[HN Gopher] The Eldritch Roots of Dungeons and Dragons
___________________________________________________________________
The Eldritch Roots of Dungeons and Dragons
Author : prismatic
Score : 118 points
Date : 2021-08-08 05:55 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Like many exposed to D&D at a formative age, I too used Appendix
| N as kind of a jumping off point for exploration and was startled
| to see what came from where, and how undisguised it was. Go
| through Vance's _Dying Earth_ and you will find an Excellent
| Prismatic Spray, ioun stones, having to memorize spells (whose
| memory vanishes on use), and even that ever-uncomfortable
| addition: psionics.
|
| Not a single mention of Dave Arneson in it, which pains me. I can
| forgive the omission of fiction that was inspired by D&D (really,
| _Quag Keep_ and its greatly lagged sequel are terrible by almost
| any standard of fiction), but leaving out Arneson verges on the
| Downright Peculiar.
| panzagl wrote:
| This podcast seems pretty focused on Appendix N (from AD&D,
| after Arneson's direct involvement ended) instead of the
| origins of D&D as a whole. Google 'Secrets of Blackmoor' to get
| a better view of Arneson's influences.
| samatman wrote:
| Psionics really came into its own as a mechanism with the Dark
| Sun world.
|
| Instead of being an oddball power which you had to luck into,
| and which a lot of house rules just ignored, everyone had some
| psionic ability. There were specialized psionicists as well,
| but it was just a world where sentient beings (being D&D there
| were some racial exceptions) had psionic power.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I have ... feelings ... about psionics, both as not quite
| fitting the setting (let's face it, late seventies was a lot
| of Zener cards mixed in with the occult business) and the
| mechanics.
|
| To be fair, I have never looked at Dark Sun.
|
| I think psionics _could_ be workable, in a certain light, but
| that 's the subject of a rather half-baked and long essay
| series I have been kicking about for a decade as to how to
| "fix" many of the issues in D&D in a way that does not result
| in the Endless Next Edition problem.
| da_chicken wrote:
| I agree that psionics really only felt like they belonged in
| Dark Sun. The whole setting is more of a total conversion
| than any other setting.
|
| I was looking through my old books recently. The player rules
| for Planescape, another massively different campaign setting,
| was ~30 pages. Some of that was full page art, and they
| dedicated one page to each of the 16 factions (including non-
| factioned, IIRC). With all the jargon, lingo, and weirdness
| in Planescape, it was almost all lore changes. Under the
| hood, it was still the same old AD&D.
|
| In the first Dark Sun Campaign Setting box set, you get two
| main books: one book of lore and one book of mechanical
| changes. Each book is ~120 pages. There are rules for new
| races, new classes, new weapons, new armor, new spells, new
| environmental hazards, etc. The setting was 50% new lore and
| 50% new and changed mechanics. And DSCS didn't even have
| rules for psionics in it! They had a couple pages detailing
| the new psionic character creation rules, but it literally
| tells you to use the Complete Psionics Handbook! (The second
| Dark Sun Campaign Setting included a ~90 page psionics book
| that includes most of that content.)
| koolba wrote:
| Oh man. Dark Sun had so much new material. Psionics, half
| this and half that races, the endurance thing. It was just
| too much all at once.
| msh wrote:
| Dark sun was absolutely my favorite rpg setting.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Gygax had a habit of erasing some other major influences from
| history, including co-developer of D&D Dave Arneson, and JRR
| Tolkien's works.
|
| Regarding Arneson, you can find documentaries online and books.
| Here are some other sources:
|
| Rules for Middle Earth by Leonard Patt (~late 1970):
| https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-precursor-t...
