The Campaign Builder's Guild

Off the bat, I'll be the first to admit that I've been pretty terrible at posting the last year, but hopefully I can remedy that. For my absence, to make a long story short, I will wholeheartedly blame grad school. However, that is not to say that the CBG and world-building is no longer interesting. Quite the opposite. Without boring you all with the details, I've read a fair share of French post-structuralism the last year - Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, Barthes - and it occasionally got me thinking about the theory of discourse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse#Structuralism) and how it applies to how we approach fantasy. For instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive? Why are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame? Why is magic so pervasive? Why is Tolkien seen as the cornerstone of modern fantasy? Why are orcs and goblins usually bad guys? Whyare orcs and goblins so prevalent anyway? I obviously have my own opinions on this matter, but I would like to think of what other people think on the status of modern fantasy.

*As a side note, I think we here at the CBG are far ahead of the curve when it comes to being creative - Steerpikes Cadaverous Earth, L. Crayon's Jade Stage, Crow's Broken Verge, and the awesome but ill-fated Lexicon project to name only a few - but I suppose I'm speaking more about fantasy in general here, so I hope no one takes offense to me ranting about something they have in their setting, as I am guilty as much as the next world-builder of falling into convention. 

Good questions.  Here's a stab at a few answers (or the beginning of answers)...

Quote from: LeetzFor instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive?

They're prominent in Tolkien, who's a major early source for D&D; along with Halflings/Hobbits these are basically Middle Earth's "core races."  Tolkien's popularity amongst fantasy readers has enshrined/calcified these creatures in the collective imagination.  One could also make the argument (perhaps) that the listed three in particular exemplify aspects of the human psyche.  Certainly they resonate with a variety of mythological and cultural tropes that permeate modern culture.  I'm sure there's massive amounts of Tolkien scholarship dedicated to reading the three races in terms of the geopolitical landscape of the mid-twentieth century, as well.

Quote from: LeetzWhy are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame?

This is an interesting one.

Firstly, within the gaming community specifically, the reason is partly historical, I think.  D&D grew out of Chainmail, an expressly medieval wargame.  In fact, the first "dungeon crawl" was reportedly a scenario in which the players' forces infiltrated a medieval keep via the cellars and dungeons.  D&D still looms large, and its roots are distinctly quasi-medieval.

Secondly, fantasy grew in part out of the Gothic romances and other genres that specifically hearkened back to a medieval past as part of a reaction against the perceived sterility of Enlightenment rationalism.  The prodigies, monsters, sorcery, miracles, demons, superstitions, horrors, and wonders of the Gothic and of fantasy were associated closely with the medieval mindset, in contrast to the Neo-Classical philosophies of the Enlightenment.  Since the medieval period has become associated as a time of "unreason" and superstition, it's a natural setting for fantasy.

Quote from: LeetzWhy is Tolkien seen as the cornerstone of modern fantasy?

A tough question to answer.  In essence, I'd say that it's because Tolkien is read widely even outside of fantasy circles, but that's not really an answer (why is Tolkien read widely and not Leiber or Vance?).  Moorcock would probably say it's because The Lord of the Rings flatters the bourgeois values and nostalgia the reading public desired, comforting and consoling readers with easy answers rather than challenging them; The Lord of the Rings tends to affirm the established moral/political status quo rather than call it into question.  It champions conservative power-structures like the monarchy and Roman Catholic moralism, is deeply suspicious of progress, and avoids sexuality pretty much altogether, as opposed to more radical fantasy that interrogates and problematizes power-structures and institutions (Gormenghast comes to mind - or A Song of Ice and Fire).  Reeling from the nastiness of the second world war and longing for a simpler time, the reading public found Tolkien's tale comforting; rather than forcing them to address the problems of classism, racism, and traditionalism that were prevalent in their culture, the text exalts the typical middle class way of life, from the idealized servant/master relationship of Frodo and Sam to the paternalistic, fatherly wisdom of Gandalf to the benevolent absolutism of Aragorn.

