Worlds of Design: Reassessing Tolkien’s Influence

J.R.R. Tolkien’s work is a strong influence on RPGs, but is that bad?

In September 2020 I wrote a column about Tolkien’s influence and how world builders are “trapped” by his influence. I was not writing with Tolkien in my sights. But now I am.

book-5718632_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Tolkien’s List​

How influential has J.R.R. Tolkien’s work been on RPGs, and is that influence a problem? I’ve made a list of some characteristics of Tolkien’s world (in no particular order):
  • Characteristics of Dwarves and Elves
  • Very low-magic levels of Middle-earth
  • Lack of religion, of “gods” that interfere
  • Impossibly long history without significant change in technology
  • An overarching “dark lord”
  • A single magical object that can determine overall success or failure (The Ring)
  • Group quest
  • “Monsters” and other detail

Dwarves and Elves​

Dwarves and Elves in RPGs are usually Tolkien-like, much different than earlier folklore notions. Consider the dwarfs of the Nibelungenlied, and the small and often nefarious elves of many stories about the Fey world. This may be where Tolkien’s influence is most obvious. (If you haven’t read the older stories you might not be aware of the striking difference. It’s like the so-called “classic” pirate accent (yaarrhh) – it didn’t exist in movies before 1950’s Treasure Island and Long John Silver’s west Cornish accent.)

Low-Magic Levels​

What evidently hasn’t influenced RPGs at all is the low-magic levels of Middle-earth. Magic items are just about non-existent. Spell-casters are just about non-existent. An inhabitant may hear of such things, but actually getting involved with one in any way, even just to see it, is nearly unheard of. In the USA today you’re as likely to see the President of the United States up close and personal as to see a magic-user in person in Middle-earth. Similarly, you’re more likely to see a gold bar in the USA than to see a magic item in Middle-earth.

Lack or Organized Religion​

Tolkien’s lack of organized religion, and of “gods” that interfere hasn’t been an influence. Gods that manifest in the world, if only through the spells of clerics/priests, are common in RPGs, perhaps heavily influenced by D&D. Gods that interfere in the “real world” are also common from what I hear of RPG campaigns (something I don’t use myself).

Little Technological Advancement​

Impossibly long history without significant change in technology. This is a big influence on literature as well as games. As an historian I recognize that this is virtually impossible. Yes, technology changed much more slowly in, say, 2500 BCE. But it did change immensely over time, and in so many games (and books) it doesn’t seem to change at all over many millennia. Heck, even the science fantasy Star Wars has very little technological change in tens of thousands of years. Having said that, my wife reminded me of the new “infernal/demonic engines” of Saruman, both at Isengard and in Hobbiton. Yet those technologies were very much frowned upon by the “good guys.”

A Dark Lord​

An overarching “dark lord” threatening the world. I have never used a Sauron-equivalent in my campaigns, but I’d guess that many GMs do. This is hardly an invention of Tolkien, but Lord of the Rings could certainly have influenced many GMs. There’s no evidence as to how much, though.

A MacGuffin​

A single magical object that can determine overall success or failure (The Ring). More than just a MacGuffin (“an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot”), it is the be-all and end-all of the entire story-arc. In LOTR it is Sauron’s lost Ring of Power, of course. Not something I’ve used (I avoid “saving the world” situations), but who knows how many others have used it? It’s more practical if the magical effect is much reduced, and the story scaled back from “saving the world” to accomplishing something worthwhile.

Was this new with Tolkien? Only an expert in pre-Tolkien fantasy fiction and myth could answer this question. What first comes to mind is the Ring in Wagner’s Nibelungenlied opera cycle, but that ring was not the overwhelming object of Power that Sauron’s Ring was. As with several of these questions, even if Tolkien was not the first, he may have been far better known than any preceding work.

A Group Quest​

Group Quest. Early science fiction and fantasy was dominated by a single protagonist hero, or hero and sidekick. Tolkien’s main books depicted quests by groups of characters rather than by individuals. How much this actually influenced RPGs, I have no idea.

Archetypical Monsters​

“Monsters” and other details. Apart from the characterizations of dwarves and elves, Tolkien’s influence shows in other species respects. For example, Orcs are direct transfers from LOTR, as are Hobbits (now changed to halflings). Ents (now changed to treants) are from LOTR, as are Balrogs (changed to Balor). Also, there is a “Common Tongue” in Middle-earth. This is a convenience for gaming that might have been invented by anyone, but Tolkien showed the way.

Does It Matter?​

I’m not trying to gauge whether Tolkien’s influence is “bad” or not. His work certainly influences RPGs, but perhaps less than many think. Newer gamers, coming to Tolkien through the movies, may see more of his influence than older gamers do. Some GMs are certainly more influenced than others. Yet I’m not sure how any literary influence on RPGs could be “bad”, insofar as inspiration can come from anywhere, and be used for any purpose. Any game designer is free to ignore Tolkien, or not, as preferred.

Your Turn: How do you incorporate (or avoid) Tolkien's influence in your campaigns?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Sure, they existed. But they where not good enough to replace conventional weapons. That required the development of the "lock" to make firing reliable, which in turn required complex moving parts made from metal. The Mary Rose sank in 1545. It carried cannon, but the troops on board where armed with longbows. Not because firearms did not exist, but because longbows were better. Since the ship has been recovered, this can all be verified by the archaeological evidence.
The 1500s saw several developments in improved firearms tech, including the wheellock, doglock, snaplock, and snaphance. True, the proper flintlock that outshone them all didn't arrive until 1610, but that would still put it midway between the original Robin Hood (mid-1400s) and the Industrial Revolution (earliest dates I can find say ca. 1760.)

