|
Yes, if I had my druthers, my own campaigns would lack such elements as elves and dwarves and orcs, for the fantasy I prefer is far more often focused on humans.
In college I ran a 2.5 yr campaign that was humano-centric. It was an icy realm with historic allusions to the cold war, world war II, and seemingly ripped right out of Tolstoy or Dostoyevski. I too prefer telling the fantasy stories with humans as the NPCs, the foes, and the primary populace. Sure, I still used other fantastic elements on occation such as my own "Frost Elves", variant Thri-Kreen, and others. But the ability for the role-playing game to distill human issues and collectively explore them at the gaming table is a powerful, powerful imaginative tool. It is often not discussed just how valuable Pathfinder/3.5/2.0/1.0/OD&D is in opening the windows of our unconscious mind, to let in the devils and demons of our own human condition, and deal with these archetypes in three dimensions - with characters forged partly from our own selves, to challenge beliefs and make them stronger.
In short, yes - my preference has been to run campaign worlds that lack those elements, opting to use the proscribed Gygaxian percentages (small indeed) for demi-human population compared to stories focused on humans. Again, this is my preference, but those who understand why this choice is made, also invariably understand each other, and what additional elements are important to their fantasy role-play games.
When I met my college DM, he was utterly sick of high fantasy. He had created a pulp world, somewhat influenced by Conan and Gor (not the gender nonsense), but above all, by Dray Prescott and Kregen. Elves were almost totally shut out of the game world. Never saw a dragon, but there were plenty of dinosaurs. There was a hobgoblin empire in the tropics, and the gith-yankis (deplaned), lizard men, and thri-kreen were major races. Airships sure cut down on lengthy travel narratives. (When Eberron came out a few years ago, it sounded to me like this world, plus warforged.) Still, the races were exotic, and it was very "humanocentric".
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Mairkurion ...If you say the the Greek Mythology book you had as a child was >>THIS ONE<< I will seriously start whistling the Twilight Zone theme. My parents got me this in the first grade when I started peppering them with mythology questions.
That was my primary school Greek mythology book too.
I remember a great moment in smart ass history when my 3rd grade teacher (whom I hated and who hated me even more) was reading a story from that book to the class. She kept fouling up one of the character's names, so scrawny little Erik Mona raised his hand as she kept reading. She ignored me for several minutes, of course, so I was sitting there on the floor, holding one tired arm up with the other, urgent to make my point. Finally, in an exasperated voice she says "WHAT?" and I say, "Mrs. Bailey, I thought you should know that you're pronouncing that character's name incorrectly." *(You can see why I wasn't her favorite.)
So she says "HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU KNOW THAT?"
And I say, "Well, I have that book at home, and there is a pronunciation guide in the back."
I was a bit of a smartass in my day.
Mairkurion ...If you say the the Greek Mythology book you had as a child was >>THIS ONE<< I will seriously start whistling the Twilight Zone theme. My parents got me this in the first grade when I started peppering them with mythology questions.That was my primary school Greek mythology book too.
I remember a great moment in smart ass history when my 3rd grade teacher (whom I hated and who hated me even more) was reading a story from that book to the class. She kept fouling up one of the character's names, so scrawny little Erik Mona raised his hand as she kept reading. She ignored me for several minutes, of course, so I was sitting there on the floor, holding one tired arm up with the other, urgent to make my point. Finally, in an exasperated voice she says "WHAT?" and I say, "Mrs. Bailey, I thought you should know that you're pronouncing that character's name incorrectly." *(You can see why I wasn't her favorite.)
So she says "HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU KNOW THAT?"
And I say, "Well, I have that book at home, and there is a pronunciation guide in the back."
I was a bit of a smartass in my day.
But you were a polite smartass in the day. Just sayin'...
I was a bit of a smartass in my day.
"...in my day" Like it was in the past... Rrright...
I was a bit of a smartass in my day.
Yeah. It's tough being a smart(ass) child and not realizing when you correct an adult they usually perceive it as a threat and rush to shut you down and restore their superior position. Adults at least only did it verbally, most other kids would try and shut you down with their fists.
To quote Douglas Adams: Nobody likes a smartass.
|
Yes, if I had my druthers, my own campaigns would lack such elements as elves and dwarves and orcs, for the fantasy I prefer is far more often focused on humans.
In a lot of cases, you might not miss them, since they tend to get played as 'humans in funny suits' anyway.
Dwarves are portrayed as 'short grumpy Vikings', in which case, why not just play a short, grumpy Viking? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Obviously, the reason you play a dwarf instead, is for the Con bonus, anti-magic bonuses and darkvision. Work with me here, and assume I'm referring to the roleplaying opportunities and story possibilities...)
As for Tolkien and his fans... I like his works, but the thing that annoys me is the backlash against those who are fans of the fantasy genre who don't count Tolkien among their favorite authors. And that translates into passive aggressive poo-pooing of Tolkien on my behalf at times, alas. Dunno if it's the same for Erik but I suspect it might be.
Oh, this is me, the backlash sufferer. It is not once or twice that I have bashed Tolkien, even though I think Hobbit is a great book and Silmarillion is pretty fun too (but LotR I cannot stand, except as Peter Jackson version, and there is an occasional cringe too).
And some, similarly provocated by how-can-you-not-like-Tolkien crowd, have observed that LotR would actually be horrible RPG campaign. None of the characters have any personality and the storyline is basically DM railroading the group through the pretty scenery he is far too fond of to actually care about the plot.
The player of Frodo tries to throw in some cool personality moments there, but is actively being thwarted by the railroader-DM ("oh no, Galadriel cannot accept the ring" "you cannot even think of taking the ring to Gondor, look what it did to Boromir!" "You have other plans? Well...Gollum! Yeah, Gollum will bite your finger off and then fall into volcano! So there!").
People who dislike chocolate suffer in similar ways.
