If you had to choose one edition of D&D....

[OHT]

That's quite a patronising tone for a game to take.

or looking at it more sympathetically, it's a great tone for a game to take if it wants to cater for as many different types of gamers as it can.

 

[AsenRG]

That's quite a patronising tone for a game to take.

Well...patronizing is relative. Some people very much want simpler mechanics, others consider 5e to be "dumbed down" because of "not enough bookkeeping"*, so opinions obviously vary!

My problem is: what if I want to play a skilled swordsman instead of the Champion, but don't want to learn all the mechanics? What if I want to play a Warlock, but find the mechanics too simplified** for my taste?
Far better, I find, to have an uniform level of complexity. But I also recognize that some people wouldn't find that an advantage and prefer the 5e version. In which case, more power to them!

*That's an almost direct quote from a "looking for a 3.5 DM" thread on Myth-Weavers.
**Yes, I've had such moods in my gaming life, and it might yet happen again!

 

[Ladybird]

But if you play at my table, your Tiefling is going to be one of a handful, each one customised. I find that approach much superiour to "there's a tiefling species"...

Honestly, I'm okay with having that conversation with a GM and having some back-and-forth. But it's nice for them to be stable enough in the setting that you can just play them reasonably.

That's quite a patronising tone for a game to take.

But... it's not? "Give the new player a fighter" has always been a community attitude; and in terms of mechanics, magic users have always been more complex to play due to having more rules to deal with (Right back to the original version of the game), and fewer static defenses like armour and HP / damage (When these concepts were introduced).

My problem is: what if I want to play a skilled swordsman instead of the Champion, but don't want to learn all the mechanics? What if I want to play a Warlock, but find the mechanics too simplified** for my taste?

Then you refluff as you like. My Tiefling Barbarian is a failed circus performer, so instead of "barbarian rage" they go into a zen focus state, they wear normal clothes (Which counts perfectly for "unarmoured defense" ) and their weapon of choice is the hand xbow; they're basically a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, but they're more fun this way than the probably more optimal Rogue or Ranger they could have been.

 

[AsenRG]

Honestly, I'm okay with having that conversation with a GM and having some back-and-forth.

Good, then we could work...if we were to ever play together, that is, but it's good to know it's at least possible.

But it's nice for them to be stable enough in the setting that you can just play them reasonably.

What does "stable enough" mean here?

But... it's not? "Give the new player a fighter" has always been a community attitude; and in terms of mechanics, magic users have always been more complex to play due to having more rules to deal with (Right back to the original version of the game), and fewer static defenses like armour and HP / damage (When these concepts were introduced).

And people have been finding that patronising and unfun since the earliest days that I have witnessed (the days if AD&D2e, if that matters). So yeah, his opinion ain't anything new, either.

Then you refluff as you like. My Tiefling Barbarian is a failed circus performer, so instead of "barbarian rage" they go into a zen focus state, they wear normal clothes (Which counts perfectly for "unarmoured defense" ) and their weapon of choice is the hand xbow; they're basically a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter, but they're more fun this way than the probably more optimal Rogue or Ranger they could have been.

If only I didn't know a few GMs, sorry DMs, who would consider such refluffing anathema!

 

[Stevethulhu]

But... it's not? "Give the new player a fighter" has always been a community attitude

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one."

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

 

[Baulderstone]

Yes, but only to a certain degree. There was major overlap with rare chances to find things very overpowering on the upper levels.

There is also a difference between having a campaign where the PCs encounter only monsters of the of their challenge rating and a dungeon where the monsters get more dangerous the deeper you go. The latter presents players with the option of how deep to go into the dungeon, facing greater risks for greater rewards.

Mechanically, both methods involve arranging monsters into tiers by difficulty, but the approach in play is very different.

I think Tieflings are great in Planescape but I pretty much fucking hate them in any other setting, especially with how awkwardly the game tries to shoehorn them into settings they weren't originally a part of.

It's the same thing with Dragonborn, except Dragonborn don't even have their own native setting to shine in.

That's an interesting thought about Dragonborn. Maybe there would be less pushback against them if they had been introduced as part of some new campaign setting. Of course, D&D doesn't do new campaign settings anymore, so I guess that wasn't an option.

 

[Baulderstone]

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one."

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

I agree with what you are saying here, but on the other hand, I've also run game with a lot of new gamers, and it is not uncommon to have people who are nervous/reluctant about starting out, and are wary about having to do any thinking about mechanics before a game begins. You also have those perpetual casual players.

