[Theory] Why D&D is Popular

[fusangite]

Nicely put, WizarDru! I did run MERP a couple of times but ended up using the source material to run a couple of games using Avalon Hill's generic Runequest 3 rules with some modifications. I found that generating attributes not on a bell curve or with a point buy was really problematic for creating realistic, balanced characters; I found the portion of the rules occupied by table entries humorouslt describing people being pulverized a bit silly and juvenile (and I was 16 at the time!); I found that the magic system and experience systems were really the only ones I have encountered that were less adapted to Middle Earth and I found the currency decimalization absolutely laughable.

Still, unlike some on this thread, I liked the attempts by the designers to supplement the setting material left by the great man. They were hit or miss; but at least they sometimes hit, unlike the Dr. Who RPG in which all additional material was stupid and wrong. One example of a MERP success was a minor appearance of the Petty Dwarves from the Silmarillion (or rather their ghosts) in Eriador. But this just made the module worth buying; it didn't make me feel any better about purchasing a rules system in which, if I fell out a window hard enough I might learn a new language.

 

[fanboy2000]

I'm curious, though: how do you explain the early conflicts between D&D and the Tolkien estate?

Well, if all you want me to do is expain conflicts, that's easy.

LotR is as popular as it is today because of loophole in copyright law. It's sense been closed up, but the Tolkin estate is probly gun-shy about copyright infrengment, no matter how slight.

LotR and D&D drew from the same sources. For example, look a Beauwolf, it's one of the few early litature pices that maps quite well to D&D. Tolkin studied Beauwolf extesivly and it was also an influance on Tolkin's works.

But conflicts over specific properties doesn't mean thouse properties make D&D the game it was then or today.

In order to show Gygax was wrong when he said Tolkin wasn't a strong influance, someone would have to show that an aspect of Tolkin's work is esential to D&D. I can remove halflings and balors and still have D&D. If I change the assumptions behind why a group goes on an adventure or extesivly change the magic system, then I have a diffrent game.

D&D's magic system is already demonstrably non-Tolkin, it's been gone over enough I don't have to discuss it. But, most people over look the assumptions behind why a group adventures. In LotR, the Felowship is an extrodinary creation. It is not adventuring in a D&D fashion. There is no tresure; adventuring is not the main ocupation of group. However, if you read Swords Against Death you find a pair of people who's job is adventuring. Even the major City, Lankhmar, has staples of D&D. It is a polythesitic city with a powerful theives guild. Heck, the heros even spend a good portion in local teverins.

 

[Conaill]

Yeah, I have to chime in with the "because D&D was there first" crowd.

If it was because D&D is fun, then how come I am still playing D&D, even though there are many systems I would personally consider much more "fun"? Well, I'm playing D&D because I can reliably find a group of players to game with, no matter where I move to!

Two things:
1. You must find something fun in playing D&D. If you hated it, why would you play it all? If you answer "because other people do," I'm going to ask why don't you do something other than roleplay with your friends.

2. Someone in your group must find playing D&D fun. I have trouble believing that everyone in your group is have a horrible time playing D&D and thinking to themselves "I'm only playing this because everyone else wants to." If that were the case, the group wouldn't be playing D&D at all.

Of course it's fun. Never claimed it wasn't! But just "because it's fun" cannot be the only reason why people play D&D, because if that were the case I would be playing one of those other systems which I consider "more fun".

Sure, D&D's not bad. And I have a great time playing it, partially because the social aspect of roleplaying is important to me. But for me personally it's not as much fun as I know from experience roleplaying can be...

 

[The Shaman]

Brand name recognition doesn't cut it as an explanation.

I have to laugh when I read this, because it's exactly the reason I bought 3e and got back into gaming after something like fifteen years of not playing: I wandered into a gaming store after visiting the bike shop, saw the new (to me) edition of D&D on the shelves, flipped through it and saw that it still had the key features of the game I played in the mid-1980s, and bought the core books.

If it didn't say D&D on the cover, I never would've picked it up.

Am I really that unique?

 

[fusangite]

Well, if all you want me to do is expain conflicts, that's easy.

Of course that's not all. But I was interested.

LotR is as popular as it is today because of loophole in copyright law. It's sense been closed up, but the Tolkin estate is probly gun-shy about copyright infrengment, no matter how slight.

LotR and D&D drew from the same sources. For example, look a Beauwolf, it's one of the few early litature pices that maps quite well to D&D. Tolkin studied Beauwolf extesivly and it was also an influance on Tolkin's works.

But aren't virtually all fantasy literature and FRPGs drawn from those sources too? Why wasn't the estate in constant legal battles with fantasy authors starting in the mid 1950s up to the present day?

Also, as far as I recall, weren't the legal issues over things like early D&D materials calling halflings "hobbits"?

But conflicts over specific properties doesn't mean thouse properties make D&D the game it was then or today.

Nobody is arguing D&D=LOTR here. We're simply arguing the importance of LOTR in D&D becoming what it is today. Just because D&D=LOTR is a flawed proposition doesn't make your contention that D&D<>LOTR reasonable.

Finally, nobody here is disagreeing with your point that fantasy authors other than Tolkien had a strong influence on Gygax and his game so I'm not sure how your Lankhmar point bears on our discussion.

 

[Rel]

Finally, nobody here is disagreeing with your point that fantasy authors other than Tolkien had a strong influence on Gygax and his game so I'm not sure how your Lankhmar point bears on our discussion.

I think he's saying that it could easily be argued that Lankhmar was a more primary influence on the foundations of D&D than Tolkien.

 

[fusangite]

I think he's saying that it could easily be argued that Lankhmar was a more primary influence on the foundations of D&D than Tolkien.

I think that would be a much more tenable argument. But what FB is stating is that Tolkien was not a significant influence on the development of D&D because Gygax said it wasn't.

 

[Rel]

I think that would be a much more tenable argument. But what FB is stating is that Tolkien was not a significant influence on the development of D&D because Gygax said it wasn't.

Well that all depends on what your definition of "significant" is. Maybe it isn't considered a "significant influence" by FanBoy and Gygax if he wasn't consciously including large swaths of it, even if it might have been foundational of Mr. Gygax's own appreciation and understandin of fantasy.

As for me, I'm not certain whether it is my ignorance or my apathy, but I don't know and I don't care.

 

[WizarDru]

Am I really that unique?

Not even remotely so. I picked up the PHB for the same reason; I had no real expectation that I would start actively playing again, or that we would love it so much that we would still be playing, five years on. The Brand got me to the book. Period.

 

[Turjan]

LotR and D&D drew from the same sources. For example, look a Beauwolf, it's one of the few early litature pices that maps quite well to D&D. Tolkin studied Beauwolf extesivly and it was also an influance on Tolkin's works.

Why do I have to think of wolf standing in front of a mirror and combing its hair now ?

I can remove halflings and balors and still have D&D.

All PHB races except humans and gnomes are specifically Tolkien-style. This is true for elves, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs and orcs. Even the spelling "elves" and "dwarves" is specifically Tolkienesque. In proper English, it's 'elfs' and 'dwarfs'.

But, most people over look the assumptions behind why a group adventures. In LotR, the Felowship is an extrodinary creation. It is not adventuring in a D&D fashion. There is no tresure; adventuring is not the main ocupation of group.

Actually, most adventures have a goal that's much higher than just looking for treasure. It's either some rescue mission (person/the world) or the search for the 'Holy Grail'. And there's treasure hunting in LotR, too. Just look at the stuff from the barrows, or the gifts from the elves. And as I read the LotR, the whole book was about adventuring. The motivation might be a deeply altruistic one, but that's also the case in many D&D games. I'm not convinced by your arguments.