In today's much anticipated and appreciated blog, “The Fabled Appendix – Erik Mona” (Part I), Mona is quoted as saying that “Tolkien was an influence only so far as he influenced D&D. The world he created just didn't fit with what we were trying to do with Golarion. To be honest, it is too hopeful, not grim enough.” Now let me start by getting the distractions out of the way. Mona did not say that he did not like Tolkien—whether he does or not, I do not know. It is tempting to hear him saying this however, which to me would have elicited, “What'd you say about my mama” (draws switchblade). To whatever extent one may explain and persuade someone into appreciating some previously unshared appreciation, what is really at issue in such cases is that one cannot explain and persuade someone into love. (I'm not going to talk you into Tolkien being the most important English author of the 20th century, and you're not going to convince me that Pollack is an artist; that's not how things work.)
What makes taking Mona's statement in this way a temptation is that it echoes the author of Appendix N's dislike of Tolkien, who blatantly and inaccurately downplayed Tolkien's actual, thorough-going influence on D&D. But I'm fine with Mona saying, thank you, Professor Tolkien for orcs and such. But we're going to take all that another direction in Golarion. (Just as I am with Gygax, as long as he says, “Even though I think your writing stinks, it's full of great ideas that I will liberate for my own use.”) In fact, I think that is exactly what Tolkien would want you do to. Tolkien was broad enough that he enjoyed Robert E. Howard, E. R. Eddison, and H. Ryder Haggard alongside anonymous medieval poets. (Really, Tollers? Eddison? Snore.) He loved C. S. Lewis and he hated Narnia.
So, then, what's my beef? It's the particular reason that Mona proffered that stuck in my craw. Tolkien, not grim enough? Too hopeful? Dislike him or disuse him if one will, but these strike me as odd things to say about Tolkien. Consider.
The most heroic, the most good, the most wise and powerful and beautiful people of Middle Earth cannot save it, cannot defeat evil. The ring will pervert them into another Sauron or worse. If you don't believe them, look what it did to Boromir, the chivalric flower of Gondor. So one-by-one, Gandalf, Aragorn, and Galadriel all refuse the ring and its power. It takes a simple hobbit to get the ring to Mordor—no, not even Frodo, but the simple and loyal Samwise. No wait—the hobbits fail to destroy the ring. At Mordor, Frodo is so corrupted that he at last seizes the ring for himself and turns his back on his friend, his home, his world—as well as his mission. Innocence may sneak the ring to its source, but only evil may destroy it when it is once there—the evil of Gollum is evil destroying itself and its Precious, even as it consummates its own “good”. Heroes may be of use in saving the world, but it is only an overarching Providence that places them in use on the way to evil's own self-destruction.
Well, isn't that cheery? An invisible hand guides everything along to “and they all lived happily ever after”? Indeed, they did not live happily ever after. The ancient and beautiful world of the elves, tarrying in Middle Earth, has now passed. There is a good king on a good throne, but this (much diminished) rebirth will also pass in Tolkien's vision, and it will leave the last of the elves, the most beautiful of them, alone and broken with grief in her sacrificial love. Furthermore, Tolkien's placing of the story of LotR in a much longer mythos shows that any victory of good over evil is temporary and partial. Evil always returns and it corrupts the good. There is no decisive, final victory in the grim world of Middle Earth, which breathes the same air as the world which ends in Ragnarok. And many of Tolkien's heroes die tragically, having lost everything they have fought for, such as Túrin Turambar. In a similar vein, we start LotR with a youthful, innocent, carefree hobbit enjoying the rustic charms of the Shire, and we end with the devastation of the Shire, and a broken hobbit who cannot share in its rebuilding. Frodo too must pass out of Middle Earth into the West. In Tolkien's vision, heroes fail, lives are ruined, sacrifices are made, and all for a temporary beating back of evil, which will inevitably be surpassed by evil to come. Tolkien called this the history of the "long defeat", which caught "samples and glimpses of final victory" but nothing more (letter 195). Tolkien is attracted to the noble pagan virtue of “hopeless courage” which he found in Beowulf and recapitulated in LotR. Perhaps this is one of the pagan values that Peter Jackson had in mind when he speaks about his love for the story in some of the special features on the DVDs. (The extent to which they varied in their understanding of these may be a large extent to which Jackson's movies, as enjoyable as they are, fail in various ways as retellings of the tale.)
