Question for the grognards: Why does D&D have dwarves/elves/hobbits etc.?

[Endur]

Given that it not only has elves (that use magic and use swords, and live in forests), dwarves (who mainly use axes and live underground), hobbits and orcs but also 'treants', balrogs, and a few others Tolkien-only things, similar enough that there was a lawsuit... I'd say Tolkien was a huge influence on the game world itself.

Gygax and co. also wrote a game explicitly based on Tolkien back in the early 70's, but I don't think they were able to get permission to publish the game from Tolkien's estate.

I know myself, when I first saw the D&D basic set with the Dragon, archer and wizard on the cover, I thought I was looking at a game based on The Hobbit (for which I had recently seen the Hobbit cartoon and read all of the novels).

 

[Celebrim]

They appear in Tolkein's work, as well. Remember? "Goblin Men"? "Elrond Half-Elven"?

Would you please reread what I wrote again.

I'm a pretty big Tolkein fan.

*points at his name*

I'm a pretty big Tolkien fan too. I have more skill ranks in Tolkien than I have in anything useful. And I can spell his name. And not just his last one.

My guess is that EGG is philosophically opposed to JRRT, just as JRRT would be philosophically incompatible with EGG. Except for being rather opinionated, having large vocabularies and deeply fascinated by history, you could hardly find a more different individuals who had drawn more different lessons from history than EGG and JRRT. I don't believe that EGG is just maintaining a legal fiction.

 

[T. Foster]

Rocs were originally from Middle Eastern mythology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc

I can't remember if this has changed from the original D&D rules, but at least these days, rocs have only animal intelligence (Int of 2), much lower than Tolkien's highly intelligent eagles.

OTOH, the "Eagle, Giant" in the current Monster Manual is intelligent, capable of speech, and of good alignment...and thus is pretty much spot-on to the Tolkien eagle.

Yeah, Chainmail & OD&D lump Tolkien's eagles and the mythological roc into a single entry (roc). AD&D split them into two separate listings, and the current edition (wisely) retains the split.

ROCS (including Wyverns and Griffons): Against normal troops, Rocs attack as four Light Horse and defend as four Heavy Horse. They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves. Rocs cause the enemy to check morale as if they were Heroes. Rocs can detect hidden enemies within 48", but they cannot detect invisible creatures. Rocs are able to transport a man-sized figure up to 36" during any turn. Rocs never need check morale. (These equal the "Eagles" of Tolkein's Trilogy.)

Morale Rating - (-)
Point Value - 20
Line-Up: Neutral (slight pre-disposition for Law)

Alignment: Law/Neutrality
Number Appearing: 1-20
Armor Class: 4
Move: 6" (48" flying)
Hit Dice: 6
% in Lair: 20%
Treasure Type: I

ROCS: This term has been used to encompass large and fierce birds such as the "Eagles" of Tolkein, but the Roc of mythology preys upon elephants! Therefore, the data given for Rocs is understood to be that for the small variety, and that for the largest Rocs should be doubled or even trebled. All Rocs nest high in the most inaccessible mountains, and if an encounter is made when Rocs are in their lair, that is their nest, there is a 50% chance there will be from 1-6 young therein (eggs, chicks, or fledglings). Young Rocs can be tamed and taught to serve as steeds. Adults are always hostile if their are young in the nest. Otherwise they will be positively hostile only to Chaos and Neutrality, ignoring (80%) or being friendly (20%) to Lawful characters who do not attempt to approach too close.

 

[dcas]

My guess is that EGG is philosophically opposed to JRRT, just as JRRT would be philosophically incompatible with EGG. Except for being rather opinionated, having large vocabularies and deeply fascinated by history, you could hardly find a more different individuals who had drawn more different lessons from history than EGG and JRRT. I don't believe that EGG is just maintaining a legal fiction.