|
| Tolkien was reportedly mentioned in versions of Chainmail
| (Gygax's precursor to D&D) and OD&D (the rare, staple-bound
| ~prototype/MVP version predating the breakthrough editions,
| Basic and Advanced D&D), but after an IP dispute the Tolkien
| references were removed and Gygax repeatedly disclaimed any
| interest in or influence by Tolkien, despite obvious
| similarities. There are also articles Gygax wrote for
| late-1960s fanzine, Thangorodrim, where he openly adopts
| Tolkien material:
| https://archive.org/search.php?query=thangorodrim
| tjakab wrote:
| Gygax/TSR went so far as to claim that Advanced D&D was a
| different game from D&D to not have to pay Dave Arneson
| royalties on any of the releases. Arneson sued TSR multiple
| times and they settled out of court, granting him royalties
| on AD&D: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Arneson#After_TSR
| jhbadger wrote:
| It's a common trend among such creators. It's like Marvel.
| Stan Lee (and these days, Disney/Marvel) would like to have
| you believe that everything sprang from the mind of Lee,
| purposely ignoring people like Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby.
| And speaking of Disney, Walt Disney himself downplayed the
| importance of people like Ub Iwerks, who were instrumental to
| the creation of Mickey Mouse.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| > Disney/Marvel
|
| There are no doubt teenagers who think Thor, Loki, Snow
| White etc. were all thought up by Disney/Marvel. Disney has
| been laundering (and copyrighting) folk history for a
| century now, and Marvel mythology for a little less time.
| walshemj wrote:
| There is also some evidence of Tony Bath's and Hyboria
| influence moving strict Wargames rules towards a more role
| played experience.
| musicale wrote:
| > Not a single mention of Dave Arneson in it, which pains me. I
| can forgive the omission of fiction that was inspired by D&D
| (really, Quag Keep and its greatly lagged sequel are terrible
| by almost any standard of fiction), but leaving out Arneson
| verges on the Downright Peculiar
|
| Definitely - Dave Arneson being the co-creator of D&D, via his
| legendary Blackmoor game/campaign. The original D&D rules, the
| Blackmoor supplement and setting, and the Temple of the Frog
| dungeon were all derived from Arneson's game.
|
| Arneson was brilliant and his work is inspiring; I can only
| imagine how amazing it would have been to take a game design
| course from him when he taught at Full Sail in the 2000s.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| _> Go through Vance 's Dying Earth and you will find an
| Excellent Prismatic Spray, ioun stones, having to memorize
| spells (whose memory vanishes on use)_
|
| I've heard it called "Vancian magic" for years, but never
| looked into where that name came from. Now I know!
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Vancian Magic is one of my least favorite mechanics. It
| worked in its original setting, and certainly I understand
| the desire to have a similar mechanic in the game itself, but
| it is one of those things which just does not hold up under
| scrutiny. And then the oddball psionics ...
|
| However, do not let these criticisms dissuade you from
| reading. Vance was a very interesting writer, and the Dying
| Earth setting was highly influential on D&D (not that it
| originated with him). He would often develop trickster
| characters who used vocabulary (often slightly wrongly) to
| seem more intelligent than they were, so there's a certain
| density to the writing, but it is more than merely packing in
| the unlikely Scrabble words, there's a playfulness to it
| which is entertaining when you find it.
| rendall wrote:
| > _Vance was a very interesting writer, and the Dying Earth
| setting was highly influential on D &D (not that it
| originated with him)_
|
| That sentence reads like you're saying Jack Vance was not
| the originator of the Dying Earth setting, when he alone
| kicked off the genre with a book of short stories called
| the Dying Earth. I'm sure that's not what you meant.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Uh, you parsed it right. He named it, but the microgenre
| known as "Dying Earth" would most recognizably start some
| decades before with _The Time Machine_ and the somewhat
| lesser-known _The House on the Borderland_.
|
| It wasn't a new idea but he more or less summed it up in
| a succinct manner with an obvious name, then placed
| multiple stories within a timeline with some overlapping
| features, a bit like Varley's "Eight Worlds." After Vance
| made it, I think it entered into the sci-fi
| consciousness, such as it is, a bit more than some of the
| earlier works out there which _fit_ , but somehow managed
| to slide by everyone.
