DM General Ignorance

[Totally Guy]

Recently I have received criticism for my game. But you see the criticism comes not from the adventure or the story but from extra genre rules I've never heard of.

I have a town called Fel Town and I had to tell them, no it's not evil. How should I know that Fel means evil?

Then there was the instance where the sewer undead managed to cross water. This annoyed the players but I'd never heard of this. If I had I'd have not made an undead sewer.

Then my elf npcs had human names. Okay there are guidelines in the PHB but it's not as if the names weren't fantasy.

I got my own way with all of these but there have been more and I'm losing respect.

Then I received criticism for not having read the Return of the King. Not in real life but on the player's blog.

So appart from a campaign, understanding o the rules and interactivity with the players what are the prequisites for being DM?

[huttj509]

Per the sewer: Were the undead vampires? In your sourcebooks can vampires cross running water (I know it varies by legend source, don't remember which one various systems use)? Otherwise, you're fine. Skeletons/zombies/liches/wights can all cross water just fine AFAIK.

Per Fel Town, dictionary.com has nothing for "fel" except an acronym of some sort. However, under "fell" one of the descriptions is: –adjective
1. fierce; cruel; dreadful; savage.
2. destructive; deadly: fell poison; fell disease.

I think in common usage this has been shortened to "fel," popularized by blizzard's heavy use of the term for demonic in nature (Fel Reaver, Felguard, etc.)

For the names, I've never encountered anyone who follows those naming conventions.

Is it possible your group was just joking with you, and you didn't get it?

[The New Bruceski]

Since when can undead not cross water? That's bizzare to me.

As for the rest, I can *maybe* see someone noticing it, but complaining about the campaign as a result? That's just silly.

And was the criticism for not having read RotK before running D&D (absurd), or someone tossing out that you were a bad person in general for not reading it (often a joke subject for deeply-ingrained nerd material like LotR or Asimov)?

[Rei_Jin]

Well, there isn't a massive list of requirements to be a DM. From the sound of it, your players are being jerks. The things you need to be a good DM IMHO are...

1. A basic knowledge of the rules, and the ability to reference them when needed.
2. The ability to deflect peoples emotions away from yourself. Often when your players get upset, they're not upset at you, they're upset at the situation. They will get very upset when their characters die, but that's not your fault (unless you deliberately killed them for gits and shiggles).
3. The ability to tell a story.
4. The ability to work out what it is people want out of a game. This can be done as simply as asking them. Some groups want to muck around and call their character "Bob the Destroyer" whilst they kick in doors and kill things because they're the wrong colour. Others will get upset if you speak don't refer to them AS their character, and want nothing better than political intrigue. Most groups are somewhere between the two groups and swing one way or the other over time, but generally they return to middle ground.
5. The ability to deal with difficult situations that aren't covered by the rules. You're the DM, you control the world. When no rule exists to cover it, make one up and stand by it until the end of the session, when you can discuss it with your players.
6. The ability to accept that you are human, and you will make mistakes. We all do. If you make a mistake, tell your players that you did, and apologise. This can go a long way to smoothing out problems within the group.
7. The ability to accept that people often act like idiots, and they will do stupid things and get themselves killed. Let them. Don't save them because you feel bad for them, because they'll never learn that way.
8. The ability to be able to get peoples attention. Some groups will wander off topic quicker than a child with ADHD. You need to get them back in the game if you ever want to get somewhere.

Other than that, just go with what you know, and learn as you go. That's what life is about. :smallwink:

[Justin_Bacon]

I have a town called Fel Town and I had to tell them, no it's not evil. How should I know that Fel means evil?

Although apparently "fel" may be an ancient Irish word for "evil", in practice this use of the word "fel" is pretty much derived entirely from Warcraft.


Then there was the instance where the sewer undead managed to cross water. This annoyed the players but I'd never heard of this. If I had I'd have not made an undead sewer.

This is common myth. Often applied to vampires, but also applicable to demons, ghosts, or other damned human spirits.


Then my elf npcs had human names. Okay there are guidelines in the PHB but it's not as if the names weren't fantasy.

I can this being somewhat jarring within genre expectations. But if they're "fantasy names" I'm not quite sure what they could have been complaining about.


Then I received criticism for not having read the Return of the King. Not in real life but on the player's blog.

Some degree of core genre familiarity probably isn't a bad idea. Plus, LOTR is worth reading in any case. :)

But, with all that being said, I can't really see any consistency in what they appear to be complaining about.

[random11]

It's your world, it's as simple as that.
As long that you keep internal logic and consistency, there is no law that your world has to obey laws from other worlds.

For all you care, you can make vampires immune to garlic and weak against carrot juice as long as you allow characters with the appropriate knowledge skills to know that.
If you have a good reason, any culture can have any language and any accent you want it to have.
And you certainly don't have to apologize if a city's name also means something else in another world.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Their criticism about undead crossing water is ignorance on their part, not yours. In D&D only Vampires have ever had that restriction. There are actually undead from older editions specifically created to be found in aquatic environments, so undead in water isn't something new to 3e. They're taking that from something completely outside of the game, which they shouldn't be doing.

The same goes for Fel Town, they're superimposing something from outside the game on what you've created, then using that to criticize you. If they don't like the name, just say Fel is short for some eight-syllable name that not even all the residents know or can pronounce, so everyone uses the shortened version.

Coming up with names on the fly is sometimes difficult. I usually try to keep names to one syllable, then I can say it's short for a longer name that's more in-flavor for the race. For example, I had an elf named Nick which was short for Nickelan. It's easy when you get to know the types of syllables that people associate with certain races' names.

These days there are a lot of people who haven't read the Lord of the Rings books, but as far as I'm concerned having seen the movies is good enough. I read those books so long ago that I can't really even remember them, but the movies are easy to follow, much quicker than reading the book, and very memorable. Your player bashing you on his blog is just cowardly IMO.

If these are the only things in your game that your players are unhappy with, I'd say you're doing a great job of DMing. Maybe you should look into finding some new players who actually appreciate you.

[Colmarr]

Maybe you should look into finding some new players who actually appreciate you.

Agreed. Glug, if this is the sort of petty sniping you have to put up with from your players, you need to find better players.

[Totally Guy]

Maybe I overstated the amount of criticism. It's generally lasted a couple of seconds in which I say something like "my world". And that's kind of the end of the matter.

I'm just upset that I read a friends blog only to find "The Dm had never finished the Lord of the Rings and had an opinion despite never finishing it". I know the answer is talk so I left a message there first.

Then I just felt wretched about being ignorant of stuff that's happened in the game.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Yeah, your players are asses. Regrets, mate.


Some degree of core genre familiarity probably isn't a bad idea. Plus, LOTR is worth reading in any case. :)

I'd say Howard or Leiber are far more "core genre familiarity" than Tolkien, but most fantasy since Lovecraft is all pretty much the same. I don't see Lord of the Rings as any more critical than Hour of the Dragon.

[Colmarr]

Then I just felt wretched about being ignorant of stuff that's happened in the game.

But here's the rub. You're not ignorant about stuff that happened in the game. Your "ignorant" of stuff that happened outside the game, none of which is relevant to your success and/or ability at DMing.

Maybe we all overreacted. We tend to on the net because it's hard to have effective communication in a written medium, but regardless of whether your players are as bad as we all assume they are, you certainly don't have anything to feel bad about.

I love reading fantasy (and have read LotR), but it's not required at all.

[Totally Guy]

But here's the rub. You're not ignorant about stuff that happened in the game. Your "ignorant" of stuff that happened outside the game, none of which is relevant to your success and/or ability at DMing.

I've never been so happy to be hit with the old Quote - Falacy - Point technique.:smallsmile:

[Charity]

I've seen you DM Glug, you seem interested, animated, well exceptionally well prepared, and in control... If thats not enough for your players then I figure they should try running a game, see if they can do any better.
Better still send them to me and force them to sit through one of my muddle-throughs, they'll be crying out for you then matey.

Don't take some guys blog to heart, folk talk crap on blogs just to make themselves/ their lives look more interesting.

[Ethdred]

Per Fel Town, dictionary.com has nothing for "fel" except an acronym of some sort. However, under "fell" one of the descriptions is: –adjective
1. fierce; cruel; dreadful; savage.
2. destructive; deadly: fell poison; fell disease.


There's another definition, which may be UK only, but a fell is a moorland or other wild and wooly place - so Fel Town could just be the town on the moors, with lazy sign writers :)

Otherwise I agree with other people - you seem to be doing a good job. And it's fine to have an opinion on a book you haven't finished - especially if that opinion is 'it's not worth any more of my time'. And it can actually be better to not have a genre knowledge, as you can then avoid the cliche plots. Although sometimes it's easier to avoid the cliches if you know what they are!

[Storm Bringer]

if they keep going on about the 'fel' thing, just change the spelling to 'fell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell)'. It's a nordic loanword, meaning Hill. Just point out that Fell town s at the bottom of a hill known as Scar Fell.

And if they say "that's not a real name", Prove them Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sca_Fell).

bungo, you were right all along, and just didn't know it.

[Totally Guy]

Spelling is irrelevant. It's all verbal communication.

[Storm Bringer]

true, but my point is that the word fell is used in the real world as a name, by english speakers, without refference to evilness .

[Burley]

It really shouldn't matter if Glug calls his town Goodbanekillsburg. The point is his players are giving him crap for, really, no reason. Glug said it isn't an evil town, and the players should listen to that.
I've been in games where the DM will say, "Name? No, this town is too small to have a name."
Kudos to Glug for his preparedness.

As for the undead, if the players knew they came from the sewers, they should think the undead can deal with water. If they're gonna throw in their own outside trivia (Buffy says they can't cross water), point them to the first Pirates of the Carribean movie, when the pirate skells walk the ocean floor and take the boat from below. Heck, zombies also have a climb speed of 30 without gear. Throw that in to. Also, they fly. I saw that in a dream once, so, it must be relevant to your game.
Kudos to Glug for making viable and sensical encounters.

As for the blogger... I feel you. I get that every once in a while. Often times the person blogging has some problem with you, and they want to rally a bunch of people against you because they can't just come and talk to you. I promise: It never works. I've read the entire LotR set, and let me tell you... I'd never do it again. Good story, yeah. But, I did not feel like reading a dozen pages of geneology. I really don't care who is the son of who and when he was begat. I want to read about the adventure.
So, Kudos to Glug for sticking to his literary preference, and for trying to resolve a (silly) conflict like a rational crocobeing.

[AstralFire]

My only problem with you, Glug, is that you have a crocoman avatar. This is awfully close to being draconid, so I'm afraid I'll have to kill you.

But your players seem to be giving you unfair amounts of crap in general, if it's big enough for you to make a topic about it. Otherwise, I'd just ignore it.

What exactly did you say about RotK? It sounded more like he was annoyed by your literary criticism of a book you hadn't read than the fact that you were DMing without having read the book. (You're not missing much. Tolkien had a good mind for plot, a bad mind for non-technical writing. Saw the movies? you got the important stuff.)

[valadil]

It sounds like the players are just being jerks.

If they don't like the name of the town, so what? Maybe it was founded by elves and "fell" doesn't have evil connotations in elven.

The undead thing is just silly too. I think vampires not crossing water is just a superstition (although it may come from LotR's ringwraiths. Is the game LotR based? And if not, why are the criticizing you for not reading it?). And even if there were a rule about water and undead, you're the GM, you can break that rule.

Now I wouldn't advise breaking a rule just for the fun of it. Make it part of the plot. Undead are becoming more powerful. Running water, garlic, silver, etc no longer keep them away. Now the players have a new threat to deal with and some new occult going ons to investigate. Isn't improvising mistakes into plot fun? If you're feeling really ambitious, maybe there's some undead power source in the town itself. It hasn't been active recently, but was many moons ago and is the origin of the name Fel. If your players aren't careful it'll look like you're doing these things on purpose ;-)

[BRC]

Fell being evil is just a name thing, and besides plenty of names become ironic (What if the founder of the town was William Fell)

The water thing has only applied to undead in general in the Abohorsen series. Often it's applied to vampires, but with Vampires nothing is consistant.

I think you should say "It's my campaign setting, things don't work that way here"

[TheCountAlucard]

Fell being evil is just a name thing, and besides plenty of names become ironic (What if the founder of the town was William Fell)

The water thing has only applied to undead in general in the Abohorsen series. Often it's applied to vampires, but with Vampires nothing is consistant. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent)

I think you should say "It's my campaign setting, things don't work that way here"

Fixed it for you.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

While I agree the players may be tossing unwarranted criticism your way, I do think there's a point here to make about knowing genre conventions for running a game.

One of the reasons reading LotR can be important for high fantasy GMs is that it sets so many of the standards and basics of the genre. If you're not familiar with these, it's easy to trip over them unexpectedly. The problem there isn't in using them, but using them without recognizing that your players have seen it many times before. That's really bad when you try to pull a surprise on the players and they see right through your 'deception.' Of course, I personally believe there are 'must read/see' works in most genres that, even if you don't like them, you should be familiar with them for just these reasons (and also because they're such a touchstone for the genre that they frame the way you discuss the genre).

High fantasy and space opera sci-fi are probably the most forgiving genres for this. Horror and spy/mystery games are the least forgiving, since they rely so heavily on suspense or misdirection. Fall into a cliche of those genres without realizing it, and you can kill the game. Specific established settings, like Star Wars, are pretty hard on this as well.

Basically, I personally believe reading or watching enough in-genre material to learn the conceits so you can handle them well. You don't have to avoid them or follow them - but if you're aware when you are matching or when you're confounding those expectations, you can do a lot more with your plots and games than otherwise.

Anyways, I do heartily recommend GMs become as well read in the genres they like to run as they can, but based on what you said I do think your players are either being a bit picky, or maybe just pulling your chain.

[AstralFire]

The only benefit I think being well-read gives (unless you are running a published setting) is more ideas. Metagenre knowledge can be useful in playing with your audience, but, to use TV Tropes phrasing, things can be "played straight" regularly with little issue if the storyteller is good at drawing you in.

[Jayabalard]

So appart from a campaign, understanding o the rules and interactivity with the players what are the prequisites for being DM?Solid knowledge of literature appropriate to the genre that you're playing is a must. People won't take you seriously if you GM a fantasy game and haven't read the staples of the genre (and Return of the king qualifies).

Likewise, you'll have problems if you haven't read Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein and are trying to run a hard sci-fi game.

[Keld Denar]

Plus, who in all of the nine hells wants to actually go about remembering and pronouncing fantastically correct elven names? I mean, these guys go around calling themselves Tanarathalathaloothalitholatholasolasalasilas or something like that. Trying to force a name like that on your players will end up having them call him Mr. T, and imagining him as a stout black man with a mohawk and very heavy gold chains, regardless of his actually discribed appearance.

Friends don't let friends name their elves Tanarathalathaloothalitholatholasolasalasilas....

[AstralFire]

Solid knowledge of literature appropriate to the genre that you're playing is a must. People won't take you seriously if you GM a fantasy game and haven't read the staples of the genre (and Return of the king qualifies).

Speaking as someone who HAS read many of the staples of the genre, yes I would. I would actually welcome the fresh perspective much more than someone stuck in the endless cycle of re/deconstruction of the genre, provided that they are a DM of talent, of course.


Plus, who in all of the nine hells wants to actually go about remembering and pronouncing fantastically correct elven names? I mean, these guys go around calling themselves Tanarathalathaloothalitholatholasolasalasilas or something like that. Trying to force a name like that on your players will end up having them call him Mr. T, and imagining him as a stout black man with a mohawk and very heavy gold chains, regardless of his actually discribed appearance.

Friends don't let friends name their elves Tanarathalathaloothalitholatholasolasalasilas....

Part of why I never use very long names, or provide an abbreviation to begin with.

[valadil]

Part of why I never use very long names, or provide an abbreviation to begin with.

Took me a while to break the ridiculous name habit myself. Now I keep them to one or two syllables. Someone pointed out that very few english names go beyond 2 syllables without having a shorter nickname. I can't remember any of the exceptions they came up with, but the idea of it stuck with me and I've named characters accordingly ever since.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Solid knowledge of literature appropriate to the genre that you're playing is a must. People won't take you seriously if you GM a fantasy game and haven't read the staples of the genre (and Return of the king qualifies).

Likewise, you'll have problems if you haven't read Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein and are trying to run a hard sci-fi game.

{Scrubbed}

Tolkien's relevance to the fantasy genre is pretty slim, frankly - he just came up with what pass for elves and dwarves in most fantasy these days. The relevance of Howard, and by extension Lovecraft, is much greater. How many fantasy GMs have read Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories? (The earliest stories, to my knowledge, to feature the good old "walking undead skeleton with tiny flames burning in its eye-sockets", incidentally.) And what about Michael Moorcock, who came up with that Chaos-Law thing D&D copped? (Incidentally, Moorcock's writing was obviously inspired by Smith, although I don't think he cites Smith as an influence in any introduction I've read.)

Similarly, you could claim that reading Gibson is essential to running cyberpunk, but that's just another load of bull. Gibson's original mirrorshadepunk is really bad cyberpunk in many ways, and countless other authors have done about equally good jobs at using the key concepts he could be said to have introduced.

And so on. It doesn't matter who you've read - or if you've just watched shows and movies rather than read anyone - so long as you have some genre familiarity. {Scrubbed}

Edit:

Speaking as someone who HAS read many of the staples of the genre, yes I would. I would actually welcome the fresh perspective much more than someone stuck in the endless cycle of re/deconstruction of the genre, provided that they are a DM of talent, of course.

Somebody's deconstructed fantasy? Give me names, now!

Edit2:
You can actually accumulate a huge amount of fairly deep genre understanding by reading, get this, RPG sourcebooks. Many of them actually do good jobs at examining the genre - like the 3.X Ravenloft books, or Ex Machina, and so on - and you can definitely get all the tropes from just the books.

[Totally Guy]

Somebody's deconstructed fantasy? Give me names, now!

Early Pratchett works might count.

[AstralFire]

Deconstruction is mostly the realm of humor fantasy and nerd communities. It still exists, though, and fantasy is made in response to it.

[Saph]

I got my own way with all of these but there have been more and I'm losing respect.

Then I received criticism for not having read the Return of the King. Not in real life but on the player's blog.

So appart from a campaign, understanding o the rules and interactivity with the players what are the prequisites for being DM?

Okay, everyone else has said the sensible things and pointed out that your group is being unreasonable, etc, so I'm going to say something which no-one else has mentioned yet: one of the prerequisites for being a DM is that you have to be tough. A DM is an authority figure. Authority figures get tested and get complained at, it's just how it works. You have to be able to deal with this.

Being worried about criticism and losing respect is a bad way to DM. First off, getting criticism is good; it means you can learn new things. Often what you'll learn is ways in which you can improve your DMing. Equally often what you'll learn is that the guy offering the criticism is a jerk, but this is helpful info, appreciate it. As for respect, one of the fastest ways to lose respect is to act like a wimp. Case in point:


Maybe I overstated the amount of criticism. It's generally lasted a couple of seconds in which I say something like "my world". And that's kind of the end of the matter.

I'm just upset that I read a friends blog only to find "The Dm had never finished the Lord of the Rings and had an opinion despite never finishing it". I know the answer is talk so I left a message there first.

Then I just felt wretched about being ignorant of stuff that's happened in the game.

Okay first part: They criticise, you say 'my world', end of discussion. This is good! This is how it should go.

Second part: This is bad! Not because you're looking for criticism, but because you sound like you're apologising to the player for not having read LotR. Sure, you should read LotR (it's a great book!) but if you haven't read it, you haven't read it, and that's the player's problem, not yours. Don't apologise for it!

Third part: This is very bad! You're feeling 'wretched about being ignorant of stuff in the game'? You're the DM. You're God. What happens in the game is what you say happens in the game. If you're ignorant about something, then by default it doesn't exist. Instead you're feeling bad about it? Don't. Once again; the DM is God. No-one likes a wimpy god.

- Saph

[Gorbash]

What a load of bull****. You're pretty much just listing authors arbitrarily.

Tolkien's relevance to the fantasy genre is pretty slim, frankly - he just came up with what pass for elves and dwarves in most fantasy these days. The relevance of Howard, and by extension Lovecraft, is much greater. How many fantasy GMs have read Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories? (The earliest stories, to my knowledge, to feature the good old "walking undead skeleton with tiny flames burning in its eye-sockets", incidentally.) And what about Michael Moorcock, who came up with that Chaos-Law thing D&D copped? (Incidentally, Moorcock's writing was obviously inspired by Smith, although I don't think he cites Smith as an influence in any introduction I've read.)

Tolkien, basically started the genre. Elves we know today are the Elves Tolkien created. Hell, most of the creatures we know today are literally copied from Tolkien's world. Orcs, dwarves, hobbits...

And why are you people making RotK sound like it's only a geneology? It's not, there's a whole bunch of other stuff happening, like for instance War of the Ring. Geneology thing is optional.

Not reading Lord of the Rings and playing D&D (or any other fantasy game) is like being a Christian while not having read the bible. Sure, there are many of those, and it certainly doesn't make you any less of a christian for not reading it, but if you've read it, it signifies some sort of dedication and seriousness you have conserning religion. D&D isn't a religion, of course (maybe it should be?), but the analogy is good enough I think. It's like a geek who doesn't use internet. Etc.

In my opinion, you're not a serious D&D player/DM if you haven't read those books. You still are a DM/player, but in my opinion, a lesser one.

[Comet]

In my opinion, you're not a serious D&D player/DM if you haven't read those books. You still are a DM/player, but in my opinion, a lesser one.
Woah. As far as opinions fly, that is a pretty final one. Can't say that you're quite wrong but can't really agree with you either.
But still, LotR is a pretty good story and it does play an important role in the history of fantasy storytelling. So yeah, you should all read it. Or be burned with fire.:smalltongue:

Anyway. When it comes to me, the DM, not knowing enough about some detail affecting the game, I have a personal example.
You know those guys who can tell you the excact mark and serial or whatever of every.single.firearm out there? I don't have such knowledge.

Imagine running a game for a player who does and expects you to know also. Every time someone whips forth a pistol he asks "what pistol is it?" to which I mutter something vague like "9mm, ordinary and easy to buy around here".

It does the trick, but I still feel like the world would be more realistic if I could really tell the players what kind of weapons the bad guys are using. I know some players really need these cues to visualize the action in their heads.
Oh well, I can't so no reason to cry over something that can't be fixed right? (and no I really don't feel like studying for hours just to remember the names of some guns. Maybe I'll start going to a shooting range one of these days :smallbiggrin:)

[AstralFire]

Not reading Lord of the Rings and playing D&D (or any other fantasy game) is like being a Christian while not having read the bible. Sure, there are many of those, and it certainly doesn't make you any less of a christian for not reading it, but if you've read it, it signifies some sort of dedication and seriousness you have conserning religion. D&D isn't a religion, of course (maybe it should be?), but the analogy is good enough I think. It's like a geek who doesn't use internet. Etc.

Having read those books I don't think I have gained anything from them. My own fantasy setting owes more to me playing with Legos - the old kind, mind you, before they started getting licensing by the bushel - and Narnia and Asheron's Call than it does to Tolkien - by a long shot.

Proclaiming a DM or player as lesser for not having read Tolkien is bordering on incredibly ludicrous. None of the best players I've had have done so, and most of the best ones I've played alongside haven't either.

The high fantasy genre is largely indebted to Tolkien for kicking the thing into high gear, but the relevant parts of what he did are largely disseminated into the rest of the genre. D&D was the first RPG on the market, what, are you somehow lesser of a PC or DM if you've never played it? That is a ridiculous idea.

It doesn't hurt anyone to be more well-read, but it's not universally a help, either. Was Tolkien a lesser fantasy author because he couldn't read himself prior to writing the Hobbit? I GUESS SO!

[Gorbash]

D&D was the first RPG on the market, what, are you somehow lesser of a PC or DM if you've never played it? That is a ridiculous idea.

And where did I say that? I said that D&D was based on Lotr, if not completely, then in good measure.


and Narnia and Asheron's Call than it does to Tolkien - by a long shot.

Narnia's just Bible written for kids. Aslan H. Christ and all other talking animals had nothing to do with D&D. Not to mention that even if your theory is correct, it still doesn't prove anything, since Narnia was based on Tolkien's works.