While I have likely missed whatever laid behind Erik's comments, they touched off my trigger, and I cannot help but wonder at them. Truly Middle Earth is not as carnal as Sanctuary or as nihilistic as Lovecraft's New England, but it is certainly grim in its own way, and even its greatest victories are limited, and come from somewhere beyond hope. It seems likely to me that there is some kind of happy-clappy misreading of Tolkien out there among both fans and foes, and I am not sure what all contributes to it. Rankin-Bass? Ralph Bakshi? It would be ironic if it were also Peter Jackson. In any event, Erik's comment sure made me think.
Wow... just wow. One of the best posts I have read in a long time. Well thought out and takes the high road in offering criticism.
And by the way, I also happen to agree on these points. If you read Tolkien and come away feeling uplifted, I don't think you're really reading it.
Tolkien has always been about innocence lost. Even in The Hobbit, Bilbo comes back from his adventures a changed man, eventually corrupted by the treasure of the experience. In experiencing adventure, he becomes addicted to it, and the simple, quaint, and beautiful life he used to know is replaced with a longing desire for adventure.
Creative Director
|
For me, what resonated there is that in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, good DOES triumph. The world is changed for the better with the destruction of the ring. It's epic, a lot more so than Conan stories are, in that an entire world can be changed through the actions of one person. That's not the type of stories we necessarily want to tell in Golarion, because an RPG world doesn't work well with the "one person changes the world" thing, in my opinion, because the game's about not just the 4–6 PCs in a single game, but ALL of the PCs in EVERY game.
Forgotten Realms embraced this element of Tolkien, and there were a lot of world-changing events in FR modules and books. And know what? The resetting of the world in FR every few years when some major world-changing event comes along was cool once. But once every few years starts to wear thin. I much prefer a more "static" world, like Greyhawk, or like Cimmeria, or like Leiber's Lankhmar. Those worlds have big stories and big events, but the world stays relatively constant. It lets you get used to the world and enjoy it without having to worry about it changing in a year because of someone's whim. The same goes for Dragonlance; that world's been reset so many times I've lost count.
Back to Tolkein, he did it right. He had a big, world defining change in the Lord of the Rings books, but unlike FR, he didn't go ahead and have something just as big (or bigger) happen a few years later that changed things again.
AND: In the end, what Erik's REALLY saying is something I 100% agree with... Lovecraft/Howard/Smith/Vance/Leiber/etc. are more entertaining than Tolkien. It's a matter of taste and opinion in the end. Tolkien's influence on the game has been huge, and it's in Golarion as well... but it's a pale shadow to the influence that the authors Erik listed (plus a few more I would add) as being influential over Golarion.
|
I agree with this post whole heatedly. In fact, ROTRL mirrors LOTR.
The heroes start at a small village, travel to exotic locations they haven't heard of before, get into battles along the way, finally confronting the evil bad guy on his home turf. Along the way there is betrayal by someone who was thought to be an ally. There is a desperate fight at a fortress. There are deaths of allies. The only thing missing is a battle of armies. How can Erik say Tolkien wasn't an influence?
|
Creative Director
|
I agree with this post whole heatedly. In fact, ROTRL mirrors LOTR.
The heroes start at a small village, travel to exotic locations they haven't heard of before, get into battles along the way, finally confronting the evil bad guy on his home turf. Along the way there is betrayal by someone who was thought to be an ally. There is a desperate fight at a fortress. There are deaths of allies. The only thing missing is a battle of armies. How can Erik say Tolkien wasn't an influence?
Well, for one thing, Erik wasn't talking about Rise of the Runelords when he said Tolkien wasn't an influence.
I suspect also he said that to try to drum up traffic and chatter on these boards, too! :-)
|
For me, what resonated there is that in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, good DOES triumph. The world is changed for the better with the destruction of the ring. It's epic, a lot more so than Conan stories are, in that an entire world can be changed through the actions of one person.
Forgive me but... why not ? One could argue that Aroden was for a time 'one person'. As was Cayden Cailean and the others who became gods. They surely 'changed the world'.
And Frodo did not act alone. The Fellowship of the Ring did its part in the Epic. I doubt Frodo would have made it far without Samwise (A COMMONER !), and Gandalf laboured for an Age against the workings of Sauron and the Dark Lord's agents.
And one could also argue that Frodo FAILED in the end - it was Gollum who may have very well saved Middle Earth.
Back to Tolkein, he did it right.
Yes he did.
: )
He had a big, world defining change in the Lord of the Rings books, but unlike FR, he didn't go ahead and have something just as big (or bigger) happen a few years later that changed things again.
It's worth noting here that the Third Age lasted quite unchanged for over 3000 years. And when 'change' did happen (The Fourth Age, The Days of the King) not all of Middle Earth knew of it or took this as fact.
