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

Vincent55

Adventurer
My group is currently playing The Lord of the Rings 5e game from Free League and enjoying it. As you pointed out, Tolkien's world is low magic, and the other constraints placed on characters--fewer bonus actions per level, restrictions in class and heritage, fewer magic items--has actually made the 5e experience better for us than RAW D&D 5e. My issue with 5e from the beginning has been how overpowered the characters are; Tolkien's setting specifically has sanded a lot of that down.
I agree with you 100% and is why i have reverted back to older editions or other games like grimdark and Knave as well as OSE or OSR 1st edition D&D and 2nd edition D&D. The restrictions and penalties of race and level limits helped shape the game and keep power creep down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Pfft. Specialist NPCs often command full shares. But I'm just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning- your claim that the determining factor is whose quest it is. And it definitely wasn't Bilbo's. He was a hired hand.
Good gravy! I need to be a skilled hireling in your game.

5e: Hireling skilled: 2gp per day
3e: Hireling trained: 3sp per day
2e: Hirelings: Employment costs of hirelings vary from a few gold pieces a month to thousands of gold pieces for an especially dangerous task.
1e: Hirelings: No set price. Left entirely open to the DM.

At no point though(except maybe 4e which I don't know about) are hirelings said to be getting paid a full share. :p
Nah, all the party members stayed on-screen (except Gandalf, the DMPC). That's part of how you can tell they're all PCs. The DM went to hard mode and let the party split.
I know we're having a bit of fun here with the whole hireling and party thing, but a little real pushback here. I've had PCs in my games and games I've played in go offscreen for a bit for various reasons only to return some time later. I mean, I also believe Gandalf is a DMPC, but not because he went offscreen for a little while.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
No. Hirelings make like 10sp per day plus expenses. Full party members get an equal share like Bilbo did.

Ahh, but in the latter case the group split up and went in four different directions and never came back together. 1. Frodo and Sam, 2. Merry and Pippin, 3. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimlin, and 4. Gandalf. An adventuring party may split briefly, but it doesn't start 4 different stories like that.
You ain't seen my campaigns, have you?

Parties splitting into sub-groups (and those sub-groups each growing into parties of their own, then maybe meeting again, swapping characters, etc.) is old hat around here. In that aspect, LotR really is the template for how a big sprawling D&D campaign functions.

Never mind that the true original party is just the four Hobbits; Strider joins them at Bree then they pick up a bunch of (high-powered!) recruits at Rivendell.
Frodo was able to split off with his henchman because he was the one with the quest.

And yet after Frodo and his henchman Sam left, Gimli didn't see him again until it was over.
The Frodo-Sam-Gollum party is more isolated, but look at all the later interweaving that goes on involving Araglas-Gimli-Legolas, Merry-Pippin, and Gandalf - particularly Gandalf, as he jumps from group to group and back again. Oh, might as well throw Eowyn and Eomer in there for good measure as they each become more relevant as things go on.

As for the OP: I don't try to avoid Tolkein's influence in the slightest. They're still called Hobbits and Ents in my game and always will be; my Dwarves and Orcs are fairly recognizably Tolkein-based, and so on. I have, however, toned down his Elves a bit in order to make them PC-playable.
 

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, but when I run DCC RPG, I really try to draw from the other Appendix N sources. I'm even considering removing or changing halflings (one idea I've got is making them demon-like creatures that are summoned to this world as living good luck charms).

Most of the peoples of Middle-Earth can be found in one form or another, but there is nothing really like hobbits/halflings outside of Tolkien in Appendix N.

As D&D continues to evolve, adding more magitech and technology, such as artificers, that is a definite move away from Tolkien. Me, sometimes I think it's pretty cool, sometimes I prefer the older style of gaming.
 

