TheRPGSite

I've been thinking about doing a Middle Earth campaign in the near future. I had a previous thread on it, which focused on the Savage Worlds rules. But recent discussion of dwarves (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/hasbro-s-dd-goes-full-klan-bans-race-mixing/msg1250202/#msg1250202) brought to mind to me about how RPGs and other adaptations have drifted away from Tolkien's vision.

So I'd like to talk about how elements have changed from the original stories.

1) I mentioned how dwarves in Tolkien drew most from Jewish language and culture. They were fine craftsmen and scholars, as well as warriors and archers. But later adaptations were based more on Scottish miners and engineers -- associated with raucous beer-drinking and steam technology. They're pictured with an axe or mace and only rarely with a sword or bow.

2) Elves have been heavily de-mythologized. In Middle Earth, elves are immortal beings who are magical to their core, who walk on snow and run on a single rope like it was a sturdy bridge. This is very different from +1 Dex.

3) To a lesser degree, hobbits also seem less distinct. AD&D's -1 Strength and surprise bonus don't seem adequate to portray them as little people who hide so well. In most editions, having a halfling fighter is likely little different from a human fighter.

4) Magic is hugely different. Gandalf could do only a few things like light pine cones on fire and make a blinding flash of light, and he was a unique immortal being. RPGs have made magic much more common and standard.

5) Another issue is unequal parties. A common RPG tradition is that all party members are equal in ability, but the fellowship was very different. Merry or Pippin are nowhere close to Aragorn. There are a few RPGs that assume such parties - notably Ars Magica along with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, and to some degree the Dresden Files RPG. But I don't recall it being handled in Tolkien-based RPGs.

I'd be curious about thoughts on these or other differences.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm specifically interested in RPGs that are trying to do Tolkien or close to Tolkien. So to some degree early D&D, but especially games like:

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.

Nice post, and all great points!

I think the big drift comes from the fact that new gamers are reading different books than older ones. When I first started playing in the 1970's my group had all read the same fiction -- Howard, Moorcock, Tolkien, Leiber, Burroughs -- and so all of us had similar concepts on what wizards were like, what elves were like, and so on. My son has never really read any of those books, but bases his concept on Warhammer, Harry Potter, and a whole new group of authors.

As to how the current fiction is non-Tolkien, it seems like almost every way imaginable. Elves now seem to shift more to drow and "dark elves" and regular elves aren't nearly as spiritual and grand. Dwarves are all spike-hair giant hammer-wielding folk who drink constantly. Hobbits don't exist for legal reasons. Magic-users cast spells like crazy, compared to Gandalf's subtle magic aided by one of the Three Rings.

Totally different nowadays.

The shift was already there in 0D&D, how much fun would it be to play as something as fragile (and paradoxically unwilling to relent) as a hobbit?
If both Elves and Dwarves use the same type of weapons the difference between them becomes less obvious in game.
It's way easier to roleplay (and people probably found it cooler too) a Scottish/Irish inspired Dwarf.
From the tables it then drifts into the official material and viceversa.

Now, with ALL High Fantasy RPGs having the same races (with very few honorable exceptions) you get a sameness that makes what you're attempting to do interesting and fresh. I'm very interested (as I already said elsewhere) in seeing your notes and changes to whatever system you choose to use.

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 03:32:28 PM

5) Another issue is unequal parties. A common RPG tradition is that all party members are equal in ability, but the fellowship was very different. Merry or Pippin are nowhere close to Aragorn. There are a few RPGs that assume such parties - notably Ars Magica along with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, and to some degree the Dresden Files RPG. But I don't recall it being handled in Tolkien-based RPGs.

I'd be curious about thoughts on these or other differences.

So in AD&D unequal parties were the norm. First, progression was different based on your class. Second, the game was deadlier and most groups I knew required you to start over at 1st level or at least one or two levels below what you were at when your character died. Third, XP was based on gold, meaning if you missed a session and thus missed out on some loot, you fell behind on XP. In our group it wasn't at all unusual to have a party spanning a range of 4-5 levels.

What is *more* like Tolkien today is the adventure style. Epic quests with the fate of the world in the balance are now the norm. Back then the play style was more sword and sorcery - kill the monsters, loot the dungeon and on to the next adventure.

"How have RPGs drifted from Tolkien?"

I'd have to start by saying that I find old-school RPG gaming to be riffing off Leiber's Fafhrd and the Mouser and Howard's Conan much more than Tolkien's Middle Earth. As I've blogged, we see vagabonds who are seeking loot, prying it from the cold dead fingers of monsters and bad guys, then go wenching and drinking until it's all gone. Wash, rinse, repeat. While you find ents and hobbits and orcs in the game rules, you didn't see the uber-holy elves or "save the world, you're the only one who can do it" altruistic quests. So I wouldn't say RPGs were "Tolkien" back in their first years.

You were more likely to find attempts to emulate Tolkien (not just the window-dressing) once the MERP line saw publication beginning in '82. Then we got TSR's lurch into more story-based adventures about 1984, and eventually Jim Ward's article in 1990's Dragon 154 where he announces that D&D games should be about heroic, good quests.

Having said all that, sure. The fantasy RPG mood did swing towards steampunk mohawked dwarves. But we didn't really have an RPG with a Middle-Earth feel, even in the '90s. Maybe some of the 21st century games that have had the license do a decent job, but I haven't played or read them so I couldn't say.

I've also posited Finarvyn's point about common frames of reference. Too many inspirational, iconic works have been ignored by today's gamers. I think it's incumbent on us to rectify that as we can.

So IMO old-school RPGs didn't drift from Tolkien; that wasn't what they were meant to emulate. Have we seen a swing towards a more accurate reflection of Middle Earth? Probably. Overall though, are today's games and gamers in tune with Tolkien? I don't think so, and today's crowd might be even further off than we were in the 70s.

Language is a big one. As everyone knows, Tolkien invented languages. Most RPGs in this genre list some languages and say "have at er," as if the GM should innately know how to make language an interesting aspect of role play. In my experience, nobody wants to role play different languages because nobody has figured out how to do it well or make it fun. Or if they have figured it out, they haven't told me!

Song and rhyme is another one. These could be interesting and fun aspects in an RPG, if done well.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 04:11:33 PM
So IMO old-school RPGs didn't drift from Tolkien; that wasn't what they were meant to emulate. Have we seen a swing towards a more accurate reflection of Middle Earth? Probably. Overall though, are today's games and gamers in tune with Tolkien? I don't think so, and today's crowd might be even further off than we were in the 70s.

Fair point, and I'd agree. It shouldn't be called "drift" and wasn't accidental, but rather deliberately mixing influences from the earliest D&D.

My issue is that I'm thinking of doing a Tolkien-based RPG, and I feel like all these Tolkien elements (dwarves, elves, wizards, halflings, etc.) are now seen very differently as a result of RPGs and other adaptations, such that they're all distorted from the Tolkien original.

Oh, certainly. Any time you try and re-use a story element you run the risk of drift. Even happens with the original authors. How many times have you read a sequel that has a different vibe from the original?

You should feel free to create your game to your taste. Good luck!

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 03:32:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: I'm specifically interested in RPGs that are trying to do Tolkien or close to Tolkien. So to some degree early D&D, but especially games like:

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.