As for Tolkien and his fans... I like his works, but the thing that annoys me is the backlash against those who are fans of the fantasy genre who don't count Tolkien among their favorite authors. And that translates into passive aggressive poo-pooing of Tolkien on my behalf at times, alas. Dunno if it's the same for Erik but I suspect it might be.Oh, this is me, the backlash sufferer. It is not once or twice that I have bashed Tolkien, even though I think Hobbit is a great book and Silmarillion is pretty fun too (but LotR I cannot stand, except as Peter Jackson version, and there is an occasional cringe too).
And some, similarly provocated by how-can-you-not-like-Tolkien crowd, have observed that LotR would actually be horrible RPG campaign. None of the characters have any personality and the storyline is basically DM railroading the group through the pretty scenery he is far too fond of to actually care about the plot.
The player of Frodo tries to throw in some cool personality moments there, but is actively being thwarted by the railroader-DM ("oh no, Galadriel cannot accept the ring" "you cannot even think of taking the ring to Gondor, look what it did to Boromir!" "You have other plans? Well...Gollum! Yeah, Gollum will bite your finger off and then fall into volcano! So there!").
chuckling This reminds me of the KotD strips where the gang rants about various fantasy movies and why they make no sense, from the standpoint of being a player of "the game".
Wait...that was in a comic strip?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Wait...that was in a comic strip?
DM of the Rings! It's a hoot.
Two of my favorites:
Walking stick and a quiver of little walking sticks
And keep your hands off my daughter!
:)
I remember this, talk about a riot! ^_^ Ima gonna waste a day or two reading this ... thanks for delaying Pawfinder you... shakes fistful of dice :P
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I've heard that people who don't like Tolkien play 4e.As someone who is currently running a 4e campaign (I am trying to really get to know the system before I totally discard it) I will say the game is about as far from Tolkien as you can get. Of course, it is also about as far from Howard, Lieber, et al than you can get.
I don't know what it is, but it certainly exists in its own vacuum now. Which I find remarkably disappointing.
I am in a similar place, running a 4th Ed campaign to try it out and see how I like it. It has its charms, but it also has many things that are retarded beyond imagining to my old-school grognard tastes. I was reminded of that when, for whatever reason I happened upon a link to a webpage still up containing rafts and reams of stuff I wrote for 2nd edition (if you're interested, you can find it here).
Even just looking at things I wrote 10 years ago, vs. things for 3rd Ed, 3.5, and now 4th Ed, it is an amazing difference in what was considered typical or reasonable vs. things that were outlandish and unthinkable.
The specific campaign I'm running now in 4th Ed, in terms of sweep and scope and some nuggets of stuff, owes more in inspiration to the Wheel of Time series than to Tolkien, but I don't know if I really buy the idea that 4th Ed doesn't support epic storylines, because to me the epic storylines exist outside of the system. You can have an epic storyline in any system, from GURPS to D&D (any flavor).
I think the thing that 4th Ed does particularly poorly is manages the things that happen in the world off the battlemat, BUT I also acknowledge that this is a matter of expectations.
An event came up a few sessions ago when the party had to escape from a town that was being sacked by a gnoll army. They managed to kill a group of gnolls on a riverboat and wanted to head downstream with the refugees they had rescued. But 4th Ed doesn't have any rules for sailing, or boating, or rivercraft. There's swimming. And there are movement rates for watercraft. But is there a skill of Profession (sailor) or anything of the sort? Ummm... nope.
It doesn't have much in the rules for riding horses either. Or driving wagons. At first I was disgusted. Doesn't this seem like a pretty basic suite of activities that people will have to do? Well, yes. And doesn't this speak to the fact that 4th Ed is essentially saying "We don't care how you get there, just get to the dungeon and don't worry about that stuff." Well, yes, that's true too.
But then I thought back to 1st Ed and BECMI. There were no real rules for stuff like that either. You got on a ship and you sailed it. The DM made a judgment call on how hard it would be and you did it. You got up on the horse and rode; it was just assumed to be something that adventurers knew how to do. You didn't need some special skill telling you how to do it.
So, in a way, 4th Ed is skipping backwards in time over the rule-intensive 2nd Ed (literally hundreds of non-weapon proficiencies, from Cheesemaking to Slow Respiration to Riding (Land-based) to (I kid you not) Eating and Drinking proficiency (in the Complete Book of Humanoids, if memory serves)).
Now, you can argue whether that is lazy design that dumps responsibility on the DM or an intentional choice to say "you're a hero, and you can do this stuff just fine without having some kind of special training."
I happen to like complex games and complex characters, and one of my beefs with Pathfinder is actually the change to 1st level skills, where you don't get extra skill points but instead get +3 to class skills; I'm the sort who would put 1 or 2 ranks in lots of skills. I prefer the 3rd Ed style, but I can also say that I think it IS an intentional design choice, and I can see that it's not a completely ludicrous idea - there is some merit to it.
Ummm... this tangent kind of really wandered off of my original point, and I think I was using the skill system as an illustration of a point where 4th Ed could be argued to ill-serve a broad story, as it focuses so much on the in-combat activity, but that I don't think it matters as much in the grand sweep of an epic campaign.
In sum, I think 4th Ed does okay at the micro-level, arguably fails at the macro-level, but becomes irrelevant (as all systems do) at the meta-level.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well, a lot of people think White Castle is nasty. So, it is very likely a similar comparison.
God I hope not - Krystal burgers are nasty.
I've had em both and don't care for either. And yes, in my book they are very similar, though partisans on either side of the Mason/Dixon line will deny it to their dying day.
I think it's something you have to grow up with, and if you did it's a little slice of heaven, and if you didn't it's a little piece of hell.
Growing up Western Washington, where we had neither, obviously placed me in the latter camp, but my best friend is from Chicago and he and his family swear by them.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Mairkurion ...If you say the the Greek Mythology book you had as a child was >>THIS ONE<< I will seriously start whistling the Twilight Zone theme. My parents got me this in the first grade when I started peppering them with mythology questions.
