Bad Roleplaying? I blame Tolkien.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well, I get what Ralph is saying, but I doubt it's any conscious or unconscious attempt at emulating Tolkien and more the "whoa-ho-ho, this could be an RPG play transcript" feeling Ralph got when he "read" it.

For the record, I did enjoy the Hobbit and have read it a couple times but I still can't get past Frodo leaving the Shire in FotR. Every single word Ralph said came from my lips about Tolkien as a writer. Especially where FotR is concerned.

There have been volumes written about how Tolkien came to write LotR and what he was attempting to do. I find is something to hotly debate in internet forums along side such topics as Stonehendge, Jack the Ripper, and which religion is the One True Religion and everyone else is wasting their time. It's a topic that is perpetually in discussion since no one will give any quarter, for various reason. None of them germane here.

But, this is my understanding of it, and it's how I explain it to myself and it does seem reasonable. Tolkien was a professor IIUC. A professor with acedemic interest in history, languages and mythology, if I have been well informed. The purpose of Lord of the Rings was to tell a history of this world of Middle Earth. Any storytelling merit was secondary, if that. I also have heard that he was making a new mythology since the modern world has forgotten the old myths. By all of this, I mean that his storytelling ability, which he did show in Hobbit was not in evidence or employ as much in Fellowship.

As far as the books selling and such, that is a topic that is beside the point of this thread. I mean, Citizen Kane tops many best movie ever made list. Most of the people I showed it to didn't like it. Yet, I did. There is no accounting for taste.

Strength 12
Intelligence 9
Dexterity 14
Taste 4

[greyorm]

Hrm, sorry, but you know comparing literature and RPGs is futile, considering how utterly and entirely seperate the two are in terms of goals, design, and creative structure. A novel is not an RPG session, and vice versa.

And even though your point about bad habits arising from emulation of Tolkien's narrative structure is valid, Tolkien could not railroad his characters in any sense, entrapping them in situations, because he is a writer, not a gamemaster.

Thus, I think you could have easily made the exact same points about bad habits in RPGs without the rather overwhelming, unrelated critiques of Tolkien's work or processes as a writer, and the resulting particularly ridiculous comparisons, which, in my opinion, drowned and diffused your useful points.

Unfortunately, Ralph, this whole thread simply sounds like an excuse to bitch about (or defend)...Tolkien, not really discuss RPGs. It's a taste post, and has invited similarly worthless taste posts (ie: "the movies are crap", "the books are crap", "no, they aren't", "Gandalf is a PC", "No, he isn't", etc.) and is the sort of futile discussion that goes nowhere that is generally avoided around here.

Ultimately, I have to agree with John's point: you can bitch about Tolkien all you want, but he's still sold more books and been more widely read than most writers ever will. So, bitch about it all you want, but, please, not here, for I'm sure I'm not the only one with no desire to read similarly content-empty rants about the Matrix triology (or etc.) and what the writer/director/filmmaker did wrong/right modelled after the above.

Hence, I think we should ditch the whole book/movie/who is (not) a PC nonsense and discuss the actual RPG issue, leaving the literary criticism to other forums elsewhere on the 'net.

[Valamir]

Not sure what your point is Raven.  While I did include some side comments on Tolkien's writing the point was how GMs took the manner in which he handled his characters as a template for how to handle characters during play.

Your comment about him not being able to rail road his characters seems to have missed the point entirely.  This isn't a discussion about what Tolkien did to his characters.  This is a discussion about how GMs took what Tolkien did to his characters as guidance for how to run a gaming session.

Tolkien went to great lengths to demonstrate how despite the hobbits desires and best efforts to the contrary they wound up by Old Man Willow...and later in the barrow that they tried to avoid...and later in the Mines of Moria that they tried to avoid, etc.  Is J.R.R. allowed to do that?  Of course.  He's the author.

But my point is that GMs then used this as a template for how to play.  Tolkien had cool encounters in mind...willow, barrow, Moria.  Even when the characters didn't want to go there, he made sure they wound up there anyway.  Therefor...I'll come up with cool encounters for my game, even with the players don't want their characters to go there, I'll make sure they wind up there anyway.

Its a piss poor GMing technique.  My recent epiphany that I was sharing in this thread is that rather than this poor technique simply springing from nowhere as the result of talentless GMs that it very likely came about as an emulation (concious or unconcious) of the FotR format.  That early D&D play resembles this format so much that reading Tolkien now feels like reading gamer fiction to me is pretty conclusive evidence of the pervasiveness of this emulation.

