D&D has numerous influences, including pulp fiction and Tolkien. What has always interested me the most were the uniquely American (and British) influences, such as the pulps and westerns. The earliest editions of D&D described the world as similar in geography and population to the American west and introduced order/chaos politics straight out of Moorcock, with the Tolkien influence (elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs) serving largely as window dressing. At some points we even got cool stuff like crashed alien spaceships and a blurry line between magic and technology.
Tolkien's legacy has colored all fiction that came afterward. G.R.R. Martin is often hailed as the "American Tolkien" because he is an American who wrote edgy LotR fan fiction. Meanwhile, the real American Tolkiens like Lovecraft and Howard and Baum receive almost no recognition in popular culture outside of endless reprints of their work because of their public domain status. As more D&D settings developed, they grew closer and closer to the pseudo-medieval aesthetic of Tolkien and further away from the pseudo-western and pulp aesthetic.
How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien? What are the styles and world building elements that make the westerns, pulps, Oz, etc unique from Tolkien clones?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1033530D&D has numerous influences, including pulp fiction and Tolkien. What has always interested me the most were the uniquely American (and British) influences, such as the pulps and westerns. The earliest editions of D&D described the world as similar in geography and population to the American west and introduced order/chaos politics straight out of Moorcock, with the Tolkien influence (elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs) serving largely as window dressing. At some points we even got cool stuff like crashed alien spaceships and a blurry line between magic and technology.
Tolkien's legacy has colored all fiction that came afterward. G.R.R. Martin is often hailed as the "American Tolkien" because he is an American who wrote edgy LotR fan fiction. Meanwhile, the real American Tolkiens like Lovecraft and Howard and Baum receive almost no recognition in popular culture outside of endless reprints of their work because of their public domain status. As more D&D settings developed, they grew closer and closer to the pseudo-medieval aesthetic of Tolkien and further away from the pseudo-western and pulp aesthetic.
How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien? What are the styles and world building elements that make the westerns, pulps, Oz, etc unique from Tolkien clones?
Outside of removing the Orcs, Elves, and Dwarves, and perhaps even Dragons?
So, the only thing D&D really shares thematically with Tolkien is the idea that the past was better and history is retrogressive rather than progressive. In D&D's case this is largely to allow for anarchic adventure and vast treasure hordes in underground complexes. You could make the backdrop alien and technologically advanced, glass and plasteel instead of crumbling stone. D&D is late medival and LotR is late dark ages. It's really, just that the average person doesn't make these distinction. I would suggest a step away from positivity towards fatalism and cynicism is the usual direction D&D moves away from Tolkien, the triumph of good is by no means assured. You might want to read Michael Moorcock's essay "Epic Pooh", but then again you might not.
The first thing I would do is drop elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins, dragons, ents, and all the other elements also found in Tolkien. Be ruthless.
Then read a lot of the Thousand Nights and One Night and see what D&D could be if not based on Nordic/Germanic myth via Tolkien and Anderson. I think a lot of it comes down to reading non-Tolkienesque fantasy, sci fi and pulp and getting your players to do the same. Then pick the elements you like from that and start playing. Picking a setting that is not a European analogue, especially avoiding pseudomedievalism will help. No long swords and plate mail.
Take a look at games like Spears of the Dawn, Under the Moons of Zoon, Crimson Blades for non Tolkienesque fantasy.
Quote from: David Johansen;1033531Outside of removing the Orcs, Elves, and Dwarves, and perhaps even Dragons?
Quote from: DavetheLost;1033536The first thing I would do is drop elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins, dragons, ents, and all the other elements also found in Tolkien. Be ruthless.
This is absolutely a first step in making sure it's not going to be Tolkein-esque. Excise all "demihumans" and goblinoids. Then build back up starting with humans as your default sympathetic species.
For me, the main thing Tolkien did was build a cohesive world. Everything, the whole mythos clicks together perfectly.
Pulp isn't like that. Steer away from cohesiveness and blend genre lines without going full gonzo. Many pulp authors toyed with real world elements, be they real or mythical, and just mixed them with their own creations. Have robots if you must, use interdimensional gunslingers, use obvious WW2 analogies, have them find Mjölnir, leave the world building vague and open ended, and the game will be less Tolkien in no time.
Simple.
You and your players read some books other than Tolkien.
The Tolkienization of D&D is mostly a product of the player base, not the rules. The default play of D&D changed drastically in the mid 80s when the fantasy literature boom exploded, and if you look at the fantasy books published in the 80s you will notice that a) per Sturgeon, most of them are crap and 2) they are almost ALL "epic quest to save the world" shit.
Read some Howard and Lieber and Moorcock -- EARLY Moorcock -- and DeCamp and Dunsany and Lovecraft, etc, etc, etc.
Stop thinking about Tolkien as the default and Tolkien will no longer be the default.
No need to thank me, just buy me a beer.
Either make up a world that isn't very Tolkien. Or play in an historical setting without all the Tolkien stuff bolted on. Or play Stormbringer.
Watch the Good the Bad and the Ugly. Then Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Then the newest 7 Samurai (the one with the Comanche warrior) then Tombstone, throw in Rogue One and Firefly.
Now fill your game with gangs, banditos, gunslingers and desperados.
Read the first six Elric novels. Pull out the Deities and Demigods with the Melnibonean mythos. Have fun.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/TSR2400_Dark_Sun_Campaign_Setting.jpg/220px-TSR2400_Dark_Sun_Campaign_Setting.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Ravenloft_I6.jpg/200px-Ravenloft_I6.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/SpelljammerAdventuresInSpaceBox.jpg/220px-SpelljammerAdventuresInSpaceBox.jpg)(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51XT7W2VP3L._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Have a look at the two rpg worlds that are the poster children for not being derivative of Tolkien's work; Glorantha (http://www.glorantha.com/) and Tekumel (http://www.tekumel.com/).
The thing is, Tolkien built his world on the premise that folklore were really true. That all the legends about elves, dwarves, and less friendly types were based on actual events.
While he specifically used Western/Northern myths, pretty much every cultural has stories about elf and dwarf like beings.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1033542Simple.
You and your players read some books other than Tolkien.
But no one reads anymore. Seriously, with advent of smartphones no one really wants to.
However, that said... When has D&D ever been Tolkienized? It hasn't been anything like Tolkien since the BECMI, at the very least.
A radical Tolkienectomy or just a Tolkienectomy?
Get other inspirations. Pick a non-pseudo medieval setting. The American Frontier seems to be the default setting for the original game, albeit with a medieval skin. Nice little article here http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/2013/05/od-setting-posts-in-pdf.html
Read some Poul Anderson. The Broken Sword and Three Hearts and Three Lions in particular. Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories.
Make the campaign setting post-apocalyptic. The fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Black Plague. The massive amount of death due to Euro-diseases in the Americas. These are certainly apocalyptic.
Excise the Tolkien-esque parts. Halflings must go. Elves need to be revised to something more akin to Northern European folklore. Orcs must go too. Goblins need to be revised. And hobgoblins ought to be smaller than goblins.
Fafnir is a fine ideal for a dragon in place of Smaug.
Really, Tolkien just plundered Northern European folklore-- Germanic including Scandinavian, and some Celtic-- for his 'Legendarium'. Go to the sources yourself, and skip the middleman.
Read Beowulf.
The funny thing is that D&D isn't all that Tolkienesque. In Tolkien's Middle Earth, a typical human would go his entire life without ever seeing a dwarf, elf, or halfling. This notion of melting pot communities with PCs of all races hanging out together in inns is a D&Dism, not something from Tolkien.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033565The funny thing is that D&D isn't all that Tolkienesque. In Tolkien's Middle Earth, a typical human would go his entire life without ever seeing a dwarf, elf, or halfling. This notion of melting pot communities with PCs of all races hanging out together in inns is a D&Dism, not something from Tolkien.
My point exactly.
So the OP wants a D&D setting that is less Tolkien and less Forgotten Realms/Golarion.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1033562But no one reads anymore. Seriously, with advent of smartphones no one really wants to.
I don't have a smartphone, and since I received a Kindle for my birthday a few years ago, I read more than I ever have before. As just one data point.
Quote from: Kiero;1033614I don't have a smartphone, and since I received a Kindle for my birthday a few years ago, I read more than I ever have before. As just one data point.
