• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Worlds of Design: Reassessing Tolkien’s Influence

J.R.R. Tolkien’s work is a strong influence on RPGs, but is that bad?

In September 2020 I wrote a column about Tolkien’s influence and how world builders are “trapped” by his influence. I was not writing with Tolkien in my sights. But now I am.

book-5718632_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Tolkien’s List​

How influential has J.R.R. Tolkien’s work been on RPGs, and is that influence a problem? I’ve made a list of some characteristics of Tolkien’s world (in no particular order):
  • Characteristics of Dwarves and Elves
  • Very low-magic levels of Middle-earth
  • Lack of religion, of “gods” that interfere
  • Impossibly long history without significant change in technology
  • An overarching “dark lord”
  • A single magical object that can determine overall success or failure (The Ring)
  • Group quest
  • “Monsters” and other detail

Dwarves and Elves​

Dwarves and Elves in RPGs are usually Tolkien-like, much different than earlier folklore notions. Consider the dwarfs of the Nibelungenlied, and the small and often nefarious elves of many stories about the Fey world. This may be where Tolkien’s influence is most obvious. (If you haven’t read the older stories you might not be aware of the striking difference. It’s like the so-called “classic” pirate accent (yaarrhh) – it didn’t exist in movies before 1950’s Treasure Island and Long John Silver’s west Cornish accent.)

Low-Magic Levels​

What evidently hasn’t influenced RPGs at all is the low-magic levels of Middle-earth. Magic items are just about non-existent. Spell-casters are just about non-existent. An inhabitant may hear of such things, but actually getting involved with one in any way, even just to see it, is nearly unheard of. In the USA today you’re as likely to see the President of the United States up close and personal as to see a magic-user in person in Middle-earth. Similarly, you’re more likely to see a gold bar in the USA than to see a magic item in Middle-earth.

Lack or Organized Religion​

Tolkien’s lack of organized religion, and of “gods” that interfere hasn’t been an influence. Gods that manifest in the world, if only through the spells of clerics/priests, are common in RPGs, perhaps heavily influenced by D&D. Gods that interfere in the “real world” are also common from what I hear of RPG campaigns (something I don’t use myself).

Little Technological Advancement​

Impossibly long history without significant change in technology. This is a big influence on literature as well as games. As an historian I recognize that this is virtually impossible. Yes, technology changed much more slowly in, say, 2500 BCE. But it did change immensely over time, and in so many games (and books) it doesn’t seem to change at all over many millennia. Heck, even the science fantasy Star Wars has very little technological change in tens of thousands of years. Having said that, my wife reminded me of the new “infernal/demonic engines” of Saruman, both at Isengard and in Hobbiton. Yet those technologies were very much frowned upon by the “good guys.”

A Dark Lord​

An overarching “dark lord” threatening the world. I have never used a Sauron-equivalent in my campaigns, but I’d guess that many GMs do. This is hardly an invention of Tolkien, but Lord of the Rings could certainly have influenced many GMs. There’s no evidence as to how much, though.

A MacGuffin​

A single magical object that can determine overall success or failure (The Ring). More than just a MacGuffin (“an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot”), it is the be-all and end-all of the entire story-arc. In LOTR it is Sauron’s lost Ring of Power, of course. Not something I’ve used (I avoid “saving the world” situations), but who knows how many others have used it? It’s more practical if the magical effect is much reduced, and the story scaled back from “saving the world” to accomplishing something worthwhile.

Was this new with Tolkien? Only an expert in pre-Tolkien fantasy fiction and myth could answer this question. What first comes to mind is the Ring in Wagner’s Nibelungenlied opera cycle, but that ring was not the overwhelming object of Power that Sauron’s Ring was. As with several of these questions, even if Tolkien was not the first, he may have been far better known than any preceding work.

A Group Quest​

Group Quest. Early science fiction and fantasy was dominated by a single protagonist hero, or hero and sidekick. Tolkien’s main books depicted quests by groups of characters rather than by individuals. How much this actually influenced RPGs, I have no idea.

Archetypical Monsters​

“Monsters” and other details. Apart from the characterizations of dwarves and elves, Tolkien’s influence shows in other species respects. For example, Orcs are direct transfers from LOTR, as are Hobbits (now changed to halflings). Ents (now changed to treants) are from LOTR, as are Balrogs (changed to Balor). Also, there is a “Common Tongue” in Middle-earth. This is a convenience for gaming that might have been invented by anyone, but Tolkien showed the way.

