the term vancian magic until OotS mentioned it, at which point I also learned of Vance. That was after several years of playing DnD. I have friends whom have played longer than me that don't know how Jack Vance is. From my experience gamers from my age demographic (collage-age) see Vance as obscure and half of th etime haven't heard of him where as it seems that to gamers in their thirties and older that ihe is a familiar name.

BTW I had read all five books in the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 21, 2009)

I tend to disagree with Erik M about Conan though.

Conan (along with Star Wars) SAVED marvel from Bankruptcy in the 70s and was easily outselling anything from either marvel or DC (excluding Star Wars). 

We're talking about when Superman had a circulation figure of roughly 400k a month, Conan was easily besting this at closer to 600k.

There were a lot of people who never once touched a Conan novel but still read the pretty faithful Conan stories (and I think since those stories all had "Conan created by Robert E. Howard" at the beginning, more people definitely I can see remembering REH than say Vance)


----------



## Storminator (Jul 21, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> I'd go as far as saying that pre-2001 Tolkien himself was reasonably obscure outside fans of the genre.  Less so than any other genre author you'd care to name certainly, but really to "outsiders" we're a pretty marginal bunch at the best of times.  There's a whole wide world out there of people who have no idea (or who know but don't care) that Lord of the Rings was a book first.




According to the infallible Wikipedia (infallible I say!) Tolkien has the 8th best selling book of all time List of best-selling books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and also the 13th. 

PS


----------



## Obryn (Jul 21, 2009)

Huh!  I honestly didn't know Jack Vance was still alive.  Or that he was still writing books...  And I generally consider myself pretty well-read...

Still, reading The Complete Dying Earth omnibus last year was one of the more pleasurable excursions into classic f/sf that I've made.  I still can't get into Elric, no matter how hard I try, but I _adore_ Cugel.

-O


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> Someone posted a few pages back that Vance was obscure



That would be me.



> and getting more obscure every day.



That I did not say or indicate.  His books have come back into print, in small print-runs and available online-only or in very few select stores, and which books are not available at any Barnes and Nobles or Borders within 25 miles of my house in Revere, MA.  While he may be experiencing something of a renewal now, my contention was that when I first got into D&D (~1990), his fiction was _not_ in print, _not_ easily obtainable, and highly obscure.

The term "Vancian magic" wasn't something I'd heard until 3rd edition D&D, so that was 10 years of formative gaming and fantasy reading (high school and college) where I'd never heard of Vance.  In the last decade (which is 3rd edition and later, notably), his books have come back into print, but as I mentioned above, are not available in any bookstore within a reasonable distance from my house in metro-Boston.

EDIT - added a screencap showing Barnes and Noble not having Tales of the Dying Earth in stock.


----------



## Stoat (Jul 21, 2009)

I picked up the _Dying Earth_ omnibus at a Barnes & Noble in Charleston, SC.  I've seen the same book at the Borders here in Augusta, Ga.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 21, 2009)

Storminator said:


> According to the infallible Wikipedia (infallible I say!) Tolkien has the 8th best selling book of all time List of best-selling books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and also the 13th.
> 
> PS




I apologize for the hyperbole.


----------



## JeffB (Jul 21, 2009)

Stoat said:


> I picked up the _Dying Earth_ omnibus at a Barnes & Noble in Charleston, SC.  I've seen the same book at the Borders here in Augusta, Ga.




Yeah I've seen TotDE locally as well- not every Borders or B&N has it but several I've been to do.


----------



## SirFrog (Jul 21, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Gandalf is a parfect match for an Invoker (robe + staff + subtle magic + divine origin).
> 
> I don't know the character that inspired the Avenger, but I get a strong "Solomon Kane" vibe from it.




Back on topic...I agree with the Avenger being based on Severian in principle. (See below for artwork) If you have never read Gene Wolfe, I suggest you actually start with _The Knight_ and _The Wizard_, both of which are fairly new and a bit simpler to get into.  After you have gotten a taste for Wolfe's style, then you should read _The Urth of the New Sun_.  Bring a dictionary and a search engine - those help with Wolfe.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 21, 2009)

Storminator said:


> According to the infallible Wikipedia (infallible I say!) Tolkien has the 8th best selling book of all time List of best-selling books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and also the 13th.
> 
> PS




What's that you say? 

Neat link.

Agatha Christie surprised me.

Dragonlance and Foundation both at 20 million. both series dwarfed by the 250 million choose your own adventure ones which are apparently not D&D ones.


----------



## Orius (Jul 22, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> That's because Conan, even in its mangled, L. Sprague de Camp Lin Carter perversions, was starting to fall out of print around the same time the Red Box came out and brought many of us, as little kids, into the hobby. I think Robert E. Howard and Conan and (for that matter) Jack Vance and Edgar Rice Burroughs were more influential to the D&D gamers who are in their 40s or older at this point (a lot of the OSR crowd) than in my own age cohort or younger (I'm 34) because those books were not as reliably in print and available to us during the time we came into the game as adolescents and even into high school.




Maybe.  I'm 32, and I was reading a bunch of Conan before I got into D&D.  Granted, a good deal of that _was_ de Camp's mangling of REH's work and later TOR pastiches, but I still read them.  My father had a bunch of old Conan books, and I had a lot of fun reading then during my mid-teens.  It certainly influenced the way I played my first D&D game, and it ended up getting me killed.    As for actually available, this was the early to mid 90's so, and the local Barnes & Noble/Waldenbooks really didn't carry much of it.  I did pick up a copy of the first book in the Ace paperback series, and they'd have a handful of some of the TOR books, but that was about it.  Certainly, they were getting crowded out on their section of the shelves by the Star Trek novels, the growing number of Star Wars novels, and yes, various D&D novels.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 22, 2009)

I was lucky enough that my local library carried much of the De Camp Conan stories.  To be honest, I had no idea that they were different from the original Howard books until only a few years ago.  I'm now rectifying that with Stanza and an Ipod Touch.


----------



## kibbitz (Jul 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Huh!  I honestly didn't know Jack Vance was still alive.  Or that he was still writing books...  And I generally consider myself pretty well-read...
> 
> Still, reading The Complete Dying Earth omnibus last year was one of the more pleasurable excursions into classic f/sf that I've made.  I still can't get into Elric, no matter how hard I try, but I _adore_ Cugel.
> 
> -O




Three of my last books were all by Moorcock, two of them about Elric and the other about... Hawkmoon, I think. While I don't regret the purchases, I really, really didn't like them. I'm fine with his style of writing; guess I just don't care for the subject matter. I suppose just want heroic fantasy where the hero triumphs after a long hard struggle.

The last time I tried to read something again, I borrowed a copy of A Game of Thrones on a friend's recommendation. Not sure if that killed my interest in reading fantasy, but I don't think I've ever had the interest in reading fantasy ever after that. Then again, I don't think I've read any book ever since that wasn't a tech manual or guidebook of some sort...


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 25, 2009)

If it's any consolation, I don't like _A Game of Thrones_, either.


----------

