Author: Wayne S. Rossi (---.TCNJ.EDU)
Date: 04-26-2000 17:05
Saying that the majority of objections to D&D are "No, duh!" arguments is a fundamentally flawed argument. Taken to its logical extent, we cannot in any way, shape, or form object to a role-playing game such as D&D, because it is an apple and not an orange.
Dungeons & Dragons, first and foremost, is a fantasy role-playing game. That is clear. As a fantasy role-playing game, it takes on the specific aim to recreate the tales of Conan, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, and their ilk, with a heavy Vancian twist to it. Also involved are J.R.R. Tolkien (halflings, orcs, goblins, treants), Poul Anderson (paladin, dwarf, troll, swanmay, law vs. chaos), Michael Moorcock (more in depth treatment of law vs. chaos), and French chivalric romances (the cleric and later the cavalier). Check Appendix N of the 1st edition DMG if you don't believe me.
Taking it down bit by bit, much of the epic combat of Conan can not be emulated in D&D--the guy wouldn't make it to very high level, even as the ultra-powered-up version of the Barbarian in Unearthed Arcana. Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser would completely lose out--both of them are weapon masters and use off-hand weapons as well, and there's no advantage to the Mouser's quick style in D&D. Also, one thing these three characters had in common is that they were rarely in armor, they fought more skillfully than can be described by a simple lowering of THAC0 and addition of attacks, and D&D combat, by nature, is too slow and plodding to be worthy of Howard or Leiber. The game fails to recreate their tales.
What of Vance? Well...Cugel (a great antihero) and Rhialto would never, ever set foot in a dungeon. Prismatic Spray aside, Vance's wizards are not the death-dealing nigh demigods they become at high levels in D&D. Vance's tales are also about solitary, self-centered characters--but not dungeon-delving mercenaries. D&D is not evocative of Vance.
Tolkien, perhaps? No. If Tolkien were a measuring stick, D&D would be the worst RPG ever made. D&D's not for the epic level of Tolkien--that is quite beyond its scope. Whatever you think of Tolkien, it's not what will be emulated in D&D--not with the latter's attention to dungeon delves. D&D is not Tolkien captured in a rules system.
What about Moorcock? Dark, antiheroic swords & sorcery, moody and fatalistic. Elric the D&D character would go into a dungeon, slaughter everything (probably even his companions), and be depressed about it afterward. Elric is not as combat-happy as D&D is. He also would be horrible to emulate--Stormbringer, in its adaptations to D&D, has come off rather badly, since it has a tendency toward one-hit kills. D&D does not pull off moody and dark nearly as well as Moorcock.
And...uh...Anderson? No. Anderson's more mythical in tone, and comes close to what D&D strives toward, but D&D (aside from the paladin rules) is not very evocative of 3 Hearts & 3 Lions. Quite the opposite--Anderson's demihumans are fascinating creatures of different cultures, similar to ours but complexly different, whereas D&D's demihumans are humans in funny suits with certain bonuses. D&D isn't the well-designed myth-derived fantasy of Anderson.
French chivalric romances? Nah. Moreso than Conan, they're a representation of how combat-heavy D&D is, but the game doesn't deal with the concept of honor or chivalry. Just law, chaos, good, evil, and the beat-down. It's no Song of Roland, no Le Morte d'Arthur, except in comparative bloodiness.
So...what is D&D? It is a game which sets out to emulate Howard, Leiber, Vance, Tolkien, Moorcock, Anderson, and French chivalric romances in what it does. It does not evoke the spirit of any of those. I'd say that, between Howard, Leiber, Tolkien, Anderson, and the Roland and Arthur stories, we get a pretty good representation of heroism. The characters suggested by D&D do not pass spec with any of these.
What, then, is D&D? It's a wargame with the trappings of the above. In taking on the specifics, it somehow manages to overshoot the whole point. Glory in combat is good and all, but all of these characters had a lot more style and flair than D&D really gives room for. That richness is lacking, and without it, D&D is more or less an exercise in tactical pest control.
-Wayne
|
|
