Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The Articles of Dragon: "The Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien on the D&D and AD&D Games"

I strongly considered not writing a post about this particular article from issue #95 of Dragon (March 1985), since I know it’s likely to stir up strong feelings and perhaps understandably so. At the same time, the guiding principle behind my revival of the Articles of Dragon series has been to focus on pieces that had a particular impact on me when I first read them, and this one – “The Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien on the D&D and AD&D Games” – most certainly did. Of course, if you’ve been a longtime reader of this blog, that should come as no surprise.

The question of Tolkien’s influence on the creation and later development of Dungeons & Dragons is a topic to which Gary Gygax regularly returned. From nearly the moment the game appeared, Gygax denied that Tolkien’s tales of Middle-earth, especially The Lord of the Rings, held any special place of honor among the many fantasy works that inspired him. He never denied having read and enjoyed The Hobbit, nor that he had borrowed certain monsters and creatures, such as orcs and halflings, from Tolkien. What he seems to have rejected was the idea that this borrowing meant D&D was primarily inspired by Tolkien, rather than being a mishmash of many different influences.

I say "seems," because I really don't know why this particular question so vexed Gygax. That he kept writing articles like this more than a decade after the first appearance of the game suggests that it somehow mattered to him. I suppose the easy explanation is ego – he simply couldn't countenance the idea that someone might think D&D's success was owed, in whole or in part, to the popularity of Tolkien's work rather than his own imagination and ingenuity. But is that what was going on? Honestly, I don't know and I'm not sure anyone else does either.

"The Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien on the D&D and AD&D Games" is a strange article. For one, Gygax begins it by admitting – in the very first paragraph – that "the popularity of Professor Tolkien's fantasy works did encourage me to develop my own." This is undeniable, since the Fantasy Supplement to Chainmail directly references J.R.R. Tolkien and includes not just hobbits but orcs, balrogs, and ents among its bestiary (all of which appeared in OD&D, at least in its earliest printings). Gygax continues that "there are bits and pieces of his works reflected hazily in mine," before stating that "I believe his influence, as a whole, is minimal" [italics mine].

Gygax then recalls the many, many fantasy books and authors he read, beginning in childhood. He points particularly to Robert E. Howard's only Conan novel, Conan the Conqueror (more accurately The Hour of the Dragon) as being his first exposure to sword-and-sorcery literature. He then goes on to cite L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, Fritz Leiber, Poul Anderson, Abraham Merritt, and H.P. Lovecraft as also being important to developing his sense of fantasy. None of those names should come as surprise, since he highlights all of them in Appendix N of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. (Of more interest to me is why Jack Vance is not mentioned at all, despite Gygax's regular praise of him and his works and his role in inspiring the D&D magic system.)

With that out of the way, Gygax says he "thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit" but found The Lord of the Rings a "tedious ... allegory of the struggle of the little common working folk of England against the threat of Hitler's Nazi evil." Tolkien would, of course, object strenuously to that characterization of The Lord of the Rings, but we must take Gygax at his word. He claims to have found the novel's action to be slow, its magic unimpressive, and its resolution disappointing. Moreover, Tolkien drops his favorite character, Tom Bombadil, soon after introducing him, which contributed to the slowness with which he finished it (three weeks).

Gygax then goes on, rather unconvincingly in my view, to say that many of the common elements of Middle-earth and Dungeons & Dragons have common sources, like Norse mythology for dwarves, and that therefore no one should assume the game he created owed much to Tolkien. In fairness, he also admits once again that there were some things he borrowed with the intention of "capitalizing on the then-current 'craze' for Tolkien's literature." He did this in a "superficial manner," believing that, once he'd attracted these Tolkien fiends to D&D, they'd soon realize that there was only "a minute trace of the Professor's work" therein.

As I said, I really don't know what to make of all of this. On the one hand, I generally agree with Gygax that D&D's similarities to Tolkien's creations are skin-deep at best and probably included solely for the purposes of enticing Middle-earth aficionados to the game. On the other hand, the fact that Gygax kept beating this particular drum makes me wonder if he actually believed the lines he was saying. Furthermore, Gygax was never shy about admitting the debt he owed REH or Vance or Leiber, so why did the charge he was borrowed Tolkien rankle him so? It's frankly baffling to me.

33 comments:

  1. D&D owes way more to Poul Anderson than Tolkien. Other authors obviously contribute greatly. But none of those sent Gygax a cease and desist. If I cribbed from twenty-odd sources, and the one I cribbed from least was the only one presenting legal pressure, I would probably be complaining about how superficial that relationship was for decades to come, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poul Anderson’s dwarves are much different than Tolkien’s. They come across as physically weak in the books, more like dnd’s halflings or gnomes, whereas Tolkien’s dwarves can go toe-to-toe with humans. His elves are definitely not Tolkien’s; they’re sinister, soulless Chaos-devotees.

