|
I am NOT a comic book reader. Sure, I've cracked a few open. I even Have a leather-bound "Dark Knight Returns" I got as a gift once-upon-a-time. But I do not follow comics in any way shape or form. I've had to ask "is retconning a comic book term?" and subsequently fell asleep during the explanation. In short, I could care less about comic books.
Yes, that puts me in the minority among D&D fans. We are known for not only D&D, but Star Trek, Star Wars, Computer Programming, Monty Python, and numerous other bits of "fringe" pop culture.
As an outsider to the comic book "thing" I come with an oversimplified view of the hobby. But oversimplification is a step away from generalization and 4E D&D is looking like it is being heavily influenced by the "Comic Book Lobby" (pardon the political pun). This is where my most visceral and superficial disdain of what is presented in 4E arises. That, my friends, is known as a "bias".
So I am biased. However, aware of my bias I can work around it, to try and judge without its prejudice. But its difficult to shake. I asked my fellow gamers what they thought:
"Is 4E heavily influenced by "comics" or not? If so, is it a good or bad thing and why?"
I leave it now to the Paizonian hive mind to have fun with it. I know we didn't even get to Krakens Cove in our STAP game, preferring the debate that night. Enjoy.
|
|
I think a more likely argument would be that 4E is being influenced by the online gaming community than the comic community. Although certaily it seems (from what I've been hearing) that WotC might have gotten the idea for their changes to FR from something they had seen in DC comics (i.e. the whole multiverse, asssociated with mergings and separations of different versions of the same world).
I think this is very similar to the dumbing down Of "the Lord of the Rings" in the movie; You have a piece of intense fantasy literature and someone says "Hey there's a market for this" and in order to reach the widest base the have to take some of the "concepts" out add a little syrup and it all slides right down. It can't be enough that Gandalf says "look for me in the east in 3 days" but as they prepare to ride out the have his voice float down....in what amounts to spoon feeding the audience any time a "thought process" might occur. So even though I liked the movies and I think comics are good, I can't stand being spoon fed a bunch of mediocre crap mixed with syrup (or in the case of 4E "online paradigm") so I agree. of course a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!
...generalization and 4E D&D is looking like it is being heavily influenced by the "Comic Book Lobby" (pardon the political pun). This is where my most visceral and superficial disdain of what is presented in 4E arises. That, my friends, is known as a "bias".
"Is 4E heavily influenced by "comics" or not? If so, is it a good or bad thing and why?"
Nope. I can't see even a sliver of how 4E is influenced by comics in any way, thought I'm not even sure what you mean. And since you don't follow comics, how would you know if they were or not? In art direction, in pacing, in .. what? They're pretty much apples and oranges.
I don't see how 4E is influenced by comics, but Psionics in 3.x definitely was/is - it's totally X-Men, and Bruce Cordell will even admit to that.
|
|
As I stated previously, I can see that something of the changes rumored to be in the offing for FR have a comic book influence.
Way back, DC owned all kinds of small-publisher titles, in addition to the core DC universe. Everything was getting kind of unwieldy, so they pared it down and siimplified it through the maxiseries called Crisis on Infinite Earths.
The concept was that there are multiple dimesions, each different from the next, in various ways. In one world Germany wins WWII, in another magic became dominatn in place of technology. In one world you have the Justice League, in another you have the Crime Syndicate. Etc, etc. Through the actions of cosmic beings and the various heroes, the Multiverse eventually collapsed into a single universe, with a single earth, containing many popular elements from both the Core DC universe and the small-publisher settings.
I have seen it said that they are planning to do the same with FR - that two different versions of the same world exist, and something that happens will bring them together causing world-wide devastation and civilization shattering changes.
It will be interesting to see the reception and implementation of "Crisis on Infinite Forgotten Realms" - if the theory that Abeir will merge with Toril is correct, then I'm intrigued. We all know what Toril is like, but Abeir?
The problem with it is that in the case of the DC multiverse, all the different settings and characters were known (at least by a majority) and published. Abeir has no published history...
Or the whole theory may be wrong...