Completely loved that one as a kid, and their Norse version as well. I eventually found it and showed it to my kids a few years ago when I saw it on my neighbor's bookshelf, but they just weren't as grabbed by it. Alas... I re-read it and enjoyed a trip back to childhood wonder.
|
some good stuff
I agree with everything you say here. I truly think 4e can handle epic storylines. My current Heroic Tier campaign deals with Orcus and his bid to usurp the Raven Queen. Good, epic stuff that should end with a bang. I am altering the first 4e modules to handle the task.
I have played D&D since the Red Box and I am pretty comfortable with rules light systems overall. I don't tend to worry about skill checks unless they are 1) necessary or 2) an integral part of the system. While running 3e I focus more on skills because players have devoted important resources to them. On the other hand, while running 1e, I never cared about whether or not characters could do something unless I felt a random roll would either 1) heighten the drama for a good reason or 2) was necessary because the situation was stressful.
3e changed the way we look at D&D, though I imagine the alteration really began towards the end of 2e. I think there was shift in the way players and DMs approached the game. Now, I pretty much believe this shift has been ephemeral in nature. It is hard to pin down and explain, at least for me. A number of factors have fed the change and most of these lie outside of D&D entirely.
When I picked up 4e my first thought was "wow, this hearkens back to OD&D." But once we got to playing the game, something was missing. I am still uncertain what that might be. Maybe the overly balanced class and power system has sucked something out of the game. Perhaps the shift to exception based design has me worried. It might come down to the loss of Vancian Magic. I don't know honestly. I haven't figured it out yet.
A lot of people have problems with daily exploits, healing surges, marking, and second winds. I feel pretty much the same way as they do, I imagine. But what I have noticed is I have an issue with these things not because they are in the game but due to the way they are presented. Monte's Book of Experimental Might offers a number of similar mechanics. For some reason I like those changes when presented in the context he chose.
I guess that leads me to the conclusion that my trepidation is complex and probably derives from a series of issues. Which might be why I am still not quite sure what is missing.
In the end, I don't see much Tolkien in 4e. I think you can certainly run an epic game with 4e. You can create a rather robust story in fact. But when looking for inspiration for the new system I don't think many of the designers were thinking about the fabled Appendix N. Instead, I think they were focusing too hard on other sources that don't derive from that fantasy bloodline. Or, if they were, it didn't show through in the final design.
Wait...that was in a comic strip?DM of the Rings! It's a hoot.
Two of my favorites:
Walking stick and a quiver of little walking sticks
And keep your hands off my daughter!
Oh yes, great stuff there. And while LotR has no doubt been an influence for great RPG campaigns it has no doubt served as platform for numerous truly awful campaigns too...after all, it has some definite bad DM tricks: besides railroading one of the main offenders is "DM-run NPC saves the day while the actual PCs are reduced to mere spectators" (Gandalf and Eowyn being the worst two). Every time that happens to you, remember to thank nice Prof. Tolkien.
Actually, one of the players actually managed to get some good roleplaying moments in, probably because he didn't try to go too much against the plans of the DM: player of Samwise. I can imagine how everyone else was already sick and tired of the bloody campaign and spending most of the time playing MtG because they are not allowed to do anything anyway, and the player of Sam is the only one who is still paying attention what DM does...
Wow, LotR does make much more sense if I think of it as a bad RPG campaign.
And I have got this far without mentioning rampant racism and chauvinism, where Tolkien is much worse offender than most pulp authors...
|
|
stuffWow, talk about trolling for flame-bait...
After composing a couple responses, I realized ignoring the statement was probably the wisest thing to do. But it did achieve the intended end, it got me worked up. :)
I would not mind discussing constructive criticism of Tolkien. There is ample ground to cover there. There are many points that I think have merit.
Prof Tolkien ran over my cat. (The guy driving the car was in a hurry to get to Peter Jackson's premier.)
Magdalena, I think you have a funny way of ascribing blame. I think you also have a funny way of reading. You're welcome to it, of course, but I am also welcome to reject its fairness without having to argue against it point-for-point.
Yes, Alleynbard, there's lots of constructive criticism to be done on Tolkien. That's why people can and have made legitimate academic careers out of his work -- out of something that has been and continues to be incredibly popular. I would hope that, if this thread continues (I'm not saying it needs to), that both the tone and the subject of the OP be given some respect. People don't have to like Tolkien, they don't have to like him to the same extent, they don't have to agree on the worth of his work, its influence, or its interpretation. But if it's not being done reasonably and considerately, what's the point? I mean, if Tolkien enrages or nauseates a person, what are the chances an educated, relatively self-aware person who loves his work and has read it many times hasn't noticed, for example, that LoTR (and the Hobbit) are both relatively weak on female characters, and that by making this the foundation of one's spread of one's feelings about Tolkien, one will change their minds? (I use this as an example only of the many reasons a person might have strong negative feelings or a strong negative evaluation of Tolkien.) Perhaps there are times that some people cannot have a profitable conversation about some subjects with others. To use an example that I know well, I have discovered that there are few supporters of the past president that I can profitably have a conversation with on the subject of his presidency, and so I generally place stringent limits on such conversations.
I might indeed have chosen a tad provocative approach to my comments, I admit...
But as said, I am also provoked by people who declare that fantasy literature starts and ends with LotR and everything else is inferior and/or rip-off (I have met too many people like this).
And the main problem I have with that book is that the characterization in general is weak and two-dimensional (and quite often one-dimensional, good-evil), the styles and tones he adopted for Hobbit and Silmarillion play much better for his strengths than LotR.