| rendall wrote:
| We'll have to agree to disagree. There is _fin de siecle_
| , a different literary genre, of which The Time Machine
| is part, that has similarities to the Dying Earth genre.
| Each is marked by apathy in the face of existential doom.
| The Dying Earth is a specific genre with its own tropes:
| wizards living in _manses_ , dangerous creatures wander
| at night, many of which can talk, the earth has lived
| through several Ages, much knowledge has been lost. These
| are as much tropes of the subgenre as cyclopean ruins and
| ichor are tropes of Lovecraftian horror.
|
| The wikipedia article on the subgenre is terrible,
| conflating _fin de siecle_ with Dying Earth. Awful on
| many levels
|
| Arguing the Vance did not actually create the Dying Earth
| genre because of _fin de siecle_ is like arguing
| Lovecraft did not invent _Lovecraftian horror_ because
| some previous authors wrote about terrifying gods.
| Retric wrote:
| Actually I think we can argue about lovecraft not
| inventing the lovecraft genre because of the "Lovecraft
| Circle" which consisted of several contemporary authors
| all borrowing ideas from each other. Generally we talk of
| pioneers in a genre specifically because how commonplace
| such exchanges of ideas are.
| throwaway17_17 wrote:
| I think Vancian Magic can hold up well in a RPG. I am not a
| fan of the last 30-35 years of treating manic like a mutant
| power from X-men. The limitations are what crafted
| interesting tactical situations from my perspective. I do
| think there is room for other types of magic in a game
| however. The Vancian memorization or the 3rd Edition
| preparation seem to Tre force the idea that spells require
| ritual and effort. I certainly see a use case for small
| effort easily used cantrips or incantations that function
| more like video games or 5th Ed, though. I tend to favor
| that type of mix when doing game design.
| platz wrote:
| have you ever read Infinite Jest
| marktangotango wrote:
| > but it is more than merely packing in the unlikely
| Scrabble words
|
| Stephen R. Donaldson objects to this comment and implied
| aspersion!
| platz wrote:
| Actually, dnd is a stylized, simplified form of wargaming that
| gained popularity in the early 20th century, replacing formulas
| with dice rolls.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The fundamental difference between wargaming and D&D (and
| tabletop RPGs in general) is the role-playing. D&D is a role-
| playing game; it happens to use some elements of wargaming but
| the whole point is the role-playing. There are other RPGs with
| no wargaming elements.
|
| > replacing formulas with dice rolls
|
| Wargames had lots of dice rolls, afaik ? D&D has lots of
| forumlas.
|
| > simplified
|
| D&D combat, especially in some editions, can be notoriously
| complex.
|
| Maybe you and I are talking about different war games.
| jbattle wrote:
| I disagree. Obvs D&D evolved out of a literal wargame
| (chainmail). And there are a lot of influences from wargaming,
| but 90% of the focus (from the beginning) was on: - Characters
| who grew and changed each time you played - Exploring party
| dynamics having more to do with narrative than mechanical
| intricacies - Unreal places that were presented as living
| breathing spaces to explore - Module design was a mixed bag.
| Most of the places didn't make literal sense. I could see
| someone making the argument they were just a loose collection
| of wargame-like scenarios linked by hallways. But if memory
| serves there was a balanced mix of fighting, tricks, traps, and
| puzzles, as well as other non-combat encounters
|
| I'll admit I didn't play until AD&D in about '84 - was the
| original edition really that different in focus?
| platz wrote:
| > D&D evolved out of a literal wargame (chainmail)
|
| ok. Please avoid downvoting me then?
| panzagl wrote:
| It might be because: >replacing formulas with die rolls
|
| makes no sense, as D&D still has formulas, and most
| wargames had die rolls.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| Then there's the bit about:
|
| >...gained popularity in the early 20th century...
|
| I don't think the 70's count as early in the 20th
| century.
