Tolkien - Required reading?

[Lord Dynel]

I had some interesting conversation this weekend with some gaming folk (one topic of discuission was concerning humand and balancing, over in the Rules forum).

One interesting point that was brought up was this, concerning the "state" of some games and the fantasy genre as a whole (I can't remember which games were brought up for certain, but I know 4e and Pathfinder was, and possibly Dark Heresy, too):

"Ya know what? I think Tolkien should be required reading for anyone who plays fantasy RPGs."

That was the topic of discussion for a bit and then we moved on to other areas of interest. But this comment stuck in my head for some time. I know what he meant - ideas of traditional fantasy, their (alleged) roots in Tolkien (and like-minded authors), and the various ideas some games have for fantasy rpgs.

Is it a valid point? Is fantasy stretching too far? For me, I don't know. I mean, I felt like some of the "classic fantasy" feel I got with BD&D and AD&D was starting to go away with 3rd Edition. With C&C I get some of that back, for certain. I also know not even EGG himself was a strict adherer of JRRT's works, and he "went off the reservation" a little when it came to inspiration (just look at the "suggested reading" in the back of the 1e DMG for proof) but a the same time, his completed work was very close in feel to the fantasy groundwork laid down by Tolkien and Tolkien-like authors.

I know this person was saying it in a negative connotation, and I got the obvious impression that some games out there that are labeled "fantasy" shouldn't be classified in the same caegory as C&C and like games.

Thoughts?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[DangerDwarf]

While I enjoy Tolkeins views, I abhor is writing so wouldn't require reading his stuff (or even recommend) it to anyone.

As for should the genre stick to his feel? Hell no.

I like variety and creativity. Besides, I'd take Hyboria over Middle Earth any day.

[Lord Dynel]

DangerDwarf wrote:
While I enjoy Tolkeins views, I abhor is writing so wouldn't require reading his stuff (or even recommend) it to anyone.

As for should the genre stick to his feel? Hell no.

I like variety and creativity. Besides, I'd take Hyboria over Middle Earth any day.

I agree there's plenty of leeway, or there should be.

And Conan was actually one point that was brought up in our conversation this weekend. The antagonist (I guess that's the best way to put him) asked me to look at the PHB (CnC) and asked me if it invoked Howard more or Tolkien more. I had to say Tolkien, though I agree with you, DD.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[gideon_thorne]

Lord Dynel wrote:
Is it a valid point? Is fantasy stretching too far? For me, I don't know. I mean, I felt like some of the "classic fantasy" feel I got with BD&D and AD&D was starting to go away with 3rd Edition. With C&C I get some of that back, for certain. I also know not even EGG himself was a strict adherer of JRRT's works, and he "went off the reservation" a little when it came to inspiration (just look at the "suggested reading" in the back of the 1e DMG for proof) but a the same time, his completed work was very close in feel to the fantasy groundwork laid down by Tolkien and Tolkien-like authors.

Well, as regards to this, having had a few conversations with Gary on this point, Tolkien tropes were put into D&D at the insistence of other D&D developers. Gary's writing interests were more focused on Lieber, Vance, Burroughs and the like. More Sword and Sorcery than High Fantasy like Tolkien.

Early D&D was a melange of many tastes.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Okay, I had to be on the fence on this one. While on the one hand, JRRT is a great source for inspiration, on the other hand, the only "required reading" for playing a game is the PHB (and M&T etc. if you're running a game). I think we're all a pretty well read bunch, and you'll see elements of our favorite stories make their way into our games.

The flip side of this is that if you look at the 1/e AD&D DMG, EGG himself put Tolkein into a list of "Inspirational" reading in one of the appendices at the end of the DMG. Should it be required? Probably not. Would it do just as EGG suggested, and be recommended for the inspirational value? Absolutely.

Sir Osis of Liver

[moriarty777]

I had to vote for option 'c' -- I don't know because of the way the question is asked. You have to consider a couple of issues here. What exactly is 'traditional fantasy' ?