Oh, I could think of a lot of people who are more philosophically incompatible than JRRT and EGG. EGG and JRRT are more alike than different IMHO. Of course, I never met the good professor and I only know Gary from on-line and e-mail, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[Geoffrey]

Quoting Gary Gygax's article "The Influence of J. R. R. Tolkien on the D&D and AD&D Games: Why Middle Earth Is Not Part of the Game World" in Dragon #95, p. 13:

"The seeming parallels and inspirations [between D&D and Tolkien] are actually the results of a studied effort to capitalize on the then-current "craze" for Tolkien's literature. Frankly, to attract those readers - and often at the urging of persons who were playing prototypical forms of D&D games - I used certain names and attributes in a superficial manner, merely to get their attention! I knew full well that the facade would be dispelled by the actualities of play. I relied on the power of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game to overcome the objections which would naturally occur when diehard Tolkien enthusiasts discovered the dissimilarity. This proved to be the case far more often than not. Tolkien fans entered the D&D game fold, and became a part of its eager audience, despite the fact that only a minute trace of the Professor's work can be found in the games. As anyone familiar with both D&D games and Tolkien works can affirm, there is no resemblance between the two, and it is well nigh impossible to recreate any Tolkien-based fantasy while remaining within the boundaries of the game system." [emphasis mine]

I'm particularly interested in the bolded part of this quote. It sounds like Gary included dwarves, elves, and hobbits as PC races just because some of his players begged him, "Oh, PLEEEEEEEASE, can't I play a dwarf/elf/hobbit just like in Tolkien!?"

My gut instinct has for a long time been that demi-human PCs feel "tacked-on" in D&D. Gary's quote seems to support that intuition.

 

[dcas]

I'm particularly interested in the bolded part of this quote. It sounds like Gary included dwarves, elves, and hobbits as PC races just because some of his players begged him, "Oh, PLEEEEEEEASE, can't I play a dwarf/elf/hobbit just like in Tolkien!?"

He has dwarves, elves, and orcs (more 'Tolkienesque' than D&D orcs, IMO) as PC races in Lejendary Adventure. . . .

 

[XO]

Indivisible

Since Tolkien is largely inspired by the Nibelungen (Ring Cycle), and the Nibelungen is deeply inspired by German muthology and folklore, and other flavors were thrown into the mix, the end result is what we got in AD&D: a Tolkien flavor indivisible from the rest, and perhaps areas of the game indistinguishable from LotR.

But as stated, LotR had a lot of sources. Professors tend to also draw from many wells.

EGG went far and wide to recuperate everything usable, which made those stats accessible for creating campaign areas.

The huge mistake was to create whole worlds that had everything mashed together.

 

[Geoffrey]

He has dwarves, elves, and orcs (more 'Tolkienesque' than D&D orcs, IMO) as PC races in Lejendary Adventure. . . .

That's true. I think that Gary has changed somewhat as a game designer over the decades. Look at his Dangerous Journeys: Mythus FRPG that was published in 1992-3. This was Gary's first FRPG after he got so rudely booted out of A/D&D. Mythus is even more humanocentric than A/D&D. Demihumans play little role in Aerth (the setting of Mythus), and the default assumption of the game is that all PCs would be human. A page or two of the rulebook is set aside for explicitly optional rules for those GMs who elected to allow demi-human PCs. Even the art in the Mythus rulebooks reflects this humanocentrism. I don't recall a single drawing of non-human adventurers.

Since then I think Gary's products have swung more towards a friendliness towards non-human PCs.

 

[T. Foster]

The huge mistake was to create whole worlds that had everything mashed together.

On the contrary, I think that's probably the main key to D&D's popular appeal. Because of D&D's "kitchen-sink" approach to fantasy, everybody can find something to like in it, even if they've got wildly different expectations and preferences. Tolkien fans wouldn't want to play a game that was wholly dark, gritty, and amoral in the manner of Howard or Leiber (or vice versa) but they can both get if not exactly what they're after at least some of it in D&D, and so can the King Arthur fans, the Greek mythology nuts, the history buffs, the horror fans, and the people who don't know the first thing about fantasy except for maybe having seen The Wizard of Oz and Snow White as a kid. The quote I use is that D&D really sucks at trying to emulate any single pre-existing fantasy world, but it's absolutely unparalleled in emulating all of them at once -- Conan, Merlin, Frodo, John Carter, and the Gray Mouser teamed up together doing battle against Dracula, The Blob, Cthulhu, and King Kong.

 

[Nightfall]

*still thinks it because no one thought of Ratmen and Assatthi*