Scurvy_Platypus
Explorer
D&D also features demons, devils, and angelic beings.
So does that mean that D&D is a Christian setting?
I'm not arguing about whether or not Tolkien was an influence tossed into the creation of D&D. I'm saying that D&D is not automatically a "tolkien-esque universe". Just like the superhero comics of today have moved beyond their initial roots; it doesn't mean you can't look at them and see their roots, just that they're more than what they started out as. I don't think you'll _honestly_ be able to make a claim that "superhero" comics are still "pulp".
Put it another way... can you see Tolkien writing D&D? Because I sure can't. The planar cosmology, Planescape, Darksun... a wizard that actually uses their magic every game session, a cleric invoking the holy powers of the gods and devastating everything around them while dressed in platemail, rust monsters and umber hulks...
No.
Amusing sidenote: You still get people that pop up wondering, "What's the best system to run a 'Record of Lodoss War' game?" and not realising that it was D&D to begin with (at least that's the story).
Other sidenote: there's also that article about Gandalf was a Fifth-Level Magic User by Bill Seligman. The article was published in The Dragon (which became Dragon magazine) in issue #5, March 1977. D&D has _always_ been about more than 5 levels, even if levels 1 - 5 are all that some GMs and even players prefer.
Oh and Fafhrd & Grey Mouser? It's definitely an influence as well. The "adjustments" needed to run it are just as big as the ones needed to run LotR. Actually... LotR might be worse, because F&GM actually spend time learning magic etc, whereas LotR magic is mostly off-limits. F&GM are also the epitome of "adventurers" which is something that doesn't seem to be a fundamental underpinning of the LotR universe.
So again I say, you can't simply assume D&D is automatically a "tolkien-esque universe". "D&D" means different things to different people. Feel free to search the forums and you'll see all kinds of arguments about what a game needs to have in order to be "D&D". I mean, that's part of the fundamental premise behind a lot of edition warring in the first place, that [whatever] edition isn't "really" D&D anymore because [fill in the blanks].
I've been playing and running D&D for more than 25 years and read my fair share of pulp, horror, and S&S stories, LotR and stuff from Christopher Tolkien (a hack); quoting Gygax to me doesn't actually mean a whole lot and comes across as vaguely condescending if read with an uncharitable eye.
As for leaving in the skill Tumble but micromanaging details... *shrug*... obviously the game police aren't going to kick in the door and take away your dice for doing it that way. It strikes me as one of the PnP equivalents to "pixel btching", but whatever. If you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to puzzle videogames like Myst where the player basically has to click in just the right place on the screen or they can't do whatever. Making some poor sod declare they keep all their equipment tied to them and then have to state how they untie it at night and then retie it in the morning and then combat and now they lose 2 rounds untying their weapon... I've never been a fan of this. It's "gotcha!" play and one of the things I saw consistently act as a barrier to new people coming into the hobby.
I get that you like starting threads and "seeing what other people think". However, you seem to shift the ground for the "discussion". First you didn't seem to like Tumble at all, then it was the "specialised nature", then it was characters not being dressed "appropriately" (which is distinctly _not_ related to your first post of
compared to
So it looks to me like first you make assumptions about the nature of the game as a whole (it's a "tolkien-esque universe"), then you move to objecting about the way the skill functions (it seems to be a bit "specialized" when most of the skills are quite broad), and then you move straight into your own personal playstyle.
I find this incredibly frustrating, as it seems to be more about "I don't like this in my games", which is a very distinctly different kind of discussion to have and one that I'm not typically too interested in engaging in. I find discussions of personal preferences and playstyles to be mostly pointless unless it's related to a more "tangible" thing like how such things might affect a person's perception as opposed to something which essentially boils down to a game equivalent of "I like chocolate! Who else likes chocolate?"
So does that mean that D&D is a Christian setting?
I'm not arguing about whether or not Tolkien was an influence tossed into the creation of D&D. I'm saying that D&D is not automatically a "tolkien-esque universe". Just like the superhero comics of today have moved beyond their initial roots; it doesn't mean you can't look at them and see their roots, just that they're more than what they started out as. I don't think you'll _honestly_ be able to make a claim that "superhero" comics are still "pulp".
Put it another way... can you see Tolkien writing D&D? Because I sure can't. The planar cosmology, Planescape, Darksun... a wizard that actually uses their magic every game session, a cleric invoking the holy powers of the gods and devastating everything around them while dressed in platemail, rust monsters and umber hulks...
No.
Amusing sidenote: You still get people that pop up wondering, "What's the best system to run a 'Record of Lodoss War' game?" and not realising that it was D&D to begin with (at least that's the story).
Other sidenote: there's also that article about Gandalf was a Fifth-Level Magic User by Bill Seligman. The article was published in The Dragon (which became Dragon magazine) in issue #5, March 1977. D&D has _always_ been about more than 5 levels, even if levels 1 - 5 are all that some GMs and even players prefer.
Oh and Fafhrd & Grey Mouser? It's definitely an influence as well. The "adjustments" needed to run it are just as big as the ones needed to run LotR. Actually... LotR might be worse, because F&GM actually spend time learning magic etc, whereas LotR magic is mostly off-limits. F&GM are also the epitome of "adventurers" which is something that doesn't seem to be a fundamental underpinning of the LotR universe.
So again I say, you can't simply assume D&D is automatically a "tolkien-esque universe". "D&D" means different things to different people. Feel free to search the forums and you'll see all kinds of arguments about what a game needs to have in order to be "D&D". I mean, that's part of the fundamental premise behind a lot of edition warring in the first place, that [whatever] edition isn't "really" D&D anymore because [fill in the blanks].
I've been playing and running D&D for more than 25 years and read my fair share of pulp, horror, and S&S stories, LotR and stuff from Christopher Tolkien (a hack); quoting Gygax to me doesn't actually mean a whole lot and comes across as vaguely condescending if read with an uncharitable eye.
As for leaving in the skill Tumble but micromanaging details... *shrug*... obviously the game police aren't going to kick in the door and take away your dice for doing it that way. It strikes me as one of the PnP equivalents to "pixel btching", but whatever. If you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to puzzle videogames like Myst where the player basically has to click in just the right place on the screen or they can't do whatever. Making some poor sod declare they keep all their equipment tied to them and then have to state how they untie it at night and then retie it in the morning and then combat and now they lose 2 rounds untying their weapon... I've never been a fan of this. It's "gotcha!" play and one of the things I saw consistently act as a barrier to new people coming into the hobby.
I get that you like starting threads and "seeing what other people think". However, you seem to shift the ground for the "discussion". First you didn't seem to like Tumble at all, then it was the "specialised nature", then it was characters not being dressed "appropriately" (which is distinctly _not_ related to your first post of
compared to
So it looks to me like first you make assumptions about the nature of the game as a whole (it's a "tolkien-esque universe"), then you move to objecting about the way the skill functions (it seems to be a bit "specialized" when most of the skills are quite broad), and then you move straight into your own personal playstyle.
I find this incredibly frustrating, as it seems to be more about "I don't like this in my games", which is a very distinctly different kind of discussion to have and one that I'm not typically too interested in engaging in. I find discussions of personal preferences and playstyles to be mostly pointless unless it's related to a more "tangible" thing like how such things might affect a person's perception as opposed to something which essentially boils down to a game equivalent of "I like chocolate! Who else likes chocolate?"
Last edited:
