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

[JonnyP71]

I went to the same senior school as Tolkien.

...many decades after he did...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Do feel free to 1) provide a shred of evidence, 2) explain why all the other woodsmen-heroes that Gygax personally cited as (general) inspirations aren't actually applicable, and/or 3) explain away all the ranger features that do not fit your supposed pastiche, such as casting mage spells or attracting fantastic beasts like unicorns as followers. Funny in particular that you bring up magic, since Aragorn never uses any. Palantiri seeing stone yeah, magic spells no.

(Historical note: Joe Fischer is credited with creation of the original class, which Gygax subsequently edited before adding to AD&D. It can be found here)

I don't see much need to provide further evidence, since you just linked it yourself: Aragorn uses healing magic like Joe Fischer's original ("the hands of a king are the hands of a healer" in Return of the King), and the Palantir use is clearly copied in that OD&D class.

Joe Fischer's wanted to play Aragorn, h and Gygax worked out the details and published it in Strategic Review, which you just linked. Other influences get involved over time, but "I wanna play Aragorn" is the root, plain as day.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. I'm certainly not Tolkien maximalist as you can see, but if you can't see Tolkien in the original Ranger ... I can't help you.

The second level title is Strider .... I mean, c'mon!

I think your approach is the most reasonable, and I agree with it broadly.

It's an old rule of thumb that the truth lies between two errors...but one of the errors is closer to the reality. "Tolkienian Maximalism" and "Tolkienian Minimalism" are both errors: there is plenty of Tolkien influence in D&D from the root, but not the be-all, end-all. However, when the "Tolkien Maximalist" incorrectly says that D&D got named magic swords or Dragons from Tolkien, they do note a commonality that exists in reality, though they are wrong to attribute causality to that resemblence.

Trying to deny that Rangers were originally modeled on Aragorn and his preternatural exploits, or that Halflings are Hobbits from Tolkien, on the other hand, is just...plain untrue. Whatever Gygax said after the lawyers got their work done.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

TBH, it's not just the lawyers. This is part of the intentional fallacy.

Don't get me wrong- I enjoy, and will employ, a Gygax quote with the best of them! But people, even the best of them, dissemble and forget and sometimes don't even fully know why they are doing things ... even if there are no lawyers present!

I think that the great mass of material spanning decades shows that Gygax really didn't care that much for Tolkien compared to other fantasy writers (for example) as a matter of personal preference. Whether it's because of his love of "Sword and Sorcery," or because it was an old-school version of the hipster phenomenon ("I loved fantasy before all y'all started reading Tolkien"), I don't think that's feigned.

But I also think that the evidence is clear that Gygax catered to his customers (and players), and that they loved Tolkien. And these impulses are obvious even going back to the Chainmail fantasy supplement; Gygax based it off of a Tolkien game, but still felt it necessary to add non-Tolkien flourishes ... and it wasn't because of legal reasons (at the time), it was his personal preference. He liked Howard. He liked Anderson. He wanted a more universal system.

But all of this makes it hard to parse ... because many of his statements are self-serving, even when true.* And so much was lost to the mists of history.

*To use another common example, just look at all the competing narratives of people regarding Arneson and Gygax. But that's a topic for another day.

Indeed, his indifference to Tolkien was fairly clear. Which makes his willingness to allow Tolkien influences to be brought into his game ("sure, you can play Aragorn, Joe, great concept, let's hash out the details") shows a magnanimity and generosity towards others and the material that inspires them. And that creative openness is really, in my book, the core of D&D.

 

[ART!]

Indeed, his indifference to Tolkien was fairly clear. Which makes his willingness to allow Tolkien influences to be brought into his game ("sure, you can play Aragorn, Joe, great concept, let's hash out the details") shows a magnanimity and generosity towards others and the material that inspires them. And that creative openness is really, in my book, the core of D&D.

That's a really neat way to look at it. Thanks for that. Do you mean D&D as it "should" be played/used or as the creators intended - or both?

To my mind this sort of begs the question (and this might be best as a separate topic, so forgive me and anyone should feel free to start one): what are the most recent fantasy fiction (from any media) influences on D&D?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

That's a really neat way to look at it. Thanks for that. Do you mean D&D as it "should" be played/used or as the creators intended - or both?

To my mind this sort of begs the question (and this might be best as a separate topic, so forgive me and anyone should feel free to start one): what are the most recent fantasy fiction (from any media) influences on D&D?

Well, how it originated at least: Gygax could have made a strict Howard simulation game, but he went for Gonzo, everything goes free for all.

Harry Potter, Wheel of Time are big influences: however, most modern fantasy media is being made by folks with some familiarity with D&D, like DM Robert Jordan.