| [deleted]
| platz wrote:
| > The English writer H. G. Wells developed his own
| codified rules for playing with toy soldiers, which he
| published in a book titled Little Wars (1913). This is
| widely remembered as the first rulebook for miniature
| wargaming. Little Wars had very simple rules to make it
| fun and accessible to anyone.
|
| > The world's first recreational wargaming club was the
| University Kriegspiel [sic] Club, founded in 1873 at
| Oxford University in England.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| > Actually, dnd is a stylized, simplified form of
| wargaming that gained popularity in the early 20th
| century, replacing formulas with dice rolls.
|
| That's the entirety of what you wrote. Correct the
| sentence, not the people reading it as written.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What are you quoting? I would like to read more of it.
| panzagl wrote:
| Jon Peterson's "Playing at the World" gets into the
| wargaming history of D&D.
| panzagl wrote:
| Both Little Wars and Kriegspiel are much simpler than
| AD&D.
| da_chicken wrote:
| I'll buy that Little Wars is simple (from my
| understanding).
|
| Kriegspiel, however, was very far from simple. It was
| just focused on battle simulation.
|
| From my understanding, it was intended to be played by
| each side (either individual or team) being in their own
| room with their own map of the battle. Communication
| would go to the referee, who would run "reality". The
| referee would have a map and use charts, tables, dice,
| and pure fiat to sent information and update the state of
| the game to the players. Plus the game was played to a
| real clock. An ideal setup would have the opposing
| generals only communicating with the referee by means of
| runners, to simulate the telephone effect.
|
| I really can't call a game that requires no less than
| three terrain maps and three rooms to be "simple".
| Especially when you see the dice the game uses.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Good post--just wanted to say that on HN, you need to put a
| line between each of your bullet points or else they will
| collapse into one paragraph as yours did.
| da_chicken wrote:
| > _I 'll admit I didn't play until AD&D in about '84 - was
| the original edition really that different in focus?_
|
| The original edition or white box D&D was about as deep as
| Diablo 1. You rolled up a PC, the DM designed a dungeon --
| not a campaign, they just built a dungeon -- and then the PCs
| tried to survive it. That's all it was about.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| As I understand it from people who played it and from
| interviews with Gygax, the primary difference is that OD&D
| was far more free-form than than later editions - so free-
| form that it placed a tremendous burden on the dungeon
| master to fill in the gaps and limited its audience to
| hardcore gamers.
|
| Again, based on what I've read, part of Dave Arneson's
| original innovation that became OD&D [1] was that your
| character continued from game to game, giving the player a
| personal interest in the character and also engagement in
| developing them. That would seem to disagree with the
| parent's description.
|
| [1] Like all innovations, Arneson's was a product of
| earlier ones such as Braunstein by Dave Wesely.
| da_chicken wrote:
| > _As I understand it from people who played it and from
| interviews with Gygax, the primary difference is that OD
| &D was far more free-form than than later editions - so
| free-form that it placed a tremendous burden on the
| dungeon master to fill in the gaps and limited its
| audience to hardcore gamers._
|
| It depends on exactly what you mean. OD&D ran from 1974
| to 1977 or 1979, so there's actually a fair bit there. If
| by "original D&D" you mean the first boxed set which had
| three booklets: Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and The
| Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, then it really is as
| I described it. There were 3 character classes, stats
| didn't really do anything, and the guidance for the DM
| was "create a dungeon with a minimum of 7 levels for the
| players to explore" or something like that.
|
| However, there were a lot of supplements, for OD&D too:
| Greyhawk (thief, paladin, non-Chainmail combat rules) and
| Blackmoor (assassin, monk, underwater rules) in 1975.
| Eldritch Wizardry (psionics, druids), Gods Demi-Gods &
| Heroes (real-world and literature-inspired pantheons),
| and Swords & Spells (large scale combat) in 1976.
