# Dwarves don't sell novels



## heirodule (Aug 12, 2006)

Another amusing bit from the 'inside wotc' article in Dragon was the interaction between designers talking about a new Keith Baker's James Wyatt Eberron novel, alleged to feature a changeling

Slavicek insists that 'eberron isn't ebberron without warforged', and wants to know how Keith will address that.

Sehestedt, the marketer questions using changelings because they are an "alien race" and they need to be identifiable with. he says 'you can get away with elves because they're sexy, but not matter how cool the book is, if you put a dwarf or a halfling on the cover, sales drop'

(I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)


----------



## Megatron (Aug 12, 2006)

actually it was James Wyatt who was writing the new novel if you read the article.., Keith's name isnt mentioned once.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 12, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Sehestedt, the marketer questions using changelings because they are an "alien race" and they need to be identifiable with. he says 'you can get away with elves because they're sexy, but not matter how cool the book is, if you put a dwarf or a halfling on the cover, sales drop'
> 
> (I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)




However, this reference is about the main character.  Last I recall, the main character of a Lord of the Rings wasn't a dwarf.   Halflings are close to humans, and changelings can easily be (at least as far as the cover goes), so I don't think it's that much of an issue.  Still, making the main character someone the reader can identify with is a good point.

I did think the comment about it not being an Eberron book without warforged was pretty superficial.  I guess that's what you expect from someone who is in marketing, though.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 12, 2006)

Wow, this explains a lot about the elf-fetishism TSR/WotC have shown over the years.

Me, I'll read about 100 dwarves before I pick up another elf novel.


----------



## ender_wiggin (Aug 12, 2006)

It's not just TSR/WotC with the elf fetish. I mean Tolkien started it -- he created, on purpose or inadvertantly, a creature who is the ideal of human popular culture.

They live extremely long, look extremely attractive, and are sorcerous (by this they supercede nature).

What do you expect?

What eventually happened to elves is a cultural backlash, which occurs to any popular social event. Even a cult hit, given enough underground popularity, will spawn a backlash.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 12, 2006)

Oh, JRRT is a major offender, but I was specifically thinking of the TSR/WotC publication schedules, for which he is only indirectly responsible.


----------



## pogre (Aug 12, 2006)

Nobody tell Felix and Gotrek


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 12, 2006)

To be fair, WotC/TSR probably has evidence to back up that point.  There have been several dwarf-focused Dragonlance novels, and it would be trivial to compare their sales to the elf novels.

Though the latest 'big' Dragonlance novel is Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, so I'm not sure how that will play out.  It does feature the original companions as the heroes, though.


----------



## Captain NeMo (Aug 12, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> Nobody tell Felix and Gotrek



 Heh, we've got to remember how lame WHFB elves are though...


----------



## mhensley (Aug 12, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> Nobody tell Felix and Gotrek





Yeah, there's what, 5 or 6 Trollslayer novels?  Dwarves seem to sell pretty good for Games Workshop.  And Gotrek would kick Drizzt's ass anyday of the week.


----------



## pogre (Aug 12, 2006)

Captain NeMo said:
			
		

> Heh, we've got to remember how lame WHFB elves are though...




They got it right


----------



## Eltharon (Aug 12, 2006)

I like elves, but R.A Salvatore goes a bit (and I use this loosely) overboard in making them the paragons of practically everything. I mean, has anyone read The Two Swords? 

And yeah, WHFB elves are lame, except in the RPG, where they're the best race...


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 12, 2006)

*Includes a Definition of "Dwarfish"*

I forced myself to read Evermeet: Island of the Elves from cover to cover because I had a player in my game whose character was from there. 

Ouch.

I like elves just fine, but....that novel hurt my brain.



In other news, I would think that more of the typical gamers identify with Dwarves than elves. Isn't the stereotypical gamer rather, um, dwarfish?   

Dwarfish: _dwar-fish_, adjective. stocky or round, with facial hair and a predisposition for beer and snack food.


----------



## Sejs (Aug 12, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Wow, this explains a lot about the elf-fetishism TSR/WotC have shown over the years.
> 
> Me, I'll read about 100 dwarves before I pick up another elf novel.




Seconded.

There's only so much 'oh we're so etherial and graceful and perfect and emotive' that you can suffer crammed down your throat before the taste starts to sour. 

And brother, that point was reached long ago.


----------



## Brakkart (Aug 12, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> Nobody tell Felix and Gotrek




Yeah those books are great. Theres a new one coming out soon too, Orcslayer. Looking forward to the carnage that Felix, Gotrek, Snorri and Max can unleash on an orc horde.


----------



## Herobizkit (Aug 12, 2006)

Here's a thought:

If Dwarves were more like Klingons than your typical hole-diggin', liquor-chiggin', stuff-makin', orc-breakin', dour and taciturn sour-pusses, people MIGHT enjoy Dwarves a little more.  At least... *I* would.

But Dwarves "as is" have been given a very narrow niche in fantasy "reality", and it's very very difficult to make that niche interesting.

I've made a few attempts IMC.  For example, the favoured class (if you must) of Dwarves is Barbarian, and they're essentially Vikings, but shorter.  They love to build ships, raid, pillage, loot, and drag home slaves and wenches for slaving and wenching.  They're pirates, but worse.  They still drink, make stuff, and seem to work endlessly... until they come across some worthwhile loot, after which they drink, break stuff, and sing endlessly.


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 12, 2006)

Two words, my friends: Wulf. Ratbane.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 12, 2006)

> It's not just TSR/WotC with the elf fetish. I mean Tolkien started it -- he created, on purpose or inadvertantly, a creature who is the ideal of human popular culture.




He didn't start the fire.  It was always burnin' when the world was turnin'.  IOW, he just popularized elves like nobody else before him by writing the most popular fantasy novel of all time.

Personally, I just wish the bookstores wouldn't stock 8 copies each of 15 different versions of the LOTR novels, thus leaving more room for the OTHER classic fantasy novels and newcomer novels of quality.

Oh, and for the record- I don't read ANY game related novels.  If a novel inspired by a RPG campaign setting, I leave it on the shelves.  There's simply too much good, original stuff to read for me to bother reading the works of those writing in a game world.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 12, 2006)

<shudder> Billy Joel

But yeah, Elves are basically a part of folklore.  And beyond that, the D&D/LOTR style elf (at least Grey) owes a whole to _The Faerie Queen_


----------



## Graf (Aug 12, 2006)

Generally the target demographic for mass market paperbacks is the sort of person who wants to read about an "angelic" (i.e. flawless) main character.

The reason why gamers like dwarves is that they have negative traits that are positive from a moral stanpoint (i.e. honorable) along with traits that are just useful for DnD (i.e. greedy when the game is about wealth accumulation).

Elven traits are generally "i'm perfect!" or something similar. In Wyatt's book (Claws of the Tiger?) it seeemed like just being an elf or having elf blood gave +5 - +10 to spot checks.
Since the game is balanced now that wouldn't be something a character would normally receive for an ELC +0 race but it seems like a requirement for WotC novels.

Since books about perfect elves (i.e. Drizzt) have been best sellers WotC seems to feel compelled to keep up the trend.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 12, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Two words, my friends: Wulf. Ratbane.




Amen.

Up the dwarves.  Down with pansy elves, pecks, and poof dwarves (aka gnomes).

What we _really_ need is not another DL novel, but a Wulf Ratbane novel.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Aug 12, 2006)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Two words, my friends: Wulf. Ratbane.




My ferkin' ears are burnin'.


----------



## Numion (Aug 12, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> (I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)




But LotR _is_ the original elf wank-fest.


----------



## SWBaxter (Aug 12, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> But LotR _is_ the original elf wank-fest.




The movies, yes, not so much the books. Tolkien notes in one of his letters that Legolas was the character who accomplished the least of all the Fellowship, and that was intentional - the glory days of the Elves are long past in LoTR. You could argue that the Silmarillion is the original elf wank-fest, but even those elves are overshadowed by the Valar (and arguably the Edain). The "Legolas is next to godliness" interpretation was one of many thematic changes Jackson made that don't appear to match Tolkien's intentions.

I think the elf fixation in the D&D novels actually has more to do with Anne Rice than Tolkien - TSR/WOTC elves are long-lived, gorgeous, somewhat alien, and often angst-ridden outsiders, just like Rice's vampires. Drizzt could easily be a drinking buddy of Lestat, if some extradimensional space were created to contain all of their angsty posing.


----------



## Eltharon (Aug 12, 2006)

Not in the books as much as the movie. Elves ARE good in the books, but theres really only one. The others sort of hang around Rivendell. And Tolkien never really makes Legolas that much cooler then Gimli. He even kills less Orcs at Helms Deep.

EDIT: SWBaxter beat me to it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 12, 2006)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> But Dwarves "as is" have been given a very narrow niche in fantasy "reality", and it's very very difficult to make that niche interesting.



I disagree. Put down a fantasy novel and pick up pretty much any other sort, and the sorts of people represented are much closer to dwarves than elves in fantasy.

The fact that what passes for fantasy novelists nowadays (especially in the shallow end of the pool where most game fiction is written) are attempting LotR necrophilia doesn't mean there aren't other ways to write dwarves that would speak to people.



> For example, the favoured class (if you must) of Dwarves is Barbarian, and they're essentially Vikings, but shorter.  They love to build ships, raid, pillage, loot, and drag home slaves and wenches for slaving and wenching.  They're pirates, but worse.  They still drink, make stuff, and seem to work endlessly... until they come across some worthwhile loot, after which they drink, break stuff, and sing endlessly.



Heh, the dwarf in my campaign is a barbarian/druid and behaves similarly, although his extended family are more like hatchet-flinging Hatfields and McCoys. (Hey, the Appalachians are mountains!)


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 12, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> (I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)




Probably not as much as you might think. The art and science of what to put on a book cover is a bizarre and strange thing; like it or not, people are heavily influenced by what they see on that cover. Studies are made about colors used, the size of figures, what those figures are, etc. 

Here is an interesting article  about the difference between British and American cover versions of the same book. Notice that the American covers almost always use warm colors. Cool or dark colors have a direct correlation to lower sales on the same book, when different covers are used for different printings, or by the same author.


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 12, 2006)

There was a very similar thread on the old WoTC novel message boards. I think it was one of the more prolific female D&D writiers who sounded off on this subject, too. She mentioned the fact that WoTC does not like non-human and non-elven heroes (and perhaps non-dragon). Her reasoning was very close to what heirodule brought up:



			
				heirodule said:
			
		

> 'you can get away with elves because they're sexy, but not matter how cool the book is, if you put a dwarf or a halfling on the cover, sales drop'




So I guess this is a sore spot for writers too. If this mentality was not there, I think there would be a much larger variety of novels out there. 

It's nice to see that dwarves are appreciated _somewhere_ (Warhammer novel writers, you are dwarven gawds!). D&D novel readers are shallow and horny, apparently   What is the target age group for D&D novels? I know that as a wee little one, I broke my teeth on Azure Bonds. I'll admit it - the cleavage of Alias of Westgate was half of what got me to buy the novel. However, the other half was that strange reptilian humanoid weilding a sword...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 12, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Sehestedt, the marketer questions using changelings because they are an "alien race" and they need to be identifiable with.



This is very much what was laid down to the original Dark Sun creators.  Their original creation had humans and all others races were new races.  Marketing told them it was cool but they had to come use PHB races... and must throw in dragons somehow.  So the designers came back with hairless dwarves, 7-foot tall elves that ran around the desert... literally, and savage halflings that ate other PC races. Their take on dragons were that the god-like rulers of the city-states were metamorphosing into "dragons", while there was one who had fully transformed into The Dragon who all of the god-rulers paid tribute to.







			
				heirodule said:
			
		

> he says 'you can get away with elves because they're sexy, but not matter how cool the book is, if you put a dwarf or a halfling on the cover, sales drop'



Well, I might put this down to artists not being able to draw halflings appealingly.  Warhammer artists seem to have a dwarf-look that appeals to enough fans.  If WotC artists could draw halflings and dwarves "cool" then... maybe the marketers conventional wisdom wouldn't be.


----------



## Ibram (Aug 12, 2006)

Captain NeMo said:
			
		

> Heh, we've got to remember how lame WHFB elves are though...




I've always prefered the WH elves to the D&D elves, a much more interesting bunch IMO.

and WH Dark Elves are vastly more evil then the drow could ever hope to be...


----------



## pogre (Aug 12, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Warhammer artists seem to have a dwarf-look that appeals to enough fans.  If WotC artists could draw halflings and dwarves "cool" then... maybe the marketers conventional wisdom wouldn't be.




I blame Blanchitsu!


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 12, 2006)

Funnily enough, dwarves sell rather well here in germany...


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Aug 12, 2006)

It's nothing new. Most people don't want to play halflings or dwarves in D&D either. Thus, partly, the reason for buffing dwarves up in 3.5.


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 12, 2006)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> It's nothing new. Most people don't want to play halflings or dwarves in D&D either. Thus, partly, the reason for buffing dwarves up in 3.5.




All the groups I played with and GMed for must be oddballs. I rarely ever see an elf, but there will be humans, and *at least* one dwarf or halfling. In addition, there is always the 1 "oddity", typically (but not always) the big guys, like orcs, warforged, goliaths, half-orcs, kobolds, and so on.



			
				Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, dwarves sell rather well here in germany...



For some reason, I am not surprised by this. I don't know why, and I'm not craking a joke about Germans or anything.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 12, 2006)

Of course dwarves don't sell novels.  None of them get a bonus to Profession (Bookseller).  They might sell them if they were written on stone tablets, but no one has enough space in their library for a stone tablet-based novel.

Gnomes and half-elf bards, on the other hand, are just the sorts of poofs to put ranks in Profession (Bookseller).


----------



## Len (Aug 12, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Of course dwarves don't sell novels.  None of them get a bonus to Profession (Bookseller).  They might sell them if they were written on stone tablets, but no one has enough space in their library for a stone tablet-based novel.



Except that dwarves don't _read_ novels either.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 13, 2006)

Hmm, Germans liking hard-working, hard-playing, hard-drinking, order-loving dwarves ... nope, can't see any reason why that would be so.


----------



## Wik (Aug 13, 2006)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> All the groups I played with and GMed for must be oddballs. I rarely ever see an elf, but there will be humans, and *at least* one dwarf or halfling. In addition, there is always the 1 "oddity", typically (but not always) the big guys, like orcs, warforged, goliaths, half-orcs, kobolds, and so on.
> 
> 
> For some reason, I am not surprised by this. I don't know why, and I'm not craking a joke about Germans or anything.




You know, my group's exactly the same.  Since 3e started, I don't think I've seen a single elf in our group.  I know we've seen a bunch of dwarves (I've played more than a few myself), a bunch of halflings... and more than a few "oddballs" (typically hobgoblin or kobold). 

Elves suck, plain and simple.


----------



## Land Outcast (Aug 13, 2006)

*What ye talkin' 'bout? Pansy elves gettin' all the attention? Nay, no way.

Fer me, I result a hardcore dwarven supporter.

All hail the Soul Forger!*

Sincerely, always prefered dwarves.
Dwarven Thanes and Patriarchs all the way before elven Lords.

Specially in Dragonlance novels... that was where my love for dwarves was born (I read LotR at a later stage in my life)

[grumble]
_perfumed beardless clanless pompous dainty girly willow-waisted poetry-reading ballet-dancing tree-climbing hanky-waving lily-livered sissies who get us from getting the covers..._
[/grumble]


----------



## InVinoVeritas (Aug 13, 2006)

> 'you can get away with elves because they're sexy, but not matter how cool the book is, if you put a dwarf or a halfling on the cover, sales drop'




*blink*

Halflings? Not sexy? Not even slinky, leather-clad, got-that-petite-hot-thing-going Lidda? 

Someone's still thinking of hairfeet. Disappointing, really.

Done correctly, all the races are sexy. I can even think of sexy gnomes and half-orcs I've seen. Someone in the novel department needs to see more art.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 13, 2006)

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> ...
> I think the elf fixation in the D&D novels actually has more to do with Anne Rice than Tolkien - TSR/WOTC elves are long-lived, gorgeous, somewhat alien, and often angst-ridden outsiders, just like Rice's vampires. Drizzt could easily be a drinking buddy of Lestat, if some extradimensional space were created to contain all of their angsty posing.




Drizzt = Goth!
*jaw drops* Why didn't I think of it before....


----------



## ssampier (Aug 13, 2006)

InVinoVeritas said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Halflings? Not sexy? Not even slinky, leather-clad, got-that-petite-hot-thing-going Lidda?
> 
> ...




Sexy _half-orcs_? I'd pay to see that.

*runs*


----------



## Jolly Giant (Aug 13, 2006)

InVinoVeritas said:
			
		

> I can even think of sexy gnomes and half-orcs I've seen.





Where???   

Sorry, I just had to take that sentence out of its context!


----------



## Herobizkit (Aug 13, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I disagree. Put down a fantasy novel and pick up pretty much any other sort, and the sorts of people represented are much closer to dwarves than elves in fantasy.
> 
> The fact that what passes for fantasy novelists nowadays (especially in the shallow end of the pool where most game fiction is written) are attempting LotR necrophilia doesn't mean there aren't other ways to write dwarves that would speak to people.



I agree to a point.  The Dwarves of Shadowrun have a much more colorful history than "fantasy" dwarves, for example.  So do the Dwarves of Warcraft... I think.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Heh, the dwarf in my campaign is a barbarian/druid and behaves similarly, although his extended family are more like hatchet-flinging Hatfields and McCoys. (Hey, the Appalachians are mountains!)



Are you insinuating that your Dwarven Hatfields are legity because they're sort of from the mountains?  No dwarven stereotyping there...


----------



## Nyaricus (Aug 14, 2006)

TarionzCousin said:
			
		

> Dwarfish: _dwar-fish_, adjective. stocky or round, with facial hair and a predisposition for beer and snack food.



Dwarves are _STOUT_, not *FAT*!

ah, I haven't thought of that in-joke in years


----------



## Zander (Aug 14, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> (I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)



I kinda think that WotC haven't heard of the _Lord of the Rings_. What sort of genuine fan of fantasy would want robots (warforged) and psychic powers (psionics) in their novels and games? Tragically, D&D has been entrusted to sci-fi wannabes.

For all their shortcomings, at least Games Workshop have done one thing right: kept their fantasy (Warhammer) and science-fantasy (Warhammer 40K) settings separate. Perhaps that's why GW's dwarves are more highly regarded; because GW have genuine respect for fantasy tropes including those associates with dwarves.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 14, 2006)

For a moment, I thought you were serious


----------



## Zander (Aug 14, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> For a moment, I thought you were serious



I was being sardonic about LotR but serious about the rest. WotC feels that they need to change fantasy to make D&D appeal to a younger audience. The trouble is, they don't know how. Instead of pushing the boundaries of fantasy as Col Pladoh did, they introduced or developed sci-fi elements. Their total disregard for the fantasy genre can be seen in the pig's ear they made of the gnome race and, to a lesser extent, the halfling. They can't make dwarves appealing because they don't understand fantasy.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 14, 2006)

Why would novels with dwarves sell? They're too taciturn. They don't generate any dialogue. They go, avenge their fallen clan (they must have been a million dwarven clans once - all of them eradicated by orcs or other critters, leaving only a single dwarf who then goes and avenges his kin), hardly ever saying a word. And writers can only come up with so many variations of "he didn't say a word" before they get repetitive. They'll run out of those variations halfway through chapter 1.

And then there's their adherence to tradition. Your average roleplayer can't identify with that. I know I can't. I know I'm annoyed as soon as anyone utters "when we were young, we..."

Roleplayers are rewarded for being creative. And with that I don't mean they get extra xp if they can carve a wooden figurine of their character. They have to think of new ways to win an encounter. But dwarves are bad at this sort of thing. They cleave to the old ways (never even thinking about how that could very well be the reason all those clans get wiped out).



And I might be cursed with a bad roleplaying community, but every single dwarf I've seen played so far was a min-maxed excuse to not roleplay. "I don't have to talk nice, I'm a dwarf. Cut the diplomacy crap, I bash'em with my axe." "I take all the gold. Hey, I'm a dwarf, I'm supposed to be greedy." The fact that they overcompensated in 3.5, making dwarves a LA+1 race without level adjustment, doesn't really help.



Elves, on the other hand, are creative. They're encouraged to think. That appeals to roleplayers. Plus, their weaknesses are actual drawbacks, not excuses to build a munckinized fighter/barbarian.

I can see why people want to play a beautiful, elegant character, be him rogue, wizard, or fighter. Antisocial, short, fat stout, stinking, bearded, greedy little bugger? That sounds like that "gaming vet" who always manages to make another twinked character who's even more broken than the last. You know, the guy noone invites into his game any more except his fellow "gaming vets".



And about the "other races not sexy": I beg your pardon?

Half-Orcs: Okay, they're meant to be not sexy. Their racial traits makes them dumb and uncharismatic. Their piggish orc features mean that they won't be pretty. The only thing that can work is a male half-orc with that animal magnetism. And that only works for gamer girls   

Halflings: Lidda. I rest my case.

Seriously: Open a "Who likes Lidda?" thread and watch the number of replies climb faster than a drow ninja.

Gnomes: They're like dwarves without the excess stoutness and furry beardedness. Curious and inventive. That can work. Incidently, open your ravenloft campaign setting 3e, and look at the racial entry for gnomes.

And after that, read the write up they get in midnight.

The days of the "little fella with a big nose" are gone along with THAC0.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Aug 14, 2006)

Larry Elmore has this to say about sexy halflings:

A thousand words


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 14, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> What sort of genuine fan of fantasy would want robots (warforged) and psychic powers (psionics) in their novels and games? Tragically, D&D has been entrusted to sci-fi wannabes.




Lessee now. I think we can start with the millions of fans of the Deryni books, the Vlad Taltos books, the Witch World books, the Valdemar books, all of which are major works of fantasy that heavily feature psionics. God forbid we include _The Dying Earth_, which is a major influence for Col_Playdoh, as a work of fantasy since it's our own world in the far, far future. 

Man, what in the world are you going to do when the current generation being raised on anime and manga grows up and starts writing and producing art, books and RPG's based on the kind of genre-breaking and genre-mixing you see there? Are you going to be stuck in the basement spread like Smaug on a pile of Conan reprints or are you going to join the rest of us who can move past a lock-step genre definition?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 14, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> What we _really_ need is not another DL novel, but a Wulf Ratbane novel.




SnarkQuest(tm)?

I must confess that after DDO, I do tend to think 'Wulf' when I hear 'dwarf'.  Partly, too, because I've had a dwarven character named Hogar Orcsbane for years, so I think the 'bane' part had me pre-disposed.

Frankly, I don't care who the main character is so long as the books are good, but I'm afraid I gave up on gamer fiction a long, long time ago.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 14, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Man, what in the world are you going to do when the current generation being raised on anime and manga grows up and starts writing and producing art, books and RPG's based on the kind of genre-breaking and genre-mixing you see there? Are you going to be stuck in the basement spread like Smaug on a pile of Conan reprints or are you going to join the rest of us who can move past a lock-step genre definition?




Yes, probably.  Can't stand anime.


----------



## rounser (Aug 14, 2006)

> Are you going to be stuck in the basement spread like Smaug on a pile of Conan reprints or are you going to join the rest of us who can move past a lock-step genre definition?



Sounds like you need a game that isn't D&D though - that's the real problem here, too many jaded folks who can't move on to another game, and so are attempting to warp D&D into a pulp noir sci-fi paranormal mutant ninja turtle kitchen sink mess.  From that perspective, _you're_ the ones who need to move on - D&D doesn't meet your needs, and having it turn into some cross between Indiana Jones and Shadowrun, with extra added dragonsauce on everything would?  Sheesh.  Gimme Conan over that any day...at least his genre is coherent.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 14, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Sheesh.  Gimme Conan over that any day...at least his genre is coherent.




Or did you forget the aliens he meets? REH, like most of the fantasy writers of his day, mixed in some modernesque stuff as well.


----------



## Zander (Aug 14, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Lessee now. I think we can start with the millions of fans of the Deryni books, the Vlad Taltos books, the Witch World books, the Valdemar books, all of which are major works of fantasy that heavily feature psionics.



LOL. Long after those books are forgotten, there'll still be legions of fantasy fans reading LotR and the Conan stories.


----------



## rounser (Aug 14, 2006)

> Or did you forget the aliens he meets? REH, like most of the fantasy writers of his day, mixed in some modernesque stuff as well.



And of course, just like all the psionics arguments, the exception justifies dismissing the rule completely, yes?

It's a matter of scope.  There's cthulhu mythos elements in the odd Conan story as well, or so I gather, but it's not a core theme of the setting.  When aliens invading becomes an everyday occurrence on Hyboria, with Conan fighting greys as often as picts, then you might have an argument.  Until then, it's the "Greyhawk is the wild west because Murlynd has six-shooters" argument - one that crumbles under more than trivial scrutiny.

D&D encapsulates all manner of freaky anachronistic things in small doses.  For some of you, in large doses - but to suggest that the other side should "move on" is just a matter of perspective.  "If you're jaded with D&D's themes, maybe look for another game" is just as valid as "If you don't like pervasive anachronisms in your D&D, either change or get left behind."


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 14, 2006)

I see the whole thing as "D&D is a toolbox, and WIzards (and the rest of the d20 Industry) are just handing me tools to use or discard as wished". If you don't like Warforged, dont use them. But don't come screaming just because WotC is using Psionics (Something Gary built into AD&D 1st as an optional system. Which is what the XPH is, too).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 14, 2006)

Herobizkit said:
			
		

> Are you insinuating that your Dwarven Hatfields are legity because they're sort of from the mountains?  No dwarven stereotyping there...



I wanted to go with a classic sort of campaign setting -- dwarves, dragons, kobolds, goblins, a human-run feudal state -- but I wanted to change it up so that it wasn't just The Hobbit leftovers.

So I decided to go with a different mountain culture, one I'm reasonably familiar with and which I thought fit in well with D&D dwarves.

If you've never had a barefoot dwarf spitting tobacco while sharpening his axe on a porch and wearing a standed pair of overalls, I submit your dwarves have been trapped in too narrow of a stereotype, since from where I'm sitting, this fits perfectly and is a natural outgrowth of the standard tropes.


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 14, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I wanted to go with a classic sort of campaign setting -- dwarves, dragons, kobolds, goblins, a human-run feudal state -- but I wanted to change it up so that it wasn't just The Hobbit leftovers."



No. This is wrong. You are missing the warforged, guns, and all other new devices that are in D&D. Whizbang, You need to get with the times and accept that those old ideas and concepts are no longer viable! 



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> If you've never had a barefoot dwarf spitting tobacco while sharpening his axe on a porch and wearing a standed pair of overalls, I submit your dwarves have been trapped in too narrow of a stereotype, since from where I'm sitting, this fits perfectly and is a natural outgrowth of the standard tropes.



Another mistake, Whizbang. These do not sound like Tolkein-esq dwarves. If you want this, you should not be playing D&D, because we don't want those kind of ideas in our game! 
Looks like you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

If I have learned anything from this second page, it's that D&D is NOT your game (your, as in people in general, not just Whizbang's). It's someone else's, and they want you to know that you are not playing it correctly.

..Now.. Um, so why are there no books featuring dwarves?

PS: My apologies to Whizbang for using his post to make a rant that has nothing to do with him.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 14, 2006)

> I kinda think that WotC haven't heard of the Lord of the Rings. What sort of genuine fan of fantasy would want robots (warforged) and psychic powers (psionics) in their novels and games? Tragically, D&D has been entrusted to sci-fi wannabes.




and



> And of course, just like all the psionics arguments, the exception justifies dismissing the rule completely, yes?
> 
> It's a matter of scope. There's cthulhu mythos elements in the odd Conan story as well, or so I gather, but it's not a core theme of the setting. When aliens invading becomes an everyday occurrence on Hyboria, with Conan fighting greys as often as picts, then you might have an argument. Until then, it's the "Greyhawk is the wild west because Murlynd has six-shooters" argument - one that crumbles under more than trivial scrutiny.




and



> LOL. Long after those books are forgotten, there'll still be legions of fantasy fans reading LotR and the Conan stories.




Right.

There is more under the vast roof of the Greathall of Fantasy than elves, dwarves and barbarians.

You'll find psionics and aliens (if not extraterrestrial, then extradimensional-as opposed to extraplanar) in a variety of classic fantasy literature by important and revered authors like Vance, Lee, Lieber, Lovecraft, Moorcock, and Zelazny.

Maybe its not YOUR taste, but those tropes have long and distinctive histories all their own- back to the dawn of modern fantasy literature in the early 20h century- and are no more likely to fade into obscurity than the legacies of JRRT or Howard.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 14, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You'll find psionics and aliens (if not extraterrestrial, then extradimensional-as opposed to extraplanar) in a variety of classic fantasy literature by important and revered authors like Vance, Lee, Lieber, Lovecraft, Moorcock, and Zelazny.



Don't forget Edgar Rice Burroughs, a pillar of the genre if there ever was one.  He was around long before JRRT.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 14, 2006)

I have never read a book tied to an rpg. I also dont go to cons, so in reality i have never met a elf fanboy, thus when on the frums, i get alittle anoyed at all the elf hate. Its ether over this or that. get over it eh? The elf hate is probably older then the fanboys you hate so much. Sounds like elf hate is the mainstreem now. the goths have become the cool kids, so what are you going to do about?


mmmm sexy half orcs. 


http://www.cafzone.net/galerie/albums/pub/lineage2/normal_big_orc.jpg


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 14, 2006)

The government states that this post does not exist. Move along, move along.

(aka: I screwed up. Ignore this)


----------



## rounser (Aug 14, 2006)

> Maybe its not YOUR taste, but those tropes have long and distinctive histories all their own- back to the dawn of modern fantasy literature in the early 20h century- and are no more likely to fade into obscurity than the legacies of JRRT or Howard.



And if you really need psionics, robots, aliens and magitech everywhere, as a fundamental and pervasive part of your games, then maybe D&D's not to YOUR taste, and YOU need to move on.  It's a reversal of the idea that those who don't want more than an occasional touch of anachronistic stuff need to move on - no, maybe YOU need to move on...to another game.  You just don't want to admit that D&D's no longer for you, and keep beating it's dead horse corpse until it's an unidentifiable mess.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> And if you really need psionics, robots, aliens and magitech everywhere, as a fundamental and pervasive part of your games, then maybe D&D's not to YOUR taste, and YOU need to move on. It's a reversal of the idea that those who don't want more than an occasional touch of anachronistic stuff need to move on - no, maybe YOU need to move on...to another game. You just don't want to admit that D&D's no longer for you, and keep beating it's dead horse corpse until it's an unidentifiable mess.




Considering that even 1Ed AD&D had its robots & aliens, I don't think the horse is dead. Heck, its not even just one horse we're talking about.

"Techno" stuff and anachronisms are sprinkled all over the D&D landscape.

I mean, besides the 1Ed module that actually had a crashed alien starship (S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks), you have golems & clockwork critters ≈ robots.  Peruse some of the 1Ed & 2Ed monster entries, and you'll even find SENTIENT constructs, precursors to the Warforged of Ebberon.

I forget whose PC it was who got published as a TSR NPC, but it was a mage who had to "L-Shaped" pieces of metal as foci for his magery...in other words, a pair of sixguns.

Vance's _Dying Earth_ stories influenced  not only D&D's magic system, but many of the items as well- some of which were clearly of technological origin.

And those other authors weren't just tossed off idly- most of them, too were among the many influences on the game from day one.

My point?

Fantasy is a broader genre than you'd care to admit, and D&D has always found a way to accomodate that breadth, not just in the various homebrews, but also in the game's official content.

I'm not saying that you have to add psionics to your game.  I've been playing this game for 28 years, mostly in plain vanilla settings that have no psionics, no robots, no magitech.  It does that quite well.  But it also handles the funky stuff too.

Yet Zander thinks that because a piece of fantasy literature or RPG campaign has a quasi-techno element means it can't be enjoyed by a "genuine fan of fantasy," and you assert that such elements are "rare."

And both propositions are demonstrably false, or at least, not as true as you'd like to believe.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 15, 2006)

Yeah, halflings and dwarves sell so poorly. I think I'll write a story about a halfling, an old wizard, and 13 MALE dwarves going on a quest. I'll never sell...


----------



## Arrgh! Mark! (Aug 15, 2006)

If I remember correctly, Sins of the Fathers by Destan was also another great dwarf-starring storyhour along with good old Wulf Ratbane. 

I can see why elves on covers sell D+D fantasy. 

Same reason why covers sell fantasy. Dwarves aren't pretty, Dwarves aren't nice, and hence, dwarves don't always win. 

Elves are pretty, godlike, and always win. Most people who read fantasy don't brain warping adventures Dying Earth style or even nihilistic character dramas Iron Dragon's Daughter style. 

People read fantasy to have a bit of fun. Now, thats all good. Personally I wouldn't mind hearing about the torment a dwarven character goes through as he's forced by one tradition to violate another or something. But most people want light entertainment, not really embracing stuff. 


Lets have a look at old Drizzt. While he's lost a fair bit, he hasn't lost enough that he can't come back to his safe place. Whatever he's lost he regains through some process of redemtion. His friends will never completely isolate him. If we have a look at Destan's dwarf, through no fault of his own he's taken from everything he's ever wanted without mercy. We don't know if he'll get it back.