Sadly, local statistics (Yes, I know correlation not causation) state otherwise. The point is, most of people's current knowledge of Fantasy and Science Fiction is now mostly from their PC in the form of various streaming sites, or disk purchases for shows and/or movies.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1033542Simple. You and your players read some books other than Tolkien.
This was exactly the point I wanted to make. Back in the 1970's, when my high school buddies and I first encountered D&D, we all read certain books. Howard's Conan (well, the Ace paperback version that we THOUGHT was the real thing), Leiber's Lankhmar, Burroughs' Barsoom, Moorcock's Elric, and Tolkien's Middle-earth. This formed the basis for our inspiration for adventures, since we'd never heard of buying a module. We had lots of "evil wizard" adventures, many "save the princess" sessions, quite a few "adventures in the big city" games, and so on. Magic swords were awesome. We did this because of the literature we had read.
Many younger gamers today haven't read the Appendix N stuff, and often have never even heard of Howard or Leiber or Moorcock. Their exposure to Tolkien is through the movies. Much of their fantasy comes through anime. Their list of books that form their concept of fantasy is very different from my core reading, so it's hard to come up with a common frame of reference.
Michael's point is spot on. The rules aren't designed to be Tolkien or be not-Tolkien. The rules are simply a set of guidelines to run the adventure. The DM can plan a campaign in any style he or she likes, then the players can create characters using the options provided. The problem is that half of the game is played in your head, and while the DM supplies some of the images the player fills in the gaps with prior experience images. The best way to be on the "same page" with this is to read common fiction. Want to run Lankhmar? Have your players read even one Fafhrd & Gray Mouser story first.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033565The funny thing is that D&D isn't all that Tolkienesque. In Tolkien's Middle Earth, a typical human would go his entire life without ever seeing a dwarf, elf, or halfling. This notion of melting pot communities with PCs of all races hanging out together in inns is a D&Dism, not something from Tolkien.
ME does have places like Bree, where you can find Men, Hobbits and apparently Half-Orcs in one large village or small town. It's depicted as unusual, but not hugely so. Pre-3e D&D was not vastly different I think.
Well, with 1E at the end of its line, and beginning with 2E especially, D&D adapted the Tolkien-inspired fantasy tropes of its era. There's no denying that. Krynn and Faerun may not be the same as Tolkien, but they do kinda exist on the same shelf as the stuff Terry Brooks was writing at that time. And for many gamers, even today, the Lord of the Rings and its imitators are the blueprint for what constitutes an "epic campaign". For good or bad.
I actually want more Tolkien in my D&D. What was once included (except for the elves and dwarves, of course) was ruthlessly stripped out after the Tolkien Foundation complained. Note that none of the Tolkien Family own, or are a part of the Tolkien Foundation anymore, so they are not seeing any juicy profits from the franchise and are no longer the beneficiaries of their own creative work (other than direct royalties from new creations).
For the rest of you all, Planescape anyone?
You can have elves, dwarves and goblins without it being MiddleEarth-esque. Even halfling-esque races. All these existed long before those books came out.
Dragon actually had a few good articles on this over the years.
But one way would be to just run D&D Conan. No demihuman PC races, no clerics, even wizards are rare.
Or Masque of the Red Death. No demi human races. Magic rarer, and is orders harder and much more risky.
Depending on the time period dwarf travellers are common enough on the roads, vagabonds and refugees from The Lonely Mountain. Tolkien also notes that vagabond hobbits who will just dig a hole and move in anywhere are a thing though not one seen in Rohan apparently, which is interesting, because Gollum's people started out around Fangorn and the great river but seem to have migrated north. In the southlands, ill favoured strangers that look half goblin are probably pretty common as spies for Saruman. Elves are less often seen, The Shire lies on the road west from Rivendale so Hobbits occasionally see them if the elves want them to. I've always wondered about Gildor Inglorian's choice to send Frodo and Sam along on their own rather than taking charge of them and making for Rivendale with his company immediately, he clearly knows that the nine riders are ring wraiths. My best guess is that he figured two hobbits would draw less attention than a couple dozen elves but I can't help but wonder if he's just a coward.
Quote from: S'mon;1033646ME does have places like Bree, where you can find Men, Hobbits and apparently Half-Orcs in one large village or small town. It's depicted as unusual, but not hugely so. Pre-3e D&D was not vastly different I think.
Gondor had no elves or dwarves. Nobody even knew halflings existed. Same with Rohan. Elven communities were strictly elvish. Dwarves and elves had a deep distrust bordering on hatred. Running a D&D campaign in an authentic Middle-Earth would be a shock to most D&D players.
Quote from: S'mon;1033646Pre-3e D&D was not vastly different I think.
Greyhawk says otherwise. Virtually every city has large populations of humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings. The first city supplement for D&D, the City State of the Invincible Overlord, presents humans, elves, dwarves, half-elves, and halflings all living together, cheek to jowl in inns, bakeries, and public baths. Wilderlands settlements are presented in a format of 70% human, 15% half-elf, 10% dwarf, 5% halfling. Mystara and the Known World are the same. And all those worlds are far, far more populated than the haunted emptiness of Middle-Earth.
Right from the outset, D&D as a game setting was its own thing, with more new tropes different from any existing fantasy settings than it was like any one. Tolkien was an influence insofar as many D&D campaigns play out as a multi-race fellowship of the ring. But D&D game worlds don't have much resemblance to Middle-Earth, or any other fantasy setting.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033666Right from the outset, D&D as a game setting was its own thing, with more new tropes different from any existing fantasy settings than it was like any one. Tolkien was an influence insofar as many D&D campaigns play out as a multi-race fellowship of the ring. But D&D game worlds don't have much resemblance to Middle-Earth, or any other fantasy setting.
And when you start delving deeper into cosmology or thematics, they start looking even more like Howard or Moorcock than Tolkien, IMO.
Quote from: David Johansen;1033664Depending on the time period dwarf travellers are common enough on the roads, vagabonds and refugees from The Lonely Mountain. Tolkien also notes that vagabond hobbits who will just dig a hole and move in anywhere are a thing though not one seen in Rohan apparently, which is interesting, because Gollum's people started out around Fangorn and the great river but seem to have migrated north. In the southlands, ill favoured strangers that look half goblin are probably pretty common as spies for Saruman. Elves are less often seen, The Shire lies on the road west from Rivendale so Hobbits occasionally see them if the elves want them to. I've always wondered about Gildor Inglorian's choice to send Frodo and Sam along on their own rather than taking charge of them and making for Rivendale with his company immediately, he clearly knows that the nine riders are ring wraiths. My best guess is that he figured two hobbits would draw less attention than a couple dozen elves but I can't help but wonder if he's just a coward.
I don't think Gildor was an elf lord like Glorfindel, and probably couldn't have done much to stop the nine ringwraiths, even with his elf buddies along. And if he tried, like you say, it would draw attention to the hobbits.
Quote from: finarvyn;1033638Much of their fantasy comes through anime.
There are loads of D&D-based anime (well, mostly based on video games based on D&D, but D&D is the source of all their conventions). It is actually fairly unique from other fantasy, since it takes the premise from
Order of the Shtick that the world runs on RPG rules and plays that completely serious. Almost all "trapped in another world" (isekai) anime take place in someone's D&D campaign or MMO. Things like living dungeons and martial arts are the norm: a fighter or rogue is capable of going toe to toe with a magic-user of equal level, while seemingly every dungeon is full of RTS bases and MMO raid bosses at the command of a dungeon lord.
The problem is that most of these anime are terrible and they keep getting worse every season. About the only one worth watching is
Overlord, since it deliberately mocks the conventions of the genre.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033666Wilderlands settlements are presented in a format of 70% human, 15% half-elf, 10% dwarf, 5% halfling.
You're mixing up the 3e version of Wilderlands with the original. Although CSIO was always cosmopolitan. 3e Wilderlands used the 3e official rules for demographics hence those %s.
I thought it was generally considered that D&D has more in common with western frontiersmanship than Tolkien. It's cowboys with swords, wandering town to town solving problems and finding treasure.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: S'mon;1033690You're mixing up the 3e version of Wilderlands with the original. Although CSIO was always cosmopolitan. 3e Wilderlands used the 3e official rules for demographics hence those %s.
I have the original Judges Guild Wilderlands supplements, and there are demi-humans (and levelled NPCs) everywhere.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1033530How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien?
