9 ms·

The Eldritch Roots of Dungeons and Dragons

129 points by prismatic 5y ago

pmoriarty 5y ago
Direct link to the full podcast episode: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/afspv4/Peter_and_Jon_MIT_Podcast_022121_V18ug3u.mp3 https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/afspv4/Peter_and_Jon_MI...
at_a_remove 5y ago
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.
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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.
    - platz 5y ago
      have you ever read Infinite Jest
    - marktangotango 5y ago
      > but it is more than merely packing in the unlikely Scrabble words Stephen R. Donaldson objects to this comment and implied aspersion!
    - rendall 5y ago
      > 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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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.
- samatman 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
    - lakkal 5y ago
      Dragon Magazine #78 had some good ideas on how to make AD&D psionics work better.
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    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.)
- panzagl 5y ago
  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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  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-to-chainmail-fantasy.html 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 https://archive.org/search.php?query=thangorodrim
  - walshemj 5y ago
    There is also some evidence of Tony Bath's and Hyboria influence moving strict Wargames rules towards a more role played experience.
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      > 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.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
- musicale 5y ago
  > 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.
platz 5y ago
Actually, dnd is a stylized, simplified form of wargaming that gained popularity in the early 20th century, replacing formulas with dice rolls.
- jbattle 5y ago
  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?
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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.
sigstoat 5y ago
there was another book published a few years ago with the same title, "Appendix N" https://www.amazon.com/Appendix-Literary-History-Dungeons-Dragons-ebook/dp/B01MUB7WS6/ https://www.amazon.com/Appendix-Literary-History-Dungeons-Dr...
Rd6n6 5y ago
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/ https://goodman-games.com/blog/2018/03/26/what-is-appendix-n...
- trashface 5y ago
  Here is a picture I just snapped from my copy. Its just one page. https://imgur.com/a/8dHzFQB https://imgur.com/a/8dHzFQB
polskibus 5y ago
Is there any fiction worth reading placed in D&D? What would you recommend?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  What do you mean by "placed in D&D"?
  - checkyoursudo 5y ago
    Likely, "set in a D&D universe" kind of thing.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  The abominable Quag Keep (love Norton but whew) and its worse followup count, as would Dragonlance.
  - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
    ...That doesn't sound like you think it's "worth reading..."
    - at_a_remove 5y ago
      Well, there's no disputing taste; someone else might like it. And Dragonlance was perfectly serviceable, given its origins.
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        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 5y ago
handrous 5y ago
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/0615642047 https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615...
- guyzero 5y ago
  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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Pederson's blog is excellent: https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/ https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/
cratermoon 5y ago
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.
simonh 5y ago
> 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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Many of those elements Tolkien took from older sources, which he studied professionally and know every well (including magic rings). Arguably, AD&D also used the same old sources.
- musicale 5y ago
  Weren't halflings "hobbits" in the original printings of the D&D rules? Edit/answer: Yes. Changed due to legal threats from Saul Zaentz/Middle Earth Enterprises see https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116283/why-arent-halflings-hobbits https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116283/why-arent-hal...
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
"The most immediate influences upon ADBD were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt;" I'm not familiar with most of these, but it seems to me AD&D is basically entirely Tolkien aside from the level and pervasive nature of magic. The monster manual seems the biggest giveaway. The races (halflings instead of hobbits, the elves are 99% tolkien elves), overall tech level and setting, etc are straight Tolkien. Can anyone comment as to how much the other authors used the same tropes for elves / orcs / dragons / etc? Edit: As mentioned above, Vancian magic, and the Tolkien lawsuit/complaints would explain the de-emphasis. Also, I second the "Stan Lee" component. Also, what are the EL comics referenced in App.N?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Remember that Tolkien was a scholar in Medieval languages and also studied more modern folklore to some degree, and drew much material from those sources. Some elements in D&D might come from the same sources or from more recent writers who drew from the same myths. That is, similarities between D&D and Tolkien are not all due to Tolkien's influence. While Tolkien is clearly an influence, there are many, many others too; to a degree AD&D seems to me to be a collection of all the myths Gygax knew or found. There is much in the Monster Manual that isn't in Tolkien (the medusa, demons and devils, etc.). Apparently some creatures in the Monster Manual came from a bag of plastic toys, which the authors used for inspiration and created backstories.

