Bringing D&D closer to its literary sources

[leon]

I mean to houserule D&D to match more closely the novels it was inspired from. Of course we would need to Identify which element of the game was inspired by which source (if there is one single source). Obviously D&D is its own beast and doesn't try to imitate any single work, but I think it would be interesting to bring elements to the game we have read in fantasy literature.

So, off the top of my head, a couple of thoughts:

Races: Men, Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits are just fine, since they come directly from Tolkien's works. Not so sure about the Half-Elves, since in Tolkien they aren't a race, just a couple of people. The D&D Elf should change a bit (get taller for instance) to closer match its Middle Earth counterpart.

Classes: Warriors, sorcerers and thieves are standard fare in fantasy novels. The ranger and the paladin are directly inspired by LotR and Three Hearts and three Lions (and the Matter of France) respectively and while I can't think of an assassin character off the top of my head, I'm sure there must be many examples.

Now the cleric is a bit of an oddball since it's more Van Helsing meets the Knights Templar, than anything found in Sword & Sorcery novels. Still, evil priests of dark gods or whatnot can be found in Conan, for example, so the class definitely has its place, but needs some tweaking, since the D&D cleric seems to be way too specific, and more akin to monotheism than to a polytheistic pantheon of most fantasy worlds. The druid perhaps is a better fit in a polytheistic pantheon, as one kind of priest out of many.

I don't know where the inspiration for the illusionist came from, but if there is this kind of "specialist wizard", then necromancers are certainly required and obviously enchanters (especially female ones). Diviners are of course part of history and mythology and conjurers are frequently encountered in fantasy novels. For instance Elric is a conjurer and Lovecraft's and Howard's magic is heavily based on conjurations.

Multiclassing: I don't know how multiclassing should work, but it should work for everyone. Fighter/thieves like Conan and fighter/sorcerers like Elric are common in fantasy literature. Mutliclassing of the four "core" classes (I consider the thief core) would allow to simulate any kind of character found in fantasy literature.

Alignment: Chaos vs. Law from Elric is probably sufficient and there's no need to add the good/evil axis. Especially if you consider that many Sword & Sorcery heroes are morally ambiguous, to say the least. Obviously if the tone of your game is more high fantasy than sword & sorcery then the straggle between good and evil is pivotal.

Weapons: Aragorn is great with the sword, Gimli with the axe and Legolas with the Bow. Weapon specialization is a must, since we encounter it very often in literature. Same with two weapon fighting. And magic users should be able to use swords. It's not just Gandalf: The magicians in Dying Earth employ swords as their weapons.

Magic: Unlike D&D where spellcasters can memorise tons of spells, in Jack Vance's Dying Earth the most powerful magicians can memorise 6 lesser or 4 of the more potent spells. Perhaps this would be very limited for a D&D game, but the number of spells a spellcaster can memorise could be much more limited. And the spell slot system should be changed a bit. A spellcaster should have X number of slots, based on his level, and each spell, based on its level, should take up y number of slots.

Combat: In fantasy fiction combat is fast and brutal: often it is resolved with a single lethal blow. So the 1 minute round seems to be too long and the exchange of many blows which presumably tire or wear down the defender until the killing blow can be delivered seems at odds with sword & sorcery combat. I'm not suggesting critical hit tables or whatever. Just short combat rounds which last seconds instead of a minute and more hit dice of damage as characters go up in levels, like in EPT. So if you are lucky with the dice, a high level character can still kill another high level character with a couple of strokes, instead of having combat which drags on for many rounds, slowly reducing hit points. Also: A natural 20 is double damage and a third roll of 19-20 is an instant kill (again from EPT).

Magic Items: Magic items have a history and a name. The generic +1 sword doesn't really cut it.

Well, that's all for now. Feel free to comment and add more stuff.

[Deleted]

I really do like your idea as it is similar to what I have thought of doing but simply haven't. However, a quote taken from an article by Rob Kuntz in the Best of the Dragon Vol. 1 addresses the issue of Tolkien in D&D:

"The game was designed stressing the human aspect of play, humans being ultimately the strongest and predominant race on any earth. With a few exceptions most worlds of Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery writers are predominantly inhabited by humans. Elves, dwarves and hobbits were the minority race on Middle-Earth and were never in the spotlight for long time periods. Furthermore, D&D was not written to recreate or in any collective way simulate Professor Tolkien's world of beings."

An argument could be made that including demi-humans is not bringing D&D closer to its literary sources. Then again, having elves, hobbits, dwarves, etc. is not a huge problem in my mind.