|
| There was also new content in The Strategic Review
| (precursor to Dragon magazine) like the Ranger class, the
| Bard class, and (I think) the first printings of the
| Thief class. I think other stuff appeared in White Dwarf.
|
| By the time TSR decided to go with the Basic/Advanced
| approach in the late 70s, most of everything we find in
| AD&D had been printed in some way. Both Basic D&D and
| AD&D were collections of existing rules as much as
| revisions or refinements to it.
| SquibblesRedux wrote:
| The basic D&D book (before AD&D) was similar to AD&D, but
| simpler rules and fewer tables.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| The original Basic (the 'Holmes Blue Book' by J. Eric
| Holmes) was actually a reorganization and simplification of
| OD&D, not Advanced D&D (despite Holmes being published
| around the same time as AD&D). Holmes was intended as an
| introduction to OD&D; AD&D was extensively revised from
| OD&D, and the OD&D/Holmes rules were very different from
| AD&D in many ways.
|
| There were at least two more revisions of 'Basic', which
| was updated into the early 1990s. It was much more a
| separate game, not a lead-in into 'Advanced', and I think
| publishing it may have been a contractual obligation to
| D&D's co-creator, Dave Arneson, who was gone before AD&D.
| walshemj wrote:
| And don't forget TSR's first product the ECW wargames rules I
| have a copy siting next to me
| musicale wrote:
| What you seem to be referring to is D&D's tactical miniatures
| combat, which is indeed a form of miniatures gaming (and
| famously derived from Chainmail and its fantasy supplement.)
|
| Unlike miniatures games, however, D&D as a whole usually shifts
| its primary focus to collaborative storytelling, exploration,
| and character progression, and its tactical miniatures combat
| is 1) small-scale with a 1:1 relationship between players and
| protagonists (though large-scale battles can be added as
| appropriate) and 2) optional (though it can be a large part of
| the game if players desire.) D&D is also usually played over
| multiple sessions with a contiguous game world, further
| enhancing the storytelling and character progression
| possibilities, and usually has no fixed objective or victory
| condition.
|
| There are D&D-derived board games and tactical miniatures games
| (such as the 4E board games or the D&D miniatures games) that
| adopt D&D's tactical miniatures combat rules, but they largely
| remove the collaborative storytelling, acting/role-playing,
| multi-session character progression, and open-ended nature that
| are core to tabletop RPGs.
|
| On the computer gaing side, a game like StarCraft is
| interesting because the single-player campaign includes
| wargame-like levels (with many units as well as resource
| gathering, building, and unit production) and RPG-like/dungeon-
| crawling levels (where you primarily control one or more hero
| units that gain experience and treasure and level up as they
| explore the level.) Even though they use the same game engine
| and combat system, these are fairly different game experiences.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| Are you trying to say that D&D is just wargaming but with dice?
| Or are you trying to say that D&D is just wargaming full stop,
| and Kriegspiel got _simpler_ after they added dice? Either way,
| you can 't have played much of either D&D or wargames.
| handrous wrote:
| They don't link to it among the links to Peterson's books (as far
| as I can tell) and they don't mention it in the interview, but
| Peterson's doorstop volume _Playing at the World_ treats
| extensively of the roots of D &D. Looks like this Appendix N
| would make a great sourcebook (in the academic, not roleplaying,
| sense) companion to that book, since it mentions and describes
| lots of D&D's sources in (especially) fantasy fiction, but
| doesn't include substantial excerpts of those works.
|
| [EDIT] Link (amazon, sorry):
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Pederson's blog is excellent:
|
| https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/
| guyzero wrote:
| Yeah, Peterson's books are required reading for anyone who
| wants to understand where D&D came from. I think understanding
| the history of D&D is pretty crucial to understanding why and
| how to play D&D even today, half a century later. Peterson's
| "The Elusive Shift" gos into some theory of role-playing games
| from the 80's which is still as true today as it was then.
| simonh wrote:
| > What does D&D feel like for me? For me, it feels more like
| Conan than Tolkien, for example.