None of the best players I've had have done so, and most of the best ones I've played alongside haven't either.

Yeah, right.

Not to mention that reading Lotr should be a part of general education. There are some books that just should be read, because of theirs impact on modern day literature. Little Prince, Moby ****, Ivanhoe, etc. They're not called classics just for kicks.

Glug, while I never would have written on my blog (if I had one, that is) my frustration with my DM if he hadn't read Rotk, I completely understand him, and you should most definitely read it.

I still stand by what I said, and I'm not saying he's just a lesser player/dm for not reading it, I wouldn't take you seriously if you said you're intrested in fantasy while not having read Rotk.

[AstralFire]

And where did I say that? I said that D&D was based on Lotr, if not completely, then in good measure.

You didn't. I took your phrase to its logical extention.


Narnia's just Bible written for kids. Aslan H. Christ and all other talking animals had nothing to do with D&D. Not to mention that even if your theory is correct, it still doesn't prove anything, since Narnia was based on Tolkien's works.

STOP! Collaborate and listen!


The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel written by the English philologist J. R. R. Tolkien. The story began as a sequel to Tolkien's earlier, less complex children's fantasy novel The Hobbit (1937), but eventually developed into a much larger work. It was written in stages between 1937 and 1949, much of it during World War II.[1] Although intended as a single-volume work, it was originally published in three volumes in 1954 and 1955, due to post-war paper shortages, and it is in this three-volume form that it is popularly known. It has since been reprinted numerous times and translated into many different languages,[2] becoming one of the most popular and influential works in 20th-century literature.


The Chronicles of Narnia is a series of seven fantasy novels for children written by C. S. Lewis. It is considered a classic of children's literature and is the author's best-known work, having sold over 100 million copies in 41 languages. Written by Lewis between 1949 and 1954

Would you care to try again? They were written concurrently, and while the two influenced each other's religious and philosophical thought, there's actually very little evidence that the two were influencing each other's works in an obvious way. And being 'just Bible for kids' (hint: allegories don't change the fact that there weren't fauns in the Bible) doesn't matter when they are still quite clearly fantasy.


Aslan H. Christ and all other talking animals had nothing to do with D&D.

I said 'my setting'. I made my setting before I had even heard of dungeons and dragons, as it was originally a book I worked on as a child. Are you going to tell me that Tolkien magically influenced that, too? No, wait, it's just a 'lesser' setting. Any Tolkien influence in there is largely the result of Asheron's Call, which entirely lacks elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons, vanir/aesir anyway.


Yeah, right.

Why yes, I am right, given that I am talking about my personal experiences.

[Jayabalard]

What a load of bull****. You're pretty much just listing authors arbitrarily.Tolkien is a standard in the fantasy genre; coming up with what most people use as elves and dwarfs is pretty relevant.

Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein were considered by many to be the "Big 3" of science fiction through much of the 20th century. All 3 have had a pretty significant influence on the genre.

So, I don't really see them as all that "Arbitrary"


Similarly, you could claim that reading Gibson is essential to running cyberpunk, but that's just another load of bull.I'm not much for that genre, but there are certainly people who are much more likely to take you seriously as a GM in that genre if you've read him (or Phillip K ****) than if you haven't. Bah, it's going to censor his last name since it's slang for male genitalia.


And so on. It doesn't matter who you've read It does to some people, and if you havn't read what they consider staples of the genre they're probably not going to take you seriously; which is the problem that the op ran into. His options are either to start being more well read, or stop worry about whether they take him seriously.

If I were in that position, I'd probably take the path where I just don't care if they take me seriously or not and grow a thicker skin.


Proclaiming a DM or player as lesser for not having read Tolkien is bordering on incredibly ludicrous. None of the best players I've had have done so, and most of the best ones I've played alongside haven't either.Ludicrous or not, it's pretty common for people to take that sort of attitude. People who have an attachment to something tend to get judgmental about other people when it comes to that.

It's not just fantasy either; a significant number of people people wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to GM a game set in the star wars universe if you haven't seen star wars.


You didn't. I took your phrase to its logical extention.Idon't think that's a logical extension... I think it's more of a strawman argument.

[Totally Guy]

Second part: This is bad! Not because you're looking for criticism, but because you sound like you're apologising to the player for not having read LotR. Sure, you should read LotR (it's a great book!) but if you haven't read it, you haven't read it, and that's the player's problem, not yours. Don't apologise for it!

I never said what the message was. It was not an apology. It was an explanation that I am my own man with my own choices. I believe that the power of the book, much like the power of the ring, should have pulled me back if it were something crucial. I'm not going to wrestle with war scenes just for the sake of wearing the "Read a Classic:smallamused:" snob badge.

Point 3 is why I made this thread. I want to know more sides so that I might meet her in the middle or at least get away without asking players if I'm wrong.:smalltongue:


Edit: Whoa, it's hetting hot in here. Maybe we should ask that professional pay per session DM in Friendly Banter what his background reading is.:smalltongue:

[AstralFire]

It's not just fantasy either; a significant number of people people wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to GM a game set in the star wars universe if you haven't seen star wars.

I wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to DM a Star Wars game without having read or seen Star Wars. I wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to DM Eberron without having read the campaign setting.

But I wouldn't care if you'd read a million different bildungsroman and space operas as long as you knew Star Wars. I wouldn't care if you didn't know steampunk or Indiana Jones if you knew Eberron.


Idon't think that's a logical extension... I think it's more of a strawman argument.

Really? So... it's illogical to say that because he thinks that a major influence for the first P&P RPG is SO important that you cannot DM or PC as well as others if you have not read it, he wouldn't have the same attitude towards P&P RPGs in general as regards the game that started the entire industry? I mean, shucks, there were alves and dwarfs and svartalves before Tolkien picked up a pen, but there wasn't a fantasy roleplaying game before Gygax and Arneson. I'd say D&D's actually more vital to its corresponding genre.

[Gorbash]

It was written in stages between 1937 and 1949


Written by Lewis between 1949 and 1954

So this:


They were written concurrently

Doesn't really add up.

Given the fact they were members of the same literary society and friends, it isn't too much of a stretch to assume where Lewis got his inspiration from.


Why yes, I am right, given that I am talking about my personal experiences.

Doesn't mean I have to believe you. You might as well be coming up with the facts just to prove what I'm saying is wrong. I really doubt there's that much people intrested in D&D who haven't read Lotr, and if you will open a topic about it.


Ludicrous or not, it's pretty common for people to take that sort of attitude.

Yes, it's common, no, it's not ludicrous.

[AstralFire]

So this:



Doesn't really add up.

Given the fact they were members of the same literary society and friends, it isn't too much of a stretch to assume where Lewis got his inspiration from.

So everyone I associate with in writing that has written after me has been influenced in notable ways by my works simply by virtue of the fact that we are in the same genre. Amazing! Simply amazing. I'll go tell Tim that he owes all inspiration for the Alexandrushko to me for writing Tareea.

You said yourself that "Narnia is just the Bible." Okay, so it's just the Bible. Now it's inspired by Tolkien. Make your mind up, or accept that just because they've both been influenced by Anglo-Saxon mythology doesn't mean much of a thing.

Moreover, I never said that Tolkien wasn't a big influence. I said that all of his relevant parts have already disseminated into the rest of the genre and you can pick them up. But we're on the subject anyway, so yeah, Narnia had about as much Tolkien influence in it as vice-versa, if any - remember the books came out just after Tolkien finished and were published before his own were - and my own setting has basically none.


Doesn't mean I have to believe you. You might as well be coming up with the facts just to prove what I'm saying is wrong. I really doubt there's that much people intrested in D&D who haven't read Lotr, and if you will open a topic about it.

So what do I have to do? Get signed statements from them?

[valadil]

I wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to DM a Star Wars game without having read or seen Star Wars. I wouldn't take you seriously if you tried to DM Eberron without having read the campaign setting.


The the question to the OP then is whether the game in question is set in Middle-Earth. If it is, not having finished the series is relevant. If it isn't Middle-Earth, but just happens to look like Middle-Earth, then how far you are in the books shouldn't be a big deal.

Also if you are running a Middle-Earth game without having finished reading, and your players took issue with that, shouldn't they have just requested you delay the game till you finish the book?

[Jayabalard]

So everyone I associate with in writing that has written after me has been influenced in notable ways by my works simply by virtue of the fact that we are in the same genre. Amazing! Simply amazing. I'll go tell Tim that he owes all inspiration for the Alexandrushko to me for writing Tareea.Just an FYI, this one doesn't look like a logical extension to me... it's just another strawman argument.

If you'll look back at his post, you'll realize that he's just talking about that particular situation: That Tolkein and Lewis were close friends, belonged to the same literary society, etc; so his conclusion, that Tolkein's stories had some sort of influence on Lewis' seems pretty logical. It certainly refutes that "they were written concurrently" defense that you put forward.


So what do I have to do? Get signed statements from them?It won't really help your case; even with signed statements, you're just providing anecdotal evidence, which doesn't agree with either Gorbash's experiences, or my experiences, or the OP's experiences.

[AstralFire]

If you'll look back at his post, you'll realize that he's just talking about that particular situation: That Tolkein and Lewis were close friends, belonged to the same literary society, etc; so his conclusion, that Tolkein's stories had some sort of influence on Lewis' seems pretty logical. It certainly refutes that "they were written concurrently" defense that you put forward.

So why is it only one way? Why is it only the influence of Tolkien on Lewis and not Lewis on Tolkien?

My friend's story is written in fantasy, it was worked on as I was finishing mine up. We've checked each other's drafts and given each other support. Yet I'd say my own work's influence on his is minimal. Not a strawman. And neither was the earlier element.


It won't really help your case; even with signed statements, you're just providing anecdotal evidence, which doesn't agree with either Gorbash's experiences, or my experiences, or the OP's experiences.

You don't get it, do you? I am clearly not the only person here who thinks LotR's influence is being overplayed. It's entirely possible - in fact, I will say it is the case - that there are large other segments of the nerd population that are looking to get things from a P&P RPG (including D&D) that the LotR crowd isn't. D&D's gotten very popular, you know.

And while I know many people from my high school (where I was introduced to D&D) that have seen the movie, and even many who have read the books the very group that I started out playing with only had two people who were familiar with the story. One was a genuinely good player all around. The other was the DM (who was also the worst DM I've ever been under, but that's neither here nor there). I hadn't read the books at the time, at all. I eventually read them and I really don't care that I have.

[Gorbash]

So everyone I associate with in writing that has written after me has been influenced in notable ways by my works simply by virtue of the fact that we are in the same genre. Amazing! Simply amazing.

Before Tolkien, there weren't any high fantasy books, when he started writing, so did Lewis. Tolkien based his works on mythology, Lewis did on Bible. I wouldn't call it a curious coincidence. So, your comparisson doesn't add up, since there's plenty of works for you and your friends to base your books on, but it's not the same case with Tolkien/Lewis since they were new in the whole business of writing fantasy.


I'll go tell Tim that he owes all inspiration for the Alexandrushko to me for writing Tareea.

See, he could have based Alexandrushko (whatever that is) on any number of fantasy books in the last 60 years, and god knows there's been many of them, but Lewis didn't have anything to base his works on aside Tolkien. But this is totally irrelevant, since this is not a discussion whether Lewis stole Tolkien's idea (and Tolkien himself thought so, since they had a falling out once Narnia was published.


Narnia had about as much Tolkien influence in it as vice-versa, if any - remember the books came out just after Tolkien finished and were published before his own were

Hobbit was published in 1937.

And


If you'll look back at his post, you'll realize that he's just talking about that particular situation: That Tolkein and Lewis were close friends, belonged to the same literary society, etc; so his conclusion, that Tolkein's stories had some sort of influence on Lewis' seems pretty logical. It certainly refutes that "they were written concurrently" defense that you put forward

Yes, you totally ignored the fact that they didn't write concurrently.

[AstralFire]

Yes, you totally ignored the fact that they didn't write concurrently.

No; I did not. The Hobbit is not the Lord of the Rings and it had to be altered significantly to fit into the cosmology of such. It fits more as a general fairy tale than it really does into the wider LotR cosmology or what is generally considered to be high fantasy. People refer to LotR kicking off high fantasy, not the Hobbit or the Silmarrillion (which came later, I know).