Racism and chauvinism -cards are used just to provoke, they don't really bother me just as overt allegorical nature of Narnia does not bother me, and actually adds to my enjoyment of that series (though I also have come across people who dismiss RE Howard as racist and chauvinist while praising Tolkien...which is a time to go "huh?")
|
|
And while LotR has no doubt been an influence for great RPG campaigns it has no doubt served as platform for numerous truly awful campaigns too...after all, it has some definite bad DM tricks: besides railroading one of the main offenders is "DM-run NPC saves the day while the actual PCs are reduced to mere spectators" (Gandalf and Eowyn being the worst two). Every time that happens to you, remember to thank nice Prof. Tolkien.
Actually, one of the players actually managed to get some good roleplaying moments in, probably because he didn't try to go too much against the plans of the DM: player of Samwise. I can imagine how everyone else was already sick and tired of the bloody campaign and spending most of the time playing MtG because they are not allowed to do anything anyway, and the player of Sam is the only one who is still paying attention what DM does...
Wow, LotR does make much more sense if I think of it as a bad RPG campaign.
And I have got this far without mentioning rampant racism and chauvinism, where Tolkien is much worse offender than most pulp authors...
Well, I think saying LotR is bad because it would be a bad RPG campaign is vaguely mental. It's a book. All books railroad - you have no choice about what the author has written. In what way is LotR different to that? Name me a book that, you know, gave you a choice.
As for the racism - Tolkien was a man of his time. He was born at the end of the 19th century and will have held views typical of his generation. I can't really condemn him for that, frankly, and it is hardly alond the lines of the militaristic fascism in something like Starship Troopers by Heinlein. You can find it if you want to look for it - but it isn't a pervasive theme. The pervasive theme to me is actually a sort of post-Romantic regret at the passing of the natural beauty of Middle Earth (personified by elven influence) as it becomes more of our world now, not some sort of tract on racial superiority.
While people are entitled to their tastes, I wish people would, you know, try and read it for what it is, and not project their own agendas on to it. I had a "conversation" with a guy on this board probably two or so years ago. He banged on about how much he hated Tolkien because LotR was a crypto-Catholic tract about the perfectibility of man, or something like that. Tolkien was a Catholic, but his stuff is so not a thinly disguised religious tract (unlike, say, the Narnia stories by Lewis). I tried to discuss the issue, but it was all he went on about - he didn't even really seemed interested in the story, or the other threads running through it (of which there are very, very many, and of which Tolkien's religion is very minor one), he justed wanted to bang on about Catholicism (and how much it offended him). Some people like to bang on about racism - well, try not finding racist attitudes among people of that generation. And as for complaining that it would be a bad RPG campaign - it's a novel, right? It's not an RPG sourcebook.
...I can't really condemn him for that, frankly, and it is hardly alond the lines of the militaristic fascism in something like Starship Troopers by Heinlein ...
Guh ..Gah ..*choke* *wheeze*
Falls to floor
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, I think saying LotR is bad because it would be a bad RPG campaign is vaguely mental. It's a book. All books railroad - you have no choice about what the author has written. In what way is LotR different to that? Name me a book that, you know, gave you a choice.
The Trail of Death by Rose Estes.
Sorry.
...I can't really condemn him for that, frankly, and it is hardly alond the lines of the militaristic fascism in something like Starship Troopers by Heinlein ...Guh ..Gah ..*choke* *wheeze*
Falls to floor
Stands over Patrick, preparing the coup de grace:
I liked the movie better than the book.
|
All I can say is... well done, Mairkurion. Couldn't have said it better myself - the claim that Tolkien's work would be "too hopeful" struck me as very odd as well. I guess what Erik's trying to say when comparing with Moorcock, Howard and Leiber - mileage certainly does vary, but Tolkien, too hopeful? That's not the word I'd use, no.
|
|
Well, I think saying LotR is bad because it would be a bad RPG campaign is vaguely mental. It's a book. All books railroad - you have no choice about what the author has written. In what way is LotR different to that? Name me a book that, you know, gave you a choice.
The Trail of Death by Rose Estes.
Sorry.
That's dirty pool...
And I'm glad Erik touched on the "Gee, when Gygax was ranting against Tolkien, he did just get a C&D from the Tolkien estate...". Yeah, Tolkien had little influence on D&D (because, as we all know, there were no ents, balrogs or hobbits in OD&D...)
White Castle sliders are nasty. Kristal burgers are nasty. Pay a couple more dollars and buy something decent!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
And I have got this far without mentioning rampant racism and chauvinism, where Tolkien is much worse offender than most pulp authors...
I thought about tossing those grenades out into the thread :) Four books, nearly devoid of significant female characters. What women there are are almost entirely passive, with one notable exception. And yet Salvatore credits Tolkien with advancing the genre beyond chainmail bikinis *sighs*. The race elements are also subtle - the typical issue of every good human being white, while every bad human is a minority, but also the fantasy staple that your ancestry is what matters most of all...I'm not sure if Tolkien meant to be endorsing the idea that some races are just better than others, but it's what he wound up writing.
Really, the treatment of women in LotR bugs me more than the treatment of race, but it's far from the only example in fantasy with that problem.
|
|
After composing a couple responses, I realized ignoring the statement was probably the wisest thing to do.stuffWow, talk about trolling for flame-bait...
It is. We don't want to get down that road. The discussion's only going to get worse from there. Magdalena should have avoided that kind of baiting.
Before this thread turns into a flame war, let me ask you a question:
As a Tolkien fan, where do you personally see his influences in Golarion, may they be deliberate or not.
Cheliax reminds me strongly of Numenor right before it’s fall.
Mendev and Lastwall have a very First-Age feel for me. They remind me of the elven realms around Morgoth’s hold.
The story of Absolom and Aroden have a Tolkien feel for me, too. Can’t really tell you why.
Some of the monuments in Varisia have a numenorian touch for me.
The Grey Corsairs remind me strongly of the Grey Company in LotR.
Falls to floor
Stands over Patrick, preparing the coup de grace:
I liked the movie better than the book.Begins epileptic seizures.