|
| It seems like this is very much this author's spin on his version
| of Appendix N, rather than primarily an exploration of the actual
| Appendix N. More like what he'd like Appendix N to be rather than
| what it actually was.
|
| AD&D particularly is at least 50% Middle Earth the roleplaying
| game, and the other 50% split among all the other influences.
| Halflings, elves (even specific types of elves ripped directly),
| dwarves, rangers, orcs, dragons, wights, wraiths, walking trees,
| goblins riding wolves, magic swords, magic rings, mithril, magic
| cloaks and boots, giant spiders, giant eagles, were-bears, it's
| hard to think of anything in Tolkien at all that isn't directly
| cut-and-pasted. Meanwhile yes specific elements were taken from
| other settings, such as the magic and a few other things from
| Vance, and the barbarian class from Howard, maybe thieves and
| thieves guilds from Lieber. The Cleric is an interesting one, it
| was added specifically for a vampire hunting adventure in the
| Blackmoor campaign. Middle Earth provides the base layer the
| whole thing is built on though.
| Rd6n6 wrote:
| For anyone curious, they mention "appendix n." In one of the very
| old books (adnd 1e dmg I think), there was a section with that
| name that had a list of inspirations. In the old school dnd
| community, this list has a slight mythic status and some people
| like to come up with their own appendix n. I can't find my
| copy... but this might list its contents
|
| https://goodman-games.com/blog/2018/03/26/what-is-appendix-n...
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Direct link to the full podcast episode:
| https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/afspv4/Peter_and_Jon_MI...
| polskibus wrote:
| Is there any fiction worth reading placed in D&D? What would you
| recommend?
| at_a_remove wrote:
| The abominable _Quag Keep_ (love Norton but whew) and its worse
| followup count, as would _Dragonlance_.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| ...That doesn't sound like you think it's "worth reading..."
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Well, there's no disputing taste; someone else might like
| it. And _Dragonlance_ was perfectly serviceable, given its
| origins.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Dragonlance is a wonderful kids book. Unfortunately, re-
| reading as an adult was definitely not inspiring.
|
| I am looking forward to reading them to my daughter
| though, some time after she learns to understand words.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| I re-read the first two trilogies for the first time in a
| couple of decades or so, and started a few of the other
| books (couldn't finish any others).
|
| I think that Dragons of Autumn Twilight still holds up
| reasonably well as a Tolkienesque derivative. I somewhat
| enjoyed reading the other two in that set and don't
| regret having re-read them. I enjoyed a few scenes from
| the Twins books, but otherwise I should probably have
| left those to my fond memories instead.
|
| I still also have fond memories of a few other of the
| Dragonlance books, though now I hesitate to attempt them
| again.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What do you mean by "placed in D&D"?
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Likely, "set in a D&D universe" kind of thing.
| yaur wrote:
| If you want a book "set in d&d" the Dragonlance books are a
| good place to start. The early Drizzt books aren't terrible
| either. In both cases these are firmly YA books and on
| rereading them as an adult they don't hold up that well.
|
| I don't know of any d&d novels that I would recommend to adults
| that don't play the game.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| The Riftwar Saga by Raymond E. Feist (Magician, Silverthorn, A
| Darkness at Sethanon), while not an officially licensed D&D
| tie-in, is based on a D&D campaign the author played in at UCSD
| in the 1970s.
|
| I think the Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson is
| also based on an RPG campaign, which started out as D&D then
| switched to GURPS.
|
| Both are worth reading.
| sigstoat wrote:
| there was another book published a few years ago with the same
| title, "Appendix N"
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Appendix-Literary-History-Dungeons-Dr...
| cratermoon wrote:
| I remember buying an reading a lot of the books from the list in
| that appendix. L. Sprague de Camp, Lovecraft, Moorcock (the
| entire Stormbringer series), and Fritz Leiber especially.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-09 23:01 UTC)