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

[Sacrosanct]

On a related note, I notice how in the beginning of Men And Magic (OD&D), Gygax specifically lists off several authors that would be the inspiration of D&D games. And in the booklets later on, again specifically calls out literary authors as the source of inspiration. Not Tolkien. Now, I'm sure part of that had to do with his personal distaste of Tolkien anyway, rather than prove that Tolkien didn't have much influence. But what it does prove is that clearly to Gary Gygax, all these other authors has just as much if not more influence to the game than Tolkien did. You don't keep calling out a source as something that inspired you if it did not in fact inspire or influence you. I see several arguments that D&D wouldn't look remotely like it did without Tolkien (even a retracted argument that it would never have been created without him), and those are the arguments I disagree with. The proof is right there, in his own words in the original rulebooks. Some things might look different (like halflings, Balor, elves, and dwarves), but most of the game would be the same. There would still be elves, dwarves, and gnomes in the game, just different versions. There are still dozens of other demons besides Balor.

So yeah, Tolkien had an important influence, but let's not overstate it because that means you're undervaluing all the other influences that are specifically called out right in the rulebooks themselves, let alone in later interviews. And to repeat what [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] said earlier, do not make the assumption that just because something appears in Tolkien, that he created it. That's simply factually not true, especially since Tolkien borrowed pretty much everything from other sources himself. And as I mentioned earlier, I strongly suspect people are attributing influence on game aspect Y to Tolkien because they aren't familiar with Poul Anderson (or Lord Dunsany, or whoever) and just assume it's Tolkien because he had something similar and that's what people are familiar with.

 

[Parmandur]

On a related note, I notice how in the beginning of Men And Magic (OD&D), Gygax specifically lists off several authors that would be the inspiration of D&D games. And in the booklets later on, again specifically calls out literary authors as the source of inspiration. Not Tolkien. Now, I'm sure part of that had to do with his personal distaste of Tolkien anyway, rather than prove that Tolkien didn't have much influence. But what it does prove is that clearly to Gary Gygax, all these other authors has just as much if not more influence to the game than Tolkien did. You don't keep calling out a source as something that inspired you if it did not in fact inspire or influence you. I see several arguments that D&D wouldn't look remotely like it did without Tolkien (even a retracted argument that it would never have been created without him), and those are the arguments I disagree with. The proof is right there, in his own words in the original rulebooks. Some things might look different (like halflings, Balor, elves, and dwarves), but most of the game would be the same. There would still be elves, dwarves, and gnomes in the game, just different versions. There are still dozens of other demons besides Balor.

So yeah, Tolkien had an important influence, but let's not overstate it because that means you're undervaluing all the other influences that are specifically called out right in the rulebooks themselves, let alone in later interviews. And to repeat what [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] said earlier, do not make the assumption that just because something appears in Tolkien, that he created it. That's simply factually not true, especially since Tolkien borrowed pretty much everything from other sources himself. And as I mentioned earlier, I strongly suspect people are attributing influence on game aspect Y to Tolkien because they aren't familiar with Poul Anderson (or Lord Dunsany, or whoever) and just assume it's Tolkien because he had something similar and that's what people are familiar with.

Did he list Tolkien in the pre-lawsuit version, with Hobbits and Ents? Tolkien was in Appendix N, at any rate.

The amount that Tolkien borrowed can be overstated, if you are unfamiliar with his antecedents (such as the orcean undead spirits vaguely referenced in Beowulf).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Go read Men & Magic. I think you missed my point completely.

 

[Parmandur]

Go read Men & Magic. I think you missed my point completely.

Think you may have missed mine: what does the copy of Men & Magic that predates the lawsuits say? Chainmail,which predates it, gives Tolkien top billing

 

[Sacrosanct]

Think you may have missed mine: what does the copy of Men & Magic that predates the lawsuits say? Chainmail,which predates it, gives Tolkien top billing

No it doesn't. Looking at my 3rd edition of Chainmail right now. Tolkien is mentioned exactly once in the fantasy supplement.

Paraphrasing: For those fantasy wargamers that want to recreate fantasy battles like those from JRR Tolkien, Howard, and others, here you go. That's not exactly top billing. That seems more of a generic call out to popular fantasy authors in general. What is specific, however, is a callout under the Troll description to Poul Anderson Three Hearts, Three Lions

as far as OD&D in 1974, Gygax lists off several authors as direct inspiration to your (as the player) D&D game. Tolkien is not one of them. Then in the rulebooks later, he calls out other authors (like Lord Dunsany). I don't care about Appendix N, because every fantasy author is in Appendix N. Being included in Appendix N does not tell you how much influence that the person has, only that it is inspirational reading.