Whenever you play a Halfling, whenever you escape an Orc tribe, whenever you single handedly bring down a Wyrm with an Arrow of Dragon Slaying, whenever your party stands toe to toe with a Balor, whenever you discuss gunpowder in fantasy, whenever an old Wizard steals you away from the safety of your village and throws you on the path of an impossible Quest ... Don't forget to tip your hat to Prof. Tolkien now and then.
Just a wee bit of credit where credit is due.
|
For me, what resonated there is that in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, good DOES triumph. The world is changed for the better with the destruction of the ring.
And yet, that is not wholly true.
After the ring is destroyed the following events transpire:
1) The Shire is scoured by Saruman. The hobbits are placed into slavery and the realm is never the same again, even after the wizard is ousted.
2) Frodo never fully recovers from the wounds he received and is haunted by the events for the rest of his life. While he is allowed to enter the West, it is never clear if the burdens are lifted from his shoulders or not.
3) The elves lose what Galadriel calls the Long Defeat. They are forced to leave Middle Earth or diminish. There is no hope for them. Even the dwarves fade from view, becoming less than they were.
4) As the Fourth Age proceeds magic becomes rarer. The way to the mystic West is lost and the world comes under the control of mankind. Eventually Aragorn dies, Arwen dies of grief and the world becomes mundane. Even hobbits become like men eventually.
Good wins but it is a temporary victory, and one that is at the cost of all that is wonderful and magical in the world.
I hardly consider that hopeful.
|
|
AND: In the end, what Erik's REALLY saying is something I 100% agree with... Lovecraft/Howard/Smith/Vance/Leiber/etc. are more entertaining than Tolkien. It's a matter of taste and opinion in the end.
Tolkien wasn't writing fiction as much as he was forging a mythology. And while I can sympathize that his writing is a bit ponderous, I don't think comparing the two is fair.
But I get the jist of what you are saying and I am inclined to agree on a basic level. One set of stories was really written for the masses while the other was not.
James, your post tells me that I wrote all that as more than just an act of catharsis. (Seriously, I saw the blog before I went to teach class, and had a monkey on my back until I could get back home.) So thanks. It makes absolute sense to me what you're saying about the Realms (and may have something to do with why I always was happier with Greyhawk). I think executing a "world changing" event is difficult in fiction, but even more difficult to pull off well in a game with PCs. I'm thinking it requires that a GM create a setting for a game for a specific group of players that can see it through, and hopefully take it slow enough to have made it worth-while to have gone to all that work. I take you as saying that this would be a big mistake for game publication (or at least, you all), and that makes sense to me. And as far as Golarion goes, if I want to play in Middle Earth, I have an analogue in a group I play with, so I want you all to make Golarion uniquely your own not only for success reasons and to please yourselves, but to feed my own taste for variety.
The only real possible point of difference that comes up for me (except, as you say, valuation of styles and tastes) is the extent to which good does triumph and the world actually changes for the better in LotR. And some of the latter is likely affected by whether one reads LotR alone or within the larger Tolkien canon. As I see it, good doesn't triumph in any final way in LotR: men are left just as Tolkien found them. Any change in circumstances is temporary, and it is anticipated that, just as there was an enemy before Sauron (Melkor), so there will be evils afterward, and they will be of the same kind (a power which corrupts the good). In this way, Tolkien speaks to a certain view of history and of human nature, and rejects the kind of optimistic progress narrative that had been popular in his day, and that even WWI had not managed to completely kill off. Again, not that I mean to argue about the extent to which upheaval makes for difficulty in world-making and world-sharing, while creating diminishing returns, but about whether the world is "grim" or "too hopeful". I take as salient your point about Tolkien knowing how to do it right: if the world's always getting kicked into a new age, then that last time it happened must not have been so exceptional. So again, thanks, your comments give me place to relocate my Tolkien angst.
And Veector, thanks for your words. Funny thing is, I do feel uplifted in a way after reading Tolkien. Just not in the "shiny happy people holding hands" way.
EDIT: Heathy, I see your Epic Pooh and I raise you an "Oo those Nasty Orcs." But I find neither Moorcock's nor Wilson's criticism to hit the mark.
It's been brought to my attention that my rather stern judgment on Gygax (and I think my Gygaxian fan credentials are in pretty good shape), perhaps in association with some posts on this thread that may take the matter much farther than I do, might cause the misperception that I am saying "D&D is Tolkien". That's not what I said, and I think my position above is both accurate and consonant with denying such an extreme assertion.
|
Creative Director
|
Of course, it's worth remembering that I'm not sure exactly why Erik said Tolkein was too hopeful and not grim enough. What I listed above in my posts are my own thoughts on the matter. What it REALLY boils down to for me is that I much prefer the older authors Erik mentions (particularly Lovecraft, Howard, Leiber, and Clark Ashton Smith), as well as some newer authors of fantasy (particularly George R. R. Martin and Raymond Feist). I've never been a big fan of Tolkein; I've read the books but much prefer Peter Jackson's take on the story, to be honest. And I would have much rather seen a Peter Jackson "Conan" movie or "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath" movie than Lord of the Rings. As awesome and as great as the LotR movies were (they're in my top 10 movies of all time, in fact).