Have you looked at Free League's The One Ring? I've only skimmed it, but I've heard the Journey and Fellowship mechanics are pretty good attempts to capture aspects of the source material that have been glossed over in other games. Also, the introductory adventures (from the starter set) are very "cozy" for lack of a better word. They have small goals as you would expect if you're a hobbit starting a life of adventure.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2023, 03:51:36 PM
The shift was already there in 0D&D, how much fun would it be to play as something as fragile (and paradoxically unwilling to relent) as a hobbit?
If both Elves and Dwarves use the same type of weapons the difference between them becomes less obvious in game.
It's way easier to roleplay (and people probably found it cooler too) a Scottish/Irish inspired Dwarf.
From the tables it then drifts into the official material and viceversa.

Now, with ALL High Fantasy RPGs having the same races (with very few honorable exceptions) you get a sameness that makes what you're attempting to do interesting and fresh. I'm very interested (as I already said elsewhere) in seeing your notes and changes to whatever system you choose to use.

I'm still at early stages and I don't have a document yet, though I should start one soon. I'm still planning on using Savage Worlds. I recently bought the PDF of the Fantasy Companion, but it doesn't have a lot that I can easily use.

I think where I might go from here is plan a one-shot adventure that I could run at a convention to test things out.

Greetings!

As a side note, I think that Blizzard's World of Warcraft in many ways, culturally in the millions of millions of gamers, kicked Tolkien to the curb and established WoW as the main foundation of inspiration for many fantasy races, from Dwarves, but also for Gnomes, Elves, Orcs, Goblins, and Minotaurs. WoW's influence has hugely change miniatures, which have also influenced comics and graphic novels, art, which has then cycled back around to influence other video games, and continuously influencing gamers paying in TTRPG's.

World of Warcraft has become so enormous in its impact on shaping and defining images and concepts like fantasy races, WoW has become a new standard. Many gamers think of WoW imagery and definitions of races like Dwarves and Orcs--and don't give a thought at all about Tolkien. Beer drinking Dwarves with Scottish accents comes straight from WoW. Noble Orcs, sexy strumpet, steam-punk Goblins, steam-punk Gnomes, more socially humanized Minotaurs--all of these come from WoW.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Dragon Quest addresses some of your points, though not all.   It's definitely closer to Tolkien than D&D is.  Though that's a little misleading, in that I think what it really does is center more on Western European myth and stories like it, rather than Leiber and Vance. It's explicit influences in addition to Tolkien are Le Guin, Kerr's Deryni, and the various Arthurian, medieval romance, and Celtic and Norse myths that inform them.

DQ is still a game, and you still get some of the natural effects you'd get in making elves and "halflings" and humans all work in the same party.  However, they definitely make a bigger distinction than any edition of D&D ever did.  I've talked about some of these aspect here before, but to summarize:

- You can't just decide to play a non-human. You have to roll for the privilege, after you've fully declared your ability characteristics. While you aren't forced to just take any old thing (you can target up to three choices before defaulting to human), in practice most people won't, because:

- The ability score adjustments for non-humans are severe.  That along is enough to make them stand out. You are wiping out huge chunks of the weapon list and useful professions with radical adjustments, not to mention constraining your options in magic.

-  Every non-human race has an experience point penalty--and then a handful of things that get a mitigation to that penalty.  Elves are just better than everyone else, and they have the penalty to go with it.  Halflings are short, weak, and have a few niches, with a rather modest penalty.  Since DQ is closer to skills-based than class-based (not exactly, but close enough for this discussion), it's not like that penalty waits quietly on level bumps.  It's present right off the bat, and escalates its effects as you go.

- DQ actually supports playable giants and shapechangers as more exotic options.  These are a little muted compared to the myths (and even the DQ monsters). But rules that make those work also is part of what makes elves, dwarves, halflings, and orcs notably different but playable.

The overall effect is that no one plays a non-human on a lark.  You've got a character concept in mind, probably a particular magic school in mind (more of them than D&D schools, more focused, more flavor, more narrow in approach), you are already planning to deal with your restricted weapons and armor--and you stand out because most of the rest of the party is playing humans.  Meanwhile, some of your humans are characters that the player knew was going to stay human when they did everything, which makes those particular humans optimized for whatever they had in mind.  Meanwhile, other players, that went after a non-human and didn't get it, optimized a different way, likely sending them in odd directions with their final character. 

It's been a huge influence on my own system, in particular the massive benefit in taking a few choices out of player control to differentiate characters.

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

All of that's true up to a point.  However, I think all of it pushed too far destroys the setting.  Then you have perfectly balanced characters in a sterile world.

Counter question: why should something not set in Tolkien's world want to slavishly copy his notes? Much better to let Tolkien be Tolkien, and let other people be inspired to create their own works which may even (in one sense or another) create something more interesting/popular.

It's funny how fantasy writers are both mocked for 'ripping off' Tolkien, AND constantly found wanting when measured against him by purists. Not a slight against the OP, just a thought in general.

I'm of the mind that Tolkien's world is fine for his stories, but not so great for running games in.

Drunk Scottish Dwarves may be annoying and overdone, but Tolkien's Dwarves as-written never seemed to have much of a personality of their own. They were an outlier, or an in-between of Men and Elves that acted like both but weren't quite like either of them, and they had nothing particularly unique about them overall. Maybe that was intentional because of how they were created in his world.

The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

In my experience of other genres like superhero RPGs or horror RPGs, I find that taking more from the inspirational fiction tends to improve the game. I think Baron's point is a good one. I don't think that D&D was trying to emulate Tolkien much at all. Rather, it used Tolkien elements like dwarves, elves, and wizards - but put them together in an ethos that was much more from authors like Lieber, Vance, and Howard - plus elements of historical wargaming.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 07:00:10 PM
Counter question: why should something not set in Tolkien's world want to slavishly copy his notes? Much better to let Tolkien be Tolkien, and let other people be inspired to create their own works which may even (in one sense or another) create something more interesting/popular.

It's funny how fantasy writers are both mocked for 'ripping off' Tolkien, AND constantly found wanting when measured against him by purists. Not a slight against the OP, just a thought in general.

Is your counter-question to me? Because I agree. I'm frequently annoyed at the slavish copying of Tolkien in RPG worlds. In this case, though, I'm considering a campaign that is set in Middle Earth, so there I want to emulate his material and style.

For games not set in Middle Earth, I tend to depart a lot from the standards. For example, I'm currently running D&D campaign - so it has elements that are Tolkienesque - but I've departed pretty far by having a setting that is all based on Incan history and culture. The previous time I ran a D&D campaign, it was in a mirror universe where the PCs were all good-aligned humanoid races like orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc. Most of the other times, I'm running other RPGs unrelated to Tolkien, like Call of Cthulhu, Monster of the Week, etc.

You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

Where D&D and other games get into trouble with the Tolkien vibe is by allowing PC elves and etc that skew the range of power.

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 12, 2023, 06:46:22 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

All of that's true up to a point.  However, I think all of it pushed too far destroys the setting.  Then you have perfectly balanced characters in a sterile world.

You'll note I call them "game balance fanatics."  I don't share that POV at all, it was just an example.  IMO making characters equal at the expense of variety is really bad for a game.  I strive for spotlight balance in my games, but I'm not too worried about the rest of the things folks call "balance."

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

Have you tried Low Fantasy Gaming? Sounds like you want something like it. https://lowfantasygaming.com/ (https://lowfantasygaming.com/)

Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

A Hobbit that gets a foot stab in while the other characters are scything through Orcs is fine in a narrative, but it sucks in a game. Unless the Hobbit is a trained thief or something, he's likely to get sick of playing 4th fiddle.

