Bad Roleplaying? I blame Tolkien.

[Valamir]

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.

I'm well aware of the themes.  I'm also well aware of the gallons of ink spent on stuff entirely tangental to those themes.

But again this thread is NOT intended to be a critique of Tolkien.  Yes I did include some commentary in that regard in my initial post.  Forgive me.  It had been over a decade since I'd read it and I'd forgotten just how poor a writer he was.

The intent of the thread was to demonstrate the variety of "lessons" that GMs took from Tolkien with regard to how to structure a campaign and how to treat characters.  Lessons Tolkien never intended because its unlikely he even concieved of roleplaying beyond childhood makebelieve, but lessons taken none the less.

Some have said that they don't think these behaviors stemmed from the GMs exposure to Tolkien at all and would have existed even without LotR to draw from.  If this thread is to continue I'd much rather have it continue in that vein which is at least relevant to roleplaying and is directly related to my points.

For my part, the shear number of parallels between the structure of FotR and the structure of late 70s / early 80s D&D (and especially that of the RPGA during its early years) is pretty convincing.  I find the idea of parallel evolution of that number of concepts to be highly unlikely, especially given the huge known influence the work had.  The bog standard animosity between Elves and Dwarves in fantasy works stems directly from Tolkien's influence on early gaming.  Is it so unlikely that marching orders, equipment lists, and rampant GM manipulation of character stem from the same source?  

I also think that some people are getting way too caught up in the word "blame" which is (IMO anyway) pretty obviously tongue in cheek.

[John Kim]

Some have said that they don't think these behaviors stemmed from the GMs exposure to Tolkien at all and would have existed even without LotR to draw from.  If this thread is to continue I'd much rather have it continue in that vein which is at least relevant to roleplaying and is directly related to my points.

For my part, the shear number of parallels between the structure of FotR and the structure of late 70s / early 80s D&D (and especially that of the RPGA during its early years) is pretty convincing.  I find the idea of parallel evolution of that number of concepts to be highly unlikely, especially given the huge known influence the work had.  The bog standard animosity between Elves and Dwarves in fantasy works stems directly from Tolkien's influence on early gaming.  Is it so unlikely that marching orders, equipment lists, and rampant GM manipulation of character stem from the same source?  

Ralph, no one disagrees that Tolkien had a huge influence on both the design of D&D and on how early groups attempted to use D&D.  However, the opposing point (as expressed by Justin and myself, among others) is that Tolkien's influences are not bad for role-playing in general.  Instead, they are bad when combined with the D&D rules and early approaches -- because D&D was totally unsuited for doing it.  

For example, I pointed to my Water-Uphill campaign as having super-powerful NPCs compared to the schoolchild PCs.  I also don't think there's anything wrong with equipment lists, for example.  If your characters are isolated (such as being in the wilderness or dungeon as in LotR), I think it's often a good idea.  I required http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/wateruphill/pcstuff.html">complete equipment lists for my Water-Uphill PCs as well, since they were stranded in another universe.  It was a great characterization device, among other things.  

Now, I'm currently playing in a http://www.usermode.org/campaign/">Tolkien-based campaign, and overall it's not going very well.  Everyone agrees that the Decipher LotR system is mediocre at best, and I've had issues with the GM.  But as we play, I can definitely picture a good Tolkien-based campaign, which would include things like equipment lists.

[ethan_greer]

Ralph, you're sniping at Tolkien for no good reason that I can surmise.  If you want the thread to talk about literary sources of bad GM habits, fine.  Using inflamatory speech about an extremely polarizing topic (the quality of LotR) is not going to encourage that.  Quite the opposite, in fact, as we've seen.

And that's all I have to say about that.

As to the point of the thread, it's my opinion that any source (film, literature, art, etc.) can influence a GM for good or ill.  It depends more on the GM than what he or she has read.  I'm sure LotR has influenced some bad games.  But then, I'm equally sure that it has influenced some excellent games.  The GM is the important variable.

[Calithena]

I enjoyed this, Ralph, although it was inflammatory.

Let me chime in first with two minor cavils at your praise for Jackson vis-a-vis Tolkien: first, Frodo at least has more agency in the novels than in the movie - he gets a few important decisions in the film but is robbed of many others - and second, omitting the Scouring of the Shire - which, like The Hobbit, actually is fairly well written - rips a big chunk of the moral heart clear out of the tale, and showing weary Frodo not being able to feel at home again after the return does not make up for this. I like the films quite well, and they are technically better realized relative to their art form than the novels are relative to theirs, but in spite of all that the moral seriousness of the novels, which only comes out intermittently in the films, places them in my mind at least far, far above the films as works of art.

As to learning bad GMing habits from Tolkien, possibly so, yes. Tolkien was fantastically, obsessively Sim-oriented, and no detail concerning Middle-Earth was too minor for him to spend a great deal of time on it. The three novels are culled from a huge, endless pile of unreadable DM notes that have now mostly been edited now by control freak Christopher Tolkien and can be bought as the 'history of middle earth' and all that.

But his major works are fundamentally moral tales, the Hobbit about Greed, the trilogy about Power. So he was using Simulationist mechanisms to address Narrativist authorial goals. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't: Tolkien's work Drifts badly, which is why many people feel it reads more like a history than a novel.

When you slap this influence onto the Gamist origins of RPGs in miniatures wargaming, you're set up for total incoherence. Welcome to role playing!

[greyorm]

First, let me remind everyone that we can't discuss a novel as though it were a game -- Tolkien was not Simulationist or Narrativist or Gamist, his books can't Drift. Game theory cannot be applied to novels because...novels aren't games.

However, I agree with Sean's point about trying to slap Tolkien's morality play and his creation of mythic details into RPGs which did not support such elements very well (if at all), thus giving rise to incoherence.

Is it so unlikely that marching orders, equipment lists, and rampant GM manipulation of character stem from the same source?

Yes, yes it is. The reasons for these behaviors in gaming have been discussed before as well as their source, and it seems far more plausible that they arise as a matter of control by the player in a world they are otherwise given no control of, a way to limit the GM from inflicting harm; as an emulation of Tolkien they seem far less likely a result. I'm applying Occham's Razor to this, and it's telling me that just because the two seem similar does not mean one is giving rise to the other, that there are far more likely candidates in gaming for the behaviors described above.

(And Ralph, well, Ethan said everything I would on the Tolkien subject...you keep saying your point isn't to critique Tolkien, but then you sling out these unnecessary subjectives about how bad a writer he was. If it isn't your point, it doesn't even need to be said, mentioned, or referenced. The quality, or lack thereof, of Tolkien's writing has nothing to do with your point about emulation.)

[Andrew Norris]

I'm not a moderator, and my opinion carries no weight here, so take this only as my own personal opinion, please.

I understood Ralph making this thread over on RPG.net, because it's sort of the accepted place for debate for its own sake and 'stirring the pot'. But threads on The Forge usually have, y'know, a *point*, and I come here when I want to avoid needless controversy.

I certainly could be wrong here, but that's just the feeling I get from this thread. A 'd20 is awful' thread guised as a mechanics discussion would probably give me the same bad vibe.

[Valamir]

Ralph, no one disagrees that Tolkien had a huge influence on both the design of D&D and on how early groups attempted to use D&D.  However, the opposing point (as expressed by Justin and myself, among others) is that Tolkien's influences are not bad for role-playing in general.  Instead, they are bad when combined with the D&D rules and early approaches -- because D&D was totally unsuited for doing it.  

John...this is me staring at you with a giant WTF on my face...

You say "instead they are bad when combined with the D&D rules and early approaches"

I said "by this I mean old school D&D and games of similar ilk"  and

"An entire generation of role-players in the 70s and 80s had modeled their role-playing so perfectly on Tolkien's model that reading Tolkien now seems like a role-playing session itself"

So what exactly are you opposing.? I find it completely disconcerting that you would paraphrase exactly what I said in the original post but try to frame it as an opposing position.  

Further, Ethan says

It depends more on the GM than what he or she has read

I said "Or to put things in the proper order, its as if every GM for a generation took the journey to Rivendell (and the extended trip beyond) as the model for all future campaigns"

and "It astonished me to discover how many bad gaming habits can actually be characterized as successful emulation of Tolkien"

Of course its the GM who is choosing what and how to portray.


