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

[pemerton]

The second poll option includes no more greater influence than other writers (like Howard, Lieber, Anderson, etc, which is a valid argument and “no more than others”doesn’t mean “little or no”).

The second poll option is labelled "Very little influence / no more important than other fantasy writers." Presumably "very little" means "very little", which is a variation on the first disjunct in "little or no".

Who has actually made that argument, that Tolkien has made little or no impact?

From the OP:

It cannot be overstated how big Tolkien was when D&D was in the formative stages.

<snip>

This interplay, even if not actual borrowing (like the Ranger) ended up giving D&D a "Tolkien-esque" feel. Because many players viewed it through the prism of what they knew- Tolkien.

<snip>

My personal opinion is that Gygax minimized any influence of Tolkien for legal reasons, even though there are a few small example of outright ... borrowing. But, and this is important, Gygax borrowed from many sources (as did Tolkien) and I wouldn't say that Tolkien was the sole, primary, or major influence.

And just beneath it:

The original Tolkien influence on D&D wasn't nearly as great as people thought. Gygax was pretty well read on folklore and pulled much of the same influence as Tolkien did. However, since Tolkien did have a resurgence in popularity starting in the 70s, and most fantasy geeks knew him but did not know all the origination material (Wagnar, etc), we as gamers molded D&D to fit Tolkien's writings more than Gary ever did. Therefore, many of the similarities to Tolkien that people say D&D copied from were because of us, not because of Gary.

These both read like arguments that JRRT was of little (not no) influence on D&D as designed by Gygax.

I could be wrong, but I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means to disagree with them.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Well, I would point out that I answered the poll with option 3.

Which means that either I misconstrue my own arguments, or I’m really bad at designing polls for me to answer.

Truly, you have become the Internet in Human form...

 

[pemerton]

Well, I would point out that I answered the poll with option 3.

Which means that either I misconstrue my own arguments, or I’m really bad at designing polls for me to answer.

I haven't answered the poll because of uncertainty over the interaction between "no more important than other fantasy writers" which is probably true (REH, Vance, Leiber and Anderson would be the other writers in question, I think - maybe also ERB), and "a great deal of influence" which I think is probably true for all these authors.

 

[Salamandyr]

From "The Tower of the Elephant":

It was Conan's savage instinct which made him wheel suddenly; for the death that was upon them made no sound. A fleeting glimpse showed the Cimmerian the giant tawny shape, rearing upright against the stars, towering over him for the death-stroke. No civilized man could have moved half so quickly as the barbarian moved. His sword flashed frostily in the starlight with every ounce of desperate nerve and thew behind it, and man and beast went down together.

Cursing incoherently beneath his breath, Taurus bent above the mass, and saw his companion's limbs move as he strove to drag himself from under the great weight that lay limply upon him. A glance showed the startled Nemedian that the lion was dead, its slanting skull split in half.​

And also

Shrubbery grew thick outside the lower, or outer wall. The Cimmerian crept close and stood beside the barrier, measuring it with his eyes. It was high, but he could leap and catch the coping with his fingers. Then it would be child's play to swing himself up and over, and he did not doubt that he could pass the inner wall in the same manner. . . .

At last curiosity overcame him. Leaping lightly he grasped the wall and swung himself up to the top with one arm.​

Conan's physical prowess is as great in Tower of the Elephant as in The Phoenix on the Sword.

You're absolutely right; in fact, his physical prowess might even be greater in the Tower of the Elephant, he is, after all, a young wastelander at the time and not a king, but his experience, his "level" is much lower. He has, and I quote "really good stats and attitude".

 

[pemerton]

his physical prowess might even be greater in the Tower of the Elephant, he is, after all, a young wastelander at the time and not a king, but his experience, his "level" is much lower. He has, and I quote "really good stats and attitude".

In D&D "level", especially for a fighter, is a marker of physical prowess. (More hit points. Better to hit and saves. And in more recent editions, more feats and stats.)

 

[Salamandyr]

In D&D "level", especially for a fighter, is a marker of physical prowess. (More hit points. Better to hit and saves. And in more recent editions, more feats and stats.)

That's a tendentious definition and not one I would agree with. Level has always referred to experience. Experience can equate to prowess...prowess being defined here as fighting ability, though I think I used it earlier just to mean ability to pull off impressive physcial feats, but it's not necessarily the be all end all. A 1st level character with an 18 strength has a comperable attack bonus (and more damage) than a 4th level fighter with a 10 strength, but that doesn't mean that the two characters are comparable in experience.

The point is, Conan progresses from a capable, though inexperienced, hero to become even more capable to finally the pinnacle of what we might consider the heroic journey, king by his own hand. Not zero to hero, but hero to superhero, which is pretty much on par with D&D.

 

[pemerton]

The point is, Conan progresses from a capable, though inexperienced, hero to become even more capable to finally the pinnacle of what we might consider the heroic journey, king by his own hand. Not zero to hero, but hero to superhero, which is pretty much on par with D&D.

I guess I don't think it's on a par with D&D.

In D&D, a 1st level fighter has virtually no chance against a lion. A 10th level fighter, on the other hand, has 10 times the hit points of that 1st level PC, probably greater Strength (depending a bit on edition) and a significantly higher bonus to hit. A lion won't pose much of a challenge. That is a marked increase in physical prowess for the D&D fighter; but Conan doesn't undergo such a transformation.

EDIT: Another way to think of improved hp and saving throws is (as Gygax says in his DMG) reflections of increased luck and divine protection. But on this score, Conan is just as lucky in Tower of the Elephant as in Phoenix on the Sword.

 

[Hussar]

More just the never ending nit picking to “prove” that Tolkien didn’t have much influence.

Good grief when all the original pc races save gnomes and half orcs are lifted verbatim from Tolkien how anyone can claim with a straight face that DnD without Tolkien would be unchanged is beyond me.

Without Tolkien dnd would be completely different to what it started as


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Sacrosanct]

The second poll option is labelled "Very little influence / no more important than other fantasy writers." Presumably "very little" means "very little", which is a variation on the first disjunct in "little or no".

From the OP:



And just beneath it:

These both read like arguments that JRRT was of little (not no) influence on D&D as designed by Gygax.

I could be wrong, but I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means to disagree with them.

Clearly you completely ignored my sentence (even though you quoted it) where I said that "no more than other" does not mean "little or no". They are completely different things. And I'll also point out, re: the wording of the poll, that just a few posts after you made this one, you just made the same argument that I made. I.e., Some of the poll answers do not fit and overlap. Option 2 includes both "little influence" but also "no more than." It is entirely reasonable, even by your own admission after making this post, that someone could choose option 2 while still thinking Tolkien had more than just a little influence.

Therefore, it's the reason I asked to actually find quotes. Same for you [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. You just made that argument again right above this post. Where are these actual arguments people are making that say that Tolkien had little or no influence? The only arguments I'm seeing are people saying that he didn't have as much influence as other people are arguing. Which means something completely different that what you are ascribing.