So when a GM gleefully sits back confident that his players won't be able to avoid his latest encounter because they forgot to bring sufficient rope; its not just because he's a bad GM.  Its because he's gaming the way Tolkien wrote.  After all, did samwise kick himself for not having rope...

That's the point of the whole post, Raven.  Whatever else you see there has been brought in by others...or perhaps by your own inherent dislike for comparing literature to RPGs.  I'm not making such a comparison.  I'm showing where GMs learned many of their RP techniques.

[quozl]

That early D&D play resembles this format so much that reading Tolkien now feels like reading gamer fiction to me is pretty conclusive evidence of the pervasiveness of this emulation.

This is what people are arguing.  LOTR does NOT read like gamer fiction.  In fact, I think many people are quite surprised to hear you say so.  I know I am.

This is also why greyorm said we shouldn't bring literature into the discussion since not everyone will agree.  I don't agree with your assessment of LOTR.  I don't agree with your assessment of the movies.  I do, however, agree that much early D&D play did try to emulate LOTR.  But didn't everyone already know that?

[Valamir]

This is what people are arguing. LOTR does NOT read like gamer fiction. In fact, I think many people are quite surprised to hear you say so. I know I am.

I would have been too.  That's why I expressed such astonishment at it.  But if you haven't read FotR for some time, go back and read it.  Or better yet, get the unabridged recorded book version so that you can just listen to it being narrated.

I was stunned.  It read more like game fiction than the first Dragon Lance book...which by all accounts WAS game fiction.

I was stunned.  But the actions taken by the chief characters between the Shire and Loth Lorien could be translated into a D&D module with so little effort its almost as if the book was written with a module in mind.

Reread it if its been a while.  That's why I started this thread.  I was shocked by how much like a game transcript it read.

[John Kim]

Is it true that anyone is going to argue that Tolkien wasn't a huge influence on early role-playing?  I doubt it.  Nor did I say anything of the sort.  What astonished me was how many specific activities of Tolkien's characters were translated 1:1 into expected behavior of most early D&D groups.  I knew the influence was there, but didn't realize how absolute a copy it was.  Marching order, who's on watch, damn I forgot to bring rope...all lifted verbatim from FotR.  Not just influenced...slavishly emulated.

As for your rant.  I'm having trouble figuring out your point through all the hard to decipher sarcasm.  But I never said PCs needed to be kewl or kick ass.  What I pointed out is the simple truth that a GM who makes their player characters look foolish and shows them up with cool NPCs is a bad GM.  

I agree with you completely that many early D&D groups slavishly imitated Tolkien, and this was bad.  However, you would like to lay the blame for this on Tolkien for being a bad storyteller.  The subtext of this is to equate good storytelling with good role-playing.  

However, most of the things you cite are not bad storytelling, IMO -- like having physically weak protagonists less powerful and cool than other characters (i.e NPCs), or having protagonists swept up by fate (i.e. railroading).  These aren't bad storytelling at all.  I also think that they can be used in good games.  For example, in my Water-Uphill campaign the PCs were schoolchildren who were trapped in a fantasy world and surrounded by powerful NPCs like the princess, the Bogart King, and the greatest swordsman in the kingdom.  But the story was very much about the kids, much like Tolkien is about the hobbits.  

I agree that slavish imitation of Tolkien does lead to bad role-playing.  However, the blame isn't on Tolkien.  The same problems (or equivalently-bad other problems) would result from slavish emulation of any other author.  I could make a fair case that the blame should be laid on GMs who idolize storytelling, and want to make their games like their favorite books.  Now, I suspect this sounds offensive because it sounds like it associates with Narrativism.  But it is quite different.  This is closest to what I would call Illusionism.  

Narrativism rejects the idea of GM-as-author.  The funny thing is that rgfa Simulationism equally rejected the idea of GM-as-author.  For example, my Water-Uphill campaign was intentionally nearly-pure rgfa Simulationist in style.  People cited that Tolkien didn't know where his story was going while writing Fellowship of the Ring.  As I see it, that makes it a good model for role-playing, where it is unlikely (and often undesireable) to know where the story is going.

[quozl]

Reread it if its been a while.  That's why I started this thread.  I was shocked by how much like a game transcript it read.

It's been about 3 years and I disagree quite strongly, especially when you say the movie cut out all the "bad" parts.  The movies are totally devoid of the meaning that is in the books and are soulless in my view.  The books contain a lot of which it seems you are missing or just simply not stating in order to support your rant.