What it really comes down to, though, is that while Tolkein was surely a big inspiration on D&D's creation, he was far from the only one. And as far as Golarion's creation, his influence is mostly 2nd hand, as interpreted through the parts of his work that already inspired D&D stuff and in turn inspired Golarion that way.
|
|
NOTE: I tried posting earlier but the messageboard system would not let me.
I have to say, with out going too deep, I was a little bewildered/offended but Erik comments. I thought perhaps he got caught up in the pop culture surrounding the LotR triology of movies which were hopeful but were meant to be so.
In reflection maybe his opinions are not completely offline. I have read the how lord of the rings series twice, granted over a decade ago now, and I do recall large chunks of text explaining the shire and elves. This sections most certainly was no dark but when held up in comparison to what the evils were going to do it just contrasts... making the light brighter and the dark darker.
I think pathfinder definately is not overtly wanting to be in the Tolkian shadow but, unfortunately for Erik, it is. You can not deny that a bulk of the fundamentals of the game mechanics are puleld right from Tolkien's ideas.
The challenge for Piazo is to create material the starts characters at level 0. I have read a fair amount of Paizo adventure materials and I think the mindset of full time adventures is set in plot. Where LotR is a little different is that most of the main characters are relucant adventures which I do not think Paizo has explored... certainly in the pathfinder/gamemastery materials.
Just my thoughts. I hope Tolkien does make the appendix. I think Tolkeins lord of the rings and hobbit need to be in the appendix. It would be injust if it is not.
Addition: I think to say that Tolkein addition to D&D is second hand is not at all accurate. The fact that it has been referenced as such in the past suggest that your forebearers of the D&D torch thought it might have been. No problem with opinions but I think it would be rude to ignore tradition... you can not change what people thought in the past... but you certainly can create new history. :)
I wasn't taking you as Erik's spokesman, James, I just found your comments helped me to remove the issue from my personal shrine to JRRT, (with a bit of irritation with Gygax on the subject) to a Golarion-relevant location. And as to the rest, as you say, different tastes!
There may have also been a misperception that I didn't appreciate Erik's interview, when in fact I loved the whole thing except for one little bit that fell into my shoe and wore a little sore place on my foot, producing what may have been more than most people wanted to hear on the subject. But certainly, what's interesting is in part getting each contributor's perspective on things.
I can see where Erik is coming from. The loss in Tolkien's books are usually more cerebral - the waste of a life lost, loss of innocence, loss of the home of your youth, and so on. But always the chance for recovery. Contrast that to Lovecraft with the loss of sanity, of fortune, and even of your own humanity. And zero hope. Very different. I first read Tolkien as kid in 4th grade. I wasn't distressed by anything in it. Nothing "scared" me, and I was confident that at the end everything would turn out "all right". Continuing the contrast with Lovecraft, I read one of his collections for the first time this year, and it gave me the heebie-jeebies. I will always put Tolkien at the top of authors who have influenced my life, but for a world to adventure in, give me the heebie-jeebies.
|
|
You have to look into the history of LotR and Tolkien.
He wrote the book/s for his children to read. They are aimed at sub 10 year olds. By today's literacy standards it would be hard for a sub ten year old to appreciate it. :)
The Tolkien books, I believe, did set up the D&D world and other RPGs as the major inspiration along with others. Obviously games evolve and throgh Paizo they have. The grim and darkside is very pronounced and for me refreshing but that builds on the high fantasy tradition.
If everything is dark and grim but no focus on light and hope what contrast will there be? It will turn into ramblings and insanity - disjointed from the world, virtual it maybe. You can not have solely grim nor can you have solely hope but the two are linked and not mutually exclusive. You can not have one without the other.
|
|
I wanted to add to my above post but the message boards were down and my rather long additions (with links) were lost.
Briefly, if one were to read even excerpts from the tome that is 'The Similarion', one would get the impression that Tolkien was nothing but grim.
Morgoth, who would humble any of the dark gods in Greyhawk, Krynn or The Realms. Ungoliant the Accursed, who felled the Two Trees. Alcalagon the Black and Glaurung the Gold, great wyrms who laid waste to an Age. All of Moria falling to a Balrog. The rise of Angmar and Arnor sacked by the Witch King.