If a creator can't have a vibrant world, with people of different capabilities, but still balance things, then he's not very good.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 08:50:14 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 12, 2023, 06:46:22 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 12, 2023, 06:44:47 PM
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that one is a game and the other a story.  The factors that make a game good are very different than those that make a story good.  Adopting Sanderson's view on magic, IMO hard magic makes for a better game and soft for a better story.  Equal characters makes running a good game easier.  It's not necessary certainly:  I've played plenty of great game sessions with vastly unequal characters, but if you take a look at all the "game balance" fanatics out there, you can see it's at least important to some people.  Variety of languages adds a lot of depth to a story, but can really slow down the action in a game.  And so on...

All of that's true up to a point.  However, I think all of it pushed too far destroys the setting.  Then you have perfectly balanced characters in a sterile world.

You'll note I call them "game balance fanatics."  I don't share that POV at all, it was just an example.  IMO making characters equal at the expense of variety is really bad for a game.  I strive for spotlight balance in my games, but I'm not too worried about the rest of the things folks call "balance."

Yes.  I was also referring to Sanderson is a bad guide to RPG development--when pushed too far.  I may even be more on the balance side than you are, in that I want balance in certain things mechanical, or rather want to carefully choose my imbalance. 

To put another slant on it, I would say that having languages mean something, and soft magic, and having asymmetrical balance, and having some select, deliberate imbalance--all make the game harder to design well, but have a huge payoff when it is done well.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 12, 2023, 04:54:27 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 03:32:28 PM
EDITED TO ADD: I'm specifically interested in RPGs that are trying to do Tolkien or close to Tolkien. So to some degree early D&D, but especially games like:

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.

Have you looked at Free League's The One Ring? I've only skimmed it, but I've heard the Journey and Fellowship mechanics are pretty good attempts to capture aspects of the source material that have been glossed over in other games. Also, the introductory adventures (from the starter set) are very "cozy" for lack of a better word. They have small goals as you would expect if you're a hobbit starting a life of adventure.

The HUGE problem with TOR in my opinion is that it tries to slavishly copy the books with intrusive mechanics that essentially turn it into a board game.  All that journey crap, audiences, etc., boil down to a bunch of dice rolls predetermining outcomes that could easily be roleplayed.  We tried playing it a couple times and couldn't stand the limitations imposed by the game mechanics.  Personally I've read enough Tolkien to be able to convey the feel of Middle Earth without that stuff.  There are other mechanics we found similarly intrusive.  So if we decide to go back to a Middle Earth game, it will be MERP.

But to return to the original question, I agree with both the idea that the early RPGs were more Howard (fine, if a bit overrated) and Leiber (whose writing I personally strongly dislike) than Tolkien (whose writing I like a lot).  But one could presume that a lot of gamers had read all these writers and others in part because the field was smaller back then and there were far fewer fantasy media options for consumption.  Starting in the 80s, fantasy fiction exploded, along with tabletop rpgs, and later CCGs, video games, etc., all of which saturated the market with new archetypes or fusions of older ones.  So that's certainly transformed popular images of dwarves, wizards, vampires, etc.  Hell, the average modern D&D player probably has no idea there are vampires & werewolves in Tolkien, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on April 12, 2023, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 07:16:17 PM
The Elves being mythical, demigodlike creatures would certainly throw game balance off, just like they throw the narrative off in the story itself somewhat, in my opinion. There's hardly any reason to fear the Ringwraiths when you know that Glorfindel is more than a match for them all on his own. It's a world where Elves are simply better than anyone or anything else at everything, and their haughtiness is completely justified and morally right.

I do prefer lower-magic worlds though, or at least worlds where magic is difficult or dangerous to use effectively.

Quote from: Baron on April 12, 2023, 07:52:16 PM
You know, there's a lot to be said for playing humans if you want a Middle Earth game. No mages or clerics, just fighters and thieves and whatever else is non-magical in your game.

Elves remain reclusive demi-gods. The only real mages are angels (maybe with the exception of a few hedge-wizards or some sort of evil witch-type). You might include PC dwarves, hobbits and Dunedain (ie half-elves) if you want to allow the exotic, but you might have to dilute them somewhat to make them on a par with the humans (depending on how your rules work).

I wouldn't want an Istari or a Noldor like Glorfindel as a PC. But characters like Legolas, Arwen, Elladan, or Elrohir aren't demigods. They're powerful and have abilities that humans don't, but in the books, they overall seem roughly on par with Aragorn or Boromir.

I feel like a party like the Fellowship (sans Gandalf) are very special, but still much less magical than a typical D&D party. That's roughly the feeling that I'd try for. Many of the characters are high power, but not spell-slinging.

You know, you could easily run a Middle Earth game using OSE Advanced and limiting the classes.  They have racial classes for all the demi-humans and you could adjust spell lists for elves if you're worried about power level.  [They also have a wood elf class that uses druid spells]. And in the Carcass Crawler zine there's a Mage class specifically created to emulate Gandalf.  It has a few magic powers, but can use swords, gets d6 for hit dice and doesn't cast spells, though it can use scrolls & magic items usable by standard magic-users.  For fun, I literally rolled up the Fellowship of the Ring party, though we never played with them.

• Middle-earth Role Playing (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1982)
• Lord of the Rings Adventure Game (Iron Crown Enterprises, 1991)
• The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game (Decipher, Inc., 2002)
• The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild (Cubicle 7, 2011)
• Adventures in Middle-earth (OGL supplement by Cubicle 7, 2016)

I'm not familiar with The One Ring, but I've gone over the others, and played the Decipher game.
[/quote]


There's another game that does ME and other types of classical fantasy. It's a The Black Hack derivative called There and Hack Again. I read it and looks good as well.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
So if we decide to go back to a Middle Earth game, it will be MERP.

Same. This is entirely meta... but the coolest thing about reading LOTR for the first time is encountering this hugely detailed, immersive, unfamiliar, and mysterious thing for the first time.

Kinda like the feeling when D&D players try MERP. No more comfort zone of their favorite feats, spells, builds, etc. It's the same meta logic with DCC and the weird dice (they want to evoke the feeling of wonder you experienced when you bought your first set of dice.)

Sure, you don't need MERP for that feeling. Any rules-medium/heavy unfamiliar system will work. But MERP has already done the work for you.

Well if we're going to make lists...

Here are a few that haven't been mentioned in this thread:

Against the Darkmaster a MERP alternative fr 2016 Open Ended Games
Age of Shadow based on OpenQuest fr 2011 by Kristian Richards
Balrogs & Bagginses a D&D-derivative fr 2012 by Lars Dangly
BECMI Middle Earth incorporates some MERP concepts fr 2022 by Paulo Frota
BRP LOTR influenced by Decipher as well as Stormbringer fr 2002 by Colin Brett
ME BRP (incomplete: Ch 7 Magic, Ch 9 The Free Peoples, Ch 10 Creatures) by Fergo113

As for grading lists or options: I agree with the assessment of TOR (and AiME to a lesser extent) as rules slavishly attempting to achieve an outcome, rather than play attempting to achieve an outcome. I'd recommend Age of Shadow over both MERP (which I have, but haven't played, only it's big brother Rolemaster) and Against the Darkmaster. Age of Shadow achieves a similar feel with far less overhead than either.

There's also a 2d6 game called Tales & Legends, which is an obvious Middle-Earth inspired ruleset: the familiar races, three professions (scout, warrior, mage) and skill-based.

