[Theory] Why D&D is Popular

[fusangite]

Why wouldn't you take an author's claim at face value? Wouldn't they be the best judge of what influenced them?

I'm not here to defend how English literature is practiced as a field of study but the short answer is that while an author may be the single most knowledgeable person about his influences, no, his knowledge is not complete. Self-awareness is never perfect; otherwise we wouldn't have such a hopping trade in psychology and psychiatry, never mind the study of literature. More specifically, people who create something new are often emotionally invested in believing certain things influenced them and others did not. Anyway, I'm just saying that I see no reason not to apply normal academic practices to looking at how D&D was formed.

 

[WizarDru]

If I were to pull a percentage from my butt as you apparently have, my butt would say 30-40% of America know the term. I've met many people who have no concept of "D&D" even if they have played D&D branded video games. Fewer still are the number of people who could accurately explain what a game of D&D is like.

If you say "Dungeons & Dragons" as opposed to "D&D", I think you'll get a different reaction. Most people don't really understand the complexities of the game, and probably view it as an extended board game...but they understand the vague idea of it; hence my mention earlier of Warhammer being essentially lumped under D&D in the popular imagination. Case in point: I was watching What Not to Wear last weekend, and one of the hosts specifically pointed out that the guest's clothes for that episode made her look like "a teenage boy playing Dungeons and Dragons in his parent's basement." Saturday Night Live had at least two sketches referencing D&D in the last year that I heard of...and I don't watch it.

I think you're expecting people to understand the subtleties of difference...and you're right, they don't. However, not being able to tell the difference between Talisman and D&D doesn't mean that they don't understand it...they're just not interested in knowing more than what they've already gleaned about it. I don't understand the sport of Cricket or antique car restoration...but that doesn't mean I have no knowledge of it at all. It also may depend on what age the person you're asking is: I would people younger than I am, say in their 20s and under, have less direct knowledge of D&D than people in their 30s and 40s...because we got into D&D during it's 'golden age'...and I knew a lot of people who tried D&D, even if they didn't stay with it for any length of time.

As for taking EGG at face value....there are legal issues involved, for one. Far too many details in D&D are astonishingly close to Tolkien...at least, in AD&D. The original D&D was fairly generic, and one could easily see the influence of Howard, Moorcock, Vance and Leiber, as well as Tolkien. I think the issue is that many people who make the claim (and I was one of them, once upon a day) aren't as aware with the works that EGG borrowed from to notice. Did he take from Tolkien? Clearly, quite a few things are direct nabs....but quite a few things are direct nabs from other sources. Paladin? Nabbed, not from JRRT, but Poul Anderson (1953). Magic System? Nabbed, not from JRRT, but Jack Vance (50s). Alignment ideas? Nabbed, not from JRRT, but from Moorcock (60s on). And so on and so forth. EGG grabbed from a wide variety of sources (clearly, from his favorite authors) and from popular myth, besides. Hence monsters from a myriad of mythologies and weapons, armor and technologies from fact and fiction over the ages.

In other words, I don't think EGG is saying he didn't take from Tolkien...more that he didn't rob Tolkien pell-mell and scratch the labels off: many of the authors he grabbed ideas from were contemporaries of Tolkien and much of the mythology was centuries older. Many people aren't as aware how much material Tolkien himself grabbed from other sources, as well. But Hobbits? Well, there's one that's pretty much indisputable.

 

[mythusmage]

... But Hobbits? Well, there's one that's pretty much indisputable.

Yep, filched from English folktales of little people who help around the house and live hidden away in the walls. Cousin to hobs and brownies, and inspiration in part for "Borrowers" and "Littles"

 

[Turjan]

As for taking EGG at face value....there are legal issues involved, for one. Far too many details in D&D are astonishingly close to Tolkien...at least, in AD&D. The original D&D was fairly generic, and one could easily see the influence of Howard, Moorcock, Vance and Leiber, as well as Tolkien. [snip] EGG grabbed from a wide variety of sources (clearly, from his favorite authors) and from popular myth, besides. Hence monsters from a myriad of mythologies and weapons, armor and technologies from fact and fiction over the ages.

In other words, I don't think EGG is saying he didn't take from Tolkien...more that he didn't rob Tolkien pell-mell and scratch the labels off: many of the authors he grabbed ideas from were contemporaries of Tolkien and much of the mythology was centuries older. Many people aren't as aware how much material Tolkien himself grabbed from other sources, as well. But Hobbits? Well, there's one that's pretty much indisputable.

I think you're fighting against windmills here. It is very clear to me that D&D has many influences besides Tolkien. As you can take from my handle, I'm a big Jack Vance fan myself, and I was reading the 'Dying Earth' before I ever saw a Tolkien book. I'm aware that it's older than the LotR and that the magic system and some spells are yoinked from those stories. And, and this is important, I'm aware of the fact that the world of the 'Dying Earth' has no resemblance to Tolkien's fantasy tropes.

It's important to note that most people don't know the book at all, and this is true for many books in your list. This means, in the context of this thread, that ideas from those books have no instant recognition value that facilitates the accessibility of the game. Compared to them, Tolkien's fantasy tropes are widespread and well-known by many people. And although you are right that Tolkien plundered mythology and older sources for his works, you underestimate the many subtle changes he performed in the general view of these mythological tropes.

You're right that hobbits are indisputably his (except the concept of 'little people' living in houses); but I dare to claim that our typical fantasy dwarves and elves are, too. Even if D&D elves are not immortal, they are definitely based on the LotR. If you want mythological elves and dwarves, look at the 'Hobbit', where they are still much closer to common concepts (dangerous, dancing in the forests at night, living in palaces under hills), though the shift already began. The concept of the mixed-"race" 'fellowship' seems also to come from there.

These are the concepts people began to expect from 'fantasy'. And that's why I think it's a mistake to underestimate this influence on D&D's recognition value, and why I cannot take the author's claim at face value .

 

[WizarDru]

Yep, filched from English folktales of little people who help around the house and live hidden away in the walls. Cousin to hobs and brownies, and inspiration in part for "Borrowers" and "Littles"

Hobs may have been the inspiration for the name (though Tolkien claims otherwise), the resemblance pretty much ends there (as Hobs were, afaik, another name for bogarts). Hobbits were stout, hairy-footed people who kept to themselves and were most concerned with a simple life and personal comfort, characterized by a noble spirit and a predisposition against violence. They didn't cohabitate with humans (the significance wasn't the living in house part, but the majority living in houses in the ground), nor steal from them as a matter of course. They didn't play tricks on other people. They were even capable of growing to the size of a small human (the Bullroarer). In other words, the hobbits, like D&D, a combination of elements drawn from different sources to create something different, IMHO.

It's important to note that most people don't know the book at all, and this is true for many books in your list. This means, in the context of this thread, that ideas from those books have no instant recognition value that facilitates the accessibility of the game. Compared to them, Tolkien's fantasy tropes are widespread and well-known by many people. And although you are right that Tolkien plundered mythology and older sources for his works, you underestimate the many subtle changes he performed in the general view of these mythological tropes.

I was making two separate points, not a single one. My points about were purely about D&D sources, with respect to what EGG said. I didn't mean to imply anything about non-gamers in that statement; quite the opposite, in fact. That's why I was discussing how D&D, Warhammer and Tolkien are all co-mingled in the pop-culture. Most folks don't know and don't care about specific sources.

I don't doubt that Tolkien's popularity was a factor in D&D's popularity, in fact, that's what I said about both Tolkien and folklore upthread, when agreeing with diaglo (and myself ). But I think that Conan's popularity was a factor, too, as was Fritz Leiber's direct involvement with D&D, for example. But if LotR was the only reason D&D was popular, then D&D would have lost it's crown to the extremely well-done MERP material of the early 80s. That it didn't points to other factors, too.

 

[fusangite]

I don't doubt that Tolkien's popularity was a factor in D&D's popularity, in fact, that's what I said about both Tolkien and folklore upthread, when agreeing with diaglo (and myself ). But I think that Conan's popularity was a factor, too, as was Fritz Leiber's direct involvement with D&D, for example. But if LotR was the only reason D&D was popular, then D&D would have lost it's crown to the extremely well-done MERP material of the early 80s. That it didn't points to other factors, too.

Unless I'm very much mistaken nobody on this thread is arguing that LOTR was the sole inspiration for either Gary or people choosing to play D&D. All we're saying is that it was an important one. But absolutely nobody here is making an exclusive claim.

Also, I'm not sure that your MERP theory follows. As inferior as the AD&D rules were, they still made for a more playable game and a more Tolkienesque style of magic (and that's especially sad on the latter point).

 

[Turjan]

I was making two separate points, not a single one. My points about were purely about D&D sources, with respect to what EGG said.

That's fine, but I'm sure everybody here knows that there are many different sources. My points were (i) that widely unknown sources don't play a role in the public image and that (ii) the influence of Tolkien on D&D was intentionally played down in the comments by EGG.

I don't doubt that Tolkien's popularity was a factor in D&D's popularity, in fact, that's what I said about both Tolkien and folklore upthread, when agreeing with diaglo (and myself ). But I think that Conan's popularity was a factor, too, as was Fritz Leiber's direct involvement with D&D, for example. But if LotR was the only reason D&D was popular, then D&D would have lost it's crown to the extremely well-done MERP material of the early 80s. That it didn't points to other factors, too.

I agree with your point about Conan. I don't know enough about American literature in order to judge whether Fritz Leiber is more than a niche author known to a very limited circle of people; I know that he's virtually unknown where I come from.

Regarding MERP, I agree with fusangite. MERP is a bad match for Tolkien-style fantasy. I know several people who play in Middle Earth, but they all loathe MERP and use other systems, like D&D. And then there's the point that it's not sufficient that an alternative is simply better in order to take the position of the market leader from an established producer. As MERP isn't better even in its niche, there's no challenge in the first place.

 

[mythusmage]

Hobs may have been the inspiration for the name (though Tolkien claims otherwise), the resemblance pretty much ends there (as Hobs were, afaik, another name for bogarts). Hobbits were stout, hairy-footed people who kept to themselves and were most concerned with a simple life and personal comfort, characterized by a noble spirit and a predisposition against violence. They didn't cohabitate with humans (the significance wasn't the living in house part, but the majority living in houses in the ground), nor steal from them as a matter of course. They didn't play tricks on other people. They were even capable of growing to the size of a small human (the Bullroarer). In other words, the hobbits, like D&D, a combination of elements drawn from different sources to create something different, IMHO.

You're thinking of Tolkein hobbits. I was referring to the fairies Tolkein modified to create the hobbits of the Shire. He mentions in the end notes to The Lord of the Rings that during the 4th Age (our times) such as elves, dwarfs, goblins (orcs), and hobbits declined in stature and puissance to become the creatures of children's stories we know today. In large part LotR was written to counter the diminishment suffered by elves et al. To make them the beings of awe and dread they had once been. Ernie (Keebler) is simply a god who's been through one too many demotions.

Tolkein drew not just on Nordic myth and legend, but on English folklore as well.

 

[WizarDru]

That's fine, but I'm sure everybody here knows that there are many different sources. My points were (i) that widely unknown sources don't play a role in the public image and that (ii) the influence of Tolkien on D&D was intentionally played down in the comments by EGG.

I think we're arguing that we both agree, here. My point was that, among fans, those sources led to people claiming D&D was a pure Tolkien rip-off, which it wasn't. And like I said above, EGG had legal motivations to downplay how much of Tolkien he DID "borrow". So I think we agree, here.

Regarding MERP, I agree with fusangite. MERP is a bad match for Tolkien-style fantasy. I know several people who play in Middle Earth, but they all loathe MERP and use other systems, like D&D.

Right, which was my point. MERP used Rolemaster, which made sting, what a +12 shortsword or some such nonsense? But the fluff and researched material was quite good. So MERP's failure was due to the game not living up to the material. Again, we're agreeing here: Tolkien wasn't a sole factor; and IMHO not even that important of one.

 

[scourger]

D&D is the lowest common demoninator (LCD) for roleplaying games (RPGs). At least, it is for everyone I've ever gamed with. Being the LCD has positive and negative effects, but it remains popular for it.