      Delete
    2. Poul Anderson's big influences from Three Hearts and Three Lions: The Paladin, Regeneration Trolls, and Law vs Chaos.

      Delete
  2. I think John Peterson looks into this from a historical research perspective if I recall. Basically what was gygax saying when and what other things were going on - one example is the C&D letter TSR got from the estate to not use certain Tolkien things among other issues cropping up. If I recall the work centered not on that Tolkien had influence Gary wasn’t crediting but rather the explanation as to why Gary was banging that particular drum over and over for a decade. Aside from the C&D there was the cartoon etc that may have played into this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My view: Vance, Lieber, Howard, and the other pulp authors didn't have attorneys serving TSR cease-and-desist letters like the estate of Tolkien did. They also didn't have a big film rights-holder like Saul Zaentz (who owned LOTR rights), threatening lawsuits against TSR. The difference with Tolkien is that LOTR was probably worth more than all of Appendix N combined in L&M in the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the crux of it.

      Lawyers are also the reason he calls AD&D a different game than D&D in this article's title! (Gygax was sole owner of AD&D, but not D&D).

      If he was really building a game inspired by Conan, it wouldn't have elves, dwarves, orcs and goblins, let alone things as weirdly specific as rangers, halflings, half-elves, half-orcs, "treants," "balor", (ring) wraiths, large adventuring fellowships of different races and classes, dwarves that are greedy for treasure and mistrusting of elves, etc, etc.

      Looking at this list, he's "borrowed" more from LOTR than The Hobbit, which might explain his hatred of LOTR. (Also Zaentz's rights for one and not the other, as you said.) Gary doth protest too much.

      Delete
    2. ...indeed, gygax's editorial crusade against both tolkien and arneson influences were textbook examples of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks,'' and correlate almost farcically with TSR business initiatives publishing and licensing its own IP...

      Delete
  4. It's somewhat confusing to me as well. I guess I always just assume that he was particularly hurt by the way the Tolkien Estate warned TSR® off of Ents™, Balrogs™, and Hobbits™.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On Gary's claims, what we should also bear in mind are the circumstances. in the early days of D&D, Saul Zench's Tolkien Enterprises (now Middle Earth Enterprises, and not to be mixed up with The Tolkien Estate) sued TSR with copyright. This is why Hobbits became Halflings, Balrogs were changed Balors, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is my take on it. He might also have resented that his players all wanted LOTR content, even if it wasn't his cuppa.

      Delete
    2. That's an interesting piece of information (the distinction between Tolkien Enterprises/Middle Earth Enterprises and the Tolkien Estate) that I didn't know before.

      Delete
  6. John Eric Holmes said it best: "The imaginary universe of Dungeons & Dragons obviously lies not to far from the Middle Earth of J. R. R. Tolkien's great Lord of the Rings trilogy. The D&D universe also impinges on the fantasy worlds of Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Gardner Fox, classical mythology and any other source of inspiration the Dungeon Master wants to use."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder if Gygax was referring to the type of narrative that influenced D&D, rather than the set dressing. Obviously, he borrowed set dressing (monsters, spells, magic items, character classes) liberally from a wide variety of sources.

    But when he says The Hobbit was fine but LotR is not, did he mean he didn't think D&D should try to do Big Damn Save the World epics? And it should, in his opinion, stick to the more episodic and small stakes adventures of Howard, Vance, Lieber, etc? The Hobbit is definitely more in line with a picaresque than an epic tale of good vs evil.

    And from the way early editions read and play, this seems to fit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I tend not to overanalyse what Gygax really thought about this and just take articles like this at relatively face value. It is interesting that Gygax's attitude to Tolkein mirrors some of my feelings about Gygax. I view him as a "first among equals", and in conversation I will happily point out he was not the sole author of D&D. David "Zeb" Cook, Tom Moldvay, Frank Mentzer and Dave Arneson are all there in the mix. And yet when I'm playing D&D (usually B/X, sometimes 5E), Gary's influence in my DM style is bigger than I would care to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My read in this article is that Tolkien's Middle Earth and the story underneath the story of LotR didn't appeal to Gary. It was simply not for him. It was a subjective issue of taste. Gary seems to have had the habit of a lot of nerds. It wasn't enough to say "Not for me." He felt the need to criticize the thing he didn't like. Ego is as good a guess as any why that was. Another important element of that article; Gary wrote that he included the Token Tolkienisms as a way to sell more copies of D&D. That was a choice he made for sales reasons and not game play reasons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like there's too much Tolkien dressing in D&D to say "not for me" amd leave it at that, because I'm sure he fielded hundreds of letters about how people (then as now!) tried D&D, but were not clear on how to invoke a LotR-like story out of it....
      As for LotR, I don't think he objects to big Epic Good vs Evil stories, but rather the writing. The Hobbit is rather light, breezy reading. It's rather tame compared to most of Appendix N. LotR in comparison is a slog. I imagine Gary got held up on the sheer number of pages dedicated to party plann.

