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

[RobertBrus]

Gygax was not a particular fan of Tolkien. He preferred a grittier style of fantasy writing. Arneson was building on historical miniature gaming. Many sources were used to bring this together. Tolkien was one, but not an instrumental one. In fact, this all could have come about without a Tolkien.

 

[RobertBrus]

If you combine miniature gaming rules (i.e. Chainmail et al) with great imagination Arneson, and couple it with the love of storytelling (Gygax) you get D&D. Of course this is a horrible oversimplification. But so is the above poll results that suggest Tolkien helped write D&D. And Tolkien drew from many different cultural mythos to create his version of Faie writing. So to say Tolkien had all this influence is to say that the vast body of European mythology had a great deal of influence in the early D&D. Let's not let the dramatic influence of the big screen (in spite of how horrifically bad Jackson was able to butcher Tolkien's story) overly influence our understanding of the roots of D&D.

 

[Parmandur]

Gygax was not a particular fan of Tolkien. He preferred a grittier style of fantasy writing. Arneson was building on historical miniature gaming. Many sources were used to bring this together. Tolkien was one, but not an instrumental one. In fact, this all could have come about without a Tolkien.

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

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. Pulp heroes like Conan or The Grey Mouser were never zeroes. They were always superheroes. They most certainly weren't some guy's gardener.

Yet, by the end of LotR, the hobbits are all much more than what they started as. They are very different from what they started as. And that's something that D&D has always based itself on.

A pulp based game would start with accomplished characters who are pretty much super human. Or at least on the bleeding edge of the best of the best. They're larger than life. But, D&D never started that way. You're first level PC was a peon and it wasn't until you were well into the campaign that you started to look like those pulp heroes.

Now, I'm not saying Tolkien originated the idea. Of course not. But, that sort of Campbellian heroes journey is crystalized in fantasy by Tolkien. People have mentioned Jason and the Argonauts. Trick is, that's the equivalent of the Justice League. These weren't nobodies that got together in the Color Animal Inn. They were all established heroes with stories in their own right. It's largely Tolkien that gives us the idea of the "zero to hero" fantasy story with a group and not just a single protagonist.

How was Tolkien zero to hero? Bilbo was the only zero. Gandalf certainly wasn’t, and all of the dwarves were very well established warriors by the time they entered the story. Heck, Thorin was a freaking king. And in LtR, again the hobbits were the only zeros. Everyone else was already an accomplished hero in their own lands.

Also, the Grey Mouser and Fafhrd, while not weaklings, were not heroes when they were introduced. Fafhrd in particular has some issues that weren’t so heroic at first.

 

[Hussar]

How was Tolkien zero to hero? Bilbo was the only zero. Gandalf certainly wasn’t, and all of the dwarves were very well established warriors by the time they entered the story. Heck, Thorin was a freaking king. And in LtR, again the hobbits were the only zeros. Everyone else was already an accomplished hero in their own lands.

Also, the Grey Mouser and Fafhrd, while not weaklings, were not heroes when they were introduced. Fafhrd in particular has some issues that weren’t so heroic at first.

But, that's the point. It's called "The Hobbit" for a reason. It's not called "The Dwarves and a Hobbit". Both The Hobbit and LotR focus most of the story on the Hobbits. They are central to the narrative. In LotR, Legolas and Gimli were mostly NPC's. And Gandalf was the DMPC.

But, the point being, that arc of zero to hero is largely missing from fantasy stories from before LotR. The Leiber stories are pretty late in the line to be honest, appearing some time after the Hobbit and LotR, so, we cannot discount the impact Tolkien had on Leiber's writing. I don't know what impact it had, but, it's entirely possible that it had some.

I think people tend to forget just how tiny Fantasy as a genre was prior to about 1980. Even by the 60's and 70's, there were only about a couple of dozen new Speculative Fiction (and that includes SF) novels per year. You could easily read all the new Spec Fic novels printed every year. To put it in perspective, there are now thousands of original Spec Fic novels published every year and that doesn't count media tie-ins like Star Trek or Star Wars novels. You couldn't possibly read more than a fraction of what comes out in a given year any more.

Did pulps have an impact on D&D? Of course they did. Did mythological stories have an impact? Of course they did. How could they not considering that outside of Tolkien that's pretty much all there was in the genre at the time? It's very interesting to note that when you look at Appendix N in the 1e DMG, virtually ALL the writers on the list had published within 10-15 years of the 1e DMG coming out. Again, of course they did because prior to that, you had hardly any published fantasy works to look at.

Trying to say that Tolkien had little or no impact on D&D is like saying Shakespeare has no impact on English dramatic stories.

 

[Salamandyr]

Conan grew from a punk kid to the king of Aquilonia. In Tower of the Elephant, he's pretty much nothing but really good stats and attitude. Fafhrd was a high tenor mama's boy. The Gray Mouser was a tiny sorceror's apprentice with barely the strength to hold a sword much less fight it.

Pretty much Elric is the only S&S character who, even in backstory, is at something more than 3rd level.

Methinks the idea that a low level D&D character is a "zero" is a bit overstated.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Who is saying he had little to no impact on D&D

 

[pemerton]

Conan grew from a punk kid to the king of Aquilonia. In Tower of the Elephant, he's pretty much nothing but really good stats and attitude.

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.

 

[pemerton]

Who is saying he had little to no impact on D&D

Presumably the nearly 10% of respondents choosing option 1 or 2 for the poll.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Presumably the nearly 10% of respondents choosing option 1 or 2 for the poll.

One person? 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”). So making an argument against one vote seems a bit of a strawman in context. Especially when poll options rarely capture how a person feels, but is only the best option out of a limited choice. The important thing is to look at actual arguments.

Who has actually made that argument, that Tolkien has made little or no impact? Do you have quotes?