Does It Matter?​

I’m not trying to gauge whether Tolkien’s influence is “bad” or not. His work certainly influences RPGs, but perhaps less than many think. Newer gamers, coming to Tolkien through the movies, may see more of his influence than older gamers do. Some GMs are certainly more influenced than others. Yet I’m not sure how any literary influence on RPGs could be “bad”, insofar as inspiration can come from anywhere, and be used for any purpose. Any game designer is free to ignore Tolkien, or not, as preferred.

Your Turn: How do you incorporate (or avoid) Tolkien's influence in your campaigns?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

occam

Adventurer
I love Tolkien's work, but I also think his impact on fantasy fiction has been mostly negative, and the same for RPGs.

Tolkien's writing style is profoundly anachronistic and only works because he is working at the level of myth and has the stupendous chops and devotion to pull it off. The Lord of the Rings could only have been written by an Oxford professor of languages who basically made it his life's work. Someone who had completely internalized Nordic sagas but also the Bible.

Unfortunately, it created a template for a lot of bad fantasy. Because a whole lot of writers were effectively trying to do Tolkien, and they didn't have anything like his chops. And given that fantasy is already an inherently conservative genre, we wound up with tons of derivative mush about dark lords and epic quests. I suspect a lot of D&D campaigns have fallen into this category. My early ones certainly did.

In particular, I blame Tolkien's influence for the profoundly simplistic character development that still plagues fantasy. Tolkien's characters are not really people, they are archetypes, and, once again, he gets away with it because he's that good. Fantasy's obsession with black and white morality is rooted in Tolkien; I blame it for alignments in particular (with an assist from Moorcock). It has taken fantasy decades to move past Tolkien's view of moral conflict.
Imagine if, instead of Tolkien, some other skilled author had written a seminal work of fantasy in the mid-20th century that left its stamp on later works? Suppose that this person, a sort of anti-Tolkien (aka Neiklot), had written in modern American vernacular, and filled their work with morally gray protagonists and bloody violence[1], steeped in the culturual issues of the present day. Might not one then say:

"I think Neiklot's impact on fantasy fiction has been mostly negative. Their style is profoundly anachronistic, and only works because Neiklot has the chops to pull it off. But it created a template for a lot of bad fantasy, stuffed full of derivative grimdark antiheroes by writers who didn't have anything like Neiklot's chops. Where are the clear moral conflicts, or the mythic sense of scale, characteristics that could exist in more of modern fantasy if not for Neiklot's influence?"

My point being, don't blame Tolkien for being infuential. Blame the writers who made bad copy attempts.


[1] On reflection, it feels like I just described REH. So may "Neiklot" actually did exist, although Howard didn't have as large a direct impact on late 20th-century fantasy as Tolkien did.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GothmogIV

Explorer
I agree with you 100% and is why i have reverted back to older editions or other games like grimdark and Knave as well as OSE or OSR 1st edition D&D and 2nd edition D&D. The restrictions and penalties of race and level limits helped shape the game and keep power creep down.
We are currently playing Dungeon Crawl Classics as well, and Dragonbane. Both systems are less super-powered.
 

Clint_L

Legend
Imagine if, instead of Tolkien, some other skilled author had written a seminal work of fantasy in the mid-20th century that left its stamp on later works? Suppose that this person, a sort of anti-Tolkien (aka Neiklot), had written in modern American vernacular, and filled their work with morally gray protagonists and bloody violence[1], steeped in the culturual issues of the present day. Might not one then say:

"I think Neiklot's impact on fantasy fiction has been mostly negative. Their style is profoundly anachronistic,
Well, no, because their style would not have been anachronistic.
and only works because Neiklot has the chops to pull it off. But it created a template for a lot of bad fantasy, stuffed full of derivative grimdark antiheroes by writers who didn't have anything like Neiklot's chops. Where are the clear moral conflicts, or the mythic sense of scale, characteristics that could exist in more of modern fantasy if not for Neiklot's influence?"
I find it curious that you think the opposite of Tolkien would be "grimdark antiheroes," I think simplistic moral conflicts are a problem in writing and wouldn't miss them, and you can do a mythic sense of scale without trying to write like Tolkien - lots of writers have done it. In any case, this is arguing against a hypothetical, which is...shrug?
My point being, don't blame Tolkien for being infuential. Blame the writers who made bad copy attempts.
I didn't blame Tolkien for being influential. I did blame the writers who made bad copy attempts. My first words were "I love Tolkien." I've read LotR a half dozen times. I just supervised an extended essay on it. I both love it and feel that it has had a largely negative impact on fantasy.
[1] On reflection, it feels like I just described REH. So may "Neiklot" actually did exist, although Howard didn't have as large a direct impact on late 20th-century fantasy as Tolkien did.
REH can't hold a candle to Tolkien. REH is basically a hack writer. Fun, but not remotely in Tolkien's league.

Edit: I'm not even sure how much I blame the derivative writers. It's more like publishers who see something that does well and then turn that into the paradigm because they are inherently risk-averse. So then they just want to put out more stuff that is like Tolkien.

I'm also not opposed to a certain amount of Tolkien influence. That's how art works. But I think it was too pervasive in the 70s and 80s, and it lingers.
 
Last edited:

GothmogIV

Explorer
Well, no, because their style would not have been anachronistic.

I find it curious that you think the opposite of Tolkien would be "grimdark antiheroes," I think simplistic moral conflicts are a problem in writing and wouldn't miss them, and you can do a mythic sense of scale without trying to write like Tolkien - lots of writers have done it. In any case, this is arguing against a hypothetical, which is...shrug?

I didn't blame Tolkien for being influential. I did blame the writers who made bad copy attempts. My first words were "I love Tolkien." I've read LotR a half dozen times. I just supervised an extended essay on it. I both love it and feel that it has had a largely negative impact on fantasy.

REH can't hold a candle to Tolkien. REH is basically a hack writer. Fun, but not remotely in Tolkien's league.

Edit: I'm not even sure how much I blame the derivative writers. It's more like publishers who see something that does well and then turn that into the paradigm because they are inherently risk-averse. So then they just want to put out more stuff that is like Tolkien.

I'm also not opposed to a certain amount of Tolkien influence. That's how art works. But I think it was too pervasive in the 70s and 80s, and it lingers.
Tolkien and Howard are apples and oranges. They are wildly different writers who wrote for different markets, in different countries, and in different (sub)genres of fantasy. I've read Tolkien and Howard multiple times. I love them both!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I didn't blame Tolkien for being influential. I did blame the writers who made bad copy attempts. My first words were "I love Tolkien." I've read LotR a half dozen times. I just supervised an extended essay on it. I both love it and feel that it has had a largely negative impact on fantasy.
Given that without Tolkein it's arguable that medieval fantasy as we know it wouldn't even exist as a genre (and sure as hell wouldn't be as popular if it did!), I find it hard to agree his influence is overall negative.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine

A Group Quest​

Group Quest. Early science fiction and fantasy was dominated by a single protagonist hero, or hero and sidekick. Tolkien’s main books depicted quests by groups of characters rather than by individuals. How much this actually influenced RPGs, I have no idea.
This seems like a critical influence on RPGs. If Tolkein didn't exist, I'm not sure a bunch of wargamers would have taken their historical models and made a party of adventurers... I mean - not based on Elric or Conan or even Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar books
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Given that without Tolkein it's arguable that medieval fantasy as we know it wouldn't even exist as a genre (and sure as hell wouldn't be as popular if it did!), I find it hard to agree his influence is overall negative.
As we know it maybe, but Tekumel and Pendragon shows that medieval fantasy doesnt have to be Tolkienesque, maybe Blackmoor could have been developed with Narnia as inspiration rather than Middle earth (be interesting to have Dwarfs as fey too - like the Fair Folk of Prydain)
 
Last edited:

Yora

Legend
The big thing about The Lord of the Rings, that everyone always seems to be missing when emulating its world, is that the elves are leaving and the dwarfs going extinct is because the core message of the whole story is "The world of magic wonder is disappearing and progress has killed it". The fourth age is just the boring normal world we know today, with all the magic gone.