I've often wanted to run a ME game, and having read most of Tolkien's works set in ME (the exceptions being the History of Middle Earth) I think the most important decision is tone: do you want a First or Second Age game where the heroes and tales are legendary (Battle of Unnumbered Tears, Fall of Gondolin, Fall of Numenor, Balrogs, Dragons, etc.), or a Third or Fourth Age game, where the magic and mystery are slowly slipping away? That decision would drive the rule set chosen, obviously IMO only.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 09:19:56 PM
Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

A Hobbit that gets a foot stab in while the other characters are scything through Orcs is fine in a narrative, but it sucks in a game. Unless the Hobbit is a trained thief or something, he's likely to get sick of playing 4th fiddle.

If a creator can't have a vibrant world, with people of different capabilities, but still balance things, then he's not very good.

Yeah, what you need to look at is spotlight balance. If characters aren't balanced against each other, they need a niche, and encounters that allow that niche to be exploited need to be balanced.

The default in D&D is combat, so all characters do need to be balanced in combat. If you're not going to balance combat, you need to make sure other types of encounters are guaranteed and common. That also creates a problem the other way - if you've got a fighter in the party and they're not good at much else, it sucks for them if there aren't any fights.

Then you need to look at what kind of encounters are fun. Role playing combat is fun. It's something we can't do in real life.

Investigations are also fun, but then you need to balance the system for investigation, and make sure everyone has something to contribute as well.

LOTR - the books not the movies - is the hobbits' story. Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir are all NPCs. The party is thus quite balanced as far as the characters' native abilities are concerned. The big difference is Frodo has the Ring, mithril mail, and Sting.

Which means that from Bree to the breaking of the Fellowship it's a pretty crummy game where the PCs are constantly having to be saved by powerful NPCs. And after that the party is split for most of the campaign.

My Tolkien professor stressed to us that the hobbits are our eyes in ME. Nothing of significance can happen without a hobbit present to observe and react for us.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2023, 03:51:36 PM
The shift was already there in 0D&D, how much fun would it be to play as something as fragile (and paradoxically unwilling to relent) as a hobbit?

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 09:19:56 PM
Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

Quote from: Festus on April 13, 2023, 03:08:15 PM
LOTR - the books not the movies - is the hobbits' story. Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir are all NPCs. The party is thus quite balanced as far as the characters' native abilities are concerned. The big difference is Frodo has the Ring, mithril mail, and Sting.

I think this is a core issue. To me, the hobbits are not a minor, skippable part of Tolkien. If I'm going to try to do something in Tolkien's style, it's important that hobbit PCs be workable. On the other hand, I think big heroes like Legolas are also suitable as PCs. In my experience, there are two main approaches to having both little heroes like the hobbits alongside big heroes like Aragorn, Lancelot, Conan, etc.:

1) The Ars Magica approach is for every player to have both a high-power PC and a lower-power PC. So the Fellowship might have 4 players - each taking one big hero (Aragorn/ Boromir/ Legolas/ Gimli) and one little hero (Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin). I did something similar 15ish years ago when I did my "Dragons of the Yellow Sea" game where each player had one dragon PC and one human PC.

2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Though if anyone has tried other approaches, I'd be curious.

I am dismayed by the lack of blood and souls for Arioch.

Like others have mentioned, I think it is pretty well documented that Gygax wasn't the biggest fan and Tolkien stuff was a bit of a late addition - and even having Balrog PCs (despite proving the obvious influence) in the original book isn't exactly in the spirit of Tolkien!

D&D elves are not Tolkien elves (they remind me of Poul Anderson, despite being Lawful).

I haven't played it, but both TOR and the 5e version seem to have mechanics that are closer to the spirit of the books.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
The HUGE problem with TOR in my opinion is that it tries to slavishly copy the books with intrusive mechanics that essentially turn it into a board game.  All that journey crap, audiences, etc., boil down to a bunch of dice rolls predetermining outcomes that could easily be roleplayed.  We tried playing it a couple times and couldn't stand the limitations imposed by the game mechanics.

This is what took me out of TOR completely, and if you scrap the needlessly intrusive and clunky Journeys and Audiences, you're left with a system that has pretty much nothing going on in it. It feels hollow and the only filling is from mechanics that make the game worse to play and hinder roleplaying or mechanical creativity.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM
2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Halflings in DCC can share Luck as well. If you're not familiar, they regen luck faster than other classes, have innate stealth, and dual-weapon fighting. They're a pretty solid class in a game that does pretty good with making classes distinct.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 12, 2023, 11:10:14 PM
The HUGE problem with TOR in my opinion is that it tries to slavishly copy the books with intrusive mechanics that essentially turn it into a board game.  All that journey crap, audiences, etc., boil down to a bunch of dice rolls predetermining outcomes that could easily be roleplayed.  We tried playing it a couple times and couldn't stand the limitations imposed by the game mechanics.  Personally I've read enough Tolkien to be able to convey the feel of Middle Earth without that stuff.  There are other mechanics we found similarly intrusive.  So if we decide to go back to a Middle Earth game, it will be MERP.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Quote from: rhialto on April 13, 2023, 06:03:57 AM
As for grading lists or options: I agree with the assessment of TOR (and AiME to a lesser extent) as rules slavishly attempting to achieve an outcome, rather than play attempting to achieve an outcome. I'd recommend Age of Shadow over both MERP (which I have, but haven't played, only it's big brother Rolemaster) and Against the Darkmaster. Age of Shadow achieves a similar feel with far less overhead than either.

There's also a 2d6 game called Tales & Legends, which is an obvious Middle-Earth inspired ruleset: the familiar races, three professions (scout, warrior, mage) and skill-based.

I've often wanted to run a ME game, and having read most of Tolkien's works set in ME (the exceptions being the History of Middle Earth) I think the most important decision is tone: do you want a First or Second Age game where the heroes and tales are legendary (Battle of Unnumbered Tears, Fall of Gondolin, Fall of Numenor, Balrogs, Dragons, etc.), or a Third or Fourth Age game, where the magic and mystery are slowly slipping away? That decision would drive the rule set chosen, obviously IMO only.

Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

Quote from: Pen on April 13, 2023, 05:19:58 PM

Quote from: rhialto on April 13, 2023, 06:03:57 AM
As for grading lists or options: I agree with the assessment of TOR (and AiME to a lesser extent) as rules slavishly attempting to achieve an outcome, rather than play attempting to achieve an outcome. I'd recommend Age of Shadow over both MERP (which I have, but haven't played, only it's big brother Rolemaster) and Against the Darkmaster. Age of Shadow achieves a similar feel with far less overhead than either.

Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

Thanks, rhialto. I've checked out Age of Shadows (AoS) now. It is the closest that I've seen to what I'd be looking for. I note how elves have superior attributes to humans, which is balanced by fewer background points and fate points. The same is true to a lesser degree for dwarves.

I like how magic is divided into Innate Magic that is only for elves and elf-blooded humans. Sorcery seems like a stretch, but it is at least connected to the setting by the risk of shadow.

For my own campaign, I'd still lean towards Savage Worlds as a base -- mostly because I'm concerned that the OpenQuest combat works less well for high-power fighters. I feel like Savage Worlds is better at base than RQ/BRP for cinematic action like taking down dozens of orcs. Also, my plan had been for no PCs to cast any spells, so that would sidestep the magic. Also, AoS has no hobbits, not even renamed as halflings, though one could add that.

Quote from: Pen on April 13, 2023, 05:19:58 PM
Age of Shadow is so well done. It's a heavily underrated game.

And free to boot.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM
2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Unisystem would be perfect for a LOTR game.

