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

[BookBarbarian]

In this case, we also have the mechanics of the game match up exactly with what he was saying. D&D mechanics are all about shorter, fast paced adventures and larger than life heroes. Those are things that clearly support exactly what he said because that was most assured not how Tolkien wrote, but match Liber, Howard, et all.

And yet Adventure in Middle-Earth, a D&D 5e OGL product, is doing a bang up job at my table of giving us very Tolkien paced adventures with repeatable, down to (middle)earth heroes. Go figure.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And yet Adventure in Middle-Earth, a D&D 5e OGL product, is doing a bang up job at my table of giving us very Tolkien paced adventures with repeatable, down to (middle)earth heroes. Go figure.

We’re talking about OD&D, when it was created. Not a current iteration of it. And the original game was clearly designed to emulate the stories and heroes of Howard and Lieber (fast paced and over the top heroes), and clearly not those of Tolkien.

Or you (general you) could assume he always lied about everything, even when the evidence supports his claim of what inspired him to write the game. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Or you (general you) could assume he always lied about everything, even when the evidence supports his claim of what inspired him to write the game.

I wouldn't specifically do that. General Me might though.

Just don’t expect me to take you seriously.

I firmly believe no on should ever take me seriously. It should be on my lawfully required warning label.

But yes your point is taken. I think you make a very good case that Tolkien works, whatever influence his work as had on the game, are a far cry from "go into the dungeon and get loot, if necessary fight monsters."

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] - I don't know what pulp stories you read, but, stories about dozens of protagonists dying like flies certainly doesn't scream "big bad heroes here" the way pulp stories do. And funnily enough, endless converstations about who is setting watch, and when, worrying about every day of food and water and avoiding encounters does sound a lot like The Hobbit or AD&D.

I have to admit though. Watching you complain about "evidence" while completely ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to the huge influence of Tolkien on the game is amusing as all get out. Talk about forests and trees.

 

[Arilyn]

We’re talking about OD&D, when it was created. Not a current iteration of it. And the original game was clearly designed to emulate the stories and heroes of Howard and Lieber (fast paced and over the top heroes), and clearly not those of Tolkien.

Or you (general you) could assume he always lied about everything, even when the evidence supports his claim of what inspired him to write the game. Just don’t expect me to take you seriously.

But it's not fast paced...Conan would not creep down dungeon corridors poking things with a ten foot pole. I can't see him and any buddies he might have mapping out every square inch either...Those d4 thieves and magic users certainly aren't over the top. "I'm a thief with no real ability to do my job, and I'll die if I trip down a small flight of stairs." "Yeah, well I'm a magic user with my one and only spell, and guess what? I rolled Detect Magic. And, yeah I can die from tripping too!"

It's not short adventures either. What about those long campaigns where players spent their whole career exploring one long mega dungeon? That was pretty common. And not at all swords and sorcery, or epic fantasy.

DnD doesn't emulate anything very well. It's not epic fantasy. It's not swords and sorcery. It's DnD.

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] - I don't know what pulp stories you read, but, stories about dozens of protagonists dying like flies certainly doesn't scream "big bad heroes here" the way pulp stories do. And funnily enough, endless converstations about who is setting watch, and when, worrying about every day of food and water and avoiding encounters does sound a lot like The Hobbit or AD&D.

I have to admit though. Watching you complain about "evidence" while completely ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to the huge influence of Tolkien on the game is amusing as all get out. Talk about forests and trees.

Perhaps you can point me to the stories where Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and Elric kept dying. You know, those larger than life heroes that Gary specifically said he designed the game so players could emulate them.

It’s also nice to see that you still haven’t been able to distinguish between influence on the game, and what inspired its creation.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But it's not fast paced...Conan would not creep down dungeon corridors poking things with a ten foot pole. I can't see him and any buddies he might have mapping out every square inch either...Those d4 thieves and magic users certainly aren't over the top. "I'm a thief with no real ability to do my job, and I'll die if I trip down a small flight of stairs." "Yeah, well I'm a magic user with my one and only spell, and guess what? I rolled Detect Magic. And, yeah I can die from tripping too!"

It's not short adventures either. What about those long campaigns where players spent their whole career exploring one long mega dungeon? That was pretty common. And not at all swords and sorcery, or epic fantasy.

DnD doesn't emulate anything very well. It's not epic fantasy. It's not swords and sorcery. It's DnD.

Compared to Tolkien, it absolutely is fast paced. The overwhelming majority of D&D adventures were completed in a couple sessions that took from a day to maybe a week or so to complete—the same amount of time as most of the individual stories of Elric, Fafhrd, and Conan. But MUCH different than a year and a half of game time found in Tolkien’s stories. Seriously, it’s obvious which style D&D was meant to emulate. And I think you greatly overestimate the number of adventures in a mega dungeon in the 70s as compared to the number of adventures in one shot modules. Just go look at what was being published in the 70s.