[greyorm]

Heya Ralph,

My objection to the post is purely presentational, and summarized by this section from my previous post: "could have easily made the exact same points about bad habits in RPGs without the rather overwhelming, unrelated critiques of Tolkien's work or processes as a writer...which...drowned and diffused your useful points."

Your comment about him not being able to rail road his characters seems to have missed the point entirely.

No, I did understand the point, and I agree with it to an extent.

I just feel the point was mostly overwhelmed by the Tolkien critiques -- that most of the initial discussion was of Tolkien's style tells me others saw the "point" as a discussion of Tolkien's writing or style rather than the RPG issues. Hence my statement about the diffusion of your useful points as they related to RPGs by non-essentials.

For example, this post here clearly and concisely states exactly what you're getting at much better than the original.

And to comment on that, I have to say that it isn't just Tolkien -- honestly, I don't think that many gamers read Tolkien all that deeply as to even notice the way the characters were forced into situations. Rather, I think they (gamemasters) are suffering from typical storyteller syndrome -- they have a story they want to tell, events they want to see occur, and they make them happen regardless of what the players do.

I don't think Tolkien has that much to do with it, I don't think the Old Man Willow, Barrow Mounds, etc. provided a template of play in the way you're thinking. I think LotR was only literature to be emulated in broad terms of plot and large detail. I think the situation you discuss is simply a symptom of a larger problem that doesn't arise from Tolkien, but simple human nature.

Thus I disagree that gamers learned this technique from Tolkien. I think it would have existed regardless of whether Tolkien had ever written LotR or written it in that way. So I completely agree with John when he says, "I could make a fair case that the blame should be laid on GMs who idolize storytelling, and want to make their games like their favorite books."

[mark2v]

Hello: I am and official lurker I post very rarely, but I read daily. I have to admit this topic drew me out.
Considering JRRT's works were written as books long before the early modern idea of a role-playing game was realized this is mute.
Books are not rpg's, to blame and author's style for how others used his work when viewed as source material or even as a basis for a fantasy setting seems to me to be a flawed intellectual exercise.
If an untalented Artist sights Picasso as an influence, and turns out flawed emulative compositions, do you blame Picasso?
If it does make sense to say if you do not enjoy JRRT you will not enjoy games or RP styles of those who attempt to emulate his style, (Weather t is a cognizant attempt or not.)
Was JRRT a great writer? I have no idea; I will let more literate posters judge. Did he influence early RPG heavily? Certainly. Is it his fault that he was emulated badly, or that the poster did not enjoy that style of play?  No.
It is a good thing that places like this prove that RPG's have moved well beyond the 70's and 80's model to a far more intriguing place.
 
Great Post and a great topic BTW.
Have a good new year

[Dr. Velocity]

Well, I unfortunately have only had one experience with Tolkein, when I was much younger, about 15, when I ill-advisedly attempted to start with the only Tolkein book I had, the Two Towers. It read like a lead pancake - heavy, verbose, exceptionally antiquated dialogue and overly flowery dialogue and gesticulations - I read about 3 chapters and gave up - it was damn boring, and I was a hell of an avid reader.

The above is only to preface my lack of much credit to answer this, but I would also say I understand and agree with the idea of the original assessment, that most fantasy rpg sessions DO seem to take ALL the worst kinds of cues from Tolkein; basically, going on the whole 'If Tolkein gamed...' issue, he was a simulationist - so the painstaking worry over how many arrows are remaining, if you have a rope, how many ounces of water it takes to put out a campfire, whatever else, were guaranteed to damn some role-players' characters to a hell of 'gosh too bad you didn't write down quill pen on your sheet', or simply drove them away from gaming due to a fanatical tendancy toward the pedantic.  

The fair nod has to, of course, be given to Tolkein, who was, indeed, not a gamer nor GM but a writer and so basically he's 'safe' from the criticism of worrying too much about the character's possessions, marching orders or whatever - they're his characters, they can be as anal-retentive as he wishes. Its the unfortunate truth however that GMs and even some players DO need to take notice of this idea, because maybe INSISTING on cataloging 27 pitons and 3 sets of clothes is not necessarily adding a whole lot to the overall enjoyment of the game, for everyone.

I played a few forum games with one player who could tell you after each post how many shells and other munitions he had remaining in EACH weapon, as well as whether or not they 'would' have destroyed that wall that *I* myself inserted into the story as an obstacle, or why the big tentacled monster should be dead when he threw a grenade at it - the main point of the game is being missed, of relying on the character and his own adaptability, rather than his personal arsenal - with help from some people here and RPG.NET, a halfway suitable solution was worked out where he could catalog and expound all his vast weapons and vehicles trivia and blast away at anything that moved, and fulfill his version of the fun quotient, while I allowed for basically the game being run entirely differently for the other players, who were a bit more accepting of working on character development. The point is, some people thrive on that sort of thing, the intricate what-is-where matrix for everything that exists, how big it is, etc - but its not a great idea to run an entire game on that concept and force everyone else into what might be an alien mode of thinking and priority.