Has anyone mentioned Adventures in Middle Earth (5E) yet? I've heard good things about it, but never played it.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 06:20:27 PM
Thanks, rhialto. I've checked out Age of Shadows (AoS) now. It is the closest that I've seen to what I'd be looking for. I note how elves have superior attributes to humans, which is balanced by fewer background points and fate points. The same is true to a lesser degree for dwarves.

I like how magic is divided into Innate Magic that is only for elves and elf-blooded humans. Sorcery seems like a stretch, but it is at least connected to the setting by the risk of shadow.

For my own campaign, I'd still lean towards Savage Worlds as a base -- mostly because I'm concerned that the OpenQuest combat works less well for high-power fighters. I feel like Savage Worlds is better at base than RQ/BRP for cinematic action like taking down dozens of orcs. Also, my plan had been for no PCs to cast any spells, so that would sidestep the magic. Also, AoS has no hobbits, not even renamed as halflings, though one could add that.

I have no experience with playing SW, so can't comment. The BRP fora have a BRP for Middle Earth write-up for hobbits: https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/153-middle-earth-brp-chapter-9-free-peoples/ (https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/153-middle-earth-brp-chapter-9-free-peoples/).

Blackmoor opens with an alien invasion.

The original box had stats for martians and other creatures from various fiction.

Better question might be how far has D&D strayed from Leiber or Burroughs or any of the other sources. It was set up from the start to cover alot of different source material.

Quote from: Omega on April 13, 2023, 07:35:27 PM
Better question might be how far has D&D strayed from Leiber or Burroughs or any of the other sources. It was set up from the start to cover alot of different source material.

Yeah. Sorry, I agreed with Baron back in reply #6 that it's a poorly phrased question.

What meant to say is about how Tolkien-derived elements like elves and dwarves (among others) became quite different, to the point that even games set in Middle Earth often look different than the Tolkien originals - like human spellcasters.

While Age of Shadow doesn't directly include halflings, the author posted stats for them on his blog.

https://www.crookedstaff.co.uk/2010/12/halflings-in-aos.html?m=0 (https://www.crookedstaff.co.uk/2010/12/halflings-in-aos.html?m=0)

I'd have halflings exist in the setting, just in smaller communities where they stick to themselves and don't get involved in world events. They could also exist in the west, which isn't really detailed and thus open for GMs to use as they wish.

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 12, 2023, 03:51:36 PM
The shift was already there in 0D&D, how much fun would it be to play as something as fragile (and paradoxically unwilling to relent) as a hobbit?

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 12, 2023, 09:19:56 PM
Personally, I have no interest in playing Robin while another party member plays Batman. Everyone should balance out in the greater scheme.

If the Elves are great at everything, give some sort of metamechanic to Humans similar to luck or destiny pools/chips, to simulate Humans being vital and still having great roles to play, whereas the world is largely done with Elves.

Quote from: Festus on April 13, 2023, 03:08:15 PM
LOTR - the books not the movies - is the hobbits' story. Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir are all NPCs. The party is thus quite balanced as far as the characters' native abilities are concerned. The big difference is Frodo has the Ring, mithril mail, and Sting.

I think this is a core issue. To me, the hobbits are not a minor, skippable part of Tolkien. If I'm going to try to do something in Tolkien's style, it's important that hobbit PCs be workable. On the other hand, I think big heroes like Legolas are also suitable as PCs. In my experience, there are two main approaches to having both little heroes like the hobbits alongside big heroes like Aragorn, Lancelot, Conan, etc.:

1) The Ars Magica approach is for every player to have both a high-power PC and a lower-power PC. So the Fellowship might have 4 players - each taking one big hero (Aragorn/ Boromir/ Legolas/ Gimli) and one little hero (Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin). I did something similar 15ish years ago when I did my "Dragons of the Yellow Sea" game where each player had one dragon PC and one human PC.

2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Though if anyone has tried other approaches, I'd be curious.

Reminds me of the Matt Colville video: "The Sandbox versus the Railroad"

https://youtu.be/EkXMxiAGUWg

Honestly, I think The One Ring got very close to the feel and intent of Tolkien, so that would be a game to check out for sure. MERP had a lot of fun modules, and some pretty decent research into Tolkien's world, but I'd tweak it a bit to make the system feel more Tolkien-esque. It has too much magic for starters, and some of the spells feel out of place.

I'll be honest... Tolkien never really factored heavily into my conception of D&D back in the late 70's.

I'm *NOT* dismissing the towering influence of Tolkien on fantasy fiction. It's just... when I read the Silmarillion and the trilogy, it was clear that D&D wasn't going to emulate the Tolkien specific depictions of Elves, or hell, even Numenoreans, and the grandeur of it all out of the box. Nor was it meant to (as stated by others above). There is a "flavor" of Tolkien in it.

I was always more influenced by Howard, Leiber, and at the top-end Moorcock. Moorcock's crazy cosmological wars of "good" vs. "evil" while dwelling in the moral grayness a lot without dismissing either moral polarity.

I'm also not convinced that RPGs in general ever really adhered to Tolkien specifically (outside of Middle Earth specific games). Influenced? Sure on some level. But I think D&D has always been its own pastiche of fantasy elements (Appendix N ftw) that effectively is its own gumbo. D&D-Fantasy as its own genre has been the larger influence on other RPG's trying to differentiate itself from D&D, or emulate it with emphasis on specific elements, or trying to emphasize specific fantasy genres that D&D doesn't overtly dwell on.

Quote from: Aglondir on April 13, 2023, 06:25:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 13, 2023, 03:13:27 PM
2) The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG approach is that the little heroes get special mechanical advantages as luck / fate / etc. In Unisystem, these are in drama points. In Savage Worlds, it would be bennies. In a fight, the hobbits can provide luck and aid to the primary fighters. Savage Worlds is pretty good about having combat options besides doing damage.

Unisystem would be perfect for a LOTR game.

Has anyone mentioned Adventures in Middle Earth (5E) yet? I've heard good things about it, but never played it.

Haven't played but really like what I've read. Maintains the 5e chassis but nails the Tolkien tone without going full TOR in terms of metagame. If you like 5e and Tolkien, I think it is worth checking out.

Does anyone else remember the edition of MERP that had as an example of play a character levitating all over the place? I think she was called "Chinta Kari" or some such. Now that was cringe.

Quote from: Trond on April 14, 2023, 12:30:33 AM
Honestly, I think The One Ring got very close to the feel and intent of Tolkien, so that would be a game to check out for sure. MERP had a lot of fun modules, and some pretty decent research into Tolkien's world, but I'd tweak it a bit to make the system feel more Tolkien-esque. It has too much magic for starters, and some of the spells feel out of place.

I agree with all of this.

The magic in MERP was a real headscratcher for me, also. I mean I get why people would want to play magic users (as most would be coming from a D&D/AD&D background, and you want their money) but it felt really alien to the setting.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 14, 2023, 12:33:01 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 14, 2023, 12:30:33 AM
Honestly, I think The One Ring got very close to the feel and intent of Tolkien, so that would be a game to check out for sure. MERP had a lot of fun modules, and some pretty decent research into Tolkien's world, but I'd tweak it a bit to make the system feel more Tolkien-esque. It has too much magic for starters, and some of the spells feel out of place.

I agree with all of this.

The magic in MERP was a real headscratcher for me, also. I mean I get why people would want to play magic users (as most would be coming from a D&D/AD&D background, and you want their money) but it felt really alien to the setting.