Get your hands on the 1st edition Fiend Folio. Use that as your sole source of monsters for your game.
When one looks at just the core story, I think the Tolkien influence is pretty clear. Background details can differ (i.e. what are the demographics of a city). However, the core story is often a group of heroes (including human, elf, dwarf, halfling) - all wandering the landscape and engaging in different adventures. There are differences from Tolkien - but given the huge range possible within fantasy, I think that D&D is pretty close to Tolkien.
Fiction - Baum's The Land of Oz, Lovecraft's The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, Howard's Red Nails, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
RPGs - an Amber adventure, a D&D adventure, an Ars Magica adventure, and a Mouse Guard adventure
Among a wide range of fantasy, I think D&D and Tolkien are pretty close. Even without having elves and dwarves, I think the similarities can be pretty strong. If you have a tiefling wizard, dragonborn ranger, and gnome rogue going off through the wilderness to a dungeon, that still has a lot of similarities to Tolkien.
There's nothing wrong with Tolkien - and I've had a good time doing adventures closer to Tolkien - i.e. adventures in actual Middle Earth. Still, if the topic is getting away from Tolkien, I think there is a big range to go.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1033530How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien? What are the styles and world building elements that make the westerns, pulps, Oz, etc unique from Tolkien clones?
Obviously, there isn't just a single way to make a campaign setting less like Tolkien. I'd toss out how to make a campaign setting more like L. Frank Baum. It would be difficult to do exactly like L. Frank Baum stories in D&D without completely upending the game, but one could easily have D&D adventures in a setting more like the film Oz The Great and Powerful, or the book Wicked.
The creatures and threats are different, certainly - but many of the more whimsical D&D creations could easily fit into an Oz-inspired setting. The bigger context of adventure, though, is also changed. There is no attempt to simulate a medieval or even non-medieval society. Rather than renting a room at the inn, there are friendly people who welcome you in and give you things. You're not adventuring for gold - you're trying to help. Even in Wicked, the protagonist is still trying to help - it just reverses who is in trouble.
The characters can be a wide mix, including Oz natives, people from Earth, as well as possibly some unique or "monster" PCs (lion, flying monkey, glass cat, etc.). There is little focus on having a balance or mix of standard races, and special snowflakes are welcomed.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033696I have the original Judges Guild Wilderlands supplements, and there are demi-humans (and levelled NPCs) everywhere.
Then you know the villages are listed as "200 Orcs" and "120 Elves", and that those 32% Elf/16% Dwarf type stats are solely 3e.
Write down everything you associate with Tolkien.
Make a D&D setting without those things.
You can even keep the elves, dwarves and orcs if you want. Just make them not-LotR.
Quote from: Tulpa Girl;1033698Get your hands on the 1st edition Fiend Folio. Use that as your sole source of monsters for your game.
I've done that with two multi-year campaigns. Both were awesome. The FF was the sole-source of everything not-human in the setting.
That book is awesome.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1033679I don't think Gildor was an elf lord like Glorfindel, and probably couldn't have done much to stop the nine ringwraiths, even with his elf buddies along. And if he tried, like you say, it would draw attention to the hobbits.
Gildor was a high elf and had crossed the seas from the undying lands in any case but probably wasn't on Glorfindel's level, even so, just shooing a couple hobbits away on their errand seems, weak.
Quote from: Haffrung;1033666Gondor had no elves or dwarves. Nobody even knew halflings existed. Same with Rohan. Elven communities were strictly elvish. Dwarves and elves had a deep distrust bordering on hatred. Running a D&D campaign in an authentic Middle-Earth would be a shock to most D&D players.
Right from the outset, D&D as a game setting was its own thing, with more new tropes different from any existing fantasy settings than it was like any one. Tolkien was an influence insofar as many D&D campaigns play out as a multi-race fellowship of the ring. But D&D game worlds don't have much resemblance to Middle-Earth, or any other fantasy setting.
The Elves had a deep distrust of their fellow elves, and in fact had a civil war, while journeying to Middle-Earth from
Cuiviénen. The Avari never left
Cuiviénen. The
Nolder i.e.
Calaquendi (Elves of the Light) considered themselves superior to all of the other Elven races, and this included the sons of
Feanor and
Fingolfin, and their kinfolk including the Half-elf,
Elrond (Half-brother to the Numenoren Men). This also included the Vanyar. The Telari, also known as the hindmost, or followers... they the unwilling..... this including Galadriel by the way, were attacked by the Nolder i.e. Feanor and Fingolfin and their kin while enroute to Middle Earth, and then Feanor and his kin abandoned the
Teleri, including all of the
Sindar and the
Nandor leaving them to freeze to death in the sea of ice. Many of the
Sindar were saved by the
Falmari, the sea elves, with their great swan boats, but many of the
Falmari were also slain by the
Nolder during the Kinslaying, and their boats were sunk, and the
Falmari were super rare in Middle Earth after that, usually only showing up to help the
Sindar or the
Noldor.
The
Teleri were the most numerous Elven clan and also the most slow and reluctant of the Great Journey; many turned back or stayed behind. Their leaders were the brothers
Elwë and
Olwë, but when
Elwë became lost in
Beleriand, many of his people refused to carry on to
Aman until he had been found; it was
Olwë who led the rest to the shores of
Beleriand. Most of the
Teleri went back to
Valinor, but were never admitted again to
Cuiviénen, birthplace of the Elves.
As they waited for
Ulmo's floating island, they lingered at the
Bay of Balar where they were befriended and taught by
Ulmo's vassal,
Osse. When
Ulmo returned to take the bulk of the
Teleri with
Olwe to the West,
Osse convinced some of them to forsake
Valinor and stay behind with him. These afterwards became the
Falathrim. During the latter part of the War of the Ring they could be found in Alqualondë, Tol Eressëa, and at the Grey Havens, and in and along the seacoast of the
Blue Mountains, in Southern Gondor, as well as in
Valinor.
Sindar (meaning "Grey People" or Grey Elves were Elves of Telerin descent who inhabited
Beleriand. They were united under the King of
Doriath Elu Thingol, and later his grandson
Dior Eluchíl, and could be found at the
Grey Havens and in the
Blue Mountains west of the Shire during the
War of the Ring.
One of the
Teleri, of the silver-haired kindred of
Olwë that would later become the
Falmari, rose to lead them. He was named
Lenwë, and led a great number of the
Teleri south along the
Great River, where they fell out of the histories for a long time. They called themselves the
Nandor, and they loved water and green things. Under
Lenwë they developed great knowledge and skill with herbs and living things, tree and beast alike. Their culture became very distinct.
The
Nandor, also called the
Laiquendi, who included the
Silvan Elves (or "
Wood-elves") and
Green-elves, were one of the
Telerin races of Elves. Like the
Sindar, they were
Úmanyar i.e. part of the
Teleri who began the Great Journey but did not complete it. The
Nandor were the original elven inhabitants of Middle-earth east of
Beleriand, but eventually they also stretched out across the
Blue Mountains, i.e.
Ered Luin as well into
Ossiriand. During the war of the Ring they could be found in
Mirkwood, and in
Lothlorien.
Nandor is a Quenya name, meaning "Those who go back. Out of the 144 unbegotten Elves to awaken at
Cuiviénen, 82 chose to remain and thus became the forefathers of the
Moriquendi, outnumbering the population of the Amanyar (
Valinor). The Nandor also known by many other names: the Host of Dân, the Wood-elves, the Wanderers, the Axe-elves, the Green Elves, the Brown Elves, the Hidden People.
There were also the
Moriquendi,
The Dark Elves, or Elves who had never seen the light of the
Two Trees of Valinor. The term
"Dark Elf" seems to hold an additional special (not explained) meaning, as it is given as a special title of
Eöl of
Nan Elmoth. It is also used as an insult by the
Sons of Fëanor to
King Thingol (which is incorrect, since
Thingol alone of the
Sindar was reckoned under the
Calaquendie, as he was the only Grey Elf to Journey to Valinor to see the light of the Two Trees, although he later returned to Middle Earth in the Third Age.
...So, the Elves of Middle Earth hated on each other quite a bit... although they usually united when dealing with other races.
