Worlds of Design: Escaping Tolkien

In my previous article we discussed technological differences; this article focuses on cultural differences. Perhaps the cultural differences aren’t as clear in one’s awareness, but can be very important and just as far-reaching. Don’t underestimate culture!

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Part of world building is figuring out the consequences of changes you make from the technological and cultural background that you start with. You always start with something. For example, there’s often an assumption that there are horses large enough to be ridden in the world, even though for thousands of years of real-world history, they weren’t large enough to ride.

Trapped by Tolkien​

Some world builders get “trapped by Tolkien” as I like to put it. They think elves must be like Tolkien’s (even though those aren’t traditional), dwarves must be like Tolkien’s, etc. Imagine elves with the capabilities of Tolkien’s, but inclined to be Imperials! It’s a change of culture only, but a mighty one. Imagine if dwarves and orcs tended to work together! Similarly, monstrous humanoids aren’t necessarily antagonistic towards humans and vice versa. These are cultural changes that can differentiate your fantasy world from so many others and while subtle, but they can make a big difference. Turn your imagination loose, don’t let it be constrained by a single author or book.

Magical Attitudes​

Attitudes toward magic make a big difference on how a setting works. In one setting the magic users may be the rock stars, while in another they may be dreaded and avoided shadowy figures; they can be as rare as professional athletes or an everyday occurrence.

Modern Attitudes​

It’s probably inevitable that modern attitudes will shape how game masters create their fantasy worlds. Using slavery as one example, whether or not it “makes sense” in a world must also be balanced by how it will be represented in the game. If you are going to take on mature topics for a fantasy world that has a long history similar to our world (including the unpleasant parts), you should consider how your players will deal with the topic.

Intentions​

I haven’t said much about intentional versus unintentional change to a fantasy world, because in the end it’s the change that matters, not the intention. I suppose you’re more likely to figure out what changes will occur, when you’re intending to introduce changes. But a world is a huge collection of interactions, and any change is likely to affect more than you intended.

Your Turn: In your experience, what was the change (from the “default”) in world-setting that made the biggest difference?

 

[MGibster]

I believe I implied that quite clearly in my original post. You make a world that is completely alien with completely alien races that cannot be compared to the standard Tolkien races without really stretching things and.... congratulations, you've made something that no one is going to be able get a grasp on and everything beyond surface level is going to feel very bland.

Let's be fair, if you only imply something then you're not really being clear. But I do agree with your general point here. Whenever someone complains about fantasy/sci-fi races being "humans with extra bits on their faces" I point out that this is not a bug. Most stories with truly alien lifeforms are focused on how humans (or proxy humans) interact with them.

 

[Aldarc]

As I have said in every one of my posts, it is lazy and terrible writing that is the real issue, not the existence of elves or dwarves.

Regardless of whether elves and dwarves differ between settings, I do think that the ubiquity of elves and dwarves, or at least the common expectation that they are a fantasy world staple, does at least play some role in the described sense of fatigue. Is Western fantasy only capable of imagining nature-loving elves and gruff, mining dwarves for their settings? So while the flavor of elves may differ between settings, our brains are also likely reading the presence of elves and dwarves in settings with a sort of semiotic shorthand.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I believe I implied that quite clearly in my original post. You make a world that is completely alien with completely alien races that cannot be compared to the standard Tolkien races without really stretching things and.... congratulations, you've made something that no one is going to be able get a grasp on and everything beyond surface level is going to feel very bland.

People will just simply not be into it-- it will be very unpopular.

Do you really suppose that any publishing company goes-- "Wow! This fantasy world sold so few copies that we lost money on every book we published about it. That's how we know we made a completely new fantasy world the right way!!"

No-- obviously not. The fundamental measuring stick of whether you created a successful non-Tolkien-based fantasy world is precisely that it grips people enough that they obsess about it and then tell all their friends about it who are interested enough to buy it and tell their friends about it until it is becomes wildly popular. Even if you want to take finances out of it-- the number of people who love your setting is the only possible measuring stick for how well you have done.

Again I'm hear, unpopular = bad setting & popular = good setting. I'm not sure what's true. Maybe it would help if you clarified your position.

 

[Ancalagon]

Just Dungeons and Dragons?

I specified just D&D because there are 2 setting books I have read that I think might compete with it and they weren't D&D (and not fantasy either). And yes, I have enjoyed yoon suin more than golarion or warhammer.

If you have indeed used so many settings for TTRPGs (books and video games are a different things), you clearly have a thing for them... why haven't you read Yoon Suin then? it's available for a pound.