Added to this, Tolkien's prose is pretty readable and pedestrian, compared to the baroque excesses of someone like Lovecraft, Peake, or even Howard, or the rich, stilted strangeness of Vance.  All of these factors may have gone into LoTR's popularity.  I actually like The Lord of the Rings quite a lot - I thint there's much, much more to love than there is to revile - but it's not un-problematic, and its influence on modern fantasy hasn't always been for the good.

Quote from: LeetzWhy are orcs and goblins usually bad guys?  Why are orcs and goblins so prevalent anyway?

For one thing, they're a nice archetypal Other onto which we can project our (conscious or subconscious) racist/xenopohobic aggresions - still familiar enough not to stray into alienating unfathomableness (Orcs are hateable; Cthulhu is not), but different enough - and ugly enough - that killing them en masse doesn't invite as many troublesome ethical quandries.

Why is Tolkien the cornerstone of Fantasy? Because between the Hobbit and LotR, he has sold over 250 millions copies of his books. Very little from that early era can touch what Tolkien accomplished, heck very little from today can top that. The only Fantasy series that has sold more is Harry Potter! Tolkien tapped into something special with those books, something that even the likes of C.S. Lewis, Jack Vance, Moorcock, Le Guin, Hoard, et al, simply did not, or could not. There's so much to love about Middle-Earth, from its non-human, humanoid species, its wondrous depth, its expansive linguistics, its solid story telling, its enjoyable prose, its good vs. evil premise, its journey of friendship through adversity, to everything above and more. It's almost primal, in a way.

I remember something R.A. Salvatore said when he was at a con, it was that he discovered Fantasy through Tolkien. He fell in love with the genre and proceeded to devour all the other books that were released at that time, which amounted to a shelf in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section. It's about that time when he found D&D.

I think if you put Warhammer Fantasy and D&D up as the "I found fantasy, then I found this game" you would capture a huge swathe of the Fantasy reading public, especially the writers. D&D and Warhammer Fantasy are intensely derivative from Tolkien, complete with Humans, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Halflings, Ents, Ogres, Trolls and all the other races Tolkien helped to cement into our minds.

Most people fall in love Tolkien. They then play games that blatantly borrow from his works. Years ater, a small segment of those readers/players become authors. Their views of Fantasy are going to be defined, in large part, by either an adoration of- or a denial of Tolkien, both of which further cement Tolkien's per-eminance in the genre.

The idea that Fantasy is medieval goes back to the founders of the genre, most of whom wrote about simpler, more pure times (i.e. Medieval), which just harkens back to the romanticization of the Medieval period (and revival of interest in that era) that had occurred in the 19th century.

Yes! I agree on all points, SP (Also, I figured this would be up your alley.) Especially your critique on Tolkien that he is somewhat of a reactionary in supporting traditional Anglo-Saxon ideals like monarchy, social hierarchy, and a religiously-tinged aversion to sex. But those critiques beg even more questions as to why a large portion of modern fantasy doesn't address such things as classism, sexism (I'm sure we can all agree that fantasy art is blatantly sexist, anything by Frank Franzetta, 80% of contemporary comic books, or bra armor) and, this is what irks me the most, racism in the form of moralized or ethically homogeneous races. I once wrote a paper in undergrad that tied the regions of Middle-Earth to WWI-WWII European nation states - Mordor is a clear allegory to Nazi Germany, Rohan is France, the Corsairs of Umbar are Ottoman Turkey, Haradwaith is the Orient as per Said, etc. The geographical placement even fits disturbingly well.