Man, one of my favorite RAH books, that was BUTCHERED by the hack that brought us Showgirls: Paul Verhoeven. BTW, Starship Troopers is now currently a direct-to-DVD franchise vehicle for Casper Van Dien, the most unlikely choice to play Johnnie Rico, who in RAH's book was a South American of Fillipino ancestry.
And why exactly is it 'militant fascism?' Because you had to serve in the military to vote in that future society? That falls under the ageis of a Meritocracy. There were no fascist-like elements, there was democratic voting, just a 'entrance fee' to be paid (i.e. military service). We have to pass a test to drive in our culture, why is it so horrible to require something from citizens to obtain their voting franchise? Verhoeven played up the fascist angle in his excrable movie, but since he admits he never even FINISHED READING THE BOOK, I don't really hold his vision as cannon.
UGH, every time I hear the fascist slur splattered on that book ....
Tell you what. If RAH was a Fascist, then JRRT was a crypto-Jesuit out to extol the virtues of Mother Rome in his books. And Rose Estes was a better writer than both of them.
Seriously though, if you want nasty burgers hows about that place Whattaburger? They had one on every intersection in El Paso. Oh Jeeze ....
|
|
Seriously though, if you want nasty burgers hows about that place Whattaburger? They had one on every intersection in El Paso. Oh Jeeze ....
Dude, the El Paso Whataburgers are not indicative of the general quality of the Whataburger franchise. Heck, El Paso is barely Texas anyway (more like a New Mexico town that got lucky...).
Well, I think saying LotR is bad because it would be a bad RPG campaign is vaguely mental. It's a book. All books railroad - you have no choice about what the author has written. In what way is LotR different to that? Name me a book that, you know, gave you a choice.
Not the reason I dislike LotR (I gave my main problem with it on another post). But it is an observation for all those who talk about LotR and RPGs...
Besides, it gave a start to all those fantasy books which have a map in the beginning and you can immediately guess that the main characters will be visiting every bloody place in that map (I am quite sure we all have read these...and I rather liked first two Eddings pentalogies).But bashing the book because of a horde of lousy imitators is bad form, and I veer away from it.
About railroading...kind of as a side effect of the poor characterization LotR suffers from, when I read it I do get a feeling that the main characters are not actually, you know, doing much, they are just spectators in their own story (well, except Gandalf and the less said about him, the better). This is something many of those pulp guys did much better, "by this axe I rule" and all that. Their characters were active participants in their stories (and incidentally I agree that those stories serve as much better influence for RPGs).
I don't get that from the beginning, and no wonder it is my favorite part of the book, up until the hobbits get to Bree. And then when they come back to Shire and find out about Saruman, the book again gets better. Much of the stuff in between is just clocking miles between nice sceneries.
There are some great books out there which embrace the whole "grinding and inevitable destiny" theme and those do it well too (this is a popular theme in many books connected to King Arthur mythos...)
And as said about racism and chauvinism, I can take Tolkien as a product of his own time. And I agree that the dominant theme is about, well, nostalgia about disappearance of English countryside as opposed to industrialization. Which brings in nice moments but occasional nice moments don't support a thousand-page book.
A semantic question: does it count as trolling if I would just as well tell these things in real life? And have actually done so? I have heard too many conversations about fantasy literature turning into rhapsody of LotR where no other book matters (well, maybe Silmarillion in a pinch) that nowadays I just go for the throat when the subject comes up...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Man, one of my favorite RAH books, that was BUTCHERED by the hack that brought us Showgirls: Paul Verhoeven. BTW, Starship Troopers is now currently a direct-to-DVD franchise vehicle for Casper Van Dien, the most unlikely choice to play Johnnie Rico, who in RAH's book was a South American of Fillipino ancestry.
And why exactly is it 'militant fascism?' Because you had to serve in the military to vote in that future society? That falls under the ageis of a Meritocracy. There were no fascist-like elements, there was democratic voting, just a 'entrance fee' to be paid (i.e. military service). We have to pass a test to drive in our culture, why is it so horrible to require something from citizens to obtain their voting franchise? Verhoeven played up the fascist angle in his excrable movie, but since he admits he never even FINISHED READING THE BOOK, I don't really hold his vision as cannon.
I enjoy the movie in its own way. But yeah, agreed, a book butchered in film. Johnny was a nickname for Juan, after all.
Important note on the mandatory service for a vote - it wasn't all military. It was just service - civil or military. But you didn't get to pick.
OK, Magdalena Thiriet, you seem to have a demon you need to exorcise. I'm not calling you a troll: if you want to keep making this charge, show us the racism in Tolkien.
(And again, on "chauvinism", it's going to be quite a step to move convincingly from JRRT being weak on female characters in two works to showing him to be "a man whose behavior and attitude toward women indicate a belief that they are innately inferior to men.")
And while there may well be more powerful character writers than Tolkien, I find his characters impressive, though their portrayal may be rather subtle compared to others' styles. The only characters that I felt like I had trouble getting solid handles on were Merry and Pippin--the first couple of times I read LotR, I admit I had trouble keeping them straight. But these I found to be the exception and often minor characters came across to me as fully realized. I simply have a hard time sympathizing with your take here. I can and do sympathize with holding minority opinions and having them deluged in the tidal wave of public opinion, and the strength of reaction that marginalization produces over time. And of course it's silly to say that Tolkien is fantasy literature. There's a certain kind of success though, that has to be dealt with, whatever one's judgment on it. For example, it would be wrong to say that Shakespeare is Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre. But imagine trying to talk about that literature and refusing to recognize or deal with Shakespeare! Naturally, as readers and purchasers, that is exactly what we are free to do. But when we enter the discourse of that literature, then the nature of our freedom is more constrained.
Aeglos, I appreciate your attempt to redirect. I don't think I'd venture on such reflection this early: Golarion is too new, and certainly too new to me, for me to have anything worth saying. Both James and Erik don't seem to think Middle Earth has had a great influence on Golarion (if I remember their posts correctly), and I wouldn't contradict the artists without a lot of evidence backing me up. Now, when it comes to the game in general and not Paizo's world, then there's lots of stuff. Some have been brought up in the course of this thread. And there are other places online where the subject has been pretty thoroughly aired.