The whole worldbuilding in The Lord of the Rings exists to suport and showcase that core notion. Simply copying the elements straight for a setting that is not meant to be the end of magic wonder, is aimless and inconsistent design. (If you can even call it design if it's done without plan or intention.)
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Tolkien's influence is diluting over time, as it should. Warcraft orcs and elves are more popular by far, the obsession with elves died out after decades, replaced by things more like tieflings, and the broader audience has read manga and YA than Tolkien and its derivatives. Writers are much more inclined to seek new takes on fantasy (or at least to borrow from Lovecraft instead).
While I certainly agree that Warcraft-style orcs have grown in popularity to eclipse the Tolkien-style, they really exist only as a reaction to Tolkien orcs, and in essence just a rehabilitation of them to make them playable characters. The Night Elves are basically just Wood Elves with a slightly different coat of paint, so I don't really see them as meaningfully different from Tolkien's--they're beautiful, long-lived relics of a better time who protect the natural world and pine for an age when their power was far greater while struggling to deal with the rise of shorter-lived, vivacious newcomers. All Warcraft did was flip the color scheme; Night Elves are standard elves colored kinda-sorta like Drow, while Blood Elves are much closer to Drow...just white. And Warcraft dwarves are literally straight-up Tolkien dwarves with the serial numbers filed off.

Statistics on played races belie the claim about tieflings. Yes, they've grown enormously in popularity since their introduction, but all the data from D&D Beyond indicates they remain below both elves and half-elves. The much bigger surprise is the rise of dragonborn, who vie with tieflings for third place non-human race, behind (as noted) elves and half-elves, and the relative fall of dwarves and halflings, who have lost a lot of ground over time.

"Tolkien and [his] derivatives" is basically all of fantasy roleplaying right now in the video game sphere, and certainly fantasy MMOs east and west. WoW and FFXIV are the two biggest MMOs at present, and they're both still heavily influenced by Tolkien, even if they're also distinct from his work. Further, the LOTR films concluded only 20 years ago (ugh, it hurts to say that), and they were an absolute phenomenon on a par with things like Harry Potter and, as you say, manga and anime (which are also heavily influenced by Tolkien, often via D&D!)

I certainly haven't seen anywhere near as much influence from Lovecraft on fiction as I have from Tolkien. Existential horror kind of lost its sting after the rise of postmodernism and the general pop-psychology/pop-philosophy understanding of existentialism. More often, I see Cthulhu parodied or defied, not played straight--meaning in some ways, Lovecraft skipped straight over the "wide influence" phase and fell straight into the "dead horse trope" phase. Over in Japan, I would certainly grant a greater interest in cosmic-horror-type stuff, but usually things are instead replaced with ennui rather than dread. Things like Ghost in the Shell.

Plus? Look at things like Divinity: Original Sin. Their orcs...are pretty much Tolkien orcs, with a bit more nuance. Their elves are mostly the "sylvan" type of elf, with a grittier edge (cannibalism). Their dwarves are still very much Tolkien-esque, just with a slight reduction in being specifically tied to mining and mountains, while still being the kind of being crafted by Aulë, the Smith of the Valar, hard and durable and gruff etc., etc. The only really new development (for a certain definition of "new") is the lizards, who tap into the same zeitgeist as dragonborn, coming from a mighty and haughty empire that looks down on mammalian beings.

All of which is to say: Yes, you're right that "just imitate Tolkien" is no longer in vogue. But Tolkien still looms large because LOTS of people do still imitate him, and those who don't, almost always instead respond to him. Dragon Age elves are short-lived and either enslaved or wildlings with warped recollections of their ancient culture, because that is just about diametrically opposite what Tolkien elves were....but they're still elegant relics of a better time when magic was everywhere etc.

A lot of stuff written today is influenced by LotR, but it's not that overwhelming now that the audience for fantasy is broader, and that's a good thing.
I mean...that's all anyone has really claimed? That he's still a huge influence. I haven't seen anyone claiming that he's the ONLY game in town. Just that the vast majority of works are either still copying him (IMO, that's still the plurality), or intentionally reacting against him (which means he's still having an influence, just a contradictory one.)
 

Hussar

Legend
Again, I still find it baffling that people want to claim that Tolkien doesn't figure strongly in fantasy. Of course he does. Good grief, while he might not have invented various tropes or whatnot, he's the go to guy for so many of the fantasy tropes we take for granted. It would be like saying Shakespeare doesn'T loom large. :erm:
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top