Now, don't get me wrong, their is something nostalgic and comforting about a Tolkeinesque fantasy, my entire 'Meatloaf Setting' is based upon that entire premise, more or less. However, do we, as the CBG as a whole, which I believe has an incredible level of intelligence and creativity compared to the world of prepackaged adventure modules and system-slaves, have a certain obligation to the push the limits of fantasy? There is a China Miéville quote which I think I will always remember. While I'm sure I'm butchering it, it was something along the lines of "Tolkien is a sore on the ass of fantasy." At first I completely disagreed, as I love Tolkien, as I'm sure much of us do. However, I think there is a point to his statement, in that the fantasy community (that's a huge essentialism, I know) is too strongly tied to the Tolkien tradition of Anglo-Saxon-Nordic nostalgia that focuses on kings and warriors and Big Bad Guys as opposed to the confronting and interpreting the modern human condition in all its nasty and complicated shades, which is what good art forms should do. And isn't world building just another art
form?

[EDIT] I also agree with all you say EE, but I also feel that as great, and I mean great in all senses of the word, as the LoTR is that we shouldn't press forward into the new and uncomfortable. Indeed, I would argue that Tolkien's version of fantasy was intensely shaped by his own experiences in the World Wars and transition into the late modern era. I don't see why our fantasy can't incorporate issues of our own experiences in today's world. Tolkien is amazing, he has his faults, but is amazing nonetheless, but what I'm really asking is why it seems so difficult for the fantasy community as a whole to break ties with Middle-earth and forge something new and unique to our time.

Quote from: LeetzI'm sure we can all agree that fantasy art is blatantly sexist, anything by Frank Franzetta, 80% of contemporary comic books, or bra armor

Actually I'd tend to defend Frazetta to a certain extent.  Though sometimes he paints women in positions of vulnerability and subservience, many of his paintings depict woman in postures of power, mastery, and capability.  While his female subjects are usually unclothed or barely clothed and certainly sexualized, so are many of his male subjects.  The nakedness of Frazetta's subjects is, to me, more about celebrating and affirming human power, beauty, and strength than about demeaning or blithely objectifying the female gender.  Moreover, both Frazetta's men and women, though depicted with a great deal of sensuality, aren't rendered in a way that conforms strictly to prevailing cultural ideals in every sense.  His male figures are muscular, but they tend more towards a certain lithe, "natural" physique rather than the grotesque muscularity of body-builders; his female figures are never stick-thin, but nor do they possess the asburd breasts of many bosomy comic-book heroines.  Is there an erotic element to Frazetta's art?  Unmistakably. Is it sometimes problematic?  On occasion, perhaps, but by and large I think the reaction against Frazetta's fantasy work is tied to the kind of knee-jerk anti-pornography feminism that tends to object to any aesthetic depiction of female, unclothed bodies - as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which can embrace such imagery as empowering in its own way.

Frankly (oooh... bad pun) I think there's more room for a post-colonial critique of Frazetta's work - an awful lot of "noble savages" and other "exotic," stereotyped figures populate his paintings.  Although, granted, that's frequently a function of what he's illustrating, the source material itself, rather than his presentation of it.

Quote from: LeetzTolkien is a sore on the ass of fantasy

"A wen on the arse of fantasy" I believe were his words.  He has since recanted this opinion to a great extent: firstly because he discovered a wen refers only to boils of the face, and secondly because he's come to feel that Tolkien is actually pretty amazing in many ways (among other things he particularly praises Tolkien's monster-making).

Quote from: LeetzHowever, I think there is a point to his statement, in that the fantasy community (that's a huge essentialism, I know) is too strongly tied to the Tolkien tradition of Anglo-Saxon-Nordic nostalgia that focuses on kings and warriors and Big Bad Guys as opposed to the confronting and interpreting the modern human condition in all its nasty and complicated shades, which is what good art forms should do.

Personally I'm less attached to a proscriptive definition of what art should or shouldn't do - I think, for example, that's there's plenty of great art that says very, very little about the modern human condition (a great deal of Lovecraft, for example, who is obviously profoundly disinterested in people altogether).  But certainly fantasy can be used radically, rather than nostalgically; it can interrogate the status quo as well as upholding it, and there's value in fantasy that does that.