Event in ‘The Hobbit’ (considered a children’s book by some) Smaug lays waste to Erebor and Dale.
Sometimes ‘hope’ is all that the ‘good’ have going for them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Wow. I always knew Tolkien held a high place for fantasy fans, but I had no idea he inspired schisms and Inquisitorial inquests!
I read Tolkien, skimmed through the boring walking parts and re-read them when I was 28. I got a lot more out of it when I was older: the battle of modernism versus that pastoral idealism that the hobbits so embodied.
But honestly, I found HP Lovecraft, Fritz Lieber and the Thieves World anthologies to be just as engaging. The worlds they created expanded my love of fantasy and gave me a much wider horizon than Tolkien alone. Without any of them my fictional life would be less.
No matter where you place the inspiration for Pathfinder and Golarion, it's still my chosen place to lay my hat. No matter who inspired it, it's mine now. And you can have it back when you pry it out of my cold, dead dice bag.
I hope the rest of you feel the same way.
For me, what resonated there is that in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, good DOES triumph. The world is changed for the better with the destruction of the ring.And yet, that is not wholly true.
After the ring is destroyed the following events transpire:
1) The Shire is scoured by Saruman. The hobbits are placed into slavery and the realm is never the same again, even after the wizard is ousted.
2) Frodo never fully recovers from the wounds he received and is haunted by the events for the rest of his life. While he is allowed to enter the West, it is never clear if the burdens are lifted from his shoulders or not.
3) The elves lose what Galadriel calls the Long Defeat. They are forced to leave Middle Earth or diminish. There is no hope for them. Even the dwarves fade from view, becoming less than they were.
4) As the Fourth Age proceeds magic becomes rarer. The way to the mystic West is lost and the world comes under the control of mankind. Eventually Aragorn dies, Arwen dies of grief and the world becomes mundane. Even hobbits become like men eventually.
Good wins but it is a temporary victory, and one that is at the cost of all that is wonderful and magical in the world.
I hardly consider that hopeful.
If you go by the incomplete story "The New Shadow" (which Tolkien abandoned after 30 pages because he found it too depressing), there is also a rise in Morgoth cults and Orcish behavior in children 100 years later, during the reign of Aragorn's son. Which, ironically, sounds like the sort of the thing that would fit perfectly in Golarion.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
[tangent]
How a Tolkien fan saved my life and turned me into a lifelong reader.
I wasn't expected to go to university. It wasn't something anyone in my family had done. I wasn't expected to do much actually. I was a smart kid, but didn't read much. I spent more time, at the age of 11, trying to make a buck then get a grade.
Then, one day, our unimpressive regular teacher got sick. Her substitute was a young guy just out of teacher's college. Fresh meat. He wanted to impress. Good luck with that. He was a substitute. He would soon learn who was in charge.
I forget his name, so let's call him Mr. Mairkurion.
He'd been pulled in at the last minute and thrown together a lesson plan. This was the lesson plan:
- Read several pages from The Hobbit detailing the part where Bilbo found the ring;
- Come to the library and watch an animated film version of The Hobbit paying close attention to how Bilbo found the ring;
- Read several pages from Lord of the Rings in which Bilbo recounts how he found the ring;
- Make a list of similarities and differences between these three versions of the same event.
At the end of what must have been two or three hours of looking at these texts, he asked us to share our lists of similarities and differences. We stared at him blankly. He stammered, "Anyone? Anyone? Tarren? Bueller?". We gave him nothing. We had answers. We were genuinely impressed. We didn't let him know that. Just who did he think he was coming into our class and actually trying to teach?
He left disappointed. He left certain his lesson had failed. I could see it on his face. Another wasted day for a young teacher. He left.
I left and dropped by the public library and picked up The Hobbit and read it. Then, I picked up Lord of the Rings and read that. Then, I read other fantasy books. Then, I started playing D&D.
I remember that day very well because that was the day I became an avid reader. I wish I could let Mr. Mairkurion know what an incredible effect his lesson had on me, but I can't recall his real name. Instead, I just share that story with teachers I meet so that they know that the success of a lesson cannot be measured at the end of a class but, for the really good lessons, may take a lifetime to play out.
I got my PhD in education a couple of months ago. I doubt I would have done that if I hadn't fallen in love with books 28 years ago, thanks to some substitute teacher fresh out of teacher's college who loved Tolkien.
[/tangent]
The above is not an argument for or against the greatness of Tolkien. The great book is the one you can't put down, the one that knocks your head back, the one that turns your son into a reader, the one that you love so much you want to share it and teach it. Thanks Mr. Mairkurion, whoever you are.
|
|
(...and you're not going to convince me that Pollack is an artist; that's not how things work.)