We know Drizzt will win eventually. We know eventually he'll either come back from his fall from grace or die heroically. 

A dwarf? unlikely. Novelists will have to really think about these characters because they don't fit the hero story so easily. Hence a good dwarf needs a better grade of writer to write with any facility. 

So it's true. Elves do sell covers. But people who prefer a more serious style of fantasy don't buy for pretty elves.

Unless it's unclad, pretty elf-chicks with swords...


----------



## Kishin (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> LOL. Long after those books are forgotten, there'll still be legions of fantasy fans reading LotR and the Conan stories.




Except that those books were hugely influential in their own right. Valdemar basically spawned an entire subgenre of Fantasy, which now even has a roleplaying system built around its major tropes (Blue Rose). The Deryni novels are equally widespread.

I'm about as big a fan of REH (or any _Weird Tales_ writer) as you'll get, but he and Tolkien are far from the be-all-end of fantasy. Contrary to what you think, the genre has evolved considerably, and you do have features beyond the baseline (ie. psionics) popping up as early as Moorcock, Zelazny and Vance, as others have indicated in their thread.  In modern fantasy, you have other household names showing widespread genre influence: Terry Brooks (and I will for now withhold my bias against his work, as everyone and their third cousin Steve seems to have read the  _Shannara_ books), Robert Jordan (Again, my own personal bias against his worldbloating aside), Kate Elliott, George R.R. Martin, all of whom are working to re-invent the wheel in their own way.

If there's one thing that I cannot stand, its the stifling of creativity though narrow genre definitions. If you want to limit creative possibilities and retread the same tired old ground again and again, be my guest, but don't consider yourself the majority, or force that opinion on others. 

This is especially true with D&D and the whole wrongbadfun debate, which need not be rehased here.

P.S I'll inject a little personal bias here in the end and say that if you think D&D was intended to be restricted to low-magic Tolkienesque prancing through the Mines of Moria, I've got a copy of _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_ to show you, as well as the treasure allotments for just about every high level module since the dawn of the game.


----------



## rounser (Aug 15, 2006)

> "Techno" stuff and anachronisms are sprinkled all over the D&D landscape.
> 
> I mean, besides the 1Ed module that actually had a crashed alien starship (S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks), you have golems & clockwork critters ≈ robots.



Not denying that.  It fits my argument to a tee.  These are curiosities, and departures from the norm of the Greyhawk (and Blackmoor) settings.  The very thing that makes them somewhat interesting is their novelty.  In fact, I'd suggest that you've scuttled your own argument by even citing these as an example.


> Peruse some of the 1Ed & 2Ed monster entries, and you'll even find SENTIENT constructs, precursors to the Warforged of Ebberon.



Again, irrelevant.  A golem NPC has limited "screen time", whereas a tin man PC has constant "screen time", such that it alters the tone of the game in a way that a single NPC (or even a race of them) is unlikely to.


> And both propositions are demonstrably false, or at least, not as true as you'd like to believe.



It appears that you're making assumptions about my argument because either you don't understand it or don't want to entertain it.  I'm not saying these things don't belong to fantasy, just that they need to be handled with care before going "prime time" with them, because they bring flavour implications which you are seemingly blind to.  Maybe you wouldn't think twice before adding laser rifles to the PHB equipment list, but surely you can see reason that some folks would?  Not even Blackmoor has that.  Why?  Because they're there as a cross-genre novelty, of course, and don't fit Blackmoor except as alien artifacts.  Eberron's tin men would look just the part toting them, though, which says it all, really.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> "Techno" stuff and anachronisms are sprinkled all over the D&D landscape.



See Dave Arneson's _Blackmoor_ (a foundation of D&D if there was one).  DA2 Temple of the Frog, DA3 City of the Gods.


----------



## rounser (Aug 15, 2006)

> See Dave Arneson's Blackmoor (a foundation of D&D if there was one). DA2 Temple of the Frog, DA3 City of the Gods.



You guys really think you're onto something here, don't you?    Maybe you'd have better luck with the Wilderlands setting, which doesn't have spaceships interloping on a stock standard fantasy setting as a novelty.  It just highlights that what you're introducing is alien, which isn't the spin you're looking for.


----------



## Herobizkit (Aug 15, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I wanted to go with a classic sort of campaign setting -- dwarves, dragons, kobolds, goblins, a human-run feudal state -- but I wanted to change it up so that it wasn't just The Hobbit leftovers.
> 
> So I decided to go with a different mountain culture, one I'm reasonably familiar with and which I thought fit in well with D&D dwarves.
> 
> If you've never had a barefoot dwarf spitting tobacco while sharpening his axe on a porch and wearing a standed pair of overalls, I submit your dwarves have been trapped in too narrow of a stereotype, since from where I'm sitting, this fits perfectly and is a natural outgrowth of the standard tropes.



I stand corrected. *LOL*


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 15, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> You guys really think you're onto something here, don't you?    Maybe you'd have better luck with the Wilderlands setting, which doesn't have spaceships interloping on a stock standard fantasy setting as a novelty.



You sure seem to think that the "novelty" factor changes the frequency factor? The first ever published RPG adventure, Temple of the Frog.  Half of the DA Blackmoor adventures involved technology.

Then lets explore the Mystara/Known World expansion on Blackmoor.  Its history states that Blackmoor technology exploded and upset the tilt of the planet.  The nucleus of the spheres, a techological artifact, a nuclear reactor of Blackmoor technology is fundamentally linked to magic on the planet.  A patron Immortal of the wizard kingdom Glantri, Rad, is a survivor of the FSS Beagle, is the patron of "The Radiance"... i.e. magic is a sort of radiation in Mystara.  The Wrath of the Immortals epic sends PCs to rediscover a remnant control room of the crashed FSS Beagle space ship.  The Blacklore elves are keepers of surviving Blackmoor technology.  The city of Serraine, a flying aircraft carrier remnant of Blackmoor is occupied by gnomes who travel all over the planet and descend to the ground via airplanes.  The adventure Earthshaker (I believe it was called) involved a Blackmoor era "battlemech" rampaging.  There are numerous Blackmoor artifacts to be found throughout the setting.

The technology aspect of Mystara is not a novelty, but thoroughly built into the setting.


----------



## Elfdart (Aug 15, 2006)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Sexy _half-orcs_? I'd pay to see that.
> 
> *runs*




Supposedly half-orcs are from the 10% that can pass for human. So why would they be any less "sexy" than humans?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> These are curiosities, and departures from the norm of the Greyhawk (and Blackmoor) settings. The very thing that makes them somewhat interesting is their novelty. In fact, I'd suggest that you've scuttled your own argument by even citing these as an example.




Then your suggestion would be way off base.

Historically speaking, psionics was possessed by about 90% of the entries in the 1Ed Deities & Demigods, all of the greater demons and devils, and many other critters in the MM2, Fiend Folio and Monsterous Compendiums.  Oh yeah, Brain Moles, Intellect Devourers, Mind Flayers and Thought Devourers are also some old school faves as well.

It was rare only in the sense that it was hard for PCs to get any psionic ability.  Considering the proliferation of psionic critters, the rarity of psionics in PCs was almost criminal.

Techno stuff is no more rare than other high end unique magic items- Lolth had her own starship, for instance.  And the Modrons are clearly mechanistic.



> > Peruse some of the 1Ed & 2Ed monster entries, and you'll even find SENTIENT constructs, precursors to the Warforged of Ebberon.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, irrelevant. A golem NPC has limited "screen time", whereas a tin man PC has constant "screen time", such that it alters the tone of the game in a way that a single NPC (or even a race of them) is unlikely to.




Your objections seem to be more based on 3.x's expansion of the concept of PC race to include life forms that were (in previous editions) NPC only.  It would seem YOU are the one that has the problem with the current system.



> > And both propositions are demonstrably false, or at least, not as true as you'd like to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that you're making assumptions about my argument because either you don't understand it or don't want to entertain it. I'm not saying these things don't belong to fantasy, just that they need to be handled with care before going "prime time" with them, because they bring flavour implications which you are seemingly blind to. Maybe you wouldn't think twice before adding laser rifles to the PHB equipment list, but surely you can see reason that some folks would? Not even Blackmoor has that. Why? Because they're there as a cross-genre novelty, of course, and don't fit Blackmoor except as alien artifacts. Eberron's tin men would look just the part toting them, though, which says it all, really.




Zander was the one who implied such concepts don't belong in fantasy at all, not you- I was clear on that when I posted.

I understand you just as thoroughly- I just disagree with you.  Deeply.  You just think that anyone who wants to meld "sci-fi" concepts like psionics or intelligent constructs in _D&D in particular_ is guilty of wrongbadfun:



> *rounser*
> Sounds like you need a game that isn't D&D though - that's the real problem here, too many jaded folks who can't move on to another game, and so are attempting to warp D&D into a pulp noir sci-fi paranormal mutant ninja turtle kitchen sink mess. From that perspective, you're the ones who need to move on - D&D doesn't meet your needs, and having it turn into some cross between Indiana Jones and Shadowrun, with extra added dragonsauce on everything would? Sheesh. Gimme Conan over that any day...at least his genre is coherent.




That is very different from Zander's position.

I'm not blind to the flavor implications of anachronistic items or technomagery.  90% of the D&D I've run or participated in as a player has had NONE of what you're complaining about.

However, I had no problem whatsoever running or participating in campaigns that feature such things, even if its prominently.  If I wanted to add something like a laser pistol, it will always be for a reason, even if its just a red herring.  I don't add things just "'cause its kewl!"


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm not blind to the flavor implications of anachronistic items or technomagery.  90% of the D&D I've run or participated in as a player has had NONE of what you're complaining about.
> 
> However, I had no problem whatsoever running or participating in campaigns that feature such things, even if its prominently.  If I wanted to add something like a laser pistol, it will always be for a reason, even if its just a red herring.  I don't add things just "'cause its kewl!"



I'm in the same camp. I read quite a lot of the old fantasy stuff, when it was still labeled "science fiction". I think the first fantasy book I ever read was a collection of the (original) Dying Earth stories, which means that Vancian magic and swords in combination with flying cars and electric light is somehow natural to me. Later, I liked the Might & Magic series of CRPGs where you, frex, start with swords and magic and end up fighting aliens with laser guns. I don't mind that stuff in D&D, either. That's probably the reason why I love aberrations; I have always imagined mind flayers as aliens with underground cities with artificial lighting and sliding doors.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> I have always imagined mind flayers as aliens with underground cities with artificial lighting and sliding doors.




Heh! I bet you love their entry in _Lords of Madness! _


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Heh! I bet you love their entry in _Lords of Madness! _



I love _Lords of Madness_ . I also love the spaceship (okay, spelljammer ship ) that comes with its web enhancement .


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Two broad questions for those of you who believe that D&D should be turned into a sci-fi game replete with robots and spaceships:

1. In the presence of science, how do you explain magic? How do dragons fly? How do pegasi preen their wings?

Once you let the genie of scientific reason out of the bottle, there is nothing to stop it being applied to everything in your setting. Everything then has to be justifiable by scientific (or at least pseudo-scientific) principles and the fantasy unravels. 

2. Do heroes in your campaign ride around on bicycles?

If the imagery of fantasy isn't important to you, are you happy to have your heroes ride around on proto-BMXs? Heroes in my campaigns ride horses.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 15, 2006)

Heroes in my game walk... ( We're in a city you know...)


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Two broad questions for those of you who believe that D&D should be turned into a sci-fi game replete with robots and spaceships:
> 
> 1. In the presence of science, how do you explain magic?



The problem is that you are proceeding from false premises.

If by "robots" you mean warforged, for instance, well . . . warforged are intelligent golems, magically constructed from stone, live wood, and metal by ancient artifacts of a long-dead civilisation, endowed with true life in a way that is not understood by their creators. The creation forges that gave them form, animation, and eventually life were energised by the inherent power wielded by a bloodline of humans who bear a magical mark upon their flesh, which may or may not have something to do with a prophecy encoded in the earth, sea, and sky of the world.

There's no *science* there, man.

Are "spaceships" spelljammers? Magically-altered ships propelled by the sacrifice of the magical energies of spellcasters sitting in enchanted chairs through the empty internal space of unimaginably enormous crystal spheres floating in an even more incredibly vast sea of some highly-flammable, rainbow-coloured medium, those spheres lit by stars which are massive portals to the Plane of Radiance or to some even stranger destination?

There's no science there.

Or are "spaceships" the elemental skyships of Eberron? Fantastic magic vessels built largely from the lighter-than-air wood of a rare variety of tree, given their rapid means of propulsion by an enslaved elemental bound using techniques which date back thousands of years to the same ancient empire whose arcane might provided the pattern for the creation forges which birthed warforged, controlled in their flight by yet another dynasty bearing marks of power, this one members of a true-breeding hybrid race of elves and men?

There's no science there.

I can't think of a setting which has truly incorporated into itself honest-to-goodness technnology in the science fiction sense *except*, ironically, the original pseudo-medieval swords-and-sorcery or Tolkienesque settings like Greyhawk and Blackmoor. Every modern example of "science fiction" in D&D turns out to be nothing more than an extrapolation of the long-standing implications of the level and scope of magic that has been present in any given setting, or some altered variation of the same (such as Eberron, which presumes that there is more widespread low-level magic making for _everburning lanterns_ as streetlights and the like, but much less high-level magic).


----------



## Goken100 (Aug 15, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, dwarves sell rather well here in germany...



That's strange.  They don't look anything like David Hasselhoff...


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Two broad questions for those of you who believe that D&D should be turned into a sci-fi game replete with robots and spaceships:
> 
> 1. In the presence of science, how do you explain magic? How do dragons fly? How do pegasi preen their wings?
> 
> Once you let the genie of scientific reason out of the bottle, there is nothing to stop it being applied to everything in your setting. Everything then has to be justifiable by scientific (or at least pseudo-scientific) principles and the fantasy unravels.



Your question is based on the assumption that there is some kind of automatism in the relation of scientific elements and magic. There is no such thing. Shadowrun or the whole genre of modern fantasy (Buffy, WoD) live with the coexistence of science and magic. If your assumption were true, religion as it exists today would be long dead, and magic in D&D has even the advantage that it visibly works.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> 2. Do heroes in your campaign ride around on bicycles?
> 
> If the imagery of fantasy isn't important to you, are you happy to have your heroes ride around on proto-BMXs? Heroes in my campaigns ride horses.



No, they don't ride bicycles. The imagery of fantasy is important to me. In most examples of science fantasy, science is as fantastic as magic. It's either a remnant of a distant time (like in the Dying Earth stories, where the protagonist can use products of science, but don't understand them) or in the hands of NPCs (like in my M&M or illithid examples).


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2006)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> That's strange.  They don't look anything like David Hasselhoff...



But a bit like Tasselhoff. It's probably a simple mix-up.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 15, 2006)

Goken100 said:
			
		

> That's strange.  They don't look anything like David Hasselhoff...




Hey, we didn't produce Baywatch, and it's an american company that wants to do _Knight Rider: the Movie_... 

Actually, most of us think he's pretty disgusting. It has more to do with "Morbid Fascination" than anything else. I know I'd rather listen to the Spice Girls or the Backstreet Boys (And this is coming from an old school Grin-Core Metalhead)...


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The problem is that you are proceeding from false premises.
> 
> If by "robots" you mean warforged... There's no *science* there, man.
> 
> ...



The trouble with attributing science to magic argument lies in the answer to my second question, not my first, which you haven't addressed. Perhaps the image of heroes riding horses doesn't fit your view of fantasy. In your conception, they ride magic-powered motorbikes. You can use that as your fantasy setting if you like (you certainly don't need my permission). It's just not for me or, I suspect, the majority of D&D players.


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Your question is based on the assumption that there is some kind of automatism in the relation of scientific elements and magic... If your assumption were true, religion as it exists today would be long dead...



I don't want to bring religion into this debate unnecessarily due to the boards' rules. However, there has been a decline in religiosity over the centuries as science has increasingly provided explanations for phenomena that were previously thought as divine in origin.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I don't want to bring religion into this debate unnecessarily due to the boards' rules. However, there has been a decline in religiosity over the centuries as science has increasingly provided explanations for phenomena that were previously thought as divine in origin.




Funny you mention that. According to a recent study, almost 60% of all physicists are religious. The percentage amongst mathematicans is even higher.

But that isn't the point. 

Look, we don't mind the fact that you love classical tolkienesque fantasy. Hey, same here. But I also love classical Moorcockian, Howardian, Lovecraftian fantasy, and I love modern science-fantasy. And I love the fact that D&D offers me the tools to build both one AND the other. If D&D was JUST one or JUST the other, one of us two wouldn't be playing, right? However, we both play - me one way, you the other. Neither of us is wrong.

So if you let me play the way I want, I'll let you play the way you want, and we're all happy. Hey, it's just a hobby, man


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Funny you mention that. According to a recent study, almost 60% of all physicists are religious. The percentage amongst mathematicans is even higher.



If you take a nominally Christian country in Europe, such as yours or mine, and look at the church attendance rates since the 12th century to the present day, you'll see a marked decline. Unfortunately, the records from that far back are sketchy but even if you only go back as far as the 19th century when figures are more reliable, you can see the trend. And nowadays, the people who are least likely to go to church are also those who are most educated.  



			
				Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> But that isn't the point.



 It is partly. You can't draw a line in your fantasy world that scientific enquiry isn't permitted to cross. In the real world, the Church tried that in Galileo's time and failed.  



			
				Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Look, we don't mind the fact that you love classical tolkienesque fantasy. Hey, same here. But I also love classical Moorcockian, Howardian, Lovecraftian fantasy, and I love modern science-fantasy. And I love the fact that D&D offers me the tools to build both one AND the other. If D&D was JUST one or JUST the other, one of us two wouldn't be playing, right? However, we both play - me one way, you the other. Neither of us is wrong.
> 
> So if you let me play the way I want, I'll let you play the way you want, and we're all happy. Hey, it's just a hobby, man



As I've already mentioned in this thread and in Dragon Magazine, if some people want that in their fantasy, I'm perfectly happy. I'm certainly not some authority to manage your fun and I don't want to be. My dispute is with WotC. Because they lack creativity, they can't see the myriad ways in which fantasy can still grow apart from following a sci-fi course. And I don't want D&D to become a purely sci-fi game. It squeezes genuine fantasy fans like me out.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I don't want to bring religion into this debate unnecessarily due to the boards' rules. However, there has been a decline in religiosity over the centuries as science has increasingly provided explanations for phenomena that were previously thought as divine in origin.



Sure. My point was that there is no indication that both, science and religion, are exclusive. And whereas religion nowadays manages to survive without any flashy show of magic power, magic in a fantasy setting overcomes even this hurdle easily. It's visibly there. At least it's true for D&D. Ars Magica is somewhat different in this regard, but that's not topic here. In D&D, science has no reason to replace magic, because magic in D&D works pretty much like science: in a reliable and provably effective way.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 15, 2006)

I have to say one thing to those who tell others "this game isn't for you, move on".

I have to say to them: This game isn't for you, move on.

If there's one thing typical to D&D, it's everything. D&D isn't about robots. It's about the possibility of robots if only you want to. D&D isn't about sci-fi, psionics, whatever. It's about the possibility of those things, if you want them in your game. 

That's wha D&D doesn't come with a game world hard-wired into the system, like so many other role playing games. It's meant to be played in the world that you want.

Now, I give you that I don't want soulbots (warforged) in my game. I don't want magical trains (Thunderrail). So I don't use the Eberron world. But that doesn't mean that D&D isn't for me just because I don't like Eberron. And it doesn't mean that Eberron isn't D&D, either. It doesn't mean that you must use robots in D&D for it to be D&D. It means you can.



The other thing, since we seem to make a big large pyre to burn all the elf fanboys on: Yes, there are people who like elves more than everything else in D&D. They think they're living gods or something and are insufferable. But there are also people who like dwarves more like everything else, and those dwarf fanboys are just as insufferable. And there are elf fans - and dwarf fans - who are perfectly fine chaps.

Now, both elves and dwarves - the races themselves, as presented in D&D - have both good and bad sides. Both have been depicted favourably and disfavourably in novels and rulebooks and whatever. Both were, or are, too powerful at one point of the game or the other.

The only really bad thing is the guys flaunting their hatred of one race - and I only really saw the witch hunt for elves around here, though I might have overlooked the dwarf-persecutions - citing only the bad aspects of the race they hate and only the good aspects of other races. The others realize, or are prepared to realize, that all the races can be good or bad, and that it's the people, not the race itself, that gives them the bad image.


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> Now, I give you that I don't want soulbots (warforged) in my game. I don't want magical trains (Thunderrail). So I don't use the Eberron world. But that doesn't mean that D&D isn't for me just because I don't like Eberron. And it doesn't mean that Eberron isn't D&D, either. It doesn't mean that you must use robots in D&D for it to be D&D. It means you can.



In Dragon Magazine some time ago, I essentially said the same thing: I'm glad that Eberron exists as a repository for such things as psionics, technology and dungeonpunk. It's not my cup of tea at all but I don't want to stop others from having those things.

The problem is that WotC have a disregard for fantasy that extends outside of Eberron and has tainted the whole game. Witness gnomes, halflings, monks and knights. If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2006)

> Two broad questions for those of you who believe that D&D should be turned into a sci-fi game replete with robots and spaceships:




First, your prelude to the question is incorrect.  We, or at least I, don't believe "D&D should be turned into a sci-fi game replete with robots and spaceships"-  D&D is and always has been a FRPG with certain elements that some would consider sci-fi...although early sci-fantasy writers would disagree with that characterization.


> 1. In the presence of science, how do you explain magic? How do dragons fly? How do pegasi preen their wings?




The same way they always did- by magic.

Magic allows you to break rules; avoid causality; violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Let me ask YOU: in the presence of magic, how do you explain the science that gets used every day in a typical medieval world?  The refinement of metals, the tanning of leather, the growing of crops, the breeding of livestock and plants, the math involved in building bridges, domes, arches, aqueducts, etc.- all are based in science.

How do people WALK if there is no science involving biochemistry (fuel for the body) or friction?

Do your campaign worlds use magic for EVERYTHING?



> 2. Do heroes in your campaign ride around on bicycles?




If someone invented them, maybe.  After all, it worked in Mark Twain's excellent fantasy,_ A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court._  Of course, a knight on a bike would be giving up the mass and leverage of a warhorse, which adds significantly to the force delivered at the point of a lance.



> As I've already mentioned in this thread and in Dragon Magazine, if some people want that in their fantasy, I'm perfectly happy. I'm certainly not some authority to manage your fun and I don't want to be. My dispute is with WotC. Because they lack creativity, they can't see the myriad ways in which fantasy can still grow apart from following a sci-fi course. And I don't want D&D to become a purely sci-fi game. It squeezes genuine fantasy fans like me out.




You're clearly NOT happy.  You're attacking the infusion of sci-fi elements as uncreative.  You're dismissive of the tastes of others.

And I find that last sentence to be a bit of an insult.

In the face of the many classic writers of fantasy who include and even FEATURE sci-fi elements, you cannot simply exclude people who enjoy sci-fantasy from the category of "genuine fantasy fans."

We are every bit as genuine as you claim to be.

Instead, it is your narrow minded view of what fantasy that is squeezing you out.



> The problem is that WotC have a disregard for fantasy that extends outside of Eberron and has tainted the whole game. Witness gnomes, halflings, monks and knights. If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.




You need to learn the history of the genre.  Modern fantasy stories date back to the 1800's (as opposed to things like faerie tales and what we now call "mythology"), and infusing sci-fi elements has always been a significant part of the genre.  In fact, sci-fi and fantasy were one genre up until the genre split rather visibly post-JRRT and the rise of hard sci-fi.  And even AFTER his books, that thread of creativity has continued.

WotC isn't disregarding fantasy, they're embracing one aspect of it.

Is Eberron consuming a lot of their attention?  Sure- just like Forgotten Realms could be blamed for "killing" Greyhawk, Eberron is the current hot property, and other settings are suffering somewhat.  However, WotC would be foolish to undersupport it since it IS a moneymaker.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> In Dragon Magazine some time ago, I essentially said the same thing



You can keep mentioning your amazing ability to have a letter published in a magazine that actively solicits letters, but it doesn't make your argument any better.

Eberron doesn't have technology in the sense that you think it does. At all.

If anything, it's more high-magic than the Forgotten Realms, just with (mostly) lower level NPCs.

You're railing against the Iron Kingdoms, which WotC has no ties to, other than the D20 license.



> The problem is that WotC have a disregard for fantasy that extends outside of Eberron and has tainted the whole game. Witness gnomes, halflings, monks and knights. If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.



Or, alternately, gamers like complaining about stuff, and will complain at the drop of a hat, whenever their personal interpretation doesn't match the official one.


----------



## Victim (Aug 15, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I have to say one thing to those who tell others "this game isn't for you, move on".
> 
> I have to say to them: This game isn't for you, move on.
> 
> If there's one thing typical to D&D, it's everything. D&D isn't about robots. It's about the possibility of robots if only you want to. D&D isn't about sci-fi, psionics, whatever. It's about the possibility of those things, if you want them in your game.




What about people who try to house rule DnD into GURPS or Harnmaster and want the next edition to cater to their tastes?  I think it's usually pretty clear that DnD isn't the game for them; they just want the player base.


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Let me ask YOU: in the presence of magic, how do you explain the science that gets used every day in a typical medieval world?  The refinement of metals, the tanning of leather, the growing of crops, the breeding of livestock and plants, the math involved in building bridges, domes, arches, aqueducts, etc.- all are based in science.



The technology level of most D&D campaigns - at least originally - is circa late 15th - early 16th century Europe. While the developments in metallurgy etc from that period were quite advanced (more than many people nowadays realise), there is plenty of evidence that the armourers etc of the period didn't know _why_ what they were doing worked, they just knew that it did. I have, though not to hand, one of the earliest European treatise on the making of gunpowder. By modern standards, it is full of errors in its explanation of what works and why. The scientific method was in its infancy, if that, at the time in European history that most closely resembles the classic worlds of D&D.      



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> How do people WALK if there is no science involving biochemistry (fuel for the body) or friction?
> 
> Do your campaign worlds use magic for EVERYTHING?



Science is the method of investigation and the results deriving from that investigation. The term isn't cognate with the physical world.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If someone invented {bicycles}, maybe.  After all, it worked in Mark Twain's excellent fantasy,_ A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court._



I think that Twain had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. Also, IIRC, it was as a result of the protagonist having travelled back in time from the US Civil War period when bicycles had long existed and introducing them to Dark Age Britain. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You're clearly NOT happy.  You're attacking the infusion of sci-fi elements as uncreative.  You're dismissive of the tastes of others.
> 
> And I find that last sentence to be a bit of an insult.
> 
> ...



"Genuine" should be taken to quality "fantasy", not "fan". I don't deny your fervour.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You need to learn the history of the genre.



No, WotC does.







			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> WotC isn't disregarding fantasy...



If that were true, they would not have bungled gnomes, knights etc.


----------



## Zander (Aug 15, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You can keep mentioning your amazing ability to have a letter published in a magazine that actively solicits letters, but it doesn't make your argument any better.



I didn't mention it to support my argument directly, merely to illustrate that my position is one I've long held. The fact that the letter was published some time ago is the relevant point, not that it was published at all.

By sarcastically describing my "ability" as "amazing", you are making an _ad hominem_ attack which is uncalled for.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 15, 2006)

InVinoVeritas said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Halflings? Not sexy? Not even slinky, leather-clad, got-that-petite-hot-thing-going Lidda?
> 
> ...



Sorry about this, but you went and inspired me, and then I just couldn't stop myself...

So let's have a big hand for that great druidic group of strolling players The Beech Boys as they sing their number one hit...

Well half orc girls are great
I really dig those jutting fangs
And the gnomish girls with their magic tricks
Make me glad that I'm a man

The half-elf girls are charming and they always treat you right
And the halfling girls are so short and sweet
Really fill me with delight

I wish they all could be hairy dwarven
I wish they all could be hairy dwarven
I wish they all could be hairy dwarven girls​


----------



## Kesh (Aug 15, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I wanted to go with a classic sort of campaign setting -- dwarves, dragons, kobolds, goblins, a human-run feudal state -- but I wanted to change it up so that it wasn't just The Hobbit leftovers.
> 
> So I decided to go with a different mountain culture, one I'm reasonably familiar with and which I thought fit in well with D&D dwarves.
> 
> If you've never had a barefoot dwarf spitting tobacco while sharpening his axe on a porch and wearing a standed pair of overalls, I submit your dwarves have been trapped in too narrow of a stereotype, since from where I'm sitting, this fits perfectly and is a natural outgrowth of the standard tropes.




You, sir, are my new hero. Living in rural Kentucky, I can see very well how that'd fit a fantasy dwarf.

*goes off to scribble a rewrite of his homebrew setting*


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 15, 2006)

I'm starting to see Zander as a Troll...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 15, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I didn't mention it to support my argument directly, merely to illustrate that my position is one I've long held.



No one gives a crap about the length of time you've held a poorly thought-out opinion. It's the opinion itself that matters.

Opinions are not like wine: Age does not somehow improve them.



> By sarcastically describing my "ability" as "amazing", you are making an _ad hominem_ attack which is uncalled for.



No, I'm not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 16, 2006)

> > Let me ask YOU: in the presence of magic, how do you explain the science that gets used every day in a typical medieval world?<snip> the math involved in building bridges, domes, arches, aqueducts, etc.- all are based in science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The scientific method came into its own when Gallileo developed the heliocentric theory of the solar system- the same time period.

Math, the language of engineering and architecture, was pretty sophisticated at that point- the foundations of algebra could be traced back to the Babylonians.  Trigonometry was used by Egyptians and Mesopotamians.

There is really a lot of REAL science going on by the setting of a typical D&D world.



> Science is the method of investigation and the results deriving from that investigation. The term isn't cognate with the physical world.




GOOD!

Magic isn't cognate with the physical world either- its just a method to break the rules...and you don't need to know and understand the rules to be able to break them.



> > After all, it worked in Mark Twain's excellent fantasy, _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court._
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes- its a comedy, but it was also clearly fantasy- the method of time travel was being unconscious under a tree (and since he brought back artifacts of his travel, it wasn't merely a dream).

Unless you want to argue that comedic fantasy isn't fantasy, the point remains.



> "Genuine" should be taken to quality "fantasy", not "fan".




Well, its still wrong.

As I and others have pointed out, "Genuine" fantasy has included anachronistic technology for at least 100 years..



> > You need to learn the history of the genre.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




WotC isn't the one denying the techno influenced fantasy as rare, not important, and not "genuine."



> > WotC isn't disregarding fantasy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure they could have.  They can bungle things as trivial as punctuation and grammar, they can bungle important things as well.  They've bungled lots of things.  They're HUMAN.  However, you've yet to tell us how they have done so in your opinion, so I'll stop there.


----------



## Iku Rex (Aug 16, 2006)

*Sexy?*

DnD races nude from elfwood. Not porn, but still NSFW I think. 
Females: elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/j/a/jarrett/racialsizefemaleelfwood1.jpg.html 
Males: elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/j/a/jarrett/racialsizeelfwoodmale1.jpg.html

(No, it's not all that relevant to the thread, but I thought of them after reading some of the comments here.)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 16, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> DnD races nude from elfwood.



Back to hairy feet?  Yah, that's sexy.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Aug 16, 2006)

man, that male elf is such an awsome looking elf.


----------



## Zander (Aug 16, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Math, the language of engineering and architecture, was pretty sophisticated at that point- the foundations of algebra could be traced back to the Babylonians.  Trigonometry was used by Egyptians and Mesopotamians.



Maths isn't a science. It's a tool and a language, not a system of investigation or its conclusions.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There is really a lot of REAL science going on by the setting of a typical D&D world.



No, there isn't. As I've already said, although  a lot was achieved by this point, it wasn't through science. Many historians of science place the birth of science with Newton who came later (and even some historians of the subject regard Newton as too early). 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Magic isn't cognate with the physical world either- its just a method to break the rules...and you don't need to know and understand the rules to be able to break them.



If you subject one part of the physical world to reasoned, scientific scrutiny, there's no rationale for not doing the same elsewhere. When you start to do that to magic, mythical creatures etc, the fantasy breaks down.  




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yes- its a comedy, but it was also clearly fantasy- the method of time travel was being unconscious under a tree (and since he brought back artifacts of his travel, it wasn't merely a dream).
> 
> Unless you want to argue that comedic fantasy isn't fantasy, the point remains.



Twain introduced bicycles in gentle mockery of fantasy/historical fiction. It supports my point that introducing advanced technology into fantasy upsets the imagery of fantasy. That's fine when the intention is comedic as in Twain's book. Otherwise, it's absurd. How many gamers would take seriously a paladin in full plate with a lance couched under his arm peddling his bike as furiously as he can at a dragon?




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As I and others have pointed out, "Genuine" fantasy has included anachronistic technology for at least 100 years..



Tolkien cautioned against the introduction of science and technology in fantasy. Hickman and Weis even used the incompatibility as the theme of their _Darksword_ novels and RPG.




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure they could have.  They can bungle things as trivial as punctuation and grammar, they can bungle important things as well.  They've bungled lots of things.  They're HUMAN.  However, you've yet to tell us how they have done so in your opinion, so I'll stop there.



If I detailed every mistake they made because they had attempted to rewrite fantasy without due regard for the genre, it would take too long. However, many of the points raised about gnomes, knights etc in other threads by other posters stem from this. If you go over to one of the recent threads about gnomes, you can see my own contribution. If you like, I can do a search and post a link.