If someone is engaged, let them play what they want, but it is also good to have some easy options that someone can just pick up and play. It's a matter of reading someone who shows up at your game.

 

[TJS]

There is also a difference between having a campaign where the PCs encounter only monsters of the of their challenge rating and a dungeon where the monsters get more dangerous the deeper you go. The latter presents players with the option of how deep to go into the dungeon, facing greater risks for greater rewards.

Mechanically, both methods involve arranging monsters into tiers by difficulty, but the approach in play is very different.

That's an interesting thought about Dragonborn. Maybe there would be less pushback against them if they had been introduced as part of some new campaign setting. Of course, D&D doesn't do new campaign settings anymore, so I guess that wasn't an option.

Well basically they were. Except, unlike Planescape, there was nothing optional about that new campaign setting.

(Although it's easy to forget now just how much pushback there was against Planescape at the time.)

 

[Baulderstone]

Well basically they were. Except, unlike Planescape, there was nothing optional about that new campaign setting.

What setting where they introduced in?

(Although it's easy to forget now just how much pushback there was against Planescape at the time.)

Interesting. I was working in a game store at the time, and in my area, it was well-received. I guess it being the early days of the Internet, reactions were still more local.

 

[Teyrnon]

(Although it's easy to forget now just how much pushback there was against Planescape at the time.)

I don't remember there being much pushback against Planescape when it came out or in the following years. I remember tons of enthusiastic fans both locally and on Usenet and the e-lists I was on at the time. Are you sure you're not thinking of Spelljammer? I remember a strong current of negativity about that one.

 

[Baulderstone]

I don't remember there being much pushback against Planescape when it came out or in the following years. I remember tons of enthusiastic fans both locally and on Usenet and the e-lists I was on at the time. Are you sure you're not thinking of Spelljammer? I remember a strong current of negativity about that one.

I wasn't even playing D&D at the time, and I remember the flak that Spelljammer got. I was actually pretty curious about it, and if it had been popular, it might have lured me back.

 

[CRKrueger]

With the whole Baatezu/Tanarri thing, Planescape still had the stench of Jim Ward’s capitulation. I remember the pushback.

For me, I thought the name change was obvious horseshit due to BADD, but I couldn’t deny that these beings surely didn’t call themselves “demons” and “devils” in their own language and probably spent as much or more time going after each other as they did coming after the Prime Material.

The only real criticism of Planescape I think sticks is that it made planar adventures more normalised and mundane. Whatever, the art alone was worth it.

 

[Raleel]

Usenet

 

[TJS]

What setting where they introduced in?

Nentir Vale 4E's default 'points of light setting' was what I was referring to, which even from the very beginning smuggled in a whole lot of new lore into D&D such as the Dragonborn's origin in ancient Arkhosia and their long ago war of mutual destruction with the (completely altered from previous lore) Tiefling empire of Bael Turoth.

 

[TJS]

I don't remember there being much pushback against Planescape when it came out or in the following years. I remember tons of enthusiastic fans both locally and on Usenet and the e-lists I was on at the time. Are you sure you're not thinking of Spelljammer? I remember a strong current of negativity about that one.

God no.

Where to start. From what I remember criticisms ranged from:

- The Lady of Pain is an unkillable NPC with no stats - therefore the game is 100% a railroad
- Low level PCs shouldn't be playable in the planes - that just goes against the laws of nature
- It's not entirely consistent with the Manual of the Planes.
- It's not entirely consistent with the extrapolations I've made from the Manual of the Planes in my own home campaign which has been running for 10 years, and which I fully expected the new game line to cater for.
- The cant is painful and the smug attitude of Planars is personally insulting to me, the gamer.
- PCs can now go and visit the gods and that makes them entirely mundane.
- The gods are all-powerful in their domains and can't really be killed and that goes against the great Gygaxian tradition of giving them stats so that they can be killed and their stuff taken.
- What is Odin doing in the planes - you can't have real gods in my fantasy game, it ruins the isolation of the secondary world!
- What is Odin doing in the planes - actual real people worship her - someone might be offended!
- The factions are an obvious attempt to cater to the White Wolf crowd and this is the thin end of the wedge leading to the perilous precipe of pretentious poserdom - which will obviously ruin the good stolid solid seriousness of pretending to be an elf in D&D.
- They changed the names of Demons and Devils and now you're rubbing my face in it by making them a big part of the setting!
- Modrons look silly.