I think you’re also being disengenous about comparing level 1PCs to over the top heroes. By the time PCs gained a few levels (fighters were called heroes at 4th level), they very much were doing over the top things. And when they reached name level, there is no question. PCs were fighting and beating dragons, fighters could take as much punishment as several war horses, magic users were throwing around fireballs and polymorphing, thieves and assassins were scaling sheer walls and were near invisible.

 

[prosfilaes]

the fact that the mechanics of OD&D emulate a fast paced adventures with PCs larger than life (which emulates Howard and Lieber, and NOT Tolkien)

I don't know what "fast paced" means here. I've never played OD&D, but D&D battles can take hours, longer than one of the movies. And you can emulate the same thing at many different speeds; you can race through WWII in 3 hours in Axis and Allies, or take 100 hours on a careful simulation of the same war in World in Flames.

Larger than life is a little clearer; it has something to do with going toe to toe with a balrog, right? Or Legolas doing those unbelievable archery stunts? I wouldn't say that it has anything to do with dying in combat with a housecat. Characters bringing down dragons is more Tolkien than Howard. It's hard to compare Howard, Tolkien and D&D in power levels, but Conan seems right in the heroic range with the non-hobbit fellowship members, less than Gandalf and more than the hobbits.

 

[Arilyn]

Compared to Tolkien, it absolutely is fast paced. The overwhelming majority of D&D adventures were completed in a couple sessions that took from a day to maybe a week or so to complete—the same amount of time as most of the individual stories of Elric, Fafhrd, and Conan. But MUCH different than a year and a half of game time found in Tolkien’s stories. Seriously, it’s obvious which style D&D was meant to emulate. And I think you greatly overestimate the number of adventures in a mega dungeon in the 70s as compared to the number of adventures in one shot modules. Just go look at what was being published in the 70s.

I think you’re also being disengenous about comparing level 1PCs to over the top heroes. By the time PCs gained a few levels (fighters were called heroes at 4th level), they very much were doing over the top things. And when they reached name level, there is no question. PCs were fighting and beating dragons, fighters could take as much punishment as several war horses, magic users were throwing around fireballs and polymorphing, thieves and assassins were scaling sheer walls and were near invisible.

Yes, but at no point were swords and sorcery heroes ever like beginning DnD characters. Conan started out very powerful and got better, but the difference was not like the difference in levels with DnD characters. On the flip side, Conan never got as tough as the highest level characters either.

And all that careful dungeon crawling? The maps, the long lists of equipment?, the players spending an hour figuring out the best way to get through a trap laden room? Not swords and sorcery. Another missing trope is the fluctuating fortune of the characters. Rich warlord in this story, destitute slave in the next. It's not a slow accumulation of wealth, which the characters eventually can use to build strongholds and hire followers. It's up and down. That Dragon hoarde you just won? Not going to last...

About what was being published in the 70s? Tournament dungeons. Weren't meant to be part of your main campaign. Besides, it was still a lot of dungeon crawling, where characters weren't worth the paper they were written on. Not Swords and Sorcery. Not Tolkien. More like a puzzle. Now, I'm sure players tried to make it Swords and Sorcery or Tolkien, but game wasn't emulating either one very well at all. Course, Gygax originally didn't want role playing in his game anyway. I'm not sure, but I think the term, role playing, might have been originally coined by the California group. Anyone know?

Anyway, it's not like Tolkien either. The heroes did not explore Moria, looking for loot, they just wanted to get through it as quickly as possible. There's long political conversations, and Gandalf has a lot of power he is not supposed to wield.

DnD is DnD. And, especially in the old days, I didn't feel like I was in any of those Appendix N stories.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but at no point were swords and sorcery heroes ever like beginning DnD characters. Conan started out very powerful and got better, but the difference was not like the difference in levels with DnD characters. On the flip side, Conan never got as tough as the highest level characters either.

And all that careful dungeon crawling? The maps, the long lists of equipment?, the players spending an hour figuring out the best way to get through a trap laden room? Not swords and sorcery. Another missing trope is the fluctuating fortune of the characters. Rich warlord in this story, destitute slave in the next. It's not a slow accumulation of wealth, which the characters eventually can use to build strongholds and hire followers. It's up and down. That Dragon hoarde you just won? Not going to last...

About what was being published in the 70s? Tournament dungeons. Weren't meant to be part of your main campaign. Besides, it was still a lot of dungeon crawling, where characters weren't worth the paper they were written on. Not Swords and Sorcery. Not Tolkien. More like a puzzle. Now, I'm sure players tried to make it Swords and Sorcery or Tolkien, but game wasn't emulating either one very well at all. Course, Gygax originally didn't want role playing in his game anyway. I'm not sure, but I think the term, role playing, might have been originally coined by the California group. Anyone know?

Anyway, it's not like Tolkien either. The heroes did not explore Moria, looking for loot, they just wanted to get through it as quickly as possible. There's long political conversations, and Gandalf has a lot of power he is not supposed to wield.

DnD is DnD. And, especially in the old days, I didn't feel like I was in any of those Appendix N stories.

5E isn't just better at doing Tolkien, it's also better at doing Howard, Leiber, Anderson, et al. But then, like you say, genre emulation wasn't really the name of the game.