A frequently asked question -- or assertion,
in the case of those who don't bother
to ask -- deals with the amount of influence
of J. R. R. Tolkien on the creation of the
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® and
ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® role-playing games. The
answer to the inquiry is complex, for there
are two parts. The popularity of Professor
Tolkien's fantasy works did encourage me to
develop my own. But while there are bits
and pieces of his works reflected hazily in
mine, I believe that his influence, as a
whole, is quite minimal.

As a child I was regaled nightly by fantasy
stories created, on the spot, by my
father. My mother read fairy tales to me
from Jack & Jill magazine. I soon began
reading the noted collection of the Brothers

Grimm, and others (I dimly recall) from a
set called "Book Trails." Having read
through Poe by age ten, I somehow gravitated
into the realms of science fiction,
fantasy, and horror. By the tender age of
twelve, I was an avid fan of the ?pulps?
(magazines of those genres), and I ranged
afield to assimilate whatever I could find
which even vaguely related to these exciting
yarns. Meanwhile, I was devouring ancient
and medieval history, tales of the American
frontier, historical novels of all sorts, and
the "Hornblower" stories in the old Saturday
Evening Post. Somewhere I came
across a story by Robert E. Howard, an
early taste of the elixir of fantasy to which I
rapidly became addicted. Even now I vividly
recall my first perusal of Conan the
Conqueror, Howard?s only full-length
novel. After I finished reading that piece of
sword & sorcery literature for the first time,
my concepts of adventure were never quite
the same again.

From these literary fruits came the seeds
which grew into today?s most popular roleplaying
games. The concepts bloomed,
producing their current forms, when fertilized
by my early desire to play games of all
sorts, my interest in devising my own, and
my active participation in military simulation
games. The last employed either miniature
figures and models, or boards and
counters, or combinations of all those. As a
matter of observable fact, both game systems
are still growing, ever changing, and I
do not expect them to slow ? let alone
wither ? for many years to come!
A careful examination of the games will
quickly reveal that the major influences are
Robert E. Howard, L. Sprague de Camp
and Fletcher Pratt, Fritz Leiber, Poul Anderson,
A. Merritt, and H. P. Lovecraft.

Only slightly lesser influence came from
Roger Zelazny, E. R. Burroughs, Michael
Moorcock, Philip Jose Farmer, and many
others. Though I thoroughly enjoyed The
Hobbit, I found the ?Ring Trilogy? . . .
well, tedious. The action dragged, and it
smacked of an allegory of the struggle of the
little common working folk of England
against the threat of Hitler's Nazi evil. At
the risk of incurring the wrath of the Professor
?s dedicated readers, I must say that I
was so bored with his tomes that I took
nearly three weeks to finish them.
Considered in the light of fantasy action
adventure, Tolkien is not dynamic. Gandalf
is quite ineffectual, plying a sword at times
and casting spells which are quite lowpowered
(in terms of the D&D® game).

Obviously, neither he nor his magic had any
influence on the games. The Professor
drops Tom Bombadil, my personal favorite,
like the proverbial hot potato; had he been
allowed to enter the action of the books, no
fuzzy-footed manling would have been
needed to undergo the trials and tribulations
of the quest to destroy the Ring. Unfortunately,
no character of Bombadil?s
power can enter the games, either ? for the
selfsame reasons! The wicked Sauron is
poorly developed, virtually depersonalized,
and at the end blows away in a cloud of evil
smoke . . . poof! Nothing usable there. The
mighty ring is nothing more than a stan-
dard ring of invisibility, found in the myths
and legends of most cultures (albeit with a
nasty curse upon it). No influence here,
either. . . .

?Ent? is interesting; Tolkien took the
name from an old Anglo-Saxon word for
?giant,? and his treatment of them as sentient
trees is inspired. This sort of creature
appears in both game systems. ?Orc? (from
Orcus) is another term for an ogre or ogrelike
creature. Being useful fodder for the
ranks of bad guys, monsters similar to
Tolkien?s orcs are also in both games. Trolls,
however, are not identified well by the
Professor; these game monsters are taken
from myth, influenced somewhat by Poul
Anderson.

?Hobbit? is another folkword borrowed
from legends, but Tolkien personified and
developed these diminutive stalwarts extensively.
They, and the name, are virtually
unique to his works, and the halflings of
both game systems draw substantial inspiration
from them. Dwarves, on the other
hand, are well known in Teutonic and Scandinavian
myths; here, the Professor and I
build upon the same foundation. Elves are
likewise creatures of lore, and perhaps the
most extensively treated of them all. In
legend they are small or tall, good, evil,
uncaring, silly, bright, and so on. Tolkien
had them taller, more intelligent, more
beautiful, and older than humans; in fact,
he made them quite similar to the fair-folk,
the fairies. The elves of the AD&D® game
system borrow two names (gray and wood)
from the Professor?s writings, and that is
nearly all. They are shorter than humans,
and not generally as powerful. There are
various ethical alignments amongst them,
though most are neutral-good in outlook
with strong tendencies of individuality
(chaos, in game terms).