Hehe... now I know why you're my favorite salad.
I disagree too with the idea that Tolkien is some sort of happy wonderland for the reasons already said but I am glad that Paizo is forging their own path by borrowing a little from all the authors mentioned. Personally I hold Tolkien and Howard up to the highest level with the rest just below and Moorcock wayyy towards the bottom. ;-PWhat it REALLY boils down to for me is that I much prefer the older authors Erik mentions (particularly Lovecraft, Howard, Leiber, and Clark Ashton Smith), as well as some newer authors of fantasy (particularly George R. R. Martin and Raymond Feist).
Wow, a Feist fan! I've never met anyone else who reads his work. James, what's your favorite book?
|
|
The hardest part of writing is the beginning. At least for me it is. Tolkien re-wrote Lord of the Rings in its entirety several times. To contrast and compare Howard wrote most of the Conan stories, baring the ones which were re-writes of older non-Conan stuff, almost wholecloth. Or at least that was what he mentioned a time or two. I say we are comparing apples to oranges. Both are good neither are superior to the other. And the blossom in different seasons.
There was a debate at one time on the best sci-fi stories. Some preferred star trek others star-wars, still others dune. I think each have their place. The biggest element is what happens to the genre after its influence. If star-wars had not come about most sci-fi would still be nice and pristine. A future where everything is sterile. Doesn't matter that other stories showed a future that wasn't like that, this was the major perception at the time. Star-wars produced a world that was for the first time generally seen as well dirty. With Tolkien he made a fantasy world that was for the first time clean.
Now I am not talking about whether his Orcs bathed or not. It was just a much more pristine sounding place. In general anyway, a nicer place to visit. Now Aquilonia on the other hand, shows the dust of ages covering the world. It has a much darker resonance to it. In a word it was a Pulp. Erik has professed a love of that type of world for some time now. It is no surprise to me that he feels the way he does. But this is just my interpretation of the first part of the interview and I am waiting for the rest.
With that said I would also offer if someone truthfully thought that Lord of the Rings was not grim at all and was a very hopeful book that they have missed the point and should sit down and read the stories again.
|
Creative Director
|
Wow, a Feist fan! I've never met anyone else who reads his work. James, what's your favorite book?
Feist fans are out there, otherwise I doubt his books would still be going! :)
If I had to pick three favorites, they'd be "Magician," "A Darkness at Sethanon," and "Rise of a Merchant Prince." I've tried to get into "Talon of the Silver Hawk" twice now, but so far, it's not as interesting to me for whatever reason. I'll try again soon, I guess...
|
Creative Director
|
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.
It's the same with Star Wars for me, honestly; I'm a HUGE fan of sci-fi and space operas and all that, but I'm not a big fan of Star Wars. Wasn't even when the prequel trilogy wasn't around, even.
|
|
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've heard that people who don't like Tolkien play 4e.
Ah-hahahaha!
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.
It's the same with Star Wars for me, honestly; I'm a HUGE fan of sci-fi and space operas and all that, but I'm not a big fan of Star Wars. Wasn't even when the prequel trilogy wasn't around, even.
So what are your favorite SciFi TV series, James?
That's the spirit, allyenbard. This thread has been way to civil. Time to mix it up. DEATH TO 4RONS! DOWN WITH 3TARDS!
(Okay, I know you weren't really proposing any such rabble-rousing, but I'll take what I can get.)
Time to burn Greg at the steak!
|
|
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.
It's the same with Star Wars for me, honestly; I'm a HUGE fan of sci-fi and space operas and all that, but I'm not a big fan of Star Wars. Wasn't even when the prequel trilogy wasn't around, even.
My response was how Erik basically said that if the game could be made without gnomes, elves, etc he would and then suggested that is all that Tolkien had to offer to D&D. I dunno if it was the cut down of the interview and how it was presented but that does sound a bit off. If he is into the dark stuff, why not write for that specifically instead of the guise of D&D (or that spirit). Kinda suggested a move away from "tradition values" of D&D to a new level like D&D 4.0 is. I like the high fantasy... hope and misery but ultimately success or die trying. :)
That is how I felt reading the interview. Not anti people anti Tolkien. There are plenty of folks out there who were are anti Tolkien because it is the "norm". People will always like different flavours of icecream.
|
|
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.
It's the same with Star Wars for me, honestly; I'm a HUGE fan of sci-fi and space operas and all that, but I'm not a big fan of Star Wars. Wasn't even when the prequel trilogy wasn't around, even.