I mock. But I will acknowledge that not all complaints were quite so ridiculous and they were not all entirely baseless.
(You know - just in someone decides to be offended by the above. )

The pushback was large enough that a lot of these arguments were still being hashed out years later after the release of 3.0.

 

[Ladybird]

What does "stable enough" mean here?

It means they can exist in the setting without having to deal with tedious racism or exoticism; most people will probably have met one of your species. Some players like dealing that sort of thing, some don't.

If only I didn't know a few GMs, sorry DMs, who would consider such refluffing anathema!

Every so often, I say something about my character that just makes the GM break down and ask what the hell I'm doing with my character. He was incredulous when I asked if I could take sewing tools as my tool proficiency, rather than a musical instrument. But I figure that they've grown up having to make their own clothes, and they were a failed physical performer rather than a musician, so it's only one tiny change to the otherwise very applicable Entertainer background.

I love my dextrous idiot tiefling to pieces

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one."

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

If you go out of your way to frame in an aggressive and unpleasant manner like that, sure, you can make it look pretty bad. Congratulations, I guess?

Fighters have a lower skill floor (How easy it is to play a character of that type effectively) than magic users, so a new player can play one and they can learn how to do all the other bits of a roleplaying game, as well as learning the basic mechanics of the game itself. Fighters aren't a bad class choice in any way either - they have just as high a skill ceiling as any other, as I'm sure our local grognard will happily explain (In his book!) - so it's not like this is an onerous issue; in a game like D&D where the fundamentals (AC, HP, hit rolls, saves) matter, having strong fundamentals is always going to be a good thing.

And there is, of course, nothing saying that a new or inexperienced player has to play a Fighter (Or a Warlock!), it's just an option that is there. If the game was only the complex classes, it would be weaker for it.

 

[Baulderstone]

Fighters have a lower skill floor (How easy it is to play a character of that type effectively) than magic users, so a new player can play one and they can learn how to do all the other bits of a roleplaying game, as well as learning the basic mechanics of the game itself. Fighters aren't a bad class choice in any way either - they have just as high a skill ceiling as any other, as I'm sure our local grognard will happily explain (In his book!) - so it's not like this is an onerous issue; in a game like D&D where the fundamentals (AC, HP, hit rolls, saves) matter, having strong fundamentals is always going to be a good thing.

They also have no setting conceits attached to them in the way all divine and arcane classes do. You are someone that is handy with weapons and armor.

 

[CRKrueger]

The Fighter is a “simple” class because it’s totally rooted in reality (unless you give them Weaboo Fightan Magic). The tools of the trade, the tactics they use, the capabilities they have, are mundane and not any different really from what an actual guy in armor with sword and shield can do. Even special attacks/moves are generally rooted in real fighting and are things people have seen a million times in movies and tv.

The “complex” classes are ones with game-specific abilities that have no real world analogue, especially if they are dissociated and don’t even correlate to the setting, but are tactical from a meta perspective.

 

[tenbones]

Of
I can see your point, IF we assume there's no "generic magic-user" in 5e.
FFS, if the "generic MU" is the Sorcerer...hey, that would actually make for a cool setting!

But then, that's assuming that you do need different mechanics for the Sorcerer than you need for the Wizard, and Warlock. Surely you would agree that it's possible to group them all under "sorcerer", with Warlock and Wizard being class variants?
So, basically: you and tenbones are basically disagreeing - vehemently! - about what is, ultimately, a matter of taste. IMNSHO, YMMV and all that jazz, but that's what it seems like to me.
Which is to say, "keep it civil and you'd be an example for all of the Pub".

Hey I've been trying to be civil! And yes, when it comes to any discussion about gaming - personal tastes are *always* in effect.

I'd amend that to "What D&D does best is D&D fantasy".
Which is to say, if I wanted to run D&D fantasy, I'd use Advanced Fighting Fantasy or Fantasy Craft. Depending on how heavy I wanted to go, but probably AFF.
OTOH, D&D isn't really good at doing other styles of fantasy, IME. So if you're using it, better use it for what it does best!