I don't think anyone here is talking about them replacing conventional weapons. But it is fact that the Hessite Wars included soldiers armed with handguns as part of their "war wagons." Volley fire, which enabled the formation of entire units of harquebusiers rather than just individual people, was developed no later than the end of 1594, and the more heavily-armored cuirassier was likewise a major part of cavalry in the early 17th century.

More or less? While technology certainly needed to catch up, a bigger part of it was that new tactics had to be developed. New weapons worked in ways that old ones didn't. You're always fighting the last war, not the current one. Etc.

Edit: And the original argument--yours--was that you needed the technology to build an actual steam engine before you could have any gunpowder-based weapon that could replace a conventional weapon, including trebuchets. This is simply incorrect. By the 15th century, bombards were on the scene and replacing mechanical siege engines; by the 16th, cannons had won, hands down. That's a full 200 years before the very first industrially-productive steam engine (the atmospheric engine of 1712) and at least 250 before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Were longbows better or cheaper? After all, long bowmen were extremely cheap soldiers.

And one probably shouldn’t extrapolate from a single shipwreck.
That single shipwreck was to have been the pride of Henry VIII's fleet, and sank while being, in effect, shown off to he and his court as the "latest and greatest".

Which means, by a very short jump of extrapolation, that had personal guns also been the "latest and greatest" military thing they too would have been prominently on display on that (very short) voyage; and that they weren't says quite a lot.
 

Clint_L

Hero
One only has to read "The Scouring of the Shire" to make clear Tolkien's opinion of industrialization. In that respect, he was very much a romantic in the Wordsworthian mode. Anti-industrialism is a foundational tenet of traditional fantasy, which is almost always backwards-looking. As much as Tolkien was responding to the Norse sagas that he studied and adored, he was also a product of the late Romantic period, including the 19th century vogue for Medievalism.
 

Were longbows better or cheaper? After all, long bowmen were extremely cheap soldiers.

And one probably shouldn’t extrapolate from a single shipwreck.
The opposite. These where English (Welsh) longbowmen, with a lifetime of training. Elite special forces for Henry's new flagship. It wasn't just any old shipwreck.

The reason firearms eventually won out of longbows is you could train anyone to use them in a couple of days. Didn't matter if they were a bad shot since the weapons where so inaccurate aiming was a waste of time. Of course, that wouldn't happen for another generation or two, when the firearms could be mass produced cheaply. You wouldn't want to equip cheap soldiers with expensive weapons.
 

Hussar

Legend
Yet Agincourt saw the fielding of so many archers because they were so cheap that that’s what the English - not exactly the wealthiest European nation of the time, could afford to field.

Sorry but English archers were in no way “elite”. And again pointing to an English shipwreck for the “most advanced “ technology in Europe at that time isn’t exactly the proof people think it is.

This is many centuries before the Empire would see the light.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Yet Agincourt saw the fielding of so many archers because they were so cheap that that’s what the English - not exactly the wealthiest European nation of the time, could afford to field.

Sorry but English archers were in no way “elite”. And again pointing to an English shipwreck for the “most advanced “ technology in Europe at that time isn’t exactly the proof people think it is.

This is many centuries before the Empire would see the light.
That is a complete misunderstanding. The English fielded a large force of archers because they went to a lot of expense to do so. Even had laws mandating training and how many archers a region had to train.
Takes some thing like 10 years to train an archer. The French could not replicate this because the French King could not force the nobility to accept that peasants could take an important role in battle.
There are accounts of French knights riding down Genoese crossbowmen. Mercenaries expensively employed by the King.
It was not until the French King developed an artillery corp. And caused the nobility to respect it by blowing up a few castles, then they really turned the tide of the 100 years war.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
For me it comes down to this. Guns and gunpowder feel like tech, while magic, swords and armor do not. It doesn't matter to me if guns predate plate armor, because I'm not trying to model real life.

What I want out of a fantasy game is swords and sorcery, not swords and sorcery and tech. I don't want people blowing up a lot of orcs with gunpowder bombs. I want them blowing up a bunch of orcs with a fireball.
 

Voadam

Legend
For me in general I aesthetically want melee combat action over fire fights, and guns tend to drive to fire fights.

That said I am currently running a 5e conversion of the Iron Gods adventure path which is D&D mixed with Sci-Fi themed and my group has a PC artificer robot with a smartlink finger gun and a drone with a small laser, and the bard carries an automatic pistol enhanced by the artificer and regularly uses grenades and dynamite sticks. :)

Bows and spells generally have similar issues.
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
My spouse plays a goblin artificer, Blimmig, with a pistol, a rifle, a mechanical dragon homunculus, and a toymaker's cart that transforms into a robot protector, Mr. Cart. They interpret every spell in terms of wacky goblin mechanics, so instead of casting revivify, Blimmig whips out goblin jumper cables, a la World of Warcraft. Instead of casting fly, they press a button and janky wings fold out from their backpack. Their grease spell is basically a big oily super-soaker. And so on. It's super fun!
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top