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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Good gravy, no wonder they got sued.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

So we've been over this road before.

Well, I was responding to this post:

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

Someone who read Sacrosanct's post and did not have a copy of Chainmail might form the view that it has more Anderson than Tolkien in it. The point of my post was to make it clear that the opposite is true.

Chainmail (the fantasy supplement) was based off of a Tolkien Wargame (Battle of Pellenor). So it kinda sorta makes sense that it has a lot of rules that it include Tolkien-esque archetypes. It would be weird if it didn't.

Again, I was responding to Sacrosanct. The two of you seem to be in disagreement, because you seem to be saying that Chainmail is a LotR-oriented thing, whereas Sacrosanct seeems to be denying that.

It also includes expanded references to let you play non-Tolkien games (see also, Troll).

But contains no references to any of the fantasy elements of REH's Conan - no giant snakes, no animating statues, no were-hyenas, and the wizards are no more Conan-esque than they are Tolkien-esque.

As I wrote above, the history is confusing, and it doesn't help to seek out information in isolation

I have nothing to add to any account of the history. I am respoinding to a claim that Chainmail has only one mention of Tolkien, and the implication (by referring to the call-out of Anderson in reference to trolls) that it has no expressly Tolkienesque elements.

In my view Orcs of the Red Eye, of Mordor, of the White Hand and of Isengard are not generic things that Gygax got from reading Beowulf in Old English (assuming he did such a thing - I asked about this upthread but got no response, and I don't know the answer mysefl). Nor are Ents, Balrogs, Nazgul and Hobbits generic things that Gygax got from reading Germanic legends. These are all, self-evidently, derived straight from JRRT.

My copies of Men & Magic and Monsters & Treasure are copyrighted 1974 but clearly are later printings (I can't find printing information in the books). Certain entries are in a distinctive font, which I take to be a sign that in the original version the text was different. This is found on M&M p 8, in the entries for Halflings (which I guess once read "Hobbits") and for Other Character Types (which perhaps was part of a longer Hobbit entry, or maybe referenced something that derived from JRRT); and in M&T p 7 (Orcs have been re-written, presumably to remove references to the Tollkien-esque tribes), p 9 (Wights have been rewritten - interestingly, Wraiths haven't been, and are described as simply "higher-class Wights with more mobility, hit dice, and terasure" - I assume all the Nazgul stuff was in the original Wight entry), p 9 (Spectres have been rewritten - were these Nazgul also, or something else? Or were they inserted to deal with a layout issue arising from the revisions to Wights?), p 16 (Treants - presumably the earlier versions of this entry referred to Ents).

But it seems to me, on the basis of this evidence, that all, or nearly all, of the Tolikien-derived elements in Chainmail made it into OD&D. If I want to run an OD&D game featuring Tolkien tropes that is actually easier than one featuring REH Conan tropes, because I would have to make up my own were-hyenas, animating statues, giant apes, giant snakes, etc (Monsters & Treasure moots the possibility of giant animals and living statues, but doesn't actually stat them up).

 

[Shasarak]

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.

It is hard to prove a negative and also makes a great genre of alt-history where you can explore what happens if Gary had decided to stick with historical wargaming.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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.

Does this count?

/snip

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

I'm pretty sure I could find more, but, I think that's sufficient.

 

[Hussar]

On a side note, I'm certainly no Tolkien fan-boy. I do not particularly care for LotR, I found it boring and, while I've tried to read it more than once, I find myself skipping entire pages. It's pretty much everything I dislike about fantasy as a genre - over blown world building coupled with virtually no character development. And exercise in mental masturbation and self-congratulatory back patting for creating such a wonderful world. Bleah. No thanks.

But, that being said, I don't think it's possible to understate just how much of an impact Tolkien has had on both the genre and D&D in particular. He's the Shakespeare of Fantasy literature. And, as such, even when you point to other writers, it's entirely possible that those writers - Leiber and others who were contemporary of Tolkien - were directly or indirectly influenced by Tolkien.

Sure, we can talk about pulps, but, D&D doesn't really resemble the pulps at all. Conan, Tarzan, John Carter, all of these larger than life characters living in human dominated worlds. I mean, take something as simple as non-human nation states like we see in Greyhawk. I'm drawing a blank on any of the pulp writers having nation states of elves, dwarves and orcs. Yet, funnily enough, I find those quite easily in Tolkien.

Take Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions which is often mentioned as a direct influence on Tolkien. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

...It also shows influence of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit with references to Mirkwood and wargs. ...

So, how can we discount the impact that Tolkien has had? Are there other sources? Of course there are. Sure. Lots of the Monster Manual isn't drawn from Tolkien. Fair enough.

But, ask yourself this, which is more iconic in D&D - orcs and goblins or Rakshasa and Yeti?

 

[Azzy]

Well, I was responding to this post:

Someone who read Sacrosanct's post and did not have a copy of Chainmail might form the view that it has more Anderson than Tolkien in it. The point of my post was to make it clear that the opposite is true.

Again, I was responding to Sacrosanct. The two of you seem to be in disagreement, because you seem to be saying that Chainmail is a LotR-oriented thing, whereas Sacrosanct seeems to be denying that.

But contains no references to any of the fantasy elements of REH's Conan - no giant snakes, no animating statues, no were-hyenas, and the wizards are no more Conan-esque than they are Tolkien-esque.

I have nothing to add to any account of the history. I am respoinding to a claim that Chainmail has only one mention of Tolkien, and the implication (by referring to the call-out of Anderson in reference to trolls) that it has no expressly Tolkienesque elements.

In my view Orcs of the Red Eye, of Mordor, of the White Hand and of Isengard are not generic things that Gygax got from reading Beowulf in Old English (assuming he did such a thing - I asked about this upthread but got no response, and I don't know the answer mysefl). Nor are Ents, Balrogs, Nazgul and Hobbits generic things that Gygax got from reading Germanic legends. These are all, self-evidently, derived straight from JRRT.

My copies of Men & Magic and Monsters & Treasure are copyrighted 1974 but clearly are later printings (I can't find printing information in the books). Certain entries are in a distinctive font, which I take to be a sign that in the original version the text was different. This is found on M&M p 8, in the entries for Halflings (which I guess once read "Hobbits") and for Other Character Types (which perhaps was part of a longer Hobbit entry, or maybe referenced something that derived from JRRT); and in M&T p 7 (Orcs have been re-written, presumably to remove references to the Tollkien-esque tribes), p 9 (Wights have been rewritten - interestingly, Wraiths haven't been, and are described as simply "higher-class Wights with more mobility, hit dice, and terasure" - I assume all the Nazgul stuff was in the original Wight entry), p 9 (Spectres have been rewritten - were these Nazgul also, or something else? Or were they inserted to deal with a layout issue arising from the revisions to Wights?), p 16 (Treants - presumably the earlier versions of this entry referred to Ents).

But it seems to me, on the basis of this evidence, that all, or nearly all, of the Tolikien-derived elements in Chainmail made it into OD&D. If I want to run an OD&D game featuring Tolkien tropes that is actually easier than one featuring REH Conan tropes, because I would have to make up my own were-hyenas, animating statues, giant apes, giant snakes, etc (Monsters & Treasure moots the possibility of giant animals and living statues, but doesn't actually stat them up).

The Acaeum has a list of the known changes between printings.

 

[pemerton]

The Acaeum has a list of the known changes between printings.

Judging from that, (1) I have a sixth or seventh printing, and (2) my conjectures about what had been removed were correct.

 

[pemerton]

The discussion about the play experience OD&D defaults to prompted me to start a new thread.