If this new edition is in any way connected to the ideas of Crisis on Infinite Earths, then we're doomed to years of spin-offs and Infinite Crisis and 52 and Countdown. No thanks!
|
|
It will be interesting to see the reception and implementation of "Crisis on Infinite Forgotten Realms" - if the theory that Abeir will merge with Toril is correct, then I'm intrigued. We all know what Toril is like, but Abeir?
The problem with it is that in the case of the DC multiverse, all the different settings and characters were known (at least by a majority) and published. Abeir has no published history...
Or the whole theory may be wrong...
Yeah, it all depend on whether or not the rumors are true. Either way, I think this is where the OP was coming from when he suggested the whole comic book influence. Not necessarily that D&D was becoming more like a comic book, but that the writers were using similar techniques to work in and/or justify changes.
|
|
I am not addressing the whole FR debacle, per se, although all the talk of retconning and the spellplague got brought my issue back to the surface.
I suppose it was Tome of Battle that really drove home the whole comic book thing for me. Don't get me wrong, mechanically there are some great things about tome of battle. However, it all was written with a very comic-book like flavor as well as the mechanics themselves kept reminding me of "super powers" used by "super heroes". For the record, I feel the same way about classes like dragon shaman or warlock. Both of which are good classes in and of themselves.
One player tried to tell me thats what D&D is at some basic level, but instead of some X gene we have magic for example.
I disagree with that. I liken D&D to more of a sword and sorcery feel. 3E certainly moved the game away from sword and sorcery to some extent, and I was able to swallow it because the medicine worked so well (ie the mechanics) but now it seems its moving even MORE in that direction.
Maybe its not a comic-book thing. Maybe its just a non sword and sorcery thing that to my untrained eye looks like a comic. But I keep thinking, if all classes look and play like warlock, dragon shaman, or martial adept, then it would be a very different game indeed.
That is a very good point, soon the difference between an adventurer and a commoner will be how much magic they wield not whether they wield it or not. Not sword and sorcery but sorcery and major sorcery. But hey a lot of people seem to be cheering it on.
|
I asked my fellow gamers what they thought:
"Is 4E heavily influenced by "comics" or not? If so, is it a good or bad thing and why?"
I leave it now to the Paizonian hive mind to have fun with it. I know we didn't even get to Krakens Cove in our STAP game, preferring the debate that night. Enjoy.
It's hard to say, really. There's so many different kinds of comics, and half of them wouldn't work for a game for a lot of reasons.
I've seen Preacher comics concepts and imagery used in the movie Dharma, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't think Preacher would translate well into game terms, but I don't know, maybe a one-shot.WRT the psionics,...the guy that pops out a psychic sword is straight Psylocke from the X-men...
In Complete Scoundrel, comic book characters were utilized as direct examples of alignment.
There's so many different things out there colliding into eachother and spawning something new. I think it's only natural that it happens with 4e.
I guess, in comparison to 1e., I'd have to say, yes the later editions were definitely more influenced by comics than the list of suggested reading that EGG gave us in the 1e dmg. There's also a little more Asian wire kungfu movie/guys fighting on the tops of bamboo trees than in previous incarnations, as well as other genres of entertainment.
I'd have to in all fairness wait until I saw 4e to make a judgment call about it.
On a similar note, the Dark Horse run of Conan right now is rad.
Yeah, saying something is influenced by "comics" in a jaundiced sense is tarring with way too big of a brush.
I'm a comic book reader and collector as well as a DM, and comic influences do enter into my games (Hellboy and BPRD, for example, often present good demony or creepy-crawly seeds for gaming).
Now, if you asked my mother about comic influences, she'd assume you meant "Garfield" or "Cathy".
A general teenager might assume you meant Batman, (although some of Batman's grittier detective stories might make good adventures).
And of course, the style and pedigree of the author makes a big difference on whether I'd look at a comic or not. Normally I wouldn't bother with Justice League comics, but when Warren Ellis took a turn at writing one of their books a year or so ago, I added his run to my list.
Anyway, I guess the jury will be out on this one until some previews come out.
|
|
It reminds me of a discussion I had with an older guy I worked with who said comics were "purile." I told him that if you think about it, the ancient cave paintings in France were really comic books, and heiroglyphics and other pictoglyphs that evolved into letters started out as comics in a way--pictures that told a story.