I generally agree with this. The onus of emphasizing a genre of fantasy using D&D rules is heavily on the GM to make that verisimilitude come forth. It takes a GM with some skill to make their players *feel* their Fighter is a swashbuckling badass with a rapier.... next to their friend that is a Fighter wearing heavy plate and wielding a greatsword, when all the mechanics in the modern versions kinda batter the fluff with the crunch saying otherwise.

It can be done. But the GM has to know what they're doing and where to tweak and tuck. This is directly due to the design of classes being microcosmic sub-systems in themselves.

For those of us not familiar with Palladium Fantasy, what is the Diabolist like?

Woo... okay I'm going to have to take a walk into the Mind Junkyard for this one. I think it would be difficult to do this without explaining Palladium Fantasy "magic" at its baseline. I think in many ways - Palldium dovetailed with a LOT of concepts that Arcanum/Talislanta did as well (independently).

First... you have "MAGIC" and there are whole host of things that interact with magic. There are Types of magic (Elemental, Diabolic, Summoning, Alchemy, Witchcraft and a few others) with classes that specialize in focused use. But they're part of the entire concept of "magic" where even a baseline Wizard can interact with these elements on some perfunctory level by simply knowing their basics.

So, a Wizard can cast "elemental spells" - but not wield Elemental Magic (which is the province of the Palladium Warlock class). a Wizard can learn Symbols and Circle Magic - but is limited to certain ones. Meanwhile a Summoner and Diabolist are specialists in their use at the expense of other spellcasting abilities that Wizards can perform.

Okay... so Diabolists, so I picked up my old copy... and truthfully The Witch class is closest to the D&D Warlock. It has express rules for making pacts with devils/demons and you get a kickass familiar and a bunch of powers. Anyone playing a 5e Warlock would instantly recognize the Witch. But the Witch has a lot more going on. You make a Pact and it's *very* detailed. It can be for 50-years, or a lifetime. Depends. The longer you go, the more powers you get - including more access to spells.

Spells are granted like a Cleric - from your Patron. The Familiar is a bit of an intermediary, you have to take care of it. (you have to literally nurse it from your Witches Nipple which you get to place anywhere on your body). There are a LOT of options for the Pact. LOTS. There are minor Pacts, Sworn Pacts, Major Pacts, Servitude Pacts, Selling your Soul Pacts, etc. And they all have commensurate abilities, powers, and determine the powers of your Familiar as well. You get summoning powers, and a bunch of goodies that frankly... make them quite scary and unique. It's quite a bit more than anything 5e casters get to play with, because of the other contexts with which you can interact with magic outside your class. The Class only enhances that.

Diabolists don't cast spells directly. They use runes and symbols to create wards, circles of power, and Rune Magic. Which other casters can dabble in or just recognize - but Diabolists are masters of it.

What it allows is for Diabolists to create spells based on effects and contingencies through a variety of means that allow them a tremendous amount of versatility. You can create Alarms, protect, inflict, area-effect, permanence, power-type (like the energies of the ward), etc. Wards are like spells - depending on the effects they might have might requires certain material components. And some components can enhance these wards. It sounds very passive - but when you look at their capabilities - in hands of a clever player, they're insanely good. Because Diabolists can carve, paint, inscribe their wards on nearly anything (adjudicated by the specific rules of Ward creation) and just go about their business until they're needed or activated.

Circle Magic - enables them to do powerful effects, specifically for protection, summoning and power. Circle magic is its own beast altogether. Each circle type has various options. Each class with Circle magic knowledge can use/create them in varying degrees depending on their respective specialty. But you can do huge effects, summoning big ass demons, commanding people, animating dead, opening rifts to other dimensions. It's basically Ritual Magic from 5e with a ton of detail... and more powerful effects.

What is good about Palladium Magic is that it's very detailed and you have a variety of ways to interact with it without anyone being the same. A bog standard Wizard is not the same as another Wizard. Their spell-load outs and specialties will be different, and Wizards are nothing like Diabolists, or Witches, though they'll share a lot of basic common knowledge.

So ideally, that's how I'd structure Magic in D&D. You have *Magic* and a whole bunch of ways to interact with it, demarcating it by School, Elemental, Chaos, Shadow, Fey or whatever... then have Archetypes under the baseline Mage class that have special mechanics that allow them do more with their respective schtick than your standard Mage - but at a specialization cost.

"No elves" was a selling point for me when it came to downloading Talislanta!

Also: I'm totally fine with demi-humans being restricted in what they can learn. Because they aren't humans. Just as humans get, for example, no infravision, it makes sense they would be restricted as well, albeit differently!

