Is it fair to say that this man had as much of an impact on modern or popular fantasy as Tolkien?
>>44680251
yes.
>>44680251
I was going to say yes, but the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to decide.
He popularized a fair amount of modern tropes in fantasy and gave people the tools through which a lot of contemporary fantasy was created, however, how much fantasy did he himself create?
He built the world in which modern fantasy takes place, but he did not tell the stories. I guess in that sense, yes, he was as influential as Tolkien, but with some reservations.
>>44680251
Certainly on popular ideas about what typical 'fantasy' involves.
>>44680251
Nope. What he created came from fantasy. However, if you've heard people talking about what "feels like classic D&D" or observed the cultural assumptions that lead to the creation and rise of 5e, you'll realize that "fantasy" as defined by narrative media and "fantasy" as defined by "classic D&D" are completely different genres.
>>44680526
Did he really? Do you expect to get the same thing out of a D&D campaign that you expect to get from a fantasy novel?
>>44680251
It's hard to say, because he didn't just popularize Fantasy (not to say that fantasy was particularly unpopular before him, but D&D has become a huge landmark on the genre), he popularized Tolkienesque fantasy. D&D is heavily influenced by LotR and what we think of as "bog standard" modern fantasy draws heavily from both.
I can't be very confident about any of this because social impact is a difficult thing to measure in the first place and he was standing on the shoulders of the other guy we're talking about. If Tolkien didn't exist Gygax may never have done what he did (and certainly not in the way he did it). But Gygax and his creations have become so much a part of popular culture that they in specific have become nigh-inseparable from the genre itself. It's telling that D&D owns "Fantasy Tabletop" in the same way that Band-Aid owns bandages. And it's certainly penetrated the psyche of people that consume the media--look at the people who insisted that Smaug and Skyrim dragons weren't dragons. That's 100% Gygax's doing.
Then again, look at fucking Dwarves and Elves. That's Tolkien. But would they be as ubiquitous if Gygax hadn't chosen Tolkien as his muse?
What I'm saying is they're both pretty important guys.
I'd say yes, because apart from the LotR movies, most people know fantasy tropes from video games, which have been borrowing from D&D since computer games were a thing. D&D is layered like bedrock underlying almost every video game RPG out there, and quite a few games that aren't RPGs.
>>44682960
Daily reminder that Gygax didn't base D&D on Tolkien.
Don't believe me? See: Vancian Magic, Law vs. Chaos, Devils and Demons everywhere, "sci-fi" elements everywhere, the Paladin, the concept of grubby treasure-seekers and social climbers as the protagonists of the piece, etc, etc. A few things get lifted from Tolkien and then thoroughly re-interpreted - and the fact that people think that D&D was "based on Tolkien" shows just how influential Gygax's reinterpretation became.
>>44680251
Gary "Give Blacks the Axe" Gygax
>>44680251
If you mean designing a shit game on his terrible ideas and having it create the terrible state the RPG community is today then yeah.
>>44683922
He was responsible for nothing beyond AD&D you irreverent millennial shitstain. Shut the fuck up when speaking of matters you know nothing about.
>>44680251
Sadly, yes.
>>44682960
>Gygax was influenced by Tolkien
Where does this come from? I see it repeated often, but from everything I've, Gygax wasn't influenced by Tolkien very much, hated LotR (but was a fan of the Hobbit), but was forced to add it to D&D because most of his players were massive Tolkien fanboys.
>>44683605
>Vancian Magic
Jack Vance
>Law vs. Chaos
Mainly Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions), and Michael Moorcock's Elric (Moorcock was also influenced by Anderson)
The whole concept of alignment was invented by Poul Anderson, and he has a very interesting take on it. Law represents the civilised lands of Christendom and the Saracens, i.e all the God fearing lands of the believers, the Church, Humans, etc. and Chaos represents wilderness, magic, the Devil, the fey (including Elves, which is where the chaotic elves of early D&D comes from), and war. Law is Good and Chaos is Evil. As civilization spreads, so does the power of Law, magic begins to fade, etc., but when war and corruption breaks out and civilisation falls into chaos, the Chaotic powers begin to rise, magic comes back and so too does the dark creatures that lay hidden in the dark recesses of the wild uncivilised land.