Let me just add a piece of personal history here: I was a D&D player first and a Tolkien fan only many years later. My experience of reading Tolkien, and getting a bit of an education in early high fantasy literature, is what convinced me of his influence on the game, not being a Tolkien fan and then coming to the game looking for what I loved in the books.
At Patrick - Let me recommend the Whattaburger Double Patty Melt. Hits your stomach like a lead ball of greasy goodness.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
OK, Magdalena Thiriet, you seem to have a demon you need to exorcise. I'm not calling you a troll: if you want to keep making this charge, show us the racism in Tolkien.
The trivial argument is standard fantasy racism (one of those things that's swept under the rug): good and evil are in many cases determined simply by race. Elves, hobbits and the right sort of men are good, orcs, trolls and the wrong sort of men are evil. By and large, you can tell the content of a stock fantasy novel character by his race. Personally, I don't find that argument too compelling, but it is generally true that in fantasy, race determines whether or not you are hero or menace.
The less trivial argument involves the potrayal of which human races are admirable in the books. Basically, the closer a group is to the European-analog Numenoreans, the better their character is likely to be. The Easterling and Haradrim are human allies of Mordor, and distinctly non-European. There are also the Wild Men that fight the Rohirrrim, who are white, but not related to the men of Numenor (which the Rohirrim were believed to be).
The Black Numenoreans stand as a somewhat effective counter-example.
Regardless of how you feel about those betrayals, Tolkien's epic is very much supportive of the theory that character is somehow rooted in bloodline. The root of a lot of the racial criticism is that his example of superior human blood was the European-looking men of the west.
Anyhow, there you go, my attempt to summarize the issues in brief. I personally don't think the series is overtly or deliberately racist, but I can certainly understand the criticisms.
|
|
I love Tolkien’s writing; The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are some of my all time favourite books. Having said that, I can somewhat agree with some of the criticisms made against his writing in this thread … somewhat. It doesn’t lessen my enjoyment of the books though.
I too found the “too hopeful, not grim enough” statement a little odd; there’s certainly a lot of grim and dark situations, places and characters in the books, and while there is certainly hope, there is also a lot of sadness, loss, and moments of quiet hopelessness.
On further reflection however, I think I can see it a little. I first read The Lord of the Rings when I was 10, and even at that age (or maybe because of that age), there was never a moment during that first reading when I thought that the Fellowship might fail. I knew from the opening chapters onwards that the Ring would be destroyed, that the Shire would be saved and that all four hobbits would survive. No matter how dark things got, or how Tolkien set things up to make it look like they’d fail or that Frodo or one of the others was a goner, I knew that they’d succeed and survive. I wouldn’t even call it hopefulness, more a certainty.
Now sure, that certainty may not seem like any big deal; that’s how heroic fantasy (and lots of other genres) works. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the hero survives. It usually works out that way. But there’s few books I have read since where I have been so utterly certain of the good guys success with no big loops thrown along the way. That may in some way demonstrate a hopefulness or lack of grimness.
The other thing (in regards to grimness) is that Tolkien’s world seems so … clean, pristine. I don’t know, but everything just comes across to me as being that way. The Shire, Rivendell, Lorien, Rohan, Gondor, they all seem a little too perfect, like movie sets rather than places that people are actually supposed to live and work in. Sure, the wildernesses and dungeons might be dark and dangerous, but I don’t get much of a sense that it is a lived in and used world; contrast these places to places like Lankhmar, New Crobuzon, Selzirk or even Greyhawk. Those places have real grittiness and grimness, but also a certain amount of “realism” or at least believability. For me, Tolkien’s settlements and cities don’t.
I suppose I think that if Tolkien was an RPG writer he’d probably do great wilderness treks and dungeon crawls, but he’d fall a little short in the gritty urban adventures.
So, to Lord of the Rings as an RPG adventure. I think Aubrey put it well – of course the characters are railroaded – it’s a novel! (And Chris beat me to the Endless Quest / Choose Your Own Adventure quip). I do sort of get what Magdalena is getting at though; if you were to look at the plots of novels as game outlines (and I know I often do), then the hand of the DM and railroading seems stronger than in some novels. To put it another way, in many situation the main characters (assuming you see the Nine of the Fellowship as the main characters, and everyone else as supporting cast / NPCs) seem not to have much control of their own destinies, being guided (or pushed about) by powerful allies, enemies or the hand of fate. (As an aside, I’d disagree with the casting of Gandalf as an NPC – I’d put him squarely in the camp of major character).
Still, The Lord of the Rings is hardly unique in that. Many other novels do it more or less well, or more or less subtley; from the Prophecies of Eddings, the hidden manipulations of secretive puppet-masters in Feist, the large scale invasions and seemingly random events that make Hugh Cook’s characters feel like they have little control over their own destinies, to Elminster turning up and saving the day in just about any Forgotten Realms novel that he plays a minor role in.
I think that Middle Earth would make an excellent setting for an RPG (although probably far too clichéd for most gamers today, and I’m certainly glad that Golarion is not a Middle Earth clone), but The Lord of the Rings would probably make a poor plot for a D&D game (as would many other fantasy books I’ve read and enjoyed).