 

[Aelryinth]

There are a few MMORPGs too-- EverQuest, Ashran's Call, Guild Wars.... and I am probably forgetting a dozen I tried for a week or so.

Hey, that's Asheron's Call! (shakes fist) Leafcull forever!

And there was not a damn Tolkien thing in Asheron's Call. Even the dragon-things had more in common with lizards and pterodactyls, them dem grommies.
Banderlings, tuskers, mosswarts, drudges, virindi... nothing Tolkien about any of it. Olthoi are still a great nightmare race if thought about correctly... and grievers aren't any better.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Regardless of whether elves and dwarves differ between settings, I do think that the ubiquity of elves and dwarves, or at least the common expectation that they are a fantasy world staple, does at least play some role in the described sense of fatigue. Is Western fantasy only capable of imagining nature-loving elves and gruff, mining dwarves for their settings? So while the flavor of elves may differ between settings, our brains are also likely reading the presence of elves and dwarves in settings with a sort of semiotic shorthand.

Again, you are over simplifying and reducing what you call "flavor". There have been MANY different varieties that are largely different from one another. Even "nature loving" is an INCREDIBLY broad description. Does it mean you only love forests and trees? What about animals? Fungus? Rot? Death and winter?

The ubiquitousness is because people are shifting the goalposts as to what defines "elves" to suit their arguments. Again, would you call the Children of the Forest and the Others in Game of Thrones elves, fey, or dryads/forest spirits? All such examples are long lived nature loving beings at odds with humans harming the forests and represent aspects of nature. Such distinction of races only matters because we're conditioned to categorize them due to racial statistics and dnd game balances. In the broader terms of fiction such distinctions largely do not matter.

If those on your side of the argument present us with what a clear definition of what an elf is you cannot then proceed to shift definitions and dismiss other examples when given something radically different from said example. Claiming Night Elves/Blood Elves from Warcraft, the Children of the Forest from GoT and the Tolkienian Elves are the same is blatantly false unless you are using only the broadest definition possible for Elves.

The house "elves" of Harry Potter only feel different because they are not in fact elves, they stem from a different mythological source. You can argue that perhaps slavic house spirits (and slavic folklore in general) is less well known to western audiences, but I argue that is an issue of people not consuming enough fiction. I assure you every mythology is just as inundated with different works of fiction attempting to interpret their cultures myths and tales and has been since long before Tolkien ever put pen to paper. He is just the most well known to people who aren't actually fans of mythology or fantasy. This is literally how storytelling works and has been since the dawn of mankind and known recorded history.

And again, I argue that it is the execution of different mythological trappings that matters. It is not Tolkien but lazy or incompetent writers that is the problem. I've yet to see a response to this that wasn't just goalpost shifting on what defines an "elf"/"dwarf" or isn't just reductionist dismissal of incredibly broad different portrayals of the same set of races as the same in an attempt to just lampshade the point and deflect from the real issue at stake.

 

[Aelryinth]

Again, you are over simplifying and reducing what you call "flavor". There have been MANY different varieties that are largely different from one another. Even "nature loving" is an INCREDIBLY broad description. Does it mean you only love forests and trees? What about animals? Fungus? Rot? Death and winter?

The ubiquitousness is because people are shifting the goalposts as to what defines "elves" to suit their arguments. Again, would you call the Children of the Forest and the Others in Game of Thrones elves, fey, or dryads/forest spirits? All such examples are long lived nature loving beings at odds with humans harming the forests and represent aspects of nature. Such distinction of races only matters because we're conditioned to categorize them due to racial statistics and dnd game balances. In the broader terms of fiction such distinctions largely do not matter.

The house "elves" of Harry Potter only feel different because they are not in fact elves, they stem from a different mythological source. You can argue that perhaps slavic house spirits (and slavic folklore in general) is less well known to western audiences, but I argue that is an issue of people not consuming enough fiction. I assure you every mythology is just as inundated with different works of fiction attempting to interpret their cultures myths and tales and has been since long before Tolkien ever put pen to paper. He is just the most well known to people who aren't actually fans of mythology or fantasy. This is literally how storytelling works and has been since the dawn of mankind and known recorded history.

And again, I argue that it is the execution of different mythological trappings that matters. It is not Tolkien but lazy or incompetent writers that is the problem. I've yet to see a response to this that wasn't just goalpost shifting on what defines an "elf"/"dwarf" or isn't just reductionist dismissal of incredibly broad different portrayals of the same set of races as the same in an attempt to just lampshade the point and deflect from the real issue at stake.

I have to agree. The 'dark elves' of nordic literature are literally dwarves by any other name. Just calling the house elves of Potter that doesn't change the fact that in any other system they are house spirits, brownie-equivalents of fey, and the like.