That is entirely understandable. I can respect that someone wouldn't consider Tolkien as one of their favorite authors. And anything I have said should not be taken as a criticism of that opinion. There are a ton of reasons why someone might feel that way, all of them legitimate.
But I do think there is more at work with Tolkien's Legendarium than people give it credit for. It is not a happy, shiny piece of literature. Tolkien abhorred escapism and I think that shows through in his work.
Tolkien was a complex man and, to be honest, I don't think I would have gotten along with him very well if I had met him in person. But I do think he created something that transcended his life. He was a "worldbuilder" first and novelist second. I believe if you approach his work as myths and folktales, they take on a different hue. For Tolkien, Middle Earth was an expression of his feelings about philology and myth. These are ideas that are distinctly intertwined for the Professor.
As much as I respect Gygax, my real beef with what Erik said lies more with Gary than anything else. I respect he didn't like Tolkien all that much. I can respect he might have felt he had to add elves, hobbits, dwarves, ents, orcs, and everything else to help sell the game. But I think he downplayed Tolkien's influence too much and was reluctant to give credit where credit because of this prejudice.
I should note I just read Shippey's The Road to Middle Earth so I am a bit keyed up on Tolkien in general.
|
|
That's the spirit, allyenbard. This thread has been way to civil. Time to mix it up. DEATH TO 4RONS! DOWN WITH 3TARDS!
(Okay, I know you weren't really proposing any such rabble-rousing, but I'll take what I can get.)
Yeah, that really wasn't supposed to be a call to arms. Sorry. :)
Does admitting I play 4e right now mean I can't love Tolkien?
Would it help if I said I run/play 3e as well? How about if I say I am excited about Pathfinder?
Heck, I still want to plan an older edition game, perhaps OD&D or 1e.
I need validation! :)
|
|
Feist fans are out there, otherwise I doubt his books would still be going! :)
If I had to pick three favorites, they'd be "Magician," "A Darkness at Sethanon," and "Rise of a Merchant Prince." I've tried to get into "Talon of the Silver Hawk" twice now, but so far, it's not as interesting to me for whatever reason. I'll try again soon, I guess...
Among the various circles of friends and acquaintances who liked D&D and fantasy, most either never heard of Feist or didn't read anything beyond the Magician books.
My favorites are King's Bucaneer, Shadow of a Dark Queen and Rise of a Merchant Prince. I had a hard time getting through his Krondor series, I gave up halfway through the Tear of the Gods. His new stuff is okay, I'm not really enjoying it like his earlier work, feels like his ideas are running low and certain characters like Pug and Nakor have run their limit.|
|
Feist fans are out there, otherwise I doubt his books would still be going! :)
If I had to pick three favorites, they'd be "Magician," "A Darkness at Sethanon," and "Rise of a Merchant Prince." I've tried to get into "Talon of the Silver Hawk" twice now, but so far, it's not as interesting to me for whatever reason. I'll try again soon, I guess...Among the various circles of friends and acquaintances who liked D&D and fantasy, most either never heard of Feist or didn't read anything beyond the Magician books.
My favorites are King's Bucaneer, Shadow of a Dark Queen and Rise of a Merchant Prince. I had a hard time getting through his Krondor series, I gave up halfway through the Tear of the Gods. His new stuff is okay, I'm not really enjoying it like his earlier work, feels like his ideas are running low and certain characters like Pug and Nakor have run their limit.
I haven't read much Feist, but I really enjoy Faerie Tale.
|
|
Wow, a Feist fan! I've never met anyone else who reads his work. James, what's your favorite book?Feist fans are out there, otherwise I doubt his books would still be going! :)
If I had to pick three favorites, they'd be "Magician," "A Darkness at Sethanon," and "Rise of a Merchant Prince." I've tried to get into "Talon of the Silver Hawk" twice now, but so far, it's not as interesting to me for whatever reason. I'll try again soon, I guess...
Good to know I am not the only one who couldn't finish 'Talon'
CJ -- I've had Feist's Magician strongly recommended to me, I just haven't gotten to it yet.
Greg -- We could always start talking about Okies. (So, the yo mamma and switchblade reference in the background weren't enough for ya? You had to go for edition war.)
Tarren -- I'm sure I'll regret admitting this amongst this crowd of passive-aggressive, fourthedista, cannibalistic Tolkien-haters, but you made me cry. I kept thinking about my fourth graders, the year I was an alternative certification 4th grade LA/SS teacher. Those kids would be the same age as the kids in my community college class now. If I got just one kid to be a Tarren Dei, then that would something. "Thank you, Mr. Markurion." You killed me. I can't even take advantage of the obvious application that JRRT saved the day.
