And Gygax tried to seperate himself even further from Tolkein during his periodic meltdowns in his column in Dragon magazine.
Sorry this is off topic: To Gorgon Heap - a polite reminder that just because Tolkien didn’t do it for you does not make him a bad storyteller. I, along with millions of others, found his LOTR to be a truly exciting tale wonderfully, masterfully told. This is a case of differing opinions, not objective reality as you seem to indicate. I for one can’t seem to get through Jane Austen’s novels (and yes, I’ve read much classic & non-classic fiction & non-fiction over my many years). But that doesn’t make her a bad storyteller for some people. Same for Dickens. or Heinlein. or whoever. Sure, I could argue that I think Stephen King is a bad storyteller (which I do) & zillions of folks would gasp and come to his defense, as I have with Tolkien. Again, I think this is a matter of personal taste.
Nitpick: It’s “treants”, not “treents”, and wargs did not disappear, they just became “worgs”, in much the same way that “mithril” became “mithral” and balrogs allegedly became “balors” (I don’t buy that last one, myself: The game descriptions of balors are completely unlike my idea of a balrog). Oddly, however, “orcs” were kept, despite them also being a Tolkien coinage, and I’ve seen a number of games since with creatures officially called “balrogs” and a substance called “mithril”, so either the winds of law have shifted, or Tolkien’s estate is now less vigilant.
And I’m approximately familiar with the game mechanics of original D&D, but without actually playing it, I’m not sure if you can pick up on the general “feel” to which the OP refers.
Well, Gygax is “(t)he man most generally held responsible for Dungeons and Dragons (and, for that matter, the modern FRP game)” but there is some controversy over whether this is true or not. Some feel that Dave Arneson was more responsible than Gygax but that Gygax shuffled him out early on (much as Gygax himself was later kicked out). There was actually a lawsuit filed and the two reached an agreement of some type but the actual contents of the agreement are sealed.
A few cites:
http://www.dignews.com/feature.php?story_id=2514
Sorry, but not only do I disagree with you, I frankly think you’re stuff chock full of chili cheese burritos. The LOTR books were masterpieces of storytelling. Now, they are written in the tone of a different era, and perhaps that puts you off, but your personal problems with the books don’t alter their greatness.
I would agree that the Jackson movies are closer to (A!!!)D+D than the books are. But I don’t really agree that early d+d fails to understand how the individual ideas fit into the whole…D20, perhaps.*
I just think that, as Gygax stated, it was also influenced by a lot of also similar artists, which I am, however, not familiar with. But do you not see the similarities between The Hobbit, early d+d, and for instance, Conan, and how they all are dissimilar to LOTR?
They all captured a particular flavor of the fantasy very well, namely a sparse, quirky, nearly surreal countryside that evokes in my mind all 3 of the above mentioned works, plus late 60s-70s fantasy artwork. Which LOTR failed to do even as well as d+d, due to , you know, being about stuff.
*That being said D20 is of course a far better gaming system. Early d+d versus 2.0 or what I call 1.5, you’d have an argument.
Because Tolkien didn’t coin it - it’s an old english (as opposed to Old English) word, similar to goblin, referring to general-things-that-go-bump-in-the-night.
Yes and no. As I understand it, the Old English “orc” was a demon or sprite, a supernatural being (as is the old notion of “goblin”), whereas Tolkien’s orcs/goblins, like those of D&D, are flesh-and-blood, “mortal” creatures. I would argue that they’re completely different monsters, whose names happen to sound similar. But I can see how a lawyer might think otherwise, which would allow them to stay in D&D by that name.
That Tolkien changed the connotations of the word doesn’t really change that he never actually COINED the word. Nor did he, or his estate, ever claim he did.
It would be like saying Tolkien coined the word Goblin by applying it to the same creature.
Not to mention that Tolkiens Elves and Dwarves are also distinct from the mythic sources, and he certainly can’t be claimed to have coined either ‘elf’ or ‘dwarf’.
