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?

 

[Laurefindel]

I object to using "Tolkien" as shorthand for "bland and boring."

Me too, however, I don’t think this is (entirely) the case here.

Tolkien introduces a paradigm. It’s a well constructed and coherent one, and thus has become one of the great influencer of fantasy.

A paradigm, like most archetypes and stereotypes, are extremely useful because they give a solid base to built upon. But they can also be restrictive, and in the case of many stereotypes, hurtful.

I don’t tire of Tolkien’s paradigm; I actually think D&D deviate too far from it already, and has becomes its own, not always coherent, paradigm.

But for some worlds to be coherent, you must know the paradigm you are working from to know when and where you are breaking it, restrain yourself in fear of breaking it, or change it in a way that makes other parts of your world incoherent because these do respect the old paradigm. Or, also, choose to respect it.

 

[Fallen star]

I half designed a setting one time where each race was based on a different culture. gnolls
were Arabic, dwarves were Japanese, Satyrs were Celtic, elves were British, and Orcs were Russian. Plus the main premise was a dark age after the collapse of a highly magical empire. I worked on it for years but never played on game in it.

 

[Dausuul]

Her house elves are no more original than any other fictional fantasy race. Calling one author's creations as "boring and lazy" when another's draw from the same set of sources is without actually looking at the nuances they imbue within them is not a good president to set.

Please don't put other people's words in my mouth. I never claimed that Rowling's house-elves were particularly original, and I never called anything "boring and lazy." Everything has roots in something else; drawing on folklore and myth and other literature is the foundation of the fantasy genre.

But this thread is about "escaping Tolkien." And if your setting has beautiful slender human-sized quasi-immortal elves, and bearded blacksmithing underground dwarves, and stealthy agile little halflings... you haven't "escaped Tolkien." You're still living in the House That Tolkien Built. You can put tremendous work into decorating that house, and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what floats your boat, but it's still the Tolkien House and always will be.

Personally, I find that house pretty confining. It's a beautiful house, and I like to visit it from time to time, but I don't want to live there all the time. There is so much more out there, and I really wish D&D would stop pushing "Everyone lives in the Tolkien House!" as if it were the be-all, end-all of fantasy.

 

[GMMichael]

The latter involves the creation of a new setting every 5 years or so, or whenever I start a new campaign. Sometimes it draws upon the previous setting, other times it has been entirely new.

This is dedication.

I'm kind of torn by the idea of Escaping Tolkien, because sex sells elves and dwarves sell books. I'll take a book with a Tolkien key-word over a book with unrecognizable (i.e. new to me) ideas in the cover copy. Explains why I've read all of A Song of Ice and Fire, but I haven't read Dune. (I know, I'm missing out...)

On topic: a change in the culture makes old ideas new. ASoIaF changes zombie culture - they hang out in the snow instead of underground I've been doing this for a while - changing culture - probably because of the above reason; I want to keep my elves and dwarves, but still make them interesting.

 

[MGibster]

I half designed a setting one time where each race was based on a different culture. gnolls
were Arabic, dwarves were Japanese, Satyrs were Celtic, elves were British, and Orcs were Russian. Plus the main premise was a dark age after the collapse of a highly magical empire. I worked on it for years but never played on game in it.

Flintloque & Slaughterloo, table top miniatures war games, does this for Napoleonic era warfare.

English: Orcs
Scots: Ratmen
French: Elves
Spanish: Dark Elves
Austrians: Dog Men
Russians: Undead

They've since added Rabbit Men to the mix but I'm not sure who they're supposed to represent.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really wouldn't do fantasy species = real world culture thing. That can get pretty unfortunate rather easily and is a super effective way to offend people.

 

[innerdude]

I'm the biggest Tolkien fan around (currently in my 35th reading of Lord of the Rings). I love it in every possible way, and on every conceivable level.

And even I'm tired of playing RPGs in a "Tolkien" paradigm. To the point that I'm even sick of "alternate" races/heritages at all. I actually roll my eyes at players that say they're "tired of boring old elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings," so instead want to play tieflings, aasimar, orcs, half-orcs, goblins, rakasha, avians, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or whatever else.

They don't actually care about trying to emulate the actual cultural paradigm of what that race means in context of game. 99% of players only use race as window dressing and a way to get the bonus stats they want at character creation.

I'm much more inspired by the pseudo-history fantasy of Guy Gavriel Kay these days than anything else --- interesting characters placed into fully-realized settings with real motivations. And not a single fantasy race/heritage to be seen.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm much more inspired by the pseudo-history fantasy of Guy Gavriel Kay these days than anything else --- interesting characters placed into fully-realized settings with real motivations. And not a single fantasy race/heritage to be seen.

I've always been a fan of Kay, even if his prose gets a little overwrought sometimes. "Tigana" was the first book of his that I read and remains one of my favorites.

He did write one Tolkienesque trilogy, "The Fionavar Tapestry," and that is the one thing he wrote that I have never been able to get into.

Edit: Hey, he's written a new book since the last time I checked! (He isn't a prolific author, so I only think to check every few years.) Off to Amazon I go. Thanks for reminding me!

 

[Stormonu]

I've found myself so trapped by D&Dism (not just Elves and Dwarves, but also a good swath of the MM) that when the likes of Fantastic Beasts came out I had trouble enjoying it because the creatures in it felt "wrong".

I think that's more to the crux - D&D has an established creature lore that's 30 years on. Breaking out of that for some folks takes effort, and with this being meant as a relaxing pasttime, breaking molds and all the delving into how its different is work.

 

[innerdude]

He did write one Tolkienesque trilogy, "The Fionavar Tapestry," and that is the one thing he wrote that I have never been able to get into.

Same. I think I read the first 30-40 pages of Book I of Fionavar, and promptly set it down, never to look at it again.

Strangely, as much as I love Tigana (it's utterly brilliant), it's probably the book of his I'd least likely want to emulate as an RPG experience. I think the Sarantium books and Lions of Al-Rassan, on the other hand, would be positively brilliant settings for RPG play.