Oh, and Alleynbard, you have a very nice beard. And Shippey, good.
Earthsea by Ursula Grin anyone?
I enjoyed the one book of that I got to read, and it seemed like something that could happen on Golorian.
Personally the parts of Tolkien and Grin I think that apply the most to what paizo is doing is the fact that even with all this epic stuff happening... most the world never knows. It's literally world saving and yet if the many main characters where to go to a village and buy a chicken (which you can easily still see them doing) none of their neighbors would have the foggiest idea just who bought that chicken and what they have done.
I think Magic of Recluse (by Modesitt) plays well into it too. The world still turns and things keep on just like they had (with occasional bigger twists).
I think the reason that the pathfinder team is doing so well though is that while they admire those who have come before they are not awed by them. They can say, "Yes this is good, however it is not the be all end all, we'll see what we can do different and if you like it great, if not we don't mind either." (within the tolerance of the market of course)
I do find it puzzling that people always seem to make things "worse" before they accept that something is "good enough". That sort of thing leads into epics, after all the more evil and worse things get, the better, more daring, and heroic the people that will suppress it need to be (or will appear to be afterwards maybe a better way to put it). But I've never really understood the horror genre so maybe it's just me... I'm more of a "balancer" I guess.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Feist - I read the Riftwar saga, liked all of it except for Silverthorn (which was just not much of a book). Gave Feist up after reading Prince of the Blood, which really turned me off to his writing style.
Tolkien - I've read LotR many times. I still don't see as a major influence for the feel of D&D. The races, yes, particularly as time has gone on and authors have gone back to the Tolkien well more and more. But the flavor and grittiness of the game goes back to Leiber, Howard and Vance. You have to go past the window dressing.
In a lot of ways, D&D is a fantasy literature simulation. And the fantasy it simulates best is not Tolkien. He is assuredly in the 2nd tier of influences, just not the top.
|
|
Oh, and Alleynbard, you have a very nice beard. And Shippey, good.
Thank you, you have a very nice.....ummm.....leaf. I am also digging those unblinking eyes.
I really enjoyed Author of the Century so it seemed natural to read The Road to Middle-Earth . While I always felt I had a pretty good grasp on Tolkien, both books gave me an insight on the man I did not expect. I felt a great deal of empathy and sympathy for the Professor while reading both books.
I got Road to Middle-Earth and The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien for Christmas. I am not sure I am ready to peruse the letters quite yet. Who knows? After having this discussion I might change my mind and crack it open tonight. I am currently between books.
|
|
In a lot of ways, D&D is a fantasy literature simulation. And the fantasy it simulates best is not Tolkien. He is assuredly in the 2nd tier of influences, just not the top.
I guess I am honestly confused about statement. What is it about Tolkien that does not map well to D&D?
I can't think of anything that doesn't entirely come down to play style.
I believe he is not the uppermost influence. That isn't a question. I think his influence is more than "window dressing" though. Unless you consider some of those racial traits, magic items, certain creatures, etc. as window dressing.
All that said, I am willing to accept that an "assumed play style of the game" might fly in the face of Tolkien. I am still not entirely convinced though.
D&D is an amalgam. As such, it can be most things to most people. For instance, Vancian wizards have just as little place in Tolkien as they do in Howard, Lovecraft, or Moorcock. But if your campaign leans more towards Leiber, then you can certainly find a place for them. Better yet, if you have a campaign more like Dying Earth, then there is very little work at all.
|
|
That's very much what I mean by window dressing.That isn't a question. I think his influence is more than "window dressing" though. Unless you consider some of those racial traits, magic items, creatures, etc. as window dressing.
Okay. Then what is the core of the game? Rather, what is in the core of the game that better emulates one of the authors you named than Tolkien?
What isn't window dressing for you?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Okay. Then what is the core of the game? Rather, what is in the core of the game that better emulates one of the authors you named than Tolkien?
What isn't window dressing for you?
A nebulos thing, but it's the feel of the system. Gritty urban adventures, moral ambiguity (in the editions I prefer), glimpses of terrifying realities, all these are a big part of the D&D experience to me. A system focused more on man-to-man combat that large scale engagements. Ideally, people who aren't defined as good/bad and leader/sheep by just their race, though D&D does often fall down on the former. D&D screams out Conan, Fafhrd, Cugel and the Gray Mouser to me. It rarely screams out Gandalf, a wizard who only occasionally bothered to cast a spell.
The fact that it has dwarves and elves that were frankly often portrayed that way before Tolkien touched them is somewhat incidental to the feel of the game.
Anyhow, it's not something that's terrible quantifiable, which is probably why this particular argument has been going on for more than 25 years.