D&D 5E Why D&D is not (just) Tolkien

[Mistwell]

I’m assuming you didn’t read the materials and links you provided?

No I did you're just misinterpreting where they talk about Gary's system being better. They're talking about the system choices he made - not making it auto-success, not making allotments based on cleric spell slots, etc.. But if you think Gary's actual choice of abilities was drastically different than what the Aero guys came up with, I'd like to see your evidence for that. And it's those abilities, not the system mechanics, which would be a topic for "inspired by".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Nonsense. I measure 4.5 biblions of influence, precisely.

I'd like to argue that a measurement with only two significant digits isn't particularly precise.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I'd like to argue that a measurement with only two significant digits isn't particularly precise.

I blame my equipment.

 

[Caliburn101]

Great point. Except, of course, that turning undead wasn't put in by Gygax (he wasn't fond of it), but by Arneson in the Blackmoor campaign.
And it was a common feature of the Hammer Films (show your cross, the baddies howl and run away). It's not like the (relatively obscure) Bombadil reference was a more likely source for the Cleric's power than Hammer Films ... especially given the genesis of the class (what with the vampire and all).

So, sure, I can totally believe that he did say that to random fan (after all, he did say many things!). But, like many of the things we are discussing, it is contradicted by the evidence.


(Perhaps, if anything, it's either evidence in a conversation with a random fan at the end of the night that he'd rather attribute something to Tolkien than Arneson ... ouch ... or that he disliked the turning ability so much he thought he'd blame Tolkien for it. Who knows?)

He didn't say it was his idea... and why would he make stuff up?

I don't believe for a second he'd lie about it like he was just being capricious. If anything he was enthusiastic to the point it made him generous with his time and information.

So yeah - HE did make a good point, and you're just indulging yourself with baseless armchair theorising decades after events you didn't witness.

Why not just call everything he ever told a fan a fabrication and have done with it!

 

[Caliburn101]

Focusing on the minutiae? I was replying to what you wrote. If you didn't mean to say that Tolkien completely made up the ranger concept and name, then don't say "Rangers - entirely made up by Tolkien". If you didn't mean to say that Tolkien was the first to have a story about a group of heroes adventuring, then don't say "Tolkien was the first to write this in this manner."

Blaming me and attacking me personally for the words you wrote is pretty darn disingenuous.

And if you did mean to say those things, then blaming and attacking me for pointing out how that's not true is also disingenuous.

Edit* And for an example of fighting men/magic users/thieves: I shall refer you to Jason and Medea. Jason: fighting man. Medea: sorcererss. Half of his crew: thieves. And that's not even considering Robert E Howard (who wrote many of this stories in the 1920s). Or heck, Geoffrey of Monmouth for that matter. The idea that Tolkien was the first person to ever write about a group of heroes in a fantasy/mythological setting on a quest is laughable.

Ah, and there it is, the 'attacking me personally' rejoinder you are so well known for wheeling out when someone won't agree with your point of view.

As I predicted, you still haven't answered me holistically, because in the round - considering all potential and actual sources, I think I am demonstrably on the money about Tolkien having a very high level of influence.

If you disagree - then work your way through ALL the examples I gave and give valid examples from ONE other source that matches or exceeds them in number.

Then you can be as supercillious as you like without further commentary from me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ah, and there it is, the 'attacking me personally' rejoinder you are so well known for wheeling out when someone won't agree with your point of view.

.

Really? I'm "so well known for" that? Show me then. Lots of people don't agree with me. If I'm so well known for accusing people of attacking me personally when they don't agree, then I'm sure it will be easy for you to find examples.

Or more likely, this is just another strawman from you. You made an insult to me personally, not my argument. That's a fact. If you don't want people saying you attacked them personally, then I'd suggest you not do that.

 

[billd91]

Aragorn has no magic, even the subtle Tolkien-style of magic. He knows his herbs, uses a poultice, and strikes a bargain with an undead creature. "Upping the power curve" is what we'd call outside influences.

There's no definitive single way to model the healing Aragorn does in the books. It could be skill but it also could be modeled as magic, particularly given the way he works over the stricken supporting characters in the houses of healing in Minas Tirith which could be interpreted as a magic ritual. D&D went with one of many possible methods of doing so.

 

[Hussar]

Are people seriously arguing that the Ranger isn't heavily inspired by Tolkien? Seriously? Sure, the modern take on Rangers might be a fair distance away, but, the AD&D ranger? Really?