D&D had many things not in common with Middle Earth, which required some significant adjustments to in order to play a Middle Earth Campaign using D&D. This included a magic system that made human Wizards very weak at low levels, and very powerful at high levels. D&D Elves had very low powered magics, and on the whole, they were far less powerful than humans, being capped (limited) to 4th level fighters, and 8th level magic users, and not being able to progress after that. In Middle Earth, the Elves were inherently magical, and had far more spells, and magic than the Humans, though they were matched in power by the
Maiar, a race of Magic-users which included Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando. There were more Maiar though... many more!
Sauron was a fallen
Maiar who followed the fallen Vala known as
Melkor (Morgoth). The Maiar are a group of beings outwardly resembling Men but possessing much greater physical and mental power. They are also called the
Istari, the Wise ones, by the
Noldor.The
Maiar are
"spirits whose being also began before the world, of the same order as the Valar but of less degree". In the
Valaquenta, it is also written that many
Maiar associated themselves with a
Vala; for example,
Ossë and Uinen, who ruled the Seas, acted under
Ulmo, while
Curumo, who came to be known in Middle-earth as
Saruman, was with
Aulë the Smith.
Sauron also was with
Aulë before being corrupted by
Melkor.Being of divine origin and possessing great power, the
Maiar can wander the world unseen or shape themselves in fashion of Elves or other creatures; these "
veils", called
fanar in
Quenya (High Elven), could be destroyed, but their true-being could not. Rarely did the
Maiar adopt their visible forms to elves and man, and for that reason, very few of the
Maiar have names in their tongues, and even the elves do not know how many of the
Maiar exist.
Some say the Elves and the Magic-Users as well were gimped in D&D, because a certain guy named
Gary, didn't like the fact that Tolkien Elves are inherently powerful magical beings. I just houseruled my home D&D game when running Middle Earth campaigns and fixed that tiny oversight. Also,
Wizards can totally use swords in any of my D&D games, anytime they want. Just ...sayin.
Also, ...anyone seen
Stormbringer lately? He vanished off of G+.
Want to make your setting less Tolkien? Make it more Medieval-Authentic! Buy Lion & Dragon!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1033932Buy Lion & Dragon!
Shameful!
(https://i.imgur.com/LTeEbnd.jpg)
Quote from: GameDaddy;1033773D&D had many things not in common with Middle Earth, which required some significant adjustments to in order to play a Middle Earth Campaign using D&D. This included a magic system that made human Wizards very weak at low levels, and very powerful at high levels. D&D Elves had very low powered magics, and on the whole, they were far less powerful than humans, being capped (limited) to 4th level fighters, and 8th level magic users, and not being able to progress after that. In Middle Earth, the Elves were inherently magical, and had far more spells, and magic than the Humans, though they were matched in power by the Maiar, a race of Magic-users which included Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando. There were more Maiar though... many more! Sauron was a fallen Maiar who followed the fallen Vala known as Melkor (Morgoth). The Maiar are a group of beings outwardly resembling Men but possessing much greater physical and mental power. They are also called the Istari, the Wise ones, by the Noldor.
Middle Earth "magic" was quite different from D&D magic. Very few wizards chucked fireballs around in ME, whereas it's a common thing in D&D. Most elf magic was more about lore and intuition and communication and junk.
QuoteSome say the Elves and the Magic-Users as well were gimped in D&D, because a certain guy named Gary, didn't like the fact that Tolkien Elves are inherently powerful magical beings. I just houseruled my home D&D game when running Middle Earth campaigns and fixed that tiny oversight. Also, Wizards can totally use swords in any of my D&D games, anytime they want. Just ...sayin.
My 2nd ed houserule is that we use weapon proficiencies, and characters can take any WP they like, obeying the number of slots. Clerics have to use their allowed weapons, and thieves can't backstab with a halberd. :D
A wizard who wants to use a longsword just isn't going to be as good as a fighter even if he's proficient with it, so it doesn't affect much.
Something I've learned the hard way, is that if you do have your own campaign setting, or just a certain feel in mind, never allow open book character creation. Not every race published, not every class published, and no, not even with re-skinning. (I've tried reskinning, and it can work within limits, but it's not a silver bullet.) I've seen Wheel of Time devolve into dungeon-crawling D&D, and high-flying wushu devolve into plate mail and sword foreigners, because the GMs wanted players and opened the book up to let them play what they want. I even once saw a Savage Worlds steampunk campaign fail at feeling steampunk (!), because the GM threw the core book out without a setting document to channel character creation (and Savage Worlds should own steampunk).
This all goes down smoother if you also add or expand options unique to the setting. If nothing else though, it's a useful pass/fail test - if someone says they want to play, but actually insist on making a character that just doesn't fit, it's a sign they haven't actually signed on to play the game you're offering after all.
That aside, I agree with most of the reading suggested above. It is hard to get all your players to read much; some will, some won't, so the most I count on is maybe a short story. I have seen GMs start a campaign with a movie night before character generation; sadly there's a shortage of good movies in the vein of Lieber, Moorcock or Anderson. Howard of course is covered.
Primeval Thule is the best effort I've seen at making D&D feel less Tolkien without changing the player-side rules at all. Basically it gives everything a Kull/Conan/Elric patina.
Quote from: S'mon;1034214Primeval Thule is the best effort I've seen at making D&D feel less Tolkien without changing the player-side rules at all. Basically it gives everything a Kull/Conan/Elric patina.
Seconded.
Quote from: S'mon;1034214Primeval Thule is the best effort I've seen at making D&D feel less Tolkien without changing the player-side rules at all. Basically it gives everything a Kull/Conan/Elric patina.
Thirded. We're on commission for this, right?
Quote from: S'mon;1034214Primeval Thule is the best effort I've seen at making D&D feel less Tolkien without changing the player-side rules at all. Basically it gives everything a Kull/Conan/Elric patina.
Thirded. We're on commission for this, right?
Did anyone mention yet "starting by killing off all the demihumans";)? Because that's where I'd start.
Quote from: AsenRG;1034243Did anyone mention yet "starting by killing off all the demihumans";)? Because that's where I'd start.
A bit extreme, but that'd definitely do the job. Especially when applied to the non-Tolkein demihumans (dragonborn, aasimar, tiefling, etc.) "Cosmopolitan species freakshow" is one non-Tolkien extreme; "humans only" is another. For "not Tolkien", I prefer the latter.
Quote from: RandyB;1034244A bit extreme, but that'd definitely do the job. Especially when applied to the non-Tolkein demihumans (dragonborn, aasimar, tiefling, etc.) "Cosmopolitan species freakshow" is one non-Tolkien extreme; "humans only" is another. For "not Tolkien", I prefer the latter.
...how is that extreme? Seriously asking:). To me, it's merely a good first step.
Especially since after that, I'd simply remove the Vancian-style magic-users and clerics as character option. Not because they're so much Tolkien-like, they aren't, but to achieve an aesthetic that's definitely non-Tolkien. In fact, it's directly opposed to Tolkien.
Want to play a wizard? Play someone who negotiates with outsiders for every bit of mojo, or needs long preparations and rituals!
And none of the outsiders and rituals are benevolent. Not even those used for healing. You don't heal by casting Cure Light Wounds, you heal by summoning the Crocodile Spirit and placating him, so he eats your pain away. If you're lucky, he'd also eat the reasons for your pain, too.
At this point, everyone should get the dual message that a) it's definitely not Tolkien, and b) it's a world that desperately needs heroes that do the right thing:D!
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1033530How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien? What are the styles and world building elements that make the westerns, pulps, Oz, etc unique from Tolkien clones?
Set them in different periods, in different cultures or in different settings.
Just because a setting has elves and dwarves, doesn't mean it is Tolkieny. Elves and dwarves came before Tolkien.
Middle Earth has the Horse Riders of Rohan, that doesn't mean that settings with horse riders as a culture are Tolkieny. Horse rider cultures could be based on the various steppe nomads, on American plains Indians and so on.
It is easy to say that a seting with elves, orcs, goblins and halflings is Tolkieny, but I think that is just lazy.
Quote from: AsenRG;1034245...how is that extreme? Seriously asking:). To me, it's merely a good first step.
It gets the job done, definitely. But equating the more common demihuman races (elf, dwarf, halfling-as-hobbit) to "Tolkien-ish" is a bit inaccurate. The racial makeup of the Fellowship was a gross anomaly that got an abundance of "camera time" because they were the focus of the major events at that point in the history of Middle Earth. The racial cosmopolitanism that is so characteristic of D&D and AD&D after about 1980 isn't "Tolkien-ish" to me. It's "D&D-ish".