And LotR and Narnia were written concurrently. One was started before the other, yes, but that's about it.

You're right, this isn't a discussion of how much the one influenced the other. So let's get back to basics - if your player group is largely not expecting to be playing in middle-earth, then why is it necessary that they all be versed in middle-earth?

[Jayabalard]

So why is it only one way? Why is it only the influence of Tolkien on Lewis and not Lewis on Tolkien?I'm not seeing where anyone made the claim that it was only one way. Certainly, both men had an influence on the other. I'd personally appreciate it if you try to stick to what people are actually saying; it's certainly easier to refute someone if you extend someone's argument to the point of absurdity and add in stuff that they didn't say, but I don't really see the point.

The timeline makes it pretty clear that Narnia (that particular writing that we're talking about) could not have influenced Lord of the Rings (the other particular writing that we're talking about) due to when they were written, but it is quite likely that the Lord of the Rings was an influence for Narnia for the same reason

[AstralFire]

The timeline makes it pretty clear that Narnia could not have influenced Lord of the Rings due to when it were written, but it is quite likely that the Lord of the Rings was an influence for Narnia.

No, it only makes it clear that Narnia couldn't have influenced the Hobbit. Something can change radically over the course of its production.


I'm not seeing where anyone made the claim that it was only one way. Certainly, both men had an influence on the other. I'd personally appreciate it if you try to stick to what people are actually saying

My original argument had nothing to do with denigrating Tolkien's level of contribution, but here we are anyway.

[Gorbash]

And LotR and Narnia were written concurrently. One was started before the other, yes, but that's about it.

I'm sorry, but do you know what concurrently means? Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent) says:

1: operating or occurring at the same time

How the hell is 1937-1949 and 1949-1954 at the same time? In the year Tolkien was finishing his 12 year ordeal of writing, Lewis started and you call that at the same time?


People refer to LotR kicking off high fantasy

And as such it should be read by all who indulge themselves in playing a high fantasy game, for example, D&D. QED.

[AstralFire]

I'm sorry, but do you know what concurrently means? Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concurrent) says:

1: operating or occurring at the same time

How the hell is 1937-1949 and 1949-1954 at the same time? In the year Tolkien was finishing his 12 year ordeal of writing, Lewis started and you call that at the same time?

It's 1937-1954 versus 1949-1954. Tolkien finished the books in '49, but he didn't have them published. However, I will admit that I made a mistake there and since the books were finished writing in 1949, the influence (if it was there) -could- only have been one way.

So I go back to the previous statement that Narnia wasn't influenced in any major way by Tolkien's creations and literary critics themselves haven't come firmly one way or another down there.


And as such it should be read by all who indulge themselves in playing a high fantasy game, for example, D&D. QED.

So, is your position indeed that everyone who is playing a roleplaying game (for example, WoD) should be familiar with D&D? If not, I'd like you to explain how they're different, since you know, obviously more mechanical familiarity gives you more experience in handling a wider variety of rules conflicts and the ability to homebrew things. If so, then what I said wasn't even remotely a strawman.

If you're not playing high fantasy with elves (and note: D&D's elves, even before 4e are VERY different, in part due to the large difference in magic) and dwarves (note: again very difference in mannerisms, dwarves are a lot more soulless on the whole) and innocent halflings (Merry and Pippin permanently in 'cunning' mode, not Sam, not remotely Sam) and mindless orcs, then how praytell is LotR so much more necessary knowledge than everything else that just happens to have those things (which are very common.)

[Gorbash]

So, is your position indeed that everyone who is playing a roleplaying game (for example, WoD) should be familiar with D&D?

No. Anyone who is playing WoD should be familiar at least with Bram Stoker's Dracula.

But you forget a few things. D&D uses a numerous creatures/classes that Tolkien created. Off the top of my head - elves, dwarves, orcs, Balors, rangers. WoD has nothing to do with D&D, even their vampires our different.

[Jayabalard]

So I go back to the previous statement that Narnia wasn't influenced in any major way by Tolkien's creations.The Hobbit had already been published and Tolkein regularly read The Lord of the Rings while he was writing/polishing it, and Lewis would have heard it since they were both members of the Inklings at that time. Tolkien himself was pretty convinced that Lewis had stolen ideas from him, so it seems quite clear to me that Narnia was influenced in a major way by Tolkien's books. Incidentally the Inklings (literary society) dissolved about the same time, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was caused in part by the falling out between Lewis and Tolkien.


So, is your position indeed that everyone who is playing a roleplaying game (for example, WoD) should be familiar with D&D?They're different Genre's, so it's not a parallel situation.

I would say that for WoD you might get more out of urban fantasy, or more classic Vampire legends.


D&D uses a numerous creatures/classes that Tolkien created. Off the top of my head - elves, dwarves, orcs, Balors, rangers. He didn't create them, but the versions that he created are the ones that are used in D&D.

[AstralFire]

No. Anyone who is playing WoD should be familiar at least with Bram Stoker's Dracula.

But you forget a few things. D&D uses a numerous creatures/classes that Tolkien created. Off the top of my head - elves, dwarves, orcs, Balors, rangers. WoD has nothing to do with D&D, even their vampires our different.

Tolkien only created Balors. Alfs, pre-existing. Dwarfs, pre-existing. Orcs, I think pre-existing. Rangers, Robin Hood ring a bell? And all of the D&D versions are pretty different from their counterparts as I already listed, a difference that becomes increasingly more severe with each edition. The Warcraft orcs (Warcraft itself being based off of Warhammer and D&D) bear almost no resemblance to Tolkien's orcs - they're a shamanistic, Lawful Good bunch, they don't even physically look the same. Are people DMing and playing a game of Warcraft d20 (high fantasy!) supposed to be versed in Tolkien just to do their best? That makes no sense.

WoD bears a lot of mechanical roots in D&D, it's easy to see if you've studied the mechanics at all. It also tends to be playable a lot like a D&D game, which is why people have complained about it before. Why is it more important to be familiar with silly little things like genre convention than silly little things like your entire roll resolution mechanic? nWoD's attribute rolls are pretty similar to d20's skill rolls. They both seem equally (un)important to me to know, and lest we forget, the mechanics and the flavor both must be considered for a true Role-Playing Game.

[Gorbash]

Tolkien only created Balors. Alfs, pre-existing. Dwarfs, pre-existing. Orcs, I think pre-existing. Rangers, Robin Hood ring a bell?

What I was trying to say was:


He didn't create them, but the versions that he created are the ones that are used in D&D.


Rangers, Robin Hood ring a bell?

It's common knowledge that D&D Rangers are based on Aragorn.


Orcs, I think pre-existing.

Tolkien created Orcs, I'm afraid. It is known.

And why are you constantly comparing other games to D&D? We're comparing Lotr and D&D, not D&D and WoD. If you want, open a topic about mechanical similarities between those two, stop throwing it as a strawman arguement here. It's bordering on Chewbacca defense.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because I haven't seen it linked yet, The Other Wiki has a full page on the Sources and Influences of D&D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_influences_on_the_development_of_Dunge ons_%26_Dragons).

Re: OP
I'll second Gorbash Kazar here and say that being up on the Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) of a particular Genre can really enhance the experience for everyone.

That said, you shouldn't take guff from your players like that - unless you're contradicting previous experience (in which case you should have a good reason why Our Vampires Are Different (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent) :smalltongue:), or if it is contradicting established rules (like using 3e magic missiles to cut rope).

In neither of your examples did that seem to be the case (and your players saying nasty things about you on their blogs is low) so you should definitely talk to them about what's going on. D&D is a cooperative exercise between DM & Players, which means communication is key.

[AstralFire]

It's common knowledge that D&D Rangers are based on Aragorn.

That they are, but he didn't originate the concept. D&D Wizards are based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth, and he emphasized the idea of spells as magic words that bounce around in your head.

He didn't originate that concept, either. You can see that root in the word: 'spell'. Does a player need to be familiar with the Dying Earth series?


Tolkien created Orcs, I'm afraid. It is known.

He sure didn't create the Warcraft Orcs. Or the Wild Elves. Or incredibly, so not-subtle-magic Eladrin/High Elves.

[Jayabalard]

Tolkien created Orcs, I'm afraid. It is known.Hobbits too... and OD&D even used that word for a while as I recall.

[Gorbash]

He sure didn't create the Warcraft Orcs. Or the Wild Elves. Or incredibly, so not-subtle-magic Eladrin/High Elves.

Of course he didn't, but they all were heavily influenced by him. Not to mention that Tolkien came up with the word Orc. All blizzard did was change their nature toward shamanistic, they're still green, mean, and have tusks. Before Tolkien elves were small and mischevious things, he made them what they are today, so even though he didn't create Wild Elves or any other sort they're based on his.

Btw. Now, you're just grasping for straws. You already admitted that Tolkien had great influence on D&D (which is the main arguement here), now you're just, for some unknown reason, comparing the subtle changes of other games with D&D.


Hobbits too... and OD&D even used that word for a while as I recall.

Yup. They made them change it because of the copyrights. Same case with Mithral and Mithril.

[AstralFire]

Hobbits too... and OD&D even used that word for a while as I recall.

Hobbits is actually up for debate, but as far as I'm concerned, he did. Yes, OD&D did. 3e and 4e halflings are an entire race of Merry and Pippins at best and stuff like the Halfling Outrider shows they've quite become their own beasts. Interestingly, Eberron hardly had to alter their flavor at all from core, it just had to point it out; many people just assume they are playing a hobbit.


Of course he didn't, but they all were heavily influenced by him. Not to mention that Tolkien came up with the word Orc. All blizzard did was change their nature toward shamanistic, they're still green, mean, and have tusks. Before Tolkien elves were small and mischevious things, he made them what they are today, so even though he didn't create Wild Elves or any other sort they're based on his.

They have their own free will, shamanistic is a pretty big change.

I've never denied basis, I've said the relevant parts of Tolkien have disseminated into their source materials. Have you been listening?


Btw. Now, you're just grasping for straws. You already admitted that Tolkien had great influence on D&D (which is the main arguement here), now you're just, for some unknown reason, comparing the subtle changes of other games with D&D.

I'm the one grasping for straws? Funny how you can think that.

If LotR is flavor-wise SO important to D&D, then why is D&D not SO important to all of the games it spawned mechanically? So many games have drawn their resolution mechanics from D&D, even the ones that have come quite far indeed, like Fudge.

If LotR is flavor-wise SO important to D&D, then is Dying Earth required reading for every wizard?

I have conceded but one thing, sir, and that was Narnia's ability to influence LotR. My other arguments remain, and I expect answers if you're going to start accusing me of "grasping for straws."

[Jayabalard]

Are people DMing and playing a game of Warcraft d20 (high fantasy!) supposed to be versed in Tolkien just to do their best? That makes no sense.I don't think I'd necessarily call Warcraft high fantasy, though I'm not familiar with Warcraft D20 at all.

[AstralFire]

I don't think I'd necessarily call Warcraft high fantasy, though I'm not familiar with Warcraft D20 at all.

Warcraft is pretty high fantasy up until WoW:BC, which is largely regarded as a great exception. What gnomes are capable of is about what they can do in FR, and the dwarves edge only slightly towards steampunk; Mountain Kings and hammers are more associated with them than their tanks. It's still very definitely high fantasy, and the d20 sourcebook doesn't focus on the aberrant elements.

If Warcraft's -not- high fantasy, then I'd submit Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Greyhawk (debatable, but there's a lot more plane-hopping in that one than FR) and Eberron aren't either, which is the majority of D&D's major settings. That leaves Dragonlance (which I know little of) and Forgotten Realms to hold the banner. If high fantasy is thus marginalized to such a tiny, tiny amount of D&D, then it must be declared that you have required reading for the setting, not for the game as a whole.

[Burley]

This is what, in my opinion, it boils down to:
Glug, does your campaign consist of a bunch of people trying to destroy a ring in a volcano?
Does it have places called Moridor and Rivendell?
Are people named Frodo and Bilbo and Gandalf?
Are your PCs battling Sauran or Saruman?

If the answer to the above is no... then, who cares. LotR didn't have sewer zombies, so, Glug beat Tolkien and his elves in that respect.