Sort of, but if you used the Risk Factor mechanic and other rules involving Shadow forces (which we did), using magic was potentially very dangerous as Sauronic forces could detect it and hunt you down.  Once you got to even the mid levels, the chances of detection were quite high, particularly for "flashy" spells.  Even a 2nd level shock bolt spell, had a 30% risk factor built in.  So our characters, who never got real high in levels anyhow (around 5th) were very cautious with using magic.  And these were increased in certain time periods, like the late Third Age, and in certain environs, like Mirkwood. 

So yeah, on the surface the magic is "too powerful" in comparison to the books, but there were mitigating factors.  Another one was that the critical tables were brutal and healing magic scaled in such a way that it wasn't easy to recover from serious wounds as high level clerics aren't simply hanging around in every small town waiting to raise dead.  In fact there isn't a raise dead or resurrection spell in MERP.  You needed the higher level Rolemaster magic for that stuff.

Quote from: Persimmon on April 14, 2023, 01:03:19 PM
Sort of, but if you used the Risk Factor mechanic and other rules involving Shadow forces (which we did), using magic was potentially very dangerous as Sauronic forces could detect it and hunt you down.  Once you got to even the mid levels, the chances of detection were quite high, particularly for "flashy" spells.  Even a 2nd level shock bolt spell, had a 30% risk factor built in.  So our characters, who never got real high in levels anyhow (around 5th) were very cautious with using magic.  And these were increased in certain time periods, like the late Third Age, and in certain environs, like Mirkwood. 

That actually sounds really good. What you want is for the magic users in the game not to be casting spells willy-nilly, so there has to be some kind of restriction on it. And being detected and having the forces of Evil hunt you down is a good reason to be very judicious about spell use. If the situation is dire, you can keep casting spells until you get out of it, and then worry about the forces of Evil hunting you down later - at least you're still alive - but if the situation can at all be resolved through mundane means, that's what you'll do.

If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:32:41 PM
If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

Not that D&D was really trying to emulate playing in LotR's world before that, the ONLY resemblance were the 3 demi-human races names. As others have pointed much better than me in my first post in the thread D&D was and is it's own pastiche of Tolkien + a bunch of other influences, and those other influences IMHO have always had a MUCH bigger impact than Tolkien.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:32:41 PM
If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

We should send WOTC a Cease & Desist letter.

Nothing else, it would just say Cease & Desist, and have a scary law firm header.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 14, 2023, 01:51:36 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:32:41 PM
If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

We should send WOTC a Cease & Desist letter.

Nothing else, it would just say Cease & Desist, and have a scary law firm header.

Your sarcasm is correct for 2023, but you have a severe case of early onset senility if you think that your scenario is the same as TSR back in 1977.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 14, 2023, 12:14:05 PM

Haven't played but really like what I've read. Maintains the 5e chassis but nails the Tolkien tone without going full TOR in terms of metagame. If you like 5e and Tolkien, I think it is worth checking out.

I liked some of it on first read, but got less and less enamored as I tried to use it.  Now granted, I have no interest in running a directly Middle Earth game (in any system), and was only trying to lift parts of in a home 5E game to give it some of that feel. However, by the time I was done trying, the book was back on the shelf, and I haven't opened it since.  Didn't end up using a single thing from it.

For me, the text talked a good game, but its application was sorely lacking.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:57:38 PM
Your sarcasm is correct for 2023, but you have a severe case of early onset senility if you think that your scenario is the same as TSR back in 1977.

I do not. The Tolkien Estate were being overly litigious. I mean it's not even like papa Tolkien invented his races.

I'm pretty sure Gary specifically said that Tolkein was not an influence for D&D.  Kinda a moot point though, as Tolkein was certainly an influence on the things he cited as having an influence on D&D.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 14, 2023, 03:56:03 PM
I'm pretty sure Gary specifically said that Tolkein was not an influence for D&D.  Kinda a moot point though, as Tolkein was certainly an influence on the things he cited as having an influence on D&D.

I just roll my eyes when people say work that is blatantly at least partially inspired by a thing, is not inspired by thing.

It's like saying you're not inspired by evil old Lovecraft, then listing Barker and King as inspirations.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 14, 2023, 03:56:03 PM
I'm pretty sure Gary specifically said that Tolkein was not an influence for D&D.  Kinda a moot point though, as Tolkein was certainly an influence on the things he cited as having an influence on D&D.

Yeah, he just by coincidence created from thin air a big and hairy footed race of happy-go-lucky semi-humans that don't wear shoes, are half the height of the average human, love food and smoke tobacco called hobbits...

Greetings!

Well, I certainly have huge respect and appreciation for Gary Gygax.

However, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

It is frustrating though, intellectually, that people get caught up in their own delusions, misconceptions, preferences, and fucking egos. Slow down, and comprehend more than one data point at the same time. Tolkien was not the only IMMENSE influence on D&D. I don't care to try and analyze the exact degree or percentage of influence. Just suffice to say, Tolkien was an IMMENSE influence. However, not the only influence. Conan, Burroughs, Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, Three Hearts & Three Lions, Arthurian Mythology, were all IMMENSE influences. ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Appendix N right there displays many of the influences, as well.

There were many influences on D&D. Why isn't that okay? It is what it is.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
Greetings!

Well, I certainly have huge respect and appreciation for Gary Gygax.

However, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

It is frustrating though, intellectually, that people get caught up in their own delusions, misconceptions, preferences, and fucking egos. Slow down, and comprehend more than one data point at the same time. Tolkien was not the only IMMENSE influence on D&D. I don't care to try and analyze the exact degree or percentage of influence. Just suffice to say, Tolkien was an IMMENSE influence. However, not the only influence. Conan, Burroughs, Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, Three Hearts & Three Lions, Arthurian Mythology, were all IMMENSE influences. ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Appendix N right there displays many of the influences, as well.

There were many influences on D&D. Why isn't that okay? It is what it is.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

IMHO What's false is to say D&D drifted from LotR, because -despite the obvious influence it had on the game- D&D wasn't and isn't trying to recreate that world for the players to immerse in.

Let's remember that the Halflings were originally called Hobbits, and their description puts the lie to D&D having nothing to thank LotR.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 14, 2023, 01:47:50 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:32:41 PM
If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

Not that D&D was really trying to emulate playing in LotR's world before that, the ONLY resemblance were the 3 demi-human races names. As others have pointed much better than me in my first post in the thread D&D was and is it's own pastiche of Tolkien + a bunch of other influences, and those other influences IMHO have always had a MUCH bigger impact than Tolkien.

I agree with your main point, but I can think of a few more Tolkien-isms in D&D:

Balor (balrog)
Cloak of Elvenkind
Ents (treants)
Half orcs
Mithril
Staff of Magi retributive strike

It's possible these came from sources that pre-date Tolkien, but they probably entered D&D through LOTR.

Any others?

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 14, 2023, 03:35:52 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:57:38 PM
Your sarcasm is correct for 2023, but you have a severe case of early onset senility if you think that your scenario is the same as TSR back in 1977.

I do not. The Tolkien Estate were being overly litigious. I mean it's not even like papa Tolkien invented his races.

My apologies then. I read your statement wrong.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 14, 2023, 04:38:31 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

It is frustrating though, intellectually, that people get caught up in their own delusions, misconceptions, preferences, and fucking egos. Slow down, and comprehend more than one data point at the same time. Tolkien was not the only IMMENSE influence on D&D.

IMHO What's false is to say D&D drifted from LotR, because -despite the obvious influence it had on the game- D&D wasn't and isn't trying to recreate that world for the players to immerse in.

Let's remember that the Halflings were originally called Hobbits, and their description puts the lie to D&D having nothing to thank LotR.

Right. Sorry - I admitted back in the reply #6 to Baron that the thread title was poorly phrased.

What I was trying to get at is that there are a lot of Tolkienesque elements that are still very commonly used - like elves, dwarves, orcs, halflings, and others. However, the conception of these elements has changed to the point that it feeds back to how Middle Earth RPGs work - like in ICE's "Middle Earth Roleplaying" and Cubicle 7's "Adventures in Middle Earth".

This is relevant to me in that I feel like if I do a Middle Earth game, I really want to distance myself from these - because players are likely to think of elves more like D&D elves rather than Tolkien elves.

It's semantics, and it's probably at least half because of legal reasons, but if I recall correctly, the idea that D&D wasn't "inspired" by the Lord of the Rings is based on:

- He's talking about major inspirations.
- The source of a lot of the things are more The Hobbit than the LotR.
- Gygax personally wasn't all that into LotR, but his players were.

In other words, he's not denying that the direct influences are in there.  He's minimizing them, and saying that he got pushed into doing that.  Which could be true.

I mean, there's no way the Shannara series is like it is without LotR coming first.  D&D is a lot less like LotR than it is.  However, being a game, the direct names creep in transparently.  Those early players didn't want to play halflings, they explicitly wanted to play hobbits.  It probably didn't occur to anyone at the time that they were in a new medium, that would be held to the same standards as film, literature, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on April 14, 2023, 05:11:53 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 14, 2023, 04:38:31 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

It is frustrating though, intellectually, that people get caught up in their own delusions, misconceptions, preferences, and fucking egos. Slow down, and comprehend more than one data point at the same time. Tolkien was not the only IMMENSE influence on D&D.

IMHO What's false is to say D&D drifted from LotR, because -despite the obvious influence it had on the game- D&D wasn't and isn't trying to recreate that world for the players to immerse in.

Let's remember that the Halflings were originally called Hobbits, and their description puts the lie to D&D having nothing to thank LotR.

Right. Sorry - I admitted back in the reply #6 to Baron that the thread title was poorly phrased.

What I was trying to get at is that there are a lot of Tolkienesque elements that are still very commonly used - like elves, dwarves, orcs, halflings, and others. However, the conception of these elements has changed to the point that it feeds back to how Middle Earth RPGs work - like in ICE's "Middle Earth Roleplaying" and Cubicle 7's "Adventures in Middle Earth".

This is relevant to me in that I feel like if I do a Middle Earth game, I really want to distance myself from these - because players are likely to think of elves more like D&D elves rather than Tolkien elves.

We're on agreement here, just wanna (pedantically) point out that of those you explicitly name ONLY the hobbits are clearly Tolkieneske AFAIK, while the others existed centuries before The Professor was born. But as Aglondir correctly points out a little above your comment those aren't the ONLY Tolkieneske influences found on the game.

Correct, Tolkien influenced RPGs and now RPGs are influencing how Tolkien's world works in an RPG. So, if -as you stated- you want to run/play in a game that's Tolkien Authentic, you have your work cut out for you. Now you have to reverse engineer the Tolkien Authentic races, classes, magic, etc into the RPG.

Quote from: Aglondir on April 14, 2023, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 14, 2023, 01:47:50 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 14, 2023, 01:32:41 PM
If we are going to talk about fantasy RPGs drifting away from Tolkein, why hasn't anyone brought up the significant Cease & Desist letter given to TSR in 1977 by the Tolkein Estate? Surely that gave any division previously in existence Seven League Boots.

Not that D&D was really trying to emulate playing in LotR's world before that, the ONLY resemblance were the 3 demi-human races names. As others have pointed much better than me in my first post in the thread D&D was and is it's own pastiche of Tolkien + a bunch of other influences, and those other influences IMHO have always had a MUCH bigger impact than Tolkien.

I agree with your main point, but I can think of a few more Tolkien-isms in D&D:

Balor (balrog)
Cloak of Elvenkind
Ents (treants)
Half orcs
Mithril
Staff of Magi retributive strike

It's possible these came from sources that pre-date Tolkien, but they probably entered D&D through LOTR.

Any others?

I bet you can find others in the older editions, probably more in the newer ones, I stand corrected.

Gary was very specific that his adventure where Ganstaff the wizard tasks Prudo the Halfling to set out for Firestorm Peak, so he can destroy Nerull's Ring Of True Invisibility; was an 100% original concept.

I always saw Tolkien as Tolkien anything that followed, with the exception of MERP drifted very much away from the original (as was pointed out).

D&D changed the work to suit its own style so it was always more, 'post' Tolkien.

QuoteI do not. The Tolkien Estate were being overly litigious. I mean it's not even like papa Tolkien invented his races.

I mean IIRC the suit banned TSR from using hobbits which were distinctly Tolkien invented term and race.
And even then TSR halflings stayed quite clear, since TE could not claim this term as it existen in Brittish folklore before.

Same with ents/treants and balrogs/balor.

QuoteI'm pretty sure Gary specifically said that Tolkein was not an influence for D&D.  Kinda a moot point though, as Tolkein was certainly an influence on the things he cited as having an influence on D&D.

I mean it certainly was influence to some degree - see fucking halflings - and see Gary putting Tolkien in appendix N - but not as much as people thought. Specifically Gary Elves were more taken from folklore and folklore inspired elves, than from Tolkien more mythological ljusalf.

QuoteIt's like saying you're not inspired by evil old Lovecraft, then listing Barker and King as inspirations.

I could totally do it. There are plenty of King-ian elements I could took inspiration that are in no way Lovecraftian.
In fact probably vast majority of things.

QuoteHowever, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

I doubt Gary said that Tolkien had no influence. He put Tolkien in Appendix N that's kinda clear.
I think he said his elves and dwarves were not Tolkienian but took from same sources Tolkien took his elves and dwarves - Northern European Folklore, and more inspired by faerie fantasy of Anderson than Tolkien - things like elves having no immortal souls, and living in very elusive enchanted places, and never sleeping - that's not Tolkien.

So I think your IMMENSE claim is vastly overrated Shark - and I'll take my moron badge with honor.
Immense influence for me means being top-3 essential sources the game is based on.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 19, 2023, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
However, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

I doubt Gary said that Tolkien had no influence. He put Tolkien in Appendix N that's kinda clear.
I think he said his elves and dwarves were not Tolkienian but took from same sources Tolkien took his elves and dwarves - Northern European Folklore, and more inspired by faerie fantasy of Anderson than Tolkien - things like elves having no immortal souls, and living in very elusive enchanted places, and never sleeping - that's not Tolkien.

Does it say in D&D that elves have no immortal souls? I'd be surprised. Elves in Tolkien are known for living in places like Rivendell and Lothlorien, which I'd say count as elusive and enchanted. As for not sleeping -- that is also in Tolkien, which was highlighted when Legolas was chasing after Merry and Pippin, and he could even walk while sleeping.

QuoteHe [Legolas] could sleep, if sleep it could be called by Men, resting his mind in the strange paths of Elvish dreams, even as he walked open-eyed in the light of this world.

Without Tolkien, elves in popular culture were known more for making toys at the North Pole or fixing shoes -- not at all using longbows and longswords and fighting orcs. Though to be fair, while I've read some Poul Anderson, I don't recall his elves. Are there any specific works you can suggest that have elves like D&D elves?

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2023, 11:56:23 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 19, 2023, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
However, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

I doubt Gary said that Tolkien had no influence. He put Tolkien in Appendix N that's kinda clear.
I think he said his elves and dwarves were not Tolkienian but took from same sources Tolkien took his elves and dwarves - Northern European Folklore, and more inspired by faerie fantasy of Anderson than Tolkien - things like elves having no immortal souls, and living in very elusive enchanted places, and never sleeping - that's not Tolkien.