That was a very different take on the concept than Michael Moorcock, where both Law and Chaos represents extremist philosophy and were both Evil and only the neutral middle, represent Balance was Good
>"sci-fi" elements everywhere
Standard at the the time. There was no difference bewteen Sci-fi and fantasy.
>the Paladin
Poul Anderson (Three Hearts and Three Lions)
>the concept of grubby treasure-seekers
Tolkien (The Hobbit)
>and social climbers as the protagonists of the piece, etc, etc.
? Not sure where this comes from
The whole Sword and Sorcery feel of early D&D is from RE Howard and others.
D&D Trolls are from Poul Anderson
D&D Elves were a mix of Poul Anderson's Elves, elven myths and Tolkien's Elves. Definitely less Tolkien than it was Anderson's and myths
etc.
etc.
etc.
>>44685659
As you can see Poul Anderson was a massive influence on D&D. Along with RE Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance. Tolkien was an influence, yes, but far behind these others, whom I'd argue were far more the most influential on D&D.
Here are sites with more detailed references:
http://www.hahnlibrary.net/rpgs/sources.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_influences_on_the_development_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons
>>44680251
No.
His influence toward RPG is undeniable, but most of the CONTENT of his games was created by different people.
>>44680251
For better or worse, yes.
>>44680251
Unquestionably a greater. Tolkien's ideas haven't become tropes at all for the most part; D&D on the other hand was an almost literal trope factory.
>>44685659
>Where does this come from?
Appendix N: suggested reading.
>Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; “Ring trilogy”
>>44680251
I can't say, and would tend to no, but there is certainly a case to be made for it.
>>44680251
Not at all, this is just another example of how D&D fags think that they know what modern fantasy is like because they read a lot of forgotten realms novels.
Gygax legacy is mostly a specific segment of people who are completely out of touch with the roots and current state of the fandom, because they've mostly been consuming watered down fantasy sludge that had all the edges filed off so that they could sell it as a game for kids.
>>44686882
Why are you here?
>>44687140
To have a discussion, I'm sorry if you thought we were all just going to jerk each other off.
>>44686882
a lot of fantasy tropes come from D&D in fact more than Tolkien
>>44686812
Not that, this: >>44682960
>D&D is heavily influenced by LotR and what we think of as "bog standard" modern fantasy draws heavily from both
>If Tolkien didn't exist Gygax may never have done what he did
>Then again, look at fucking Dwarves and Elves. That's Tolkien.
>But would they be as ubiquitous if Gygax hadn't chosen Tolkien as his muse?
Basically the idea that Tolkien was the primary influence on D&D and if he didn't exist then neither would D&D, when in fact Tolkien was just an influence on D&D, and not even close to the main or primary influence. There were bigger influences that never get mentioned. Instead, you always see something along the lines of D&D was based on Tolkien.
>>44687198
It's not that you disagreed, it's that you are an edgelord claiming D&D is marketed to kids through FR novels.
>>44687369
Weren't Halflngs only there because LOTR fans wanted to be Hobbits?
>>44687460
Yeah, or so I've heard.
>>44687282
Isn't that just people taking what Tolkien did with a character or two and applying it to all characters in that group?
It's like how in Star Trek TOS you had some system placed in a Jeffries tube in one episode, so by the time TNG comes along, all the important shit is in Jeffries tubes. Or how one old Klingon general is sad that he couldn't die in glorious battle and now all Klingons are all about glory and honor and battle.
>>44686812
Along with a couple dozen other fantasy authors of the era, both great and obscure.
I'd give Howard, Vance (duh), and Lieber more influence than Tolkien.
>>44680251
I'm tempted to say "yes". The tropes and idioms D&D codified have obviously taken root in vidya in a huge way, and done a decent job saturating anime as well. Other narrative media, cartoons, tv, movies, comic books, what have you, seem to descend as much or more from 19th century Romanticist influences, but I'd still say a fair amount of ideas on display seem to have been cribbed from D&D's milieu.