Are the characters in the book too black and white in terms of good and evil? I think at first glance, yes. Pretty much everyone who’s good is also noble-hearted and honourable, everyone that’s evil is out to stop the good guys, all orcs are evil, all elves and dwarves are good etc etc. On closer inspection I think that some of the characters are actually terribly complex, and there are indeed shades of grey. Ok, sure, we can probably leave aside all the formerly good and noble characters who are seduced to evil or at least rashness by the Ring or other brushes with evil. Those are plot devices that are used to good effect but without much subtlety. But take a character like Aragorn, who at first glance is the stereotypical noble, square-jawed hero … but is really much more complex. He has a lot of internal conflict and self doubt, and he doesn’t always make the best choices (or at least is not sure that he is making the best choices). Or Pippen, who again, while a good guy through and through is not without flaws, but who actually goes through a lot of character development throughout the novel, rather than remaining the comedy relief throughout. Or Denethor, who, while he probably falls well into the “corrupted by the touch of evil” camp (albeit not by the Ring) is certainly not “black or white” in terms of good and evil (to me he’s a good example of Lawful Neutral although by the time of his appearance in the novel he’s probably slid well into Lawful Evil).
Speaking of black and white, I don’t know whether or not Tolkien was racist. You might point to the fact that every good character in the books is white and/or “Western”, and that many of the evil characters are dark skinned (from orcs and half orcs that are often described as swarthy or black, to the Haradrim and Men of Rhun who throw in their lot with Sauron). Honestly, I don’t know if that makes Tolkien racist or a product of his place and time. Did he make a conscious effort to pull away from the racism of his society? I don’t think so. Can we fault him for that? I don’t know … but I don’t think so. It’s a pity, but I don’t think it is terribly overt in his books.
In some ways I do see the apparent racism in Tolkien as being a product of its time rather than a personal inclination of the man, in much the same way that the bad guys in Hollywood action movies are products of their time (during the Cold War the bad guys were always Russian, now they’re always Middle Eastern, or sometimes Korean or Chinese. If you don’t want to go with the flavour of the month, German or just generic European is a good fall back).
I actually think that there’s a stronger argument to be made that Tolkien was not sexist, or at least was a little more enlightened in that regard than perhaps was typical at the time. Certainly the relative dearth of female characters, and the limited face time they get is pretty poor by today’s standards, there’s no argument of that. Sometimes I think it is not that much worse than in many books by prominent modern fantasy authors. That’s not an excuse or an arguement (we’re still sexist now, so it’s fine that we were sexist back then! ??) just an observation. (Just glancing at some of the fantasy titles and authors that I can see on the bookshelf beside me for inspiration; Feist has almost exclusively male main characters, females tended to get relegated to the role of supporting cast or love interest; Eddings has a few strong, prominent female characters – such as Polgara – but most of the troupe is male; the main protagonist in most of Terry Pratchett books – Rincewind, Vimes, Death, Moist – are male, although Granny Weatherwax and gang are notable exceptions (hmmm, all his female main characters are witches…); Sean Williams seems to strike a good balance as does Melanie Rawn for the most part; Hugh Cook gives most of his books male protagonists (and villains) with women tending to be relegated to love interest (or sex object) with a few exceptions, but then he mixes it up with a few books with very strong and capable female protagonists…)
Anyway, back to Tolkien and my argument that he may not be as sexist as he appears at first glance, when he does finally give us some female characters and they get a bit of page-time, they are almost all very strong characters, and only sometimes love interests of the main characters, and never sexy minxes in chainmail bikinis (actually, Tolkien very much shies away from sex – again, personal hang up, or product of the time?). Some of them probably fall a little too much into the mother-figure role, but I think it’s a start. Silverymoon is a wife and something of a mother-figure, but you get the sense that she’s personally powerful; Tom doesn’t necessarily wear the pants in that relationship. She may spend a lot of time baking bread and making beds and combing her hair, but its alluded to that she does more than keep the home and herself pretty – she gets about in chainmail under her dress for example. Arwen is little more than a love interest, but she shows a lot of inner strength and needs to make some tough choices (then goes a lets the side down by choosing to be a wife and mother and dying instead of going off and living her own life forever). Galadriel is, you get the sense, pretty darn bad-ass. She’s a ring bearer and comes across as having greater authority and personal power than her husband. Eowen is unmarried, stands up for herself, disobeys her father, gets to ride a horse and swing a sword and kills one of the more powerful bad guys in the book. Shelob is a powerful and effective villain (if relatively minor in the book) who comes closer than just about anyone to ending Frodo’s quest. She doesn’t fall into the typical sexist female seductress villain role (luckily). Ok, she is just a spider … but a good ‘Mother of Monsters’ type bogeyman.
And … ok, when I try to think of all the female characters and come up five in the whole book, (apart from the various hobbit lasses that three of our brave returning heroes end up marrying) that isn’t really great … am I missing anyone? So maybe Tolkien doesn’t exactly promote sexual equality, but I think he makes (at least a token) effort.
|
|
Man, one of my favorite RAH books, that was BUTCHERED by the hack that brought us Showgirls: Paul Verhoeven. BTW, Starship Troopers is now currently a direct-to-DVD franchise vehicle for Casper Van Dien, the most unlikely choice to play Johnnie Rico, who in RAH's book was a South American of Fillipino ancestry.
And why exactly is it 'militant fascism?' Because you had to serve in the military to vote in that future society? That falls under the ageis of a Meritocracy. There were no fascist-like elements, there was democratic voting, just a 'entrance fee' to be paid (i.e. military service). We have to pass a test to drive in our culture, why is it so horrible to require something from citizens to obtain their voting franchise? Verhoeven played up the fascist angle in his excrable movie, but since he admits he never even FINISHED READING THE BOOK, I don't really hold his vision as cannon.
I enjoy the movie in its own way. But yeah, agreed, a book butchered in film. Johnny was a nickname for Juan, after all.
Important note on the mandatory service for a vote - it wasn't all military. It was just service - civil or military. But you didn't get to pick.
I like the book and I quite like the movie … so long as I think of the movie as its own entity rather than being based on Heinlein’s novel. The movie does what it sets out to do pretty well, but it’s absolutely nothing like the book (and seeks to make different points to the book). It’s kind of a pity that they share a name and characters. But yeah, not a bad movie so long as you don’t compare or associate the two (I can’t speak for the sequels and spin-offs as I have not seen any of them).
|
|
Before this thread turns into a flame war, let me ask you a question:
As a Tolkien fan, where do you personally see his influences in Golarion, may they be deliberate or not.
