D&D 5E Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, and Gygax was definitely borrowing heavily from Tolkien in the fantasy supplement in Chainmail. The popularity of Tolkien' s books inspired him to create fantasy war gaming. If you look in that supplement it is full of Tolkien.

Is it? Or is it full of stuff pulled from existing myth and folklore that both Gary and Tolkien pulled from themselves. That's what we're talking about. It seems much of what Tolkien is being credited with in these two threads were things he pulled almost word for word from another source. Ergo, it's not full of Tolkien, but full of already existing myth that Tolkien just happened to use himself.

 

[Celebrim]

What is absurd is you making an assumption of what I'm responding to when you are incorrect. This thread is "what parts of D&D came from Tolkien", and people have listed things like flying eagles, named magic weapons, were-bears, etc. And my answer was that those things didn't come from Tolkien because Tolkien took them from other sources. Almost exactly (like giant eagles carrying away stranded people from certain danger).

So if D&D and Tolkien pulled from the same source (mythology and folklore), that means D&D didn't pull all those things from Tolkien. To say those things wouldn't exist without Tolkien is like saying you can't have a vampire book without pulling from Anne Rice. The lore of the vampire existed long before Anne Rice, just like the lore about giant eagles, named magic swords, etc all existed as reference material long before Tolkien.

There is a very basic principle of any sort of hierarchical arrangement that you are violating, whether we are talking biological evolution or textual criticism. Yes, any text or any biological organism takes 'ideas' from earlier ancestors. But when we are discussing what descended from what, and trying to decide what is the nearest ancestor of something - that is, what did that piece of text or organism evolve from - you look for features that are found in the parent but not in the grand-parent (or other remote ancestor). If the thing in question lacks the attributes of the parent, but has the traits of the 'grandparent', then they are siblings which share the same origin. But if something has traits unique the parent, then it is evolved from that parent and not from the grand-parent.

Even where it true that Tolkien got the giant eagle from roc of the Arabian Nights, and I don't concede that either, it would not be true that the Giant Eagle entry in the monster manual comes from the roc. Without Tolkien either the giant eagle entry in the Monster Manual would not exist, and we would only have the 'Roc' entry that closely accords with the bird of the Arabian Nights (a fierce giant predator that carries away elephants) or else we would have a giant eagle entry that almost certainly would lack the features of a giant eagle that are specific to Tolkien. Since the giant eagle entry has features that are specific to Tolkien's eagles, we can say with great confidence that the giant eagle entry is owed to the work of Tolkien.

Once you accept that principle, we can start looking at which claims about what in D&D comes from Tolkien are strong and which ones (like magic swords having names) are weak. But until you accept that principle, this conversation is pointless, as you are not equipped to engage in textual criticism at all.

 

[Celebrim]

Like the aforementioned eagles. I mean, in Arabian myth they are part of a story where they come and rescue sailors in danger by carrying them away. So not only did Tolkien borrow from that source and not create them himself, he didn't even really change the story of them lol.

I'm familiar with the stories in which the Roc appears in the 1001 tales of the Arabian nights. In no story am I familiar with them purposefully rescuing sailors. In one the sailor tricks a Roc to rescue him after being ship wrecked by tying himself to a sheep and pretending thereby to be food. In another the rocs sink a ship by dropping boulders on it.

Which of the stories are you thinking of where they rescue sailors or are otherwise deliberately benevolent?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I hear you. Like some, but unlike some of the posters here, it was D&D that inspired me to read Tolkien, not the other way around.

Also? Necron 99 FTW!