You're playing something inspired by LotR, but also inspired by other things. Like History. And, People's Imaginations. I don't recall Gandalf ever blasting a bunch of craps with a fireball. I never, not even once read a thing about Magic Missle.

D&D's creators read LotR and probably thought "Damn... That's some tight jont, yo!" So, they made a game so they could do stuff like that. But, they added other things from other sources that they also thought would be tight.

Maybe your personal opinion is that people should read these books. But, D&D is a game, not a club. The only prerequisite is wanting to play. If I had ever opened the PHB and it said, "You can't play unless you've read the LotR Trilogy," I'd have put that book right on the shelf and spent my money on Animorphs.

Animorphs are for everybody.

[Gorbash]

If LotR is flavor-wise SO important to D&D, then why is D&D not SO important to all of the games it spawned mechanically? So many games have drawn their resolution mechanics from D&D, even the ones that have come quite far indeed, like Fudge.

Because we're talking about flavor, not mechanics.

[AstralFire]

Because we're talking about flavor, not mechanics.

Answer the other question, then, if we're talking about flavor. If we're sticking solely to flavor, then tell me how exactly knowing Tolkien's orcs and elves aid in DMing - not just aid, but a moment where the knowledge is ESSENTIAL to good handling - for a party full of Eladrins and Warcraft orcs. Give me an example. Throw in a Kalashtar Monk and a Half-Orc Binder if you'd like bonus points.

I am deliberately moving this question into mechanics to illustrate the consistency of your logic. "That's not topical" is not a valid response because the relevancy is very near, given that D&D is a role-playing game. I'd think the two have equal precedence, and you need to have a good grasp of both. Otherwise, you're playing Risk or Pretend.

[kc0bbq]

Before Tolkien, there weren't any high fantasy books, when he started writing, so did Lewis. Wrong. There's high fantasy stretching back quite a ways before Tolkien.

[Gorbash]

Answer the other question, then, if we're talking about flavor. If we're sticking solely to flavor, then tell me how exactly knowing Tolkien's orcs and elves aid in DMing - not just aid, but a moment where the knowledge is ESSENTIAL to good handling - for a party full of Eladrins and Warcraft orcs. Give me an example.

They don't aid per se, but having read Lotr (and Dying Earth or some other) signifies your seriousness about the game, and you can't really blame the bloke who objected about his DM not reading Lotr. Try DMing Warcraft D20 without ever having played Warcraft or Wow or reading the books.

Yes, if you play Planescape (I'd make Torment required playing for any Planescape DM, though) or any other system, you won't need knowledge gained from Lotr, but there is not one fantasy book that had such monumental impact on the world of fantasy as Lotr did, and as such it should be read by everyone who are claiming to be intrested in fantasy.

[AstralFire]

They don't aid per se, but having read Lotr (and Dying Earth or some other) signifies your seriousness about the game

So extensive planning and thought beforehand (which this DM evidently does) does -not- signify seriousness? There is only so much a DM should be expected to do for his players.


, and you can't really blame the bloke who objected about his DM not reading Lotr..

Yes, I can.


Try DMing Warcraft D20 without ever having played Warcraft or Wow or reading the books

I've very specifically said that I wouldn't respect someone who tried to DM a specific setting without knowledge of that specific setting. Unless you're playing LotR d20, LotR not only does not necessarily aid, but may well hinder your understanding of a given campaign setting. Like how people log onto an RP Server as a Blood Elf and go "WAT do u meen my leader is evil ELVES GUD." Or more appropriately to this situation "what do you mean I don't live forever and I have an afterlife and I'm not automatically better than 99% of all humans just for being elfy?!"

Or the fact that people can actually learn to be wizards. Ones who shoot lots of fire for some reason.


Yes, if you play Planescape (I'd make Torment required playing for any Planescape DM, though) or any other system, you won't need knowledge gained from Lotr, but there is not one fantasy book that had such monumental impact on the world of fantasy as Lotr did, and as such it should be read by everyone who are claiming to be intrested in fantasy.

That's a very different claim entirely from saying it makes you a lesser DM or PC.

[horseboy]

He didn't originate that concept, either. You can see that root in the word: 'spell'. Does a player need to be familiar with the Dying Earth series?If he wants to understand Vancing casting, yeah. Otherwise it's never made a lick of sense. Hence, the long threads about it here.

To the OP, Yes, to be a GM all you need to know is the games rules. To be a good GM you need a good imagination, excellent communications skills, understanding of the game rules, and an understanding of the genre(s) in question. If you're building your own world, you're going to need working knowledge of etymology, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, history, mythology, theology, and some biology and ecology. The fewer "wait, what?" moments a player has, the easier it is for them to stay in character. It also makes it easier to answer "No, you're thinking Sumarian, we're working under more a Hittite," so you know what the heck other players are talking about. On the whole, it doesn't sound like your group is on the same page. You may want to take an hour or two and go over some stuff with the players to put you all on the same page.

[Gorbash]

So extensive planning and thought beforehand (which this DM evidently does) does -not- signify seriousness?

Yes, it does. Not reading Lotr reduces that seriousness.


That's a very different claim entirely from saying it makes you a lesser DM or PC.

Yes, everyone who's intrested in fantasy should read Lotr, I stand by that. I also regard any D&D player who didn't do so a lesser player. I also think that those who don't RP at all are lesser players. Or those who have no idea how rules work. Yes, I am an elitist, and I completely understand why Glug's player was complaining.

[AstralFire]

If he wants to understand Vancing casting, yeah. Otherwise it's never made a lick of sense.

I haven't ever read Dying Earth, but I know how it works pretty well thanks to the forum. The essential parts do get disseminated (as I've said); D&D Wizards would have been understandable to more people if the 3E PHB had actually explained why magic worked that way, it wouldn't have taken long to explain, either.


Yes, it does. Not reading Lotr reduces that seriousness.

Only if you're trying to play a game that is mimicking LotR. You admitted settings have specific knowledge.


Yes, everyone who's intrested in fantasy should read Lotr, I stand by that. I also regard any D&D player who didn't do so a lesser player. I also think that those who don't RP at all are lesser players. Or those who have no idea how rules work. Yes, I am an elitist

Some of the worst players I've known have been the biggest fans of LotR. Now, just so you don't think that I hate the series (I don't, I am neutral) one of the best I know is fluent in Quenya. He's outnumbered by the ones who don't know the LotR books, though, and he's never played under me due to time issues.

As far as I can see, it's completely irrelevant to the rest of the game. If you want to live in Tolkien's world, that's fine if not my cup of tea, but he himself would not recognize so much of what the genre has developed into.

[sonofzeal]

They don't aid per se, but having read Lotr (and Dying Earth or some other) signifies your seriousness about the game, and you can't really blame the bloke who objected about his DM not reading Lotr. Try DMing Warcraft D20 without ever having played Warcraft or Wow or reading the books.
{Scrubbed}

I mean... knowledge of Warcraft is necessary to run a game explicitly set in the Warcraft universe. However, unless your D&D campaign is explicitly set in Tolkien's Middle Earth, your parallel is seriously flawed. There's no harm and some good that can come of being well-acquainted with the classics, {Scrubbed}

Tolkien isn't the only fantasy writer of the past hundred years, and he isn't the best (shock, horror). He's certainly influential, mind you, but as long as you know what an "orc" is, and think of slender, graceful human-like beings when you hear "elf", you probably know as much as you need to.

[batsofchaos]

Yes, it does. Not reading Lotr reduces that seriousness.



Yes, everyone who's intrested in fantasy should read Lotr, I stand by that. I also regard any D&D player who didn't do so a lesser player. I also think that those who don't RP at all are lesser players. Or those who have no idea how rules work. Yes, I am an elitist, and I completely understand why Glug's player was complaining.

What about the fact that Lord of the Rings is boring, dry, and excrutiating to read? Must everyone suffer through it as a badge that they are not an unread, second-class citizen?

I've read LotR, but my wife hasn't. She tried, and had this to say about it: "It was nothing but 'The hobbit sat. The hobbit smoked. The hobbit complained about being hunger. The hobbit ate. The hobbit looked at the interesting foliage that will be described in GREAT. BIOLOGICAL. DETAIL. FOR. TWENTY. PAGES.'"

Out of the two of us, my wife has a better working understanding of the genre conventions in high fantasy than I do, because she reads a lot of fantasy. Just not Lord of the Rings. The fact that I have read it doesn't put me above her in that knowledge because even if I slogged through all two trillion of those chapters, appendices, and multiple epilogues, she knows what happens in the damn thing.

After a certain point, the classics are carved up and absorbed into the collective conciousness of society. When I say

"rosebud."

who doesn't know what I'm talking about? Yeah, I've seen Citizen Kane, but I knew what 'Rosebud' was long before. Lord of the Rings has been diced up and served en masse to not only other works in the fantasy genre, but general society as a whole. It's not necessary for understanding the conventions of fantasy AT. ALL. There are only three reasons to read it:

1) Because you wish to discuss Lord of the Rings critically.

2) Because you feel (or a professor of yours feels) it is culturally necessary to have read it.

3) Because you enjoy reading it.

You can understand a genre just fine without reading its primordial parent. And while I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to read it for it's historical significance to the genre, it's certainly not a requirement and looking down on someone who didn't finish it is flat out pretentious.

[kc0bbq]

{Scrubbed}

My personal opinion is that nothing, unless you want to use it as a source, is required reading. For the most part it's a crutch. It's nice to understand the genre, but there are plenty of sources with better prose than LOTR.

I don't expect players in my pulp games to have read much pulp, whether scifi pulp, adventure pulp, or whatever. Oooh, required reading: Battlefield Earth? Hahaha the shark bankers come to repo the earth from the humans lolol.

[Totally Guy]

Maybe a test could be drawn up.

Play under several DMs and then try to figure out which ones have or have not read it.

What would be the main tell tale sign?
What were the little clues?
Did you find it fun?


I think that last one might be a trick question. The test doesn't specify whether the person finds fun an enjoyable experience.

[Gorbash]

Never in my life had I met a player, let alone a DM who didn't read Lotr. Nor would I be intrested in playing with one.

[AstralFire]

Never in my life had I met a player, let alone a DM who didn't read Lotr. Nor would I be intrested in playing with one.

5 Stock.
No items.
Elf only.
Fingolfin Destination.

[valadil]

Just to clarify, Tolkien did indeed create orcs. His elves were his own breed, but they're not like the ones we see in D&D. D&D orcs are frail and short, while Tolkien's were quite the opposite. I think he said the Noldor elves were 6'7" on average. I'm not sure if elves were archers before Tolkien came around.

Tolkien also regrets using dwarves the way he did. He wanted to create a race with its own identity, but used the term dwarf because it was close enough. I read that Tolkien would have rather called them duerro (I think) so that people wouldn't mistake his dwarves/duerro for the dwarves of folkore.

Modern fantasy is derived from Tolkien. This isn't up for debate. I don't think that means everyone needs to read LotR though. If you read enough other fantasy, LotR will be just a drop in the bucket because everything else is derived from that. I watch a lot of standup comedy. Pretty much all modern standup is derived from Richard Pryor. And yet I find Pryor's jokes boring. Why? Because he's doing the same thing I'm already familiar with. I appreciate him for being the first, but that doesn't mean I'm entertained. I could easily see the same happening with Tolkien.

[AstralFire]

I think we can all agree that modern fantasy as a whole owes a lot to him, even sci-fantasy owes much just to LotR becoming popular. I haven't exactly been saying "let's jump on his grave with rocket boots."

You and bats elaborated (where I should have) exactly what I meant about the relevant bits getting sorted through the rest of the genre. Thank you.

[Cuddly]

Fel is a RL name for a French village
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fel


Fell refers to the hide of an animal, which eventually came to describe barbarians and their behavior since they were hide wearers.

L2history nobs!!!!!

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham:
"You got your flaming in my real world religious discussion."
"No you got your real world religious discussion in my flaming."

Wait, you're both right. Please don't do either. Insulting others based on playstyle or preferences is not permitted here. That means you have to tread a bit lightly and while you can say something is or isn't a good practice - you can't insult others personally.

I'm not going to painstakingly scrub out all the prior flamey bits (like calling people lesser players and the like) but please be more civil going forward.