Cheliax reminds me strongly of Numenor right before it’s fall.
Mendev and Lastwall have a very First-Age feel for me. They remind me of the elven realms around Morgoth’s hold.
The story of Absolom and Aroden have a Tolkien feel for me, too. Can’t really tell you why.
Some of the monuments in Varisia have a numenorian touch for me.
The Grey Corsairs remind me strongly of the Grey Company in LotR.
Good question Aeglos. I see a lot of things in Golarion that may have been influenced by Tolkien - consciously, unconsciously, second hand or just coincidence I can’t say, but there are things I get a Tolkien vibe from, apart from the general (and I would say irrefutable) influence that Tolkien has on D&D that Erik mentions.
Azlant, whilst clearly modeled after Atlantis, reminds me of Numenor (which is obviously also influenced by Atlantis), down to the First Humans being similar to the ‘more human than human’ men of Numenor.
The Hold of Belkzen reminds me of Mordor (almost completely barren land surrounded by mountains and filled with orcs). The orcs living in abandoned dwarven cities reminds me of Moria (and the orc / dwarf conflicts before and during the Age of Darkness is very Tolkien too, although it has become more generally very D&D).
I see a lot of Sauron in The Whispering Tyrant (although again, there is probably a bit of Sauron in the way that liches are depicted generally in D&D).
Varisia, with its ancient ruins and long fallen empire and stretches of little-travelled wilderness reminds me of the wild lands north and east of The Shire.
The elves leaving Golarion is reminiscent of the elves leaving Middle Earth for the Undying Lands (although Golarion’s elves have returned rather than fading away … so more like the elves in the Forgotten Realms then ;-). Crying Leaf and the Meriani forest remind me a little of the wood elves and Mirkwood, and Treerazer’s blight on elven lands has a bit of a Mirkwood vibe too.
Seriously though, if you want nasty burgers hows about that place Whattaburger? They had one on every intersection in El Paso. Oh Jeeze ....Dude, the El Paso Whataburgers are not indicative of the general quality of the Whataburger franchise. Heck, El Paso is barely Texas anyway (more like a New Mexico town that got lucky...).
I apologize if Whattaburger is better elsewhere in the Lone Star State. I didn't get to travel around much. The few times I had Whattaburger there I regretted it. Also, I didn't eat a lot of fast food in EP, owing to the plethora of really kick ass mom&pop Mexican restaurants and steakhouse options. One thing I do miss about living out there was the really good homemade TexMex grub and steaks that were from a cow raised on the ranch attached to the steakhouse. YUMYUM!
OT
Regardless of how you feel about those [por?]trayals, Tolkien's epic is very much supportive of the theory that character is somehow rooted in bloodline. The root of a lot of the racial criticism is that his example of superior human blood was the European-looking men of the west.
Anyhow, there you go, my attempt to summarize the issues in brief. I personally don't think the series is overtly or deliberately racist, but I can certainly understand the criticisms.
I think the claim that JRRT's work is "very much supportive" etc is pure hogwash, and easy to defeat. He nowhere talks about bloodlines or races in this modern sense. Sure, families and compatriots are portrayed as having a kind of corporate character, but that has nothing to do with bloodline and everything to do with world-building and storyline. And as for explicit denial, we have letters where JRRT smacks the Nazis and their theories of racial purity down as nonsense and immoral. He got a letter at one point from some Nazis wanting to make a germanic connection, and he told others he wished he could have written them back and told them he was Jewish.
I'm not surprised that the non-European analogues largely side with Sauron in LOTR. The books were written as Ur-European myth. How many times did hordes from Asian threaten Europe? The only "race" that I can think of that is clearly "superior" are the elves. And since there are no elves around oppressing us humans, I'm going to have a hard time seeing it as a manifesto for elven apartheid in the real world.
I'm not surprised that the non-European analogues largely side with Sauron in LOTR. The books were written as Ur-European myth. How many times did hordes from Asia threaten Europe?
- Thraco-Cimmerians
- Scythians
- Celts
- Germans
- Goths
- Slavs
- Huns
- Mongols
- Turks
- Tourists
M{tm}:
I do sort of get what Magdalena is getting at though; if you were to look at the plots of novels as game outlines (and I know I often do), then the hand of the DM and railroading seems stronger than in some novels. To put it another way, in many situation the main characters (assuming you see the Nine of the Fellowship as the main characters, and everyone else as supporting cast / NPCs) seem not to have much control of their own destinies, being guided (or pushed about) by powerful allies, enemies or the hand of fate. (As an aside, I’d disagree with the casting of Gandalf as an NPC – I’d put him squarely in the camp of major character).
For me Gandalf is a bit too much omniscient plot device to be acceptable protagonist. He's not quite Elminster but not too far off either.
Also Aragorn, when he was introduced as Strider, was a "mysterious stranger who solves protagonists' problems for them", when we got to the part where he was Aragorn he spent most of his time following Gandalf around.
I too had trouble keeping Merry and Pippin apart...Pippin was the more curious one, the one who looked into Palantir, and Merry the one who stabbed Witch-King?
But they were not the only ones...I cannot remember if Legolas and Gimli, despite being recognizable as The Elf and The Dwarf actually did much anything. They killed some orcs, and followed other people around, and that's pretty much it.
I'll accept Samwise as well portrayed character, and as the best protagonist of the book. But still, it is kind of weird that Tolkien was IMO much more successful when writing characters for more strongly stylised books, just look at the fairytale of Hobbit, with Bilbo-Thorin-World triangle and such supporting characters as Smaug, Thranduil, Bard, Beorn, Gollum (who got rather annoying in LotR), or mytho-historical Silmarillion and Lost Tales with assorted characters in those...I'd say this is one of the cases where self-imposed stylistic restrictions force better results.