Now, that D&D’s Orcs are ultimately based upon Tolkien’s is undeniable, but, ultimately, so are the Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings based on Tolkien’s Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits - but as long as they avoid the words Tolkien himself coined, they’re clear.
Although I can not give you a cite at this moment, I am quite convinced that Tolkein did not coin the word “Orc”. Tolkein was a linguist who studied Old English, it seems extremely unlikely that he would not know the word “Orc”.
The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition
And the first usage it mentions is in 1598.
Gorgon Heap, I agree with you to some degree, but I still think you’re wrong in a larger sense. Yes, the character development in LotR is lacking. But character development is not the only characteristic of story-telling.
For you, Tolkien is a shitty story-teller, because you (apparently) want your stories to have characters in them that you care about. Okay, fine by me. But that doesn’t make Tolkien a shitty story-teller for me, because I think a story about places and history is just fine. So the absolute statement that Tolkien is a shitty story-teller is not warranted.
Now, if we want to talk about objective rather than subjective shittiness, we can return to Dungeons & Dragons, the Movie. :eek:
No kidding. D+d:tm is about as clear a case of objective shittiness as you can find. I’m no filmmaker, but in nearly everything it tried to accomplish, I could wipe the floor with it given a tiny part of its budget. When people who havent picked up a camera in 12 yrs know they could do better its pretty objectively shitty.
It’s not even good as kitsch! (Well, except for one line…
Give me the ROD!
If I made a d+d movie, it would not only have a better plot, better characterizations, and better set, it would also have worse dialog and worse acting so it would be better on many levels 
Similarly, Tolkien did not invent “Ent” either - it comes from the O.E. for “giant” -
poems mention “ald enta geweorc”, or “orþanc enta geweorc” - this translates as “old giant work” & “cunning giant work” respectively. And yes, since that’s a thorn there, that first word (cunning) in the second bit does get pronounced as “Orthanc” - Tolkien knew his stuff when it came to literally illusions, I really should dig up the reference to how the old “Battle of the Trees” is referenced throughout the LOTR
[shrugs] Very well. Didn’t mean it to be a hijack.
Some more thoughts, nits, etc…
In D&D, although elves shared the name of the Tolkien elves, they shared little else in similar. Tolkien elves were typically taller than human, powerful fighters, dour and serious folk. D&D elves were slight and slender, barely cracking 5’ tall, frail, and merry happy playful folk. D&D made me think more of sprites and faeries. They were basically an excuse for a fighter/magic-user combo class, before races were allowed to choose their own classes when 1st AD&D came out.
Also, I recall the money system going 20cp=1sp, 10sp=1gp, 2ep=1gp, 5gp=1pp…almost as baffling as farthings and shillings and tuppences…
Fritz Leiber’s books were also a huge influence, and are well worth reading.
As opposed to the frolicking “Where are you going with beards all a-wagging” Elves of Rivendell? And Tolkien’s Elves were of approximately the same height as Humans (though some were taller), and diminishing as they grew weary of the World, and D&D Elves are much closer to that than to many other popular notions of elves (think Keebler).
ooh, yeah, I guess I notice now that the OP was referring to the Hobbit. :smack:
When I think of elves I think of the kick-ass-and-take-names Silmarillion elves.
How do I take the feat that allows me to bake cookies using light spells?
Sorry – when I said original D&D, I didn’t actually mean the original original D&D (the one that was a set of supplements to the Chainmail! system.)
I mean the pseudo-original Dungeons & Dragons that had a blue cover with a dragon in the middle of it, and came in a boxed set with Dungeon Module B-1 and some incredibly cheap paraffin polyhedral dice.
You mean the Easy Bake Oven feat? It’s not worth it. Any spell you use this metamagic feat with has to be cast as though it’s 5 spell levels higher. Forget about casting a quickened, silent, doubled, extended, enhanced, maximized light spell with this feat.