If you get away from D&D/Warhammer/Tolkien/Series-from-the-80's, the Fantasy genre has largely moved on. A Song of Fire and Ice doesn't really have that many Tolkein-isms (although I have only read the first book and watched the TV show). Harry Potter did contain Goblins and Elves but they are nothing like their kin from Middle-Earth. The Red Sonja and Conan comics are not Tolkien-ish either. Very little in Rokugan is inspired by Tolkien.

I think Video Games are much more guilty of ripping LotR off than literature these days, especially the core 3 races (Humans, Elves and Dwarves) and a heavy focus on good vs. evil.

There haven't been that many Fantasy TV shows recently but The Legend of the Seeker did not feel like Tolkien. Neither does Game of Thrones, Merlin, The Last Airbender, Robin Hood, Samurai Jack, Xena, Hercules, etc.

When you think about it, a lot of fantasy has diverged into more modern settings, with things like Buffy, Angel, Twilight, True Blood, Dark Shadows, Vampire Diaries, Being Human, Charmed, Highlander, the Adams Family, Lost, etc. They've merged fantasy with modernity to create an entirely different sub-genre. Having said that, many would not consider these to be proper Fantasy since they lack a non-modern setting, which, I suppose, is due to Tolkien's shadow.

Then you have Anime, which draws from a completely separate background than western literature. The foundations are different enough so that when they do borrow from the west, it often leads to cool/unique interpretations (Slayers, Those Who Hunt Elves, Code Geass, Berserk, Claymore, Escaflowne , Lodoss War, etc.).

Superheroes also embrace Fantasy, especially through the likes of Thor, Wonder Woman, Hercules, Zatana, Demon Knights, etc.

Then you have Wuxia but outside of a small number of films, they don't have much sway in the West. Hmm, I suppose there are a lot of Samurai and Kung Fu movies though many of those lean towards Historical Fiction and non-fantasy action flicks.

If you want to get technical, Star Wars is a Fantasy flick with a sci-fi veneer (so, Sci-Fantasy).

Understanding a lot of the 'why' of what we do, or an industry and a movement,  often creates a better 'what' we end up producing.

Gygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).  Tolkien was also using a cultural zeitgeist; as his stuff is, as mentioned heavily drawn from his background and what he taught.

Tolkien's use of language should not be underestimated either, nor his use of the Hobbits as his 'speaking voice'.  The reader's ability to grow with them and identify with them as sort of outsiders in the greater, deeper world was incredibly well done. 

All that said and acknowledged, I think Tolkien's influence has hit a certain point and is now diminishing in the hobby.  Although people often like to have a certain level of predictable touchstones in their game, you can have a game with no elves.  Or no hobbits.  or no orcs.

Quote from: Elemental ElfWhen you think about it, a lot of fantasy has diverged into more modern settings, with things like Buffy, Angel, Twilight, True Blood, Dark Shadows, Vampire Diaries, Being Human, Charmed, Highlander, the Adams Family, Lost, etc.  Having said that, many would not consider these to be proper Fantasy since they lack a non-modern setting, which, I suppose, is due to Tolkien's shadow.

I think this is partly true, though it should be noted that Tolkien didn't invent the idea of a "secondary world" by any stretch of the imagination.  Elfland, Newhon, Hyperborea etc all existed well before Middle Earth.  Tolkien's world is of unusual depth in the sense that much of it "exists" beyond the pages of his stories, though.

Interestingly, I think the bulk of your examples would generally be classified more as horror rather then fantasy (Highlander and perhaps Lost aside).  Horror and the Gothic have always been hybrid genres and, in a sense, gave birth to fantasy - or, looked at another way, fantasy can be seen as an umbrella term that includes horror.  I think, though, that the specifically horrific nature of the works you cited helps to explain the fact that they're set in the real world, since horror is frequently about the eruption of the strange and alien into the quotidian (not, of course, always).  Your examples are also all television based - television and film have typically shied away from fantasy in favour of SF and horror, with a handful of exceptions.