Devil is in the details on this. I want all cultures, regardless of race to be contextually represented as accurately as possible. So limiting skills, languages, abilities to specific races are fine as long as it's contextually accurate. When there is an exception, I want the reasons for that exceptional little snowflake to be known.

 

[Brock Savage]

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

Come on man. The tone of your post suggests you are deliberately trying to provoke. Do you really think anyone in this thread would talk like this to their players? I understanding using hyperbole to make a point but in this case it's the presentation that is condescending, not the content.

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

I discuss party composition and make suggestions but if we end up with a party of 3 fighters and 2 rogues, so be it.

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

Maybe you haven't run a game for people new to the hobby in a looong time because I think you underestimate the learning curve/time investment of D&D for a working adult who has never seen a d4. It's hard enough for them to spare 6 hours once a month, I'm not going to give them homework on top of that so they can make informed decisions about character generation. They'll learn that stuff through gameplay.

Four out of five of my current players are 100% new to RPGs. It was six out of six in the campaign before that. Out of all these people only one did their homework, reading the rules and setting info before making their own character. For everyone else, I made their characters for them based on what they wanted (e.g. "I want to play a guy like Crixus from Spartacus"); I don't think this was condescending in any way and have yet to hear any complaints.

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one.

Again, I would never talk to a player this way. Fighters are a strong choice for beginners and veterans alike so I enthusiastically suggest them to newbies.

 

[TristramEvans]

- Modrons look silly.

Modrons were the best part of Planescape!

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one."

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

Show us on the doll where fighters touched you in a bad way.

 

[TristramEvans]

I know exactly what kinda doll that is...

 

[Chris Brady]

"You're new so you get to play the character the group wants rather than the one you would like to."

"We need a healer, so you get to be the Cleric."

"You never played before, so I made a character for you."

"Fighters are easy, so you, the New Guy get to play one."

It's all the same. Talk down to the new player, rather than just asking what they actually want to play.

You would t like it if you were on the receiving end, why do it to someone New?

I saw a lot of this during the 2e days. Only difference was, we were OK with it. Hell, I was often told to play something because the party needed it, not because I wanted to play it. But I was fine with it.

 

[TristramEvans]

Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat: a homebrew fighter class for D&D

"Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat" is Redditor Sir_Platinum's homebrew fighter class for Dungeons and Dragons, wherein the halflings' dexterity bonus is canceled out by the need to maintain balance and…

boingboing.net

 

[Bashere]

Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat: a homebrew fighter class for D&D

"Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat" is Redditor Sir_Platinum's homebrew fighter class for Dungeons and Dragons, wherein the halflings' dexterity bonus is canceled out by the need to maintain balance and…

boingboing.net

Okay, this might get me back into D&D 'cause I'd so play this.

 

[Picaroon Jack]

Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat: a homebrew fighter class for D&D

"Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat" is Redditor Sir_Platinum's homebrew fighter class for Dungeons and Dragons, wherein the halflings' dexterity bonus is canceled out by the need to maintain balance and…

boingboing.net

Okay, that one caught me off guard. LOL

 

[Endless Flight]

All I can say after looking over the polling data in this thread is that Wizards couldn’t have played their cards any better than they did with 5e. It’s a runaway success after the disappointment of 4e. If I were in charge there, I would milk this edition as long as I possibly could and keep as much goodwill with the fan base. Their marketing in the lead up to 4e was an unmitigated disaster, so hopefully they learned their lessons.

 

[AsenRG]

It means they can exist in the setting without having to deal with tedious racism or exoticism; most people will probably have met one of your species. Some players like dealing that sort of thing, some don't.

Then it would depend on whether the character could easily pass for human (like, any physical trait is fine if it can be easily hidden by normal clothing). If not, expect as much of a welcome as Drizzt was getting in his books before becoming famous.
Setting conceits don't change to accommodate players in my games. And demons are Not Welcome (and the dominant dogma is that they create tieflings in order for them to carry their will).

What is good about Palladium Magic is that it's very detailed and you have a variety of ways to interact with it without anyone being the same. A bog standard Wizard is not the same as another Wizard. Their spell-load outs and specialties will be different, and Wizards are nothing like Diabolists, or Witches, though they'll share a lot of basic common knowledge.

Wait, isn't that how D&D is now? You have Sorcerors, Wizards, Warlocks with different spell-load-outs and specialties.
Maybe it's just me, but it does look pretty close.