[18 Spears]

Sept 16, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -6 leon said:

Weapons: Aragorn is great with the sword, Gimli with the axe and Legolas with the Bow. Weapon specialization is a must, since we encounter it very often in literature.

Maybe they just prefer those weapons over others? Aragorn would be deadly with a club or spear if that is what he had to fight with.

You could even approach this from a different angle. Allow swords to rangers, bows to elves, axes to dwarves but impose a -1 attack penalty if not using those weapons. AD&D sort of took the same approach.

[thorswulf]

The illusionist class seems inspired by Faerie magic (Glamour), common throughout British Isles folklore. Just a guess though.

[apeloverage]

Sept 16, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -6 leon said:

Now the cleric is a bit of an oddball since it's more Van Helsing meets the Knights Templar, than anything found in Sword & Sorcery novels. Still, evil priests of dark gods or whatnot can be found in Conan, for example...

You could have clerics with reversed spells only, to represent Conan-like priests.

EDIT: and maybe psionics, if you use the AD&D rule that it attracts extra-planar creatures.

[apeloverage]

Sept 16, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -6 leon said:

Races: Men, Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits are just fine, since they come directly from Tolkien's works. Not so sure about the Half-Elves, since in Tolkien they aren't a race, just a couple of people. The D&D Elf should change a bit (get taller for instance) to closer match its Middle Earth counterpart.

Classes: Warriors, sorcerers and thieves are standard fare in fantasy novels. The ranger and the paladin are directly inspired by LotR and Three Hearts and three Lions (and the Matter of France) respectively and while I can't think of an assassin character off the top of my head, I'm sure there must be many examples.

From what I've read most fantasy worlds, even human-only ones, have 'racial classes'. For example the Gray Mouser seems like the 'ideal type' of the Lankhmarian. In King Arthur's world every able-bodied upper class male would be a knight. Rangers in Tolkien are an ethnic group as well as, or instead of, a profession - and so on.

xoth.net/blog/2010/03/cultural-archetypes/ has some interesting discussion of sword & sorcery cultural types.

[leon]

Sept 16, 2010 19:47:03 GMT -6 christopher said:

I However, a quote taken from an article by Rob Kuntz in the Best of the Dragon Vol. 1 addresses the issue of Tolkien in D&D:

"The game was designed stressing the human aspect of play, humans being ultimately the strongest and predominant race on any earth. With a few exceptions most worlds of Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery writers are predominantly inhabited by humans. Elves, dwarves and hobbits were the minority race on Middle-Earth and were never in the spotlight for long time periods. Furthermore, D&D was not written to recreate or in any collective way simulate Professor Tolkien's world of beings."

I'm not saying that Tolkien was D&D's only influence, or D&D tries to simulate Tolkien, but it was a very strong (the most important really) source of inspiration. Of course Tolkien's influence was later downplayed because of the Tolkien estate lawsuit. So it's normal for Rob Kuntz to write something like that, as did Gygax in another article, saying the similarities between D&D and Tolkien are superficial.

An argument could be made that including demi-humans is not bringing D&D closer to its literary sources. Then again, having elves, hobbits, dwarves, etc. is not a huge problem in my mind.

Well, races are obviously campaign setting dependent more than anything else. But in "vanilla" D&D the races are derived from Tolkien and we (as players and DMs) refer to Tolkien's work when we imagine, describe and roleplay the demihuman races. So making the demihumans look, play and act exactly like Tolkien's creations is bringing D&D closer to it's literary sources (actually every D&D player in the world does that inadvertently anyway .

[leon]

Sept 16, 2010 20:12:55 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

Sept 16, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -6 leon said:

Weapons: Aragorn is great with the sword, Gimli with the axe and Legolas with the Bow. Weapon specialization is a must, since we encounter it very often in literature.

Maybe they just prefer those weapons over others? Aragorn would be deadly with a club or spear if that is what he had to fight with.

Of course he would be deadly, as would be Legolas with the sword, this is portrayed in game rules with the "fighting ability" of each character which is irrespective of weapon used. But with the weapon of choice the characters becomes even deadlier, that's where the weapons specialization rules are needed. And I have encountered "weapon specialization" in other novels as well, not just in Tolkien. Elric, for example, says that he is better with the sword while his cousin is better with the bow.

[leon]

Sept 17, 2010 2:24:38 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

Sept 16, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -6 leon said:

Now the cleric is a bit of an oddball since it's more Van Helsing meets the Knights Templar, than anything found in Sword & Sorcery novels. Still, evil priests of dark gods or whatnot can be found in Conan, for example...