As to fantasy literature in specific, I think that at first glance that's the medium that D&D looks to have the least impact on, due to the diversity of its subject matter. But I think an argument can be made that reacting to and subverting the tropes of a particular work constitutes being influenced by it, just as much as slavishly copying it does; and a fair bit of noteworthy fantasies in the past couple decades have distinguished themselves by how far they veer from the assumptions of the typical D&D setting. Mind you, this is a nebulous standard to apply, and there is the risk of calling a work that's completely uninfluenced by D&D totally influenced by it because it averts all the typical assumptions; admittedly it could be argued that it's a flawed metric and a tautology. But I think that a bit of discretion in applying it, combined with the fact that in a practical sense the tropes of D&D have had a lot of cultural penetration and the decision to follow or contravene them will in most cases absolutely be a conscious one, pretty much neuters that objection.
So again, I'm inclined to say that yes, Gygax's may well have had as much of an impact on contemporary fantasy as Tolkien's has. If not as a role model, then as a cautionary tale.
>>44680251
Fucking NO.
I'd say Gygax was an even larger influence than Tolkien through what is basically his Fantasy in Practice versus Fantastic Stories. Dungeons and Dragons was a huge influence because it was basically a "pick and choose what elements you like and craft a story from that". There's a certain double appeal to the whole issue, in as much as you've got story tellers who can take a setting and make their own stories in it, or use the setting as a model to create their own, adding or removing elements as they like. Similarly, you've got designers who would take those mechanics and run with them, changing as they saw fit to whatever the goals of the RPG/computer game/whatever were.
The guy was basically an example of "take all these non-copyrightable concepts that aren't nailed down and do whatever you want with them!" Very few people would give a shit about Jack Vance if Gygax hadn't ripped off his concept of casting, for example.
I think its obvious that Gygax is a huge influencer of RPGs and video games, but I'm not so sure of his effect on the fantasy genre other than further popularizing it. I don't know too much about fantasy history, but was Gygax responsible for classic D&D monsters like beholders, oozes, and mimics? or were those taken from other sources?
>>44680251
Yes. While a lot of elements from DnD are specific to DnD (you don't see Vancian magic really used anywhere else, aside from Jack Vance's books of course, where it actually functions very differently than the DnD intrepertion), but several very common fantasy tropes originate from there. Fantasy videogames games in particular are heavily inspired by DnD mechanics/elements, character classes and their roles being the big one (the basic class role division of fighter/mage/thief can be traced back to The Hobbit with the dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo, but DnD really codified the idea of character classes and their roles). Other things that were popularized with DnD include dark elves being a thing in multiple settings (again, a term that shows up in Tolkien's work but had a very different meaning than the evil conterpart of elves we associate the term with), "Standard Fantasy Setting" being a thing (again, DnD based their setting on Tolkien plus some other fantasy writers, but if it weren't for DnD I doube we'd have the expectations that every fantasy setting must include elves, dwarves and other things derived from Tolkien), dragons being highly intelligent and magical (and often colour-coded), and of course dungeons and adventurers being a thing (with going into a dungeon to kill stuff and find loot being pretty much a requirement for any fantasy game).
In literature the influence isn't as big, but since a lot of fantasy writers these days have playd fantasy games, those things tend to bleed in to some degree. The standard fantasy elves for example have a lot more common with DnD elves than LoTR elves (again, DnD elves are based on Tolkien's elves, specifically Legolas, but while the standard fantays elves are long-lived pointy-eared guys who live in forests, use bowns and are more agile but weaker than humans, Tolkien elves are pointy-eared quasi-angelic immortal ubermench).
>>44688866
His troupe is responsible for oozes at least. Everyone's favorite cube of jello was a homebrew monster that was a formless, colorless ooze, but the DM said something along the lines of "It fills out the available space perfectly" to which one of the players responded with "Wait, so it's a perfect 5x5x5 cube of jello?"
Literature? No.
Games? Yes.