The seeming parallels and inspirations
are actually the results of a studied effort to
capitalize on the then-current ?craze? for
Tolkien?s literature. Frankly, to attract those
readers ? and often at the urging of persons
who were playing prototypical forms of
D&D games ? I used certain names and
attributes in a superficial manner, merely to
get their attention! I knew full well that the
facade would be dispelled by the actualities
of play. I relied on the power of the
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game to
overcome the objections which would naturally
occur when diehard Tolkien enthusiasts
discovered the dissimilarity. This
proved to be the case far more often than
not. Tolkien fans entered the D&D game
fold, and became a part of its eager audience,
despite the fact that only a minute
trace of the Professor?s work can be found
in the games. As anyone familiar with both
D&D games and Tolkien works can affirm,
there is no resemblance between the two,
and it is well nigh impossible to recreate any
Tolkien-based fantasy while remaining
within the boundaries of the game system.
 

THE FORUM
This is a letter in answer to the article in
DRAGON issue #95 in which Gary Gygax
repudiates any serious connection between the
AD&D game and Lord of the Rings. He is correct
to the letter of the rules, but certainly not to
the intent. However, a few points by we diehard
Tolkien fans should be cleared up, lest erroneous
assumptions be taken as fact. It is said to be
impossible to run a Middle Earth AD&D campaign
without modification to existing rules, but
some of the points made by Mr. Gygax seem to
be lacking.

1) The elves of Middle Earth are incredibly
diverse, having bred for tens of thousands of
years and spread politically, geographically,
physiologically, and philosophically. Some even
advanced to demigod status. After the Awakening,
their height gradually reduced, and their
immortality lost during the Age of Man

2) The mere ring of invisibility has alignment,
intelligence, ego, ambition, and a propensity for
falling off in melee, as well as invisibility, domination,
limited illusionary powers, and (theoretical)
immortality. It could be considered a self-attuning
talisman/artifact.

3) Of course Sauron faded in a cloud of smoke,
he didn?t think that his enemies would destroy
such a valuable item as the One Ring, and made
the mistake of investing much of his essence
therein. His corporeal body was destroyed in the
Whelming of Numinor.

4) Gandalf was a Wielder of Fire, a worshiper
of the Flame of Anor, and the bearer of both a
Ring of Power and one of the foremost swords of
the Age. I don?t think it necessary that a mage
continuously prove himself by casting high-level
spells (especially if being searched for through the
Ether) and a close examination of his role in
Middle Earth history shows his power. Ineffectual?
I think not.

5) Tom Bombadil has (practically) unlimited
power over a (relatively) finite area. Tolkien
couldn't do much more with him outside of the
Barrow Downs, as he seemed to lose much of his
powers when away from his area. He could
perhaps be considered as a sort of Elemental
Deity.

The wealth of LOTR information makes
Middle Earth unexcelled as a campaign world. I
know of no other that can boast an atlas, albums,
lexicons, dictionaries, songbooks, quizbooks,
biographies, bestiaries, maps, and other invaluable
tools of the DMing trade. Perhaps to Mr.
Gygax, Tolkien may not have been a particularly
dynamic writer, but his world certainly has the
scope necessary to run a complex and successful
campaign.

J.R. Smith
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dragon #97

The forum section is not usually a place for
editorial comment, but this is an unusual case.
We judged the above letter to be the least inflammatory
and insulting of the many pages of feedback
we received after the publication of Mr.
Gygax's essay concerning the works of Tolkien,
and we printed it in the interest of giving the
-- "other side" a semblance of equal time. Virtually
every other letter we got was an unbridled expression
of outrage; some of them bordered on being
slanderous, if they did not actually cross over that
border. Although we respect the strong feelings
that were behind those letters, we don't intend
this space to be used for a running debate on the
topic. Mr. Gygax's opinions are just that --
opinions. And his assertion about the lack of
influence that Tolkien had on the development of
the game systems is not a topic of contention.
How can anyone else assert that the opposite is in
fact true, when Mr. Gygax -- the only person in
a position to know -- states otherwise? It is not
proper, to say the least, to suggest (as some letterwriters
did) that despite what he wrote, the
D&D® and AD&D® games were in fact substantially
influenced by Tokien's work. We are all, of
course, free to express our disagreement with
someone else's opinion. But unless those disagreements
-- on any topic -- are expressed rationally
and reasonably, we will not risk lending them any
credence by publishing them in these pages.
 

The Editor

*    *    *    *