Does it say in D&D that elves have no immortal souls? I'd be surprised. Elves in Tolkien are known for living in places like Rivendell and Lothlorien, which I'd say count as elusive and enchanted. As for not sleeping -- that is also in Tolkien, which was highlighted when Legolas was chasing after Merry and Pippin, and he could even walk while sleeping.

QuoteHe [Legolas] could sleep, if sleep it could be called by Men, resting his mind in the strange paths of Elvish dreams, even as he walked open-eyed in the light of this world.

Without Tolkien, elves in popular culture were known more for making toys at the North Pole or fixing shoes -- not at all using longbows and longswords and fighting orcs. Though to be fair, while I've read some Poul Anderson, I don't recall his elves. Are there any specific works you can suggest that have elves like D&D elves?

In folklore, Elves, being part of the Fearies, lived in Underhill, which is obviously the inspiration for Tolkien's Rivendell and Lothlorien.

It's been a while since I read Poul Anderson The Queen of Air and Darkness right? IIRC what humans call fairies there also lives in a place like Underhill, but IIRC it's more due to the aliens reading the human's minds and projecting images from their imagination than a real place.

Three Hearts and Three Lions, The Broken Sword are the Anderson works that are most influential in D&D.  The elves are positively malicious and almost alien, but are described much closer to D&D elves in appearance than Tolkien elves. 


It's been awhile since I read any Tanith Lee or the Mabinogion.  I've got a vague sense of more primal elves from those, but I may be remembering incorrectly.  With the Mabinogion, it's sometimes hard to separate out what is actually in it, versus what other people have done with as an inspiration.

Poul Anderson is one of the most underrated writers. He's most known for Sci-Fi but The Broken Sword is excellent saga-based fantasy (and also fairly early in terms of modern fantasy). His elves are more cruel than those of Tolkien. I think this is also based on folklore: people would offer gifts to elves to stay on their good side (alfablot). If pissed off, the elves could punish/curse you in various ways.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 03:07:09 PM
Three Hearts and Three Lions, The Broken Sword are the Anderson works that are most influential in D&D.  The elves are positively malicious and almost alien, but are described much closer to D&D elves in appearance than Tolkien elves. 


It's been awhile since I read any Tanith Lee or the Mabinogion.  I've got a vague sense of more primal elves from those, but I may be remembering incorrectly.  With the Mabinogion, it's sometimes hard to separate out what is actually in it, versus what other people have done with as an inspiration.

Damn, now I need to get those books to add to my to read pile (probably won't manage to read them all before I hang the meat suit but still.)

My (mostly spoiler-free) review of Three Hearts and Three Lions:

https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/07/21/review-three-hearts-and-three-lions-a-dd-novel/ (https://themichlinguide.wordpress.com/2022/07/21/review-three-hearts-and-three-lions-a-dd-novel/)

I haven't gotten around to reviewing Broken Sword, but I've blogged about other Anderson work, mostly science fiction relevant to Traveller.

There are also elves and half elves (along with willow the wisps and gnolls) in the pre-Tolkien works of Edward Plunkett, Lord Dunsany - whom Gary Gygax was fond of - especially in the story The King of Elfland's Daughter. Dunsany's elves are more faery than D&D elves, but you can see some of Dunsany's elf DNA in D&D.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2023, 04:53:19 PM

Damn, now I need to get those books to add to my to read pile (probably won't manage to read them all before I hang the meat suit but still.)

Find a little book called "On Fantasy" which is a collection of short stories and essays by Anderson.  You'll get a broad swatch of the kind of tales he does (though not all of it makes it into novel form).  If you like the more serious stories in that, you'll like his longer works. 

FWIW DCC elves are primarily based on Poul Anderson's writings.  Hence, most are neutral, tricky, and they are allergic to iron.  Personally I find Anderson rather overrated as a writer, but if you're curious in the origins, the books are out there.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2023, 06:38:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 19, 2023, 04:53:19 PM

Damn, now I need to get those books to add to my to read pile (probably won't manage to read them all before I hang the meat suit but still.)

Find a little book called "On Fantasy" which is a collection of short stories and essays by Anderson.  You'll get a broad swatch of the kind of tales he does (though not all of it makes it into novel form).  If you like the more serious stories in that, you'll like his longer works.

Thanks! Will do!

The main divergence is hardly anybody sings in D&D while in Tolkien Dwarves and Elves (and even Orcs if you count the Rankin Bass Return of the  King) break into song. You need to make everyone half Bard or something.

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 20, 2023, 09:18:28 PM
The main divergence is hardly anybody sings in D&D while in Tolkien Dwarves and Elves (and even Orcs if you count the Rankin Bass Return of the  King) break into song. You need to make everyone half Bard or something.

You just need to arm them all with whips.

Where there's a whip, there's a way.

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 20, 2023, 09:18:28 PM
The main divergence is hardly anybody sings in D&D while in Tolkien Dwarves and Elves (and even Orcs if you count the Rankin Bass Return of the  King) break into song. You need to make everyone half Bard or something.

Pre-mass media you had to make your own entertainment. Ale houses were known for singing as much as booze. I imagine most pre-industrial societies had fairly robust folk music traditions.

Something to consider when creating your own fantasy settings.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 20, 2023, 09:42:59 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 20, 2023, 09:18:28 PM
The main divergence is hardly anybody sings in D&D while in Tolkien Dwarves and Elves (and even Orcs if you count the Rankin Bass Return of the  King) break into song. You need to make everyone half Bard or something.

You just need to arm them all with whips.

Where there's a whip, there's a way.

So, whip it, whip it good!

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2023, 11:56:23 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 19, 2023, 10:14:45 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 14, 2023, 04:33:34 PM
However, if he ever did say that Tolkien didn't have any influence on D&D, then Gary was lying, or delusional.

As has been mentioned, there could be more motives here for even saying such by Gary--despite the absolute abundance of artistic, flavour, narrative, and stylistic evidence that Tolkien had *IMMENSE* influence on D&D.

Anyone that doesn't think Tolkien had an *IMMENSE* influence on D&D must simply be an obtuse moron, honestly.

I doubt Gary said that Tolkien had no influence. He put Tolkien in Appendix N that's kinda clear.
I think he said his elves and dwarves were not Tolkienian but took from same sources Tolkien took his elves and dwarves - Northern European Folklore, and more inspired by faerie fantasy of Anderson than Tolkien - things like elves having no immortal souls, and living in very elusive enchanted places, and never sleeping - that's not Tolkien.

Does it say in D&D that elves have no immortal souls? I'd be surprised. Elves in Tolkien are known for living in places like Rivendell and Lothlorien, which I'd say count as elusive and enchanted. As for not sleeping -- that is also in Tolkien, which was highlighted when Legolas was chasing after Merry and Pippin, and he could even walk while sleeping.

QuoteHe [Legolas] could sleep, if sleep it could be called by Men, resting his mind in the strange paths of Elvish dreams, even as he walked open-eyed in the light of this world.

Without Tolkien, elves in popular culture were known more for making toys at the North Pole or fixing shoes -- not at all using longbows and longswords and fighting orcs. Though to be fair, while I've read some Poul Anderson, I don't recall his elves. Are there any specific works you can suggest that have elves like D&D elves?

Its mentioned under raise dead that elves cant ve resurrected cause they have no souls in Ad&D i dont know if its mentioned in OD&D