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

[Sacrosanct]

So, about 55% of voters feel Tolkien is definitively influential in D&D, the source for the most important aspects of D&D or even that there could be no D&D as we know it without his work. An additional 35% feel Tolkien is more influential than other scifi authors.

90% acknowledge D&D's intellectual debt to Tolkien.

I’ve been without internet for a few days so I haven’t been able to respond, but your conclusion is flawed because the poll answers don’t capture people’s opinion accurately. For example, at least two of us voted moderately, but have expressly stated that he wasn’t more influential than many other authors like Howard or Anderson.

Secondly, you’re stating a conclusion as fact based on a poll of opinion. That is, just because someone voted “a lot”, doesn’t mean there is in fact an intellectual debt to Tolkien. People can be mistaken. And they are, because we have many posts of people attributing to Tolkien things he didn’t create simply because said person is not familiar with folklore or other works from other authors like Anderson where we can see a stronger influence. And we know for a fact that the claim of D&D never being made without Tolkien is not true.

If you say 90% of people acknowledge Tolkien’s influence on D&D, then that sounds pretty reasonable. But a term like “intellectual debt”. That’s weird phrasing, and a bit strong. So no, 90% do not think he was more influential than every other author.

 

[Parmandur]

I’ve been without internet for a few days so I haven’t been able to respond, but your conclusion is flawed because the poll answers don’t capture people’s opinion accurately. For example, at least two of us voted moderately, but have expressly stated that he wasn’t more influential than many other authors like Howard or Anderson.

Secondly, you’re stating a conclusion as fact based on a poll of opinion. That is, just because someone voted “a lot”, doesn’t mean there is in fact an intellectual debt to Tolkien. People can be mistaken. And they are, because we have many posts of people attributing to Tolkien things he didn’t create simply because said person is not familiar with folklore or other works from other authors like Anderson where we can see a stronger influence. And we know for a fact that the claim of D&D never being made without Tolkien is not true.

If you say 90% of people acknowledge Tolkien’s influence on D&D, then that sounds pretty reasonable. But a term like “intellectual debt”. That’s weird phrasing, and a bit strong. So no, 90% do not think he was more influential than every other author.

But many of those preexisting elements use Tolkien's version as an obvious (Elves, Dwarves and most especially Orcs, for instance), decidedly not the folkloric version, or are based on stuff without pre-Tolkien example, like Hobbits.

And we can't know that D&D would exist with no LotR, because we can't know anything about counterfactual scenarios. Would D&D have existed if Sherlock Holmes stories were never written? Couldn't say, because I can't know one way or the other.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But many of those preexisting elements use Tolkien's version as an obvious (Elves, Dwarves and most especially Orcs, for instance), decidedly not the folkloric version, or are based on stuff without pre-Tolkien example, like Hobbits.

And we can't know that D&D would exist with no LotR, because we can't know anything about counterfactual scenarios. Would D&D have existed if Sherlock Holmes stories were never written? Couldn't say, because I can't know one way or the other.

When people say that Tolkien came up with unique named magic items, we know that to be objectively false. So, like I said, some people assume a lot of things in D&D were influenced by Tolkien when they weren’t., and thus, the voting results may be skewed based on these false assumptions.

And we do know D&D would have existed without Tolkien. This has been brought up at least twice that I know of, but in 1974, long before any legal issues came up, Gary did an interview where he said D&D was created to emulate the fast pace adventures and larger than life heroes from Howard and Lieber, and actually explicitly stated how Tolkien would not work for that style. He literally spells out how those others authors were the primary influence on how the game was designed, and why Tolkien was not (extreme slow pace of adventure and mild to moderate heroes). Of course Tolkien had an influence, and certainly Gary wanted to capitalize on the fan base, but the game would have existed with or without Tolkien. It makes no sense to say the game never would have existed without Tolkien when the game was designed to emulate Howard and Lieber’s style of adventure—fast paced and larger than life heroes.

 

[Parmandur]

When people say that Tolkien came up with unique named magic items, we know that to be objectively false. So, like I said, some people assume a lot of things in D&D were influenced by Tolkien when they weren’t., and thus, the voting results may be skewed based on these false assumptions.

