Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural...

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!
sign-2340096_1280.png

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

GreenTengu

Adventurer
What a pessimistic attitude. Basically "it can't be done right". It has been done right, more than once - have you heard of Yoon Suin?

Although I will concede that it is challenging, and sometimes it's just better to go with the tropes.

No-- I haven't-- and a quick internet search bringing up only the same copy and pasted blurb about the setting tells me that barely anyone else ever has either. Which is precisely my point. I would say it falls under category 3 where they tried to make everything so alien but didn't have any space to give it any depth-- but the fact that one of the few things it brags about is having "Crabmen" suggests its #2-- grab an arbitrary, random animal and make them anthropomorphic and call it a unique race. Except they even went the most lazy route possible and called it ________men.

And, really, the fact that your best possible attempt at an example of it being "done right" is some niche OSR setting that no one plays and even the most cursory glance indicates that it fails the tests kind of goes to prove my point. Honestly, I suspect you might be the person who wrote that PDF and just thought it was a good opportunity to plug it so that maybe a 4th person in the world would ever buy and play it.
 

And, really, the fact that your best possible attempt at an example of it being "done right" is some niche OSR setting that no one plays and even the most cursory glance indicates that it fails the tests kind of goes to prove my point. Honestly, I suspect you might be the person who wrote that PDF and just thought it was a good opportunity to plug it so that maybe a 4th person in the world would ever buy and play it.

I'm a little confused. Maybe I'm missing something. Why did you decide popularity constitutions "done right"?

If that were true, T-shirts would be the epitome of fashion and obesity the ideal state of the human body.
 

Weiley31

Legend
Also, I do not know whether it was the J.R.R. Tolkein copyright on hobbits, that forced so many name changes on essentially the same fantasy species, sometimes called halflings
I believe that is indeed the reason why. They couldn't use Hobbit so they had to use Halfling instead, for fear of the Tolkien/Estate getting mad at the matter.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
No-- I haven't-- and a quick internet search bringing up only the same copy and pasted blurb about the setting tells me that barely anyone else ever has either. Which is precisely my point. I would say it falls under category 3 where they tried to make everything so alien but didn't have any space to give it any depth-- but the fact that one of the few things it brags about is having "Crabmen" suggests its #2-- grab an arbitrary, random animal and make them anthropomorphic and call it a unique race. Except they even went the most lazy route possible and called it ________men.

And, really, the fact that your best possible attempt at an example of it being "done right" is some niche OSR setting that no one plays and even the most cursory glance indicates that it fails the tests kind of goes to prove my point. Honestly, I suspect you might be the person who wrote that PDF and just thought it was a good opportunity to plug it so that maybe a 4th person in the world would ever buy and play it.

No I am not the author of Yoon Suin (In fact I rather disagree with him on a number of points). I have never made a red cent from Yoon Suin. I have ran 2 campaigns in it, and I have blogged about it, and I tell people about it so they can experience something wonderful.

How many settings have you read? Have you used? I've been gaming for 30 years. This is the best D&D setting I found.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Honestly, I think that the issue is less a matter of "escaping Tolkien" and more a matter of "escaping the ubiquitous, poor, shallow imitation of Tolkien" that often pervades TTRPG Western fantasy.

This is also one reason why I think that the Tolkien apologetics responding to this article are misplaced.
 
Last edited:


Honestly, I think that the issue is less a matter of "escaping Tolkien" and more a matter of "escaping the ubiquitous, poor, shallow imitation of Tolkien" that often pervades TTRPG Western fantasy.

This is also one reason why I think that the Tolkien apologetics responding to this article are misplaced.
I fail to see how many of D&D's settings are "poor, shallow imitations." I noted earlier that the two are not even remotely close to one another. I still believe this.
But if you were to insist they were, how is Forgotten Realms shallow? This seems as large a contradiction as saying the D&D settings and Middle Earth are the same. Just trying to understand the use of the word poor and shallow imitation. Thanks in advance for your explanation.
 

GreenTengu

Adventurer
I'm a little confused. Maybe I'm missing something. Why did you decide popularity constitutions "done right"?

If that were true, T-shirts would be the epitome of fashion and obesity the ideal state of the human body.

I believe I implied that quite clearly in my original post. You make a world that is completely alien with completely alien races that cannot be compared to the standard Tolkien races without really stretching things and.... congratulations, you've made something that no one is going to be able get a grasp on and everything beyond surface level is going to feel very bland.