I really hate "I said / you said" posts.  But there are few things that are as frustrating, or as guarenteed to tangle up a thread than people who claim to be disagreeing, when really they are saying the exact same thing using different words.


As for your Water Uphill campaign.  I'm not sure how that's in the least bit relevant.  First at no time did I suggest having protagonists who where weaker than the NPC was a bad thing.  The point I made pretty stridently was that the GM making the weaker PCs look foolish and incompetant in order to show case the cooler NPCs was a bad thing.  Since I doubt you were doing this in your campaign, your campaign as an example doesn't really apply since its not the situation I was discussing.  Secondly, I was very specific at applying these bad GM techniques to a period of the late 70s and early 80s.  So a recent campaign, designed with all of the knowledge and ability you gleaned after years of successful gaming and discussing gaming theory again doesn't seem particularly relevant.


There are certain assumptions about campaign design and structure that have come down to us from the past.  Some of these have roots in wargaming.  Many have their roots in Tolkien.  Either from GMs influenced by their own reading or by learning from those who had.

My post highlighted several of the specific items that came from Tolkien and where they can be found.  Many of these items are pretty strong examples of bad GMing technique.  They represent things early GMs learned to do because GMing was a new activity and they had nothing to draw from on how to do it, so the GMs learned from the only sources they could what a fantasy adventure was supposed to look like.  And chief among their sources at the time was Tolkien.  

Which characters Tolkien viewed as the protagonists and which the supporting cast is irrelevant to this discussion.  Which characters the early gamers thought were the coolest and most wanted to play is also irrelevant.

What is relevant is observing how Tolkien treated his characters.  And the one reoccuring treatment that occurs over and over in FotR, is this:

The characters stated what they wanted to accomplish, and Tolkien did everything in his power to prevent it from happening.

From Frodo's short cut to the buckleberry ferry, to the attempt to get out of the Old Forest to the North, to the attempt cross the bridge into Rivendell, to the attempt to climb over the moutain instead of going through Moria, to the attempt for the Fellowship to reach a decision on how to proceed on the banks of the Anduin.  

The characters stated very clearly what they wanted to do and what they wanted to accomplish, and Tolkien made sure that it didn't happen.  The shortcut turned into a long cut, the only way out of the Old Forest was in the wrong direction, the mountain pass was snowed in, etc. etc.

An entire generation learned the lesson.  

No I don't think this lesson came from the inherent "gamism" in early D&D.  The specific form of Gamism...that of pitting players vs. GM...very clearly can be seen in Tolkien.

The lesson...never let the characters get what they want, or go where they want, or do what they want.  Instead, at every step of the way make sure their desires come to naught and they have to stumble through on the path they didn't want.

This is much different and more extreme than the simple placement of obstacles in the character's path.  This is the complete subversion of the characters own will to forces too great to resist.  Which got interpreted for nearly a whole generation of gamers as the complete subversion of the player's will to that of the GMs.  

GMs learned to do this because they wanted to "tell a tale like LotR".  And thats how events worked in LotR.  The characters never succeeded at what they wanted to do (Frodo wasn't even allowed to destroy the Ring), and at every turn the characters desires were thwarted.

This sort of plot structure is certainly bad for roleplaying.  I also happen to feel its bad for literature too, because there is no suspense.  There is no suspence at all in LotR.  One merely has to hear what the characters plan is and what they hope won't happen, and one immediately knows exactly what's going to occur.

So successfully ingrained in the minds of early GMs was this pattern, that I've played in groups where the players would huddle up and use reverse psychology on the GM in "please don't throw us in the Briar Patch" fashion.  In fact, some of my earliest uses of Author Stance, would have been the intentional manipulation of GMs in this fashion.  And no, I hardly think the groups I played with with at the time were unique in this way.

Is this Tolkien's "fault"?  Obviously he could not forsee the use his story would be put to.  But IMO it was certainly the catalyst for ALOT of bad roleplaying.

[Calithena]

I agree that this subject does sort of have that rpg.net feel to it, the way Ralph set it up.