----------



## Zander (Aug 16, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> I'm starting to see Zander as a Troll...



I'm not advancing the position that I am because I want to antagonise anyone or attract attention. I do believe sincerely in my stance as, I think, Dannyalcatraz does in his. That's not to say that either of us are trolls.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Maths isn't a science. It's a tool and a language, not a system of investigation or its conclusions.




This is the moment where - despite the fact that I've tried to show you that none of us takes you and your point of view less serious than our own - I will no longer take you serious. You seem to know nothing about mathematics.


----------



## Zander (Aug 16, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> This is the moment where - despite the fact that I've tried to show you that none of us takes you and your point of view less serious than our own - I will no longer take you serious. You seem to know nothing about mathematics.




From dictionary.com:

*Science*
- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 
- Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 
- Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

*Mathematics*
- The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Science uses maths, but maths itself isn't a science. Maths per se doesn't explain phenomena. It allows you to measure and describe them.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> The trouble with attributing science to magic argument lies in the answer to my second question, not my first, which you haven't addressed. Perhaps the image of heroes riding horses doesn't fit your view of fantasy. In your conception, they ride magic-powered motorbikes. You can use that as your fantasy setting if you like (you certainly don't need my permission). It's just not for me or, I suspect, the majority of D&D players.



No, no, you're assuming things that simply aren't so.

Should a world like Eberron have bicycles? I don't see why they would have developed something like the bicycle chain, you know? It's not a technological world. They don't light their cities with networks of gas pipes leading to publicly-maintained lamps, they paid magewrights to install _everbright lanterns_ and replace them when necessary.

You buy a horse - or a horse improved beyond the possibilities of natural development by the magical breeding techniques of the dragonmarked House Vadalis.

It seems like you're assuming people who don't have a problem with these things in fantasy are doing so from a standpoint of "any excuse to get science-fiction stuff in fantasy is acceptable". Rather, I look at it as something like "anything inspired by science-fiction that can be cleverly and reasonably explained by magic is reasonable in fantasy".

I consider the magical "spaceships" of Spelljammer acceptable, because they're not only reasonably explained by magic but also placed in the context of very different and much more fantastical spacefaring than is found in science fiction.

Something like Dragonstar is not, to my tastes, as clever or reasonable when it comes to fantasy. It's a crossover game; Spelljammer, despite the spacefaring and whatnot, is nothing but fantasy. It's just a nontraditional kind of fantasy - and I happen to really be sick of traditional fantasy.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> From dictionary.com:
> 
> *Science*
> - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
> ...






Maths is a science. Just not the kind of maths normally considered by the layman to be "maths". Good bye.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Tolkien cautioned against the introduction of science and technology in fantasy.



Tolkien was wrong, and his style of fantasy has choked the genre with terrible imitations of what was never a particularly revolutionary product in the first damn place.

I'm deeply grateful that Wizards of the Coast is willing to continue TSR's exploration of what fantasy can be beyond the narrow confines of pseudomedieval Tolkien pastiche, thank you very much.


----------



## rounser (Aug 16, 2006)

> Tolkien was wrong



Sure he was.  


> his style of fantasy has choked the genre with terrible imitations of what was never a particularly revolutionary product in the first damn place.



Spoken like a true revolutionary.  Show them how it's done, buster.


----------



## SWBaxter (Aug 16, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Maths is a science. Just not the kind of maths normally considered by the layman to be "maths".




Karl Popper, by no means a "layman", disagrees with you. He believed that pure mathematics was not a science because it was not falsifiable via the experimental process, and that's one reason why the notions of "theory" and "proof" are used differently in mathematics than they are in the physical sciences. Generally, the "closer" a given field of mathematics is to pure math, the less likely the practioners are to see what they do as having any relation to the physical sciences, and the more likely they are to see it as something akin to logic and/or philosophy.

Not exactly sure what this has to do with Dwarves selling books, though.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2006)

Whether math is science or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion, because of several reasons. 

First, all examples given for "science" in the discussion so far deal actually with the use of technical inventions in fantasy, not with the scientific process per se. A flying car is not science; it's a tool. And tools get invented, whether you know something about scientific theory or not. Some very important inventions were made during the Middle Ages, inventions that allowed the power center in Europe to shift from the Mediterranean to the North. This means that technical progress is not inconsistent with a purely medieval setting, even if fantasy tends to portray static worlds that never change their tech level.

Second, D&D has always treated magic as science. You can learn it like math or writing. You don't have to have supernatural abilities, you just need some basic intelligence to understand it. If you use it, it works like a tool, in a completely predictable manner, even if the prediction just involves statistics. You can research new spells. Which means, in the context of traditional D&D, magic is the leading scientific subject of the time. In this light, any claim that science doesn't belong into D&D is somewhat ridiculous.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Aug 16, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Should a world like Eberron have bicycles? I don't see why they would have developed something like the bicycle chain, you know?



Well, the goblinoids of the Empire of Dhakaan favored chain weapons. I can see a squad of Marguul bugbear shock troopers swinging bicycles around before them in both hands, laying waste to their foes in wide, sweeping arcs.


----------



## OblivionSiege (Aug 16, 2006)

Here's something I had posted elsewhere but I have no problem with pseudo tech in my fantasy.  The Mighty Servant as described in the 1e DMG looked like a telephone booth on tank treads.  The Machine of Lum the Mad is an insane computer.



> .I had a high powered group in 1e. The leader was a Magna ALumna Bard with maxxed Fighter and thief levels. He had a vorpal sword. The rest of the party was able to hang out with him.
> 
> They met Leuk-O and his Mighty Servant, who had a thing against druids, druidic aligned bards and trees in general. The main defense of the Servant was the 'not affected by metal'. This negated the vorpal sword which was a serious pain in big fights. This permitted the liberal use of shillalagh among other things by the druids and Leuk-O finally died.
> 
> ...




Making funky alterations to science so you can do something fun/funny in the fantasy is fine by me.  The Invoked Devastation and Rain of Colorless Fire were the fantasy equivelent of Mutual Assured Destruction.  It's all good.


----------



## Zander (Aug 16, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> First, all examples given for "science" in the discussion so far deal actually with the use of technical inventions in fantasy, not with the scientific process per se. A flying car is not science; it's a tool. And tools get invented, whether you know something about scientific theory or not. Some very important inventions were made during the Middle Ages, inventions that allowed the power center in Europe to shift from the Mediterranean to the North. This means that technical progress is not inconsistent with a purely medieval setting, even if fantasy tends to portray static worlds that never change their tech level.



I agree to an extent. 15th - 16th century Europe had technology (quite advanced in some fields) with little or no science. A society can develop its technology that way but only up to a point. It becomes increasingly difficult to make technological progress without the scientific mode of enquiry and the resulting findings.  



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> Second, D&D has always treated magic as science. You can learn it like math or writing. You don't have to have supernatural abilities, you just need some basic intelligence to understand it. If you use it, it works like a tool, in a completely predictable manner, even if the prediction just involves statistics. You can research new spells. Which means, in the context of traditional D&D, magic is the leading scientific subject of the time. In this light, any claim that science doesn't belong into D&D is somewhat ridiculous.



Just because magic is internally consistent or even can be learnt in the way that science can doesn't mean that it is science or can survive scientific scrutiny.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I agree to an extent. 15th - 16th century Europe had technology (quite advanced in some fields) with little or no science.



Much more important for the advancement of medieval power were the main inventions of the time between the 5th and 9th century, like the heavy plough or the horse collar, which allowed the population of central and northern Europe to rise. Though quite a lot of Roman technology got lost in the so-called Dark Ages, this was nevertheless a time of technological advancement. It was not particularly quick (the development of different types of mills is a good example), but steady. Some technology imports from China helped, of course.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Just because magic is internally consistent or even can be learnt in the way that science can doesn't mean that it is science or can survive scientific scrutiny.



Sorry, but I don't see your point in the case of magic in D&D. D&D magic follows the modern definition of the scientific method. Spellcasters have labs and research new spells. This empirical approach is the main difference between modern science and antique or medieval natural philosophy. It's not necessary to understand where a specific power comes from in order to apply the scientific method to research involving that power (our understanding of, e.g., gravity is not very high; nevertheless we use it in science). You may point with fingers at D&D that it treats magic as science, but that's the way it is.


----------



## Gez (Aug 16, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Twain introduced bicycles in gentle mockery of fantasy/historical fiction. It supports my point that introducing advanced technology into fantasy upsets the imagery of fantasy.




King Arthur isn't fantasy, it's myth. Introducing time-traveler in the Arthurian myth turns it into fantasy.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> That's fine when the intention is comedic as in Twain's book. Otherwise, it's absurd. How many gamers would take seriously a paladin in full plate with a lance couched under his arm peddling his bike as furiously as he can at a dragon?




A bike's purpose is not to be a combat vehicle. The paladin in full plate will not peddle on a bike, however, it wouldn't be so silly to have a thief fleeing the guards on a bicycle.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Tolkien cautioned against the introduction of science and technology in fantasy. Hickman and Weis even used the incompatibility as the theme of their _Darksword_ novels and RPG.




Good thing Gygax found Tolkien's books annoying and preferred the works of Howard, Burroughs, Leiber, Vance, Anderson...

Seriously, read Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts, Three Lions_. It is a major inspiration behind D&D, and behind all of Moorcock's novels. It's the book from which the conflict between Law and Chaos originates. And its main hero is an engineer.

D&D has always been a hodgepodge of styles. Sure, there are ents and hobbits and giant eagles taken from Tolkien. Great. That's what, three things on how many hundreds? Beholders and mind flayers are pulp scifi aliens. Gelatinous cubes and other oozes are straight from The Blob. Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Mystara all feature a lot of scifi aspects, and I don't speak merely about Expedition to Border Peak, here.

Fantasy is _fantasy_. It's not serious. It's not rigorous. It's not a heavily-constrained genre with strict rules to follow. Fantasy is, and has always been, _anything goes_. I think you're the one who's confusing fantasy with something else -- namely, with mythology or with fairytales, maybe.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 17, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Show them how it's done, buster.



Lovecraft, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Mieville, Anderson, Baum, Martin, and Duane - to name a few - already have.


----------



## rounser (Aug 17, 2006)

> Lovecraft, Leiber, Howard, Vance, Mieville, Anderson, Baum, Martin, and Duane - to name a few - already have.



At least a couple of these guys predate Tolkien, so it's reasonable to assume that he was aware of them and had them in mind when he made such comments.

My facetious challenge was to the poster with the nerve to say that his take on things is better than Tolkien's, without framing it as an opinion, but rather a fact.  Counter-examples don't help - it's quite possible for a millions of people to be wrong, all at once, and choose the suboptimal, trendy, or knee-jerk reactionary path.  Democracy proves that.  What sells for D&D better with "magic" or "dragon" in the title also proves that.  Machiavelli and marketers seek to exploit (or at least operate in spite of) such oh-so-human behaviour.  Your opinion is no more definitive than mine - objectively, Tolkien could well be right and we'd never know.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 17, 2006)

Last things first- Tolkien wasn't wrong, but neither was he right.  LotR is not the Bible of fantasy- there isn't one.  He was expressing his personal opinion.  That's all.

He didn't create the fantasy genre- not unless he had a time machine and wrote under an alias.  His opinion on what belongs in fantasy is no more or no less valid than the sci-fant writers who followed him or predated him.

And to imply Hickman and Weis's similar opinion somehow invalidates the work of the luminaries I and others have mentioned...

Words fail.



> Science
> - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
> 
> Science uses maths, but maths itself isn't a science. Maths per se doesn't explain phenomena. It allows you to measure and describe them.




I'm pretty sure legions of mathmeticians, astronomers, architects and engineers would disagree with your belitlling of math- it at least meets the first criteria you posted.





> > Magic isn't cognate with the physical world either- its just a method to break the rules...and you don't need to know and understand the rules to be able to break them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If my 20 year scientific enquiry (following all the rules of research) on the subject of why Faerunese Dragons fly or how Wish spells violate the laws of thermodynamic turns up with only one answer- Magic- then so be it.




> Twain introduced bicycles in gentle mockery of fantasy/historical fiction. It supports my point that introducing advanced technology into fantasy upsets the imagery of fantasy. That's fine when the intention is comedic as in Twain's book. Otherwise, it's absurd. How many gamers would take seriously a paladin in full plate with a lance couched under his arm peddling his bike as furiously as he can at a dragon?




Yep- you apparently think comedy invalidates fantasy as well.  Like anachronisms, comedy is as much a part of fantasy as a magic dagger.

A two-wheeled human powered cart (bike) at Arthur's court is no more _inherently_ absurd than a 100' long flying reptile that breathes fire or a castle that floats on clouds.

Bikes are great, but as I and others already pointed out, you wouldn't have a knight riding one into battle against a dragon- its unsuited to the task- a horse is superior for reasons of balance, mass and leverege.  He'd no more use a bike for such an attack than he'd use a Braun Electric Shaver as his main weapon.  "Suffer the death of 1,000 shallow cuts and nicks, and the the burn of the Brut aftershave, vile Wurm!"



> If I detailed every mistake they made because they had attempted to rewrite fantasy without due regard for the genre, it would take too long.




So you say...still waiting for some kind of evidence that is not indicative of a very narrowly defined view of fantasy literature.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 17, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> ... it's quite possible for a millions of people to be wrong, all at once, and choose the suboptimal, trendy, or knee-jerk reactionary path.



And *that* would be why dwarves don't sell novels?


----------



## rounser (Aug 17, 2006)

> He was expressing his personal opinion. That's all.



It was a _response_ to a personal opinion presented as fact that "Tolkien was wrong"!  Police your own side, I'm not claiming that his opinion is fact.


----------



## Zander (Aug 17, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> A bike's purpose is not to be a combat vehicle. The paladin in full plate will not peddle on a bike, however, it wouldn't be so silly to have a thief fleeing the guards on a bicycle.



Heroes riding bikes, whether they're fighting dragons or fleeing a castle, isn't my idea of fantasy. I suspect it isn't for most D&D gamers.



> Good thing Gygax found Tolkien's books annoying and preferred the works of Howard, Burroughs, Leiber, Vance, Anderson...



You're attributing positions to me that aren't mine. I'm not saying that Tolkien is the only model of fantasy there is. I even brought up Howard earlier in this thread.



> Seriously, read Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts, Three Lions_. It is a major inspiration behind D&D, and behind all of Moorcock's novels. It's the book from which the conflict between Law and Chaos originates. And its main hero is an engineer.



I have read it. Although the protagonist is an engineer (and a time traveller), the engineering he introduces doesn't threaten the fantasy. As has already been pointed out in this thread, there is a difference between engineering and fantasy. If the main character had been a scientist and started applying scientific scrutiny to the fantasy world arround him (such as how the troll's severed parts were able to continue attacking), the fantastic elements would have lost plausibility.

It is the folks at WotC who should read 3H3L. It seems to have been the inspiration, at least in part, for the 1E gnome. 



> Fantasy is _fantasy_. It's not serious. It's not rigorous. It's not a heavily-constrained genre with strict rules to follow. Fantasy is, and has always been, _anything goes_. I think you're the one who's confusing fantasy with something else -- namely, with mythology or with fairytales, maybe.



Fantasy does not equal fiction. Fantasy is a subset of fiction.


----------



## Zander (Aug 17, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Last things first- Tolkien wasn't wrong, but neither was he right.  LotR is not the Bible of fantasy- there isn't one.  He was expressing his personal opinion.  That's all.
> 
> He didn't create the fantasy genre- not unless he had a time machine and wrote under an alias.  His opinion on what belongs in fantasy is no more or no less valid than the sci-fant writers who followed him or predated him.
> 
> ...



The fantasy genre has evolved over millennia starting with the earliest mythology and distilled by countless storytellers and audiences over the ages. Along the way, such greats as Homer, Apollonius of Rhodes and Edmund Spenser have contributed to it.

WotC are happy to disregard that tradition and, by extension, all the people great and small who have contributed to the genre.

Words fail.



> I'm pretty sure legions of mathmeticians, astronomers, architects and engineers would disagree with your belitlling of math- it at least meets the first criteria you posted.



They can argue with Karl Popper, perhaps the most eminent philosopher of science of the 20th century, if they like.

Incidentally, I didn't belittle maths at all. French literature isn't a science either (though for different reasons). How am I "belittling" it by saying so?



> If my 20 year scientific enquiry (following all the rules of research) on the subject of why Faerunese Dragons fly or how Wish spells violate the laws of thermodynamic turns up with only one answer- Magic- then so be it.



Science abhors the irrational. If after 20 years of scientific research you found that various phenomena were due to magic, you would need to continue your research until you found otherwise. 



> Yep- you apparently think comedy invalidates fantasy as well.  Like anachronisms, comedy is as much a part of fantasy as a magic dagger.



When comedy is being used to parody fantasy, that may tell you more about comedy than it does about fantasy. When examining the effect of science and technology on the integrity of a fantasy setting, introducing elements such as comedy only serves to complicate the analysis by introducing another variable. When addressing the science / fantasy question, it helps not to introduce other complicating factors. 



> So you say...still waiting for some kind of evidence that is not indicative of a very narrowly defined view of fantasy literature.



Fantasy is a genre and, as such, is limited. If you believe that fantasy = all fiction, then my own view of fantasy might be considered "very narrow". I'm not alone though. If you look at the various threads on these boards about gnomes, knights and so on, you will see that _other posters_ not just myself have voiced dissatisfaction with the flavour of these elements in the latest version of D&D. The criticisms raised by many of them are a result of WotC's willingness to over-write fantasy tropes.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 17, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Science abhors the irrational. If after 20 years of scientific research you found that various phenomena were due to magic, you would need to continue your research until you found otherwise.



Only if you consider magic irrational. D&D doesn't treat it as such. Neither do a lot of excellent fantasy novels.


----------



## Gez (Aug 17, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> You're attributing positions to me that aren't mine. I'm not saying that Tolkien is the only model of fantasy there is. I even brought up Howard earlier in this thread.



No, I'm attributing positions to Gygax and Arneson. Specifically, the position that Tolkien is boring and that fantasy is better when it includes pulp sci-fi rather than try to be mythology. Tolkien wanted to create something that could be England's mythology, he wanted to make something that would be the equivalent of Beowulf or the Iliad and Odissey.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> I have read it. Although the protagonist is an engineer (and a time traveller), the engineering he introduces doesn't threaten the fantasy. As has already been pointed out in this thread, there is a difference between engineering and fantasy. If the main character had been a scientist and started applying scientific scrutiny to the fantasy world arround him (such as how the troll's severed parts were able to continue attacking), the fantastic elements would have lost plausibility.



Then re-read it, because you forgot how he defeated the dragon and the water faerie, and how he knew the giant's gold would be cursed.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Fantasy does not equal fiction. Fantasy is a subset of fiction.



And classical mythology does not equal fantasy. It's not even a subset of fantasy, rather an ancestor.


----------



## Zander (Aug 17, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> Then re-read it, because you forgot how he defeated the dragon and the water faerie, and how he knew the giant's gold would be cursed.



I don't want to spoil it, but the discordance between the protagonist's knowledge of science and his understanding of the fantasy world in which he finds himself helps to drive the plot. It is precisely because they don't sit well together that questions are raised in the main character's mind (among other recollections).

In Anderson's novel _A Midsummer Tempest_ which is set in the same universe as 3H3L, he explicitly states the incompatibility between science/technology and fantasy. It is at the very heart of the story.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 17, 2006)

[continuing threadjacking]



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> he explicitly states the incompatibility between science/technology and fantasy.



And I always thought the old line by Arthur C. Clarke, "_Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic_" had some literary wisdom in it.

[sarcasm]And to think that in the Mystara/Known World setting just wasn't fantasy, where a nuclear reactor malfunctioned one day in seven, and the day of the week the nuclear reactor malfunctioned all magic on the planet ceased to work.  Huh! What the heck is going on if they are incompatible...[/sarcasm]


----------



## MarkB (Aug 17, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I don't want to spoil it, but the discordance between the protagonist's knowledge of science and his understanding of the fantasy world in which he finds himself helps to drive the plot. It is precisely because they don't sit well together that questions are raised in the main character's mind (among other recollections).
> 
> In Anderson's novel _A Midsummer Tempest_ which is set in the same universe as 3H3L, he explicitly states the incompatibility between science/technology and fantasy. It is at the very heart of the story.



Physical incompatibility between science and magic within the context of a particular fantasy world is not the same thing as literary incompatibility between the concepts of science and fantasy. If it were, the novel could not have been written at all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 18, 2006)

> It was a response to a personal opinion presented as fact that "Tolkien
> was wrong"! Police your own side, I'm not claiming that his opinion is
> fact.




I was policing my "own side," as well as making my position clear.

And since the personal opinion presented as fact was a response to


> Tolkien cautioned against the introduction of science and technology in
> fantasy. Hickman and Weis even used the incompatibility as the theme of
> their Darksword novels and RPG.




I wanted to be perfectly clear that neither position had superiority.


> The fantasy genre has evolved over millennia starting with the earliest
> mythology and distilled by countless storytellers and audiences over the
> ages. Along the way, such greats as Homer, Apollonius of Rhodes and
> Edmund Spenser have contributed to it.
> ...




Most literary students and their teachers would seperate mythology and 
legend from modern fantasy because, despite having similar trappings, 
the mythology of the ancients was not mere storytelling for 
entertainment. Instead, much was considered reportage- basically 
historical fact- as they saw it. It was used to teach both history and 
morality.

Modern Fantasy is accepted as fiction and fiction only, even if it 
contains morality tales or slices of history. While the genre depends in 
large part upon the mythologies of the past, it is not correct to equate 
them. Modern Fantasy is the child of mythology, they are not one in the 
same.

And even if you do want to equate them, the mythologies of times past 
STILL contain references to the technologies of the day, as well as 
speculation over the possibilities of the future- usually in the form of 
tales about war or artificer gods or heroes.

Again, to merely lop off an entire branch of a genre of fiction as 
somehow illegitimate because it doesn't meet your narrow definition 
is...stunning.


> Science abhors the irrational. If after 20 years of scientific
> research you found that various phenomena were due to magic, you would
> need to continue your research until you found otherwise.




Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however 
improbable, must be true.

If your research continuously shows that Phenomena Z violated the Laws 
of Thermodynamics, and you can't prove that those Laws are wrong except 
in the case of Phenomena Z, you're probably looking at magic, improbable 
though that may be.


> They can argue with Karl Popper, perhaps the most eminent philosopher of
> science of the 20th century, if they like.




As the holder of a Phi Sigma Tau National Philosophy Honors Society key, 
I'm a little familiar with Popper's work. While a great thinker, his 
work isn't even close to universal acceptance. The reason for this is 
that some of his theories follow the reasoning of other philosophical 
theories that are somewhat discounted or discredited, like Cartesian 
Dualism.

(Don't get me wrong- he's brilliant. He's just not an undisputed authority.)

But while we're discussing him, Popper himself would disagree somewhat 
with your response to my hypothetical about scientific research, 
dragons, and the like.

He believed that science was not verifiable, but only falsifiable. That 
is, at no point in human cognition is it possible to determine the 
objective truth of a scientific principle. No matter how many scientific 
experiments support Therory A, one demonstrable counterexample is 
sufficient to falsify it.

The dragon who flies by means that violate the laws of thermodynamics, 
then, is either evidence for magic or the fatal blow to at least one of 
the 3 laws.


> When comedy is being used to parody fantasy, that may tell you more
> about comedy than it does about fantasy.<snip> When addressing the
> science / fantasy question, it helps not to introduce other complicating
> factors.




In what way is Twain's work a parody of fantasy?


> Fantasy is a genre and, as such, is limited.




OK. Essentially, that IS the definition of a literary genre.


> If you believe that fantasy = all fiction, then my own view of fantasy
> might be considered "very narrow".




I don't believe any such thing, and I still consider your view of 
fantasy very narrow. I easily distinguish between genres like sci-fi, 
horror, fantasy, mystery and so forth...

But I also understand if you plot out the genres of fiction using Venn 
diagrams, you'll see that genres are not mutually exclusive- they 
overlap. You can have a horror story that is also a science fiction 
story. You can have a mystery that is also a fantasy.

And I also understand that the history of fantasy literature is laid out 
in black and white, and it includes far more than you are willing to accept.

Are the works of Albert E. Crowdrey any less fantasy because they're set 
in modern day New Orleans? Absolutely not. That garden Foo Dog statue 
that comes to life to defend his major protagonists from evil spirits in 
his many short stories is clearly a fantasy element.



> I'm not alone though. If you look at the various threads on these
> boards about gnomes, knights and so on, you will see that other posters
> not just myself have voiced dissatisfaction with the flavour of these
> elements in the latest version of D&D.




Unhappy people ≠ Correct people.
Large numbers of unhappy people ≠ Correct people.



> The criticisms raised by many of them are a result of WotC's
> willingness to over-write fantasy tropes.




With other *perfectly legitimate* fantasy tropes...that _you _ 
(and some others) don't like.

Just because it isn't fantasy _to you _doesn't make it not fantasy.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Sexy _half-orcs_? I'd pay to see that.
> 
> *runs*




This one ain't bad


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 18, 2006)

I'm still pretty sure she'd need to see an orthodontist...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> The trouble with attributing science to magic argument lies in the answer to my second question, not my first, which you haven't addressed. Perhaps the image of heroes riding horses doesn't fit your view of fantasy. In your conception, they ride magic-powered motorbikes. You can use that as your fantasy setting if you like (you certainly don't need my permission). It's just not for me or, I suspect, the majority of D&D players.




Actually, I had a 2e character riding a speeder bike from Return of the Jedi.  



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> The problem is that WotC have a disregard for fantasy that extends outside of Eberron and has tainted the whole game. Witness gnomes, halflings, monks and knights. If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.




Buh?  Monks and Knights?  The complaints about monks are mostly mechanical if you look at TheLe's recent "What's wrong with" threads.  The Knight has been given a pretty universal thumbs up except from a very small and vocal bunch.  Gnomes have always sucked in any edition.

Ah, there, now finally caught up on the threead. 

Ok, look, Fantasy as a genre existed as a SUBSET of Science Fiction.  People tend to forget how much the fantasy genre has grown in the past twenty years.  Up to the sixties, NOT ONE fantasy novel appears on a Times Best Seller list.  We're talking a miniscule genre.  The only way most fantasy stories could get sold was to pass them off as SF.  

Andre Norton, Anne McCaffery both typify this pretty well.  Jack Vance as well.  Burroughs is pretty solidly SF and not fantasy, yet has a huge impact on the game.  Tarzan and John Carter of Mars both figure largely in the game.  

D&D in all its incarnations has always been a pastiche.  It's drawn from a multitude of sources - myth, fantasy, SF, and just made up crap.  Trying to argue that one source is somehow better than another is ridiculous.  Mind Flayers belong solidly in SF - an alien race of mind controlling aliens with tentacles.  Come on, Lovecraft anyone?  Should we now bar Mind Flayers from the game because it doesn't draw on "real" fantasy?

The rust monster was a plastic toy from China.  Looked like a "lobster with a propeller on its tail" (EGG's exact words)  This has absolutely no fantasy base whatsoever.  A bug that eats metal?  Didn't Star Trek have this critter at one point?  Melts through stone, something like that?  

Sahugin as "The Creature from the Black Lagoon".  I mean, the picture in the 1e MM looks pretty much exactly like that.  That's horror genre, not fantasy.  Should we remove that as well.

If you went through the books and removed every element that wasn't purely fantasy genre, you'd have about a fifteen page book.  So much of the game has drawn on so many sources, that trying to parse them out is silly.  Don't like intelligent constructs as a PC race?  Fine, that's groovy.  Don't use them.  But don't complain when other people use them and try to take some sort of superior stance that you are using "pure fantasy" rather than some "dirty diluted fantasy" that others use.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 18, 2006)

Well put!

<seems like Hussar has gotten access to my time machine...>


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 18, 2006)

BTW- on the anachronistic aspects of bycicles _in particular..._

Leonardo DaVinci designed (but did not build) one in 1480. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanave...61/racebike.htm)

Had he followed through...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

linkie no workie for me.

But, a bit of Googling shows that the Da Vinci bicycle appears to be a hoax though.

However, it's not like the technology for creating a bicycle doesn't exist in the period.  It's just that no one did it.  Same way as the Chinese had incredibly advanced ships but history conspired to not make them a naval power.

There is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.  It's quite possible to create a bicycle in the Renaissance.  That we didn't doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.


----------



## Illirion (Aug 18, 2006)

I don't know why everybody's gotten into fantasy literature/bicycle debate all of a sudden, but as for the original post: I'd totally buy a novel with a cool looking dwarf on the cover over one with another pansy elf  !

Dwarves have generally a better sense of humor and have a cool accent. They have very clearly defined emotional boundries and you can count on every dwarf doing his best to uphold them, so a book about dwarves will generally focus more on adventuring and getting things done instead of all that emo-crap that you get with the elf and human races. Dwarves aren't exactly sexy, I'll give you that, but I don't think I've ever bought a book because it had a sexy picture on it (I think I've even chosen to *not* buy a book because of that). That would be like buying a car because it had a nice lady sliding over it in a commercial :\ .

So if I were to judge a book by it's cover, I'd give a novel with a cool dwarf more credit than a novel with a sexy elf.

Graphic novels would be the other way around probably  .

EDIT: But honestly, could someone maybe please explain why this thread has come to be about bicyles  ????


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Physical incompatibility between science and magic within the context of a particular fantasy world is not the same thing as literary incompatibility between the concepts of science and fantasy. If it were, the novel could not have been written at all.



There is some merit to that argument. However, in the case of media where the audience's role is largely passive (books, films, plays), the author/director can manipulate the audience to distract them from asking the kinds of scientific or rational questions that would cause the fantasy to lose its plausibility. In an RPG, the GM has a lot less control over the audience and consequently fantasy in RPGs needs to be shielded more actively.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

So, Zander, it effectively comes down to a suspension of disbelief issue?  

I can buy that as an arguement actually.  However, since it's so subjective, I'm not really sure how you can make any claim that WOTC is "abandoning" fantasy for SF in fantasy clothing.  One persons SF is another person's fantasy after all.  

Heck, look at the discussions about Star Wars.  Is it fantasy or SF?  You can make a bloody good argument either way.

I think the real stumbling point here is any claim that in some sort of past, D&D was somehow less dependent on SF and more about fantasy.  I'm sorry, while this may have been your experience, it is certainly not universal.  The Monster Manual, the DMG and the PHB all argue against that, never mind setting material and modules.

You could maybe make that arguement during 2e days actually when Forgotten Realms was the most common setting.  FR is very heavily steeped in heroic fantasy themes with much less reliance on pulp fantasy.  Note, I'm painting with a very broad brush here, so, take what I'm saying with a large dash of salt.  But, looking at the source books and whatnot for FR, I think you could make the "more fantasy, less SF" arguement.

The problem is, lots of people don't like FR.  Lots of people do, that's true.  And that's why FR continues to get lots of support.  But, there are a number of gamers from all ages and experiences, who want to return to a more pulpy feel where the genre boundaries are a lot less clearly defined.  I want to have alien spaceships crashing into my planet once in a while.  I don't mind the idea of a bit of industrial magic.  

In other words, some people are looking more for Hyperboria than Middle Earth.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Most literary students and their teachers would seperate mythology and
> legend from modern fantasy because, despite having similar trappings,
> the mythology of the ancients was not mere storytelling for
> entertainment. Instead, much was considered reportage- basically
> ...



When one ends and the next begins (if indeed there is such a point) or what function each played isn't terribly important. What is, is that WotC chooses to disregard fantasy's past. The reason that fantasy/mythology have "similar trappings" is that mythological (and later folkloric) tales over the centuries and millennia have had to satisfy each new generation. Through that screening process, current fantasy has incorporated the best of what the past has to offer. That's not to say that modern contributions can't be made to it, only that what is extant should not be discarded lightly.   



> Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be true.
> 
> If your research continuously shows that Phenomena Z violated the Laws
> ...



Magic (divine or spiritual) probably came about as an explanation of natural phenomena by primitive man to 'explain' the previously unexplained. In fact, it offers no explanation at all. Therefore, in your example, a fatal blow has indeed been dealt to one of the laws of thermodynamics. In a fantasy setting that tried to include science, the creator (DM in the case of D&D) would have to rewrite scientific principles to make them fit the magic and fabulous creatures of the fictional realm. That may not be a problem while the number of scientific principles that need to be rewritten remains small. But in a fantasy world with as much diverse magic and and many fabulous beasts as found in most D&D settings, it's probable that it will become impossible to keep the revised scientific principles consistent. They will very soon be logically impossible to reconcile.  



> As the holder of a Phi Sigma Tau National Philosophy Honors Society key,
> I'm a little familiar with Popper's work.



That's good. It will save me from making unnecessary oversimplifications. 



> While a great thinker, his
> work isn't even close to universal acceptance. The reason for this is
> that some of his theories follow the reasoning of other philosophical
> theories that are somewhat discounted or discredited, like Cartesian
> ...



Nonetheless, you could have all the mathematics you liked in a fantasy setting for the reason that by itself, i.e. in the absence of science, mathematics doesn't falsify anything whether fantastic or not. 



> In what way is Twain's work a parody of fantasy?



Knights on bicycles? Twain is more than a little mocking _Le Morte D'Arture_ and the _Faerie Queene_. 