People will just simply not be into it-- it will be very unpopular.

Do you really suppose that any publishing company goes-- "Wow! This fantasy world sold so few copies that we lost money on every book we published about it. That's how we know we made a completely new fantasy world the right way!!"

No-- obviously not. The fundamental measuring stick of whether you created a successful non-Tolkien-based fantasy world is precisely that it grips people enough that they obsess about it and then tell all their friends about it who are interested enough to buy it and tell their friends about it until it is becomes wildly popular. Even if you want to take finances out of it-- the number of people who love your setting is the only possible measuring stick for how well you have done.

No I am not the author of Yoon Suin (In fact I rather disagree with him on a number of points). I have never made a red cent from Yoon Suin. I have ran 2 campaigns in it, and I have blogged about it, and I tell people about it so they can experience something wonderful.

How many settings have you read? Have you used? I've been gaming for 30 years. This is the best D&D setting I found.

Just Dungeons and Dragons? Because I have seen every official TSR and WotC published setting in the history of D&D and several homebrew attempts. If one wants to go "semi D&D" then there is Pathfinder and games like 13th Age and Dugeon World.

In gaming in general? WarHammer and WarCraft immediately spring to mind as extraordinarily successful franchises that have crossed into everything. I also spent quite a lot of time with Legend of Five Rings and, of course, nearly every Magic the Gathering set for a while has had its own world.

If I am going to take pure video game worlds into account, every main numbered Final Fantasy game and nearly every spin-off of that franchise have taken place in different settings except 11 and 14 and I have put at least 10 hours into all of them.
Then there is the Might & Magic series, the Wizardry series, the Eldar Scrolls series, the Gothic series, the Ultima series, the Dragon Age series-- haven't played every game in all of those series, but I have played a couple in each for a good while.
There are a few MMORPGs too-- EverQuest, Ashran's Call, Guild Wars.... and I am probably forgetting a dozen I tried for a week or so.

And if we were to get into movies, I could probably list off every last fantasy movie in the past 50 years as I have seen, in the very least, a synopsis of it.
And books?... We'd be here all day.

Point is that I have seen literally hundreds of unique fantasy worlds.

In the end I feel quite confident in stating that everything either just copies the Tolkien package and tweaks them a bit, it tries to reskin them and rename them but everyone knows what they really are, they create a bunch of animal-people races and/or they create something so inaccessible and alien that they end up feeling very skin-deep and often leave the world feeling a bit sci-fi. And if they solely do the third case, then the world ends up wildly unpopular and just fails.

So trying to sell me on that a world "did it right" based on it having crab-people? Yeah-- I am quite certain you have missed the point.
 
Last edited:

Honestly, I think that the issue is less a matter of "escaping Tolkien" and more a matter of "escaping the ubiquitous, poor, shallow imitation of Tolkien" that often pervades TTRPG Western fantasy.

This is also one reason why I think that the Tolkien apologetics responding to this article are misplaced.

As I have said in every one of my posts, it is lazy and terrible writing that is the real issue, not the existence of elves or dwarves.

I fail to see how many of D&D's settings are "poor, shallow imitations." I noted earlier that the two are not even remotely close to one another. I still believe this.
But if you were to insist they were, how is Forgotten Realms shallow? This seems as large a contradiction as saying the D&D settings and Middle Earth are the same. Just trying to understand the use of the word poor and shallow imitation. Thanks in advance for your explanation.

This is pretty much it though, we are talking with people who are so quick in their opinions to cry "Tolkien!" that anything resembling a long lived nature being is instant considered "elf" and the actual nuances of their race is instantly ignored. They are uninterested in actually reviewing the data and are merely working backwards from a predetermined conclusion they seek to prove. It's a bias at work.

You could try to claim to me that 1st edition D&D might have been trapped by Tolkien, but that was nearly FIFTY years ago. We are a long way from then and people need to quit living in the past. What's more to make such reductionist arguments as to imply that creations such as Dragon Age elves, the warcraft elves, and the forgotten realms elves are "just all elves" is frankly insulting to the authors of the source material. Hell even simplifying the nuances within them just to make this point concisely is arguably doing them a disservice. I'd make the argument that the ONLY thing all of them have in common are pointy ears, a long lifespan, and a penchant for a love of nature.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top