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

[Tony Vargas]

He's the Shakespeare of Fantasy literature.

Between Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest, Shakespeare is the Shakespeare of fantasy literature...

...hm...in a way, Prospero is closer to an inspiration/antecedent/excuse for the D&D Wizard than Gandalf. He got his power from study and his book, when he threw the book away, he abandoned that power.

And, of course, Prospero was human while Gandalf was Maiar ... and, Merlin, Morgana, and Medea, also proposed archetypal wizards, were of mixed mortal-divine/supernatural heritatage (Circe, another one that gets mentioned sometimes, was of entirely divine/supernatural heritage).

OK, yeah, I nominate Shakespeare as the major influence on D&D. Why not?

 

[Lehrbuch]

It seems pretty well documented that clerics, including their power against undead, has its origins in a vampire hunter in Arneson's game.

Which is presumably based on Stoker's Dracula (perhaps as received via movies), where crucifixes cause fear/fury in vampires. Stoker's idea, in turn, is based on medieval/folk/church myth.

But at a certain point, the clerical ability was generalised from an anti-vampire power to a general anti-undead power. Who did this?

There is plenty of medieval/folk/church mythology in which church symbols offer some sort of protection against all manner of demons and monsters and evil, so I don't think it would be possible to identify someone who "generalised from an anti-vampire power". It's just an idea that's existed for a long time in our culture.

It is perhaps interesting that in myth (and Dracula) the power is a function of the symbol, not the person holding the symbol. So, that might be the D&D innovation; "removing" the power from the symbol and giving it to the cleric.

But even that is a bit of stretch. There was plenty of medieval theological debate about that sort of question: whether the supernatural powers of the Church depended upon plainly fallible churchmen or were the independent product of a perfect Divinity.

Turning undead and the like doesn't really seem to come from Tolkien. Middle Earth (deliberately, probably) doesn't really have an interventionist God that will manifest in symbols to offer protection against evil in that way. The good guys in Tolkien tend to use magic instead, or direct intervention by semi-Divine characters like Gandalf.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Not sure if this has been brought up, but one other major influence of Tolkien is the idea of the zero to hero arc that D&D embraces.

I think that there are two concepts here, neither related to Tolkien.

• One is the idea from Wargaming that different hero/leader/general characters can be of different capability (have a different number of hit dice).
• The other is just the idea from literature that protagonist characters have a character arc and thus change in some way over the course of the story. Albeit, not always for the better. This obviously happens in Tolkien with some characters, but it is not an original or innovative feature of his storytelling. Nor is this a unique feature of fantasy literature either.

The combination of these ideas gets us D&D levels. That is, PCs have levels that represent capability and PCs advance from level to level as the campaign moves episodically from story to story, as a kind of "reward" to the players for surviving/completing each story.

 

[Celebrim]

Good grief when all the original pc races save gnomes and half-orcs are lifted verbatim from Tolkien...

Half-orcs are from Tolkien too. The hobbits several times mention seeing men so changed or depraved in form that they appeared to be 'half-orcs', and Gandalf speculates that Saruman may have been breeding orcs with men in order to create a superior race able to withstand the sun and with greater size and improved stature compared to the typical orc. The implication of the story, given the half-orcs are always associated with spies of Saruman, that indeed this has been happening. Thus, the term and concept would have been familiar to anyone who had read The Lord of the Rings, and so far as I know does not appear in any prior literary source.

 

[pemerton]

Turning undead and the like doesn't really seem to come from Tolkien.

Agreed, except in the loose sense that JRRT himself drew upon ideas about the power of light and spirit over dark beings in his accounts of Bombadil and the wights, Gandalf and the Balrog, etc.

But [MENTION=6802178]Caliburn101[/MENTION] reported a conversation with Gygax where Gygax referred to Bombadil in the context of turning. And I was offering some ideas about what Gygax might have meant by such a thing - eg maybe he was saying that, if you're a Tolkien fan, you can think of clerical turning as an emulation of Bombadil driving away the wights.

Middle Earth (deliberately, probably) doesn't really have an interventionist God that will manifest in symbols to offer protection against evil in that way.

I think calling on Elbereth Gilthoniel has power over dark beings.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hriston]

I think calling on Elbereth Gilthoniel has power over dark beings.

Also, compare in this context the Phial of Galadriel with the cleric's holy symbol.

 

[RobertBrus]

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.

I don't need to prove a negative, as I am not trying to prove, but to predict. Once again, we--meaning humans--do it all the time. I am making a reasonable assessment based upon current information as to what is not only probable, but quite possible. The fact that Arneson was already creating/playing an RPG strongly suggests it would have made its way into the public eye even without a Gygax. The fact that the world is full of fantasy writing that had no connection to Tolkien suggests Tolkien is not necessary for fantasy. Barker's "Empire Throne" would have morphed into an RPG, as it in fact did. I could go on, but I think this evidence suffices.

That his writing had an influence on D&D is quite clear in my mind. But it is also quite clear that it was a lesser effect than some would have themselves believe.

 

[Shasarak]

I don't need to prove a negative, as I am not trying to prove, but to predict. Once again, we--meaning humans--do it all the time. I am making a reasonable assessment based upon current information as to what is not only probable, but quite possible. The fact that Arneson was already creating/playing an RPG strongly suggests it would have made its way into the public eye even without a Gygax. The fact that the world is full of fantasy writing that had no connection to Tolkien suggests Tolkien is not necessary for fantasy. Barker's "Empire Throne" would have morphed into an RPG, as it in fact did. I could go on, but I think this evidence suffices.

That his writing had an influence on D&D is quite clear in my mind. But it is also quite clear that it was a lesser effect than some would have themselves believe.

And it is perfectly normal to find evidence that supports your prediction. Maybe you are right and Barkers Empire of the Petal Throne did become the first RPG. And maybe Barker and his 4 closest friends were the only ones who ever played it until they found a different game to play. Who can say for sure but certainly interesting to predict as you say.

 

[Hussar]

See, but that's the problem. Empire of the Petal Throne is pretty concurrent with D&D. They came out about the same time, as well as a few other RPG's. Yet, D&D is the only one that people know. Outside of gaming geeks like us anyway.

So, how do we account for the MASSIVE different in reception? What's different from D&D than EPT? What is it about D&D that makes it the perennial top dog, to the point where every other RPG is a rounding error?

I'd say that the strong Tolkien influence on D&D which makes it immediately recognizable to anyone with even a passing interest in fantasy would be a strong contender here. I mean, why are the standard races those particular races? Elf, dwarf, halfling? It's not like those are particularly present in any other fantasy outside of those with direct lineage to Tolkien.

Like I've said, I'm no fan of Tolkien. But, realistically, AFAIC, you cannot overestimate the impact Tolkien has on both Fantasy as a genre and D&D in specific.