Totally. I admit I saw the Hobbit shortly after it came out in '77 or '78 (I was but a young lad, and have fond memories of the book and tape companion set from the school library) and didn't start D&D until 1981, but I was well entrenched into fantasy by that time (see the aforementioned list), and I didn't start playing D&D because of Tolkien. He could never have existed and we still would have played because of the dozens and dozens of other sources of inspiration. As I mentioned earlier, D&D spiked in popularity before 1977 (When the Hobbit film came out), so it's clear it would have existed with or without Tolkien. Especially since it's clear that Tolkien's version of high fantasy was not as popular as sword and sorcery fantasy at the time. It wasn't until after that film when he really took the lead. All the media at the time was more Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, etc.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is a very basic principle of any sort of hierarchical arrangement that you are violating, whether we are talking biological evolution or textual criticism. Yes, any text or any biological organism takes 'ideas' from earlier ancestors. But when we are discussing what descended from what, and trying to decide what is the nearest ancestor of something - that is, what did that piece of text or organism evolve from - you look for features that are found in the parent but not in the grand-parent (or other remote ancestor). If the thing in question lacks the attributes of the parent, but has the traits of the 'grandparent', then they are siblings which share the same origin. But if something has traits unique the parent, then it is evolved from that parent and not from the grand-parent.

Even where it true that Tolkien got the giant eagle from roc of the Arabian Nights, and I don't concede that either, it would not be true that the Giant Eagle entry in the monster manual comes from the roc. Without Tolkien either the giant eagle entry in the Monster Manual would not exist, and we would only have the 'Roc' entry that closely accords with the bird of the Arabian Nights (a fierce giant predator that carries away elephants) or else we would have a giant eagle entry that almost certainly would lack the features of a giant eagle that are specific to Tolkien. Since the giant eagle entry has features that are specific to Tolkien's eagles, we can say with great confidence that the giant eagle entry is owed to the work of Tolkien.

Once you accept that principle, we can start looking at which claims about what in D&D comes from Tolkien are strong and which ones (like magic swords having names) are weak. But until you accept that principle, this conversation is pointless, as you are not equipped to engage in textual criticism at all.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. By your logic, we can't have a vampire book/movie without it being pulled from Anne Rice. And obviously that's not the case. The rest of your post is just pure speculation. Not really accurate either. Between the two:

1. Tolkien created the idea of giant eagles
2. Giant eagles already existed in Arabian myth and Tolkien used them to put into his own stories

It's clear that #2 is the accurate option.

And if you can't have a conversation without insulting me, then that speaks volumes of you, not me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In fairness, in Chainmail he explicitly namechecks Tolkien (and Howard and other, unnamed writers) as well as Poul Anderson, IIRC.

I think Chainmail is an example where he really did just pull out some Tolkien (and others) to create rules for wargaming in different mileus. Hobbits, Balrogs, I think he even referred to the Nazgul.

Well yeah. I don't think anyone here is saying that he didn't directly pull from Tolkien. The obvious ones being hobbits and Balrogs. I think where my disagreement is when people start listing a whole laundry list of things they attribute to Tolkien that weren't, and/or saying or implying that we wouldn't have D&D without Tolkien, or it would be a completely different unrecognizable beast without Tolkien. I don't think those kinds of statements are remotely true, because I certainly remember fantasy being pretty darn popular with our without Tolkien as I have mentioned earlier. We have actual evidence to point to the rise of RPGs before Tolkien went through his resurgence of popularity in 1977.

So yeah, he was an influence. And yeah, Gary pulled some stuff from him. But Tolkien is not the end all/be all influence that led to D&D. Seriously, not only do we have Gary's own words, but we have Appendix N that literally tells us all of the other influences.

 

[Arilyn]

Which parts of DnD came from Tolkien?

Yes, but!

This is where things can get confusing (see my other post).

Let's say that there the following examples-

1. Gygax/Arneson borrows straight up from Tolkien, just as he did other sources. Easy example that no one seriously disagrees with- the Ranger class.

2. Gygax/Arneson borrows from the same source materials that Tolkien did. This is the most contentious example, but an easy one would be named magic swords. This is everywhere (Excalibur?), and just because Tolkien had some named magic swords doesn't mean (or even come close to implying) that Gygax borrowed from Tolkien.

3. Gygax/Arneson borrows from other people that borrowed from Tolkien. Hmmm... this is harder. So, let's say that Gygax borrows from a different fantasy author that published a book, who happened to have read the Hobbit. It would be like someone "borrowing" from Kurosawa via Star Wars.