>>44685659
DnD cosmology isn't really anythign like Tolkien's (as mentioned the hevay focus on Law and Chaos is from Moorcock and the magic system is from Vance), but the DND cosmology doesn't really show up much outside DnD (and PF, which is DnD 3.5 slightly modified, or more accurately a 3.5 clone created based on the 3.0 OGL). The "stanadrd fantasy races", which show up all over the place, however, are directly ripped from Tolkien (essentially, standard DnD elves are all Legolas, standard DnD dwarves are all Gimli), and likely wouldn't have become such a standard thign without DnD establishing them as part of the "standard fantasy setting".
Without that you no doubt would have had authors ripping off Tolkien, but I doubt you'd see syubborn bearded craftman dwarves and lithe magical pointy-eared archer elves all over the place. I mean, look at science fiction. Sure, writers often copy ideas from well-known authors, but there isn't really a a feel that the "standard SF setting" has to include specific things derived from the writings of Asimov or some other famous writer (like, there's not any "standard SF races", despite the concept being no less ridiculous than standard fantasy races).
>>44685659
Grubby treasure-seekers and social climbers as the protagonists is far more Leiber and Howard than it is Tolkien.
>>44689387
>the basic class role division of fighter/mage/thief can be traced back to The Hobbit with the dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo
That's dubious. You can find the same split in Leiber and Howard, writers that Gygax found much more appealing.
>dark elves
Honestly, D&D Drow are a (minimally) reskinned version of Burroughs' Black Martians. No more, no less.
>DnD based their setting on Tolkien plus some other fantasy writers
Grossly misleading. Tolkien isn't the main source, his work just got looted for parts.
>>44682960
There is very very very very little Tolkein in D&D.
Hobbits being the thief class is basically it.
Elves and dwarves exist, sure, but them being actually balanced against humans isn't Tolkein at all.
>>44689653
>like, there's not any "standard SF races"
Cyborgs, cat aliens, grey aliens, bug aliens, robots, robot aliens, furry/hairy aliens, blob aliens, AIs, etc. The issue is that there isn't really an all encompassing sci-fi D&D setting, so you have a much more fractured of what is standard. I'd argue that Tolkien didn't really popularize the "standard" races as much as D&D ripped them off from him, and their appearance in other media was more a pulling from D&D than anyone trying to copy Tolkien.
>>44689680
>Honestly, D&D Drow are a (minimally) reskinned version of Burroughs' Black Martians. No more, no less.
Maybe so, but Martians aren't elves, and the idea of an evil counterpart of the standard fantasy elves (usually with at least one of the following traits: extremely prone to figurative and literal cuthroat politics and backstabbing, being sadistic assholes, wearing skimpy clothing, having a fetish for spiders and/or being matriarchal) being a pretty common race in multiple fantasy settings is very likely traced back to DnD.
Likewise, if it wasn't for DnD, we probably wouldn't see the standard fantasy classes in almost every fantasy videogame.
>>44680251
the genre in fiction or the culture in the audience? The genre, not really, but the audience definitely.
>>44689853
My point exactly. DnD popularized the idea of there being a standard fantasy setting with standard fantasy races, though said standard fantasy races were originally ripped off from Tolkien.
Similarly with regards to SF; there is no DnD-style all-encompassing "standard SF setting", so you don't really have the same thing in SF as you have in fantasy. Sure, there's certain archetypes that do show up a lot (bug aliens, intelligent robots, chromatic space-babes, aliens based on animals), but you don't really have any that feels like it must be present. Having a fantasy setting with no traditional fantasy races and tropes at all would seem rather weird to many people (and you could argue that it would fall under SF for speculative fiction; Asimov wrote some short stories that could easily be considered instead of SF fantasy if they weren't explicitly set on alien planets and included elves in place of aliens), but people generally won't bat an eye on a SF setting with no intelligent robots or no bug-aliens. There's plenty of SF settings with no aliens at all, and some stories with aliens but no humans.
>>44689894
Sure. My point was that the D&D interpretation of dark elves - which I agree is far more prominent than Tolkien's - wasn't even a modification of anything in Tolkien. The traits you list, with the exception of the spiders, all apply to the Black Martians.
>>44689442
10x10x10, actually. Dungeons were bigger, then.
