-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Tumble problems
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
Jimlock
Adventurer
Finally...someone...
I'm quoting myself because its funny how people downplaying Tolkien's influence "missed" to justify the above...
IMHO it's like people are trying to prove that Tolkien is a needle in a hay sack of D&D... when in reality Tolkien is a giant elephant sitting on this very hay sack....
I repeat i'm no more of a Tolkien fun than anyone else... My opinion is not based on emotion or anything... Its just that in my eyes its sooo OBVIOUS!
Celebrim
Legend
Simply because I know Tolkien so well, I could probably do a better job of making it seem like Tolkien wasn't the foremost influence on D&D of any fantasy author but I won't because even if I could make the argument sound like something other than foolishness, I couldn't actually change its basic nature.
I'll make one small correction to your post. D&D isn't actually as Tolkien percieved the world. D&D is as some casual fans of Tolkien percieved Tolkien and from that inspiration set out to emulate it.
The hobbits and ents are a dead give away, because they aren't to be found in anything else. But your right, the list of things drawn from the Tolkien text runs into the pages. It's not just the big obvious things like a world dominated by elves, dwarves, halflings and humans fighting orcs and goblins. It's little things like the organization of humanoids to the sort of weapons that rangers are proficient in to the mannerisms of dragons that are drawn directly from lines in the text. Sure, there are other influences (particularly Vance) because D&D was a smorgasbord and melting pot of fantasy influences, and yes, Gygax was during the '70's not a huge fan of the very Catholic Tolkien, but if you want to see what D&D with out (much) of the influence of Tolkien looks like you have to look at things like Empire of the Petal Throne. When Gygax says that De Camp and Merrit were more influential than Tolkien, at best he's referring to the pulp style of D&D. But if it wasn't for Tolkien, there probably wouldn't have been a Greyhawk and D&D probably would have been set in a pulp version of Earth like almost all the other major influences Gygax cites.
Jimlock
Adventurer
hmmm well.. if there comes a guy who invents the "red-cube"... and then a few years after that i invent the "orange-cube".... well i wouldn't really like the red-cube's inventor would i?
I'd be out there going: "Hey guys!!! check out my orange-cube!!!"" ....
...and the people would go...
"Naaaahhh... that's just like the red one with more yellow in it..."
there's ego involved in such things... and as much as we love GG... a man's soul is a bottomless pit indeed!
Thanael
Explorer
The classes, races and some of the monsters are clearly inspired by Tolkien, but the higher level the classes get the more they diverge from Tolkien. See Gandalf is a 5th level wizard for an example.
The implied setting's tone & style, the *hint hint* Vancian casting system, the spells, the magic items and the combat system, the reward system are very much more Sword & Sorcery than Tolkien.
D&D doesn't model a Tolkienesque High Fantasy Epic campaign very well. It's wired to be a bash in the door and grab the loot game more similar to Howard's or Vance's stories.
In Tolkien’s work, magic is an understanding of moral forces, life and death, living things, and the Eternal. Fireballs and genies are not Tolkienesque. from http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Tolkienesque
The implied setting's tone & style, the *hint hint* Vancian casting system, the spells, the magic items and the combat system, the reward system are very much more Sword & Sorcery than Tolkien.
D&D doesn't model a Tolkienesque High Fantasy Epic campaign very well. It's wired to be a bash in the door and grab the loot game more similar to Howard's or Vance's stories.
In Tolkien’s work, magic is an understanding of moral forces, life and death, living things, and the Eternal. Fireballs and genies are not Tolkienesque. from http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Tolkienesque
Last edited:
Well, you know, player races is just one aspect of D&D. If I was to assume page count indicated importance, I'd also have to say it's a pretty minor aspect of D&D.
- How many classes are inspired by Tolkien?
- How many spells are inspired by Tolkien? (Note that spellcasting in itself is definitely _not_ inspired by Tolkien!)
- How many magic items are inspired by Tolkien?
- How many monsters are inspired by Tolkien?
- How many adventure modules are inspired by Tolkien?
Really, to _me_ it's obvious that Tolkien's influence on D&D is only present to about the same extent as Tolkien's influence is present in almost any fantasy novel.
The races in Tolkien's work have become a staple. Take the Earthdawn setting or even better Shadowrun: Both settings have elves, dwarves, orks, and trolls. Would you call Shadowrun 'Tolkien-esque' because of that?
Imagine if D&D had a 'Jedi' class. Would that make D&D 'Lucas-esque'?
I've designed a homebrew rpg setting that featured a class that was strongly influenced by the Jedi but that didn't mean it was anything like the Star Wars movies.
It also featured coeurl (from the Space Beagle novel; rumored to have served as the inspiration for D&D's displacer beast) as a player race and a race that was immediately reincarnated in a different body after death (similar to D&D 4e's deva race).
I was just borrowing ideas from a wide variety of sources and turned them into my very own creation. Just like Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson did with D&D.
Jimlock
Adventurer
Not only do I not understand this, but i also i don't see as to how this is an argument Vs Tolkien being the most substantial influence on D&D.
Putting stats on Gandalf is, at least, pointless, if one uses that to counter how Tolkien is the most substantial influence on D&D.
Tolkien was a writer not a game designer.
"The implied setting tone & style" ?
Tolkien all the way...
"casting system, combat system, the reward system" ?
I repeat, Tolkien was a writer, not a game designer.
That's perhaps how you play/see D&D. My D&D experience says otherwise. As a matter of fact there are endless D&D "High Fantasy Epic campaigns" out there. No matter if this false, i still do not see how this can be an argument Vs Tolkien being the most substantial influence on D&D.
IMO you are turning away from the obvious. By finding "THINGS" that are not Tolkien-esque doesn't prove anything. Its only natural that D&D
is not an exact copy of Tolkien. What one has to see is that there are more Tolkien-esque "THINGS" in D&D than "THiNGS" than derive from other sources/influences.
Jimlock
Adventurer
"Page count indicating importance"???
that's definitely a new way of supporting how Tolkien is not the most substantial influence on D&D.....can't beat that....
D&D IS A GAME NOT A NOVEL
Saying that races, are a minor aspect of D&D is, at least, false.
Races, their way of living, their "places" of living, their choices in respect to moral, magic, fighting, life, nature etc etc is a MAJOR aspect of D&D, and it all comes from Tolkien.
Almost all spells, magical items and monsters featured in Tolkien work can be found in D&D (with variations/differences of course)
D&D features far more spells, magical items, monsters than Tolkien because:
D&D IS A GAME NOT A NOVEL
I'll quote my self from the post above:
IMO you are turning away from the obvious. By finding "THINGS" that are not Tolkien-esque doesn't prove anything. Its only natural that D&D is not an exact copy of Tolkien. What one has to see is that there are more Tolkien-esque "THINGS" in D&D than "THiNGS" than derive from other sources/influences.
_I_ am turning away from the 'obvious'? - that's hilarious
Okay. So why then do you believe that finding "THINGS" that _are_ Tolkien-esque proves anything?
What? No there aren't!
If an estimated 95% of the monsters in D&D's monster manual are completely unrelated to anything Tolkien-esque how can there be more Tolkien-esque monsters than non-Tolkien-esque monsters?!
Oh, I forgot: It's because finding monsters that aren't Tolkien-esque doesn't prove anything. Hence 95% = 0%. How elegant! You totally convinced me now
Similar Threads