 

[Aldarc]

Again, you are over simplifying and reducing what you call "flavor". There have been MANY different varieties that are largely different from one another. Even "nature loving" is an INCREDIBLY broad description. Does it mean you only love forests and trees? What about animals? Fungus? Rot? Death and winter?

The ubiquitousness is because people are shifting the goalposts as to what defines "elves" to suit their arguments. Again, would you call the Children of the Forest and the Others in Game of Thrones elves, fey, or dryads/forest spirits? All such examples are long lived nature loving beings at odds with humans harming the forests and represent aspects of nature. Such distinction of races only matters because we're conditioned to categorize them due to racial statistics and dnd game balances. In the broader terms of fiction such distinctions largely do not matter.

If those on your side of the argument present us with what a clear definition of what an elf is you cannot then proceed to shift definitions and dismiss other examples when given something radically different from said example. Claiming Night Elves/Blood Elves from Warcraft, the Children of the Forest from GoT and the Tolkienian Elves are the same is blatantly false unless you are using only the broadest definition possible for Elves.

The house "elves" of Harry Potter only feel different because they are not in fact elves, they stem from a different mythological source. You can argue that perhaps slavic house spirits (and slavic folklore in general) is less well known to western audiences, but I argue that is an issue of people not consuming enough fiction. I assure you every mythology is just as inundated with different works of fiction attempting to interpret their cultures myths and tales and has been since long before Tolkien ever put pen to paper. He is just the most well known to people who aren't actually fans of mythology or fantasy. This is literally how storytelling works and has been since the dawn of mankind and known recorded history.

And again, I argue that it is the execution of different mythological trappings that matters. It is not Tolkien but lazy or incompetent writers that is the problem. I've yet to see a response to this that wasn't just goalpost shifting on what defines an "elf"/"dwarf" or isn't just reductionist dismissal of incredibly broad different portrayals of the same set of races as the same in an attempt to just lampshade the point and deflect from the real issue at stake.

I'm not sure how what I wrote is any more reductionistic or goal post shifting than dismissing it all as a problem of lazy writing.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I'm not sure how what I wrote is any more reductionistic or goal post shifting than dismissing it all as a problem of lazy writing.

Except the difference is that I am not a) insulting several well known and well loved authors of various different forms of media, of whom I am more than willing to provide a list of names that have just been mentioned in this thread alone.

Hell if you want what is perhaps an unpopular opinion among these boards, by the absurd logic of "new" ideas being better than old, Stephanie Meyer has done more to contribute to modern Vampire folklore than most other authors in the last 50 years, creators of Curse of Strahd included. After all our boy from Ravenloft is just a Dracula clone, right?

b) I am not trying to prove the case that the mere presence of elves and dwarves means you've ripped off Tolkien. I reject that notion as an opinion and not a fact. That is an argument made by yourself and the author of this terribly researched click-bait article. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you. I do, however, expect clear and concise definitions of what constitutes what an "elf" and "dwarf" is, and I want specific documented sources we can present to debate.

And c) I am more than prepared to elaborate more if you wish, though it shall be a lengthy discussion involving quite a number of touchy subjects that all border on risking this thread getting locked further. Suffice it to say the inter-connectivity of corporate influence and capitalism on all forms of entertainment is just as much at fault (if not more so) for stories being so bland and repetitive as it is this amusing insistence that Tokien has "ruined" fantasy (again, see point b about said click-bait article, which I still assume is profit motivated, if not on the part of the author than on the part of the editor who according to the author's previous post changed the title of this thread without his consent). People have been saying the exact sort of thing with Disney and fairy tales since the company's inception, and they did so with the Brother's Grimm before that. It all boils down to human greed and the desire to gain as much money for as little work possible.

 

[Aldarc]

Except the difference is that I am not a) insulting several well known and well loved authors of various different forms of media, of whom I am more than willing to provide a list of names that have just been mentioned in this thread alone.

b) I am not trying to prove the case that the mere presence of elves and dwarves means you've ripped off Tolkien.

And c) I am more than prepared to elaborate more if you wish, though it shall be a lengthy discussion involving quite a number of touchy subjects that all border on risking this thread getting locked further. That is an argument made by yourself and the author of this terribly researched click-bait article.

I wasn't aware that I made such arguments. This is a surprise. One minute you were agreeing with me, calling it lazy writing, but now you are castigating me as making the same anti-Tolkien argument as the OP. You're clearly angry, but maybe it would be more conducive to discussion if you stop pointing fingers around at everyone.