I think Tolkien's legacy is much more tangible in the literary world, though that is beginning to wither to.  Big series like Shannara, the Inheritance Cycle, and the Wheel of Time, which I think were all fairly Tolkien-derivative to a greater or lesser extent, are either finished or finishing.  It seems like Tolkienism is gradually being replaced as the pre-eminent fantasy template with various gritty quasi-historical stuff (The First Law trilogy, A Song of Ice and Fire, The Black Company, etc).

Quote from: Lord VreegGygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).

This is so true!  It's impossible to take Gygax seriously when he spouts this silliness.  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, secret doors, dragons - come on, Gary.  Sure D&D has a lot of other sources, but did the early monster manuals ever stat out Shoggoths, Night-Gaunts, Deodands, Sandestins, or sentient rats?  Nope.  Balrog rip-offs, treents, Orcs, Goblins, and Worgs though?  Of course!

Ah.  Yes. 
The Black Company.  Few books have had more to do with the GS game system, and in the creation of at least one of the major mythic cycles.  And I was one of those guys who caught Martin as he first came out, and the grittiness of both have the feel I always look for.  The magic of the Black Company always was interesting, as well.

To an earlier point, Tolkein's work was deeper and multilayered, with the poetry and prophecy well done, and it did catch fire in the sixties and seventies, and it was a grateful respite from the desperate cultural clashes of the day.  It was in every house I went to, and in the early 80s, my high school had 2 semesters of it (which I actually helped teach, which is another story). 

""The impulse is being called reactionary now, but lovers of Middle-earth want to go there. I would myself, like a shot. For in the end it is Middle-earth and its dwellers that we love, not Tolkien's considerable gifts in showing it to us. I said once that the world he charts was there long before him, and I still believe it. He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world. We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers—thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."
― Peter S. Beagle, from the forward

You can see the cultural response of the time.  Despite the other real titans of that time (Herbert's Dune was not mentioned, Pohl, Delany, and of course Zelazny), none of them had this kind of penetration.

Quote from: Lord VreegDespite the other real titans of that time (Herbert's Dune was not mentioned, Pohl, Delany, and of course Zelazny), none of them had this kind of penetration.

Unless I'm mistaken, those authors are more in the '60s and '70s than the late '30s through to the '50s (when The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were published), but I do take your point, especially since Tolkien's texts rose to real cultural prominence in those later decades.  The question is, why this degree of penetration?  How can it be explained?  Here are just a few theories:

1) The Lord of the Rings is just intrinsically, aesthetically superior to other works of fantasy at the time.  I don't think this is the case at all, but I think some people think this.  Is The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) vastly superior to The Dying Earth (1950), Titus Groan (1946), Gormenghast (1950), The Once and Future King (1938-1941), earlier works like The Worm Ouroboros (1922) or The King of Elfland's Daughter (1924), or later ones like Stormbringer (1965) or The Chronicles of Prydain (1964-1968)?  Some may prefer it to those works, but I think it's a big stretch to say it's just "better" aesthetically.  Many of those texts are the stylistic equals of Tolkien, and they often have just as many (or more) horrors, wonders, engaging themes, strange creatures, fantastic kingdoms, etc.  These are powerful, original, fantastic works, and many in my mind are every bit the equal of Tolkien's texts; while all of them have major followings, they've got nothing on Tolkien's sales or cultural penetration, and I don't think it's because they're simply inferior works.  

2) The rich secondary world-building Tolkien used for Middle Earth inclines itself to the formation of an obsessive fandom, a community of readers who come to revere not only the texts themselves but the greater world behind them.  I think there's a lot of merit to this possibility.  The appendices of The Lord of the Rings, the maps, the invented languages - all of these things encourage a type of fandom and appreciation that the other texts don't, at least not to the same degree.