> I don't believe any such thing, and I still consider your view of
> fantasy very narrow. I easily distinguish between genres like sci-fi,
> horror, fantasy, mystery and so forth...
> 
> ...



There are indeed overlaps between the genres. I've never doubted that. The trouble is that fantasy, though old, is also fragile. What defines fantasy is in large part visual. If you cross it with other genres, you tend to get a hybrid that more closely resembles that other genre. Mix science fiction and fantasy as in Star Wars and you get what most people would describe as science fiction.



> Large numbers of unhappy people ≠ Correct people.



In a free market, that's _de facto_ not true. If large numbers of people are unhappy about something, say D&D gamers about gnomes, that thing will have to be corrected, not the people.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, Zander, it effectively comes down to a suspension of disbelief issue?
> 
> I can buy that as an arguement actually.  However, since it's so subjective, I'm not really sure how you can make any claim that WOTC is "abandoning" fantasy for SF in fantasy clothing.  One persons SF is another person's fantasy after all.
> 
> ...



As I've said in this thread and elsewhere, I don't want to police other people's fun. If WotC want to have a setting (or even several) with robots and spaceships, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when they abandon fantasy across the board.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

> There are indeed overlaps between the genres. I've never doubted that. The trouble is that fantasy, though old, is also fragile. What defines fantasy is in large part visual. If you cross it with other genres, you tend to get a hybrid that more closely resembles that other genre. Mix science fiction and fantasy as in Star Wars and you get what most people would describe as science fiction.




Fantasy as a genre is old?  WHAT?  Fantasy as a genre is a construct of the 20th century.  You can try to include 15th century French Romance stories into Fantasy, but that doesn't make it so.  Le Morte d'Arthur is not fantasy literature.  

Also, where does this idea that fantasy is "fragile" come from?  Good grief, it's a genre spawned from science fiction that has exploded into quite possibly the most lucrative novel genre on the market today.  You can fold, twist, spindle and maul fantasy and it's still fantasy.  Fantasy is a HUGE genre.  It encompasses a surprisingly large number of works.

Quite probably because it covers so much that there are a number of efforts to chop it up a bit to make it a little more useful as a genre.  I mean, if you can include stories like John Carter of Mars beside The Hobbit, it makes the genre a bit unwieldy.  But, that's a somewhat different issue.

Your claim that if you mix the genre you somehow dilute it is spurious.  Anne McCaffery's Pern is solidly fantasy despite having a few trappings of SF.  It is on an alien world and the threat comes from space.  However, you have teleporting, telepathic dragons saving the world.  It's fantasy.


----------



## Gez (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Knights on bicycles? Twain is more than a little mocking _Le Morte D'Arture_ and the _Faerie Queene_.




That's the reason we're arguing with you. Most people here (from what I've seen) wouldn't consider these two titles to be fantasy. A bit later, you say fantasy is old; while again, most disagree. Many have said, to the contrary, that fantasy is a very young genre, one that until recently was just a subset of science-fiction.

You seem to confuse fantasy with one part of its inspiration, mythology. D&D is a fantasy game, not a mythology game. Fantasy can be used to parody myths and folktales, and as often been used for that purpose.

There are several specific genre: fantastique (also known as fantastic), horror, mythology (as well as epics, legends and fairy tales), science-fiction and its many overlapping subgenres (hard and soft, pulp, space opera, political fiction, speculative fiction, etc.).

And in all that, fantasy is the genre that grabs bits from everyone and can't be catalogued neatly. High fantasy such as Tolkien's tries to be mythology. Sword & sorcery heavily leans toward pulp sci-fi. Sometimes, fantasy is treading on horror's lawn, othertime it's mugging fairy tales in a back alley. Jack Vance's _Dying Earth_, J.R.R. Tolkien's _Middle-Earth_, Fritz Leiber's _Lankhmar_, James P. Blaylock's _Balumnia_, R.E. Howard's _Conan the Barbarian_, and Joann K. Rowling's _Harry Potter_ are all works of fantasy, and they're all very different and follow different conventions.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> When one ends and the next begins (if indeed there is such a point) or what function each played isn't terribly important. What is, is that WotC chooses to disregard fantasy's past. The reason that fantasy/mythology have "similar trappings" is that mythological (and later folkloric) tales over the centuries and millennia have had to satisfy each new generation. Through that screening process, current fantasy has incorporated the best of what the past has to offer. That's not to say that modern contributions can't be made to it, only that what is extant should not be discarded lightly.



WotC hasn't abandoned anything. D&D is inclusive, not exclusive, and its adaptability to almost any aspect of the broad fantasy genre allows it to be whatever you want it to be. Limiting its scope neither purifies nor strengthens it.



> Magic (divine or spiritual) probably came about as an explanation of natural phenomena by primitive man to 'explain' the previously unexplained. In fact, it offers no explanation at all. Therefore, in your example, a fatal blow has indeed been dealt to one of the laws of thermodynamics. In a fantasy setting that tried to include science, the creator (DM in the case of D&D) would have to rewrite scientific principles to make them fit the magic and fabulous creatures of the fictional realm. That may not be a problem while the number of scientific principles that need to be rewritten remains small. But in a fantasy world with as much diverse magic and and many fabulous beasts as found in most D&D settings, it's probable that it will become impossible to keep the revised scientific principles consistent. They will very soon be logically impossible to reconcile.



Magic has no explanation in this world for the simple reason that magic does not exist in this world. There is no reason to assume that magic must and will remain similarly inexplicable and undefinable in a world in which it actually exists. Nor is there any reason to assume that a world in which magic is quantifiable and well understood is any less valid as a fantasy world than one in which magic has no rational explanation.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Fantasy as a genre is old?  WHAT?  Fantasy as a genre is a construct of the 20th century.  You can try to include 15th century French Romance stories into Fantasy, but that doesn't make it so.  Le Morte d'Arthur is not fantasy literature.
> 
> ...Your claim that if you mix the genre you somehow dilute it is spurious.  Anne McCaffery's Pern is solidly fantasy despite having a few trappings of SF.  It is on an alien world and the threat comes from space.  However, you have teleporting, telepathic dragons saving the world.  It's fantasy.



Let me see if I understand you correctly: Knights battling giants, hydras, talking trees and polymorhping wizards (_The Faerie Queene_, 1596) isn't fantasy. But people from earth getting into spaceships, colonising another planet and genetically modifying the fauna they find there to make it psychic (_Pern_), that is fantasy. You'll forgive me if I conclude that your understanding of fantasy is different from mine.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand you correctly: Knights battling giants, hydras, talking trees and polymorhping wizards (_The Faerie Queene_, 1596) isn't fantasy. But people from earth getting into spaceships, colonising another planet and genetically modifying the fauna they find there to make it psychic (_Pern_), that is fantasy. You'll forgive me if I conclude that your understanding of fantasy is different from mine.



Everyone else seems to have already reached that conclusion.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> WotC hasn't abandoned anything.



I wish that were true but Matthew Sernett, former editor of Dragon Magazine and current designer at WotC, has said otherwise.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> D&D is inclusive, not exclusive, and its adaptability to almost any aspect of the broad fantasy genre allows it to be whatever you want it to be. Limiting its scope neither purifies nor strengthens it.



As I keep saying, if other people want robots and spaceships in their D&D game, I don't want to stop them. I'm certainly not on a crusade to limit other people's enjoyment of the game. But by the same token, I don't want WotC to discard tried and true fantasy in an effort to make the game mostly or entirely a sci-fi one.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand you correctly: Knights battling giants, hydras, talking trees and polymorhping wizards (_The Faerie Queene_, 1596) isn't fantasy. But people from earth getting into spaceships, colonising another planet and genetically modifying the fauna they find there to make it psychic (_Pern_), that is fantasy. You'll forgive me if I conclude that your understanding of fantasy is different from mine.




Yup, that's pretty much it.  

Old(ish) English literature is not fantasy.  That's pretty solidly romance poetry thanks.  The Illiad is not fantasy either and nor is the Odyssey.  I can say with great conviction that anything written before about 1860 is not fantasy.  And I'd be right.

Pern is not SF.  It borrows some of SF's clothing, but, that's because stories about dragons in the 1960's, written by women, wouldn't sell more than three copies.  

When discussing genre, it is necessary to actually know the definitions of a given genre.  I've had this exact same discussion more time than I care to count recently where people seem to think that genre means whatever they feel it should mean.  It doesn't.  Genre have fairly specific definitions and without those specific definitions, the words cease to have any value.

I asked this once before, so I'll repeat it.  What, specifically, are elements of fantasy in DnD?  I mean elements borrowed from fantasy genre, not mythology, not romance literature, not fable, folklore or science fiction.  If you remove everything from D&D that is not purely borrowed from the fantasy genre, you wind up with a fifteen page booklet.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yup, that's pretty much it.
> 
> Old(ish) English literature is not fantasy.  That's pretty solidly romance poetry thanks.  The Illiad is not fantasy either and nor is the Odyssey.  I can say with great conviction that anything written before about 1860 is not fantasy.  And I'd be right.



Arguments that amount to 'I'm right. You're wrong.' aren't terribly productive and I'm glad that you don't normally do that.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> When discussing genre, it is necessary to actually know the definitions of a given genre.  I've had this exact same discussion more time than I care to count recently where people seem to think that genre means whatever they feel it should mean.  It doesn't.  Genre have fairly specific definitions and without those specific definitions, the words cease to have any value.
> 
> I asked this once before, so I'll repeat it.  What, specifically, are elements of fantasy in DnD?  I mean elements borrowed from fantasy genre, not mythology, not romance literature, not fable, folklore or science fiction...



Your definition of fantasy seems to be what this entry calls Modern Fantasy. I consider fantasy the collection of all of the sub-genres listed there. Therefore, practically any element in D&D that is found in one of those sub-genres is a fantasy element.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2006)

By the same token then, if you accept the idea that fantasy is a sum of its earlier incarnations, then why the problems with the inclusion of SF elements?  After all, SF certainly should be covered under your umbrella of Fantasy.  

After all, the Wiki article mentions Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as fantasy.  This is the prototypical SF work.  This is pretty much SF at its hardest at the time.  In fact, Frankenstein's monster could be used to emulate all sorts of things in D&D couldn't it?  A brilliant creator uses unknown forces to create a being that is neither alive nor dead.  A being that longs to know what it is.  A being that sound a helluva lot like Warforged.

Your arguement seems to be that D&D should continue to focus on "traditional" fantasy tropes - guys with swords on horses.  The problem is, that focus was never really there in the first place.  People have been importing non-traditional fantasy tropes all the time.  Whether it's gnomish biplanes in Mystara, or Warforged in Eberron.

The idea that WOTC is somehow abandoning "traditional fantasy" is a fallacy.  Look at any number of WOTC publications and you'll see that "traditional fantasy" is still very much at the forefront.  However, there are also elements which should be explored as well.  

There is no such thing as a bad source of inspiration.  If the idea works and leads to a good game, it's good.  Whether it comes from Shakespeare or the most torrid hack, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> By the same token then, if you accept the idea that fantasy is a sum of its earlier incarnations, then why the problems with the inclusion of SF elements?  After all, SF certainly should be covered under your umbrella of Fantasy.
> 
> After all, the Wiki article mentions Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as fantasy.  This is the prototypical SF work.  This is pretty much SF at its hardest at the time.  In fact, Frankenstein's monster could be used to emulate all sorts of things in D&D couldn't it?  A brilliant creator uses unknown forces to create a being that is neither alive nor dead.  A being that longs to know what it is.  A being that sound a helluva lot like Warforged.



In D&D it's a flesh golem and has been since 1E though the method of creation was more magical and less pseudo-scientific. Depending on how it is used, it can be a creature of horror, as in most films featuring Frankenstein's monster, or fantasy, as in most D&D settings.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Your arguement seems to be that D&D should continue to focus on "traditional" fantasy tropes - guys with swords on horses.  The problem is, that focus was never really there in the first place.  People have been importing non-traditional fantasy tropes all the time.  Whether it's gnomish biplanes in Mystara, or Warforged in Eberron.



It's mostly not what is being _included_ that concerns me but what is being _excluded_. I don't have a problem with there being a creature like the 3.5 gnome in D&D. But there was a gnome in fantasy already with a literary, iconographic and gaming history. Why wasn't it kept as the gnome in 3.5 with the current gnome being in a monster manual or supplemental work? 



> The idea that WOTC is somehow abandoning "traditional fantasy" is a fallacy.



Matthew Sernett says otherwise and he should know: he works for WotC.


----------



## Gez (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> But by the same token, I don't want WotC to discard tried and true fantasy in an effort to make the game mostly or entirely a sci-fi one.




I'm quoting myself back to ask you a question:



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Jack Vance's _Dying Earth_, J.R.R. Tolkien's _Middle-Earth_, Fritz Leiber's _Lankhmar_, James P. Blaylock's _Balumnia_, R.E. Howard's _Conan the Barbarian_, and Joann K. Rowling's _Harry Potter_ are all works of fantasy, and they're all very different and follow different conventions.




I suppose that of those, Blaylock, Leiber, Rowling, and Vance are all guilty of not making _tried and true_ fantasy but things that are _mostly sci-fi_ because there are elements of steampunk, or pulp scifi, or references to the contemporary world?


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> I suppose that of those, Blaylock, Leiber, Rowling, and Vance are all guilty of not making _tried and true_ fantasy but things that are _mostly sci-fi_ because there are elements of steampunk, or pulp scifi, or references to the contemporary world?



For the puposes of what I said earlier, "tried and true fantasy" can be taken to mean fantasy that is very old (e.g. Homer, _Beowulf_, Spenser) and/or very popular (e.g. Tolkien), i.e. pretty much everything on this page up to and including LotR.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> As I keep saying, if other people want robots and spaceships in their D&D game, I don't want to stop them. I'm certainly not on a crusade to limit other people's enjoyment of the game. But by the same token, I don't want WotC to discard tried and true fantasy in an effort to make the game mostly or entirely a sci-fi one.



The problem that I think I, at least, have with your line of argument is that Wizards of the Coast isn't doing any such thing.

There are no robots or spaceships in anything Wizards of the Coast publishes. There are warforged - which are certainly, explicitly, and undeniably *inspired* by robots, especially by Asimovian questions of personhood and purpose - and there are traces of Second Edition's spelljammer ships to be found here and there, chiefly in _Lords of Madness_, but no robots _per se_ or spaceships anything like those found in _Star Trek_ or even _2001: A Space Odyssey_.

You complain that Wizards of the Coast has a race in its _Player's Handbook_ called "gnomes" which is entirely unlike the gnomes of folklore and myth. I have to tell you that my response is, per Bill Hicks, four simple words: Yeah? And? So? What?

We can point to any of the fantasy creatures such as elves or dwarves in a work such as Tolkien's and demonstrate that not only are they inspired by one culture's "take" rather than by another's, they are also significantly and at times *wildly* different in Tolkien's novels than in his inspirations.

His dwarves, for instance: do they, like their Norse inspiration, "seem to be interchangeable and may be identical with the svartálfar (black elves), and sometimes the trolls"? Is it Tolkien's dwarves or his trolls which "fear sunlight, which might even turn them into the stone they sprang from"?

If Tolkien can pick and choose what attributes he gives to creatures he calls according to folkloric or mythological names, and create new creatures (hobbits) which are similar to other such creatures but distinct from them in order to serve Tolkien's own purposes, why is it illegitimate for the writers of D&D to do the same?

At this point we have thirty-two years' worth of D&D material, amounting to many times the output of any single fantasy writer. Why shouldn't Wizards of the Coast pick-and-choose elements to emphasise from this massive resource? If they want to emphasise the tricksterish, close-to-nature feylike attributes of gnomes, or make "gnome" the playable race which stands in for tricksterish nature spirits but makes sense in the context of established D&D worlds, how is that illegitimate? "According to myth, gnomes hoarded secret knowledge just as they hoarded treasure" - the gnomes of Zilargo in Eberron certainly hoard secret knowledge, for instance.

Not only is there more to fantasy than Spenser, Tolkien, and other writers primarily inspired by folklore and myth - a Hell of a lot more, at this point in the history of fantastic literature - there's also the completely reasonable phenomenon of recursion, reflection upon what D&D has already done to innovate in the fantasy genre and further development of those new ideas.

Honestly, I think you're tilting at straw windmills.


----------



## Zander (Aug 18, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> The problem that I think I, at least, have with your line of argument is that Wizards of the Coast isn't doing any such thing.
> 
> There are no robots or spaceships in anything Wizards of the Coast publishes. There are warforged - which are certainly, explicitly, and undeniably *inspired* by robots, especially by Asimovian questions of personhood and purpose - and there are traces of Second Edition's spelljammer ships to be found here and there, chiefly in _Lords of Madness_, but no robots _per se_ or spaceships anything like those found in _Star Trek_ or even _2001: A Space Odyssey_.
> 
> ...



A very good question. Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part. 



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think you're tilting at straw windmills.



And I think you're mixing your metaphors. It's "tilting at windmills" or "clutching at straws". I think you mean the former.


----------



## Gez (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> A very good question. Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part.




D&D is popular and enduring.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> A very good question. Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part.



I see. Straightforward conservatism, is it? "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff"?

I'm personally quite glad that Wizards of the Coast has decided to make D&D its own thing, with its own take (several takes, actually, when you consider the settings they produce as well as the flavour surrounding their "capsystem" books on psionics, incarnum, and the like) on fantasy.

Perhaps I'm biased - well, no, I *know* I'm biased. You keep mentioning Tolkien as "tried and true", while I'm thoroughly sick of the Tolkien imitations that have choked the fantasy genre for fifty years and am very happy that D&D is not *just* yet another "tired and through" Tolkien rip-off marching in lockstep with the rest of the logjam.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> And I think you're mixing your metaphors.



Quite deliberately.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> It's "tilting at windmills" or "clutching at straws". I think you mean the former.



You're tilting at windmills which are also strawmen - see your comments re: robots and spaceships in D&D. You're making nonsense up and raging against it.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 18, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> A very good question. Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part.



Eh. Even Tolkien had very different views of fantasy races in his different publications. Just look at the elves from "The Hobbit" and compare them to the elves from LotR. Those elves from "The Hobbit" are much nearer to folklore than his later concepts. They live under a hill, dance in the moonlight and drink lots of wine in their constant partying. There's also a distinct cruel streak. This fits very much Irish folk tales as they have been collected by the Grimm brothers in 1826. This is completely different from the elven image in the LotR. In principle, you could accuse Tolkien to have left the ground of folklore, because that's what he did. His LotR elves are his unique creation, and he changed his view of elves as he saw fit.

In the end, Tolkien's view of elves collides with the view of many other fantasy authors. "Sweeping Tokien aside" doesn't mean much. He is one author among many. He has a very specific view of elves, which is bound to his setting (and a different one in his older work). He hardly uses any magic, which is also much different to a lot of other fantasy literature. In this sense, Tolkien represents a very small niche of fantasy literature; a very popular niche, but a niche, nevertheless.

One other point: It is remarkable that none of the LotR RPGs, be it MERP or Decipher's LotR game, have been overly successful. The problem is that LotR as a book makes for a bad fantasy RPG without major changes. This means that the publisher's choice is more or less between a truthful, but boring adaptation of the books, or the introduction of major changes to make the game interesting (like MERP), which in turn upsets the fans.

And this is the gist of the argument: D&D, from its very beginnings, did not take its basic concepts from LotR. It took some of the racial concepts and a bit of window dressing, but the main influences are from distinctly different fantasy sources. And those included electric elevators, flying cars and supercomputers.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> For the puposes of what I said earlier, "tried and true fantasy" can be taken to mean fantasy that is very old (e.g. Homer, _Beowulf_, Spenser) and/or very popular (e.g. Tolkien), i.e. pretty much everything on this page up to and including LotR.




So, we should ignore the VAST amount of fantasy literature of the past 50 years?  There were more fantasy novels produced since 2000 than have been produced in the 20th century.  Even if many are crap, sheer volume means that there are some real gems in there.  The sun doesn't rise and set on Tolkein.  Thank goodness for that.  



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> A very good question. Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part.




Pardon?  Tolkein was popular?  What was Tolkein's first bestseller?  The Silmarillion.  And he didn't even write that one alone.  The ONLY reason we even know who Tolkein was is because he was an Oxford don who got his books put on reading academic reading lists.  

Do I love the books?  Of course I do.  I play D&D after all.    But, to try to say that Tolkein was some sort of iconic writer of fantasy is ludicrous.  

Try this one.  Name ten fantasy authors from the 1970's without looking them up.  We're fantasy FANS.  We should know these things.  We don't because there was so little material to work with.  

What possible reason is there to limit D&D to dead writers?  With the huge number of VERY VERY good fantasy being written today, to stick our heads in the past is just a very good way to kill the hobby as younger generations who couldn't care less about the Hobbit in favor of Harry Potter pass the game by as something played by old people.

BTW, you've mentioned Matthew Sernett more than once.  What exactly did he say and where did he say it?



> In D&D it's a flesh golem and has been since 1E though the method of creation was more magical and less pseudo-scientific. Depending on how it is used, it can be a creature of horror, as in most films featuring Frankenstein's monster, or fantasy, as in most D&D settings.




Almost forgot this bit.  So, D&D skips the source material and twists it and changes it, and that's ok, because....  But, if we are to use the source material as written, then we wind up with something you don't like and that would be bad.  Am I understanding that correctly?

I could create a PC race of flesh golems similar to Frankenstein's monster and use them in D&D.  Intelligent, sentient beings questioning their existence.  Or, I can wrap them up in metal and do the same thing and get Warforged.  Granted, they're created magically rather than with "science" (such as it is), but, the end result is the same.

Tried and true - yup.  Stands the test of time - yup.  Iconic figure that resonates - yup.

What's wrong with the picture?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> BTW, you've mentioned Matthew Sernett more than once.  What exactly did he say and where did he say it?



And what was the context.

Because, frankly, I'm of the opinion that from what has been quoted in this thread it sounds like Mr. Sernett is saying that WotC will move away from the narrow Tolkein-imitation baseline fantasy and return back to the roots of D&D where a broad fantasy genre was explored with abandon.

Forget "Return to the Dungeon" that was 3e's tagline, it'll be "Return to the Roots"!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 19, 2006)

> Tolkien and those other authors I've already alluded to have been vetted as "tried and true" by a combination of their popularity and/or endurance. Sweeping them aside is a kind of hubris on WotC's part.




And the authors we have alluded to (Moorcock, Lieber, Vance, et alia) who frequently meld sci-fi elements into their fantasy works are also "tried and true" by the very same standard you allude to- some dating back pre-JRRT (OMG! PEOPLE WROTE FANTASY BEFORE TOLKIEN?!) and sweeping them aside is no less hubris on your part.

Sure- if I go into B&N or Borders and peruse the sci-fi/fantasy books, JRRT's books outmass any other authors' work save perhaps Asimov's.  Why?  Because like Stephen King, his works have been made into movies and everyone- even non-fans- knows his name.  His stuff sells because of his notoriety.  In fact, sometimes I have trouble finding classic authors on those shelves, they are crowded out for want of space...I count 6+ editions of his Magnum Opus on the shelves on a good day, with multiple copies of each.  Does that make JRRT more important than Howard or Lieber?

I don't think so.

Do the superior sales of LotR that make that work superior in quality, more important to our hobby?

If it does, then we'd better start rewriting the music ed courses to appreciate the greatness of Britney Spears and Vanilla Ice.

You mention the gnome...

The gnome of D&D- in ANY edition- shares mainly physical stature and name with the gnomes of European legend.

JRRT's Elves?  They are his own trope on the pointy ear'd folk- you examine Euopean folklore, and you'll find that "elf" was associated with smallish, very magically oriented beings, who lived apart from humanity, not in the wilderness, but in a "parallel dimension" often referred to by names like "Underhill"- in other words, the creatures that most RPGs call "Fey."


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Pardon?  Tolkein was popular?  What was Tolkein's first bestseller?  The Silmarillion.  And he didn't even write that one alone.  The ONLY reason we even know who Tolkein was is because he was an Oxford don who got his books put on reading academic reading lists.




The Silmarillion was his pet project, and was never would you would call a bestseller. In fact, it was published posthumously. His bestseller was The Hobbit, a children's book, which had people clamoring for more "stories about hobbits." LOTR was the basically the first mainstream best seller fantasy novel. Tolkien is a magnitude more popular than virtually any other fantasy writer before or since.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Aug 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, a bit of Googling shows that the Da Vinci bicycle appears to be a hoax though.
> 
> However, it's not like the technology for creating a bicycle doesn't exist in the period.  It's just that no one did it.  Same way as the Chinese had incredibly advanced ships but history conspired to not make them a naval power.
> 
> There is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.  It's quite possible to create a bicycle in the Renaissance.  That we didn't doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.




DaVinci created plans for a robot, er, automaton around 1495 while the Japanese had their own in the 18th - 19th century (karakuri). To me it doesn't seem like much of a leap for these automatons to gain life by some helpful (or malicious) spirit kinda like that little wooden boy we all know and love from animation... Little Wooden Boy. SPOON!

Ok, Pinocchio too. 

But there was also the original Golem from Jewish lore, Talos, that bronze minotaur from one of the Sinbad movies, the Shiva statue from another Harryhausen movie, Astroboy (a futurisitic Pinocchio but still), etc.

Fantasy also has several anthropomorphs, mostly modern creations like Usagi Yojimbo, the TMNT, Cerebus the Aardvark, any of Uncle Walt's studio creations, Rocket Raccoon, Flaming Carrot, etc. But that's something like a modern iteration like before Elric, all (ok, majority) heroes were Conan-ish.

Not every fantasy has to involve elves, dwarves, Keira Knightley, pirates, Bo Derek running in slow motion across a beach, some neverending story, some guy with the ability to cloud men's minds who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, radioactive spider bites or exploding planets named Krypton. It just has to be divergent from what is considered 'normal life'. To me, that's what distinguishes it from science fiction, which might be a vision of the future - H.G. Wells and Jules Verne for instance.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The ONLY reason we even know who Tolkein was is because he was an Oxford don who got his books put on academic reading lists.





			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure- if I go into B&N or Borders and peruse the sci-fi/fantasy books, JRRT's books outmass any other authors' work save perhaps Asimov's.  Why?  Because like Stephen King, his works have been made into movies and everyone- even non-fans- knows his name.  His stuff sells because of his notoriety.  In fact, sometimes I have trouble finding classic authors on those shelves, they are crowded out for want of space...I count 6+ editions of his Magnum Opus on the shelves on a good day, with multiple copies of each.



You can combine those two points. In Germany, this combination is very obvious. There, fantasy (and science fiction) was some kind of literature that nobody concerned for his reputation would want to be seen with by others. Comes LotR. For what reason ever, it was published by one of the two major *schoolbook* publishers! The reputable publisher - who had never done SF or fantasy before -  was the reason for mainstream people to look into the book and is partly responsible for its success.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The Silmarillion was his pet project, and was never would you would call a bestseller. In fact, it was published posthumously. His bestseller was The Hobbit, a children's book, which had people clamoring for more "stories about hobbits." LOTR was the basically the first mainstream best seller fantasy novel. Tolkien is a magnitude more popular than virtually any other fantasy writer before or since.




According to this site you would be mistaken.

As well as this list which also lists the Silmarillion as Tolkien's only best seller.

This site also agrees.

This one too

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point.

And, as far as popularity goes, I'm afraid the Professor doesn't come anywhere close to Ms Rawlings.  Not even in the same time zone in fact.  I actually wouldn't be all that surprised if there are a fair number of authors more popular in terms of sales than Tolkien.


----------



## rounser (Aug 20, 2006)

> Forget "Return to the Dungeon" that was 3e's tagline, it'll be "Return to the Roots"!



From what I gather, D&D's roots _are_ the dungeon.  Taking the "hero" minis from the battlefield and sending them down into the dungeons of Castle Blackmoor is arguably the first time it stopped being Chainmail.  But hey, we weren't there, so that's just speculation based on accounts from those who were.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> According to this site you would be mistaken.
> 
> As well as this list which also lists the Silmarillion as Tolkien's only best seller.
> 
> ...



I think it depends somewhat on how you define the word bestseller. In the US, Ballantine's alone has sold about 50 million copies of the LotR books. But this was over a period of about 50 years .


----------



## AZNtrogdor (Aug 20, 2006)

in what issue and on what page can I find this article?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2006)

Heh, and probably 39.5 million of those copies were sold to schools.  

Compare that to the almost 7 million copies sold on the first day for Half Blood Prince.  

Worldwide, she's flogged almost 270 million books.  Somehow I think she's likely more read than Tolkien.

Don't get me wrong.  I love Tolkien.  I really do.  I've read the Hobbit and the LOTR many, many times.  Read the Lost Tales and the Simirallion more than a few times as well.  However, let's not get too carried away in personal preferences here.  I 100% agree that LOTR is a better book than Harry Potter.  But, that doesn't mean that it's the best fantasy book out there.

I'm still stunned by the idea that we should limit our inspirations to a small subset of the genre when there are absolutely fantastic sources outside of Tolkien and Howard.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2006)

I think those bestseller lists only tallied the top 10 best sellers of each year.  That's not necessarily the definition of a best seller.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> From what I gather, D&D's roots _are_ the dungeon.



I'm sorry, you misunderstood me.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong.  I love Tolkien.  I really do.  I've read the Hobbit and the LOTR many, many times.  Read the Lost Tales and the Simirallion more than a few times as well.  However, let's not get too carried away in personal preferences here.  I 100% agree that LOTR is a better book than Harry Potter.  But, that doesn't mean that it's the best fantasy book out there.
> 
> I'm still stunned by the idea that we should limit our inspirations to a small subset of the genre when there are absolutely fantastic sources outside of Tolkien and Howard.



Well, at least LotR tends to win "best book of all times" polls .

Anyway, I'm certainly no advocate of limiting fantasy to LotR-inspired works. Quite the opposite. Frex, I love Jack Vance stories, if you cannot tell already from my handle .


----------



## rounser (Aug 20, 2006)

> I'm sorry, my phrase was apparently over your head.



Patronising someone for misunderstanding what you're trying to get across is neither big nor clever when it may well be that the problem is on your side, especially when you do so without an attempt to explain what, indeed, you did mean.  That's just rude.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 20, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I think those bestseller lists only tallied the top 10 best sellers of each year.  That's not necessarily the definition of a best seller.




Oh, true, if you want to go by total volume over time, then it does come out different.  Not hugely different, but, Tolkien does get to move up the list if you do.  

Honestly, I do agree with Zinser in that I don't want SF themes in my game.  However, I mean it in a different way than he does.  At the root, there is a huge difference between the function of the narrative of fantasy and SF.  SF is politically motivated by and large.

Warning, I'm painting with some very broad strokes here, so, don't get too excited.

The basic purpose of nearly every SF story is to examine the effects of science or technology on the human condition.  Whether it's becoming a god in Dune or robots in Asimov, Data in Star Trek or the dystopian views of Heinlein; this examination of what it means to be human can be seen in so many SF stories.  Even Mary Shelly examines this nearly two centuries ago with Frankenstein.  

I love these kinds of stories.  I do.  My favourite reading is probably more SF than fantasy, although I like fantasy as well.  In the wiki article, they mention the idea that modern Fantasy is an outgrowth of travel stories.  And, really, that's true.  The function of the narrative in Fantasy is generally world building.  You don't try to link it to the real world (although you can) in any sort of reflective way.  You write fantasy to create a world and present that world to the reader.  Conan wouldn't know self reflection if it bit him on the loincloth.  But Hyboria is fully realized and given an entire history.  But, that world of Hyboria isn't meant to represent anything.  It is what it is - a fantasy world.

However, what makes for great reading doesn't make for a great game IMO.  I don't play RPG's to make some sort of profound statement about the human condition.  I play RPG's to kill stuff and take its lunch money.    Sure, there can be stories within the game.  And hopefully they are good stories as well.  But, they are fantasy stories.  They are not meant to be anything other than what is presented - a good adventure.

Trying to do that with SF, again in my opinion, doesn't work as well.  Star Wars, while clothed in SF toys, is pretty solidly fantasy in theme.  The hero farmboy travels out and slays the dragon.  There is no attempt to discuss any sort of ramifications of the technology.  It's exactly the same as magic in fantasy - it's taken completely for granted and ignored.  It works because it has to work or the story stops.  There is no attempt to link the Force to some sort of commentary on anything in the real world.

That's why I say Pern is fantasy.  It's the same as Star Wars.  The science isn't the point of the story.  There's no attempt to talk about how science or technology is changing these people.  They are presented whole cloth without any conflict between themselves and their setting.  ((Well, ok, the Thread is setting, but, you know what I mean))

I have no problems stealing ideas from SF and putting them into fantasy.  It's still fantasy, just with a new pair of pants and maybe a nice belt.  When you remove the idea of dealing with how science and technology affects the human condition, it's no longer SF particularly.  It's fantasy.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Patronising someone for misunderstanding what you're trying to get across is neither big nor clever when it may well be that the problem is on your side, especially when you do so without an attempt to explain what, indeed, you did mean.  That's just rude.



I was rude, I apologize. Possibly frustrations in real life carried over and clouded my judgement as well, who can say. Mostly, I was bemused that you took serious something said in jest.  You will note the "" winking smiley that you excluded from my quote.  I thought that was clear enough there was a lack of seriousness in my statement. *shrug*

I AM still bemused how far all of us on all sides are deviating from the original post.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 20, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh, true, if you want to go by total volume over time, then it does come out different.  Not hugely different, but, Tolkien does get to move up the list if you do.