OTOH, one easy way to have a non-Tolkien-ish D&D setting is to add historically accurate gunpowder and firearms. Another is "no PC arcane spellcasters".
Quote from: RandyB;1034255OTOH, one easy way to have a non-Tolkien-ish D&D setting is to add historically accurate gunpowder and firearms. ".
I find that Star Dwarf laser pistols and elven anti-grav sleds have much the same effect!
Quote from: Gorilla_Zod;1034265I find that Star Dwarf laser pistols and elven anti-grav sleds have much the same effect!
Yup. But "historically accurate gunpowder" is more of a D&D heresy - perhaps
the D&D heresy.
Quote from: Gorilla_Zod;1034265I find that Star Dwarf laser pistols and elven anti-grav sleds have much the same effect!
I like the cut of your jib. :D
Quote from: RandyB;1034270Yup. But "historically accurate gunpowder" is more of a D&D heresy - perhaps the D&D heresy.
You're 100% on that. I think that's where a game like Fantasy AGE tries to distinguish itself, by putting gunpowder front and center, and it's also why I love Lamentations of the Flame Princess so much.
Last session one of my players found out from another PC that gunpowder and firearms are produced in his home city. The look of shock and creeping delight on Player A's face was lovely, as was the the ensuing argument, because Player B is on the run and has no intention of ever returning home. But yeah, the fact that you can get your musket on in my D&D game caused the same sort of ripples as a big plot reveal or something.
Quote from: Krimson;1034273I like the cut of your jib. :D
Cheers! Always trying to keep it Medieval Authentic(tm).
Musket is WAY too advanced for my 14th century. Hand cannone, baby.
My objection to gunpowder in D&D is that those who have wanted it have wanted machine guns and Garands, or at the VERY least, Winchesters and Colt Peacemakers.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034373Musket is WAY too advanced for my 14th century. Hand cannone, baby.
My objection to gunpowder in D&D is that those who have wanted it have wanted machine guns and Garands, or at the VERY least, Winchesters and Colt Peacemakers.
I've seen a little of that, but it seems mostly tied to my problem (at least up where I live and again this is mine) is this belief that guns are somehow more lethal than having your head cut off, or chest caved in. A lot of it is Hollywoodism, I know. But that's my problem.
Of course, there are a lot of people who complain that Daggers aren't lethal enough, but everyone seems to forget that in the real world, knife deaths happen in one of usually two ways. Single stab wound to a vital, target bleeds to death. Or multiple stab wounds, target bleeds to death faster.
I've seen it mostly from kids who want to mow down mooks, and the occasional near-psychopath.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034373Musket is WAY too advanced for my 14th century. Hand cannone, baby.
My objection to gunpowder in D&D is that those who have wanted it have wanted machine guns and Garands, or at the VERY least, Winchesters and Colt Peacemakers.
Well, there's "wahoo!", and there's... what you just described. OTOH, there's "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" and "Sixguns and Sorcery". Genre mixing can be fun, but it's like a recipe - what's the main ingredients, and what's the spices?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034373Musket is WAY too advanced for my 14th century. Hand cannone, baby.
My objection to gunpowder in D&D is that those who have wanted it have wanted machine guns and Garands, or at the VERY least, Winchesters and Colt Peacemakers.
Oh come on. Let them have it. Then wait for them to start a gunfight in a cavern with a few hundred tons of rocks over their heads. Good times. Or in a forest, where the gunfire is basically a beacon to every monster that can hear it. :D
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1033530D&D has numerous influences, including pulp fiction and Tolkien. What has always interested me the most were the uniquely American (and British) influences, such as the pulps and westerns. The earliest editions of D&D described the world as similar in geography and population to the American west and introduced order/chaos politics straight out of Moorcock, with the Tolkien influence (elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs) serving largely as window dressing. At some points we even got cool stuff like crashed alien spaceships and a blurry line between magic and technology.
Tolkien's legacy has colored all fiction that came afterward. G.R.R. Martin is often hailed as the "American Tolkien" because he is an American who wrote edgy LotR fan fiction. Meanwhile, the real American Tolkiens like Lovecraft and Howard and Baum receive almost no recognition in popular culture outside of endless reprints of their work because of their public domain status. As more D&D settings developed, they grew closer and closer to the pseudo-medieval aesthetic of Tolkien and further away from the pseudo-western and pulp aesthetic.
How does one make a campaign setting less Tolkien? What are the styles and world building elements that make the westerns, pulps, Oz, etc unique from Tolkien clones?
I don't really see the issue unless you insist on playing Tolkien-inspired games like D&D (or more obvious ones like The One Ring). Why not play the new Conan game? (or old ones?) I also don't think Howard and Lovecraft did not get much exposure. Tolkien's LOTR was a massive seller, but I keep seeing references to Howard and Lovecraft in literature, music, and games etc etc. That clearly includes RPGs. So, again, why the need to hang on to D&D? Tolkien was included in D&D from the start. (which is not a bad thing unless you're tired of him, like I presume the OP is)
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1033943Shameful!
(https://i.imgur.com/LTeEbnd.jpg)
Holy shit! This is awesome! I'm totally using it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1035311Holy shit! This is awesome! I'm totally using it.
A guy in Norman chainmail & helmet with a greatsword is NOT medieval authentic! :D
Quote from: S'mon;1035316A guy in Norman chainmail & helmet with a greatsword is NOT medieval authentic! :D
Is too...
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Handed-Norman-Medieval-Sword/dp/B01BLMX57U
https://britishheritage.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ogQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=account+of+normans+with+a+two-handed+sword&source=bl&ots=edh21qec-u&sig=cULnoj94cwf2CxfcMIhJGql0b0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTlN68msvaAhWI6IMKHbxHCjY4ChDoAQhKMAU#v=onepage&q=account%20of%20normans%20with%20a%20two-handed%20sword&f=false
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1033542Simple.
You and your players read some books other than Tolkien.
The Tolkienization of D&D is mostly a product of the player base, not the rules. The default play of D&D changed drastically in the mid 80s when the fantasy literature boom exploded, and if you look at the fantasy books published in the 80s you will notice that a) per Sturgeon, most of them are crap and 2) they are almost ALL "epic quest to save the world" shit.
Read some Howard and Lieber and Moorcock -- EARLY Moorcock -- and DeCamp and Dunsany and Lovecraft, etc, etc, etc.
Stop thinking about Tolkien as the default and Tolkien will no longer be the default.
No need to thank me, just buy me a beer.
I would argue that part of the reason for this attitude of "Tolkien First!" has a lot to do with the time that D&D hit the mainstream. I discovered D&D thanks to the Holmes blue box in '79 (or thereabouts) when I was about 9 years old. At that time, bookstores were not necessarily divided up by genre like they are now. There was usually a "Science Fiction" ghetto in the back of most decent-sized bookstores, and that would contain the entire spectrum of what we think of as "imaginative" or "genre" fiction now. Stephen King, Frank Herbert, and Robert E. Howard would be within inches of each other on the shelf.
Tolkien, however, was hitting -big- in the 70s. His books were coming out of the scifi ghetto and appearing at the "staff recommends" area of most bookstores in my area. So all my friends who were remotely interested in fantasy and scifi, were reading Tolkien.
Then we discover D&D about the same time, and look right there in the books are rules for being hobbits, elves, and dwarves and stuff. We can fight orcs! Cast spells! How neat, this is clearly a Tolkien game!
Of course, as we grew, many of us started reading outside the Tolkien books, and bringing ideas from other writers into our games. But funny enough, even as I grew to love Lovecraft, Moorcock, Anderson, LeGuin, etc., I still wanted Tolkien in my game.
For me, and I'd imagine many others, discovery of Tolkien and D&D was interconnected. Sort of a "you never forget your first loves" kind of thing, I guess.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1035319Is too...
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Handed-Norman-Medieval-Sword/dp/B01BLMX57U
https://britishheritage.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ogQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=account+of+normans+with+a+two-handed+sword&source=bl&ots=edh21qec-u&sig=cULnoj94cwf2CxfcMIhJGql0b0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTlN68msvaAhWI6IMKHbxHCjY4ChDoAQhKMAU#v=onepage&q=account%20of%20normans%20with%20a%20two-handed%20sword&f=false
No, it's not. The only reference to "greatsword" -- the modern name for a two-handed sword -- is the Amazon ad, and if you're using THAT for your historical research, I'm going to pee in your boot.
Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, well done, you got me.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1035319Is too...
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Handed-Norman-Medieval-Sword/dp/B01BLMX57U
https://britishheritage.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ogQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=account+of+normans+with+a+two-handed+sword&source=bl&ots=edh21qec-u&sig=cULnoj94cwf2CxfcMIhJGql0b0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTlN68msvaAhWI6IMKHbxHCjY4ChDoAQhKMAU#v=onepage&q=account%20of%20normans%20with%20a%20two-handed%20sword&f=false
lol Amazon calling it 'two-handed' doesn't mean it's a greatsword. The sword shown is a longsword. Not what fantasy RPGs wrongly call a 'longsword', but an actual longsword. Look at the dimensions listed in that ad...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_swords
Yes, I know it's only wikipedia, but they do get some stuff right!
Quote from: S'mon;1035316A guy in Norman chainmail & helmet with a greatsword is NOT medieval authentic! :D
That is not a renesancse greatsword. Looks like a common knights sword, which often had longer grips for two-handed wielding. Or what people today often refer to a "bastard sword", but would probably just be called a "long sword".
Quote from: Teodrik;1035354That is not a renesancse greatsword. Looks like a common knights sword, which often had longer grips for two-handed wielding. Or what people today often refer to a "bastard sword", but would probably just be called a "long sword".
Renaissance.
And at any rate, that sword is still 200 or more years too late for a Norman knight to use.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035364Renaissance.
And at any rate, that sword is still 200 or more years too late for a Norman knight to use.
Lying autocorrect.
I would agree with you. But I am not certain about the helmet. It does not look that old style norman (especially the face guard) but more one of those later designs that was continusly used later in different european regions. It looks much like a cross-midstep between the later italian conical babuta style and the sicilio-norman. So my point being looking at it as strictly 1000-1100's norman may be looking with the wrong glasses.
Or it might actually be a norman knight from around the first crusade when the earlier versions of norman sword with one-and-half-hand hilts had come into use. But the hilt on the picture is still a bit too long and the pummel and guard seems a bit off (but not impossible)
Is that a Norman helmet? It lacks the nose guard. The cheeks guards are not something I associate with the Norman look either. Not an expert, me, so take with a grain of salt.
An arming sword is what I would expect of a Norman knight, not a longsword/bastard sword/hand and a half sword.
I don't think the illustration is supposed to be a Norman. Or particularly accurate, historically speaking.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035364Renaissance.
And at any rate, that sword is still 200 or more years too late for a Norman knight to use.
The blade is pretty wide and doesn't taper. You're sure that couldn't pass for an Oakeshott Type XIII? Those have been found to date into the late 1100s.
Beyond Historical Accuracy: A Postmodern View of Movies and Medievalism
http://www.medievalists.net/2009/04/beyond-historical-accuracy-a-postmodern-view-of-movies-and-medievalism/
Quote from: GameDaddy;1035319Is too...
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Handed-Norman-Medieval-Sword/dp/B01BLMX57U
https://britishheritage.com/weaponry-norman-arms-and-armor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ogQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=account+of+normans+with+a+two-handed+sword&source=bl&ots=edh21qec-u&sig=cULnoj94cwf2CxfcMIhJGql0b0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTlN68msvaAhWI6IMKHbxHCjY4ChDoAQhKMAU#v=onepage&q=account%20of%20normans%20with%20a%20two-handed%20sword&f=false
You don't really see two-handed longswords until the 1300s - Normans had 1-handed, short-grip swords, what would be called arming swords later.
Edit: ie, Old Geezer is right (words it always pains me to say) :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;1035426The blade is pretty wide and doesn't taper. You're sure that couldn't pass for an Oakeshott Type XIII? Those have been found to date into the late 1100s.
As geezer pointed out the long sword didn't come into play until the early to mid 14th century. Due to the fact that plate hadn't been a thing, thus the idea was you didn't need that much leverage to penetrate armour (And I mean kinetic transfer of damage, not actually bursting of chain links.) Also, the shield was still in use by the nobility as a defensive weapon.
Quote from: Franky;1035416I don't think the illustration is supposed to be a Norman. Or particularly accurate, historically speaking.
This actually says it all;).
And I'd note that all of you that want their settings to be more Tolkien-like face an equally uphill battle, if not more. D&D still retains enough traces of other influences that it's only got superficial similarities to Tolkien's works, at best.
In fact, one could even argue that the trappings are
easier to remove, than it is to add the substance:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;1035507This actually says it all;).
And I'd note that all of you that want their settings to be more Tolkien-like face an equally uphill battle, if not more. D&D still retains enough traces of other influences that it's only got superficial similarities to Tolkien's works, at best.
In fact, one could even argue that the trappings are easier to remove, than it is to add the substance:D!
For
more Tolkien-like, Adventures in Middle Earth for 5e nails it. For
less Tolkien-like, Primeval Thule for 5e nails it. And those are not the only two (especially in the latter case) that accomplish the task.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1035426The blade is pretty wide and doesn't taper. You're sure that couldn't pass for an Oakeshott Type XIII? Those have been found to date into the late 1100s.
The blade appears too long, and the hilt is certainly too long for an Oakeshott XIII.
Quote from: S'mon;1035486Edit: ie, Old Geezer is right (words it always pains me to say) :D
* does "Naked Old Geezer Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop Happy Dance" *
Quote from: Franky;1033563A radical Tolkienectomy or just a Tolkienectomy?
Get other inspirations. Pick a non-pseudo medieval setting. The American Frontier seems to be the default setting for the original game, albeit with a medieval skin. Nice little article here http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/2013/05/od-setting-posts-in-pdf.html
Read some Poul Anderson. The Broken Sword and Three Hearts and Three Lions in particular. Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories.
Make the campaign setting post-apocalyptic. The fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Black Plague. The massive amount of death due to Euro-diseases in the Americas. These are certainly apocalyptic.
Excise the Tolkien-esque parts. Halflings must go. Elves need to be revised to something more akin to Northern European folklore. Orcs must go too. Goblins need to be revised. And hobgoblins ought to be smaller than goblins.
Fafnir is a fine ideal for a dragon in place of Smaug.
Really, Tolkien just plundered Northern European folklore-- Germanic including Scandinavian, and some Celtic-- for his 'Legendarium'. Go to the sources yourself, and skip the middleman.
Read Beowulf.
Yep.
Quote from: Franky;1035416Is that a Norman helmet? It lacks the nose guard. The cheeks guards are not something I associate with the Norman look either. Not an expert, me, so take with a grain of salt.
An arming sword is what I would expect of a Norman knight, not a longsword/bastard sword/hand and a half sword.
I don't think the illustration is supposed to be a Norman. Or particularly accurate, historically speaking.
Angus McBride's illustrations were usually fairly accurate (though like any other illustration of things that no longer exist, there's bound to be some guesswork). In any event, the fighting man in this picture is an Irish Gallowglass mercenary from the 1300s.
Quote from: RandyB;1035511For more Tolkien-like, Adventures in Middle Earth for 5e nails it. For less Tolkien-like, Primeval Thule for 5e nails it. And those are not the only two (especially in the latter case) that accomplish the task.
Never read AiME, can't confirm. I kinda doubt it, but that's me:).
But yes, there's many ways to do either, if that's your point;).
Quote from: AsenRG;1035651Never read AiME, can't confirm. I kinda doubt it, but that's me:).
But yes, there's many ways to do either, if that's your point;).
Pretty much my point, yes. Those two examples are just fresh-to-mind.
Quote from: S'mon;1035316A guy in Norman chainmail & helmet with a greatsword is NOT medieval authentic! :D
I get what you're saying, but the poster is still awesome.
Quote from: Elfdart;1035558Angus McBride's illustrations were usually fairly accurate (though like any other illustration of things that no longer exist, there's bound to be some guesswork). In any event, the fighting man in this picture is an Irish Gallowglass mercenary from the 1300s.
He's also awesome. One of my favorite illustrators.
Personally I think it's really up to the GM to make the setting less Tolkien. I'm not a big Tolkien fan, I love the Hobbit but I've never read the Lord of the Rings and most of my fantasy musings are inspired by Glen Cook, David Gemmell and a few other fantasy action orientated authors. As other people have said you have to strip out all the things that are representative of Tolkien. Elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins anything that has Tolkien feel to it.