 

[Supervisor194]

All I can say after looking over the polling data in this thread is that Wizards couldn’t have played their cards any better than they did with 5e. It’s a runaway success after the disappointment of 4e. If I were in charge there, I would milk this edition as long as I possibly could and keep as much goodwill with the fan base. Their marketing in the lead up to 4e was an unmitigated disaster, so hopefully they learned their lessons.

I'm surprised there's not (an official) new Gamma World based on 5e.

 

[3rik]

Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat: a homebrew fighter class for D&D

"Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat" is Redditor Sir_Platinum's homebrew fighter class for Dungeons and Dragons, wherein the halflings' dexterity bonus is canceled out by the need to maintain balance and…

boingboing.net

Finally, a use for halflings.

 

[Luca]

Okay... yes? To all of it? I can easily design within those parameters.

Magic-User - Arcane caster, Class benefits - Gains access to any Arcane Magic School (See Magic System Arcane Magic). Qualifies for any Magic-user sub-class/archetype blah blah blah, has access to these skills <fill in list here>. Limit the basic class to abilities that are setting specific (which rules in the Magic system to tune this base list). Then you set about defining all the qualities of your Archetypes/Specialists/whatever.

Those sub-categories can now have their own sub-set of abilties/spells. All of which are delineated in the Magic Section.

The Magic section will cover all interations with these abilities including hybridization. And you keep it all under two big canopies. The Class, and the Performative Functions of the Class.

This thing already exists, it's called Hero System

 

[Voros]

Finally, a use for halflings.

I like Halfings. If one wants a different take on them check out Dark Sun and Birthright, both pretty cool I think. And let's be honest, despite Gygax's retroactive claims, I doubt there'd even be D&D without The Hobbit or LotR.

 

[AsenRG]

Finally, a use for halflings.

What was wrong with dragon bait?

 

[Baulderstone]

I like Halfings. If one wants a different take on them check out Dark Sun and Birthright, both pretty cool I think. And let's be honest, despite Gygax's retroactive claims, I doubt there'd even be D&D without The Hobbit or LotR.

I don't think D&D would have been as popular without LotR, but Howard, Lieber and Vance all had made notable contributions to fantasy long before Lord of the Rings became popular in the US in the '60s. Given Gygax's age, it is reasonable that he would have been more influenced by the sources that he claims he was.

 

[Voros]

I don't think D&D would have been as popular without LotR, but Howard, Lieber and Vance all had made notable contributions to fantasy long before Lord of the Rings became popular in the US in the '60s. Given Gygax's age, it is reasonable that he would have been more influenced by the sources that he claims he was.

Sure, I much prefer the other contemporary fantasy writers of Tolkien to LotR, etc myself and I can see traces of the Leiber and Vance influences in D&D.

But LotR was obviously the main influence on the fantasy wargames that D&D grew out of (mass combat is hardly featured at all in Leiber, Vance or Howard) and D&D's elves, dwarves and 'halfings' are pretty clearly lifted from Tolkien, as I think Jon Peterson argues convincingly in Playing at the World. Believe I read that LotR was also a big influence on Arneson's early campaign.

More importantly as you imply, LotR's huge popularity not only made fantasy a viable commerical form that would eventually eclipse sf but also was instrumental in creating the fantasy fandom that embraced D&D.

I think that in an effort to recognize the contributions of, to me much better, fantasy writers we've gone from over-emphazing Tolkien to over-compensating and underrating his clear influence.

 

[AsenRG]

But LotR was obviously the main influence on the fantasy wargames that D&D grew out of (mass combat is hardly featured at all in Leiber, Vance or Howard)

Hour of the Dragon and Beyond the Black River both beg to differ. And then there are the pirate stories - abordage is a mass battle, even if in smaller level.

and D&D's elves, dwarves and 'halfings' are pretty clearly lifted from Tolkien, as I think Jon Peterson argues convincingly in Playing at the World.

No doubt about that. And there was a balrog PC!
But those were Gygax's players. Sure, he did incorporate their feedback, but his influences from earlier authors were probably much deeper. Or at least the idea sounds convincing.!

Believe I read that LotR was also a big influence on Arneson's early campaign.

Maybe.

I think that in an effort to recognize the contributions of, to me much better, fantasy writers we've gone from over-emphazing Tolkien to over-compensating and underrating his clear influence.