I'm aware of Tokien's influence but, when you consider other author's that Gary was influenced by (as pointed out by Peter). You are still left with the question of 'what is'... I'm actually reading Lieber (for the first time) and I'm having a blast. I've enjoyed Moorcock as well. What is 'High Fantasy' vs classic 'Sword & Sorcery'. Couldn't both those models fit 'traditional fantasy' or is it that Tolkien's take colored and influenced other authors that followed him?

What about the great stories of classical mythology -- if you consider the Illiad or the Odyssey you've got tales which are hard to beat and truly timeless. What about the various stories about King Arthur and his knights, or 'La Chason de Roland', and various other stories from around the globe in various cultures. Modern Fantasy borrows heavily from these and whether you want to classify something 'High Fantasy' or 'Sword and Sorcery' there are fantastic elements which are common to both.

I'm not sure if Tolkien is the best example considering the body of works available to us, but if the person in question could only read *one* book, Something like the Hobbit may not be a bad suggestion. However, I'd still push for the Odyssey personally.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Omote]

Fantasy should never be tied to any one author. Yes, Tolkien's work is inspirational even to this day, but that does not mean that authors should limit themselves to doing what is already done. Not at all.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Course, to answer the original question, I'd have to say no. The design and writing of an rpg should only be limited by the imagination of the author(s).
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Buttmonkey]

I don't see how the poll question meshes with the OP's question. Absolutely, Tolkien should be required reading for players of fantasy RPGs (at least, to the extent anything should be required reading). That has nothing to do with the way RPGs should be structured. Fantasy games should feel like whatever people want them to, not a specific author's work. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

[cinderblock]

+1

[Lord Dynel]

I admit, the question is a little misleading, unintentionally. What I meant is exactly what was constructed in the post - how close should fantasy rpgs come to tropes laid down by "traditional" fantasy work of Tolkien? More importantly, based on my weekend antagonist's proclamation, should Tolkien's work be the foundation in which to bulild fantasy experience.

As Peter said, Gary took advice from others to add a lot of "tolkienesque" flavor to AD&D. That I understand, but for me that's athe bulk of what I see when I look at the classes of the book. Sure, I see a touch of Leiber and Howard, but Tolkien jumps off the page.

I know the nature of the question is going to lead to a lot of "no" answers and not without cause - anytime a question comes about that wants to force us into one way of thinking, it usually leads to resistance. I agree that fantasy rpgs should draw from many different sources, not just one.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Greg Ellis]

I would put Fritz Lieber higher on that list than Tolkien. Also the Conan stories, some Burroughs, and my current favourite - Andre Norton's Witch World series.

Personally, I found Tolkien's Ring Trilogy to be ponderously slow and dull. I would hate for anyone to get the impression that fantasy (and fantasy RP) is ponderous and dull. The Hobbit had a better pace to it - that one's a good reference.

So, my answer is no.

[tylermo]

I was introduced to the Hobbit, and LOTR back in the early 80's. Loved em'. Hell, I've read them many times over the years. I probably read more sci-fi than fantasy in those years, and never got around to most of the aforementioned. Did read Burroughs' Carter of Mars series, however. Anyway, LOTR is certainly required reading in my book, and I'm certain that Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock are as well. I'll have to make time for those, just as I'm by finally reading Howard's Solomon Kane.

[CKDad]

Modern fantasy owes a lot to Tolkein (and his imitators, which are legion.) But by no means is he the be-all end-all of fantasy.

Ask the person who made this statement if they've ever cracked the covers of Roger Zelazny's Amber books. Jack Vance's Dying Earth. George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. Lois McMaster Bujold's Chalion novels. Or any of the dozen other authors whose works line my shelves.

