Worlds of Design: Reassessing Tolkien’s Influence

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.

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?

 

[Hussar]

.

Perhaps we need a separate thread on reassessing Howard's influence?

Not really. Nobody seems to mind when we say Howard influenced DnD. That just gets collective nods.

But say that Tolkien has an influence and you’ll see people tripping over themselves to deny any connection.

Like I said earlier. It’s really weird.

 

[GothmogIV]

Not really. Nobody seems to mind when we say Howard influenced DnD. That just gets collective nods.

But say that Tolkien has an influence and you’ll see people tripping over themselves to deny any connection.

Like I said earlier. It’s really weird.

Yeah...that is really weird.

 

[Maxperson]

Coming late to the party, I just want to make a simple point. Tolkien's Middle Earth may have few magic-users or magic items, but since the stories chronicle exceptional events, there is actually a high proportion of magic items and people in the stories. And it is the stories that influence Fantasy in general and DnD specifically, not the lore of the setting. So even if Middle Earth is low magic, the effect of Tolkiens works is actually mid to high magic.

I've already shown that magic users and items aren't as rare as folks make them out to be. For Gandalf to easily be able to recall 200 different knock spells created by mortal magic users(elves, orcs and men), they can't be all that rare.

 

[Hussar]

I've already shown that magic users and items aren't as rare as folks make them out to be. For Gandalf to easily be able to recall 200 different knock spells created by mortal magic users(elves, orcs and men), they can't be all that rare.

There is the other issue too.

When people talk about Tolkien, they're typically only referrencing Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Then you get Tolkienophiles coming along who have memorized the Similarian plus all the later books based on Tolkien's notes and start making all sorts of claims about "Tolkien".

There's a problem with that though. The Silmarillion wasn't published until 1977. Pretty much nothing in D&D would be, at least at the outset, based on anything in the Silmarillion. And, let's not forget, the Silmarillion was not the cultural phenomenon that LotR or The Hobbit was. It was, and is, far less widely read - for no other reason than it does not show up on school reading lists. So many people read The Hobbit or the LotR in English classes around the US and the UK. The Silmarillion had far less cultural penetration.

And certainly had virtually no impact on D&D in the 1970's. And, more importantly, no impact on the works that inspired D&D - like Three Hearts and Three Lions and virtually any other fantasy novel that appears on Appendix N.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes and no.

The wizards of Middle-Earth are angelic type creatures incarnated in the mortal world, sure. But, the archetype Gandalf fills in the stories is "wizard" not "god" or "angel". And that addresses @lewpuls point about the setting being low-magic compared to D&D also. Yes, it certainly is. But the core Middle-Earth stories, "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" prominently feature Gandalf, a wizard, who underpins the D&D archetype.

If you look to how the gods I'm the early Greyhawk material behvaed...very Gandalf or Sauron like.

 

[Hussar]

If you look to how the gods I'm the early Greyhawk material behvaed...very Gandalf or Sauron like.

Again, though, to be fair, I'd say it's more a case of drawing from similar wells. The early Greyhawk material gods are far more Greek Mythology - or various mythologies for that matter. The gods are active and not distant. You have gods doing stuff right in front of people and people interact directly with them often.

Not sure I'd point to Tolkien for that particular influence.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

But say that Tolkien has an influence and you’ll see people tripping over themselves to deny any connection.

I mean the OP of this thread notwithstanding, I don't see that much tolkein denialism. He's in Appendix N after all

 

[Hussar]

I mean the OP of this thread notwithstanding, I don't see that much tolkein denialism. He's in Appendix N after all

That's what I mean though. Every time this topic comes up, you'll see people try very hard to minimalize the impact Tolkien has. They'll point to every author under the sun - Howard, Lovecraft, Anderson, Moorcock, you name them. And then you see claims about how anything that looks like it might come from Tolkien actually came from somewhere else. Elves aren't from Tolkien. No no. They're from Anderson. Dwarves? Nothing whatsover to do with Tolkien. Rangers? Nope. They come from this other author or that other bit of mythology or anywhere and everywhere EXCEPT from Tolkien.

It's such a bizarre thing to me. Why deny it? What's the point? What's the goal of trying to claim that D&D and 20th century fantasy in general isn't hugely influenced by Tolkien?

Why is being influenced or inspired by Tolkien a bad thing?

 

[Parmandur]

That's what I mean though. Every time this topic comes up, you'll see people try very hard to minimalize the impact Tolkien has. They'll point to every author under the sun - Howard, Lovecraft, Anderson, Moorcock, you name them. And then you see claims about how anything that looks like it might come from Tolkien actually came from somewhere else. Elves aren't from Tolkien. No no. They're from Anderson. Dwarves? Nothing whatsover to do with Tolkien. Rangers? Nope. They come from this other author or that other bit of mythology or anywhere and everywhere EXCEPT from Tolkien.

It's such a bizarre thing to me. Why deny it? What's the point? What's the goal of trying to claim that D&D and 20th century fantasy in general isn't hugely influenced by Tolkien?

Why is being influenced or inspired by Tolkien a bad thing?

Gygax had a chip on his shoulder from the early legal trouble, so he loudly declined any similarities for years.

 

[Voadam]

If you look to how the gods I'm the early Greyhawk material behvaed...very Gandalf or Sauron like.

I can see Iuz as similar to Sauron in forming an evil expanding empire in the world with a lot of orcs and evil people, but I am not sure who the Gandalf equivalent would have been.

Greyhawk had Mordenkainen and Tenser and Bigby as powerful PC wizards who seemed to fill the Gandalf role, Xagyg set up stuff for dungeons in Castle Greyhawk but was not with a party directly to my knowledge. Boccob is The Uncaring.