[jdagna]

Ralph, perhaps you're missing the thematic point that runs through the Lord of the Rings?  As far as I'm concerned, it boils down to two statements:
1) you don't have to be powerful to change the world
2) mercy will always triumph in the end.

Now, if you were going to design a Narrativist RPG with those as Premises, I would bet you'd wind up with a story something like the Lord of the Rings.

The problem, if you ask me, is that when Tolkien got translated into RPGs, the game systems were predominantly Gamist, with a smattering of Simulationist.  The RPG rules contradicted both of the themes addressed in the Tolkien books.  In D&D, you DO have to be powerful, and mercy is a weakness.  The real problem is just plain old Incoherence.  Trying to get blood from a stone.

In response, GMs did the only thing they could.  They gave up on the players introducing theme (because the rules gave players no means or motive), and introduced it themselves.  How?  Railroading, lengthy exposition and powerful NPCs.  Those were the only tools they had, so they did the best they could, and generally without fully understanding why they were doing it.

So don't blame Tolkien, blame Gygax.

[M. J. Young]

Um, hello?  Is it seriously true that anyone isn't going to argue this?

Forgive my failure to say anything; there are two things that make me hesitate to respond.

First, I went looking for a game like D&D because I (and my wife with me) was so enthralled by Lord of the Rings that I wanted to find a game that let us have similar adventures. We tried the (SPI?) Lord of the Rings Bookcase Game, and found it disappointing (not surprisingly, we found the Dune Bookcase Game similarly below our hopes). We read about D&D in Psychology Today, and went hunting for a copy, and started to play, entirely motivated by the desire to create Tolkienesque fantasy adventures. So if the negatives of Tolkien influenced our play, I wouldn't have known--I'd have been excited to see the positives taking form, which did sometimes happen.

Second, Tolkien influenced me strongly as an author. It may be that one of the reasons it took me as long as it did to finish a novel was that I was so locked into Tolkien's model--parties of adventurers, quests undertaken, magical fantasy worlds--and I couldn't really do anything worthwhile or original in that as it was. Verse Three, Chapter One came about in large part because I managed to break free of that framework, take what was good of Tolkien (and there is much that is good) and use those lessons (not the forms) to create something different.

So I'm not about to say that Tolkien's good or bad points did not influence the hobby; I'm sure there were many individuals who were emulating Rings one way or another, and although I don't find any of the egregious problems Ralph suggests in his post in our early play, I know that they're all typical complaints.

For the record, I did enjoy the Hobbit and have read it a couple times but I still can't get past Frodo leaving the Shire in FotR. Every single word Ralph said came from my lips about Tolkien as a writer. Especially where FotR is concerned.

has to be tempered by

There is no accounting for taste.

My first encounter with Tolkien was in a fantasy lit class in college, and I read the trilogy in three nights while at work, and loved it. I've read it several times since then, including reading it aloud to my kids. I've learned a great deal about how to tell a compelling story from him (the earlier complaint about the structure of splitting the book into stories about different groups contains a very important lesson about taking your story to different stages--many of us got through the first half of Towers waiting to find out what happened to Frodo in the second half, and got through that waiting to find out what happened to the others in the beginning of Return)--although I think I've used it more effectively in some ways.

But the point of having trouble getting through it is well taken. I had a terrible time reading Charles Williams--a chapter a night, at that same job--but I loved what I read, and remembered it for years. It was a struggle to get through Beowulf even in translation. Not all Shakespearean plays are easy reading. I can't stand A Study in Scarlet, although next to Baskervilles it's probably the most recognized Conan Doyle title. I picked up Ivanhoe a couple times before I managed to read it, and probably only really managed to apply myself to it by committing myself to read it a chapter a night to my kids--and it proved to be an excellent story, even though I kept wondering when the central character was going to do something. (For those who don't know, he shows up in secret, wins a major competition, is severely wounded in the process, and then carted around on a stretcher for most of the book while adventures happen all around him, pulling himself up from his deathbed in the climactic chapter to make a feeble stand against wickedness--thus he spends most of the book doing nothing, while Robin Hood, Richard the Lionhearted, and others of the period do all the amazing things.)