Raven, "can't" is such a funny word. People win Nobel prizes for e.g. applying psychology to economics, even though I'm sure those same people at some point got heat for crossing disciplinary boundaries. I wouldn't post the above comparisons as a way to elaborate GNS to newcomers, but I actually stand by the view that Tolkien's conception of what literature was was morality and value-driven and that his general approach to authorship was to hyper-focus on various kinds of exploration of his secondary world. These are somewhat like Nar and Sim from where I'm sitting, even though books aren't games. Furthermore, one kind of problem that people detect in the trilogy comes from the fact that Tolkien veers back and forth between storytelling and something that's more like history or myth, dreaming about his secondary world. This seems something like Nar/Sim incoherence, stemming from the fact that Tolkien often uses means more suitable to Sim-prioritized texts (history manuals, world guides) to accomplish his Narrativist goals. Yeah, OK, some aspects of the comparison are only metaphorical, but it's not a useless one for that reason.

Discussing x as though it were y is often a good way to derive knowledge about both. We have to keep such discussions out of teaching texts for the most part to avoid confusion, but that doesn't mean they're not valuable. I would think that in particular cross-referencing gaming theory, lit theory, psychology, and sociology would be extremely fruitful, because there are real-world connections between the four.

Anyway, all I meant to do was compare. Chess isn't an RPG either but the whole thing is intensely driven by Step on Up for most players at the tournament level anyway. Does that mean GNS applies to boardgames? I don't know, and it doesn't really matter to GNS, but it's still interesting to compare.

I will say that there are some comparisons that I find much harder to make plausibly - for example, I find Ralph's accusation of railroading in the initial post baffling. How can an author 'railroad' anyone? Railroading is essentially a conflict over authorship, involving two distinct wills which are both trying to dictate the same thing, and one of them invoking GM privilege to overpower the other. There's nothing like that in a book unless it's multiply authored, I don't think.

[b_bankhead]

I think this thread is wonderful Ralph, I noticed this connection between bad gamemastering and Tolkien some time ago. Tolkien as a GM embodies another problem about our view of how to run a fantasy world.
Mostly in the belief that you need all of this massive amount of lush premade detail before you can do it..  Remember it's well known that both The Hobbit and 'Lord' are really just testbeds for all the sim detail Tolkein had made years, even decades before he thought of putting it into a novel.  When GMs create (or spend money on big book of) all this sim material they want you (the players) to see it.
Hence the meandering side plots and diversions.  The desire of the gamemaster to justify all this work (or money spent) by making sure the players go 'ooh' and 'aaah' over it by herding them around sll the 'fasicinating' set pieces and color objects he has created.

By the way somebody did boil down 'Lord' to about 100 pages, the Harvard Lampoon's 'Bored with the Rings' a parody to be sure but it actually boiled the salient plot points down to about that amount!

[ethan_greer]

Hi Ralph, sorry I wasn't clear.  Here's an attempt to clarify my disagreements...

I believe that the source of the problems you talk about in roleplaying didn't stem solely and directly from attempting to emulate Tolkien's work (although it was almost certainly a factor in some cases).  And I'm talking about the specific examples you raise - equipment lists, railroading, posting guards, etc.  Many other works of literature can and have contributed to these bad roleplaying habits, as have the D&D rules themselves. In short, I think your hypothesis is limiting and biased, but not completely without merit.

[Valamir]

First, let me remind everyone that we can't discuss a novel as though it were a game -- Tolkien was not Simulationist or Narrativist or Gamist, his books can't Drift. Game theory cannot be applied to novels because...novels aren't games

I'll agree with Calithena on this, even a little more strongly than he did.

Role playing games did not evolve in a vacuum.  Our concept of what a story is and how it should be structured is influenced by all of the stories in our lives.  From the bed time stories we were told as children, to campfire stories we invented at camp, to movies, TVs, and yes even novels.

Contrary to Raven's statement I believe its IMPOSSIBLE to understand story structure as it exists in an RPG without drawing parallels to these other forms.  

How a "simulationist" might evaluate an RPGs story structure may well be very similiar to how a certain author might evaluate a novel's story structure and for many of the same reasons and goals.  It then is not that much of a stretch to say that author had a "simulationist" agenda.

Obviously these are two different mediums and the concepts are not 100% applicable across disciplines.  But to say they can't or shouldn't be compared with each other is IMO pretty absurd.

