D&D 5E Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?

lowkey13 said:

This isn't a very good example. It's one of the worst. By analogy, it would be akin to saying, "But the Balrog was renamed a Balor, therefore not Tolkien."

There is not much daylight between the OD&D and 1e Ranger. The OD&D Ranger was explicitly created so that someone could play Aragorn. The class features would not make any sense in isolation but for Aragorn (scrying ability at high level?).

...the second level title is Strider. I mean ... c'mon.

Gygax did borrow from multiple sources. In the case of the Ranger, he borrowed from Tolkien. To view that in any other way is to make the same mistake that you view those who ascribe to much influence to Tolkien are doing, but in reverse. Just as you can clearly trace the lineage of the fire and forget magic system to Vance (the, ahem, Vancian magic system) you can trace the Ranger directly to Tolkien.

(Also, when looking at the history, the rule is that the closer you get to the source, the better. So the OD&D example would be a better example than the 1e, which is better than the 2e, and so on.)

Click to expand...

Parmandur said:

Nah, it is completely irrelevant: by 1E things were evolving in their own direction, which may have involved more or less Tolkienian influence in some areas, but it is not part of this discussion, being too late in the game. The OD&D was specifically designed because one of the Greyhawk players wanted to play Aragorn: so he and Gygax worked out a set of rules to simulate what that meant in game terms. I really don't see why folks want to die on this particular Hill: the Ranger is based on Aragorn.

Click to expand...

Wiseblood said:

The name Balor is from Welsh myth i think.

Click to expand...

Bruce Grabowski said:

Tolkien drew from many much older sources of myth and fantasy writing--not the least was fantasy writing for children, where he got his names for the dwarves and the wizard in The Hobbit

Click to expand...

MackMcMacky said:

The ranger is based on Aragorn and then altered for game design considerations and adding elements from other sources. "The Rangers is based on Aragorn." is not a complete assessment of the class in regard to the question, "Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?".

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

Irish I believe. A Fomorian king.

According to what I've read, the names come from Old Norse works.

Click to expand...

lowkey13 said:

Well, precision is always a good thing. But in that case, given the ongoing conversation about this particular issue ... feel free to look back on this thread, or the other thread-
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?595433-Why-D-amp-D-is-not-(just)-Tolkien

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. If you wish to clarify it further, please feel free. Given that we have been discussing, at length, those things in D&D that "came from" and are "inspired by" and/or "influenced by" Tolkien, I don't fully grok your disagreement. I certainly don't understand your earlier point about 1e being better evidence than, say, OD&D, which you say you are unfamiliar with. Of course "D&D is more th{a}n OD&D," but no one would seriously argue that, inter alia, the 4e Ranger provides good evidence as to the origin of the Ranger in D&D. At least ... I hope not.

For example, saying that things change for design consideration reasons isn't that germane to the conversation. I can posit, with a good deal of certainty, that a number of illusionist spells (and the wording with regards to "shadow stuff") "came from" Zelazny, even though there would necessarily be game mechanics that are different; because literature is not a game. No one seriously argues that the spell system is not Vancian because "game mechanics" require the spells to be cast in a way that does not fully match what Vance wrote; instead, the influence is so obvious, that it's in the name (Vancian spellcasting system).

As already stated numerous times in these two threads, if someone is using the Ranger as their example to argue against Tolkien, something has gone seriously wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...and I say that as someone who has spend no inconsiderable effort arguing against those who improperly ascribe things to Tolkien (IMO).

Click to expand...

Parmandur said:

It isn't meant to be a "complete assessment," whatever that might mean, but a core explanation of the conception, original and design intent of the class in OD&D. We are really just discussing OD&D in these threads, frankly.

Click to expand...

MackMcMacky said:

Frankly, "we" aren't. I am discussing "Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?" which is rather more broad than you want it to be.

Click to expand...