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 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.