I will say that there are some comparisons that I find much harder to make plausibly - for example, I find Ralph's accusation of railroading in the initial post baffling. How can an author 'railroad' anyone? Railroading is essentially a conflict over authorship, involving two distinct wills which are both trying to dictate the same thing, and one of them invoking GM privilege to overpower the other. There's nothing like that in a book unless it's multiply authored, I don't think.

Allow me to expand on my thoughts here for a moment.  Authorship often involves the wearing of different hats by the Author.  You have the "hmmm, what would the protagonists do next" hat, you have the "what would the antagonists do next" hat, you have the "what do I need to do to appeal to my audience/publisher" hat, you have the "ouch that paragraph sucked" editor hat.  etc.

In LotR more so than most other books the division between the hats is alot more visible.  Tolkien goes to great lengths to describe exactly what the characters want and are trying to accomplish, and we then witness how those efforts are thwarted.  This is the case in a lot of books, but in LotR especially its easy to identify the:  J.R.R. wearing the "what do my protagonists want" hat, seperately from the J.R.R wearing the "what does the rest of the world do" hat.

So in a sense you do have the one hat railroading the other.  Of course, in a novel both hats are generally worn by the same person so the similiarities are only superficial but 1) I certainly have engaged in arguements with myself over how to write a particular scene or part of a game, so even though the hats are worn by the same person doesn't mean there isn't conflict between them, and 2) Its very easy once the hats are identified to pass them out around the table of an RPG group.  If you give the "what do my protagonists want" hat to the players and the "what does the rest of the world do" hat to the GM do you not wind up with exactly the situation I described...and is this, in fact, not precisely the division that most game texts have recommended...

When the hats are worn by the same person you are right you techically do not have rail roading (except to the extent you have internal arguements with yourself).  But that exact same behavior, if you simply seperate those hats definitely is.  Therefor I believe there are effective parallels to be drawn from the behavior of one medium as applied to another.

As you note it isn't actually railroading unless its multply authored.  So an author having that argument with himself is not railroading.  But an author having that same arguement with a co-author can be.  And what are players of an RPG if not co-authors.  So I think the lesson is applicable.

Behavior that is the norm when writing a book, is railroading when applied to RPGs.  Yes, many people have noted that my arguements in this thread could be applied to a variety of novels, not just LotR.  But I would say 2 things to that 1) LotR is probably the most single influencial work to gaming, both in terms of its impact on gaming directly, and in terms of its impact on the entire genre of fantasy fiction which then gets incorporated into gameing, and 2) LotR makes it pretty easy to see the different hats J.R.R was wearing because he was so explict about every detail of what was happening.  Thus, moreso than most other novels, it is much easier to simply divvy up those hats without needing to change much...because they are so well defined.

I believe that the source of the problems you talk about in roleplaying didn't stem solely and directly from attempting to emulate Tolkien's work (although it was almost certainly a factor in some cases). And I'm talking about the specific examples you raise - equipment lists, railroading, posting guards, etc. Many other works of literature can and have contributed to these bad roleplaying habits, as have the D&D rules themselves. In short, I think your hypothesis is limiting and biased, but not completely without merit.

I'd love to be having that discussion.

What other works contributed to those specific examples and when were they published (i.e. could they themselves be derivatives of LotR rather than original or parallel sources of the ideas)?

What aspects of the D&D rules themselves contribute to the bad habits that aren't themselves derived from LotRs influence on the game.  In other words, did Gygax add ropes and poles and torches and spikes to the equipment list completely on his own?  Or did he simply expand the list based on what he'd read in Tolkien?  What are the elements unique to D&D that fed these habits, preferably as actually written in the rules themselves?

The only other literary works I can think of that were as  highly influencial on early gaming that were clearly not pastiches of Tolkien were Howard, and perhaps Moorcock, and Leiber.  Its been many years since I read Moorcock and I've never read Howard completely, and couldn't finish Leiber.  Further Moorcock and Leiber's works were well after the publication of LotR and not necessarily completely free of influence.  Do we find the same emphasis on equipment lists and marching orders in these books?  Not to my recollection, but I must confess my recollection is pretty hazy.  I didn't recall them in Tolkien either until my just recent rereading.