I disagree. Credit where credit is due still means that not only Tolkien has mass battles...and as stated before, I find the argument about Gygax's age much more convincing.
In the end, it doesn't matter for today's D&D, which is IMO much more influenced by contemporary authors. See tiefling PCs for an example we recently mentioned!

 

[TristramEvans]

Ultimately, Tolkien was a cultural phenomenon in the way that none of the pulp fantasy authors even touched. Tolkien was not the only influence on fantasy wargames (Bath's Hyperborean campaign was practically an uncredited proto-RPG), but the reason fantasy wargamming was as popular in the 70s as it was was pretty much squarely on Tolkien's shoulders. If Tolkien didn't exist, I find it likely the first RPGs may have been Napoleonic-themed, which is interesting to consider in it's own right.

 

[Voros]

Hour of the Dragon and Beyond the Black River both beg to differ. And then there are the pirate stories - abordage is a mass battle, even if in smaller level.


No doubt about that. And there was a balrog PC!
But those were Gygax's players. Sure, he did incorporate their feedback, but his influences from earlier authors were probably much deeper. Or at least the idea sounds convincing.!


Maybe.


I disagree. Credit where credit is due still means that not only Tolkien has mass battles...and as stated before, I find the argument about Gygax's age much more convincing.
In the end, it doesn't matter for today's D&D, which is IMO much more influenced by contemporary authors. See tiefling PCs for an example we recently mentioned!

In Playing at the World Peterson shows that the pre-D&D fantasy wargames also featured Treants/Ents, etc. Many of the wargames were based on the Battle of the Five Armies and the battles from LotR. The handful of larger clashes in Howard are strictly background as opposed to the set pieces of LotR.

The very idea of the adventuring 'party' or perhaps we should say 'fellowship' of a core of human, elf, dwarf and 'halfling' races is also pretty clearly lifted from LotR, the efforts to claim it comes from Three Hearts and Three Lions I don't find convincing. The party in that story is much more wildly fae.

The Mines of Moria seem to be a major inspiration for dungeoncrawling as well.

Obviously the game quickly grew away from Tolkien's influence and became a mishmash of other fantasy tropes and elements invented on the fly but I think the Tolkien 'spine' is still pretty visible.

And let's not forget that a lot of these ideas, the dungeoncrawl, party of adventurers, etc. seem to have been all in place in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign before Gygax came along. He was hardly the inventor of these tropes.

 

[AsenRG]

In Playing at the World Peterson shows that the pre-D&D fantasy wargames also featured Treants/Ents, etc. Many of the wargames were based on the Battle of the Five Armies and the battles from LotR. The handful of larger clashes in Howard are strictly background as opposed to the set pieces of LotR.

The very idea of the adventuring 'party' or perhaps we should say 'fellowship' of a core of human, elf, dwarf and 'halfling' races is also pretty clearly lifted from LotR, the efforts to claim it comes from Three Hearts and Three Lions I don't find convincing. The party in that story is much more wildly fae.

The Mines of Moira seem to be a major inspiration for dungeoncrawling as well.

Obviously the game quickly grew away from Tolkien's influence and became a mishmash of other fantasy tropes and elements invented on the fly but I think the Tolkien 'spine' is still pretty visible.

And let's not forget that a lot of these ideas, the dungeoncrawl, party of adventurers, etc. seem to have been all in place in Arneson's Blackmoor campaign before Gygax came along.

The "party" is there in some parts of Conan and constantly on show in Leiber's most famous series. Sure, no elves and halflings, thanks the gods, but that's because there aren't any in the setting.

Dungeoncrawling? You mean like Tower of the Elephant, which also features attacking monsters, traps, and so on? Or like in The Hall of the Dead, which features a monster that needs special tactics? What about Red Nails, which has an ancient dead city surrounded by dangers, and local "tribes" which are in conflict? Or The Slithering Shadow, where you have the importance of food and drink, and fighting the local god, and the clearest example of a high roll on the Reaction table can get you in trouble? Or Hour of the Dragon, where it's even shown how important lighting can be?
You know...I could go on and list Conan stories that I like less (because the dungeoncrawling ones are almost consistently the ones I like less, with some exceptions - Tower of the Elephant is a major exception). And then I could start with Leiber.
But the point is that compared to that, Moria doesn't hold a candle!

Also, I have little doubt that Arneson had also read REH and Fritz Leiber.