Not even that though I agree. An author may have a bestseller for one week of a year. That's a bestseller in that year, but it may have only ranked 99th for the year as a whole...

Anyone have the British bestseller charts for the 20th century out of curiousity?


----------



## Turjan (Aug 20, 2006)

As someone used a "Full Frontal Nerdity" strip in a different thread, I had to think of this one:







I actually like the explanation .


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2006)

ROTF.  FFN is a fantastic strip.  

"You got crappy sci fi all over my fantasy rpg"  Great.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

*There have been a lot of comments about what I said since I was here last. Time permitting, I'll do what I can to address those comments.*



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> D&D is popular and enduring.




Not nearly to the same extent as, for example, Tolkien for popularity or, as another example, Homer for endurance.

I wish D&D were that popular but sadly it isn't.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> I see. Straightforward conservatism, is it? "I like your old stuff better than your new stuff"?
> 
> I'm personally quite glad that Wizards of the Coast has decided to make D&D its own thing, with its own take (several takes, actually, when you consider the settings they produce as well as the flavour surrounding their "capsystem" books on psionics, incarnum, and the like) on fantasy.
> 
> Perhaps I'm biased - well, no, I *know* I'm biased. You keep mentioning Tolkien as "tried and true", while I'm thoroughly sick of the Tolkien imitations that have choked the fantasy genre for fifty years and am very happy that D&D is not *just* yet another "tired and through" Tolkien rip-off marching in lockstep with the rest of the logjam.



Fantasy isn't locked into a particular author's view. As I've already pointed out, fantasy has a very long history with successive waves of contributors and audiences. I'm glad that there are many contributors to the genre both past and present. My concern is not that WotC may not be adhering to Tolkien in particular; it is that WotC is moving D&D away from fantasy in general.



			
				mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> You're making nonsense up and raging against it.



I'm not forcing you to respond to my comments. If you think I'm "making nonsense up", ignore me.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Eh. Even Tolkien had very different views of fantasy races in his different publications. Just look at the elves from "The Hobbit" and compare them to the elves from LotR. Those elves from "The Hobbit" are much nearer to folklore than his later concepts. They live under a hill, dance in the moonlight and drink lots of wine in their constant partying. There's also a distinct cruel streak. This fits very much Irish folk tales as they have been collected by the Grimm brothers in 1826. This is completely different from the elven image in the LotR. In principle, you could accuse Tolkien to have left the ground of folklore, because that's what he did. His LotR elves are his unique creation, and he changed his view of elves as he saw fit.
> 
> In the end, Tolkien's view of elves collides with the view of many other fantasy authors. "Sweeping Tokien aside" doesn't mean much. He is one author among many. He has a very specific view of elves, which is bound to his setting (and a different one in his older work). He hardly uses any magic, which is also much different to a lot of other fantasy literature. In this sense, Tolkien represents a very small niche of fantasy literature; a very popular niche, but a niche, nevertheless.
> 
> One other point: It is remarkable that none of the LotR RPGs, be it MERP or Decipher's LotR game, have been overly successful. The problem is that LotR as a book makes for a bad fantasy RPG without major changes. This means that the publisher's choice is more or less between a truthful, but boring adaptation of the books, or the introduction of major changes to make the game interesting (like MERP), which in turn upsets the fans.



I never said that Tolkien was the be all of fantasy but you seem to have fixated on it as if I had.



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> And this is the gist of the argument: D&D, from its very beginnings, did not take its basic concepts from LotR. It took some of the racial concepts and a bit of window dressing, but the main influences are from distinctly different fantasy sources. And those included electric elevators, flying cars and supercomputers.



D&D is, or at least was originally, a fantasy game. If you consider supercomputers part of fantasy, I think the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. My worry is that WotC may be more inclined to your viewpoint than mine.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, we should ignore the VAST amount of fantasy literature of the past 50 years?  There were more fantasy novels produced since 2000 than have been produced in the 20th century.  Even if many are crap, sheer volume means that there are some real gems in there. The sun doesn't rise and set on Tolkein.



I agree. What those gems are will become apparent in time. We shouldn't rush to abandon the long and distinguished fantasy tradition in D&D. Change for its own sake is not necessarily a move for the better. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> BTW, you've mentioned Matthew Sernett more than once.  What exactly did he say and where did he say it?



Scale Mail, Dragon Magazine No.325. I don't have the issue to hand but the gist of what he said was that while they enjoyed Tolkien, Howard et al, they didn't regard that view of fantasy as the way D&D should be heading, rather it should include more techno-'magic' etc.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And the authors we have alluded to (Moorcock, Lieber, Vance, et alia) who frequently meld sci-fi elements into their fantasy works are also "tried and true" by the very same standard you allude to- some dating back pre-JRRT (OMG! PEOPLE WROTE FANTASY BEFORE TOLKIEN?!) and sweeping them aside is no less hubris on your part.
> 
> Sure- if I go into B&N or Borders and peruse the sci-fi/fantasy books, JRRT's books outmass any other authors' work save perhaps Asimov's.  Why?  Because like Stephen King, his works have been made into movies and everyone- even non-fans- knows his name.  His stuff sells because of his notoriety.  In fact, sometimes I have trouble finding classic authors on those shelves, they are crowded out for want of space...I count 6+ editions of his Magnum Opus on the shelves on a good day, with multiple copies of each.  Does that make JRRT more important than Howard or Lieber?



I refer you to my reply to Turjan above. Like him, you seem to be fixated on the fact that I mentioned Tolkien to the point of ignoring that I brought up Howard (or anyone else).



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You mention the gnome...
> 
> The gnome of D&D- in ANY edition- shares mainly physical stature and name with the gnomes of European legend.



The gnome of 1E owes its roots to a number of sources including European folklore. The influences on the gnome in previous editions extend beyond name and size.


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...to try to say that Tolkein was some sort of iconic writer of fantasy is ludicrous.



Can I quote this in my sig? Please?


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Aug 21, 2006)

He's right, however.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 21, 2006)

I have Dragon 325 in my grubby little hands, so, let's see what Mr. Sernett had to say shall we?



			
				Dragon 325 said:
			
		

> Thanks for your thoughts, Alexander.
> 
> We agree more than you might think.  You're absolutely correct that D&D relies on the appeal of hooking people into fantasy that they already know.  My point in the editorial was that the youth of today share a common knowledge of fantasy that is different from what we grew up with.  Their foundation isn't Conan, King Arthur and Tolkein: it's Final Fantasy and Harry Potter.
> 
> ...




Something you wrote, caught my eye.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Ultimately, it is through us, not the fickle revisionists, that D&D will thrive over the next three decades.




((BTW, any typoes and bad grammar and whatnot in the above is entirely mine.))

This I disagree with most strongly.  I'm sorry, but it is not those who remain stuck in "traditional" fantasy that will see the game thrive.  



> to try to say that Tolkein was some sort of iconic writer of fantasy is ludicrous.




I do stand by this.  I love Tolkein, but, his writing quite frankly, sucks.  It's drawn out, boring and dry as a bone.  The Hobbit was a fun read.  The LOTR had an awful lot of skippable parts.  The Simirallian?  Gack, I've read stereo instruction manuals that were more exciting.  Tolkien's brilliance lay in his ability to create worlds.  Not his prose.

Little hint, if you have a giant, huge, evil bad guy that's threatening your entire world, let the reader actually see him once or twice.  And, maybe, after the wise old man delivers the dire warnings, don't let sixty years pass.  Things like that.

I'm still confused though as to why we should be fixated on dead writers.

/edit - cleaned up some very fuzzy thinking.  

It is ironic though that the same issue that this letter appears in features a Novel Approach article featuring Dune.  It gives rules for using Spice and Sandworms in your campaign.  Good article and certainly a good idea.  I've run a few campaigns set in deserts with worm riders.  The recent Sandstorm book even features them as a PrC.  Here's an idea from one of the most iconic SF books ever written that is easily portable into D&D.  Yet, we should limit ourselves to pure Fantasy authors?  I'm sorry, but, that's just not what my game has ever been about.

As I said before, if you pulled out everything from the MM that was pure fantasy, you'd have about fifteen pages.  Zander, a question.  Do you disallow clerics in your game?


----------



## Zander (Aug 21, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As I said before, if you pulled out everything from the MM that was pure fantasy, you'd have about fifteen pages.



Was or wasn't? Whichever, that depends what one considers "pure fantasy".



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Zander, a question.  Do you disallow clerics in your game?



I'm not the DM in either of the two campaigns I'm in at the moment so the choice isn't mine but if it were, the answer would be "no". In fact, one of my PCs is a cleric.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 21, 2006)

I think that portability is a great thing. And it goes both ways. I've drawn from sci-fi concepts in my homebrew fantasy game, and fantasy elements can be translated very well into sci-fi. Heck, you can draw them into other genres as well.

There's a thread over on RPG.net where someone threw out a challenge to translate _Star Wars_ into other genres. First thing that popped into my head: a spaghetti Western based on "A New Hope."

If that ain't portability, I don't know what is.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 21, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I never said that Tolkien was the be all of fantasy but you seem to have fixated on it as if I had.



I used Tolkien as an example of literature that influenced the D&D game (the choice of races comes to mind) but is a counterpoint against your unwillingness to accept changes in racial descriptions in D&D over time. I just pointed out that D&D's sources saw similar changes and are as much examples of fantasy concepts in flux as D&D itself.

And even if you mentioned other authors, like Howard or Leiber, you ignore others that are similarly important as a source of D&D.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> D&D is, or at least was originally, a fantasy game. If you consider supercomputers part of fantasy, I think the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. My worry is that WotC may be more inclined to your viewpoint than mine.



Well, Gary Gygax mentioned that he considered Jack Vance as one of the main influences of D&D. In the end, you find these technical wonders in the same small (120 pgs.) collection of fantasy stories that defined the D&D magic system and some of the spells. To get from the "Excellent Prismatic Spray" to a high-(bio)tech city, you just need to take a ride in a flying car from Kaiin to Ampridatvir . And this is similar with other fantasy roots of D&D. If you care to ignore those, that's your call. Nevertheless, it's an important and, as far as D&D goes, influential branch of fantasy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 21, 2006)

> I refer you to my reply to Turjan above. Like him, you seem to be fixated on the fact that I mentioned Tolkien to the point of ignoring that I brought up Howard (or anyone else).




No, I'm fixated on the fact that DESPITE mentioning Howard and others, you completely discount the validity of fantasy written by those who DO include significant techno/anachronistic elements as somehow not "pure," "genuine" or "legitimate" fantasy, or at least, not legitimate sources for D&D.

Moorcock's Million Spheres was one of the major sources for D&D cosmology, magic items, etc..  Lieber gave us PC and plot archetypes.  Vance gave us his magic system and items.

All included sci-fant elements, and Lieber's writings definitely predate Tolkien.



> The influences on the gnome in previous editions extend beyond name and size.




No, not really- the popular redcaps that dominated the gnomish lore of Western Europe are not really well represented in 1Ed or 2Ed.  If they had been, they would be iconically Druids and not Illusionists.

_Smurfs_ are closer to Western European gnomish lore & legend than any D&D gnome.

RE: Tolkien as Iconic Writer:

IMHO, he IS an Icon, without a doubt.  He is very creative- especially in linguistics- but _he's not a good writer._  In his efforts to capture the elements of Heroic Epics in the form of a Novel (LoTR, natch), he succeeded too well.  If, as many of my writing teachers said, great writers do not waste words- anything that does not advance the plot is ultimately useless and/or narcissistic- then JRRT is NOT a great writer.  While he did convey the epic nature of the task at hand, he also included much that is dross- pointless details (like involved lineages of nonexistent people), bad poetry, etc. that can glaze one's eyes over quite quickly.  Those elements in Epic poetry served a purpose- they put the protaganists within the context of the other legends and historical figures of the day (remember- the Epic was at least partially reportage).  In LotR, there is no external context for those lineages etc. to link up with.  They are merely meaningless mimics of the form.


----------



## Warbringer (Aug 21, 2006)

Captain NeMo said:
			
		

> Heh, we've got to remember how lame WHFB elves are though...




 ... You obviously haven'r read any Malus Darkblade novels


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Was or wasn't? Whichever, that depends what one considers "pure fantasy".
> 
> I'm not the DM in either of the two campaigns I'm in at the moment so the choice isn't mine but if it were, the answer would be "no". In fact, one of my PCs is a cleric.




Considering that clerics have NO literary source, how do you justify their existence in the game?  They are purely a construct of the game and are only present because someone needs to heal the party.  Yet, they've been part of the game for a very long time.

This is exactly my point.  D&D has drawn on whatever works.  There has never been any sort of "purist" concept to the game.  It's always been a kitchen sink approach with whatever developer grabbing whatever idea and stuffing it into the game.  Many of the elements you seem to be attributing to fantasy are nothing of the sort.

Let's see, Monster Manual elements with little or no fantasy link (note, I'm doing this from memory):

Beholders
Mind Flayers
Githyanki
The Blood War
Rust Monsters
Umber Hulks
Most Golems

Just to name a handful.  You seem fixated on maintaining some sort of purity that never existed in the game in the first place.  Classes, races, monsters, spells - all elements drawn from non-fantasy sources.

And, DannyAlcatraz, quit bloody doing that.  Wut he said is what I meant about Tolkien, it's just he stole my brain.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> According to this site you would be mistaken.
> 
> As well as this list which also lists the Silmarillion as Tolkien's only best seller.
> 
> ...




You can certainly think that. However, most of those lists are just top tens of all fiction, not lists of all best-selling books. But the more important point is the historical one; the Simarillion was published posthumously, so claiming the popularity of his other books rests on that is ridiculous. The Silmarillion would never have been published at all if LOTR hadn't sold millions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2006)

<is secretly an Illithid sent from the future to hasten the rise of the Mind Flayer Hedgemony>


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You can certainly think that. However, most of those lists are just top tens of all fiction, not lists of all best-selling books. But the more important point is the historical one; the Simarillion was published posthumously, so claiming the popularity of his other books rests on that is ridiculous. The Silmarillion would never have been published at all if LOTR hadn't sold millions.




The problem is, LOTR wouldn't[/b] have sold millions if Tolkien hadn't gotten it put on required reading lists at schools.  

Look, I know it looks like I'm bashing Tolkien, I don't mean to.  Try this for an example.  Walk outside and ask ten people if they know who Stephen King is.  Now try Tolkien.  I'll bet that probably six or seven know Tolkien.  Now try Moorcock.  You'd be lucky to get one.  Now ask about Jack Vance.  You'd be lucky to get one in a hundred and he's probably a D&D player.

Heck, ask people to name a famous Homer and far more will reply Simpson than "Epic Greek poet".  

We are a niche hobby of a niche genre.  Fantasy's popularity is a very recent thing.  Sure, there's lots of LOTR books in the bookstores right now.  Three hugely popular movies did that.  Go back to about 1994 and look at the store shelves.  There's still be a copy of the LOTR.  One.  Among the bazillion other books on the shelf.  

Again, my question remains - why should our hobby be restricted to dead authors?


----------



## Zander (Aug 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering that clerics have NO literary source, how do you justify their existence in the game?  They are purely a construct of the game and are only present because someone needs to heal the party.  Yet, they've been part of the game for a very long time.
> 
> This is exactly my point.  D&D has drawn on whatever works.  There has never been any sort of "purist" concept to the game.  It's always been a kitchen sink approach with whatever developer grabbing whatever idea and stuffing it into the game.  Many of the elements you seem to be attributing to fantasy are nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...



I'm not opposed to developments in fantasy but any additions should at least not compromise the integrity of the fantasy of any particular game world (or if they do, they should be restricted to particular game settings).  

Clerics are fantasy versions of Templars or Hospitallers. For the most part, the monsters created by Col P filled niches for monsters that were previously vacant and didn't violate the logic of the fantasy milieu.

Incidentally, most of the early golems (sc. clay - Jewish, metal - Greek, and flesh - gothic) in D&D existed before the game was invented. You could add owlbears to the list as well as bullets. There are no doubt others.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 22, 2006)

> didn't violate the logic of the fantasy milieu.




Again, what?  Fantasy logic?  Isn't that the entire point of fanstasy that it defies logic?

There is absolutely no logical reason for a rust monster.  It is just something that got tossed in because it seemed like a cool idea.  The inspiration was a small plastic toy.  There's no fantasy logic there.  

There is, however, game design logic.  It makes sense to have a monster that can take away stuff from players when you design a game like this.  It makes sense for clerics to be able to heal because it's no fun spending weeks of game time healing.  There's a whole host of elements that exist in the game for no reason other than the fact that its a game.

Defending those elements as somehow fitting into fantasy is fallacious.  They don't fit into fantasy.  They do, however, fit into a fantasy *game*.

But, this is getting us nowhere.  You keep bringing up strawmen like "supercomputers" in an attempt to prove your point.  I've proven my point sufficiently to myself and no amount of arguing is going to move this forward.

Thanks for the convo.


----------



## Zander (Aug 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, what?  Fantasy logic?  Isn't that the entire point of fanstasy that it defies logic?



It lacks formal logic but has an internal one.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no logical reason for a rust monster.



Exactly! Which is why you can't have science in a fantasy game world.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> But, this is getting us nowhere.  You keep bringing up strawmen like "supercomputers" in an attempt to prove your point.



Turjan brought up supercomputers, not me. I haven't brought up anything for the purpose of knocking it down. If you think that I'm making a stink over nothing, you are not obliged to respond. My guess is there are lots of people who read this thread, didn't think it was an issue and moved on. I'm sorry if you felt compelled to reply. That wasn't my intention. I certainly didn't mean to  provoke a reaction for its own sake. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Thanks for the convo.



My pleasure.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 22, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I'm not opposed to developments in fantasy but any additions should at least not compromise the integrity of the fantasy of any particular game world (or if they do, they should be restricted to particular game settings).



D&D is designed to provide a basis for playing in a wide variety of fantasy settings. It cannot possibly do that, and at the same time contain no elements that violate some individual fantasy setting.


----------



## Gez (Aug 22, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Not nearly to the same extent as, for example, Tolkien for popularity or, as another example, Homer for endurance.
> 
> I wish D&D were that popular but sadly it isn't.




Tolkien was a _novelist_, Homer was an _ancient greek storyteller_, D&D is a _roleplaying game_.


Saying D&D is not as enduring as Homer is like saying that motorbikes are less enduring than than horse carriage. It's not even apples and oranges, since both apples and oranges are fruits that are grown on trees. More like comparing potato puree with cuban cigars.

I've already said I disagree with your lumping of all of fantasy's _inspiration sources_ as fantasy itself. Unless you now claim that, for example, military conquests in the antiquity were just big LARPing events, I don't see how you could pretend that RPGs are, like fantasy novels, something that already existed in Homer's time.

RPGs are a niche. Novels are mainstream. You can't compare directly the popularity of an RPG and that of a novel. That's dishonest.

And despite that, D&D has certainly been much more influential to today's fantasy culture than _Lord of the Rings_. Peter Jackson's LoTR elves have pointed ears -- that's taken from D&D, because Tolkien never described elven ear shape. Likewise, the popular depiction of orcs is taken from Warhammer -- big, musclebound, stupid, green, and tusked. Tolkien's orcs were nothing like that. Petty, cruel, violent, and avaricious, yes. Mentally retarded to the point of painting their chariot red because "red goes faster", no.

Gamer culture is now omnipresent in fantasy and soft sci-fi novels, comics, and computer games. Even people who've never even seen a D&D book have been exposed to many D&Disms, because they're so prevalent now. Take the fantasy standard view of elves: three main races, the high elves (often with golden skin), the wood elves, and the dark elves (practically always black-skinned, with silver hair, and red eyes). And of course, pointy ears. Does that match up with Tolkien's elves? Nope. Does that match with up with D&D's elves? Completely.


----------



## Gez (Aug 22, 2006)

And I'll add that D&D is for a large part responsible for fantasy becoming mainstream. Who will give fantasy books to friends, buy fantasy movie DVDs, play -- or even make -- fantasy computer games? That's right, gamers. They're the ones who're pushing the genre down everybody else's throat, and helping it catch on on its own.

Ask yourself, how many people play Everquest, Guildwars, or World of Warcraft online? How many play Oblivion or Final Fantasy solo? A lot. A huge lot. And only a tiny percentage of them have actually tried pen and paper RPGs. Yet these games, which convey a huge amount of D&Disms (to say nothing, of course, of the NWN or Baldur's Gate series), would never have existed without D&D.

They could, however, have existed without Tolkien and without Howard. Because, as respectable, popular, and enduring as these authors' works are, they're just a tiny part of D&D's inpirations. D&D would have appeared even in a parallel world with neither John Ronald Reuel nor Robert Ervin, and it wouldn't have been much different from what it is now. The Barbarian class would have been fully Fafhrd, rather than half-Fafhrd/half-Conan. Treants, orcs, halflings, wargs, and giant eagles wouldn't have been there. And, uh, that's all.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't read game fiction, IME it is drek, but the elf fetish of WOTC's FR novels has impacted my game "negatively".  A couple newer players thought that all elves were like Drizzt, more to the point a combo of Drizzt and movie Legolas.  "My character should be able to do anything...He's an elf"  At this point a beer is poured over the head of the speaker and they are shown the door.  

In honesty after a few sessions these players came around except for occasionsal outbursts.  Still the "taint" is forever there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 22, 2006)

> Treants, orcs, halflings, wargs, and giant eagles wouldn't have been there. And, uh, that's all.




There are similar critters in legends from a variety of cultures- they could have been in the game in some form.

Giant Eagles?  Some Native American tribes tell stories of Thunderbirds- not as elemental beings, but as large (20'+ wings) birds who came before storm fronts and snatched up children to eat.  (For the record, there are some who think that they may have been describing real animals...)

Treants?  Tolkein just lifted those from European legend.

Halflings?  Little men feature in the legends of many cultures.

And so forth.


----------



## Gez (Aug 22, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Treants?  Tolkein just lifted those from European legend.



As far as tree beings go, I'm more familiar with dryads...



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Halflings?  Little men feature in the legends of many cultures.



Yes. They're called, "gnome" or "sprite" or "boggan"... We would have had the gnome, but not the halfling.

And yes, you can point out the orc in Beowulf, but D&D already has goblins, bugbears, ogres, and trolls; and for wargs, giant talking wolves aren't that hard to imagine -- but D&D already has the Winter Wolf to fill that niche.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

> Exactly! Which is why you can't have science in a fantasy game world.




Hang on a tick.  Perhaps I've been misreading this all along.  Maybe our POV aren't as divergent as I thought.  Is your problem with adding SF elements to D&D with the science only?  Or is it adding any SF element?

If it's a "science only" problem, well, that's not really an issue.  You can replace science with magic and it works.  Precisely in the way that flesh golems can be created with magic instead of lightning bolts.  Frankenstein's monster is a SF idea.  It's heralded as the first true SF novel.  And, reading the book, it is very much an SF novel.

Yet, I have no problems with flesh golems in my game.  Magic is a great tool.  You can replace ANYTHING with magic and it works.  

Now, if the problem is with drawing any SF element into D&D, that's a separate issue and I don't think we'll agree.  Far too much of D&D is drawn from SF sources to ever take them out again.  Rust Monsters don't have to make any logical sense in a fantasy world - play the magic card and you're good to go.  Mind Flayers work despite being solidly an SF construct (or possibly horror) just because psionics and magic are pretty much the same thing under different names.

Extra-dimensional beings led by an undying queen flying through space on great ships work, because, well, we don't worry about the physics of it all, we chalk it up to magic.


----------



## tadk (Aug 23, 2006)

maybe i should go read the first posts

but no rust monsters in my games....not ever....

time to read the opening post and maybe we should write dwarven fiction just because....


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Magic is a great tool.  You can replace ANYTHING with magic and it works.



Yup, I'll re-quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


----------



## Turjan (Aug 23, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Yup, I'll re-quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."



This is definitely the usual way how high tech is used in fantasy. The flying cars in the Dying Earth were also a technology that was far beyond the capabilities of their users. In principle, there's nothing wrong with describing a metal wand of fireballs with 50 charges and use a laser pistol as image. Mechanically, there is no difference.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Aug 23, 2006)

InVinoVeritas said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> Halflings? Not sexy? Not even slinky, leather-clad, got-that-petite-hot-thing-going Lidda?
> 
> ...




Fortunately Dragon Mag doesn't see things that way. Look at the cover of issues 120 and 180.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 23, 2006)

Of course Dwarves don't sell novels - they sell gems, metal and other nifty things they mined from the ground...


----------



## Zander (Aug 23, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> Tolkien was a _novelist_, Homer was an _ancient greek storyteller_, D&D is a _roleplaying game_.
> 
> Saying D&D is not as enduring as Homer is like saying that motorbikes are less enduring than than horse carriage. It's not even apples and oranges, since both apples and oranges are fruits that are grown on trees. More like comparing potato puree with cuban cigars.
> 
> I've already said I disagree with your lumping of all of fantasy's _inspiration sources_ as fantasy itself. Unless you now claim that, for example, military conquests in the antiquity were just big LARPing events, I don't see how you could pretend that RPGs are, like fantasy novels, something that already existed in Homer's time.



The media do, of course, have differences as I've already noted. However, they share a common heritage in fantasy.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> RPGs are a niche. Novels are mainstream. You can't compare directly the popularity of an RPG and that of a novel. That's dishonest.



I'm not setting RPGs up in an unfair competition. It's simply a statement of what is. It may well be that hundreds of years from now, the popularity of RPGs will rival or even surpass that of other media of the fantasy genre. But for now, that's something we can only speculate about.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> And despite that, D&D has certainly been much more influential to today's fantasy culture than _Lord of the Rings_. Peter Jackson's LoTR elves have pointed ears -- that's taken from D&D, because Tolkien never described elven ear shape. Likewise, the popular depiction of orcs is taken from Warhammer -- big, musclebound, stupid, green, and tusked. Tolkien's orcs were nothing like that. Petty, cruel, violent, and avaricious, yes. Mentally retarded to the point of painting their chariot red because "red goes faster", no.
> 
> Gamer culture is now omnipresent in fantasy and soft sci-fi novels, comics, and computer games. Even people who've never even seen a D&D book have been exposed to many D&Disms, because they're so prevalent now.... And of course, pointy ears. Does that match up with Tolkien's elves? Nope. Does that match with up with D&D's elves? Completely.



D&D, Warhammer and other fantasy games are indeed contributing to current views of fantasy. Note though that for the most part, they have added to it, not replaced what was already there. Tolkien didn't describe his elves as having pointy ears but he didn't say they didn't either. As for orcs, the 3.5 orc is closer to Tolkien's simian description than the 1E porcine version - so it seems that Tolkien continues to influence the game.


----------



## Zander (Aug 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on a tick.  Perhaps I've been misreading this all along.  Maybe our POV aren't as divergent as I thought.  Is your problem with adding SF elements to D&D with the science only?  Or is it adding any SF element?



That depends what you mean by "SF element". If an element happens to have been created by an author that is better known for SF than fantasy, that isn't in itself a problem unless that element is associated with science (or pseudo-science) or advanced technology. Simply relabelling such a scientific, pseudo-scientific or advanced technological element as magic may not suffice to divorce it from its origins. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If it's a "science only" problem, well, that's not really an issue.  You can replace science with magic and it works... Mind Flayers work despite being solidly an SF construct (or possibly horror) just because psionics and magic are pretty much the same thing under different names.



No, psionics (and for that matter, science) and magic are not at all the same thing. Psionics, a portmanteau for psychic electronics, is rooted in the idea that the electrical activity of the brain can substantially affect the world beyond the nervous system. It has a pseudo-scientific rationale and it is the introduction of a rationale that makes it incompatible with a magical universe. While psionics can claim a sci-fi heritage, they cannot claim an enduring fantasy one.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 23, 2006)

But they can claim an enduring D&D heritage....


----------



## Hussar (Aug 23, 2006)

Meh.  Psionics is magic by another name.  There's absolutely no actual science there.  Might as well call it The Force.  It's about the same thing.  How is "I think it and it happens" substantially different from, "I say this funky word and it happens"?  Psionic ability is used in SF because SF writers can't call it magic.

And, it's generally used by SF writers that are extremely close to fantasy.  Anne McCaffery, while there is a very thin veneer of science that's been pasted onto Pern in recent years, wrote fantasy stories and called the SF.  There's precious little science in the first three books and lots of swords and dragons.  Star Wars, while it does have some SF bits and pieces, is pretty much fantasy with ray guns.

Just a point about orcs in Tolkien.  Throughout his books, he never actually directly describes an orc.  There are no physical descriptions anywhere in LOTR or The Simiralian.  So, any picture we come up with for an orc is just as good as another.  The pig orcs are pretty much pulled straight from the original LOTR movie.  The later 3e orc is no more a Tolkien construct than the first.  

I think your cutting off fantasy at an entirely arbitrary point.


----------



## Gez (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> The media do, of course, have differences as I've already noted. However, they share a common heritage in fantasy.



That's not a retort to what I was saying.


			
				Zander said:
			
		

> I'm not setting RPGs up in an unfair competition. It's simply a statement of what is. It may well be that hundreds of years from now, the popularity of RPGs will rival or even surpass that of other media of the fantasy genre. But for now, that's something we can only speculate about.



So you cannot say that D&D is not as enduring as Homer. The Iliad and the Odissey survived from their creation to nowaday. D&D survived from its creation to nowaday. Therefore, D&D is as enduring as the Iliad and the Odissey, because all survived from their creation to nowadays.


			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Tolkien didn't describe his elves as having pointy ears but he didn't say they didn't either.



He also didn't say they don't have elephant trunks and a pair of antlers. If I was starting, say, a webcomic were elves have a trunk and antlers; and then a few years later many other comics/novels/games/movies/whatever depicted elves with antlers and trunks, I could argue that my elves influenced pop culture, and you would be there, arguing that it's actually Tolkien's elves, not mine, because Tolkien never wrote the elves didn't have such protuberancies...


			
				Zander said:
			
		

> As for orcs, the 3.5 orc is closer to Tolkien's simian description than the 1E porcine version - so it seems that Tolkien continues to influence the game.



As was pointed out, there are no clear description for Tolkien's orcs either.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Simply relabelling such a scientific, pseudo-scientific or advanced technological element as magic may not suffice to divorce it from its origins.



Uh, yes it is.


			
				Zander said:
			
		

> No, psionics (and for that matter, science) and magic are not at all the same thing. Psionics, a portmanteau for psychic electronics, is rooted in the idea that the electrical activity of the brain can substantially affect the world beyond the nervous system. It has a pseudo-scientific rationale and it is the introduction of a rationale that makes it incompatible with a magical universe. While psionics can claim a sci-fi heritage, they cannot claim an enduring fantasy one.



No. Psionics is rooted in the idea that a cheap pseudoscientific explanation was needed to insert magic into the sci-fi genre. Psionics are not admitted in hard sci-fi, but they're a staple of science fantasy.

You should read a few books from Julian May's _Many-Colored Lands_. Or Wendy & Richard Pini's _Elfquest_, it's the same thing. They're an attempt at telling a classical fantasy story, with a classical fantasy setting, but in a sci-fi style. So, elves are described as aliens and magic is described as psionics, etc.


----------



## rounser (Aug 24, 2006)

> No. Psionics is rooted in the idea that a cheap pseudoscientific explanation was needed to insert magic into the sci-fi genre. Psionics are not admitted in hard sci-fi, but they're a staple of science fantasy.



And in a setting which already has magic, like D&D, they go for the double whammy: redundant _and_ anachronistic!  

Doesn't mean they have no place whatsoever (they're good at emphasising stuff which is supposed to be alien, like illithids), but the very fact that it's good at conveying the alien and weird and sci fi in D&D should be a big hint that it's out of place as a major theme, except in a world which is trying to be alien, like Dark Sun.


> But they can claim an enduring D&D heritage....



Gygax has said that he regrets their inclusion.  So far as I can see, they're a haven for those jaded with magic, for those looking for a workaround to break the game, for using it as a soapbox for a spell point alternative to vancian magic, or for those looking to feel special about their character or setting (mages and magic in general are too common in your typical D&D game to be special to such folks).  Add these to the anachronism factor, and the endless balance problems, and psionics should have been shown the door long ago - but it's popularity for "the wrong reasons"* is what sustains it, so far as I can see.

*: Not bad wrong fun, but I have little sympathy for causes of those seeking to break the game, seeking to feel like special unique snowflakes, consider psionics inclusion as a major part of their setting original and groundbreaking, or see no problem with anachronism and redundancy it brings alongside vancian magic.  None of that screams "legitimate" to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2006)

> So far as I can see, they're a haven for those jaded with magic, for those looking for a workaround to break the game, for using it as a soapbox for a spell point alternative to vancian magic, or for those looking to feel special about their character or setting (mages and magic in general are too common in your typical D&D game to be special to such folks). Add these to the anachronism factor, and the endless balance problems, and psionics should have been shown the door long ago - but it's popularity for "the wrong reasons"* is what sustains it, so far as I can see.




Then look no further than this thread to find those who disagree.

I, at least, use psionics to emulate fantasy settings that include (tah-DAH!) psionics.  I had forgotten the Pini's Elfquest stories, but I did run a campaign set in that world once.  And as several have pointed out, there are many settings in fantasy that use psionics.