Von Ether

Legend
I agree with you 100% and is why i have reverted back to older editions or other games like grimdark and Knave as well as OSE or OSR 1st edition D&D and 2nd edition D&D. The restrictions and penalties of race and level limits helped shape the game and keep power creep down.
That never stopped our AD&D groups. We just all played elves and joked about how helpless humans were as a species. Sadly B/X was seen as a kiddie game. It's a real surprise to see that become the OSR darling.

One of the better ways to keep power creep down is to not do a levelling game at all. Harder to creep up if you don't level up in the first place.

The biggest gift Tolkien gave D&D is the trope of the vanilla fantasy map. Dwarves go in some mountains, elves go in some forests, orcs hang out in some badlands, and short folks are in some pseudo-farmland. Then everyone at the table nods and it's off to the races.

You don't that same level of total buy in for sci-fi games. A setting might say the dwarves live off of mushrooms and mountain goats, but the players suddenly don't question what sort of mushrooms or that a Dwarven city would need a whole mountain range of penned in goats to survive.
 


Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Good gravy! I need to be a skilled hireling in your game.

5e: Hireling skilled: 2gp per day
3e: Hireling trained: 3sp per day
2e: Hirelings: Employment costs of hirelings vary from a few gold pieces a month to thousands of gold pieces for an especially dangerous task.
1e: Hirelings: No set price. Left entirely open to the DM.

At no point though(except maybe 4e which I don't know about) are hirelings said to be getting paid a full share. :p
Don't get hung up on the word "hireling". There's a reason I switched to "hired hand" in my last post. ;) Classed retainers (aka hirelings, see B21) in B/X, for example normally get "a guaranteed minimum fee and a partial share of any treasure found", and B27 says that if you pay them a full share they can get a morale bonus. So at least SOMETIMES they get a full share. :)

1E gives some guidelines for henchmen on page DMG 35, and 36 again gives morale bonuses for better pay, with a baseline expectation that they're getting some share of treasure, if not a full share. "Specialist NPCs" (like Armorers, Sages, Engineers, and Alchemists) in B/X run from 100-2000gp per month.

But I was mostly thinking of B/X classed retainer/hirelings, who are basically another party member. Within the B/X or 1E context, it's totally reasonable for a specialist classed NPC to claim a full share, and I've often seen such recruited NPCs do so in games I've played in and run, including in more recent editions.

I know we're having a bit of fun here with the whole hireling and party thing, but a little real pushback here. I've had PCs in my games and games I've played in go offscreen for a bit for various reasons only to return some time later. I mean, I also believe Gandalf is a DMPC, but not because he went offscreen for a little while.
Oh, sure. All in fun. The case for Gandalf being a DMPC is indeed multifaceted. My main point is that the plot/story continues to follow all the other members of the Followship like protagonists. Which it doesn't do with other characters in the story, who are more akin to NPCs.
 
Last edited:

Clint_L

Hero
I love Tolkien's work, but I also think his impact on fantasy fiction has been mostly negative, and the same for RPGs.

Tolkien's writing style is profoundly anachronistic and only works because he is working at the level of myth and has the stupendous chops and devotion to pull it off. The Lord of the Rings could only have been written by an Oxford professor of languages who basically made it his life's work. Someone who had completely internalized Nordic sagas but also the Bible.

Unfortunately, it created a template for a lot of bad fantasy. Because a whole lot of writers were effectively trying to do Tolkien, and they didn't have anything like his chops. And given that fantasy is already an inherently conservative genre, we wound up with tons of derivative mush about dark lords and epic quests. I suspect a lot of D&D campaigns have fallen into this category. My early ones certainly did.

In particular, I blame Tolkien's influence for the profoundly simplistic character development that still plagues fantasy. Tolkien's characters are not really people, they are archetypes, and, once again, he gets away with it because he's that good. Fantasy's obsession with black and white morality is rooted in Tolkien; I blame it for alignments in particular (with an assist from Moorcock). It has taken fantasy decades to move past Tolkien's view of moral conflict.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top