[Behold_the_Void]

What about the fact that Lord of the Rings is boring, dry, and excruciating to read? Must everyone suffer through it as a badge that they are not an unread, second-class citizen?

My thoughts exactly. I never finished LotR because it was painful to read. I homebrew my own settings anyway, and I'll crib material from whatever I like if I think it's interesting (I tend to pull a lot from Dragonlance because I love what they did with the races. Inspired by Tolkein or not, I can actually make it through their books without wanting to gouge my eyes out with a fire poker or do something more interesting like get intrusive dental surgery). I'd say Tolkein is most relevant if you're running Middle Earth. Beyond that, who cares? Know the source material YOU'RE using, and if your players don't like it they can go find another game.

Hell in my current setting I'll probably be pulling more stylistic inspiration from Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann than from Tolkein, and Gurren-Lagann isn't even the same GENRE.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Yeah, I'mmmm- gonna disagree with Gorbash here. LOTR simply isn't required reading for running, playing, enjoying, or even writing DnD material. It helps, but no more than a steady diet of fantasy novels in general. Just because it's arguably where the genre became populer doesn't mean it's neccesary. History is nice, but I'm not going to say things like "I won't play with or DM for anyone who hasn't ever", oh say, "played 1st edition, because that's where DnD got started and a good grasp of it seperates the people who I can play with and the intolerable ones."

It's wayyyyyyy more complex than that. In addition, saying things like that just aren't *nice*. I'm not treating someone as inferior or superior based on what they have or haven't done. (Well, unless it's something ridiculous like burning down orphanages, but I'd hope people wouldy know what I mean without that disclaimer. Just trying to keep things from getting too hypothetical.)

[Zeful]

Never in my life had I met a player, let alone a DM who didn't read Lotr. Nor would I be intrested in playing with one.

Hi I'm Zeful. I DM and haven't read LoTR and probably never will.

[AstralFire]

Hi I'm Zeful. I DM and haven't read LoTR and probably never will.

Don't worry; that doesn't hinder his argument. I'm just imagining you to exist.

[Jayabalard]

If Warcraft's -not- high fantasy, then I'd submit Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, Greyhawk (debatable, but there's a lot more plane-hopping in that one than FR) and Eberron aren't either, which is the majority of D&D's major settings. I don't think any of those have economies that involved petroleum as a major resource, oil refineries or other 19th century technology (guns, battleships, etc), though I have to admit total ignorance with regards to Eberron.

I wouldn't refer to Dark Sun as High fantasy, since it's pretty solidly in the Low Fantasy/Dying Earth genres. Planescape and Spelljammer can wind up as several other genres depending on how you play them.

The fact that most of the settings deviate from high fantasy either by a little or a lot shouldn't be surprising, since that is a big part of what makes them a different setting rather than part of the same high fantasy one. If they were all just straight high fantasy, there would only be one setting.


LOTR simply isn't required reading for running, playing, enjoying, or even writing DnD material. It helps, but no more than a steady diet of fantasy novels in general. If you read enough, then sure, you can build up enough nerd-cred to overcome the stigma of not having read lotr with most people... though some people will expect you to have read all of that plus LOTR and a dozen other books as well or they look down on you.

Really, the solution is to grow a thicker skin and not care if people take you seriously nor not.

[AstralFire]

I don't think any of those have economies that involved petroleum as a major resource, oil refineries or other 19th century technology (guns, battleships, etc), though I have to admit total ignorance with regards to Eberron.

Those elements are largely downplayed up until WoW and even in WoW they're mostly marginalized. Note that renaissance era guns also exist in D&D and FR's gnomes and maesters can match up with WC's.

Eberron has trains and robots. It's not steampunk, but it's very solidly in 18th to 20th centuryesque technology except using magic to achieve it rather than steam, gasoline, or electricity.


I wouldn't refer to Dark Sun as High fantasy, since it's pretty solidly in the Low Fantasy/Dying Earth genres. Planescape and Spelljammer can wind up as several other genres depending on how you play them.

The fact that most of the settings deviate from high fantasy either by a little or a lot shouldn't be surprising, since that is a big part of what makes them a different setting rather than part of the same high fantasy one. If they were all just straight high fantasy, there would only be one setting.

Which was my point. If we're using that strict a definition of high fantasy, then you can't say D&D as a whole requires knowledge of Tolkien. Only some of the settings.

[Gorbash]

Hi I'm Zeful. I DM and haven't read LoTR and probably never will.

Your loss.

In order not to get another infraction in this thread and get closer to ban, I won't say anything else, but I do mean it.

[Winterwind]

I read the LotR something like 15 times, I don't know how many times the Silmarillion and the Hobbit, but probably a two-digit number as well. And I still do not think it is required reading for being a gamemaster (or roleplayer in general) at all. Familiarity with the genre is most certainly helpful, but there is more fantasy out there than the LotR (and, in spite of my obvious love for Tolkien's work, some of it is better, too). Even said familiarity is not a requirement - roleplaying can serve just as well as an entry into a genre as reading. Even the gamemaster can do with the informations on the setting, and learn and develop from there. I have had some very enjoyable ShadowRun sessions with people who never read Neuromancer, Call of Cthulhu sessions with people who never read Lovecraft and, yes, fantasy roleplaying sessions with people unfamiliar with Tolkien.

[Jayabalard]

Those elements are largely downplayed up until WoW and even in WoW they're mostly marginalized. Note that renaissance era guns also exist in D&D.They weren't downplayed at all in warcraft 2. The guns that you can find in D&D are 15th/16th century weapons, not 19th century ones that you find in warcaft. There's a huge technology jump.


Eberron has trains and robots. It's not steampunk, but it's very solidly in 18th to 20th centuryesque technology except using magic to achieve it.They're powered by magic though, aren't they, rather than refined petroleum products like the Trollish Destroyer and Orcish Juggernaught.


Which was my point. If we're using that strict a definition of high fantasy, then you can't say D&D as a whole requires knowledge of Tolkien. Only some of the settings.It doesn't really matter what genre you're playing; some people are going to expect a knowledge of Tolkien is necessary for playing in a science fiction campaign.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

While I personally recommend high fantasy DMs (and high fantasy fans in general) at least give Lord of the Rings a try, because it does have a strong influence on the genre and frames discussion of it so greatly, I definitely don't think it's required reading to be a good GM or player, and if you really can't stand it, that's fine.

I still do feel that the more you read or watch in genre, the better your games will be. I get the desire for a fresh look, but I find 90% of the time you just accidentally end up going over well-trod ground, again. This isn't bad, but I always find that having a plot/game that follows very closely the standards of a genre, you have to do it better to hold people's attention than if you tried something new. Players (or readers or viewers) forgive some choppiness or problems when the idea really is innovative and fresh, much more than with the stereotypical approach.

Of course, this varies from group to group. I freely stipulate that when I first started playing RPGs, what I found exciting and fresh would likely seem quite dull to me now - and not just because I've played it before. The better versed your players are in the genre, and in all forms of media in general, the better versed you should be to keep up with them. This is one reason I don't run Gothic horror for my usual group - two of them are very big Gothic horror fans, and the others are certainly much more familiar with the genre than I.

It can sometimes work against you, though... I had major issues with one cyberpunk game I ran because I'm a big fan of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk works, but my players weren't. So I tossed in stuff I thought would be obvious - yet actual play revealed that it wasn't obvious unless you had a great deal of familiarity in the genre. I was able to recover and scale back by the next session, though.

I think that's the power of what being well read in-genre, or in general, can do for you - it's easier to cut back on that sort of thing if it doesn't work.

Plus, I've always held strongly to the following maxim: Good GMs borrow. Great GMs steal shamelessly and often.

The more you've read/seen, the more you can steal :smallwink:

[Totally Guy]

What level of knowledge?

I really enjoyed the two towers.

The war bits in return of the king were just too much and I got very bored and became nonchalant about what happened in the ending.

I think I'd got a good 80% through.

So is it a discrete get through get a badge and glory or is it some kind of continuous learning curve where one can say, "oh I think I get it" at some point along the journey.

[Zeful]

Your loss.

In order not to get another infraction in this thread and get closer to ban, I won't say anything else, but if this were a normal forum, I'd say it.

Name three things that reading the books would do to improve my DMing skills outside of the LoTR setting.

[batsofchaos]

I'm going maybe go off on a tangent and use examples from a field that I have some expertise in.

Has anyone here seen El Apostol? How about Peludopolis? Maybe Adventures of Prince Achmed?

Who here has seen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?

El Apostol was the first feature-length animated film. Pelidopolis was the first feature-length animated film to use synchronized sound. Adventures of Prince Achmed was the first feature-length animated film to utilize color. Snow White is notable in being the first feature length animated film that got widespread notice, as well as being the first Walt Disney film and first technicolor animated film, but those are its claims to fame.

Do you need to see El Apostol, Peludopolis, or Adventures of Prince Achmed to understand colored, talking, animated movies? Well, El Apostol and Peludopolis are lost now, so you actually can't and AoPA is...Well, I had to watch it for a class once. I think that's all I can really give you on this movie.

Being the first doesn't mean anything. It gets your name noted in a book and allows folks like me to stretch their esoteria. And being very influential doesn't mean anything either. Most people have seen Snow White, now, is there anything in the content of the animation that is only garnered from that film and that film only?

Not really. If you've seen a Disney movie, you've seen the subscribed methods of animating speech, the color choices used, and the general scheme of timing. Other animation houses offered kernels of technique that Disney didn't have to offer, but what we're getting at here is the iconic, original, influential piece which is undoubtedly Snow White. And there is not a single thing that one can learn from Snow white that was not passed on in subsequent films, both in and outside of the Disney studio.

Is Snow White a historically important film? Yes. Do you need to see it in order to understand the aspects of animation that it touted? No.

Lord of the Rings has become so disseminated into the fantasy genre as a whole that you don't have to read it in order to learn from it. Some people would say that experiencing the original is vital, but if you can garner everything that you could learn from other sources it simply is not.

[Gorbash]

Name three things that reading the books would do to improve my DMing skills outside of the LoTR setting.

As I said, it's not about the skills, it's about the principle.

And if you look better, you'll see that's not my quote. :smallwink:


Is Snow White a historically important film? Yes. Do you need to see it in order to understand the aspects of animation that it touted? No.

Not a good annalogy. As I said, we're not talking about mechanics. If there were a Snow White 2, then I'd guess you'd need to see the original Snow White to understand it better.

[AstralFire]

Not a good annalogy. As I said, we're not talking about mechanics. If there were a Snow White 2, then I'd guess you'd need to see the original Snow White to understand it better.

It's only 'not a good analogy' because you're deeming it so. It is a perfect analogy. Mechanics grow and combine and evolve, and a storytelling mechanic in particular is only one step away from the story itself. Novels use descriptive mechanics.

Do you need to have read Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid to experience or understand Disney's any better? (You don't. The most you might get is either rage at Disney or disappointment at the original.) It's a quite good story in its own right, though. The analogy is flawless, even, since we're comparing something that clearly has some relation to its original, but has engaged in a good deal of cultural conversation prior to its release.

@Jayabalard: If it looks like a train, works like a train, etc, it is a train. A snazzy one, perhaps, but that's all. Eberron is much more inundated with tech than Warcraft.

[Totally Guy]

Same principle as.... shudder... the canterbury tales...

Dear god it's got all the class of a medieval version of a bugs bunny cartoon.

[batsofchaos]

Ah, but animation technique is not mechanics, it is the creation of art. In a sense it is story-telling through moving pictures. Studying the methods of animation in an older film is like studying the methods of story-telling in an older story. It is analogous.

Unless you're stating that it is not the actual process of reading Lord of the Rings that's important, but rather an understanding of the story. In which case, seeing the films or reading Cliff's Notes would be sufficient for grasping the LotR experience, which I believe you disagreed with earlier. If that is the case, however, needing Snow White to appreciate Snow White 2 is certainly not analogous to needing LotR to appreciate DnD. It would be for needing FotR to appreciate TT which you would need to appreciate RotK. The closest "in-story" analogy that could be made would be needing to see Snow White to fully appreciate any animated fairy-tale, which I do not believe to be true.

[Gorbash]

Ah, but animation technique is not mechanics, it is the creation of art. In a sense it is story-telling through moving pictures. Studying the methods of animation in an older film is like studying the methods of story-telling in an older story. It is analogous.