You could have clerics with reversed spells only, to represent Conan-like priests.

Not a bad idea. But the "problem" of the D&D cleric being "too specific" (unead turning, christian-like, or at best the opposite: devil-worshiping) still remains. He wears armor like the knight templars, most of the spells seem to be of judeo-christian origin, he can't shed blood like Christian priests, etc.

On the other hand, in many stories and "worlds" the polytheistic model is followed, where each god's priests have completely different attributes, beliefs and rituals. But then again, unlike Van Helsing or the militant knights templar, most such priests wouldn't work well as adventurers. They are more suited to NPC status (as antagonists when you raid their temple for instance .

I don't know. There isn't much both in mythology and fantasy literature of "priests as protagonists" to work with. They have a background role at best, if they appear at all.

[18 Spears]

That why I suggested "weapon of choice(s)" using the standard to hit roll on the combat matrix, while other weapons are at a slight disadvantage. Aragorn would be more deadly with a sword, but feared with any weapon in his hand.

Just an idea and yours works just fine too.

[leon]

Sept 17, 2010 9:18:36 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

That why I suggested "weapon of choice(s)" using the standard to hit roll on the combat matrix, while other weapons are at a slight disadvantage. Aragorn would be more deadly with a sword, but feared with any weapon in his hand.

Just an idea and yours works just fine too.

Come to think of it, yours is perhaps better. The weapon specialization rules got more and more powerful with each edition of the game (and then we had double specialization, super grand mastery or whatever), perhaps a bit too power-gamey. Using the standard to hit roll with certain weapons of choice and a slight penalty with the rest might be more suited to D&D. Then again, others would argue that the poor fighting man has little in terms of advancement in higher levels compared to the spellcasters.

Anyways, the important thing is that there probably should be some sort of differentiation between weapons.A fighting man would be better with one and not so much with another.

[Mushgnome]

A 1st level fighting man's chance "to hit" is no better than any other class, therefore penalizing him for using "unspecialized" weapons is unfair.

Seems to me the "old school" way of handling this is to use the player's experience with a particular weapon rather than a mechanical boost (or lack of penalty). What do I mean by this? Let's say you have successfully advanced your archer fighting man to 10th level. In that time, you (the player) have no doubt learned good tactics for ranged combat, when to shoot and when to hold fire, how to use cover and terrain for strategic advantage, which monsters can't be harmed by normal missiles, how to avoid friendly fire against your allies, etc. You don't need a special rule to make this character a "really good archer" because he simply is (due to your competent play and luck with the dice)!

Now I understand the argument that "it's not fair that a fighting man who has never used a morning star in his life can scavenge one off a dead orc and suddenly be as good with it as his brother who has been practicing since childhood" but consider that likewise a magic user who has never cast an illusion spell before can discover an illusion scroll and suddenly cast as effectively as any other caster of the same level.

Seems to me that OD&D is about rewarding, not penalizing, players for attempting something new their PCs have never tried before. It is very 3rd-edition for the DM to say "No, I'm sorry, you have not taken the appropriate feat and therefore cannot wield that weapon effectively."

[18 Spears]

I get your point though I don't see a 5% (-1 on a d20) to hit penalty in combat as being unable to effectively wield a weapon. It seems a nice mechanic for encouraging a player to use a preferred weapon (Legolas and his bow) without forcing a weapon choice upon him (a cleric and his mace). If a player IMC continually went with one weapon over another I would allow that choice to override his original decision and I would also allow additional weapons of choice with time. So I really feel this would allow some flexibility while retaining some campaign specific decisions (elves use longbows, rangers use longswords, etc...)

Of course that is only an idea and this is just a game. If the rule doesn't work for you then use one that does.

[Mushgnome]

See, you can model "Legolas is better with a bow, and Aragorn is better with a sword" using existing game mechanics.

Legolas prefers the bow because he is a high-level Elf with good dexterity and not a lot of hit points.
Aragorn prefers the sword because he is a high-level Fighting Man with good strength, plenty of hit points, and, well, a legendary sword forged Long Ago.

Then you have someone like Bard of Laketown... He is no Legolas under ordinary circumstances, but the legendary Black Arrow allows him to take one shot as a Hero on the Chainmail fantasy combat table.

[18 Spears]

Bard was cool, wasn't he? I always thought that shot would look great on film, I hope Jackson manages to convey the majesty and drama of a regular ol' Joe dropping Smaug from the sky with one shot!