My own influences from childhood were more Lewis's Narnia and Alexander's Prydain.  I'm fairly confident that niether author dwelled on these items nearly to the extent that Tolkien did.  In fact, only in Tolkien do I remember marching orders being explicitly listed before any detrimental action took place (even going so far as to list them when there was no subsequent action involving it).  To my memory most such works simply indicate who was in front or behind at the instant the ambush occurs and the knowledge is needed.  But again, my recollections are seriously hazy in this regard.

If your recollections say otherwise, I eagerly await you (or anyone else well read of the early source material) to share them.

The influence of Tolkien on the genre is pretty far reaching.  I suspect that most alternative sources from these ideas were themselves borrowing heavily from Tolkien like branches from the root.  If there are other roots that spawned these ideas independently (so as not be branches themselves) I would be happy to learn of them and expand my hypothesis accordingly.

[ethan_greer]

Well, unfortunately I'm going out of town, which precludes continuing the conversation over the weekend.  Here are some quick thoughts as to other negative influences (non Tolkien) on gaming before I head out the door.

The Dragonlance modules.  Paul Czege can talk at length about how Dragonlance all but killed role-playing for him.

The Dragonlance Chronicles (original trilogy, especially the first book).  You can almost see the players in the background flipping through rule books, choosing spells, etc. As such the trilogy works as a model for how a D&D game "should" be visualized.  Problematic, I think.

The "for GM only" texts found in rules, supplements, and adventure modules.  And the attitude that type of organization of material reveals about the designers' views on the roles of the players vs. that of the GM.

The B-grade fantasy movies of the early 80s that were partially inspired by and fed inspiration back into D&D.

In mentioning other authors, don't forget Vance - Gygax has stated that Vance was as heavy an influence for OD&D as Tolkien.  Whether or not I believe that, I think Gygax probably does... :)  Dunno anything about Vance, though, so I can't really speak to that.

Whether or not, and to what degree, all these other sources were influenced by Tolkien... Gah.  I don't know if there's much point in trying to hash that out here.  But I think that they've all clearly had a great deal of influence on our hobby in tandem with Tolkien's work - both on the specifics you mention, and on other factors of gaming not effected (or less effected) by Tolkien's work.

That's all I can think of right now and I'm literally heading out the door right now.  I'll be back Sunday.

[Gordon C. Landis]

As far as I can tell (and yeah, I lived through it) Ralph is right that early roleplayers' took "inspiration" from various bits and pieces (for Color, say) of Tolkien, and it served them very poorly.  It *is* remarkable how equipment lists and marching orders, which are clearly there in LotR, show up in RPG play and (in the way in which they were applied) are usually of no use at all in having that play be enjoyable.

Connecting that up with what those same bits and pieces mean *within* JRR's work is just pointless, though.  Opinions will differ.  IMO, JRR is often able to take such things and, in the context of his story, brillliantly weight them with moral implications and interesting meanings.  Which is entirely irrelevant to the *real* (IMO) heart of the point that Ralph makes (whether it's the one he means or not) - taking these things from Tolkien and using them in RPGs resulted in some not-very-fun RPG play.  But that's not because they were bad (neccessarily - some might be, sometimes - I'm not claiming that JRR was always a brilliant writter) within LotR.

Take that away from Ralph's post, and I think there's something useful to learn - both in general about taking stuff from a static fiction and using it in RPG play, and in particular about the history of our hobby.

Gordon

[Caldis]

The characters stated what they wanted to accomplish, and Tolkien did everything in his power to prevent it from happening.

No I think it came from Star Wars where Luke and Obiwan just want to get to Alderaan to help in some rebellion and the GM railroaded them into rescuing a princess from a death star.

Or maybe it was the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy just wanted go home but the GM sidetracked it into a battle with a witch.

Sorry but what you are trying to lay at Tolkiens feet is hardly something that comes solely from Tolkien it is an inherent part of literature.  The hero always has to overcome obstacles to succeed in his task and showing that hobbits werent equipped to handle the dangerous world beyond their borders was an important part of the story.