Psionics for me is just another gamebreaker (ie "magic"] system.  Not better, not worse, just different- truly internal, rather than dependent on exterior sources.  I don't hate Vancian magic- in fact, I like it so much that I think that it is one of the most integral parts of D&D.

In a very real sense, *psionics are the ultimate development of "spell-like" abilities.*

As for balance problems...I haven't seen them up close.  Most of what I've seen is an incompatibility with a certain play style (like not enough encounters to balance the psi classes as written with traditional spellcasters).  I DO, however, admit there are problematic powers...but there are problematic spells as well.  I'm unwilling to throw out the psibaby with the psiwater.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> So far as I can see, they're a haven for those jaded with magic, for those looking for a workaround to break the game, for using it as a soapbox for a spell point alternative to vancian magic, or for those looking to feel special about their character or setting (mages and magic in general are too common in your typical D&D game to be special to such folks).  Add these to the anachronism factor, and the endless balance problems, and psionics should have been shown the door long ago - but it's popularity for "the wrong reasons"* is what sustains it, so far as I can see.



I'm not a fan of psionics in my game, as I see it as redundant, even more so as it became more similar to magic than ever. I'm more in the "either magic or psionics" camp. Nevertheless, I don't really see those points you brought up, except the first one (which is principally legitimate, but only if it fits the campaign setting). Weren't the balance problems mostly eliminated with the last changes?


----------



## rounser (Aug 24, 2006)

> In a very real sense, psionics are the ultimate development of "spell-like" abilities.



Nah.  The medusa and basilisk have magical gazes, they don't "will" someone to turn to stone using anachronistic, sci-fi alluding "psychic powers of the mind" which feel more at home in a Stephen King novel or the X Files any more than a dragon's breath weapon or an efreet's flames are due to "psychic electronics".


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Nah.  The medusa and basilisk have magical gazes, they don't "will" someone to turn to stone using anachronistic, sci-fi alluding "psychic powers of the mind" which feel more at home in a Stephen King novel or the X Files any more than a dragon's breath weapon or an efreet's flames are due to "psychic electronics".



And how do you see one other staple of D&D, the mind flayer?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 24, 2006)

Isn't it strange that we can include H. P. Lovecraft without batting an eye, but Stephen King is not.  

Weird Tales, which D&D has always drawn on, contains all sorts of psionic abilities - mind reading, hypnotism, ESP, etc.  But, because they're old, they're ok?

I really see this not so much as, keep SF out of my game, but, "My version of fantasy is best because I like it."


----------



## Pants (Aug 24, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Gygax has said that he regrets their inclusion.



Gygax has said a lot of things over the years. 

I've read this thread from beginning to itsc wacky end and I'm still not sure how it managed to change to such diverse topics.


----------



## rounser (Aug 24, 2006)

> And how do you see one other staple of D&D, the mind flayer?



I've already mentioned them.  They're supposed to be alien, cthulhuesque creatures, and have "psionic blasting" as part of their flavour.  For critters like this, and other "aliens" like githyanki or kaorti, psionics fit because psionics, too, are alien and weird in the implied setting, and enhance the Twilight Zone feel that these creatures are supposed to have.

Too much pepper spoils the meal, though...it's all about scope IMO.


> Isn't it strange that we can include H. P. Lovecraft without batting an eye, but Stephen King is not.



I don't share the "cthulhu fetish" that you get a lot on enworld, and don't think that all that is Lovecraft is worth the time of day.  On the other hand, I like mind flayers, and think they fit D&D more than a Carrie-like PC does, because D&D doesn't need Carrie when it already has Merlin, Gandalf etc.  She's redundant, and needs to go back to a contemporary setting where the flavour of her powers are needed to "make sense" in that environment.  D&D aliens like the illithids and githyanki fit quite firmly into the D&D cosmos, on the other hand.  In a D&D world, a teenage girl setting off fires isn't particularly weird when sorcerors and wizards exist, so she isn't interesting anymore, and the justification for her powers is redundant and unnecessarily sci-fi in allusion when magic is around.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 24, 2006)

When I said:


> In a very real sense, psionics are the ultimate development of "spell-like" abilities.




I didn't mean that they encompass all spell-like abilities, like the aforementioned gaze attacks.

I meant in the sense that they are abilities of internal/inherent origin- not dependent upon a god's favor or arcane studies, and that they avoid the perceived "flaw" that many people hate about the spell-like abilities of so many creatures- the "N uses/day" flaw.



> D&D doesn't need Carrie when it already has Merlin, Gandalf etc.




OTOH, it wouldn't hurt D&D to have Cutter, Skywise, Ember, Timmain, etc. (although they always reminded me more of kender, gnomes, and halflings than D&D elves)...

and so many other sci-fant characters.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

I'll add my confusion to the issue. I don't understand which things make it "in" as fantasy in your world and which don't and why. I understand what I think are some examples of the lines you wish to draw (knights on horses = fantasy, knights on schwins = not fantasy), but I don't understand how those lines are valuable, useful, or even sensible. There's no useful distinction, as far as fantasy genre or game is concerned, between a knight on a horse, a knight on a unicycle, a jedi riding a giant lizard, a wizard pedaling a bike through the streets of modern London, a soldier on a chocobo, snakes on a plane, or a ninja on a skateboard. I can tell you think that one is better than the other and should be supported more, and that you think that D&D not only should cater to that, but that it would be denying it's very nature by not cating to that, and that not catering to that would be economically unwise.

Marketing trends would disagree vehemently with you. They would say that D&D should absolutely abandon Tolkien to the age of musty old academics and embrace, say, the ninja on the skateboard. This is the essence of the OP, in which dwarves don't sell novels -- mythologically authentic gnomes don't sell games. Now a tickster-race that is vaguely inspired by mythology and allows me to play a certain kind of character archetype (tricky wizard? crackpot inventor? sagacious sprite?) sells games. If 4e came out and was all about ninjas on dinosaurs and played entire adventures on your Xbox, perhaps online, and you could buy tradable and collectable characters online, it would be the hottest product this side of Pokemon. If D&D wants to make the big bucks, they should punt out Merlin and embrace Sabrina The Teenage Witch, because more people know Salem the Talking Cat than know what the hell a d20 is. 

D&D, then, is working against it's own internal restrictions -- what it has defined itself to be. It doesn't WANT to be ninjas and dinosaurs on your Xbox, and most of the audience now (niche as they are) don't want it to be that, either. 

What D&D wants to be is a game where you can pretend to be a fantastic hero for a few hours, beat up some monsters, gain power, and repeat, telling some sort of story as you go. 

And none of THAT requires or even suggests that D&D has to or would even benefit from preserving anything that does not serve this purpose. Note that there is very little genre stricture there, because D&D has not ever had any kind of solid genre stricture, nor has it ever really seemed to want it. This is a good thing -- as the needs of it's audience changes, it can change, too. The needs of it's original audience was to emulate early fantasy, pulp, and the heroes they were (mostly) reading about in books about faraway places and unusual worlds and the myths and legends that inspire these books (or not). The needs of the audience have, in part, significantly shifted -- now they want to emulate Indiana Jones and Cloud Strife and Harry Potter and Naruto Uzamaki and He-Man, and they want to do it with friends and cool customization and button-pressing ease-of-use.

The world has changed since Gygax and Arneson and Blackmoor and Chainmail. The audience has changed. The game itself has changed (and will continue to do so). There are still those old fantasy novels mildewing in your mother's basement, but D&D has to come OUT of your mother's basement into the bright and loud light of pixels and spikey hair and allegorical boy-wizards in modern London. The old sources don't need to go away entirely, but they do need to be pushed to the background, because they aren't why new people are picking up D&D. They will always be one of the influences, but they have no sacred place in canon because there can be no sacred canon.

Dwarves might not sell D&D novels because dwarves aren't cool right now (for whatever reasons). Dwarves have no value. I know at least a half-dozen people who would drop $40 on a 260-page Naruto hardback sourcebook THIS VERY WEEKEND who wouldn't bother with finding the money for a 260-page "Inspired by actual Irish legends!" hardback sourcebook. Because actual Irish legends have no value (or at least, significantly less value).

You can make the artificial distinction between magic and science as much as you'd like, but the truth is that the majority of the buying public sees nothing whatsoever fundamentally flawed with elemtental druids who watch TV, or leiterhosen-wearing, Meg-Ryan-Looking sports celebreties who save a world in which dark wizards wear leather straps, or paladins in spaceships, or merlin being a powerful psychic and the lady of the lake being a powerful wizard in the same world. They have a fantasy world where cars with internal combustion engines can be enchanted to fly and where hidden ninja villages watch TV and eat instant noodles. Their sword-wielding knights can ride into furious combat on a motorcycle and they feel no great need to re-write the entire laws of physics for their setting just to do it. Magic can be a science (I cast a spell and this 747 flies!) and science can accomplish magic (It's ALIVE!) side by side and even together on the same day of the week. Magic can also be ofuda-wielding monks next to cowl-wearing wizards adjascent to tiny sprites all doing different things with different magic, too.

There simply IS NO PROBLEM WITH THIS in the minds of the people with money to burn. And D&D would be smart to follow suit. I'm not the biggest fan of the warforged, but I'd be a marked fool to say that they don't belong as the focus of what D&D is about at the moment. Because playing character archetypes such as "questioning my origins" and "mighty brute with a muddled past" has a LOT of value for the game.  

D&D's greatest successes have been built on allowing others to take the works of the fantastic that inspire them and make them their own, combining them, twisting them,and turning them into something new in the process. It doesn't matter if it's from Wierd Tales, Homer, Arthur's Knights, Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Bram Stoker, the latest issue of Shonen Jump, or just an idea that occured when you saw D&D had a rainbow of dragon colors. D&D does it's best not only when it allows people to OWN these archetypes for themselves, but when it allows them to mingle, twist, and digest these archetypes to re-interpret, re-imagine and re-birth (as well as simply replay) them. 

Part of that involves turning Frankenstien not just into one definate thing, but into a whole host of them. There's Flesh Golems. There's Warforged. There's zombies and the undead. There's "mad alchemist's experiments." They are all entirely fantasy and entirely what D&D is good at, what D&D can sell you that World of Warcraft cannot -- a world where you can send Merlin up against the cthonian horror from beyond time and space, and have him team up with Bruce Lee and Sherlock Homes to do it if you want, or simply send Merlin up against a corrupt army of orcs and goblins lead by the vicious Faerie Queen. And maybe because you saw Dawn of the Dead last night, she also controls zombies. And maybe there's a dragon, and maybe the minotaur attacks you. Plus, you join up with Arthur and Lancelot and...some priest? And you save Gwenivere from a rampaging terrasque.

In some ways, Frankenstien is a great metaphor for D&D, but I'll go with a cooking one, something like gumbo. Gumbo doesn't taste much like anything it's composed of. D&D doesn't taste much like romantic literature or Homeric epics or Tolkein or Star Wars. You can pick bits out here and there, and some less-identifiable bits, too. But it's all mixed into a pot and stewed together. You can pick out the parts you don't like, but they're gonna sell the gumbot that's popular this season -- and if a lot of pork is in, you'll get a lot of pork, and if you don't like pork, you'll have to pull it out. There's no One True Gumbo (though I'm sure I will get called on this. ), there's no archetypal Gumbo. There's no archetypal D&D genre, there's no one true D&D flavor, even D&D's own kind of flavor is more the spice that blends everything together. 

Genre adherence does not sell games. Genre flexibility certainly does. And a cooperative science/magic atmosphere will sell more games than one in which the laws are more rigidly defined.


----------



## Gez (Aug 24, 2006)

rounser said:
			
		

> Nah.  The medusa and basilisk have magical gazes, they don't "will" someone to turn to stone using anachronistic, sci-fi alluding "psychic powers of the mind" which feel more at home in a Stephen King novel or the X Files any more than a dragon's breath weapon or an efreet's flames are due to "psychic electronics".




Don't get too hung up on the etymology of the word. If you do so, then you'd have to redefine all mages as being Zoroastrian priests...

Psionics is not psychic electronic, it's literally changing the world through sheer force of will.

If you adopt this definition, psionics has a place in D&D, even if not necessarily in all settings.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2006)

It's easy to consider psionics as another form of magic. The rules even allow it. And they do not look that different from a silent, still spell.


----------



## Zander (Aug 24, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meh.  Psionics is magic by another name.  There's absolutely no actual science there.  Might as well call it The Force.  It's about the same thing.  How is "I think it and it happens" substantially different from, "I say this funky word and it happens"?  Psionic ability is used in SF because SF writers can't call it magic.



Why not? Why can't sci-fi writers call something magic? Is that because the reader may think it actually is magic and therefore question how something impossible can happen in an otherwise scientifically rational world? Wouldn't there be an analogue in the fantasy genre, i.e. the problem of having scientific reason in a world of the impossible?


----------



## Fenes (Aug 24, 2006)

It's a question of semantics. Psionics or magic or the force - it's magic, basically.

However, science has a place in fantasy, it's just usually not as advanced as to have much of an impact compared to magic. Often, the setting of a novel assumes that technology is lacking due to people not having invented something, not because it would be impossible.


----------



## Zander (Aug 24, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> That's not a retort to what I was saying.



Please expand so that I can better understand your point. Thanks.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> So you cannot say that D&D is not as enduring as Homer. The Iliad and the Odissey survived from their creation to nowaday. D&D survived from its creation to nowaday. Therefore, D&D is as enduring as the Iliad and the Odissey, because all survived from their creation to nowadays.



No because the Odissey is thousands of years older. Hundreds of years from now, the difference in age between D&D and, for example, LotR will be small compared to the overall ages of either one of them. 



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> [Tolkien] also didn't say they don't have elephant trunks and a pair of antlers. If I was starting, say, a webcomic were elves have a trunk and antlers; and then a few years later many other comics/novels/games/movies/whatever depicted elves with antlers and trunks, I could argue that my elves influenced pop culture, and you would be there, arguing that it's actually Tolkien's elves, not mine, because Tolkien never wrote the elves didn't have such protuberancies...



Illustrations of Middle Earth elves existed during his day. None AFAIK had trunks and antlers. If they were supposed to have them, I think he would have said.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> As was pointed out, there are no clear description for Tolkien's orcs either.



That depends what you mean by "clear". There are various aspects of orcs (also called goblins by Tolkien) described in his stories as well as a fuller description elsewhere in answer to questions from fans. He does make them seem simian, or at least degenerate humans or elves.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> No. Psionics is rooted in the idea that a cheap pseudoscientific explanation was needed to insert magic into the sci-fi genre.



You're mistaken. My description of psionics' roots is accurate. I would encourage you to look into its Campbellian origins.


----------



## Zander (Aug 24, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'll add my confusion to the issue. I don't understand which things make it "in" as fantasy in your world and which don't and why. I understand what I think are some examples of the lines you wish to draw (knights on horses = fantasy, knights on schwins = not fantasy), but I don't understand how those lines are valuable, useful, or even sensible. There's no useful distinction, as far as fantasy genre or game is concerned, between a knight on a horse, a knight on a unicycle, a jedi riding a giant lizard, a wizard pedaling a bike through the streets of modern London, a soldier on a chocobo, snakes on a plane, or a ninja on a skateboard. I can tell you think that one is better than the other and should be supported more, and that you think that D&D not only should cater to that, but that it would be denying it's very nature by not cating to that, and that not catering to that would be economically unwise.
> 
> Marketing trends would disagree vehemently with you.



I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular. On the contrary, it's my belief that it would cause D&D to become less so.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They would say that D&D should absolutely abandon Tolkien to the age of musty old academics and embrace, say, the ninja on the skateboard. This is the essence of the OP, in which dwarves don't sell novels -- mythologically authentic gnomes don't sell games.



Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.  



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What D&D wants to be is a game where you can pretend to be a fantastic hero for a few hours, beat up some monsters, gain power, and repeat, telling some sort of story as you go.
> 
> And none of THAT requires or even suggests that D&D has to or would even benefit from preserving anything that does not serve this purpose. Note that there is very little genre stricture there, because D&D has not ever had any kind of solid genre stricture, nor has it ever really seemed to want it.



Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The world has changed since Gygax and Arneson and Blackmoor and Chainmail. The audience has changed. The game itself has changed (and will continue to do so). There are still those old fantasy novels mildewing in your mother's basement, but D&D has to come OUT of your mother's basement into the bright and loud light of pixels and spikey hair and allegorical boy-wizards in modern London. The old sources don't need to go away entirely, but they do need to be pushed to the background, because they aren't why new people are picking up D&D. They will always be one of the influences, but they have no sacred place in canon because there can be no sacred canon.
> 
> Dwarves might not sell D&D novels because dwarves aren't cool right now (for whatever reasons). Dwarves have no value. I know at least a half-dozen people who would drop $40 on a 260-page Naruto hardback sourcebook THIS VERY WEEKEND who wouldn't bother with finding the money for a 260-page "Inspired by actual Irish legends!" hardback sourcebook. Because actual Irish legends have no value (or at least, significantly less value).
> 
> ...



There is a thriving market for sci-fi: books, movies, TV shows, toys etc. There has been for many years now. Despite this, there remains an interest in fantasy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the last fifty years, both have gained in popularity. Perhaps fantasy has been enjoyed for so long (thousands of years) and continues to be entertaining because it appeals to fundamental aspects of human psyche more directly than other genres. For example, you might desire to be as strong as Hercules. In a sci-fi world with missiles that can be fired from one planet to another, the physical strength of any individual probably isn't that important. And if you tried to change D&D into a game which no longer appealed to those fundamentals, you might lose more fans than you gained. It is worth pointing out that despite some hugely popular sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5 etc), none of them have been turned into RPGs that rival D&D's popularity among gamers. Moreover, I understand that many of the most popular MMORPGs are fantasy (though I'm no expert in computer games) which is probably not a coincidence.

By the way, my mother doesn't have a basement.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> It is worth pointing out that despite some hugely popular sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5 etc), none of them have been turned into RPGs that rival D&D's popularity among gamers. Moreover, I understand that many of the most popular MMORPGs are fantasy (though I'm no expert in computer games) which is probably not a coincidence.



Just a remark: Star Wars does not belong into the sci-fi genre, but is generally considered to be fantasy. The original film is the classical fantasy story par excellence.


----------



## Zander (Aug 24, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Just a remark: Star Wars does not belong into the sci-fi genre, but is generally considered to be fantasy. The original film is the classical fantasy story par excellence.



Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.



And there have been D&D movies and they haven't been as popular as Star Wars movies.  Neither's failure to be as popular as the other in particular media has little to do with the content, and almost all to do with the execution of the creators.  Indeed, in computer games Star Wars and D&D have been almost equally successful.



> I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular.





> Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.





> Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.



Straw men, all...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 24, 2006)

> I very much doubt that if D&D encouraged knights to ride around on bicycles instead of horses, that that would make the game more popular. On the contrary, it's my belief that it would cause D&D to become less so.




That's simply because no popular fantasy setting nowadays uses knights on bicycles.

If they encouraged their heroes to storm into battle on raging motorcycles, though, perhaps ones that shot missles....D&D would become more popular. It's a basic marketing premise: you take something good, add something that will sell, and you have something good that will sell. The horse market is not rip-roaring....now the automotive market....if we could get the people who watch American Chopper to play D&D because we involve in-deapth motorcycle design rules, we've got a hit. 

If they encouraged their wizards to ride around the streets of modern London on bicycles, it would also become more popular. Because what sells to people interested in fantasy nowadays are tales of wizards as a hidden organization RIGHT NOW, not in medieval europe, and if we could get the people who watch Harry Potter to play D&D because we put bicycles in the equipment list, we've got a hit.



> Again, I doubt that D&D would be more popular if it got rid of its fantasy heritage, i.e. no more elves, dwarves, halflings, barbarians, giants, dragons etc.




It doesn't need to abandon the words, it needs to abandon the specific pigeonholes that they have been put into. Arguably, 3e got rid of hobbits as PC races. Now, 3e sells better than any previous edition. You could say, perhaps with some accuracy, that it is because people get to play roguish adventurers instead of Bilbo Baggins. That the fantasy heritage of halflings-as-hobbits is worthless to a successful game, and so the game has only gained by getting rid of it.

Barbarians could be raging nordic whatchamajigs or Conan-inspired whatevers, but, hey, the kids love this drug culture, and there is a recent trend toward pop tribalism (lots of piercings and tatoos, these are very popular), and then there's the rap music, so how about we make them body-art loving druggies on the streets of the inner city. Edgy sells.



> Very little genre stricture? Why have any at all? It might be fun to have fighters using Uzis or laser blasters mowing down spear-wielding orcs. Therefore, to follow your reasoning, D&D should have Uzis or laser blasters.




It all depends on what the audience wants. Guns and dragons tend to be seperate (though I bet it would be a great selling supplement!), people like swords and axes, shafts of metal are sexy and they sell, and they lead to interesting combat, which sells even better. But space ships and wizards go together. Dragons and aliens from dimension X blend nicely. Wizards and Psychics can get along just fine. And putting them together is going to sell more than keeping them seperate, because one of D&D's great things is that you can mash up the fantasy you like into one big pot and they all play nice together.

The audience definately didn't want Tolkienesque halflnigs, judging by the popularity of the editions (which is the only real measure of what the audience wants that we have). 



> Perhaps fantasy has been enjoyed for so long (thousands of years) and continues to be entertaining because it appeals to fundamental aspects of human psyche more directly than other genres. For example, you might desire to be as strong as Hercules.




You keep insisting upon a definition of fantasy which includes things that are LIGHTYEARS away from fantasy. Epic poetry is epic poetry. It's not fantasy just because it involved tales of the gods. 

Now it has inspired modern fantasy, including D&D. And people like it,so it's good to include it in D&D. But it has never been and will never be fantasy itself. The roots of and inspiration for, perhaps. But if you're going to be tight about genre definitions, epic poetry is not fantasy.

More to the point, this "appealing to the fundamental aspect of human psyche more directly" is highly dubious. Mystery as a genre appeals to our human desire to figure out puzzles. Horror, to our human desire to feel afraid. Sci-fi, to our human curiosity about our world (and the consequences thereof). If fantasy is connected to wish-fullfillment (which, it must be stated, also sperates it from things like epic poetry), that's no more or less fundamental or direct than any other genre's appeal.

Now, if a game based on playing fantasy roles is based on wish-fullfillment (which D&D is, to a fairly large extent), what does it gain from only adhering to a specific and limited subset of people's wish-fullfillment? If people want to be as unbreakable as Naruto, then one of the things that will appeal to them is television sets and ninjas side-by-side, because in their fantasy, such things exist. Vacuum tubes and mystical magic.

People do want to be as clever as Bilbo. However, they don't want to be as fat or grumpy or boring. So halflings are lithe and clever and adventurous. And it sells better. By going away from it's roots, it has made it more popular. One would have to think that, given what the majority of the buying demographics want, becoming THEIR vessel for wish-fullfillment (rather than remaining like an artifact from the mid-seventies) would be not only wise, but nessecary. And if their imaginations see rocket ships and spirit shamans side by side, then it is nessecary to place them side by side.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Granted, Star Wars is a hybrid. My point stands though. There have been Star Wars RPGs (WEGs' and D20) and they haven't been as popular as D&D.



The important thing Star Wars shows us stands though: Technical gimmicks don't hurt fantasy a single bit! I don't think that you can doubt that Star Wars is a very successful brand, even more so than D&D.

And the point that the Star Wars RPG is not as popular as the D&D RPG does not prove anything. D&D has the advantage of being first, and as it doesn't suck, it's hard to push it from the top spot. Star Wars as a setting specifically suffers from canon and NPC problems, like many other settings modeled after books or films (think Dragonlance). The setting is also quite limited; the contents of 6 films is a bit sparse for an RPG. And, last not least, the RPG suffers from how the specific license with Lucasfilm is set up. As the mini games is more popular, the RPG has to stick back. All these points taken together make your statement moot.


----------



## Zander (Aug 24, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> And there have been D&D movies and they haven't been as popular as Star Wars movies.  Neither's failure to be as popular as the other in particular media has little to do with the content, and almost all to do with the execution of the creators.  Indeed, in computer games Star Wars and D&D have been almost equally successful.



Which in itself is remarkable given the relative sizes of the franchises and therefore the resources that can be devoted to "the execution of the creators". If the fantasy of D&D didn't have some some appeal in its own right, computer games Star Wars and D&D wouldn't be "almost equally successful".    



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Straw men, all...



I am curious to know why you think I would set up sham arguments for the purpose of knocking them down which is what a strawman is. I stand by everything I have said in this thread so far; I'm not playing devil's advocate.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> While psionics can claim a sci-fi heritage, they cannot claim an enduring fantasy one.




Psychic powers have been with us as long as modern fantasy has; Howard (coming, as he was, just after the greatest upticks of interest in psychic powers - the Spiritualism craze of the late Victorian period and the similar interest in the US during the 1920's - not to mention that his own father used hypnotism in his practice and heavily annotated books on Eastern mysticism - psychic abilities were tremendously influential in his writing) uses them as extensively as he does actual magic and ritual sorcery: mesmerism, hypnotism, astral projection, 'force of will'  and various other psychic powers are all intermixed with magic in his writing. 

Most early modern fantasy writers had to cloak their work in science fiction terms just to make a sale, even after the success of Tolkien in the US in the later 60's, so much early Fantasy has a definate SF edge to it.

As fantasy came into it's own in the 80's and early 90's, I think you have to remember the artificially large imprint Tolkien left on the American fantasy scene thanks to greed and shortsightedness. Publishers, smelling money much like sharks scent blood in the water, started telling authors 'write more stuff like this' and for many years stopped buying anything that wasn't a Tolkien rip-off. Fantasy went through the same artifically stunting experience that science fiction earlier endured under the shadow of John W. Campbell. 

Things have gotten better since the mid-90's, with fantasy once more becoming more experimental and publisher willing to look at material that it's elf/dwarf/disquised halfling. Genre mixing is something you're going to see more of, not less.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 24, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I am curious to know why you think I would set up sham arguments for the purpose of knocking them down which is what a strawman is. I stand by everything I have said in this thread so far; I'm not playing devil's advocate.



Why? I don't want to attempt amateur psychoanalysis.  But you did nonetheless.

KM wasn't saying D&D should *encourage* knights on bicycles.  He said it wasn't useful to set a limit that knights on bicycles be forbidden without examination.  He wasn't saying that D&D should *ditch* elves, dwarves, giants, dragons, etc., to be more popular. He was saying that a heritage shouldn't forbid blending new additions that are already proven popular. He wasn't saying that D&D *should* add Uzis and lasers, his point was that the game should make allowances that there *could* be.

That's why I called them strawmen.  He didn't make those arguments, you made them up and implied that he argued such.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

> In some ways, Frankenstien is a great metaphor for D&D, but I'll go with a cooking one, something like gumbo. Gumbo doesn't taste much like anything it's composed of. D&D doesn't taste much like romantic literature or Homeric epics or Tolkein or Star Wars. You can pick bits out here and there, and some less-identifiable bits, too. But it's all mixed into a pot and stewed together. You can pick out the parts you don't like, but they're gonna sell the gumbot that's popular this season -- and if a lot of pork is in, you'll get a lot of pork, and if you don't like pork, you'll have to pull it out. There's no One True Gumbo (though I'm sure I will get called on this. ), there's no archetypal Gumbo. There's no archetypal D&D genre, there's no one true D&D flavor, even D&D's own kind of flavor is more the spice that blends everything together.




QFT.  This is just a great image.

D&D has never been about any single genre.  It has borrowed, begged, stolen (sometimes outright) elements from anything that worked and sold books.  While I agree with Rounser in that I'm not such a huge Lovecraft fan, I would hardly attempt to pass off my personal preferences as any sort of general policy that should be followed.

Zander, if you insist on including thousands of years of stories in fantasy, then how can you draw the line at SF?  It's ridiculous.  If epic romance poetry is fantasy, then why isn't Stephen King?

Using Carrie as an example.  Sure, she's maybe redundant.  OTOH, we give Carrie several levels in wild mage, and see what happens.  Firestarter is pretty close to an evoker.  I had players clamouring to play Roland from the Dark Tower series after those books started coming out fifteen years ago.  Hrmm, evil spirits possess some sort of machine that goes around killing people - sounds a lot like a golem to me - a la Christine.  It?  Tommyknockers?  The Stand - classic end of the world story with the battle between good and evil?  This is bread and butter for D&D.  Cujo?  Would make for a pretty sweet low level adventure - dire dog terrorises town.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 25, 2006)

heirodule said:
			
		

> (I kinda think if WOTC wrote books as cool as Lord of the Rings, that claim would be quite questionable)



You've got my opinion about the topic right here, but then, maybe it has to do with Tolkien not wanting to write something because of market research and because Allen & Unwin (the original publisher of LOTR) trusted his skill and opinions on the matter. He wrote what he thought was a good story, in a way that was going against the accepted standards. He wasn't dumbing down. He was following the inspiration of the moment rather than clear plot frames he would have designed prior to the writing. At the end of the day, he trusted his readers to know the difference between a good story and a bad one. He won his bet by a very large margin, if you ask me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2006)

> *Zander*Psionics, a portmanteau for psychic electronics, is rooted in the idea that the electrical activity of the brain can substantially affect the world beyond the nervous system. It has a pseudo-scientific rationale and it is the introduction of a rationale that makes it incompatible with a magical universe. While psionics can claim a sci-fi heritage, they cannot claim an enduring fantasy one.




Zander, you're correct as to the origins of the _word_ "psionics," but you miss out on what WayneLigon put succinctly in his last post (and what others have been trying to tell you as well):



> Psychic powers have been with us as long as modern fantasy has; Howard (coming, as he was, just after the greatest upticks of interest in psychic powers - the Spiritualism craze of the late Victorian period and the similar interest in the US during the 1920's - not to mention that his own father used hypnotism in his practice and heavily annotated books on Eastern mysticism - psychic abilities were tremendously influential in his writing) uses them as extensively as he does actual magic and ritual sorcery: mesmerism, hypnotism, astral projection, 'force of will' and various other psychic powers are all intermixed with magic in his writing.




And Howard wasn't alone.



> Most early modern fantasy writers had to cloak their work in science fiction terms just to make a sale, even after the success of Tolkien in the US in the later 60's, so much early Fantasy has a definate SF edge to it.




You'll find such intermixture in the works of Lieber and many others that followed.

"Psionics" has lost its original meaning and has just become a generic shorthand for "mental powers"- whatever their origin.  Usually (but not always), in RPGs they are distinguished from "magic."




> *Zander*
> 
> 
> > * Eric Anondson*
> ...




The difference in the successes of the respective franchises is largely due to the quality of the films that started them off.  Lucas was a cunning thief (and I mean that as a compliment).  He knew a good story when he saw it (Akira Kurosawa's 1958 film _The Hidden Fortress_), and reshaped it to tell his own space opera story.  The movie was pretty well cast and acted.  He had a decent budget to work with.

D&D the movie was drek, start to finish, and underfunded drek at that.

OTOH, the computer games have gotten roughly equal treatment at each stage of production, and the results show up in roughly equal success.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

Bashing the Stephen King horse a little more.

The Shining would make a bloody fantastic adventure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2006)

Not if it were ghost written by Stephen King. :\


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

I dunno.  Stephen King's books are pretty good for the most part.  Then again he writes so bloody many of them, that he's gotta have a decent one once in a while .  But, yeah, if King wrote the module, it'd be Tomb of Horrors all over again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2006)

If King ghostwrote an RPG module based on his work, I'd expect results no better than the movies he's made from his work.

I still remember his miniseries version of _The Stand_, the first night of which included, among other things, 2 good guys getting into nearly identical struggles over handguns, and each walks away from the struggle with the gun having fired into the gut of the "bad guy."

And his recent forays into TV have also been less than stellar.

I have a feeling he'd design an encounter of some kind, and repeatedly use it...


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> If WotC had paid more attention to the fantasy/literary roots of these elements we would see far fewer complaints about them.




It seems to me that the most likely result of the theorized alternate history would be the smae number of complaints, but different complaints, rather than fewer overall.  But that is neither here nor there.  I have been watching this thread for some time.  I have been tempted to speak up, but I have quited myself because this argument seems to me to lack a productive direction.  Zander has stated that he has no desire to change the minds of others and is merely stating his opinion.  He is entitled to his opinion and, as it is obviously deeply entrenched there is little point arguing about it.  He may think as he wishes.  My personal opinion falls more in line with Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, but so what.  If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.

I am curious though if Zander would be interested in creating a set of parameters defining what fantasy means for him, perhaps something along the Three Unities of classicism/neo-classicism, so that we can help him find the sort of D20 material he's looking for rather than continue making the same sorts of arguments to no effect.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The important thing Star Wars shows us stands though: Technical gimmicks don't hurt fantasy a single bit!



I previously said that in media where the audience is relatively passive such as books and movies, the writer (and in the case of films, the director as well) can keep the audience from asking rational or scientific questions that would undermine the fantasy. In the Star Wars, Lucas slipped up, however. When he introduced midichlorians as the biological basis for the force, he opened a can of worms (see here). As a movie-maker, he was able to minimise the damage by not revisiting them in the subsequent Star Wars films. But as a GM in an RPG, they're even more problematic. What is to stop a PC from investigating midicholrians with a vue to creating a biological agent that counters them thereby neutralising someone's use of the force. And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Psychic powers have been with us as long as modern fantasy has; Howard (coming, as he was, just after the greatest upticks of interest in psychic powers - the Spiritualism craze of the late Victorian period and the similar interest in the US during the 1920's - not to mention that his own father used hypnotism in his practice and heavily annotated books on Eastern mysticism - psychic abilities were tremendously influential in his writing) uses them as extensively as he does actual magic and ritual sorcery: mesmerism, hypnotism, astral projection, 'force of will'  and various other psychic powers are all intermixed with magic in his writing.