Yes, if you're a cartoon designer, you'd need to study Snow White. Today's cartoons don't have anything to do with Snow White (other than being from the same studio, using similar technics or something like that), setting-wise. If there were a movie/cartoon inspired by Snow White, then I'd guess to understand it, you'd need to see Snow White first.


Unless you're stating that it is not the actual process of reading Lord of the Rings that's important, but rather an understanding of the story. In which case, seeing the films

If the films were an accute representation of the book, then yes. Since they're not, then I'm not stating that.

[Jayabalard]

The closest "in-story" analogy that could be made would be needing to see Snow White to fully appreciate any animated fairy-tale, which I do not believe to be true.LOTR is a major influence on most fantasy gaming, even stuff that isn't cut and dry high fantasy (mashups in other genres); in the case of D&D, influence is hardly a strong enough word. Snow White on the other hand does not have anything that is as derivative of it. Which is why the analogies brought up using it are "bad analogies".

[AstralFire]

LOTR is a major influence on most fantasy gaming, even stuff that isn't cut and dry high fantasy; in the case of D&D, influence is hardly a strong enough word. Snow White on the other hand does not have anything that is as derivative of it. Which is why the analogies brought up using it are such bad analogies.

In storytelling techniques, and the animation processes pioneered during it, you may well be wrong. Disney pretty much controlled feature length animated films for a long time for a reason, I am sure. What all the reasons are? Dunno. I can't speak more specifically, not having studied animation, but I'd be hesitant to start making blanket statements about relative influence weight.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

What level of knowledge?

I really enjoyed the two towers.

The war bits in return of the king were just too much and I got very bored and became nonchalant about what happened in the ending.

I think I'd got a good 80% through.

So is it a discrete get through get a badge and glory or is it some kind of continuous learning curve where one can say, "oh I think I get it" at some point along the journey.
Hm, I actually really enjoy the war portions, but then I'm a military history buff - I read books about battles for fun :smallwink: I think reading the ending is useful, but not just to say you got through it. It just offers some interesting ways to deal with the ending of an epic quest, and since so much high fantasy deals with that...

Personally, and this may sound sacrilegious, I think if all you're after is the tropes of high fantasy that Tolkien contributed, the films actually provide a more distilled version and may even be more useful from a GMs point of view than the books. I still like the books personally, but the films are close enough to hit the high points of what the genre took from Tolkien.

I still say give the books a try, but if you really can't stand them, that's fine.

As far as a learning curve, I think really it's an infinite curve as far as being well versed in a genre. Sure, you get more out of the first things you read, but the more different ways you see of presenting or dealing with a feature of the genre, the more tools you have in your GM's toolbox.

[horseboy]

Maybe a test could be drawn up.

Play under several DMs and then try to figure out which ones have or have not read it.

What would be the main tell tale sign?
What were the little clues?
Did you find it fun?


I think that last one might be a trick question. The test doesn't specify whether the person finds fun an enjoyable experience.
Usually, we start getting fidgety, and Atog starts "discussing" some rare aspect of Aragorn's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great... grandfather's heraldry. Then the rest of us take that opportunity for a smoke break. Of course, we were playing MERPs. :smalltongue:
Even in that group, Moose didn't read it for real life years into the campaign, I'd read it some 15 odd years prior and really didn't remember anything that wasn't in the Bakshi cartoons. My taste running closer to Cervantes and Ariosto. Nukem was pretty much in the same boat as me, just more modern writers.
Anyway, just watch the movies. The only things you're going to miss is Tom Benzedrine Bombadell, and he's just a dues ex machina anyway.

[batsofchaos]

In storytelling techniques, and the animation processes pioneered during it, you may well be wrong. Disney pretty much controlled feature length animated films for a long time for a reason, I am sure. What all the reasons are? Dunno. I can't speak more specifically, not having studied animation, but I'd be hesitant to start making blanket statements about relative influence weight.

Hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Snow White certainly became less influential over time which is a symptom of the inbred nature of animation. Animation houses were busy sniping each other, making films more likely to be influenced by something that was coming out latterally as opposed to original sources. As a result, all films could find common influence in Snow White, but it was often several degrees of separation removed, at least until theatrical animation died in the fifties and rebirthed in the eighties.

I will admit that my analogy would be more akin to comparing writing styles instead of actual content, but I think that both are a legitimate form of artistry, and are at least somewhat analogous to content.

[Rei_Jin]

In regards to books that influenced the Dungeons and Dragons that we all know, I'd have to recommend reading Robert E Howards Conan stories over Lord of the Rings.

Lord of the Rings was, is, and will always be, a great story. It has helped develop and shape the fantasy genre that we know today. But, it was written by J.R.R Tolkien for a specific reason. He felt that England didn't have its own creation tales and early history (prior to the 4th age when man took over and the mythical creatures hid themselves away) and so he sought to write a creation mythos and early history. That's why we have Lord of the Rings. Many elements of the background and ideas within it come from other cultures and religions. You probably know what I'm talking about, so I won't continue. As has already been stated, he wrote Lord of the Rings around the time of the Second World War.

Robert E Howard wrote the Conan stories just after the first world war. They almost typify what Dungeons and Dragons is for me. You have a main character, who is strong and brave and tough. He accomplishes what he sets out to do, with or without help, he overcomes great odds, he gets the girl and he rides off into the sunset.

But, the work of both writers is equally valid to understand some of the background of Dungeons and Dragons.

Who here has read The Once and Future King by T.H White? Again, another place we can see the basis for many elements of Dungeons and Dragons.

Dungeons and Dragons was originally put together for tabletop play by guys who used to do tabletop wargaming (ala Warhammer for those who don't know what I mean), and the elements that came into it from there are based on what the players were reading and influenced by. Some of the other writers referenced in regards to their influence on Dungeons and Dragons are Edgar Rice Burroughs, A. Merritt, H. P. Lovecraft, Fritz Leiber, L. Sprague de Camp, Fletcher Pratt, Roger Zelazny, A.E Van Vogt, Jack Vance, Poul Anderson, and Michael Moorcock.

Just because someone hasn't read a specific writers works from this list is no reason to belittle him, or to think him less of a DM, or even person. I can't honestly say that I've read works by all the authors on the list, and I doubt I'll ever get around to doing so.

In short? If you've read ANY Tolkien at all, then you know enough about his works to say that you know what Middle Earth is. I mean, who here has read The Silmarillion? I have, and I know most people give up trying to read it due to the complexity of the language and concepts in it. Just because someone hasn't read Return of the King means absolutely zip. You might as well say that because they haven't read Jabberwocky they don't know anything about Dungeons and Dragons.

[Tsotha-lanti]

As I said, it's not about the skills, it's about the principle.

So it's just arbitrary nerd snobbiness with no rational basis?

Oh, gotcha.

Edit:
Rei Jin: The Silmarillion is about a hundred times better than LOTR, especially the agonizingly dull ROTK. (I always get stuck in the endlessly dull "slogging through Mordor" bits; weren't those filler put in by Christopher anyway?) It is, I think, what Tolkien was actually trying to do the whole time: write mythology. (I suppose as a Finn I may be really biased, though.)

[Winterwind]

It can sometimes work against you, though... I had major issues with one cyberpunk game I ran because I'm a big fan of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk works, but my players weren't. So I tossed in stuff I thought would be obvious - yet actual play revealed that it wasn't obvious unless you had a great deal of familiarity in the genre. I was able to recover and scale back by the next session, though.Could you please give some more details? I could quite possibly find myself in precisely that situation (i.e., running a cyberpunk game for players not too familiar with the genre) in a not too distant future, so I'd rather be prepared.

[Raum]

To dispel a couple of random myths from above, 'orc' or 'ork' is probably from 'orke' (giants or ogres) which was in the Oxford English Dictionary as early as 1656 or possibly from the Latin 'orcus' (the god of the underworld). Tolkien was a linguist after all. That leads to the second issue, there is no evidence I've seen of Tolkien haven written for the purpose of providing England with a mythology. He wrote for his own children (didn't try to publish at first) and as an excercise in linguistics while creating the languages used in the books. The LotR was written to publish as a sequel to the Hobbit after the Silmarillion was rejected. Oh, and hobbits were heavily influenced by the 'Snergs' in a childrens book he read to his kids. Tolkien popularized a lot of fantasy concepts he didn't originate.


Recently I have received criticism for my game. But you see the criticism comes not from the adventure or the story but from extra genre rules I've never heard of.I recommend taking the criticism, analyzing it as objectively as you can to see if it's pertinent, and then use it to improve if it is. If it's not pertinent, discard it as irrelevant.


I have a town called Fel Town and I had to tell them, no it's not evil. How should I know that Fel means evil?Given some modern town names I'd discard this as irrelevant.


Then there was the instance where the sewer undead managed to cross water. This annoyed the players but I'd never heard of this. If I had I'd have not made an undead sewer.This convention is ignored more often than followed in recent literature. I'm not certain it's been ascribed to all that many corporeal undead. In any case, it's not a limitation in D&D game manuals, did they have some reason to believe you'd use it?


Then my elf npcs had human names. Okay there are guidelines in the PHB but it's not as if the names weren't fantasy.I'd take this as a statement from the players that they'd prefer elvish names in a different style. Perhaps it's an area you could change - if your elves' culture fits the style the players are desiring.


Then I received criticism for not having read the Return of the King. Not in real life but on the player's blog.Was the criticism saying you needed it to DM or saying you missed / disliked a book he liked?


So appart from a campaign, understanding o the rules and interactivity with the players what are the prequisites for being DM?Hehe, read the thread AKA Bait started. :) Knowing the campaign world is important but having read some particular piece of fiction is only important if gaming in the same world that fiction is set.

[Rei_Jin]

<SNIP> That leads to the second issue, there is no evidence I've seen of Tolkien haven written for the purpose of providing England with a mythology.<SNIP>

I present you with evidence. Go HERE (http://www.tolkien-online.com/silmarillion.html)

And if your next reply would be to say that this references The Silmarillion as the mythos text, you would be correct. However, Tolkien originally intended for The Silmarillion to be published as part of the Lord of the Rings, not seperate from it. The fact that it is seperate is because of the restrictions placed on him by publishers Allen and Unwin, not because of his own intentions.

[Raum]

I present you with evidence. Go HERE (http://www.tolkien-online.com/silmarillion.html)

And if your next reply would be to say that this references The Silmarillion as the mythos text, you would be correct. However, Tolkien originally intended for The Silmarillion to be published as part of the Lord of the Rings, not seperate from it. The fact that it is seperate is because of the restrictions placed on him by publishers Allen and Unwin, not because of his own intentions.The Silmarillion was an excercise in giving his invented language a mythology, not in giving England a mythology. It was also written (and rejected by the publisher) before Tolkien wrote LotR. Check out the Tolkien Society's bio (http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biography.html#4) for more details.

[Rei_Jin]

I read the link you gave, but I'm not seeing what you're talking about mentioned at all. Did you even read the link I gave you? Here's an excerpt from it


Tolkien had several reasons for beginning this cycle of “mythological” stories. One was his love of language. He began developing a language (loosely based on Finnish), and realized that his created language was irrelevant unless he could create someone to speak it. Middle-earth was, he stated to his publisher in 1955, “fundamentally linguistic in inspiration” (Letters pg. 219).

The stories themselves were meant to comprise something of a “mythology for England”, and were originally much more closely linked to English history and culture than they became in the end.

So whilst there was a linguistic aspect to it, it was also a mythology for England.

[Raum]

I read it but it appears to be an unsupported statement on a site which explicitly denies any connection to the Tolkien Foundation or estate. Does he list references or reasons for the statement anywhere? I may have missed something if he did. Even the site you referenced admitted it was "fundamentally linguistic in inspiration" and referenced that statement to one of Tolkien's letters.

[Rei_Jin]

It's also written in my copy of the Silmarillion, which I don't have access to at the moment (because I'm at work). I know it's a pretty weak way to end a discussion, but when it's written in a published book of the author in question, and it specifically states it within itself, then I believe it to be the case.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It's also written in my copy of the Silmarillion, which I don't have access to at the moment (because I'm at work). I know it's a pretty weak way to end a discussion, but when it's written in a published book of the author in question, and it specifically states it within itself, then I believe it to be the case.