GM's during that late 70's to early 80's time period may have used it as a model for how to deal with players but they would just as easily have learned the lessons from a multitude of other literary sources.  It's something that will naturally develop when you have untalented and inexperienced people trying to develop an artistic talent, they make huge mistakes.  It was a new hobby and most people entering role playing did not have a background in storytelling in any artistic form, no surprise that being able to judge appropriate challenges was not a big skill.

As to the rest of your insights I find them pretty weak.  Sam mentions he wishes he had some rope, how is this a fixation on equipment lists?  He didnt say he wanted some rope, a 10' pole, 3 weeks iron rations and a hooded lantern.  

I dont remember Tolkien ever talking about setting watches, so I cant see how he influenced that element of game play.

Marching orders were a simple development that came from a party marching along the graph paper, you had to know who was the first to enter the hex where the pit trap was located.

Personally I believe your distate for Tolkiens work in a world where everyone seems to singing it's praise has clouded your judgement and made you see things that arent there.

[Valamir]

As to the rest of your insights I find them pretty weak. Sam mentions he wishes he had some rope, how is this a fixation on equipment lists? He didnt say he wanted some rope, a 10' pole, 3 weeks iron rations and a hooded lantern.

I dont remember Tolkien ever talking about setting watches, so I cant see how he influenced that element of game play.

Marching orders were a simple development that came from a party marching along the graph paper, you had to know who was the first to enter the hex where the pit trap was located.

Sorry Caldis.  You're going to have to reread FotR.  I didn't remember that stuff being in there until I reread the book just a few days ago.

It isn't a matter of Sam wishing he had rope.  Its an event that was emphasised at least 4 times ("I wish I had some rope, I'll need it", "yup I knew I'd be in trouble for forgetting the rope", "Hey, I'm real glad I finally got some rope", and "Yup luckily I have that rope with me this time")  It was not just a casual throw away line.  It was also one of several occassions which focused on gear.  The axe at the Willow, the torches in Moria, the careful rationing of the elven draughts and lambas bread, taking time to mention how Legolas used all of his arrows and then recovered all but one,  and probably a couple more I'm forgetting.  Equipment is a reoccuring element in the book, more so than in most any other I can think of.

Your failing to remember Tolkien setting watches is a function of your own memory.  He did in several places.  There were multiple occassions of watch setting from Gandalf telling Pippin to take the first one as punishment for dropping the stone down the well to Sam and Frodo setting a special watch seperate from the rest to watch for Golem.  There are also instances of outlining who'd take what watch and when.

You further say that marching order developed from tracking a party on graph paper.  I believe that's backwards.  Players didn't develop marching orders because they were using graph paper.  Even in the early days one didn't map out marching down a corridor square by square with each figure moving.  Graph paper was used when events when to combat rounds and to draw maps to avoid getting lost.  The need for a mechanism to track marching order came from the players perception of a need to feature marching order.  The mechanism developed to fill the need not the other way around as you suggest.  I believe that need was highly influenced by Tolkien who went to great lengths not only to describe the order the party was in but why.

I also have already addressed the first part of your post.  I'll copy it here again:

Behavior that is the norm when writing a book, is railroading when applied to RPGs. Yes, many people have noted that my arguements in this thread could be applied to a variety of novels, not just LotR. But I would say 2 things to that 1) LotR is probably the most single influencial work to gaming, both in terms of its impact on gaming directly, and in terms of its impact on the entire genre of fantasy fiction which then gets incorporated into gameing, and 2) LotR makes it pretty easy to see the different hats J.R.R was wearing because he was so explict about every detail of what was happening. Thus, moreso than most other novels, it is much easier to simply divvy up those hats without needing to change much...because they are so well defined.

Ethan, look forward to continueing the discussion with you further when you return.

Dragon Lance was certainly influencial to the next "generation" of GMs but it postdates LotR quite a bit and was heavily influenced by it.  Further it is almost the opposite of LotR in that it is a book based on D&D adventures rather than basing D&D adventures on a book.

You'll get no argument from me on how useless (at best) and harmful (at worst) most GM only texts are.  But again, to what extent are these sections simply recording for posterity play techniques developed by the early GMs and reflect the interpretation of those early GMs on how to play (play which was itself shaped by Tolkien).

So I think that there are numerous sources like you suggest, but they are secondary or derivative sources themselves.

Vance, yes.  I forgot Vance in my list of authors.