[aldarron]

Closer to litereary sources? Well, what sources? What I mean is, are you just picking your favorite books that have D&D like aspects to them or are you thinking that D&D has specific sources behind specific things? Frankly, other than dying earth for Gygax's magic system, Aragorn for the ranger class, Tolkein for orcs, hobbits and maybe somewhat elves and dwarves although its very debatable the extent to which either Gygax or Arneson looked to Tolkien for those two. Maybe one or two other things but for the most part, there are no single source insprirations for D&D or things directly modeled on some novel or other. The game, while generally medieval, is deliberately genereric and customizeable to any setting, like Mars for example. I'm not trying to discourage you from being creative with your game but I think trying to tie down game details one on one to specific books is a non starter. A great deal of D&D's content is original, and much of the rest is only loosly inspired by movies, TV, Star Trek, Fairy tales etc., or draws on the wide range of western mythology in general and was made up by the Grehawk and Blackmoor boys as they went along. So I'm not sure what you hope to make "fit better" to what, and it seems to me that most of these things are really particulars of the setting you are using rather than issues with rules.

[apeloverage]

OD&D already has 'weapon specialisation' of a sort: elves have +1 to hit with swords and bows, and halflings have +3 with slings.

[leon]

Sept 17, 2010 19:12:07 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Closer to litereary sources? Well, what sources? What I mean is, are you just picking your favorite books that have D&D like aspects to them or are you thinking that D&D has specific sources behind specific things?

I see what you are saying and you are right to a certain extent, meaning that D&D doesn't have in every case a specific source for a specific thing. But some times you can see where the creators drew their inspiration. Other times, most of the times maybe, there's no single source but many which were the foundation for a rule or an element of the game. Obviously there's no parthenogenesis, no element of D&D is 100% original; it was perhaps influenced by some wargame, mythology, a fairy tale, a novel, a film, whatever.

But since the game tries to simulate the adventures of heroes in fantasy novels and capture the feel and atmosphere of these stories, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to bring it closer to these stories, rules wise. And in the Sword & Sorcery genre, for example, there are many elements which are common in various writers (ditto for high fantasy or any other fantasy genre). So even if no single source exists, a rule can be devised or tweaked to mirror these stories better in general. Obviously, personal preference plays the most important role. One would like his game to play more like Conan, the other more like LotR, the third will be more influenced by the Worm Ouroboros or Barsoom. There's nothing objective about it.

[Mushgnome]

AD&D 1st edition DMG has an interesting bibliography of literary sources.

[apeloverage]

There's an interesting article on the inspirations for D&D here.

[leon]

Great find! Thanks for the link. Bookmarked!

[apeloverage]

From my reading, wilderness adventures seem much more common than dungeons. Underground locations like the Mines of Moria, to me, seem like a single location rather than a whole dungeon.

[Deleted]

Ah. Here, consider this: If we were solely inspired by fantastic fiction, for instance, then let me pick an example.

Inspired by Fritz Leiber's F&GM. BUT. Fritz was inspired by classic European tales and literature, including Shakespeare. BUT. All that was inspired by Classical Greek Literature and non-continental Oriental tales. BUT. That was inspired by verbal folk tales and legend. Seems that it all derives from folk tale and legends through some shape or form. Cheers. RJK

[blackbarn]

If you want a way for everyone to multiclass, I suggest just letting them add on one or more additional classes, and let them usethe best of each class' stats and abilities at all times, but make the player decide which one of the classes will be earning experience that session before play begins. Don't divide xp evenly among them all, just award xp to one at a time based on this player choice. If one of the classes is neglected, it won't level up.

[leon]

Oct 23, 2010 0:44:56 GMT -6 robkuntz said:

Ah. Here, consider this: If we were solely inspired by fantastic fiction, for instance, then let me pick an example.

Inspired by Fritz Leiber's F&GM. BUT. Fritz was inspired by classic European tales and literature, including Shakespeare. BUT. All that was inspired by Classical Greek Literature and non-continental Oriental tales. BUT. That was inspired by verbal folk tales and legend. Seems that it all derives from folk tale and legends through some shape or form. Cheers. RJK

I know you weren't inspired by just fantasy fiction. In the end legends may play the most important role. But I went for the most immediate and perhaps easily identifiable source of inspiration, one which has already been "distilled" and thus is more aptly usable as source for game material. Myths run deep and have way too many symbolisms and connotations to be directly usable to gaming (apart from the usual "chimeras, harpies, sphinxes: cool ideas for monsters "). I doubt that a D&D gamer would be interested in playing Oedipus or Sisyphus.