Psychic abilities that became a subject of considerable interest in the 19th c. came from a different tradition than psionics. The Victorian understanding of most of these abilities was that they were the manifestation of spirits, i.e. ghosts/the spirits of the dead. The balance being the interest in mesmerism/hypnotism, were not so much credited to a mental ability of the hypnotist so much as a natural vulnerability of the subject/patient/victim.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Why? I don't want to attempt amateur psychoanalysis.  But you did nonetheless.



You didn't offer an explanation (the one you have now presented and I have quoted below) when you described my arguments as strawmen. You cannot expect me to read your mind. There really was no need to accuse me of attempting "amateur psychoanalysis".



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> KM wasn't saying D&D should *encourage* knights on bicycles.  He said it wasn't useful to set a limit that knights on bicycles be forbidden without examination.  He wasn't saying that D&D should *ditch* elves, dwarves, giants, dragons, etc., to be more popular. He was saying that a heritage shouldn't forbid blending new additions that are already proven popular. He wasn't saying that D&D *should* add Uzis and lasers, his point was that the game should make allowances that there *could* be.
> 
> That's why I called them strawmen.  He didn't make those arguments, you made them up and implied that he argued such.



Perhaps I was misreading Kamikaze Midget but it seems to me that he was being fairly prescriptive in his argument that D&D should not have genre boundaries:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If D&D wants to make the big bucks, they should punt out Merlin...
> 
> What D&D wants to be is a game where you can pretend to be a fantastic hero for a few hours, beat up some monsters, gain power, and repeat, telling some sort of story as you go. And none of THAT requires or even suggests that D&D has to or would even benefit from preserving anything that does not serve this purpose...
> 
> ...




If he (and you) are arguing that there should be a place for Uzis and laser blasters in D&D, then I agree. I don't want to limit anyone else's fun. If WotC put out a supplement with those elements, I wouldn't complain. The problem is that WotC believes that they can redefine any fantasy element without regard to its past adding not just supplements but changing D&D's core.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Arguably, 3e got rid of hobbits as PC races. Now, 3e sells better than any previous edition. You could say, perhaps with some accuracy, that it is because people get to play roguish adventurers instead of Bilbo Baggins. That the fantasy heritage of halflings-as-hobbits is worthless to a successful game, and so the game has only gained by getting rid of it...The audience definately didn't want Tolkienesque halflnigs, judging by the popularity of the editions (which is the only real measure of what the audience wants that we have).



You could say that but your causal reasoning wouldn't be right. Halflings were not the only thing that changed between 2E and 3.x. Therefore, you can't conclude that it was the change to halflings that made the game more popular or even contributed to it. The rise in D&D's popularity may have occurred despite that change.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> More to the point, this "appealing to the fundamental aspect of human psyche more directly" is highly dubious. Mystery as a genre appeals to our human desire to figure out puzzles. Horror, to our human desire to feel afraid. Sci-fi, to our human curiosity about our world (and the consequences thereof). If fantasy is connected to wish-fullfillment (which, it must be stated, also sperates it from things like epic poetry), that's no more or less fundamental or direct than any other genre's appeal.



I agree that each of those genres is popular for the reasons you state. But I suspect that the desire to be extremely strong, or agile, or good at hand-to-hand combat appeals to a baser, more animalistic, more primal aspect of human nature than the desire to solve puzzles, discover the world or feel afraid.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Now, if a game based on playing fantasy roles is based on wish-fullfillment (which D&D is, to a fairly large extent), what does it gain from only adhering to a specific and limited subset of people's wish-fullfillment?



Because in a world where you can push a button and vaporise your opponent from half a light year away, it really doesn't matter how strong, quick or able you are at face-to-face combat. All wish-fulfilment fantasies are not mutually compatible.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

vulcan_idic said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the most likely result of the theorized alternate history would be the smae number of complaints, but different complaints, rather than fewer overall.  But that is neither here nor there.  I have been watching this thread for some time.  I have been tempted to speak up, but I have quited myself because this argument seems to me to lack a productive direction.  Zander has stated that he has no desire to change the minds of others and is merely stating his opinion.  He is entitled to his opinion and, as it is obviously deeply entrenched there is little point arguing about it.  He may think as he wishes.  My personal opinion falls more in line with Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, but so what.  If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.



I said in reference to a specific point earlier on that the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. It may be, as you say, that that is the best we can hope for overall.



			
				vulcan_idic said:
			
		

> I am curious though if Zander would be interested in creating a set of parameters defining what fantasy means for him, perhaps something along the Three Unities of classicism/neo-classicism, so that we can help him find the sort of D20 material he's looking for rather than continue making the same sorts of arguments to no effect.



I appreciate the offer but I respectfully decline. I'm not seeking to be sidelined. I'm trying to preserve fantasy at the core of D&D because, IMO at least, it's worth it.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I appreciate the offer but I respectfully decline. I'm not seeking to be sidelined. I'm trying to preserve fantasy at the core of D&D because, IMO at least, it's worth it.




I apologize if my offer was percieved as an attempt to sideline you.  This was not the intent.  Going back to one of your earlier comments where you said, "As I've already mentioned in this thread and in Dragon Magazine, if some people want that in their fantasy, I'm perfectly happy. I'm certainly not some authority to manage your fun and I don't want to be."  In that spirit I thought perhaps working together we could find a way for you to get what makes D&D fun for you and to enjoy the game while at the same time helping you to achieve your goal of not being someone who manages the fun of others.  This is why I was hoping you could provide us with your definition of fantasy.  If we had your concrete definition of what fantasy was for you we could help you fullfill that.  A definition of Fantasy that is an end all and be all I think is impossible at best, due to each individual having their own idea of what comprises fantasy and what is right out - and as you say none of us are authorities to dictate or manage other individuals definitions of what fantasy is because it is something so dependent upon point of view.

And I do agree with you that I fear we shall have to agree to disagree on the issue as a whole as both viewpoints seem to be entrenched far too deeply to avail further discussion much good - no matter what arguments Danny Alcatraz and Hussar, and others produce, your opinion will not change.  And no matter what evidences you produce it seems obvious to me that those others are unlikely to ever agree with you.  In any event this entire discussion, while and interesting academic issue, has little or nothing to do with why Dwarves Don't Sell Novels.

To sum up - if you can provide a concrete definition of you want from this discussion and/or a concrete definition of what you think fantasy should be, then perhaps we can help you find what you want and or achieve your goal.  If this is impossible then perhaps we could agree do disagree or move the discussion to a move aptly named thread.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

> And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.




For exactly the same reason we don't have continual light lit cities - people don't really want it and are willing to suspend disbelief that far.  Heck, Forgotten Realms has The Weave to explain magic.  We already know from the rules that gods are created through belief.  Magic in D&D has functioned as science throughout the history of the game.  

Any effect which is verifiable and repeatable qualifies as science.  I cast magic missile and out pops a glowing dart.  Every time.  No matter what.  If I cast spell X, effect X occurs.  That's science.  It's not real world science, but, it's still science.

I'm still very curious as to how you can include all of these elements in fantasy, but exclude the elements that you don't like.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2006)

> If Zander feels this way then his opinion is just as good as ours and we should let him have it.




I'd be tempted to live & let live, except that his opinion involves him repeatedly and arbitrarily excising a whole subgenre of fantasy as illegitimate.

So we let him have it.  


> In any event this entire discussion, while and interesting academic issue, has little or nothing to do with why Dwarves Don't Sell Novels.




Much truth here.

I think how we got here is that there were intimations that "elves" as stereotypically depicted in current art and writing are, in a sense, us as we would like to be, a normative us- in harmony with nature, physically attractive.  As such, they hold a special attraction to a great number of fantasy readers- they are a bankable pull.  They are an attractive fantasy.

Dwarves, OTOH, are perceived to be us as we are, or at least, more like us than elves, resulting in less of a draw than the elves.  Dwarves simply don't generate the same escapist feel for the average reader/gamer.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2006)

Ok, so we want to go back on topic.  Heh.

I think Danny pretty much hits the nail on the head here.  Dwarves don't sell because they don't pull on the right strings.

For example, I'm pretty sure I could sell half-orcs.  I remember reading Grunts!  Great read.  Novel's based on half-orcs could likely go in either a sort of parody style or into the whole Klingon mode as well.  Rough and ready heroes, pretty dirty and grimy ones at that, do sell.

But dwarves have nothing going for them.  They aren't individualistic, which, right there, is a big knock against them.  You can't do the "lone hero" thing with dwarves.  Dwarves travel in packs.  Or, at least that's how we envision them.  The other problem is that dwarves aren't rebels.  They prefer stability and order.  Again, big strike.  Add to that an unappealing physique - short, fat and bearded - and you've got some pretty boring novels.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I previously said that in media where the audience is relatively passive such as books and movies, the writer (and in the case of films, the director as well) can keep the audience from asking rational or scientific questions that would undermine the fantasy. In the Star Wars, Lucas slipped up, however. When he introduced midichlorians as the biological basis for the force, he opened a can of worms (see here). As a movie-maker, he was able to minimise the damage by not revisiting them in the subsequent Star Wars films. But as a GM in an RPG, they're even more problematic. What is to stop a PC from investigating midicholrians with a vue to creating a biological agent that counters them thereby neutralising someone's use of the force. And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.



Yes, Midichlorians are silly. But the SW universe is silly, anyway. I'm not sure why nobody gets upset about his planets, which defy the basics of geometry. Anyway, as D&D treats magic as a science, it's not that different from midchlorians in the sense you brought up. But there's nothing to worry, because D&D already has its antimagic equipment and methods built in .


----------



## Turjan (Aug 25, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Dwarves, OTOH, are perceived to be us as we are, or at least, more like us than elves, resulting in less of a draw than the elves.  Dwarves simply don't generate the same escapist feel for the average reader/gamer.



That looks correct. I'm always reminded of UO roleplaying servers, where you usually have to apply seperately for being allowed to play a different race than humans in order to make sure that you don't play them as humans. Except it's humans and dwarves; as the latter are basically grumpy and slightly short human miners, there is no adjustment necessary .


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Any effect which is verifiable and repeatable qualifies as science.  I cast magic missile and out pops a glowing dart.  Every time.  No matter what.  If I cast spell X, effect X occurs.  That's science.  It's not real world science, but, it's still science.



As I've said already, science isn't just the effects, it's also the mode of investigation. If magic missile works in a particular way, what is the rationale? What are the principles? What is the theory?

If you start to ask those types of questions of fantasy elements, you'll soon find inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the fantasy. The reason it works in Star Trek and the like is that ST uses as its base real world science and builds consistent pseudo-science on top of it.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm still very curious as to how you can include all of these elements in fantasy, but exclude the elements that you don't like.



You and Danny seem to think that my view of fantasy is either arbitrary or personal. It's neither. It's the accumulation and distillation of a tradition over which I have had no influence that dates back thousands of years. Also, just to clarify, I'm not opposed to that tradition growing and developing through addition, accumulation and future distillation.


----------



## Zander (Aug 25, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I think how we got here is that there were intimations that "elves" as stereotypically depicted in current art and writing are, in a sense, us as we would like to be, a normative us- in harmony with nature, physically attractive.  As such, they hold a special attraction to a great number of fantasy readers- they are a bankable pull.  They are an attractive fantasy.
> 
> Dwarves, OTOH, are perceived to be us as we are, or at least, more like us than elves, resulting in less of a draw than the elves.  Dwarves simply don't generate the same escapist feel for the average reader/gamer.



We got here because I suggested that WotC didn't know how to make dwarves appealing because they lack an appreciation of fantasy.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> You didn't offer an explanation (the one you have now presented and I have quoted below) when you described my arguments as strawmen. You cannot expect me to read your mind. There really was no need to accuse me of attempting "amateur psychoanalysis".



Oh for crying out loud.  I wasn't accusing you of "amateur psychoanalysis", I accused you of setting up straw men.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> The problem is that WotC believes that they can redefine any fantasy element without regard to its past adding not just supplements but changing D&D's core.



See, I don't hold WotC in such high regard that everything they touch somehow sets a new definition for it.  They are just one more publisher who presents fantasy elements with their own spin.  They have no obligation to ensure purity of concept.

I also think that someone cannot make an accurate claim that a corporation "thinks" monolithically.  That somehow unnamed forces make it do what it does.  *shrug*


----------



## Victim (Aug 25, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> If you start to ask those types of questions of fantasy elements, you'll soon find inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the fantasy. The reason it works in Star Trek and the like is that ST uses as its base real world science and builds consistent pseudo-science on top of it.




No it doesn't.  

Besides, doesn't the issue go beyond WotC?  WotC novels aren't exactly the only fantasy reading around.  Granted, not all of them have dwarves (or elves), but of those novels that do, do they also find that dwarves are less effective at selling books?


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 25, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Dwarves, OTOH, are perceived to be us as we are, or at least, more like us than elves, resulting in less of a draw than the elves.  Dwarves simply don't generate the same escapist feel for the average reader/gamer.




I think dwarves could be packaged in a very interesting sort of novel, at least for a marketable set of readers, it's just waiting for the right writer with the right take to reignite interest in them as a culture.

For example, just thinking a bit, I can imagine a really fun fantasy novel with dwarves.  Now here I'm imagining dwarves' stoutness less as being "fat" then in being incredibly densely muscled - a lot of stuff in a smaller package.  The same amount of muscle mass as on an average decently strong human on a shorter frame.  The organization of the dwarves may lend them well towards a fantasy version of popular novels that key on highly organized groups - a la a Tom Clancy style military novel, fantasy style.  I could see it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 25, 2006)

> But the SW universe is silly, anyway. I'm not sure why nobody gets upset about his planets, which defy the basics of geometry.




Count me as upset.

_Phantom Menace_ sucked so hard and on so many levels, I stopped liking SW after the first 3 movies (as in, _Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi_).



> You and Danny seem to think that my view of fantasy is either arbitrary or personal. It's neither. It's the accumulation and distillation of a tradition over which I have had no influence that dates back thousands of years.




There are clear literary distinctions between the modern genres of fantasy, horror and science fiction and their forbears of legend and mythology.  I've pointed some of those delineations in this thread.  Those differences mean that the tradition of genre fiction is not thousands of years old, but merely around a hundred or so.

You have continuously denied this.

There are clear examples within the genre of fantasy that include sci-fi elements going all the way back to the foundation of the modern genre.

You have continuously denied their validity.

This does indeed seem arbitrary and personal.


> We got here because I suggested that WotC didn't know how to make dwarves appealing because they lack an appreciation of fantasy.




That's right!  That's when Hussar and I started suggesting that WotC may just appreciate DIFFERENT fantasy than you do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 25, 2006)

> See, I don't hold WotC in such high regard that everything they touch somehow sets a new definition for it. They are just one more publisher who presents fantasy elements with their own spin. *They have no obligation to ensure purity of concept.*




This bears repeating.

Especially the part that I bolded.

Did Dante have no respect for epic when he put centaurs in a river of boiling blood and harpies in hell?

No. Much like everyone else, he takes a concept and mutates it for his own use. 

There is no pure concept of, say, a dwarf. There is no Iconic Dwarf Form that every dwarf must live up to or be considered "not a dwarf." 

Note the central issue:


			
				Zander said:
			
		

> The problem is that WotC believes that they can redefine any fantasy element without regard to its past adding not just supplements but changing D&D's core.




The fallacy here is that fantasy elements have a definition that D&D is obligated to use outside of what D&D does define them as. That dwarves have to be a certain way, based on Zander's (IMO, very selective and puzzlingly arbitrary) selection of what dwarves have been in the vast annals of history to the present. 

They have none. There is no iconic dwarf, no typical dwarf, no standard mythic dwarf or standard fantasy dwarf. There is an often-used stereotype, but even the stereotype has significant variations. 

In other words, the D&D definition of "dwarf" is what they decide it is, not what observers of fantasy tradition think it ought to be. The dwarf is an inkblot. It's subjective, not objective. 

WotC can't redefine fantasy because fantasy never had much of a definition to begin with. They can make their own fantasy, and they do it, and it sells books. They continue to do it, and it continues to sell books. WotC dwarves are not a redefinition of dwarves any more than Dante's centaurs are a redefinition of centaurs.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2006)

There's another issue to point out here as well.  Genre is not applied before the story is written, but afterward.  Author's don't set out to create a work for a genre (usually), but to tell a given story.  When enough of similar styles of stories are created, then genre comes into the picture.

But genre is not static.  Genre is simply an easy label to apply to works that gives a general idea of what the work is about.  This is why you can't apply the fantasy genre label to epic poetry - epic poetry doesn't fit into the fantasy genre.  There are similarities, true, but, they are not in the same class.

To use a biology example, insects and arachnids are similar, but, that doesn't mean that they are the same.  

Zander points to WOTC as not being able to "sell" dwarves.  Name another author who has?  It's called "The Hobbit" for a reason.  I actually can't think of any novel which features dwarves as the primary focus for the text.  Terry Pratchett's Thud, I suppose.  Other than that, not too much.  I would hardly be blaming WOTC for failing to sell what no one else can sell either.


----------



## Gez (Aug 26, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> Please expand so that I can better understand your point. Thanks.



My point is that novels and RPGs are a completely different kind of things, and that they can't be compared directly by number sold. (Unless, of course, you're a publisher. Then it makes sense because for you they're just things you print and sell. But technical manuals should be included in the mix, too, and that's how we'd get a movie adapted from _Photoshop for Dummies_.)

You say "however, they share a common inspiration." Great. But that doesn't lessen the fact that a novel and an RPG are different things for different audiences that are read and used differently.

I don't have numbers to give, but I wouldn't be surprised if D&D sells much better among RPG books than LotR sells among fantasy books.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> No because the Odissey is thousands of years older.




Time only goes in one direction, you know? Unless you build a time machine. You can't say D&D isn't as enduring as Homer's most famous works, because D&D isn't dead yet. If one day in our lifetime D&D dies, then you could say "see, I was right." But in the meantime, just because Iliad & Odissey have a headstart doesn't mean anything.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> Illustrations of Middle Earth elves existed during his day. None AFAIK had trunks and antlers. If they were supposed to have them, I think he would have said.




Trunks and antlers were just me being silly, I could have taken something more subtle, and maybe then I would find some ME illustrations that would support my claim.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> That depends what you mean by "clear". There are various aspects of orcs (also called goblins by Tolkien) described in his stories as well as a fuller description elsewhere in answer to questions from fans. He does make them seem simian, or at least degenerate humans or elves.




Yeah, we get it they're degenerate. But it doesn't go much farther. Skin color, for example?



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> You're mistaken. My description of psionics' roots is accurate. I would encourage you to look into its Campbellian origins.




Just like I would encourage you to look into the Zoroastrian origins of magic.

I've read plenty of sci-fi novels featuring psionics, notably Cordwainer Smith's excellent _Instrumentality_ novels. In fact, I haven't read many sci-fi novels that didn't sneak in psionics somewhere, even if it wasn't exactly refered to as such (Asimov, for example, doesn't use the word "psionics" but still uses telepathy and even mental storage of data inside of rock; Van Vogt doesn't use the term either IIRC but various aliens exhibit mental powers in the journey of the Space Beagle, and there's the Slans, too). I don't remember reading anything by Campbell, though that's possible I did long ago.

If I have never been exposed to Campbell, is Campbell relevant? No. He isn't. The same way nobody needs to read up on Zoroastrian priests to understand Harry Potter; nobody needs to read Campbell to understand Mister Spock.

My description of psionics is accurate. It's magic inserted in sci-fi. It's raw power of the mind. It's a form of solipsism, as the sheer strength of the will directly reshape the world. Does it work through psychic electronics? Maybe, maybe not. The story never revolves around the internal of psionics. It'll have different causes, such as learning a new way of thinking or being genetically engineered for that or taking a drug that is found only on one planet or being exposed to strange radiations or even maybe simply being the next step in human evolution (you can hardly make a concept less scientific than that). These causes may be central to the story. But they're the why. Not the how.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2006)

> As I've said already, science isn't just the effects, it's also the mode of investigation. If magic missile works in a particular way, what is the rationale? What are the principles? What is the theory?




However, you can certainly include SF elements without the mode of investigation.  Heck, there's tons of lighter SF stories that do this.  Star Wars comes to mind.  Star Trek buries any sort of investigation under Treknobabble which is about as scientific as, "I wave my hand, throw a bit of sand and they fall asleep".  

Actually, I remember, back in 1e days, one DM saying that sleep spells shouldn't work in a high wind.  The sand would get blown away.  We all switched to crickets for spell components.  

So, yes, I do agree with the point that we should be wary of trying to come up with actual, explainable, working systems for much of D&D and fantasy.  But, fortunately, we don't have to.  We have magic to handwave all that and we don't have to explain anything.

In SF, a golem is an android or robot.  In D&D, it's an elemental powered construct.  At the end of the day, they are identical.  There is functionally no difference between the two.  What's the difference between a ray gun and a wand of magic missiles?  Or a wand of light and a flashlight?  I remember Snarfquest actually used a flashlight for a wand of light way back when.  

If we can include all of these non-traditionally fantasy elements into fantasy, then any cut off point is entirely arbitrary.  Black Puddings are obviously the result of someone watching The Blob.  A horror movie set in modern times serves as an inspiration for an iconic D&D monster.  When you think about it, I cannot recall oozes, slimes or jellies, as envisioned in D&D in any fantasy work.  But, metal eating slimes certainly exist in SF.  Blobby chunks of goo are a staple of Horror.  But not Fantasy.  Should we excise  oozes from D&D because it doesn't appear in the genre?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 26, 2006)

Two reasons why dwarves don't sell:

Reason #1

and

Reason #2


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 26, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Two reasons why dwarves don't sell:
> 
> Reason #1
> 
> ...




I think this discussion is over. We have our definite answer


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 26, 2006)

If nothing else, this thread has taught me that if I ever have an NPC bookseller in a D&D game, it's going to be a dwarf.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 26, 2006)

> I ever have an NPC bookseller in a D&D game, it's going to be a dwarf.





And his books will all be about beer, gold, armor, axes, hammers, beards and (for the health conscious) gut reduction?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 26, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> and (for the health conscious) gut reduction?



Now you're being silly.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2006)

Heh, in my Shelzar campaign, my introduction adventure was a MacGuffin retrieval of a book of Dwarven erotica.


----------



## Elfdart (Aug 27, 2006)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Tolkien was wrong, and his style of fantasy has choked the genre with terrible imitations of what was never a particularly revolutionary product in the first damn place.
> 
> I'm deeply grateful that Wizards of the Coast is willing to continue TSR's exploration of what fantasy can be beyond the narrow confines of pseudomedieval Tolkien pastiche, thank you very much.




Amen.


----------



## Elfdart (Aug 28, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> If you start to ask those types of questions of fantasy elements, you'll soon find inconsistencies and contradictions that undermine the fantasy. The reason it works in Star Trek and the like is that ST uses as its base real world science and builds consistent pseudo-science on top of it.




Oh please, the "science" in Star Trek is phonier than William Shatner's toupee.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, so we want to go back on topic.  Heh.
> 
> I think Danny pretty much hits the nail on the head here.  Dwarves don't sell because they don't pull on the right strings.
> 
> ...




Depends on how you use them. If you're just going to use them as a shorter version version of Alan Hale Sr. (a chubby bearded actor who usually played Errol Flynn's sidekick), I see no reason why people would be interested. But if you looked outside the creatively constipated genre of Fantasy, you can turn them into fairly interesting characters. In many fairy tales, dwarfs are vicious, cruel and greedy. Rumpelstiltskin comes to mind. A story with a short, greedy little bastard as one of the main characters (and often from his point of view) has worked before. Danny DeVito made a career out of it, as did Joe Pesci. 



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> I previously said that in media where the audience is relatively passive such as books and movies, the writer (and in the case of films, the director as well) can keep the audience from asking rational or scientific questions that would undermine the fantasy. In the Star Wars, Lucas slipped up, however. When he introduced midichlorians as the biological basis for the force, he opened a can of worms (see here). As a movie-maker, he was able to minimise the damage by not revisiting them in the subsequent Star Wars films. But as a GM in an RPG, they're even more problematic. What is to stop a PC from investigating midicholrians with a vue to creating a biological agent that counters them thereby neutralising someone's use of the force. And if the force has a scientific basis, then shouldn't force effects have them too? Why can't force effects be investigated scientifically as well? By introducing a pseudo-scientific explanation (midicholrians) for a supernatural effect (the force), the integrity of the fantasy elements is jeopardised.




That's just dumb. Midichlorians are mentioned all of three times in the prequels. Moisture vaporators are mentioned three times in the original movies. Both are just plot devices. The former to explain how the Jedi are able to find possible recruits to their order (also why there are so few Jedi) and the latter to explain why Owen Lars had any use for droids in the middle of a desert. The midichlorians are just a symptom of being endowed with the Force -not the cause of it, just as certain antibodies are symptoms of a disease. The difference is that back in the 1970s, people were capable of watching a movie and noticing what was important and what wasn't. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The difference in the successes of the respective franchises is largely due to the quality of the films that started them off.  Lucas was a cunning thief (and I mean that as a compliment).  He knew a good story when he saw it (Akira Kurosawa's 1958 film _The Hidden Fortress_), and reshaped it to tell his own space opera story.  The movie was pretty well cast and acted.  He had a decent budget to work with.




Star Wars owed more to _The Searchers_ than Kurosawa. Luke Skywalker and Martin Pauley could have been swapped and nobody would know the difference.

Speaking of Westerns, as I mentioned above, I have no use for cliches from Fantasy novels. They were hackneyed long before I was born and have sucked worse ever since. When I want an idea for a character in my D&D games, I look to westerns, horror, war movies, crime novels and any other genre I can think of. Yes, they are full of cliches too, but 
as Mae West used to say "If I have to choose between evils I'll take the one I haven't tried before." I've played two dwarf characters and both were quite memorable _because they had nothing to do with the standard-issue dwarf of every fantasy novel_. The first was based on Freddie Sykes in _The Wild Bunch_ while the second was based on the Burl Ives character in an old Gregory Peck movie called _The Big Country_, both westerns. 

The best material for movies, TV shows, novels and games comes from those who refuse to be bound nd gagged by the cliches of a particular genre. Spy movies used to always revolve around guys in trenchcoats, fedoras and sunglasses stalking one another in the foggy, gloomy streets. Ian Fleming chucked most of that and added elements of Don Juan (especially his womanizing), as well as Victorian-era fantasies about exotic villains and their fiendish schemes that are undone in the nick of time. James Bond owed more to Sherlock Holmes, Fu Manchu, Hitchcock and Don Juan than it did to _The Third Man_

Star Wars owes more to westerns, samurai movies, King Arthur and Wagner's operas than it does to science fiction. 

I'll take Star Wars and James Bond, and you can have the cookie-cutter Fantasy.


----------



## Kesh (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm wondering why this thread is still going on. I don't think new ground has been breached since page 2.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 28, 2006)

Heh, we just want to make sure that the horse is good and dead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 29, 2006)

*Hammering Black Beauty, the Equilitch*

I understand not liking the cliches, but realize that stereotypes and cliches are a BIG part of how the average person interprets the cover art and plot blurbs in the 30 seconds they take to decide whether to continue considering buying that book or not.

30 seconds- that's all you have to grab that browser's attention and get him to delve deeper.

If your cover art or your plot blurb doesn't distinguish YOUR story about a dwarf from the browser's preconceived notions of "dwarfness" he or she will make that purchase decision largely on those cliches.

OTOH, if your cover art is of a Warhammer-wielding dwarf attacking a dragon...both of whom are in pink tutus...you will have shattered the stereotypes you hate...but you may fall into yet other stereotypes.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 29, 2006)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I'm wondering why this thread is still going on. I don't think new ground has been breached since page 2.




Well, we had a nice long four page detour because we continually forget that you can't change people's opinion on th e 'net  And because you could just answer the original question with 'Elves are pretty and dwarves ain't', and where's the fun in that?


----------



## Zander (Aug 30, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This bears repeating.
> 
> Quote (Eric): "See, I don't hold WotC in such high regard that everything they touch somehow sets a new definition for it. They are just one more publisher who presents fantasy elements with their own spin. *They have no obligation to ensure purity of concept.*"
> 
> ...



WotC is not obliged to do anything but it would make a great deal of commercial sense if they did adhere to "often-used stereotype". D&D became popular in part because it appealed to the "purity of concept" that you at once deny and accept exists. 

Certainly, being the first RPG was an advantage. After that though, it wasn't until 3.x that D&D was highly regarded for its mechanics. Indeed, much of the mechanics that distinguish 3.x from earlier versions existed in other RPGs first. For the best part of its history, D&D's mechanics were behind other RPGs, not ahead. So if D&D was mechanically clunky, why did it continue to be the most popular RPG? There were certainly challengers. In the early 1980s, for example, Runequest was seen as a potential rival. One of the reasons (perhaps the primary reason) that Runequest and those other RPGs failed to dethrone D&D was that D&D represented a more core (or, if you prefer, stereotypical) fantasy. The fantasy in D&D was already known to the greatest number of people. Whether or not those people labelled the elements they found in D&D that they were familiar with as "mythology", "epic poetry", "modern fantasy" or whatever wasn't relevant. What was, was that those elements were familiar and could be easily incorporated into D&D's fantasy. Indeed, D&D's ventures into non-core fantasy settings such as Spelljammer and  Darksun have not been as popular as their core fantasy settings such as Greyhawk and FR. 

It is a well known dictum in psychology that people like what they're familiar with. If WotC want D&D to thrive, they could do a lot worse than having halflings with hairy feet.


----------



## Zander (Aug 30, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Zander points to WOTC as not being able to "sell" dwarves.  Name another author who has?



Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It's called "The Hobbit" for a reason.  I actually can't think of any novel which features dwarves as the primary focus for the text.  Terry Pratchett's Thud, I suppose.  Other than that, not too much.  I would hardly be blaming WOTC for failing to sell what no one else can sell either.



Not novels but how about _Snow White and the Seven *Dwarves*_ or even the _Nibelung_? Both have sold and both feature dwarves.


----------



## Gez (Aug 30, 2006)

In both of these classics, Dwarf == Gnome == Elf.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 30, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> _Snow White and the Seven *Dwarves*_




Heigh ho, heigh ho
To make your troubles go
Just keep on singing 
All day long, heigh ho

So that is the Dreaded War Chant of the Fluffy Beards Clan? That's really badaxx!


----------



## Turjan (Aug 30, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> In both of these classics, Dwarf == Gnome == Elf.



This is correct. And this is the main reason why anyone calling out WotC for violating "traditional" racial stereotypes is so much off target.


----------



## Zander (Aug 31, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> In both of these classics, Dwarf == Gnome == Elf.



While the dwarves (or dwarfs) in the Grimm story are about the size of a seven-year-old and do live in a cottage in the woods, they are good, very orderly (lawful?) and work in the mountains looking for precious metals all of which suggests beings that approximate D&D dwarves more than gnomes or elves. Moreover, in other tales, the Grimm brothers have small but mischievous creatures called elves, so at least as far as the Grimm brothers are concerned Dwarf ≠ Elf.

As for the Nibelung, the most well known retelling is the German one derived from Norse tales in which a hoard of treasure originates from an avaricious dwarf named Andvari. In the Norse tradition, greedy, chthonic dwarves are known as _duergar_ or _svartálfar_ (dark elves) and are distinct from angelic elves known as _ljósálfar_ (light elves). If in the Norse tale and the German retelling of the Nibelung they had meant _ljósálfar_ - which most closely approximate the elf of D&D - they would have said. Avarice or at least treasure-hoarding and living underground are characteristics of D&D dwarves. So the dwarf of the Nibelung, is more similar to a D&D dwarf than any other race. In the Nibelung, it cannot be said that Dwarf = Elf.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 31, 2006)

Gez said:
			
		

> In both of these classics, Dwarf == Gnome == Elf.




Ok, so what's the double "="?

"Does equal a lot" or "Does not equal"? I'm confused.

/M


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 31, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ok, so what's the double "="?
> 
> "Does equal a lot" or "Does not equal"? I'm confused.
> 
> /M




a==b usually means "is a equal b?", so it is a boolean conjunction (being either true or false, represented by 1 and 0, respectively).

a=b means "give a the value of b", it's an assignment (meaning a is asigned the value of b).


----------



## Turjan (Aug 31, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> If in the Norse tale and the German retelling of the Nibelung they had meant _ljósálfar_ - which most closely approximate the elf of D&D - they would have said. Avarice or at least treasure-hoarding and living underground are characteristics of D&D dwarves. So the dwarf of the Nibelung, is more similar to a D&D dwarf than any other race. In the Nibelung, it cannot be said that Dwarf = Elf.



In the most common version of the Nibelung, that dwarf is called "Alberich". Which means "King of the Elves" *shrug*.


----------



## Gez (Aug 31, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ok, so what's the double "="?
> 
> "Does equal a lot" or "Does not equal"? I'm confused.
> 
> /M




Programming habit. As Kae Yoss explained, in most programming languages, the single = is the assignation operator (x=4 means that you set x to have a value of 4), while comparison is made with two of them. It's not an universal rule, the Pascal language uses := for assignation and = for comparison.