3) The Lord of the Rings flatters the cultural values of the time in which is was published.  The reading public seized on The Lord of the Rings because its prose style and themes confirm what it wanted to hear.  Its heroes are traditionally "moral" characters and the text presents a simplistic ethical binary with stark and mostly obvious distinctions between good and evil, with little room for ambiguity (in my mind, the books' greatest moments are the places it rises above this crude dichotomy - in the presentation of characters like Boromir and Gollum, for example).  The story is about defending the unquestioned status quo rather than striving for progress or fighting against the injustices of the pre-existing system; when corruption is present it's either highly individualized (Denethor) or totally external (Sauron), it's never the fault of a fundamentally unjust society (at last not a human/hobbit/elven one).   Tolkien's prose is often evocative, but it's rarely very challenging, encouraging a wide readership.

Well, we WERE talking About why he hold in the gaming world, which started in the 70s.   That is the time-relevancy connection.  My comments about cultural penetration are predicated on the idea that the early part of the hobby was also a very, very pro Tolkien time.


I do think your nod to the depth and breadth of Middle Earth is well thought out for some markets, as is the frankly multi level appeal....kids and teens grokked it on its base level, but there were levels below it.   And as I said, the viewpoint taken, from the hobbits, was brilliant.  Better, perhaps not, but accessible on many levels, yes.

After I posted, I was thinking along the same lines in that many of my examples could very well be seen as Horror, rather than Fantasy. I believe the blanket term is Speculative Fiction (though I seriously doubt many non-nerds would know to call it that), which covers Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Horror. I'm not sure what constitutes the difference between the two, especially as they converge. Are the terms really necessary? I mean one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies (Alien) could easily be called Horror as it has all the hallmarks of a horror (scary beast, constrained location, lack of information, fight-or-flight, lots of death, etc.).

Let's see what Wikipedia defines as "Fantasy": Fantasy is a genre of fiction that commonly uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common. Fantasy is generally distinguished from the genres of science fiction and horror by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific and macabre themes, respectively, though there is a great deal of overlap between the three, all of which are subgenres of speculative fiction.

And Horror: Horror fiction, horror literature and also horror fantasy is a genre of literature, which is intended to, or has the capacity to frighten its readers, scare or startle viewers/readers by inducing feelings of horror and terror. It creates an eerie and frightening atmosphere. Horror can be either supernatural or non-supernatural. Often the central menace of a work of Horror fiction can be interpreted as a metaphor for the larger fears of a society.

Given these definitions, can we really call Twilight horror? It doesn't really try to scare you, in fact it goes out of its way to explain, rationalize and humanize the supernatural. Though he may not be the best written character, Edward (the vampire) is not definitely not Dracula, and tries his best to protect the woman he loves even though it causes himself and his family great anguish and puts everything he holds dear in peril. By the second movie, the only scary thing was seeing the BBEGs do bad things to normal people (which is a common trope for establishing evil people's evil credentials). The books could be seen as macabre, I suppose, but they have (what I assume a young girl would find to be) a happy ending, nor does it necessarily dwell on the darker aspects of the supernatural (save for inner teen-age turmoil/angst).


One could argue that Terry Brooks came out of the "Tolkien Generation" of the 70's (like so many other authors), while Christopher Paolini was so young that he was unduly influenced by LotR and Star Wars. Robert Jordan definitely doesn't fit into this categorization easily, although his first book was written (though not published) way back in 1984 (which is just 7 years after Shannarra's first book).

I definitely agree that Fantasy seems to be heading in more of a less-fantastical-grittier direction, although there has always been a market for those kinds of stories. I wonder if the love of low fantasy isn't being influenced by the meteoric rise of post-apocalyptic movies and TV shows where the heroes are down to earth and approach challenges in a fairly realistic manner? There's clearly a very large market for that kind of fiction, which could easily be leading authors down the low fantasy river.

My inclination would be to say that during the good times, people like high fantasy and during the bad, they prefer low but I don't think that would hold true given that the late 70's and early 80's were bad economically and yet it birthed so much high fantasy.