129 points by prismatic 5y ago

Direct link to the full podcast episode: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/afspv4/Peter_and_Jon_MIT_Podcast_022121_V18ug3u.mp3 https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/download/afspv4/Peter_and_Jon_MI...

at_a_remove 5y ago

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.

wlesieutre 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  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.
  - platz 5y ago
    have you ever read Infinite Jest
  - marktangotango 5y ago
    > but it is more than merely packing in the unlikely Scrabble words Stephen R. Donaldson objects to this comment and implied aspersion!
  - rendall 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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.
samatman 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - lakkal 5y ago
    Dragon Magazine #78 had some good ideas on how to make AD&D psionics work better.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  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.)
panzagl 5y ago
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.
wolverine876 5y ago
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-to-chainmail-fantasy.html 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 https://archive.org/search.php?query=thangorodrim
- walshemj 5y ago
  There is also some evidence of Tony Bath's and Hyboria influence moving strict Wargames rules towards a more role played experience.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
musicale 5y ago
> 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.

platz 5y ago

Actually, dnd is a stylized, simplified form of wargaming that gained popularity in the early 20th century, replacing formulas with dice rolls.

jbattle 5y ago
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?
- da_chicken 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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.

sigstoat 5y ago

there was another book published a few years ago with the same title, "Appendix N" https://www.amazon.com/Appendix-Literary-History-Dungeons-Dragons-ebook/dp/B01MUB7WS6/ https://www.amazon.com/Appendix-Literary-History-Dungeons-Dr...

Rd6n6 5y ago

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/ https://goodman-games.com/blog/2018/03/26/what-is-appendix-n...

trashface 5y ago
Here is a picture I just snapped from my copy. Its just one page. https://imgur.com/a/8dHzFQB https://imgur.com/a/8dHzFQB

polskibus 5y ago

Is there any fiction worth reading placed in D&D? What would you recommend?

wolverine876 5y ago
What do you mean by "placed in D&D"?
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  Likely, "set in a D&D universe" kind of thing.
at_a_remove 5y ago
The abominable Quag Keep (love Norton but whew) and its worse followup count, as would Dragonlance.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  ...That doesn't sound like you think it's "worth reading..."
  - at_a_remove 5y ago
    Well, there's no disputing taste; someone else might like it. And Dragonlance was perfectly serviceable, given its origins.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      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 5y ago

handrous 5y ago

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/0615642047 https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615...

guyzero 5y ago
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.
wolverine876 5y ago
Pederson's blog is excellent: https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/ https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/

cratermoon 5y ago

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.

simonh 5y ago

> 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.

wolverine876 5y ago
Many of those elements Tolkien took from older sources, which he studied professionally and know every well (including magic rings). Arguably, AD&D also used the same old sources.
musicale 5y ago
Weren't halflings "hobbits" in the original printings of the D&D rules? Edit/answer: Yes. Changed due to legal threats from Saul Zaentz/Middle Earth Enterprises see https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116283/why-arent-halflings-hobbits https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116283/why-arent-hal...

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

"The most immediate influences upon ADBD were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL, and A. Merritt;" I'm not familiar with most of these, but it seems to me AD&D is basically entirely Tolkien aside from the level and pervasive nature of magic. The monster manual seems the biggest giveaway. The races (halflings instead of hobbits, the elves are 99% tolkien elves), overall tech level and setting, etc are straight Tolkien. Can anyone comment as to how much the other authors used the same tropes for elves / orcs / dragons / etc? Edit: As mentioned above, Vancian magic, and the Tolkien lawsuit/complaints would explain the de-emphasis. Also, I second the "Stan Lee" component. Also, what are the EL comics referenced in App.N?

wolverine876 5y ago
Remember that Tolkien was a scholar in Medieval languages and also studied more modern folklore to some degree, and drew much material from those sources. Some elements in D&D might come from the same sources or from more recent writers who drew from the same myths. That is, similarities between D&D and Tolkien are not all due to Tolkien's influence. While Tolkien is clearly an influence, there are many, many others too; to a degree AD&D seems to me to be a collection of all the myths Gygax knew or found. There is much in the Monster Manual that isn't in Tolkien (the medusa, demons and devils, etc.). Apparently some creatures in the Monster Manual came from a bag of plastic toys, which the authors used for inspiration and created backstories.