4. Gygax/Arneson borrow from the cultural zeitgeist at the time. Maybe they were listening to a Led Zeppelin album. Maybe they were looking at an awesome black light poster. Maybe they were inspired by works that were inspired by Tolkien.

5. Finally, neither G nor A exist in a vacuum. There were other individuals doing art, writing material, and playing the game (But I wanna play a Hobbit!) that, in turn, influenced them. And these influences continued after the publication of the core materials.

But there's a difference between these categories, and I think it's error to try and read back too much direct Tolkien borrowing given what we know of the many other influences on D&D, most of which more closely resembles S&S and pulp fantasy than it does Tolkien-esque fantasy.

Fantasy, for many years was considered science fiction' s poor second cousin, and science fiction itself, was not exactly well received in literary circles. When Tolkien' s work was first published, it did not do well. In the late 60s, early 70s, however, it caught on and caught on big. This created a hunger for more fantasy, so a lot of older stuff was reprinted. This is an important point. A lot of fantasy was very hard to come by because it was no longer in print. The myths and fables were only of interest to select scholars. Tolkien' s popularity opened up the market to new fantasy authors and broadened the interest in legends and myths. It was this environment, which led Gygax and Arneson to feel that fantasy wargaming would be a viable addition to their Chainmail rules. If you trace the events back, it's hard to imagine, that even if Gygax and Arneson loved the older fantasy and myths, they would have added it to Chainmail, in an environment that wasn't giving fantasy much thought. Tolkien, therefore, was key to the creation of DnD, and the main inspiration.

Later, Gygax would emphasize swords and sorcery, and try to distance the game from Tolkien. In many ways, he was right to do so. DnD is not a good simulation of Tolkien. Course it's not that close to swords and sorcery either, but that's another topic altogether.

 

[Parmandur]

Totally. I admit I saw the Hobbit shortly after it came out in '77 or '78 (I was but a young lad, and have fond memories of the book and tape companion set from the school library) and didn't start D&D until 1981, but I was well entrenched into fantasy by that time (see the aforementioned list), and I didn't start playing D&D because of Tolkien. He could never have existed and we still would have played because of the dozens and dozens of other sources of inspiration. As I mentioned earlier, D&D spiked in popularity before 1977 (When the Hobbit film came out), so it's clear it would have existed with or without Tolkien. Especially since it's clear that Tolkien's version of high fantasy was not as popular as sword and sorcery fantasy at the time. It wasn't until after that film when he really took the lead. All the media at the time was more Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, etc.

The Lord of the Rings was extremely popular well before that cartoon came out: the books were published by n the '50's, and widely read by a large audience, not to mention the phenomenal success of the Hobbit since the 30's. Hell, the Silmarillion had been published by then, and is a viable source text.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The Lord of the Rings was extremely popular well before that cartoon came out: the books were published by n the '50's, and widely read by a large audience, not to mention the phenomenal success of the Hobbit since the 30's. Hell, the Silmarillion had been published by then, and is a viable source text.

It really wasn't. I mean, yeah, it was popular. But it was less popular as a genre than sword and sorcery. Look at the media at the time (60s and 70s). It was almost all exclusively S&S. High Tolkienesque fantasy was not. I'm not saying he wasn't popular or well known or anything, but at the time, authors like Howard and Lieber were still more popular. We have actual evidence to show this by looking at what sorts of things were being created in the 60s and 70s. It wasn't until it became a cartoon, and immediately brought in a huge swath of young people into the fantasy (cuz that's what cartoons do) before high fantasy began to really rise.

So when you consider this, it seems clear D&D would have existed just as soon as it did. Things like the SCA and Tékumel had nothing to do with Tolkien, but laid the groundwork for RPGs.

*Edit* I mean, it took 40 years for a movie about the Hobbit to come out, and that was animated. Meanwhile, there were plenty of fantasy movies coming out (all of the Sinbad movies, all of the monster movies, etc). So he couldn't have been THAT super popular if no one was making a movie version of it while all these other fantasy movies were being made.