So, back to my point, is that it seems clear that while Tolkien obviously had important influence, it's not as much as people are giving him credit for because he's not the one who is directly being called out in the rules as the source of inspiration for the game*, and many of the things people are giving him credit for he didn't come up with but borrowed it himself.

*In fact, in a 1974 interview (before the lawsuit), Gary specifically states that Tolkien is not a good influence because the stories run counter to what D&D is all about: fast paced adventure and larger than life heroes--two things he specifically states Tolkien is not, but authors like Howard and Lieber are about. That's about as clear as you can get as to what inspired the framework of the D&D game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[RobertBrus]

Impossible to say: it is equally absurd to claim that we know what would have happened in either case.

Is it absurd to claim that the human mind can look at facts in evidence and make reasonable suppositions based upon the available information? No, we do it all the time. Without which you and I wouldn't wake up in the morning to hot and cold running water; or modern dentistry; or successful business decisions; etc.

Miniature historical gaming did not require a Tolkien; it existed before he was around. Fantasy story telling did not require a Tolkien; it was around thousands of years before Tolkien. Little boys and girls running around the backyard pretending to be cowboys and Native Americans didn't require a Tolkien.

When one exercises the human brain, it is quite reasonable to claim that Tolkien, for all his greatness as a fantasy writer, was not necessary for D&D to come into existence. The absurdity is in thinking that humans haven't been making such claims for thousands of years, and that many of those claims have been proven correct.

I stand by my well-reasoned claim: Tolkien was a minor influence, and was not necessary for D&D to come into existence.

 

[RobertBrus]

For some to claim that it was Tolien who gave us the "zero to hero" character clearly has not read any of the "Jack" stories (of which there are hundreds). The idea of the "reluctant hero" predates Tolkien by thousands of years. Or the possible hero who is drawn into the story by accident, or without the person realizing they are being drawn into it. These story ideas were around long before Tolkien, and in fact were used by Tolkien.

I am not suggesting Tolkien didn't influence D&D, particularly as it further developed. But he was not a major factor in the beginning. Look not to your desires, but to the evidence.

 

[Parmandur]

Is it absurd to claim that the human mind can look at facts in evidence and make reasonable suppositions based upon the available information? No, we do it all the time. Without which you and I wouldn't wake up in the morning to hot and cold running water; or modern dentistry; or successful business decisions; etc.

Miniature historical gaming did not require a Tolkien; it existed before he was around. Fantasy story telling did not require a Tolkien; it was around thousands of years before Tolkien. Little boys and girls running around the backyard pretending to be cowboys and Native Americans didn't require a Tolkien.

When one exercises the human brain, it is quite reasonable to claim that Tolkien, for all his greatness as a fantasy writer, was not necessary for D&D to come into existence. The absurdity is in thinking that humans haven't been making such claims for thousands of years, and that many of those claims have been proven correct.

I stand by my well-reasoned claim: Tolkien was a minor influence, and was not necessary for D&D to come into existence.

It is absurd to claim to know how history would have turned out if different events had occurred, yes, because it is untestable and unknowable. You are right that it is silly to say that we know that Tolkien was a necessary component, but we can't say with any level of certainty that his work wasn't a necessary precondition for RPGs-as-we-know-them. RPGs may well have come into being without Tolkien's influence, but would the scene be recognizable? Nobody knows, and it is silly to assert knowledge of counterfactuals.

 

[pemerton]

My copy of Chainmail is 3rd ed, copyright 1975.

Page 28: "a brief set of rules which . . . reflect the epic struggles related by JRR Tolkien, Robert E Howad, and other fantasy writiers".

Page 29: Hobbits; Elves "armed with dedaly bows and magical swords . . . can perform split-move and fire" - these super-powered elves seem rather Tolkienesque.

Page 30: Orcs "of the (Red) Eye . . . of Mordor . . . of the Mountains . . . of the White Hand, and . . . Isengarders"; Heroes, who can shoot down dragons if armed with bows (and even moreso using enchanted arrows).

Page 33: Wraiths "Nazgule, etc" which "can see in darkness . . . cause the enemy to check morale . . . paralyse any enemy man . . . until touched by a friendly Elf, Hero-type, or Wizard. . . . A Wraith can either move normally or fly".

Page 34: Balrogs

Page 35: Ents

The only influence of REH on the fanatsy rules would seem to be the Hero category (for playing Conan) - the wizards don't resemble Conan-esque wizards, and all the non-human beings and fantastic creatures are not found in REH's Conan at all.