D&D 5E Why D&D is not (just) Tolkien

[Parmandur]

If you ignore all the other prominent fictional characters that skillset could just as easily apply to...whee, circles are fun.

Look, we know the Ranger is a simulation of Aragorn, from the testimony of an eyewitness. Not sure why you want to keep beating this silly drum, but facts are facts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe. I'm seeing a poster say "I went to school with Joe Fischer" and not much more. Not beyond the realm of possibility, but....

I personally game with a different guy that claims he invented the thief class and that Gygax stole a bunch of material he wrote. Again, not beyond the realm of possibility but...

Old Geezer is Mike Mornard. Many of us who have been on the internet in fantasy forums more than a couple years know who he is, and his background. Outside of Joe Fischer himself making a comment, this is as about as close as you can get. It is definitive proof that the ranger class was made because Joe wanted to play Aragorn.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shadowdweller00]

So I continue to be unclear what, exactly, your argument is? The Ranger (original) is pretty much the worst case-scenario for Tolkien-borrowing.

*cough* Balrog-Balor-type 6 demon *cough*?

I honestly don't grok your argument, at all. Of course the class doesn't exactly match Aragorn, because you can't exactly match anything with the D&D ruleset. But if I had to take one thing, other than Halflings, to make a Tolkien/D&D comparison, it would be the Ranger.

I suppose I find the lack of apparent recognition for the ranger/huntsman/woodsman as a prior fantasy archetype to be obnoxious. And I find certain arguments to be...specious. Which does not necessarily make the thesis wrong.

 

[Salamandyr]

*cough* Balrog-Balor-type 6 demon *cough*?

And strangely enough, the Type VI demon has really low hit dice compared to his underlings. Not so fearsome after all!

 

[Parmandur]

*cough* Balrog-Balor-type 6 demon *cough*?

I suppose I find the lack of apparent recognition for the ranger/huntsman/woodsman as a prior fantasy archetype to be obnoxious. And I find certain arguments to be...specious. Which does not necessarily make the thesis wrong.

The argument of eyewitness accounts, or the blow by blow similarities between the concepts? It really is quite obvious.

 

[Mistwell]

This is why things are always best to understand in context (and can be seized on by other posters without fully reading all the materials).

Did someone call Gygax and say, "Hey, we're doing a Thief class?" Yes.

But as the creator of that class says, their thief was very different from what Gygax ended up writing. Allow me to quote-



So EGG received a phone call (acknowledged) about a Thief class that could pick locks (and, perhaps, find and disarm traps at higher levels). EGG transformed it using a different system (percentiles) and added abilities based on his understanding of what a Thief in Fantasy is ...

You can read the Aero hobbies thief class, since Dungeons and Beavers (the CalTech guys) used it. It's the same system, all Gary did was change it to a percentile basis, and change when you got access to the abilities. But it's the same abilities. No "inspiration" other than he wrote down what the guys told him over the phone, and then made some minor modifications. He even said directly that yes, he got it from them.

which, as he has said, was influenced by two primary sources. Using magic, choice of weapons, hiding in shadows, climbing sheer surfaces, etc. It's a simple question- why is Gygax's thief so different from the one he received the phone call about? And he gave us an answer that happens to match the literary sources (Vance, Zelazny).

It's not so different. It's the same, he just changed it from always working and gaining them over levels, to percentile basis. There is no literary source. The guys from Aero hobbies invented that purely as a kit-bash on the caster. I think it was one of those, "OK we need a new ability here to replace this caster slot, what would a thief be able to do?" sort of situations. There's no literary source, and Gary was not involved in choosing those abilities.

 

[Shasarak]

Thank Gawd Gary did not do a straight Tolkien game because that would have been awful but even saying that

Group A believes that D&D borrowed heavily from Tolkien; they argue that all the playable races are from Tolkien.

As DnD is focused essentially on the Players having characters that are all Tolkien races that is a huge influence. If it had been based on Howards work, for example, then everyone would be different types of Human.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and let's not forget the old 1e Racial Relations chart as well. Pulled pretty much verbatim from Tolkien. I mean, without referencing Tolkien, explain why elves and dwarves don't like each other? Both strongly good races that share no territory (thus have no reason to be in conflict). Yet they really don't like each other. Why? Because Tolkien.

Count me in the camp of thinking Tolkien's influence on D&D is pretty far reaching. Not a real stretch of an opinion apparently with 50% thinking that Tolkien has a pretty strong influence.