Silmarillion was compiled, edited, and published by Christopher Tolkien, though, after J.R.R. Tolkien's death, was it not? It's a bit of a muddled source.

[Rei_Jin]

*Throws his hands up in the air*

I give up, you win, okay?

[Tsotha-lanti]

*Throws his hands up in the air*

I give up, you win, okay?

Ah, the old "regress to five years old" argument. Well done.

Never mind I wasn't even arguing with you, just pointing out that The Silmarillion's introduction is (at least in the edition I have at hand, a Finnish translated version of the original 1977 printing) written by Christopher Tolkien. There is, incidentally, no mention of a desire by either Tolkien to create a mythology for anything. (And cribbing parts of Kalevala plot point for plot point would be a pretty weird way to do it. "I think England should have a mythology. I'll take Finland's!")

FWIW, I do recall a similar impression from some text, though. The introduction to LOTR itself, maybe?

[Rei_Jin]

Actually, it's not the 5 year old argument, its the obviously you are going to disagree with me regardless of what I say, so I should just give up. There's no point arguing with someone who will not concede that they could be wrong.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Actually, it's not the 5 year old argument, its the obviously you are going to disagree with me regardless of what I say, so I should just give up. There's no point arguing with someone who will not concede that they could be wrong.

I'm sorry, but has my forum name suddenly changed into "Raum" ? What are you on about? You made a claim about something being written in The Silmarillion, I looked it up, and it's not. I suggest that it's probably in LOTR, because I think I've read it too. And you cry that I'm mean and obstinate and irrational?

What is your problem, exactly?

[Raum]

Actually, it's not the 5 year old argument, its the obviously you are going to disagree with me regardless of what I say, so I should just give up. There's no point arguing with someone who will not concede that they could be wrong.I'm sorry, but has my forum name suddenly changed into "Raum" ? Eh? Please leave me out of that. I've been wrong more often than I like to contemplate. :smallredface:

[Tsotha-lanti]

Eh? Please leave me out of that. I've been wrong more often than I like to contemplate. :smallredface:

I was only referring to the fact that Rei Jin seemed to be attributing your earlier arguments and exchange with him to me, and responding from that context. No other implication intended.

[JupiterPaladin]

Well Glug, if they really want to make fun of your NPC or town names, refer them to my post here. I have been DMing 15 years covering from 1st edition to 3.5 (but starting my first 4e game soon). My three groups have all held me in the highest respect over the years even though names were always my only weak spot. If the story is good enough and the encounters are fun enough, it shouldn't matter.

So tell them how good they have it compared to this DM that uses such names for his NPC's as:

Sum A**hole, El D**do, Douche Baggins, D**do Saggins, Elbows, Eyebrows, Bob, Stinky-Dude, Ugly-Dude, Man-Lookin-Woman, Bearded Lady, Dookie Daddie, Treehugger, Spear-Guy, Abra Cadaver, Monk-Chichi...

Or such wonderful city names as:

Craptown, East-o-craps, Dork Mountain, Grassyville, Lake Village, Sometown, Nowheresville, That one town with the people, That other town we started in, yadda yadda you get it right?

Despite that, we still manage to have fun and the players always remember the important people and places. My names are very descriptive, pretty much like what the players would nickname stuff if I invested time to make a good name anyway. It saves them the time to defile my names :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

I basically cut my teeth on Tolkien. I grew up on his books; they, along with C.S. Lewis, fed my love of such things. They were, and are, magical in ways that I've seen others do only sparsely. Even if someone said something negative about Tolkien that I know is true, I'd probably argue with you on general principle (in person, anyways. Such things get tedious on the net, and there are too many rabid haters who primarily seem to dislike his popularity.) There is no other author, no other television show, for which I can say "I am a devoted fan." My feelings about these books cannot be understated.

However, knowing or reading Tolkien is neither essential nor necessary to run a decent game of DnD. The thing about DnD is that it's what you want it to be, and that's the great thing about it. The game does have its Tolkien influences, but so what? I can think of no reason, however, that knowing these influences might be desirable, beyond the desire to read a good book. There is, perhaps, value in knowing where something came from, at least insofar as all knowledge is valuable; however, it has nothing to do with one's ability to GM. In the end, the GM's vision is ultimately his own, and that's what makes the game fun (or, perhaps, not.) To say that this requires Tolkien is silly.


View Post
What level of knowledge?

I really enjoyed the two towers.

The war bits in return of the king were just too much and I got very bored and became nonchalant about what happened in the ending.

I think I'd got a good 80% through.

So is it a discrete get through get a badge and glory or is it some kind of continuous learning curve where one can say, "oh I think I get it" at some point along the journey.

The ending almost made me cry when I was younger, and now that my tastes have matured it still has a beautiful bittersweetness. It isn't necessary, and I would encourage you to get there. The book isn't necessarily an easy read (unless you've done it enough times :smallwink:) but I think getting to the end is worth it.

[Prophaniti]

These days there are a lot of people who haven't read the Lord of the Rings books, but as far as I'm concerned having seen the movies is good enough.
*hiss*
Blasphemy! The burning of this heretic will begin anon!

Seriously, though, while I personally would strongly encourage anyone who hasn't yet to actually read Tolkien, I would in no way call it a 'qualification' for DMing. Especially for them to mock you on a blog, it sounds quite petty of them.


There is, incidentally, no mention of a desire by either Tolkien to create a mythology for anything.The reference of his desire to create a mythology, IIRC, comes from some of his letters. He spoke of how true english culture was never able to fully form, due to the invasion of the Normans. I wouldn't read too much into it, he likely never intended to publish the Silmarillion at all. I'm glad it was, though, I enjoyed it.

I basically cut my teeth on Tolkien. I grew up on his books; they, along with C.S. Lewis, fed my love of such things.For me as well. C.S. Lewis' series (you know the one I mean) is the earliest book I can remember reading. Tolkien was also a very early read for me, and a strong inspiration for my love of the written word.

[horseboy]

Monk-Chichi...
Well, I guess being able to speak to animals is really handy when you live way up in the trees...
So, did he enjoy a good joke,a fun game and have a really good jumping skill for a "hoppy, hoppy day?" Was his rival monk order dressed in purple? Oh, that made me smile.

[JupiterPaladin]

Well, I guess being able to speak to animals is really handy when you live way up in the trees...
So, did he enjoy a good joke,a fun game and have a really good jumping skill for a "hoppy, hoppy day?" Was his rival monk order dressed in purple? Oh, that made me smile.

How ever did you know? Moooahahaha! Seriously, my main objective is fun. If it takes fighting some Mon-chichi, Wuzzles, Popples, Snorks, Smurfs, Care Bears... so be it. It's always entertaining to dropkick a Jigglypuff in the face. Best. Barroom. Brawl. EVAR! After discovering OotS I adopted Rich's one pun per session standard. The main encounter was always some semblance of a pun, or a Char-Op board nightmare build gone wrong :smallwink: Just a note, when a Fire Giant weighing 7,000 lbs is using the Super Mario build, and is leaping into combat wearing red overalls, it's NOT a good idea to "set to receive the charge".

7,000 lbs / 200 lbs = 35
35 * (50 ft / 10) = 175d6 damage
175d6 damage vs. the Monk that was warned to just run away!

[Heliomance]

I've read LotR. It took me five years, because of how excuciatingly boring I found it. I'm not a slow reader by any stretch of the imagination, but I just got bogged down. I was long enough ago that I've forgotten nearly all of it, and aside from Tom Bombadil my entire knowledge of the plot comes from the films. I'm not planning to read it again any time soon. I don't feel that my knowledge of fantasy tropes and settings is any richer for having read it.

[nagora]

I've read The Lord of the Rings out loud to my girlfriend over the course of a couple of months. I didn't manage to sit through the awful movies though, so I've never seen the last one. I'm pretty sorry I went to the second one for that matter.

I don't really think LotR has guided my DMing except for the special case of Rangers; I draw more from Howard's Conan and Gygax's Greyhawk material than Tolkien.

I find names a real problem too. I have several books and resources I use now, together with a computer program to generate NPCs en masse with names attached. That's helped a lot.

[Justin_Bacon]

[COLOR="Red"]Tolkien's relevance to the fantasy genre is pretty slim, frankly

That's certainly an... umm... interesting opinion.


Tolkien, basically started the genre.

That's certainly an... um... equally interesting opinion.

You might consider taking a peek at Robert Howard, C.S. Lewis, Frank L. Baum, Lord Dunsany, C.L. Moore, and Fritz Leiber (to pluck a few names out of many).


In my opinion, you're not a serious D&D player/DM if you haven't read those books. You still are a DM/player, but in my opinion, a lesser one.

That seems more than a little extreme.

There are two reasons to have genre familiarity: First, to have a wider array of creative tools at your disposal. Second, to avoid thinking you're clever when you're not. To take an extreme example, there's nothing sadder than a Star Trek fan who's managed to reconstruct science fiction circa-1942 and thinks he's breaking new ground.

In the case of fantasy, Tolkien didn't originate the genre -- but he certainly dominated wide swaths of it.


He sure didn't create the Warcraft Orcs. Or the Wild Elves. Or incredibly, so not-subtle-magic Eladrin/High Elves.

True. But I think trying to claim that you can't draw a direct and self-evident line from Warcraft to Warhammer to D&D to Tolkien is asking for a lot of credulity.

If someone wanted to get a pretty good feel for the core sub-genres of fantasy (the stuff that clusters around D&D or vice versa), I'd tell them to read Howard, Leiber, and Tolkien. That'd give you a pretty firm foundation that you could branch out from in lots of different directions (Moorcock, McCaffrey, Martin, Erickson, yada yada yada).

[potatocubed]

I don't really think LotR has guided my DMing except for the special case of Rangers; I draw more from Howard's Conan and Gygax's Greyhawk material than Tolkien.

I think this is a point that hasn't been made yet. A GM's skill in presenting whatever world is probably more dependent on the breadth of his influences than the depth of any single one of them.* My elves owe more to myths of the sidhe than anything Tolkien wrote, my orcs are like Star Trek klingons crossed with Marv from Sin City, my goblins are mostly WoW-inspired, and so on...

Maybe not reading LotR does make you a 'lesser GM', but only in the same sense that cutting your fingernails makes you a 'lesser person'. There's so much other stuff to draw from it's not really all that important.

EDIT: Also, I would like to join the league of GMs who have trouble with names. I'd think of some examples, but I'm totally blank. =/

* Well, probably less true if you're running a game in a specific setting.

[Charity]

I've read The Lord of the Rings out loud to my girlfriend over the course of a couple of months.

Is she still your girlfriend Nag? :smallbiggrin:

[Justin_Bacon]

That leads to the second issue, there is no evidence I've seen of Tolkien haven written for the purpose of providing England with a mythology.

Tolkien speaks of it in his letters: "I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country; it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought and found (as an ingredient) in legends of othe rlands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff ... I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend ... which I could dedicate to England; to my country ... I would draw some of the great tale sin fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."

Entire books have, in fact, been written on the subject.


It was also written (and rejected by the publisher) before Tolkien wrote LotR.

This is also somewhat distorted, because Tolkien never actually finished the Silmarillion. It would be more accurate to say that a partially completed manuscript was pitched and rejected.

In fact, it would not have even been called the Silmarillion at that point. It would have still been the Book of Lost Tales. Essentially nothing that he would have submitted as part of that pitch was ever published under the name "Silmarillion".

[nagora]

Is she still your girlfriend Nag? :smallbiggrin:
We're up to fiance now! I think it was doing Gollum's Smeagol voice that did it :smallyuk:

[AstralFire]

True. But I think trying to claim that you can't draw a direct and self-evident line from Warcraft to Warhammer to D&D to Tolkien is asking for a lot of credulity.

I've never claimed that... I actually said that myself. I was illustrating how low relevance direct Tolkien knowledge is to understanding the setting of Warcraft. As far as creation of the setting goes, it has a very easy to follow lineage.

[Charity]

We're up to fiance now! I think it was doing Gollum's Smeagol voice that did it :smallyuk:

Been power leveling eh, these relationship powergamers they'll ruin it for everyone.



I'm long wed as it happens, and I'm off to a wedding reception tonight (Fridays an odd day for a wedding), congrats matey, just yanking your chain and all.