Quote from: Lord VreegGygax tried hard to convince us that he was not using Tolkien as his primary influence, but I think this was partially to increase his fan base and also because his early stuff drew a lawsuit threat (he had ents instead of treants, etc).

Quote from: SPThis is so true!  It's impossible to take Gygax seriously when he spouts this silliness.  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Wizards, secret doors, dragons - come on, Gary.  Sure D&D has a lot of other sources, but did the early monster manuals ever stat out Shoggoths, Night-Gaunts, Deodands, Sandestins, or sentient rats?  Nope.  Balrog rip-offs, treents, Orcs, Goblins, and Worgs though?  Of course!

Ah but how many of those "Tolkien" creations can be used under the guise of "they're from mythology!" rather than "I am blatantly stealing from another author's work!"?  

Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Magic Doors, Dragons, Walking-Trees, Goblins, evil Wolves, etc. are all very generic, even if Gygax was borrowing heavily from LotR.

I wonder some times what Sci-Fi would look like today if it had the equivalent of a LotR. Would we be busting open our copies of Stars and Aliens, while crating the wondrously complex history of the Andromeda Galaxy, where Humans, Vulcans, Klingons and Romulans all live and thrive?

Sounds silly right?

Sometimes I think D&D is the same way.

Why doesn't each and every Fantasy work create its own unique species, the way Sci-Fi does?

Is the reason that Sci-Fi so under represented in the RPG market because it does not have a common set of touchstones, the way Fantasy does with Elves, Dwarves, etc.? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend? Is it simply due to D&D? Does the mere presence of common ideas/frameworks allow for the easier mingling of people between tables (an Elf is generally an Elf, unless you are playing in a setting that inverts the stereotype (like Dark Sun))? Perhaps we live in a futuristic society, so escaping to one only slightly more advanced seems less enjoyable than traveling back to a more romanticized time of Dragons, Knights and Damsels?

Quote from: Lord VreegWell, we WERE talking About why he hold in the gaming world, which started in the 70s.   That is the time-relevancy connection.  My comments about cultural penetration are predicated on the idea that the early part of the hobby was also a very, very pro Tolkien time.

Yeah, you're quite right.  Which is sort of interesting because D&D emerged pretty much directly after Vietnam, and The Lord of the Rings is, in some sense, kind of pro-war, at least in a certain way.  You might think Vietnam would have turned people off that kind of thing and there'd be a backlash.  Maybe because Vietnam was a complex, morally ambiguous war and LotR hearkens back to WWII and its perceived moral starkness?

Quote from: Elemental ElfElves, Dwarves, Wizards, Magic Doors, Dragons, Walking-Trees, Goblins, evil Wolves, etc. are all very generic, even if Gygax was borrowing heavily from LotR.

Well, sort of, but there are lots and lots of other magical/mythological creatures that Gygax & co don't priviledge compared to those, and I think LotR is responsible here for their prevalence.  Pre-Tolkien, the word "Elf" (which Tolkien regretted at times) was connected more with Victorian/Celtic fairies when they appeared in fantasy fiction.  Dwarves certainly didn't have much prominence pre-Tolkien, and certainly didn't resemble their current incarnations all that much, mythological Norse Dwarves being decidedly more sinister than Tolkien's Dwarves.  I mean, sure, a lot of Tolkien's stuff existed before, but it hadn't attained the same generic status that it currently has.

Quote from: Elemental ElfIs the reason that Sci-Fi so under represented in the RPG market because it does not have a common set of touchstones, the way Fantasy does with Elves, Dwarves, etc.? Why is Fantasy the dominant medium for RPGs? Sci-Fi and horror are generally much more popular in mass media, so why do RPGs buck the trend? Is it simply due to D&D? Does the mere presence of common ideas/frameworks allow for the easier mingling of people between tables (an Elf is generally an Elf, unless you are playing in a setting that inverts the stereotype (like Dark Sun))? Perhaps we live in a futuristic society, so escaping to one only slightly more advanced seems less enjoyable than traveling back to a more romanticized time of Dragons, Knights and Damsels?