Fantasy is more than orcs & elves.
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

[GameOgre]

Quote:
Roger Zelazny's Amber books. Jack Vance's Dying Earth. George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. Lois McMaster Bujold's Chalion novels

Also required reading,
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[ssfsx17]

Tolkien is a poor example, as he's been butchered so much that most people today totally miss the point when they think of LOTR. These people think it's all about archetypal elves and dwarves, shiny swords, etc, but it's really about the way that power corrupts.

[AGNKim]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Besides, I'd take Hyboria over Middle Earth any day.

I stopped reading right here. Amen, you crazy sonofabitch. Amen.
_________________
kim@trolllord.com

Click here: http://tiny.cc/4rvo5

[Benoist]

I'm one of the most passionate tolkienists you will find out there, but no, Tolkien's works are not "required" reading for playing fantasy RPGs, nor are the works of Vance, or Leiber, or Howard et al.
_________________
Building: The Tower of St. Makhab - The Medival Eurth

[ghostSmacker]

I played D&D for 20 years before I read any Tolkien.
Jason & the Argonauts and The Golden Voyage of Sinbad taught me everything I needed to know.

[serleran]

I would not say Tolkienian (wow, that's a strange one) references are a requisite of the game -- there are elements that would be useful, but they are also standard tropes of lots of adventure stories, such as a "party" or "band" which predates the Professor by millennia (especially the works of Homer), so yes and no, but as "required reading," I would say "no." I have never read it, nor do I plan to.

For that matter, I actually refuse to read fantasy novels, simply because 1) I don't want to be "inspired" (I want to create it myself) and 2) I find most of it rehashes of something else and thus, redundant
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

I voted yes, but traditional fantasy can encompass a vast territory. There's whole worlds between Middle-Earth, Thieves' World, Dying Earth, and Hyboria, and Burroughs' Mars. Tolkien should be one of many on the required reading list.

[Tadhg]

No, I don't think they should stick closer. IMO, there is enough basic Tolkien influences and a mix of other ones. And if a CK/DM wishes to add more and the players enjoy that - go for it. Otherwise, I'm fine with the game as is.

Nor would I say "required reading", but certainly recommended.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Matthew]

Tolkien is required reading, as is Howard, Clark and Lovecraft.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Hrolfgar]

I don't believe in required reading for fantasy rpgs. I would say Tolkien is recommended reading but not required.

[Benoist]

Rhuvein wrote:
Nor would I say "required reading", but certainly recommended.

I totally agree. Tolkien certainly is recommended. It's not "required" to enjoy FRPG games, though.
_________________
Building: The Tower of St. Makhab - The Medival Eurth

[Matthew]

Depends what you mean it is required for. It is not required to play, by any stretch of the imagination, but I would say it is required to fully appreciate a good deal of what is going on in fantasy games.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Lord Dynel]

Matthew wrote:
Depends what you mean it is required for. It is not required to play, by any stretch of the imagination, but I would say it is required to fully appreciate a good deal of what is going on in fantasy games.

That's pretty much what was meant by the statement, I'd say. I think it's more of an "appreciation" of what fantasy, and Tolkien being (in my friend's opinion) the best representation of "traditional" fantasy.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think the idea of the recommended reading list, on which Tolkien deserves a place, is especially pertinent for those who want to GM. The more we can get our hands on, the better equipped we'll be to describe events to our players. Tolkien, the earlier works in The Wheel of Time, Modesitt...all of these are useful things, but I think the most important thing to consider is simply that we are reading. You can only get so much in the way of ideas from the intellectually bankrupt garbage spilling forth out of Hollywood these days. Some of it's good, but most of it is crap. With all the books on the shelf at any B&N or Borders, you'd think that somebody would be literate enough to cough up a good screenplay more frequently than they do.

[CharlieRock]

DangerDwarf wrote:
While I enjoy Tolkeins views, I abhor is writing so wouldn't require reading his stuff (or even recommend) it to anyone.

As for should the genre stick to his feel? Hell no.

I like variety and creativity. Besides, I'd take Hyboria over Middle Earth any day.

Yeah. I liked REH's writing style and Conan was so much cooler then Aragon.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!