I actually watched Princess Mononoke tonight and thought it made a pretty good D&D setting. Giant spirit animals that turn demonic, nature spirit gods, demonic possession, deer riding, hand gonnes, fortified villages, Imperial writs allowing people to hunt said nature spirit gods for their heads. All stuff that can be used instead of the traditional Tolkien tropes.
Quote from: Bucket;1036526I actually watched Princess Mononoke tonight and thought it made a pretty good D&D setting. Giant spirit animals that turn demonic, nature spirit gods, demonic possession, deer riding, hand gonnes, fortified villages, Imperial writs allowing people to hunt said nature spirit gods for their heads. All stuff that can be used instead of the traditional Tolkien tropes.
Now, remove the deer-riding, and that would actually be a pretty good idea:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;1036544Now, remove the deer-riding, and that would actually be a pretty good idea:D!
Hahaha to be honest I find horses and horse riding a really traditional Tolkien trope. Where are the man size riding dogs? Where are the racing snails? Where are the goat drawn chariots? Where are the giant flying whales? A D&D setting should embrace more fantastic transportation in my opinion if it wants to escape Tolkien because it's not just eliminating humanoids but also the various other cornerstones of Tolkien worldbuilding.
Quote from: Bucket;1036578Hahaha to be honest I find horses and horse riding a really traditional Tolkien trope. Where are the man size riding dogs? Where are the racing snails? Where are the goat drawn chariots? Where are the giant flying whales? A D&D setting should embrace more fantastic transportation in my opinion if it wants to escape Tolkien because it's not just eliminating humanoids but also the various other cornerstones of Tolkien worldbuilding.
Nope, there are several good reasons why you don't use carnivores or omnivores as mounts. Besides, people were riding horses not only in Europe, in fact, horseriding was arguably invented on another continent;).
Make them small steppe horses that can't carry a knight, if you want to avoid Tolkien, but keep the settings making sense. Remember, RE Howard had horseriders from different places, and nobody accuses him of being like Tolkien:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;1036772Remember, RE Howard had horseriders from different places, and nobody accuses him of being like Tolkien:D!
Doesn't Conan predate The Hobbit by five years?
Quote from: Krimson;1036844Doesn't Conan predate The Hobbit by five years?
Not sure about the years, but yes, he does:).
Which kinda explains Tolkien's approach that older is better;).
Quote from: Krimson;1036844Doesn't Conan predate The Hobbit by five years?
Give or take a few months, yes.
The Phoenix On The Sword is December 1932, The Hobbit September 21, 1937.
Quote from: Bucket;1036578Hahaha to be honest I find horses and horse riding a really traditional Tolkien trope.
That's rather silly. "Horseriding" is prevalent through history. If you call it a Tolkien trope just because there are horses and riders in The Lord of the Rings, then by the same logic you should also call eating, drinking, speaking, walking, swords, clothes, combat and buildings "Tolkien tropes", because they're also in The Lord of the Rings.
Also, how could it be a Tolkien thing, if the heroes spend most of the story
walking on foot?
Quote from: Premier;1037169That's rather silly. "Horseriding" is prevalent through history. If you call it a Tolkien trope just because there are horses and riders in The Lord of the Rings, then by the same logic you should also call eating, drinking, speaking, walking, swords, clothes, combat and buildings "Tolkien tropes", because they're also in The Lord of the Rings.
Also, how could it be a Tolkien thing, if the heroes spend most of the story walking on foot?
Stupid post by little known poster with small post count.
AC 4, 6 + 3 HD, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round.
Quote from: Premier;1037169Also, how could it be a Tolkien thing, if the heroes spend most of the story walking on foot?
That could explain why so many video games can be described as Walking Simulators. :D
The most Tolkein thing I find in D&D is the party membership. WotC altered that with a plethora of new nonhuman PCs, but the Elf + Dwarf + Hobbit + Humans always feels very LotR to me. If I am going for a non-Tolkein D&D campaign, I am definitely altering the PC choices.
I've mentioned this before (maybe even in this thread, I can't remember) that I have run a couple campaigns where the Fiend Folio represent ALL the life on the world (plus humans). The weirdness of FF1e really shines when creating a world from whole cloth and you look for connections between the beasties to build the setting. Also, you start looking for what's on the menu for everyone and how that affects the setting.
Both times we've had tremendous fun. I would do it again in a heartbeat and I really should pull together my notes (and my head out of my ass while I'm at it!)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034373My objection to gunpowder in D&D is that those who have wanted it have wanted machine guns and Garands, or at the VERY least, Winchesters and Colt Peacemakers.
I found Iron Kingdoms did "guns in D&D" surprisingly well. Their steampunk world felt right and I never felt the gunslingers overshadowed the other classes. They were effectively a different take on archers. I played a couple different IK campaigns (D20 and GURPS) and I was impressed how they managed it (and I'm not a D20 or GURPS fan).
But I'm a huge Gamma World fan so I have a sword, you have a plasma grenade, and that dude has laser eyeballs works great for me.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035513* does "Naked Old Geezer Shimmy Shimmy Ko-Ko Bop Happy Dance" *
Pics or it didn't happen!
Quote from: AsenRG;1036772Nope, there are several good reasons why you don't use carnivores or omnivores as mounts. Besides, people were riding horses not only in Europe, in fact, horseriding was arguably invented on another continent;).
Make them small steppe horses that can't carry a knight, if you want to avoid Tolkien, but keep the settings making sense. Remember, RE Howard had horseriders from different places, and nobody accuses him of being like Tolkien:D!
Hahaha I still think there needs to be more fantastical riding options beyond horses and horseriding but I concede that it makes sense to keep the mounts herbivores.
Quote from: Premier;1037169That's rather silly. "Horseriding" is prevalent through history. If you call it a Tolkien trope just because there are horses and riders in The Lord of the Rings, then by the same logic you should also call eating, drinking, speaking, walking, swords, clothes, combat and buildings "Tolkien tropes", because they're also in The Lord of the Rings.
Also, how could it be a Tolkien thing, if the heroes spend most of the story walking on foot?
Like I said I've never read The Lord of the Rings only The Hobbit, which I love, but the Lord of the Rings movies which I have watched, and also loved, has a huge focus on the Riders of Rohan which is what I was basing my statement on that horse riding was a Tolkien trope. I would argue that the things you bring up aren't tropes but simply exist within the story as elements. I'm not great at articulating precisely what I mean so my apologies if it doesn't make sense.
The walking thing though is a definite Tolkien trope which I would eliminate by maybe riding a giant sloth to wherever your heading.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037183Stupid post by little known poster with small post count.
AC 4, 6 + 3 HD, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round.
I'm definitely not an Encephalon Gorger. A jerk maybe but not a Gorger.
Quote from: Bucket;1036578Hahaha to be honest I find horses and horse riding a really traditional Tolkien trope. Where are the man size riding dogs? Where are the racing snails? Where are the goat drawn chariots? Where are the giant flying whales? A D&D setting should embrace more fantastic transportation in my opinion if it wants to escape Tolkien because it's not just eliminating humanoids but also the various other cornerstones of Tolkien worldbuilding.
What about orcs riding worgs (big boars), a wizard in a sled pulled by hares and people being carried by eagles? All in the Lord of the Rings or Hobbit films.
For me, Tolkein is a Dark Lord of some kind, ruling an empire of orcs, goblins and bad men, being opposed by an alliance of dwarves, elves and hobbits.
I love Tolkien but Middle-earth it is not one of my favorite settings to play in.
This is good:
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1033557(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/TSR2400_Dark_Sun_Campaign_Setting.jpg/220px-TSR2400_Dark_Sun_Campaign_Setting.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Ravenloft_I6.jpg/200px-Ravenloft_I6.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/SpelljammerAdventuresInSpaceBox.jpg/220px-SpelljammerAdventuresInSpaceBox.jpg)(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51XT7W2VP3L._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
So, besides "vanilla", my favorite flavors are indeed Dark Sun, Planescape-y and Ravenloft-y:
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/10/my-four-favorite-metasettings.html
Days of the Damned - Dark Videogame World
I love "gothic videogames" since I was a child. Their settings, monsters and traps are better fitted for RPG than gothic novels and most horror movies (although mangas such as Berserk an Claymore are also big influences). Dark Souls is the most important inspiration in recent years. The idea is to put the PCs heroes in dark, desolate worlds where every institution is unreliable, there is no central government to keep things stable (also, no law and no boundaries) and the monsters are bigger and nastier than anything you will find in other settings. The gods are absent or unreliable, non-humans are rare and usually evil (although monsters of all kinds - even Hammer horror - are everywhere), and magic is corrupting. Nights are long and days are foggy and gray.