The joke is, the Gelatinous Cube was some sort of magically engineered dungeon corridor cleaner.
>>44680251
Considering that when people say Tolkienesque fantasy they actually mean Gygaxuesqe fantasy, yes.
>>44690089
Not to forget that "bug people" is very generalized and vague and can be anything (evil locusts, nice hive-mind spiders, just guys that look like ants etc) making them more of a stylistic choice, while "dwarves" is much more specific - and "dwarves" are further codified as "use axes, have beards, drink, live in mountains, are miners, dislike elves".
>>44687549
>Klingons
Basically what happened with dorfs and elves.
Gygax wasn't as much influenced by Tolkien as many people think, but he certainly took some ideas.
On further note, I always disliked what they did to the Klingons. I liked the space communazis from TOS that weren't just a running gaga about lack of showering.
>>44680251
In the sense that he was a trendsetter, sure.
>>44684053
>founding father of shitty games isn't responsible for shitting up RPGs
>using millennials unironically
You fuckers need to be killed in a mass shooting/ISIS attack.
>>44693584
True. Elf and Dwarf already invoke quite a specific creature (although elf is also sometimes used to stuff like Santa's elves, usually fantasy fiction elves are pretty close to the Tolkinesque model). Especially dwarves for some reason, since they're virtually same except for minor cosmetic changes regardless of the setting. At least elves can range from very magical, almost fairy-like, creatures to more mundane beings and you can often find some variants of at least three distinct archetypes (high, wood and dark elves) in the same setting.
>>44693870
>Be angry millennial
>Never have played AD&D but really hate 3.5e and enjoy the anti-D&D meme
>"I know I'll get angry at the guy who dropped out years before 3.5e even came out"
Get beheaded you braindead 19 year old.
>>44693956
>almost fairy-like
I wonder, how close to Lords and Ladies did Discworld GURPS get with the elves?
Discworld elves > all other elves, fight me.
>>44693870
Shut up, virt.
>>44687460
Yeah, he made them deliberately shit in OD&D because he hated them himself.
>>44684053
meine kameraden
>>44688866
>Gygax responsible for classic D&D monsters like beholders, oozes, and mimics?
Yes in the sense that D&D's responsible, no in the sense that I think Gygax didn't come up with any of those himself, other players in the group did. Gygax invented the rust monster and bulette, though. Those were based on toys from a cheap bag of plastic monsters he bought at a five-and-dime.
>>44696567
http://diterlizzi.com/home/owlbears-rust-monsters-and-bulettes-oh-my/
>>44699381
>that fucking owlbear
>>44687460
There was a copyright issue. Tolkien's estate owned/owns the word "Hobbits" so they made "Halflings",which hobbits were actually called in Gondor in the LOTR.
>>44700450
You're confusing two different things. What you're thinking of is why TSR changed the name from Hobbit (which is what it said in early printings of OD&D) to Halfling; Anon was referencing Gygax's well-known dislike of halflings, and why he added them to the game only under protest.
>>44695802
[citation needed]
Nobody forced Gygax to put LotR in Appendix N. I know they weren't his favorite fantasy books, but he still liked them. Secondly, OD&D halflings are really not any more shit than OD&D dwarves; and lastly, OD&D is just as much Arneson as Gygax.
>>44700930
>[citation needed]
"Should any player wish to be one" isn't enough of a sign of disdain for you? I know there are a few literal citations of Gygax mentioning this in Q&As, but I can't be arsed to find them just to beat Anon t b h
>OD&D halflings are really not any more shit than OD&D dwarves
Up to interpretation, maybe, but I'd say they definitely are. They're restricted to Hero instead of Myrmidon, and they don't get the giant-fighting or war hammer bonuses. Instead they get increased sling range, whoopdeedoo.
>OD&D is just as much Arneson as Gygax.
This one really isn't up to interpretation, on the other hand. I used to believe this too, but Jon Peterson refuted it insanely thoroughly in Playing at the World. He really goes blow-by-blow and demonstrates that although the basic idea was Arneson's, the Blackmoor system was really quite different in its specifics.