This is an incredibly good question.

>>One could argue that Terry Brooks came out of the "Tolkien Generation" of the 70's (like so many other authors), while Christopher Paolini was so young that he was unduly influenced by LotR and Star Wars. Robert Jordan definitely doesn't fit into this categorization easily, although his first book was written (though not published) way back in 1984 (which is just 7 years after Shannarra's first book).

...Robert Jordan's first book is essentially Book 1 of the LoTR. Escape from the shire (the little town), Green Man Tom Bombadil and and all that. Of course, these are also long-time European literature touchstones that harken back to coming of age in the middle ages and going into the scary world beyond the dale, but I cannot see book 1 of Jordan's Wheel of Time Series as anything BUT a trip to Mordor...

Onto the larger question.

>>For instance, why are elves, dwarves, and orcs so pervasive? Why are most settings placed within a medieval time-frame? Why is magic so pervasive?

Others have touched on this, but to state it in my own words:

Cultural touchstones. Shorthand. It's like reading David Foster Wallace or Thomas Pynchon or Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. You have a history with these creatures, just like a college student has a history with Western Civ. Plato. Socrates. Caesar. You don't need to write a footnote or a paragraph explaining why they're important if they're in your philosophical essay. You connect with readers just by making an allusion to them. Their names have connotations. Calling on them creates a feel with a reader. So too is it with dwarves and orcs, etc.

This is not to say that is the only reason dwarves, etc. are so popular- the comment about dwarves, elves, etc. being aspects of the human psyche is one I've also heard before and perhaps on a very basic (not basic-simple, but basic-primal) level that may be why people can relate to these creatures. But I think that my explanation above is a very thorough explanation of why it may be.

And of course, commercialization of Tolkien is certainly a big factor as well. :) Knock-offs just make sense.

Quote from: Light Dragon...Robert Jordan's first book is essentially Book 1 of the LoTR. Escape from the shire (the little town), Green Man Tom Bombadil and and all that. Of course, these are also long-time European literature touchstones that harken back to coming of age in the middle ages and going into the scary world beyond the dale, but I cannot see book 1 of Jordan's Wheel of Time Series as anything BUT a trip to Mordor...

Oh yeah, totally!  Moiraine is pretty much a gender-swapped, sexy Gandalf.  Trollocs are very similar to Orcs - Orcs being twisted Elves, Trollocs being twisted humans.  Myrdraal are unmistakably Nazgul.  The books do diverge a lot later on... and promptly begin riffing from Dune instead (Aiel = Fremen so hard, Rand, as the messianic Westerner with powers forbidden to men who comes in and leads the desert people to victory, etc).  There's a lot of originality in WoT, but its source material and inspirations shine through strongly.  It's less obvious or egregious than, say, Eragon, of course.

I love Shadar Logoth to absolute bits, though.

Quote from: Light DragonTheir names have connotations. Calling on them creates a feel with a reader. So too is it with dwarves and orcs, etc.

This is very true, but why dwarves and orcs and not other folkloric creatures?  Why not catoblepases, onocentaurs, hekatonkheires, scorpion men, or woodwoses?  Why are mermaids better known than kelpies or vodyanoi or shellycoats?  Gnomes more common than salamanders and undines?  Such creatures have mythological and historical pedigrees too, yet some monsters survive in the popular mindset and others fade.  Why do some monsters accrue the connotations and history they've attained while others don't?

The word "Orc," incidentally, had very little cultural/historical significance before Tolkien.  There are almost no other mentions of "Orcs" in Western literature - Beowulf's original Old English mentions "Orcs" as evil spirits condemned by god (or possibly sea-monsters), and there might be a few very scattered examples of "orke" as a term in folklore, but apart from Blake's totally different use of the term and perhaps a very vague association with the Roman Orcus, "Orc" had pretty much no resonance for the mid-twentieth-century reader.  Tolkien wasn't exploiting a cultural touchstone with Orcs, he was fashioning one.