And we do know D&D would have existed without Tolkien. This has been brought up at least twice that I know of, but in 1974, long before any legal issues came up, Gary did an interview where he said D&D was created to emulate the fast pace adventures and larger than life heroes from Howard and Lieber, and actually explicitly stated how Tolkien would not work for that style. He literally spells out how those others authors were the primary influence on how the game was designed, and why Tolkien was not (extreme slow pace of adventure and mild to moderate heroes). Of course Tolkien had an influence, and certainly Gary wanted to capitalize on the fan base, but the game would have existed with or without Tolkien. It makes no sense to say the game never would have existed without Tolkien when the game was designed to emulate Howard and Lieber’s style of adventure—fast paced and larger than life heroes.

So, in 1974, probably around 30 years after Gygax read the Hobbit (assuming he read the popular children's novel that he later read to his own children as a child himself), Gygax was explicitly talking about Tolkien's influence on the game, even if to down play it. This suggests that it was already being talked about in the nascent D&D community, why else would he address it?

It's impossible to know to what extent Tolkien influenced RPGs, insofar as we have to posit an entire alternate mid-20th century literary culture to imagine it...with no method of testability, as we lack any crosstime devices to examine a world with that particular departure from our timeline in the 30's. Hence, unknowable.

 

[Sacrosanct]

He said, right after making the game, that it was to recreate the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Howard and Lieber. To say it wouldn’t have been created if not for another author is just silly because he created the game to emulate the first. That’s like saying I became a fantasy artist because of Boris and Elmore, and you saying if Frazetta never did art, then I never would have been an artist. You are confusing influence with primary and sole inspiration. And since we know for a fact what the inspiration was, we know for a fact that D&D would have been created if Tolkien never existed.

 

[Parmandur]

He said, right after making the game, that it was to recreate the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Howard and Lieber. To say it wouldn’t have been created if not for another author is just silly because he created the game to emulate the first. That’s like saying I became a fantasy artist because of Boris and Elmore, and you saying if Frazetta never did art, then I never would have been an artist. You are confusing influence with primary and sole inspiration. And since we know for a fact what the inspiration was, we know for a fact that D&D would have been created if Tolkien never existed.

We don't know anything about a historical counterfactual "for a fact," by very literal definition of the term. They are episitemilogical absurdities, again by definition, fun as it can be to play with a silly idea.

I'm not claiming that Tolkien was the primary, let alone the only, influence: but we absolutely cannot know what the 1970's Midwest would have been like without Tolkien...or Anderson, or Howard, or Lieber, etc. This is beyond the scope of our knowledge, either way you cut. Those who claim there would be no D&D without Tolkien are being equally absurd, because we have no idea of what that would be.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And I think your focusing on pedantics to dismiss what is in fact a de facto certainty.

If I tell you that who inspired me to be a fantasy artist was Boris and Elmore, even if Frazetta was also an influence, and you tell me that if Frazetta never existed then there is no way to know if I would have ever been an artist? Then I’d say yes there is. Because Frazetta wasn’t the one that caused me to be a fantasy artist, the other two were. So we know for a certainty that I’d still be an artist because the artists that inspired me are still there.

 

[Parmandur]

And I think your focusing on pedantics to dismiss what is in fact a de facto certainty.

If I tell you that who inspired me to be a fantasy artist was Boris and Elmore, even if Frazetta was also an influence, and you tell me that if Frazetta never existed then there is no way to know if I would have ever been an artist? Then I’d say yes there is. Because Frazetta wasn’t the one that caused me to be a fantasy artist, the other two were. So we know for a certainty that I’d still be an artist because the artists that inspired me are still there.

But if the fantasy art being done all involves shirtless buff men wearing loincloths with huge swords and women clinging to their legs... questions will be asked, and legitimately so.

And no, the results of a Tolkien-influence free RPG is not "de facto" or "certain" in any meaning of those words: counterfactuals are unknowable, and cannot be proven either way. I don't necessarily think RPG's wouldn't exist without Tolkien's influence, and certainly wouldn't argue for such a silly idea...but I can't necessarily know that the world wouldn't have been destroyed in WWIII without Tolkien's influence on the world before RPGs were invented, either (no proof either way). A world that we cannot access is unknowable on the face of it, and speculation is meaningless. All we have is this world, in which Tolkien played a major part in the birth of D&D, and the RPG hobby.