My (unpublished) Days of the Damned RPG focuses on this genre (here is a comparison with D&D e 13th Age mechanics). Although there are some good RPGs with similar themes out there (Dragon Age, SotDL, WFRPG), my own writing focuses on human PCs and avoids playing for laughs or embracing nihilism. The overall feel is of decadence and chaos, instead of post-apocalyptic badassery and rebirth.
Characters: human (or near human) eager to fight terrible monsters with limited resources. Don't get attached.
Locations: giant ruins, near-empty villages, haunted forests.
Inspirations: Dark Souls, Castlevania, Ghouls 'n Ghosts, The Witcher (haven't read the books), Berserk, and to a minor extent Bloodborne, Dragon Age, Skyrim, Ravenloft, Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Also, if you're looking for gothic RPG stuff, you can find awesome ideas in Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque.
Ecumenopolis - High fantasy Multiplane Teradungeon
Other type of setting I enjoy is the "super high fantasy", where heroes deal with multiple planes of existence, mega-cities with endless dungeons, and magic so powerful and advanced that it can become indistinguishable from high tech.
Society is very urbanized and as complex as our own; warring factions are bound by byzantine laws enforced by sorcery; and the (very strange) gods will often meddle in the affairs of the City. Civilization is booming; it could reach singularity or destroy itself any day, although it has lasted for hundreds of years. Magical creatures and items are commonplace, but "traditional" fantasy are almost verboten: no orcs, dwarves, or traditional elves. Ravnica is my main inspiration here, but I there is plenty of other stuff I can find no better place for, such as Planescape and China Miéville.
D&D 5e seems to be a perfect fit; characters become extremely powerful and might even shape reality but are still susceptible of being brought down by a powerful gang of thugs.
Characters: anything goes, except the usual stuff!
Locations: mazes, enormous buildings, endless cities, back alleys, courtrooms and arenas.
Inspirations: Ravnica, Talislanta, Ptolus, Star Wars, Planescape, China Miéville.
Beneath the Bloody Sun - Post-apoc Survival Savagery
My own version of Dark Sun, with lots of Tékumel, Clark Ashton Smith and french comic book artists. Mother Nature was made barren and the world itself hates life. Now, the post-apocalyptic wastelands are ruled by city-states inspired by ancient history. Life is cheap and every resource - metal, magic, water - is scarce. Instead of horses and lions, you get feathered dinosaurs, giant worms and insectoid-people. There is radiation, teleportation, and lasers from ancient times - but even the simplest technologies are indistinguishable from magic to the people of this primitive planet.
Characters: mostly humans but also other mutant and alien types.
Locations: great cities surrounded by walls, ziggurats, endless wastes of scorching sun.
Inspirations: see the complete list here (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/10/mad-sun-part-i-inspirations.html), plus Talislanta, GURPS Fantasy II, etc. Tags: bloody sun.
Quote from: Premier;1037169That's rather silly. "Horseriding" is prevalent through history. If you call it a Tolkien trope just because there are horses and riders in The Lord of the Rings, then by the same logic you should also call eating, drinking, speaking, walking, swords, clothes, combat and buildings "Tolkien tropes", because they're also in The Lord of the Rings.
You forgot pipe smoking.
Quote from: Bucket;1036578Hahaha to be honest I find horses and horse riding a really traditional Tolkien trope. Where are the man size riding dogs? Where are the racing snails? Where are the goat drawn chariots? Where are the giant flying whales? A D&D setting should embrace more fantastic transportation in my opinion if it wants to escape Tolkien because it's not just eliminating humanoids but also the various other cornerstones of Tolkien worldbuilding.
With all the human-like creatures you find in a typical fantasy world (Tolkienesque or not), all the exotic beasts and most importantly, all the magic charms and special abilities available, it always seemed odd that most mounts and beasts of burden in campaigns are the same ones you find in real life. I had dwarves riding giant bighorn sheep and elves riding Irish elk in my campaign decades before Peter Jackson put them in his movies. I had pygmies in an East African-ish land who rode ostriches, while other natives had domesticated the quagga. Most recently, I stole George Martin's idea of having giants riding mammoths.
Quote from: Bucket;1036526Personally I think it's really up to the GM to make the setting less Tolkien. I'm not a big Tolkien fan, I love the Hobbit but I've never read the Lord of the Rings and most of my fantasy musings are inspired by Glen Cook, David Gemmell and a few other fantasy action orientated authors. As other people have said you have to strip out all the things that are representative of Tolkien. Elves, dwarves, hobbits, orcs, goblins anything that has Tolkien feel to it.
I don't think you have to strip these things out so much as de-emphasize them, or push them into the background. I mean, Westeros would still be humanocentric even if elves lived in one or more of the forests, or if one of the houses recruited orcs to fight for them (just swap out one of the Wildling or mountain clans with orcs and you wouldn't miss a beat).
Quote from: RPGPundit;1037849You forgot pipe smoking.
Pipe-smoking does remind me of Tolkien, actually. Especially if you include tricks with the smoke;).
But yes, if you replace horses because of this, the next thing you should replace are swords. Macuahuitls should be fine, though:D!
Quote from: AsenRG;1037975Pipe-smoking does remind me of Tolkien, actually. Especially if you include tricks with the smoke;).
It's made LoTR more enjoyable for me, that's for sure.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1038142It's made LoTR more enjoyable for me, that's for sure.
Then we agree on it:).
So would you replace horses and swords with riding wolves* and macuahuitls in order to make a setting less Tolkien-like? Or would you change the reason and frequency of how people use swords;)?
*Which also remind of Tolkien, since it's specified that goblins actually ride wolves.
Quote from: AsenRG;1038803Then we agree on it:).
So would you replace horses and swords with riding wolves* and macuahuitls in order to make a setting less Tolkien-like? Or would you change the reason and frequency of how people use swords;)?
*Which also remind of Tolkien, since it's specified that goblins actually ride wolves.
No, all that stuff is stupid. It's a classic case of mistaking the trappings for the essence.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1039098No, all that stuff is stupid. It's a classic case of mistaking the trappings for the essence.
Yes, indeed:).
As an example, you could have lama-riding PoC PCs use macuahuitls to fight the armies of the invading Empire of Enthropy which wants to stop the sacrifices without which the sun wouldn't rise again, and to this goal, you'd destroy The One Totem without which its emperor couldn't win, despite the temptation of using it themselves.
But you'd still have a LotR knock-off, just with South American trappings:D!
Campaign settings are too Tolkien because most people are lazy: players don't want something different than what' they've seen before, it's easier for referees to get a group together for the familiar than the different, and designers tend to follow the well worn paths. It's easy to know how to make a campaign setting less Tolkien, but harder work to stick it out.
One way of making a campaign setting less Tolkien without ditching the non-human fantasy races would be to make it more Tolkien-authentic; the elves, dwarfs and hobbits in Tolkien are very different from the ones in RPGs.
Quote from: AsenRG;1039374Yes, indeed:).
As an example, you could have lama-riding PoC PCs use macuahuitls to fight the armies of the invading Empire of Enthropy which wants to stop the sacrifices without which the sun wouldn't rise again, and to this goal, you'd destroy The One Totem without which its emperor couldn't win, despite the temptation of using it themselves.
But you'd still have a LotR knock-off, just with South American trappings:D!
Sounds a bit like Prax! RuneQuest replaced horses with all sorts of alternatives. And didn't end up feeling like Tolkien.
Empire of the Petal Throne pretty much did away with riding animals altogether. Along with elves, dwarfs, orcs ...
Reminds me of Talisanta. "No elves" was their pitch but they're full of elf-analogues.
Cymrillians?
Make the game Man-only to start.
Make access to Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits rewards for successful campaign play. That's right, they have to take their Fighter and successfully level that son-of-a-bitch to 9th level, ensure a good Charisma score, and then succeed in either taking a sizable population by force (so future PCs are subjects to their Mannish conquerors) or brokering an alliance (so future PCs are allied peoples)- and to maintain access the players must also maintain the conditions that allow that option.
You can do this for classes, powers, everything that can be selected as an option for a character.