      Delete
  10. Most of what I would say has already been said: lawsuits and a genuine dislike of LotR are enough to explain why Gygax kept harping on this topic. I would add that Gygax had a long-standing habit of writing contentious pieces, developed when he was writing in the wargaming press.

    As for why he never minded admitting that he was influenced by REH, Leiber, or Vance, it's because he really was influenced by them in a way that he wasn't by Tolkien.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also important to remember that MERP was happening at this time too. Iron Crown Enterprises started publishing licensed Middle Earth Roleplaying materials in 1982, and MERP in 1984, with a Second Edition on its way in 1985 and released in 1986. More incentive to poo poo the connection.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Previous comment was me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gygax does list Vance, but he leaves most of Appendix N to say that, yes, the tropes of fantasy emerged from Andrew Lang's writings and reinterpretations of folklore from various sources over the millenniums. Did Tolkien borrow from Andrew Lang's reinterpretations? Absolutely he did. For allegorical charges -- both Gygax and Tolkien heavily levered rough-sketch allegory over strict allegory. It's about representing mythological lore from lost worlds that appear like our real-world. This imperfect allegory is aligned to be structured as "before-world is-not our world", not historical parallels directly

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, people already nentioned the cease and desist letters, and I also think this sets at least 50% of the case. The other 50% are probably explained by ego I think. He probably did not like having his work compared to Tolkien's, or maube there were people who accused him of "copying" Tolkien, etc.

    Also, if he thought that LotR is an allegory to WWII, he completely missed the point! Of course, Tolkien probably got inspired by WWII events, but the whole point of LotR was not to be an allegory of that specific war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that LotR is the greatest novel of the 20th Century. But I think it may also be the most misunderstood of the modern era. It seems that there for a time that "kicking Tolkien's ass" was a rite of passage for new fantasy authors. Famously with Moorcock's nearly idiotic non-reading that generated the essay Epic Pooh. But you see it with Lin Carter and others to. More recently China Mieville did this but walked it back when he realized that criticizing Tolkien as a means to sell your stuff forces your work into the context of Tolkien's dominance which in turn forces it to be the lesser and undermines the point you are trying to make. All of these "kick Tolkien's ass" essays are good examples of the common failure to take in the intricacies of theme, deeper reading and meanings of the work.

      Delete
    2. While not a world war allegorical, to a great many readers (of sufficient age) I think it was clearly "applicable" - the hurts of war and the need for unity of good against evil - is still part of the point. A pretty big part, but in a lot of secondary ways as best I can tell.

      Delete
    3. I think Tolkien needed to show horror and the world in peril, and drew upon his life experience from the war to write that as powerfully as he could.

      I don't think LOTR is an allegory of the war.

      In Hollywood, the studios sum up a movie concept in one sentence, which is called a logline. The logline of the Godfather was, "A family of murderers and thieves that you will fall in love with." The logline of the Iron Giant was, "What if a gun had a soul?"

      I think the logline of LOTR would be, "What if the smallest, humblest person could save the world forever?"

      Which, of course, is the logline of the New Testament.

      Delete
  15. Congrats James! This post made me crack open my copy of John Peterson's Playing at the World (1e). On pages 116-121 he tackles the Tolkien influence question with regards to a change in Gygax's stance between the publishing of Chainmail in 1971 and D&D 1974. Peterson cites an article from La Vivandiere Volume 1 Number 4 in 1974 just after the publication of D&D where Gygax de-emphasizes Tolkien's influence on the newly published game, but re-emphasizes it for Chainmail. Apparently, at the root of this is that Tolkien's space in fantasy literature at the time was so immense that elements from the other influences (i.e. authors) were seen as errors rather than references to material other than Tolkien. The "Andersonian" trolls in chainmail caused people to correct Gary in letters informing him he got trolls wrong, for example.

    It seems like this Dragon article may be a reworking of the older LV article from the 1970s. But while I have access to the Dragon article, I don't have access to the older one and so can only speculate. However, Peterson's account and what you present here demonstrates that Gary's position was actually fairly consistent over time. With the C&D from Saul Zaentz Co. (sorry the estate never sent a C&D, I was in error) in 1977, attempts to create a film franchise, a cartoon, and the various Tolkien animated films in production, and other licenses like MERP, it seems he had consistent repeated reasons to repeat himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thinking about Tolkien's space in "fantasy literature at the time", his influence on gamer and a dash of "why, oh why have I got orcs in my game?", I'm reminded of Phil Barker's preface to the "Suggested Adaptations For Sword and Sorcery Fanatics" appendix to the 4th edition of WRG's tabletop wargame rules (1973).