 

[Hussar]

He said, right after making the game, that it was to recreate the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Howard and Lieber. To say it wouldn’t have been created if not for another author is just silly because he created the game to emulate the first. That’s like saying I became a fantasy artist because of Boris and Elmore, and you saying if Frazetta never did art, then I never would have been an artist. You are confusing influence with primary and sole inspiration. And since we know for a fact what the inspiration was, we know for a fact that D&D would have been created if Tolkien never existed.

Wow, if that's true, that Gygax claimed that D&D was to "recreate the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Howard and Leiber", he failed spectacularly. Since I have more respect for Gygax as a game designer than that, I'm going to say that this is perhaps a less than accurate statement of his goals.

Because there's one thing about it, OD&D and AD&D certainly did not come even remotely close to capturing the fast paced and larger than life heroes.

Yet funnily enough, you can pretty much line for line recreate the Fellowship right out of the box. The Hobbit would play out as a D&D module pretty easily.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wow, if that's true, that Gygax claimed that D&D was to "recreate the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Howard and Leiber", he failed spectacularly. Since I have more respect for Gygax as a game designer than that, I'm going to say that this is perhaps a less than accurate statement of his goals.

Because there's one thing about it, OD&D and AD&D certainly did not come even remotely close to capturing the fast paced and larger than life heroes.

Yet funnily enough, you can pretty much line for line recreate the Fellowship right out of the box. The Hobbit would play out as a D&D module pretty easily.

Well, you'd be wrong. He did say that (see below). It would also be a horrible adventure. What D&D adventures take a year and a half to complete, game time, with only a few encounters the entire time. You'd spend session after session talking about how you're setting up camp and what you're eating for that day and that's it. Also, who wants to play a hobbit that doesn't really do anything the whole time and doesn't gain in ability (levels)? There's a reason why most fans wanted to emulate the secondary characters (Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli) and not the main character (Bilbo). In fact, the whole point of the Hobbit (and LoTR later) was to show how the unassuming, regular dude, non warrior, little guy ends up as the biggest hero. That's the opposite of how D&D is designed. Which makes sense, because as per his own words, he designed D&D so players could play the larger than life heroes who frequently did extraordinary feats in battle and wenching.

I have no idea how you can say with as straight face that OD&D/AD&D can't remotely come close to the fast paced and larger than life heroes of Conan and Fafhrd but emulates Tolkien exactly. OD&D/AD&D is all about the quick adventure (completed within days or maybe a week or two) with larger than life heroes (slinging fireballs, altering reality, taking on giants and dragons), and then blowing the treasure on decadence back in town. THAT is literally S&S and the opposite of what Tolkien wrote.

Tolkien includes a number of heroic figures, but they are not of the "Conan" stamp. They are not larger-than-life swashbucklers who fear neither monster nor magic. His wizards are either ineffectual or else they lurk in their strongholds working magic spells which seem to have little if any effect while their gross and stupid minions bungle their plans for supremacy. Religion with its attendant gods and priests he includes not at all. These considerations, as well as a comparison of the creatures of Tolkien's writings with the models they were drawn from (or with a hypothetical counterpart desirable from a wargame standpoint) were in mind when Chainmail and Dungeons & Dragons were created.

Take several of Tolkien's heroic figures for example. Would a participant in a fantasy game more readily identify with Bard of Dale? Aragorn? Frodo Baggins? or would he rather relate to Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or Elric of Melnibone? The answer seems all too obvious.

Location


So whether you agree with it or not, it's right there in black and white about how D&D was designed. Whether or not fans wanted to insert more Tolkien emulation into their games (which many did, including a class like the ranger) is irrelevant with how D&D was designed originally or what inspired it. We know for a fact what inspired D&D's creation. Saying we couldn't know is like saying we couldn't know if video games would have been invented if Pac Man wasn't created. Yeah we do, because PAC Man wasn't the driving force behind the creation of video games. To argue otherwise is to argue absurdity