He said I had a good point and then we dropped it...
Another thing I've noticed in comics and especially movies is a striving for a monster sensory payoff. If you watch a movie, even an action movie from even the 70's, you'll notice what I'm trying to find the words to describe--the movies were slower to go for the kill back then. This isn't meant as belittling of those older flicks at all. The pacing was slower.
I don't know if this is part of the comic book thing, but it crosses media forms; maybe it's a tip of the hat to the shortened attention span/availability of instant gratification that television and now computers provide.
It reminds me of a discussion I had with an older guy I worked with who said comics were "purile."
No more than most action movies, or most television shows. At least comics require some attention level to read (like all books) -- TV just softens your brain as your butt conforms to your recliner.
BTW, it's 'puerile'
:)
Positive or negative depends on the application, not the source. In terms of application, when D&D's design draws on trite or superficial elements of a medium, the result is the elements add flash without adding depth to the game. In that regard, I would argue the approach is negative. By a different token, if the design avoids shallow mimicry, I would deem that positive...
|
|
It reminds me of a discussion I had with an older guy I worked with who said comics were "purile."No more than most action movies, or most television shows. At least comics require some attention level to read (like all books) -- TV just softens your brain as your butt conforms to your recliner.
BTW, it's 'puerile'
:)
I thought it was puerile, I'm freakin tired.
|
|
Positive or negative depends on the application, not the source. In terms of application, when D&D's design draws on trite or superficial elements of a medium, the result is the elements add flash without adding depth to the game. In that regard, I would argue the approach is negative. By a different token, if the design avoids shallow mimicry, I would deem that positive...
Very insightful. I guess its the shallow mimicry that has me most concerned. Things like "Faster", "Easier", and "Simpler" leads me to believe that it is indeed a trend towards the superficial.
What say you?
|
"Comics" seems a bit of a broad starting point. I'm not sure how Robert Crumb, Harvey Pekar, Jason, Craig Thompson, Daniel Clowes, Chris Ware et al could influence an rpg.
I've not read any fantasy comics for a while but I know they're still out there, but most that i've come across seem to be heavily influenced by dnd - rather than the other way around.
If you're thinking superheroes (a product of course, of the same mythologies that fantasy derives itself from) then I suppose the move away from magic items and toward character 'powers' might look like that - we'll have to wait and see.
I still believe that it's more of a broadening of the market type of thing that leaves the bad taste and unfortuately that usually means a lower common denominator (if not the lowest) I definetely don't see comics as the lowest common denominater I read them and I don't think I get the same thing I was looking for in them at age 9. If you were fortunate enough to play D+D at age thirteen (I was) it's not exactly the same now; as you mature your game matures (hopefully) and your looking for something different from it. I just played my first game of 3.5 2 wks ago and although predjudiced (I'm 41 =AD+D 1e) I found out that it's still a killer game and possibly the most fun I have ever had in a game. I think it comes from the calibre of people you play with, as to what flavor? I think that is where roads merge and then depart for parts unknown..sit by at the local game store and watch some younger players for a while (try not to seem to creepy) you'll see what I mean
Very insightful. I guess its the shallow mimicry that has me most concerned. Things like "Faster", "Easier", and "Simpler" leads me to believe that it is indeed a trend towards the superficial.
What say you?
I can't give a simple answer to that. Objectively speaking, shallow has always been at the heart of D&D's design. Whether it's the one-dimensional character classes, the hack 'n slash bias, whathaveyou. So, I can't say that there's any trend for the game becoming superficial as that's what D&D's mechanics have always been. If there's anything that could be called depth, it's in the fluff. But the rules of the game don't make fluff a requirement.
When people use terms like "comic bookish" or "video gamey" they're evoking erroneous, negative stereotypes. Personally, I think D&D could benefit greatly from what comic books and video games have to offer. Storytelling and character development are essential to a comic book. Video games could give us imaginative environments and the recognition that different styles of play require different approaches in the design of mechanics. There's certainly a lot there to enrich the game if someone would just extend the effort at the professional level...