Whether you or I can get into a book from the beginning really has very little to do with whether it's a good story well told--it only tells whether the author was able to grab us with his opening chapter. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times--but not every writer can craft lines like Dickens (one of the recognized masters in this), and some have wonderful stories to tell, if you can just stay with them long enough to find out.

I've never railroaded my players; I have created kewl encounters only to see them find a way around them, making my creative efforts of no effect. I think perhaps some good game refereeing techniques should be encouraged--if you want the players to go somewhere, give them a really good reason to do so; if an encounter is vital, don't put it in a particular place but let it land in their path wherever they go; if the players take a different path, that's where they find adventure.

I think the difference between Tolkien's story and those railroaded adventures may lie here: we as readers see possibilities, see that had Frodo taken a different path he would have had different adventures. If we see that, then the story doesn't seem at all forced. In our games, as long as we think that those other adventures are out there and it's only our choices that brought us to this one, it works; but if we think that we've been boxed into doing this because this is the only adventure the referee had planned, we lose our interest because we no longer matter. Frodo's choices mattered, and seemed to matter to the reader, even when they didn't turn out the way he intended.

Tolkien's work is not flawless; it is incredibly good. Sorry you haven't been enjoying it, Ralph--maybe it wasn't intended for the ear so much as the eye, or maybe it works better for people who aren't aware of the wealth of fantasy that has been written since (and largely due to) his. I'd never read anything remotely like it--nearest would have to be excerpts from Arabian Nights and Chronicles of Narnia, both of which are quite far afield--so to me, they were an entirely new idea. To people versed in modern fantasy and fantasy games, they probably don't seem terribly original, because every original aspect of them has by now been copied uncounted times.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

And the bible is even WORSE! God, how many gamers have gone to that and taken on a dogmatic theme to their games (Thou shalt not min max!), or dragging on and on just like all those begats! Or sticking in some UBER NPC like Jesus who, oh isn't it nice, saves everyone! No wonder one of the players in it back stabs Jesus for some silver! Wouldn't you!?

I mean, hell, don't writers know that when they write these books they also need to make them 'good RP design manuals' at the same time? How bloody irresponsible are they?

;)

[Paganini]

<clap clap clap>

Great post, MJ! What you said! I was wracking my brains to come up with a way to seriouslly add to the thread without being trollish. Now I don't have to. :)

[John Kim]

I would also say I understand and agree with the idea of the original assessment, that most fantasy rpg sessions DO seem to take ALL the worst kinds of cues from Tolkein; basically, going on the whole 'If Tolkein gamed...' issue, he was a simulationist - so the painstaking worry over how many arrows are remaining, if you have a rope, how many ounces of water it takes to put out a campfire, whatever else, were guaranteed to damn some role-players' characters to a hell of 'gosh too bad you didn't write down quill pen on your sheet', or simply drove them away from gaming due to a fanatical tendancy toward the pedantic.  

Hmm.  I think that Tolkien certainly had a strong influence (both in RPGs and in fiction) towards pedantically-detailed fantasy world-building.  On the other hand, I think the level of detail is clearly a matter of taste.  The pedantic detail of Tolkien pales compared to, say, Melville's Moby Dick which has whole chapters of nothing but explaining whaling life in general.  Consider Patrick O'Brian or maybe Marcel Proust for further examples.  Tolkien was just unusual because he gave pedantic details about a fantasy world rather than the real one.

Now, people certainly do associate pedantic detail with Simulationism of some sort -- and I think it may be a real association.  However, I'm not quite sure why.  This might make an interesting topic for discussion, though it should probably be split to another thread.  

The problem, if you ask me, is that when Tolkien got translated into RPGs, the game systems were predominantly Gamist, with a smattering of Simulationist.  The RPG rules contradicted both of the themes addressed in the Tolkien books.  In D&D, you DO have to be powerful, and mercy is a weakness.  The real problem is just plain old Incoherence.  Trying to get blood from a stone.
...
So don't blame Tolkien, blame Gygax.

I agree with you 100% about blood from a stone here.  Many GMs wanted to get thematic stories similar to Tolkien, but the tools they were working from (D&D) -- as well as their own understandiing -- were totally unsuited for it.  The result was lots of slavish imitation of details combined with a total lack of what those details were for in terms of narrative.  To be fair to Gygax, he didn't have any model and certainly didn't set out to make a Tolkien-emulating storytelling game -- just a special kind of fantasy wargame about underground adventures.  I am far more harsh about Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, which does make storytelling claims and had two-and-a-half decades of RPG design and practice to draw on.