And yep, Alberich == Alfe Rick, elfking.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 31, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> In the most common version of the Nibelung, that dwarf is called "Alberich". Which means "King of the Elves" *shrug*.




That was his nickname. He used to dress in pink satin and twine flowers into his beard.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> Programming habit. As Kae Yoss explained, in most programming languages




If by most, you mean C and derivatives, then you're right


----------



## Gez (Aug 31, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> If by most, you mean C and derivatives, then you're right




C's family is a big family. C, C++, C#, Perl, Java, JavaScript, PHP... Really, most computer programming nowadays are made with one or several of them.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Aug 31, 2006)

Against that, there's Standard ML, Basic, Visual Basic, Pascal, Delphi, COBOL, Fortran, PL1, and Thorwalds knows what.


----------



## Zander (Sep 1, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> In the most common version of the Nibelung, that dwarf is called "Alberich". Which means "King of the Elves" *shrug*.



I don't think too much faith can be placed in the origin of character names. In the _Nibelungenlied_, Alberich is neither an elf nor a king.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 1, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I don't think too much faith can be placed in the origin of character names. In the _Nibelungenlied_, Alberich is neither an elf nor a king.




Looking at my copy of the Nibelungen, I must say: You are wrong.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 1, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I don't think too much faith can be placed in the origin of character names. In the _Nibelungenlied_, Alberich is neither an elf nor a king.



But he is an elf king, the typical envoy of death.


----------



## Zander (Sep 1, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Looking at my copy of the Nibelungen, I must say: You are wrong.



All the English translations I've seen including this one call Andvari/Alberech a "dwarf". When his position is given, it is treasurer or guardian of the treasure, not king of Nibelungland (a position that does exist in some tellings but not ascribed to him). I would be  interested to know if both the calling him a dwarf and the treasurer/guardian are mistranslations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2006)

From what I know of European legends regarding dwarfs and elves and the like, there really wasn't much distinction between them in any way analagous to the way they are defined in game- that is, as distinct races.

Whether whom you were talking to was a dwarf, elf, goblin, etc., depended more upon their attitude and intent towards you than an actual race.  Essentially all Fey of some stripe, the divisions were, in a sense, more political.  Creatures like goblins were those who had been warped by dealings with darker powers, for instance, whereas elves were linked to high magic, and dwarves and gnomes were associated with smithing and creating things of permanence.

IOW, one man's dwarf was another man's elf or goblin...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2006)

> While the dwarves (or dwarfs) in the Grimm story are about the size of a seven-year-old and do live in a cottage in the woods, they are good, very orderly (lawful?) and work in the mountains looking for precious metals all of which suggests beings that approximate D&D dwarves more than gnomes or elves. Moreover, in other tales, the Grimm brothers have small but mischievous creatures called elves, so at least as far as the Grimm brothers are concerned Dwarf ≠ Elf.




Rumplestiltskin was good and lawful?  He worked in the mountains?  He was against magic?  Whoa, that's a very different story than what I read.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 2, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> While the dwarves (or dwarfs) in the Grimm story are about the size of a seven-year-old and do live in a cottage in the woods, they are good, very orderly (lawful?) and work in the mountains looking for precious metals all of which suggests beings that approximate D&D dwarves more than gnomes or elves. Moreover, in other tales, the Grimm brothers have small but mischievous creatures called elves, so at least as far as the Grimm brothers are concerned Dwarf ≠ Elf.



Actually, this illustrates the problem of your last question to me nicely, and it's more or less the answer. The Grimm brothers are familiar with elves, because one of their publications was the collection "Irische Elfenmärchen" (Irish Fairy Tales, 1826). The literal translation would be "Irish elf fairy tales", if you take "fairy tales" as a set expression. The word "elf" is not really used much in German, except when stories from other countries are told. In German, dwarf, gnome, hobgoblin (kobold) or 100 other expressions are used for the exact same concept: a mostly small magical being living below the earth or in a mountain, which also describes the Irish elf concept perfectly. Also, the typical English versions, like brownies, are covered within this range. 

Add to this that, in Germanic tradition, smithing is inherently magical, and you will see why dwarves are considered magical. That's also the reason why Alberich is considered magical. In translations from German to English, the German words for "small magical being", whatever this may be (they all mean basically the same and are used interchangeably), are then often replaced by the word "elf".

This book, "Irish Fairy Tales", deals in detail with the naming of the little people. The Grimm brothers pointed out that they only used the non-German word "elf" in their stories, because this had been introduced with popular stories from England at the end of the 18th century. Then they explain the German version "alb" or old Nordic "alfr" as just meaning "ghost", take the Nibelung Alberich as prime example for an elf and point to the fact that even in the Edda (they don't say which one), one of the dwarves had the name "alfr".

They explain the differences between light elves and dark elves in the Nordic mythology, but then take the dwarf Alberich as a prime example of a mixture of both elven concepts. This shows that you are definitely wrong with your opinion of the treatment of dwarves and elves by the Grimm brothers. They saw the terms as interchangeable.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 2, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> All the English translations I've seen including this one call Andvari/Alberech a "dwarf". When his position is given, it is treasurer or guardian of the treasure, not king of Nibelungland (a position that does exist in some tellings but not ascribed to him). I would be  interested to know if both the calling him a dwarf and the treasurer/guardian are mistranslations.




Also dann...  here we go.

Alberich is called a "Zwerg", which translates to dwarf, however, as some other posters have already remarked, the distinctions between Dwarf and Elf are not that clear in the origninal mythology. Alberich comes (If I recall my classes on old german correctly) from Alb (Modern translation would be Elf) and Rich, which can mean rich or honorable. He is reffered to as a king of an underground kingdom (Which is consitent with the elemants that come from the northern tales), and also as a protector of a hoard of magical treasure, some of which he created himself.

While we're on the topic of translations, the german translation of Tolkien's 'Elf' is 'Elb', which is coser to the original 'Alb' and refers to a creature closer to the both the irish Tuatha de danna or the scandinavian underground races that were the inspiration for the elves that Tolkien called Gnomes in this first versions of the tales that became the 'Silmarillion. We know them today as the Noldo. According to Tolkien's corrispondence with the orignianl translator of the Lord of the Rings, he preffered the worc 'Elb', and expressed the sentiment that we wished he had thought of that word himself.

-I.T.


----------



## Endur (Sep 3, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, this reference is about the main character.  Last I recall, the main character of a Lord of the Rings wasn't a dwarf.   Halflings are close to humans, and changelings can easily be (at least as far as the cover goes), so I don't think it's that much of an issue.  Still, making the main character someone the reader can identify with is a good point.




errr, The Hobbit anyone ... 13 dwarves and a halfling.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 3, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> errr, The Hobbit anyone ... 13 dwarves and a halfling.




And who was the main character?


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 3, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> And who was the main character?




Ein Saarländer! ;P - The Necromancer, of cause!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 3, 2006)

> WotC is not obliged to do anything but it would make a great deal of commercial sense if they did adhere to "often-used stereotype". D&D became popular in part because it appealed to the "purity of concept" that you at once deny and accept exists.





Point 1: I accept that you believe it exists, but reject it's actual existence. It has no value outside of your own mind. I believe there is a "common stereotype," but I believe that D&D's interpretation of the stories is part of the reason this exists -- it's why dwarves, elves, and gnomes are all different.

Point 2: It would actually NOT make commercial sense to adhere to these steotypes. D&D3e has changed or violated or revolutionized or tweaked a number of their creatures and concepts to better fit the game and the modern audience, and has been the best-selling edition ever. The only way it would make commercial sense is if WotC's brand of halflings sold less than hobbits -- if their version negatively impacted sales and the common stereotype positively impacted sales, then this would be true, but throughout D&D, the opposite has remained true. D&D dragons, for instance, are really nothing like classic medieval dragons, yet books on D&D style dragons continue to be one of the best-selling subjects in 3e.



> Certainly, being the first RPG was an advantage. After that though, it wasn't until 3.x that D&D was highly regarded for its mechanics. Indeed, much of the mechanics that distinguish 3.x from earlier versions existed in other RPGs first. For the best part of its history, D&D's mechanics were behind other RPGs, not ahead. So if D&D was mechanically clunky, why did it continue to be the most popular RPG? There were certainly challengers. In the early 1980s, for example, Runequest was seen as a potential rival. One of the reasons (perhaps the primary reason) that Runequest and those other RPGs failed to dethrone D&D was that D&D represented a more core (or, if you prefer, stereotypical) fantasy. The fantasy in D&D was already known to the greatest number of people. Whether or not those people labelled the elements they found in D&D that they were familiar with as "mythology", "epic poetry", "modern fantasy" or whatever wasn't relevant. What was, was that those elements were familiar and could be easily incorporated into D&D's fantasy. Indeed, D&D's ventures into non-core fantasy settings such as Spelljammer and Darksun have not been as popular as their core fantasy settings such as Greyhawk and FR.




That's a pretty unfounded assumption, there. I don't think anyone can attribute D&D's success either in whole or in majority to any one aspect of D&D, but I can definately declare that it isn't because D&D was more true to the stereotype. Heck, even the NAME of D&D comes from things that aren't taken very much from the stereotype -- dungeons (which are a game environment) and dragons (which, in D&D, don't resemble any real-world myths whatsoever). That (and many other examples, such as 3e being the strongest-selling edition yet, despite changing much of 2e and 1e, the fact that old myths are inconsistant, etc.) shows that only a small part, if any, of D&D's success was because of familiarity with the elements of it's fantasy.

Your point about Spelljammer and Dark Sun is not attributable to one point of either of these settings. Rather, the history on the issue suggests that these settings splintered the buyer base, which is too small to be splintered successfully. So it's not that they weren't successful, it's that they didn't make D&D as a whole successfull because the people who played DS wouldn't buy SJ. 



> It is a well known dictum in psychology that people like what they're familiar with. If WotC want D&D to thrive, they could do a lot worse than having halflings with hairy feet.




You're confusing comfort with enjoyment. People are _comfortable_ with what they're familiar with. It's safe, it's known, it's controllable. If people payed for that, then horror movies and roller coasters wouldn't make economic sense.

But D&D has never been marketed or designed with other people's comforts in mind. It's a game that relies on one player to throw dangerous challenges at the others, after all -- comfort is not part of it's offerings, and never has been. 

Not only that, but comfort only panders to a market interested in comfort -- the old and tired, by and large. WotC's strategy is to grow D&D by hooking youth on it, and youth goes to see horror movies and goes on roller coasters, so it's not comfort they're interested in -- it's excitement, danger, change, and difference. They don't want what they've seen before, they want something fresh and thrilling.

A very small but indicitive part of which is removing the hair from the halfling's feet, pulling up their hobbit roots and making a race that desires to go out and have adventure, rather than one who would sit at home and smoke pipeweed 'till they died of old age. A little more Tookish, to use a bit of ol' T-bag's lingo. 

It only needs to be familiar enough to be relatable, and the idea of a small stealthy thief is definately familiar enough to be relatable.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2006)

Backing up and giving this another run for a second.

I reject two points of Zander's arguments basically.  The first point is that we should self censor our inspirations to conform to a particular form of fantasy.  To me, this is utterly wrong.  This would lead to D&D becoming stagnant and dying pretty much in the same way that stock fantasy as a genre has stagnated.  Looking at the most successful fantasy novels and other media currently, it is certianly not stock fantasy that is selling.

Sure, LOTR was hugely successful.  However, it broke with tradition in a number of points - Legolas being the largest one.  Moving over to the computer games industry, games like Everquest and World of Warcraft are about as far removed from standard fantasy as you can get and are vastly more popular than D&D could ever hope to be.

If we limit ourselves to "stock" fantasy in some sort of nostalgic yearning for the past, we will see the game dry up and die.

And this brings me to the second point - that there was some period in D&D's history that we focused on "stock" fantasy.  This is simply not true.  Even the first Monster Manual was filled with creatures that had no relationship to anything in fantasy.  We've covered this ground, but, let me give two more examples.

Dragonlance.

Now here is a setting, hugely successful series of novels, that looks pretty much like stock fantasy.  But step back for a second.  The iconic bad guys of the series, the draconians, are genetically modified super soldiers.  Sure, it's described as dragon eggs perverted by magic, but, let's face it, that's what they are.  Cloned, force grown super soldiers.  Actually, thinking about it, the Uruk-Hai from LOTR fits the bill as well.  This is a pure SF trope clothed in magic, brought out twenty years ago.  And it led to, as I said, one of the most successful products TSR every published.

But, let's step back in time a little more to what is probably the second most played module - X1 Isle of Dread.  Keep on the Borderlands was pretty stock fantasy, but Isle of Dread most certainly wasn't.  You had a village of natives pulled straight from King Kong, complete with barrier wall;  you had a setting filled with dinosaurs (a very SF trope) which pays homage far more to A. C. Doyle and Jules Verne than to any fantasy author;  you had a race of mind controlling, shape changing spiders straight out of Doctor Who.  Add in a race of gliding monkeys straight out of Space Ghost and a race of cat-men riding sabre toothed tigers and you have an adventure that's about as far from fantasy as you can possibly get.  Anachronistic, thematically divorced from fantasy, containing all sorts of elements that have nothing to do with fantasy.  And one of the top ranked modules of all time,  certainly in the top three.

Even twenty-five years ago, gamers knew that they had had enough of standard fantasy and wanted something different.


----------



## Zander (Sep 4, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> From what I know of European legends regarding dwarfs and elves and the like, there really wasn't much distinction between them in any way analagous to the way they are defined in game- that is, as distinct races.



Sure these were fuzzy sets with a high level of ambiguity but there was also some degree of differentiation as well. For more on the classification of various mythical/folkloric/fantastic creatures, I recommend _Spirits, Fairies, Gnomes, and Goblins : An Encyclopedia of the Little People_ by Carol Rose.


----------



## Zander (Sep 4, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Rumplestiltskin was good and lawful?  He worked in the mountains?... Whoa, that's a very different story than what I read.



I was talking about Grimm's seven dwarves (or dwarfs) (as I think you know well). I haven't read Rumpelstiltskin since I was a kid (a looong time ago) but I seem to recall that they described him as a "little man", not a "dwarf".


----------



## Zander (Sep 4, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Point 1: I accept that you believe [a common stereotype] exists, but reject it's actual existence. It has no value outside of your own mind.



Solipsism aside, intrinsically, a stereotype cannot exist as a single person's concept. It has to be that of a collectivity. When dealing with mythical/fantastic creatures, the "stereotype" defines those creatures.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Point 2: It would actually NOT make commercial sense to adhere to these steotypes. D&D3e has changed or violated or revolutionized or tweaked a number of their creatures and concepts to better fit the game and the modern audience, and has been the best-selling edition ever. The only way it would make commercial sense is if WotC's brand of halflings sold less than hobbits -- if their version negatively impacted sales and the common stereotype positively impacted sales, then this would be true, but throughout D&D, the opposite has remained true.



As I've already pointed out, halflings were not the only thing to change from 2E to 3E so you can't safely attribute any of 3E's popularity to the new halflings. It may well be that 3E was more successful despite the changes made halflings, not because of them. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D dragons, for instance, are really nothing like classic medieval dragons, yet books on D&D style dragons continue to be one of the best-selling subjects in 3e.



 Col Pladoh certainly _added_ greatly to the concept of dragons but he didn't _replace_ very much. From the start, Col Pladoh had dragons that were large, pseudo-reptilian monsters with two wings, four limbs, hoarded treasure and breathed fire. Not so different from Smaug from _The Hobbit_. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's a pretty unfounded assumption, there. I don't think anyone can attribute D&D's success either in whole or in majority to any one aspect of D&D, but I can definately declare that it isn't because D&D was more true to the stereotype...only a small part, if any, of D&D's success was because of familiarity with the elements of it's fantasy.



Then why weren't other fantasy RPGs, many of which with more elegant rules mechanics but non-'stereotypical' fantasy, more successful?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Your point about Spelljammer and Dark Sun is not attributable to one point of either of these settings. Rather, the history on the issue suggests that these settings splintered the buyer base, which is too small to be splintered successfully. So it's not that they weren't successful, it's that they didn't make D&D as a whole successfull because the people who played DS wouldn't buy SJ.



IIRC they were not released or withdrawn at the same time so there were opportunities for one or other to prosper in an undivided market. NB that Greyhawk and FR have co-existed together for longer than any other D&D settings.  



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You're confusing comfort with enjoyment. People are _comfortable_ with what they're familiar with. It's safe, it's known, it's controllable.



The psychological dictum I mentioned was not created by me. People like what they're familiar with. No confusion.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 4, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I was talking about Grimm's seven dwarves (or dwarfs) (as I think you know well). I haven't read Rumpelstiltskin since I was a kid (a looong time ago) but I seem to recall that they described him as a "little man", not a "dwarf".




But, again, you're guilty of picking and choosing your sources.  Rumplestiltskin appears in Grimm Fairy Tales.  A dwarf who is highly magical, hardly lawful and completely opposite to the stereotypes presented by Disney's Snow White.  In Grimm's Snow White, the dwarves are barely given any personality at all.  Other than forcing Snow White into slavery, they don't really do much at all.  Never mind that in other versions of the story, the dwarves are actually bandits and robbers, living in the forest because they'd be hanged in town.

This is the problem we've been having all the way along.  Zander discounts any source which counters his argument.  Grimm's stories are filled with dwarves that range from evil wizards to hole diggers.  Yet he seems to want to say that we should cling to one version to the exclusion of all others.


----------



## Gez (Sep 4, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I was talking about Grimm's seven dwarves (or dwarfs) (as I think you know well). I haven't read Rumpelstiltskin since I was a kid (a looong time ago) but I seem to recall that they described him as a "little man", not a "dwarf".




Right. A "little man" with magical powers, taken right out of a fairy tale, isn't a dwarf.


----------



## Zander (Sep 4, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Backing up and giving this another run for a second.
> 
> I reject two points of Zander's arguments basically.  The first point is that we should self censor our inspirations to conform to a particular form of fantasy.  To me, this is utterly wrong.  This would lead to D&D becoming stagnant and dying pretty much in the same way that stock fantasy as a genre has stagnated.  Looking at the most successful fantasy novels and other media currently, it is certianly not stock fantasy that is selling.
> 
> ...



You're attributing a position to me that isn't mine and never has been. I'm not in favour of immutability. If I were, I would not have suggested that fantasy has had a long and varied past. My objection has always been the unilateral way in which WotC replaces fantasy elements without regard to their heritage.


----------



## Zander (Sep 4, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, again, you're guilty of picking and choosing your sources.  Rumplestiltskin appears in Grimm Fairy Tales.  A dwarf who is highly magical, hardly lawful and completely opposite to the stereotypes presented by Disney's Snow White.  In Grimm's Snow White, the dwarves are barely given any personality at all.  Other than forcing Snow White into slavery, they don't really do much at all.



In the original _Snow White_ by the Grimm brothers, they are described as "good" creatures that are very orderly and go daily into the mountains in search of copper and gold.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> This is the problem we've been having all the way along.  Zander discounts any source which counters his argument.  Grimm's stories are filled with dwarves that range from evil wizards to hole diggers.  Yet he seems to want to say that we should cling to one version to the exclusion of all others.



I was specifically asked to present an example of an author who had written a popular story featuring dwarves because it was believed that there was no such thing apart from _The Hobbit_. The fact that the brothers Grimm also wrote stories with elves and little men doesn't mean that they didn't have at least one popular one with dwarves.

Incidentally, why do you refer to me in the third person? If you've quoted me, it will be generally understood that you're referring to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 4, 2006)

> Sure these were fuzzy sets with a high level of ambiguity but there was also some degree of differentiation as well. For more on the classification of various mythical/folkloric/fantastic creatures, I recommend Spirits, Fairies, Gnomes, and Goblins : An Encyclopedia of the Little People by Carol Rose.




I prefer sources like my various Encyclopedias of mythology, folklore and the like by Bullfinch, Larousse, or Dulaires, the annotated Grimm's, and the various epics, like the Kalevala, etc.

Yes-there is some differentiation, but there is LOTS of crossover and ambiguity.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 4, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> I was specifically asked to present an example of an author who had written a popular story featuring dwarves because it was believed that there was no such thing apart from _The Hobbit_. The fact that the brothers Grimm also wrote stories with elves and little men doesn't mean that they didn't have at least one popular one with dwarves.



Which doesn't change the fact that the Grimm brothers saw dwarves as a kind of elf.


----------



## Zander (Sep 5, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I prefer sources like my various Encyclopedias of mythology, folklore and the like by Bullfinch, Larousse, or Dulaires, the annotated Grimm's, and the various epics, like the Kalevala, etc.



I don't have Bullfinch or Dulaires, but the _Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology_ categorizes elves and dwarves (or "dwarfs") separately even going so far as to contrast them and gives Alberich as an example of a dwarf.


----------



## Zander (Sep 5, 2006)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Which doesn't change the fact that the Grimm brothers saw dwarves as a kind of elf.



The Grimm brothers described elves as "pretty" (in translation, of course) but the seven creatures in _Snow White_ as "dwarfs" (again, in translation). Now I'm not sure about German but in English and many other European languages the word for the fantastic creature called a dwarf was (and is) the same as that applied to real people with achondroplasia and similar conditions. This was no coincidence: achondroplasiacs were thought to have magical abilities. The difference between mythical and real dwarfs was blurred to the point where they were often considered the same. It is most unlikely that the Grimm brothers (who weren't exactly politically correct by modern standards) would have described someone with achondroplasia as "pretty". So it's a fairly safe bet that the seven creatures in _Snow White_ are not elven.

But whether or not the Grimm brothers "saw dwarves as a kind of elf" isn't really relevant. What is, is how readers have perceived the dwarves. It is highly improbable both because of the aforementioned blurring between real and fantastic dwarves and the fact that in the story they are labelled as "dwarfs" that they would be thought of as anything else.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm now confused.  If you (Zander) are not contesting that fantasy should change, and that fantasy contains all sorts of various elements, then what is wrong with WOTC changing elements?  "Without regard to its heritage"?  What exactly does that mean?  Should dwarves be lawful and nice (which actually isn't in the Grimm's story of Snow White)?  Or should they be nasty magical tricksters from Rumplestiltskin?  Either way, you can point to "heritage" antecedents for dwarves.

Your other point has been that ignoring traditional fantasy will lead to D&D becoming less popular and eventually dying.

How do you explain the lasting popularity of X1 Isle of Dread?  This is one of, if not the most popular module ever produced in D&D.  Yet, you will not find a single element of traditional fantasy in it.  No elves, no dwarves, no demi-humans of any kind.  No pseudo-medieval setting, no pseudo-Europe, not even a dragon in sight.

A module that is filled with elements from Horror and SF is in the top three of most popular modules of all time.  How does this jive with your ideas Zander?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> The Grimm brothers described elves as "pretty" (in translation, of course) but the seven creatures in _Snow White_ as "dwarfs" (again, in translation). Now I'm not sure about German but in English and many other European languages the word for the fantastic creature called a dwarf was (and is) the same as that applied to real people with achondroplasia and similar conditions. This was no coincidence: achondroplasiacs were thought to have magical abilities. The difference between mythical and real dwarfs was blurred to the point where they were often considered the same. It is most unlikely that the Grimm brothers (who weren't exactly politically correct by modern standards) would have described someone with achondroplasia as "pretty". So it's a fairly safe bet that the seven creatures in _Snow White_ are not elven.



Your assumption is wrong, as I already pointed out in post #305. The Grimms point out that there are beautiful elves and ugly elves, and dwarves is one name usually used for the ugly ones. They explicitly say that the dwarf Alberich sits in between, because he is both at the same time, light and dark elf.



			
				Zander said:
			
		

> But whether or not the Grimm brothers "saw dwarves as a kind of elf" isn't really relevant. What is, is how readers have perceived the dwarves. It is highly improbable both because of the aforementioned blurring between real and fantastic dwarves and the fact that in the story they are labelled as "dwarfs" that they would be thought of as anything else.



Now you tell us the dwarves from Snow White were just humans? May well be. But then this does not really belong into a discussion about fantasy. The dwarves from myths were always magical beings, as are the ones in other Grimm fairy tales, like Snow-White and Rose-Red.

However, it's time to end these circling discussions. Although you say that you want WotC to follow many "traditional" influences for fantasy creatures, I don't see your view of tradition go far beyond Tolkien standards, which represent a small slice of northern European tradition with a few inventions, like his elves or his hobbits. Real tradition goes far beyond that and doesn't have set distinctions between D&D's stereotypical fantasy races. It's all in flow. I got it that you don't like that. It's a pity that D&D doesn't follow your handpicked sources but makes use of the wealth of different traditions. But keep in mind that what you see as "traditional" is a very personal subset of what is out there.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 5, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> In the original _Snow White_ by the Grimm brothers, they are described as "good" creatures that are very orderly and go daily into the mountains in search of copper and gold.




Just checked my illustrated copy of _Grimms Märchen_. The one for grown-ups. You're wrong again.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Sep 5, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> my illustrated copy of _Grimms Märchen_. The one for grown-ups.




U-huh. I think I once saw a video of that. The stories' names were (not-so-) subtly altered. I'd repeat them, but Eric's Granny would object.


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 5, 2006)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> U-huh. I think I once saw a video of that. The stories' names were (not-so-) subtly altered. I'd repeat them, but Eric's Granny would object.




No, not _that_ one.


----------



## Zander (Sep 6, 2006)

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Just checked my illustrated copy of _Grimms Märchen_. The one for grown-ups. You're wrong again.



No, you're the one who is mistaken.

The earliest version by the Grimm brothers, _Die Kinder- und Hausmärchen_ (Children's and Household Tales), was first published in 1812. In 1823, i.e. during the lifetimes of the brothers, the first translation appeared in English. The translation was done by Edgar Taylor and published as _German Popular Stories_. In 1884, Margaret Hunt re-translated the stories which were published as _Household Tales_. It is said that the Hunt translation is very true to the original. As much as I am able with my limited ability in German, I have compared Grimm with Hunt and this seems to be the case, at least as far as Snow White is concerned.

In both Taylor and Hunt's translation, the dwarfs are described as very orderly and about the height of a seven-year-old girl. The dwarfs are described as "friendly" (that's a quote, by the way) and not once but twice they are called "good" (another quote). Both translations say: "They were seven dwarfs who dug and delved in the mountains for ore... In the mornings they went to the mountains and looked for copper and gold".

What I said previously was correct at least in the English-speaking world. From my limited ability in German, it seems to be the case in the German-speaking world too.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Sep 6, 2006)

This has gotten pretty off topic but eh I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

I think a lot of people are losing sight of the fact that the published Grimms Tales in every time period were very heavily altered from the original tales.  What he published were cleaned up whitewashed versions rather than the actual folktales because he was marketing them to industrial age middle-class folk who wouldn't have wanted to hear the things in the original form.  It's like when I was a small kid and my Welsh great-grandmother would tell me stories, sometimes they had the same name as things in children's books but they were very much harsher and more dark stories than the published ones and given that she was born in late 19th century rural Wales and only learned English as second language I would tend to think hers were the more authentic version.  Same case here I believe.


----------



## Zander (Sep 6, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm now confused.  If you (Zander) are not contesting that fantasy should change, and that fantasy contains all sorts of various elements, then what is wrong with WOTC changing elements?  "Without regard to its heritage"?  What exactly does that mean?



I've already answered this but rather than re-state it, allow me to illustrate what I mean...

Imagine that the year is 2010 and WotC have published 4E. As you might expect, there is an entry for centaurs in the 4E _Monster Manual_. But they are not human and equine in colour. Instead, they are fire engine red. They now have plates along their spines like a stegosaurus and their heads look like those of vampiric rabbits. They have two pairs of human arms, not one, with each ending in a crab-like pincer. This is the new centaur in 4E D&D, completely replacing the previous version.

While we're here, let's have a look at the 4E PHB. Elves no longer have pointed ears. Instead they have a third eye in the middle of their foreheads. They also have a tail-like appendage extending from the front of each knee. Elves are particularly skilled in the use of great clubs and other large, bludgeoning weapons.

Let's turn to halflings. In 4E, they average 7ft (2.13m) - the name 'halfling' now being ironic. They have no arms but do have four legs, two from each hip. They also have a prehensile tail. Halflings have a hand growing from each shoulder blade. As part of their religious customs, female halflings cut off their little fingers leaving them with three fingers and a thumb on each hand. Male halflings don't do this.

Arcane spells in 4E are cast as bubbles that come out the caster's mouth and float away. When the bubble bursts or is broken, the spell activates centred on where the bubble was at the time.    

I could go on but I don't think I need to. You can see what D&D might be like if WotC changed the fantasy core of the game without regards to fantasy's heritage. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Should dwarves be lawful and nice (which actually isn't in the Grimm's story of Snow White)?



Please check your facts. It actually is.   



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Your other point has been that ignoring traditional fantasy will lead to D&D becoming less popular and eventually dying.
> 
> How do you explain the lasting popularity of X1 Isle of Dread?  This is one of, if not the most popular module ever produced in D&D.  Yet, you will not find a single element of traditional fantasy in it.  No elves, no dwarves, no demi-humans of any kind.  No pseudo-medieval setting, no pseudo-Europe, not even a dragon in sight.
> 
> A module that is filled with elements from Horror and SF is in the top three of most popular modules of all time.  How does this jive with your ideas Zander?



X1 Isle of Dread, popular though it may be (voted 16th best module in Dungeon or Dragon magazine a couple of years ago IIRC), is one of many modules the vast majority of which are mainstream fantasy. If the whole game had been like Isle of Dread, D&D may not have become as popular as it has. 

Besides, the non-standard setting of Isle of Dread was not the only thing that distinguished this module. It was also, for example, the first to take place mostly outdoors, not in a dungeon. And it was sold as part of the Expert Set so would have been one that many gamers would have played just because they had it. So you can't safely say that the popularity of Isle of Dread is attributable to its lack of traditional fantasy. There may be other reasons.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2006)

> Besides, the non-standard setting of Isle of Dread was not the only thing that distinguished this module. It was also, for example, the first to take place mostly outdoors, not in a dungeon. And it was sold as part of the Expert Set so would have been one that many gamers would have played just because they had it. So you can't safely say that the popularity of Isle of Dread is attributable to its lack of traditional fantasy. There may be other reasons.




While that may be true, you are still missing the main point which you yourself brought up.  The creators of D&D put Isle of Dread in the box set for the Expert Rules.  They didn't include a "stock" fantasy module with this hugely popular hobby that was in its infancy.  They chucked standard fantasy straight out the window and included a module which had nothing to do with standard fantasy.  And it was popular.

It's so popular that Paizo is resurecting it for the new Adventure Path.  The other two AP's have hardly been stock fantasy as well.  But, the fact that the most popular adventure series in years is now steering directly away from stock fantasy settings should tell you something.

Thirty (ish) years ago, Moldvay and co. decided that D&D should not be limited to dead authors.  To say that WOTC is suddenly doing something different ignores the history of the game.  There are module after module that are not stock fantasy, as well as modules that are.  The non-stock fantasy modules have generally been very well received and are among the most enduring of the modules produced.

Honestly, the centaurs would be cool.  The others not so much.  Then again, we could go back to fat halflings that stay at home and smoke pipes. That's exciting isn't it?

Edit for later thought.

Looking at the list in Dungeon 116, the top 16 modules are:



> .5(damn, I numbered wrong) GDQ1-7: Queen of the Spiders: Compiling the giants G series, the drow D series, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits
> 1 I6: Ravenloft
> 2 S1: Tomb of Horrors
> 3 T1-4: The Temple of Elemental Evil
> ...




Now, of those 16 modules and series, we see how many that are not stock fantasy?  GDQ has a giant mechanical spider among other things, I6 is horror, S1 definitly not stock fantasy, S3 had robots and lazers, I3-5 was set way outside standard fantasy, S2 definitely not stock fantasy, Planescapeead Gods about as far from stock fantasy as you can get, X2 had dog men with French accents and then X1 is again about as far from stock fantasy as you can get.

9 of the top 16 are outside what you consider fantasy.  Over half.  From all periods of the game.  The idea that D&D was ever about genre emulation is silly.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 8, 2006)

One of the classics of D&D gets a new interpretation, too. Including the spaceship .

Check here!


----------



## Infernal Teddy (Sep 8, 2006)

Zander said:
			
		

> No, you're the one who is mistaken.




Agreed. I just reread some of the stuff - I tend to work with older versions of most _Märchen_, so I slip sometimes...


----------



## Kishin (Sep 9, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, of those 16 modules and series, we see how many that are not stock fantasy?  GDQ has a giant mechanical spider among other things, I6 is horror, S1 definitly not stock fantasy, S3 had robots and lazers, I3-5 was set way outside standard fantasy, S2 definitely not stock fantasy, Planescapeead Gods about as far from stock fantasy as you can get, X2 had dog men with French accents and then X1 is again about as far from stock fantasy as you can get.
> 
> 9 of the top 16 are outside what you consider fantasy.  Over half.  From all periods of the game.  The idea that D&D was ever about genre emulation is silly.




Gates of Firestorm Peak is also pretty firmly entrenched in Lovecraftian Horror rather than Fantasy. Its the adventure that introduced the Far Realm, and its BBEG was an Alienist.
That makes 10.

I agree with Hussar completely. D&D was never pure fantasy from the start. To claim otherwise is to ignore a veritable motherlode of evidence to the contrary.


----------