      These adaptations are based mainly on those hurriedly put together for a "fun" demonstration at the 1972 A.G.M. of the Society of Ancients...
      They are here reprinted by popular request i.e. to stop people writing to us about them!
      They are hidden at the back like this so that sane, sensible wargamers can avoid continuous shocks while thumbing through the pages.

      The units described include Heros, Saints, Magicians, Demons, Giants and Basilisks and then, of course, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs & Goblins (as one type, and wolf riders), Ents and Trolls (which may turn to stone).

      So you've got your Battle of Five Armies ready to go. These are mass battle rules and I'm not certain that earlier S&S authors put too many big battles in their tales.

      Delete
  16. I’m pure amateur here, having only delved into the game over the last decade or two to keep up with my sons’ interests in fantasy from the whole Jackson/Potter era. So my opinions in this matter and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Interestingly, before he passed, I caught an interview with Gygax about the popularity of Jackson’s LoTR and how it related to his game of D&D (this was around an anniversary for D&D IIRC). In that particular interview, to quote Barney Greenwald, he acted as if he never even heard of JRR Tolkien. Which I found odd, since we started playing D&D in the 3rd Edition, but soon went for the old 1st Edition and earlier publications. As soon as we did that, my sons observed that no one single author seemed more represented than Tolkien, and it wasn’t just LoTR. In fact, they noticed if you took the "Fellowship of the Ring" (a large mixed race party of dwarves, elves, hobbits, fighters, wizards, rangers), and dumped them in "The Hobbit" (travel across a wilderness map, encounter random monsters and NPCs, find treasure, come to base camps, delve into a ruined dungeon, encounter a dragon, get more treasure, and even have a battle for the wargame roots), it’s every D&D campaign that’s ever been played. Why Gygax seemed to bend over backwards to deny the clear and obvious influences has baffled me ever since I started reading about the game and its history. Obviously Tolkien wasn’t the only influence, and for Gygax, not even the primary influence, at least compared to every other fantasy source combined. But then, it seems others also influenced the development of D&D, and perhaps they brought more of it in themselves. Though seeing him give such a positive assessment about the Hobbit makes me think on my sons' observation even more.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think Gygax was being honest in his assessment of LOTR trilogy - i.e. he wasn't a big fan of it. It doesn't quite fit with most of his avowed favorites. As to his repeated denials I think he's also being fairly honest - he took some creatures and concepts and interpreted them in his own way. In other words saying "yes I have hobbits (aka halfling), but they're my hobbits, not JRRT's. Maybe his own way was closer to the source than he realized or could see. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that his initial inclusion of Tolkein-influenced stuff was at the behest of his original group of players, some of whom were big fans. But I may be hallucinating.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, Gary “hated” LOTR /so/ much that it took him three whole weeks to finish the books. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not sure whether my previous post actually got posted properly. Some of this may be a repeat.
    If RPGs grew from wargaming, it makes sense that JRRT would have a strong influence. I don't my classic S&S too well but I don't remember Howard or Leiber having much (or anything) to do with big battles. The Hobbit, LotR and the Silmarillion all feature mass battles which will tickle a wargamer's imagination.

    -this may be a repeat.
    Or not, in the case of Phil Barker...
    The 4th Edition WRG ancients ruleset (1973) included an appendix "Suggested Adaptations for Swords and Sorcery Fanatics" . Alongside heros, saints, magicians, giants tame crows, demons and basilisks(!) we see Elves (formed spears and light archers), Dwarves (heavy infantry with axes), Ents, Goblins&Orcs (cavalry is of course wolf riders) and Trolls (which may turn to stone in sunlight).

    It sticks in my mind due to the prelude:
    These adaptations are based mainly on those hurriedly put together "fun" demonstration at the 1972 A.G.M. of the Society of Ancients [...]
    They are reprinted here by popular request i.e. to stop people writing to us about them!
    They are hidden at the back like this so that sane, sensible wargamers can avoid continuous mental shocks while thumbing through the pages.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gygax had been reading fantasy for years and then suddenly there are all these Johnny-come-latelies who've read a book or two by Tolkien, are talking about fantasy, and later are even claiming that it was a core inspiration for D&D.

    (1) I can understand why he might want to correct this and
    (2) I suspect he might even have felt a little resentment about a kind of loss of cultural ownership.

    None of this is to deny some importance of Tolkien to the creation of D&D and its later success.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The dead or fan-friendly writers he cited would not have sued him. The Tolkien Estate would. That about explains it, I would say.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is probably not the case, but a few of LotR fans are so gung-ho about their love of Tolkien that they will insist that Tolkien invented all of fantasy, as a sort of main root that inspired everything.

    Who knows if Gary Gygax met such people, but if he did, I would understand why he tried to downplay Tolkien as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete