|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2015 10:59:23 GMT -6
Here's a place where we can discuss the literary or cinematic influences on the game of Chainmail, how they may have effected the rules and their understanding, and how they carried through or evolved in D&D. It's a broad subject that's open to speculation, keeping in mind the rules were published in 1971 as an expansion to the game developed by the LGTSA around 1969. Some sources will be obvious because they are directly mentioned. It is also worth mentioning that it has been suggested that Gary only included some of the Tolkienesque elements under duress from his fellow gamers at the time. Do you think this to be the case? What can we say is definately from Tolkien? We also know of his life long appreciation of some pulp authors and his interest in the medieval period. Some possible starters for discussion include, Tolkien, Vance, Anderson, Howard, Authurian legend, Arabian Nights and the legends of Sinbad, Homer's Odyssey, Moorcock, Scandi myth, etc. No right answers here folks, just fun theory and discussion on how you see these things shaping the game  I've already found very little other then Moorcock that would have inspired the inclusion of Elementals, but would be interested in what others think if they know of other sources. The Alignment System has been credited with ideas found in Anderson's, Three Hearts and Three Lions. I also think the subject of magic swords and how they evolved in D&D worth discussing. If Excaliber is considered a +3 "super sword" in Chainmail, what would be it's equal in D&D? *This thread was encouraged by discussion started here about the Elf with magic sword. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 7, 2015 13:21:35 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2015 18:14:15 GMT -6
You're missing something very important... the ubiquity of Tolkien in the late 60s and early 70s. For every person who had read Howard, Vance, de Camp, Moorcock, et al, there were a huge number of people, including gamers, who had read Tolkien and only Tolkien. For many people "Fantasy" MEANT "Lord of the Rings."
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 7, 2015 18:52:02 GMT -6
Aside from the fantasy inspiration, what were the military historical inspirations for Chainmail? Were there any books on medieval tactics, battles, arms and armor that were consulted?
Were there any battles that players would talk about specifically? Like Agincourt or Crecy? And were there specific wars in mind like the Hundred Years War, Wars of the Roses etc? Was there a "gold standard" conflict that was aimed at in terms of battles or wars?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2015 18:56:11 GMT -6
That's a very cool reference Zenopus. Austrodavicus did some homework there. I would think Gary's involvement with Diplomacy variants encouraged many of his ideas about fantasy gaming. I'll need to slowly read over that thread some more. I always wondered about some of the other dragon types- are they really Tolkien inspired? I hope others more well read on Tolkien's world will comment.
I can see alot of inspiration that came from Middle Earth in Chainmail, but there is other things that appear out of place in that context- wizard's firing lightning bolts and fire balls for instance.
I was thinking about working through the Fantasy Supplement and posting up a few entries at a time, letting anyone contribute that cared to.
The first thing we read in the opening paragraphs to the Fantasy Supplement is, "... rules which will allow the medieval miniature wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related to J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers."
On the following page, the section Fantastic Characteristics begins with an obvious Tolkien inclusion, Hobbits.
There's two elements worth mentioning about Hobbits as found in Chainmail which begs the question, is it an accurate reflection of the race found in the books?
1. They blend into backgrounds, thus making excellent scouts- does this relate to Bilbo in the Hobbit before discovering the ring? How to apply this idea to a miniature game is not elaborated on and the idea did not seem to carry over to D&D. Yet, Hobbit's become one of the optional PC races to choose.
2. Expert slingers that are counted as 3:2 on the missile table. This rule is mentioned in OD&D but not specified for the ACS, thus most house rule it. But is it true to the source?
Sprites (and Pixies)- they are not distinguished from each other in OD&D either. I have to assume the source is myth and fairy tales.
1. Invisibility- this is consistent with myth that considers them fey who are only visible to the clairvoyant or, in Poul Anderson's writing, witch-sight.
2. Automatic surprise- they suffer no casualties during the first round of melee. This is an overlooked rule that seemed to be replaced in OD&D by the idea that they remain invisible even while in melee.
Dwarves (and Gnomes)- they seem to have multiple possible literary sources that include Tolkien and myth. OD&D does little to distinguish the two races beyond where they prefer to live. Once again, this is an optional PC race to choose in D&D.
1. Small size vs Giant types- Chainmail says to count only half the kills in these cases. OD&D tells us to count only half the hp's of damage. What did not carry over from Chainmail is that this goes both ways. Dwarfs will only produce half as many hits against Giant types.
2. Not found in Chainmail is the line under Dwarves in M&T that they will domesticate wild animals like bears and wolves as part of their defense. Where did this idea come from? Anyone know any precedents for this in literature?
That's a good start. More to come. Feel free to comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2015 19:03:14 GMT -6
Aside from the fantasy inspiration, what were the military historical inspirations for Chainmail? Were there any books on medieval tactics, battles, arms and armor that were consulted? Were there any battles that players would talk about specifically? Like Agincourt or Crecy? And were there specific wars in mind like the Hundred Years War, Wars of the Roses etc? Was there a "gold standard" conflict that was aimed at in terms of battles or wars? That I think would be harder to hammer down since there is such a long history of wargaming. I'm sure Michael could talk more about the historical sources that informed many of the design decisions of Gary and Jeff in that context though. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2015 21:15:08 GMT -6
You're missing something very important... the ubiquity of Tolkien in the late 60s and early 70s. For every person who had read Howard, Vance, de Camp, Moorcock, et al, there were a huge number of people, including gamers, who had read Tolkien and only Tolkien. For many people "Fantasy" MEANT "Lord of the Rings." I'll buy that "Lord of the Rings" was ubiquitous at the time. I'll also agree that many viewed "Fantasy" through those lenses and that Middle Earth was a good selling point for such. But, the bigger question really is, what did "fantasy" mean to Gygax? Just as he spent time researching medieval historical sources in developing Chainmail, that would provide reasonably believable results, I'd like to think he spent some time thinking about what he included in the Fantasy Supplement as it relates to those literary sources. Case in point, the opening paragraph makes mention of Robert E. Howard.We know Gary was fond of his writing, yet the only real mention of his work in Chainmail is found immediately below that paragraph in reference to "superheroes". Why don't we find mention of White Apes, Beast men, or Remora's in Chainmail? Or, why are such things as ghouls, zombies, basilisks, or elementals included? Tolkien inspired? How about the terms "Hero" and "Superhero"? Sounds like comic books or the Saturday matinee to me. I realize it was just a game and Gary pulled from a wide pool of sources. It's interesting to hear stories about some cheap toy from Japan that he used in his games and it's entertaining to read some of his early Diplomacy articles that point to him already leaning towards "fantasy". |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 8, 2015 0:52:55 GMT -6
Aside from the fantasy inspiration, what were the military historical inspirations for Chainmail? Were there any books on medieval tactics, battles, arms and armor that were consulted? I just re-noticed that Gary mentions "Charles' ffoulkes ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford, 1909)" on page 165 of the 1E DMG. It's in reference to the descriptions of the various types of armor (padded, ring, studded, banded, splint, etc)(the same topic also covered on page 27). Many think of these armor types as AD&D-isms because they are not in OD&D, but padded, studded, banded & splint the actually first appeared back in Chainmail in the Man-To-Man Melee table on pg 41. So that might be a reference to look at. Playing at the World would be good place to start for this topic (and everything else in this thread) as Jon has a long section on the influences of D&D, many of which first appeared in Chainmail. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 8, 2015 1:03:22 GMT -6
But, the bigger question really is, what did "fantasy" mean to Gygax? The list of authors in Appendix N of the 1E DMG gets the most attention, but if you read the introduction to it you get a list of the earliest stuff that influenced Gary: -stories told to him by his father -comic books, notably EC comics-sci-fi/fantasy/horror movies -fairy tales - Brothers Grimm/Andrew Lang -books of mythology |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 3:37:45 GMT -6
Aside from the fantasy inspiration, what were the military historical inspirations for Chainmail? Were there any books on medieval tactics, battles, arms and armor that were consulted? When CHAINMAIL was written, the authoritative text on medieval military history was C.W.C. Oman's "Art of War in the Middle Ages." Oman's fingerprints are all over CHAINMAIL. ffoulkes and Ashdown were the then-authoritative sources on arms and armor. It's not a hard question to answer, really, simply because in 1970 there wasn't much out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 8, 2015 5:50:51 GMT -6
Here is the Appendix N list, re-written to reflect chronological order. That’s actually not entirely true. What I did was to start with the Appendix N list and then tweak it to reflect Gary’s similar (shorter) list from 1976. If you go back to December, 1976, in Dragon Magazine #4 you can find an earlier version of the list. Gary called it “FANTASY/SWORDS & SORCERY: RECOMMENDED READING” and it’s interesting to see how it differs from Appendix N. (Essentially, this removes John Bellars, Frederick Brown, August Derleth, Lord Dunsany, Andre Norton, Andrew J Offutt, Fletcher Pratt, and Jack Williamson. I'll assume, therefore, that these are authors who Gary discovered between the 1976 list and the 1978 DMG.)
I had a couple of issues in making this list. (1) Some authors were listed without any specific stories. (2) When a series was listed, how to select a single date. My solution to #1 was to look for the first scifi or fantasy novel that seemed to make an impact and quote that. My solution for #2 was simply to select the first book in the series.
Another interesting effect occurs with authors like Michael Moorcock where he singles out certain volumes of a series (e.g. the first two Elric books, or the first three Hawkmoon books) and I wonder if Gary didn’t like the others or just hadn’t read them. If a specific title was given, I tried to fit it into the Chronology.
1912
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: Mars series (11 books; 1912-1964)
1914
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: "Pellucidar" series (7 books; 1914-1963)
1919
Merritt, Abraham: MOON POOL
1925
Lovecraft, H. P. (many Mythos stories; 1925-1935)
1932
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series (many stories; 1932-1934)
Merritt, Abraham: DWELLERS IN THE MIRAGE
1934
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: Venus series (5 books; 1934-1970)
Merritt, Abraham: CREEP, SHADOW!
Weinbaum, Stanley (short story “A Martian Odyssey”)
1937
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT
1939
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series (7 books; 1939-1988)
de Camp, L. Sprague: LEST DARKNESS FALL
1940
de Camp & Pratt: "Harold Shea" series (5 stories; 1940-1954)
1944
Brackett, Leigh (no specific book; I chose SHADOWS OVER MARS, her first scifi novel)
1948
de Camp & Pratt: THE CARNELIAN CUBE
1950
Vance, Jack: THE DYING EARTH (“Dying Earth” series)
1953
Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS
1954
Anderson, Poul: THE BROKEN SWORD
Tolkien, J. R. R.: "Ring trilogy" (written 1938-1950 or thereabouts)
1959
Wellman, Manley Wade (“Nine Yards of Other Cloth” won a Hugo)
1960
Anderson, Poul: THE HIGH CRUSADE
1963
Moorcock, Michael: STEALER OF SOULS (“Elric” series)
St. Clair, Margaret: SIGN OF THE LABRYS
1965
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER (“Elric” series)
Farmer, P. J.: "The World of the Tiers" series (5 pre-1980 books; 1965-1977)
1966
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD (“Dying Earth” series)
1967
Moorcock, Michael: "Hawkmoon" series (4 books; 1967-1969)
1969
Carter, Lin: "World's End" series (6 books; 1969-1978)
Fox, Gardner: "Kothar" series (5 books; 1969-1970)
St. Clair, Margaret: THE SHADOW PEOPLE
1970
Zelazny, Roger: "Amber" series (5 pre-1980 books; 1970-1978)
Anything published prior to the publication of Chainmail might have had some influence, but we can only speculate which of those books fell into Gary's hands at what time. We can also clearly say that the last few entries could not have influenced Chainmail, as they were published after. I think I would make my cut-off at the first Amber novel (Nine Princes in Amber, 1970) as roughly the last one on the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2015 7:53:14 GMT -6
This is a good list Finarvyn. I've read many of these, but not all. What I find myself doing when looking at this list, is mentally crossing some sources off in relation to Chainmail as I ask myself what affect might they have had on the Fantasy Supplement. I think it's safe to say that Gary would consider anything on this list open to including as material for a battle or for use as a setting though. Couple this with Zens list that includes other sources like EC comics and we have a pretty good picture. Just as fodder, I find this web site useful for ideas and thinking about common tropes found in film and books. tvtropes.org It is easy to see Tolkien's influence on much of Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement and take it for granted that that was the intent of the rules as written. But, there are some things that don't fit that setting and I find myself asking what was behind certain rules. I'm sure some things were made up whole cloth to make an element of the game useful, different, or more entertaining. The early Dip Zine article on dragons seems to fall in this category. Everything I've read about dragons in Middle Earth suggests there were basically two types- fire drakes and cold drakes. Some say cold drakes simply means they lacked fire. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 8, 2015 13:40:04 GMT -6
Are we talking about the Fantasy Supplement, and not the main Chainmail rules themselves, per se?
The whole bit about Tolkien not being a primary influence was about D&D, not Chainmail. Tolkien IS a primary influence of the Fantasy Supplement, and it's quite up-front about it. It is NOT a primary influence of D&D, but many players wanted Tolkien elements to be added or carried over from the Fantasy Supplement.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2015 17:47:42 GMT -6
The whole bit about Tolkien not being a primary influence was about D&D, not Chainmail. Tolkien IS a primary influence of the Fantasy Supplement, and it's quite up-front about it. It is NOT a primary influence of D&D, but many players wanted Tolkien elements to be added or carried over from the Fantasy Supplement. Here's a blog post by Grognardia that has Gygax saying otherwise. If I come across the other places I've read this same general idea, I'll post them too. Gygax on TolkienBut, let's be clear that I'm not saying this is fact. What I'm saying is that it's worth considering this claim when looking at the Fantasy Supplement and asking what might the inspiration be for certain elements of the rules that Gygax included, Tolkien or otherwise? Here's an excerpt from an RPG.Net interview with Gygax that seems to downplay any literary influences as a motivation for the Fantasy Supplement: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 2:48:54 GMT -6
You're missing something very important... the ubiquity of Tolkien in the late 60s and early 70s. For every person who had read Howard, Vance, de Camp, Moorcock, et al, there were a huge number of people, including gamers, who had read Tolkien and only Tolkien. For many people "Fantasy" MEANT "Lord of the Rings." The first organized Tolkien fangroup meetings and conventions in the US happened as early as 1960. Even the word "Thangorodrim" is a name in Black Speech. And, of course, there are actual references to Tolkien in early D&D that had later to be removed because the copyright holder took legal measures, not because TSR would have removed them by themselves. So much for the notion that Gygax, or anyone from the gaming scene of the 60s ever fully managed to emancipate himself from Tolkien.  Now, one book I have seen recommended over and over in wargaming circles was Steven Runciman's "History of the Crusades". Only read it in part, and it surely didn't include all-too deep analysis of battles, but it might be a clue. As to Napoleonic wargaming, and technical side of the game, this list might be a clue: www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/timeline2.html"Charge!" is said to have been especially influential, but it might also have been published too late to be a real influence on Gygax and his group. |
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68 
|
Post by Elphilm on Mar 9, 2015 6:58:09 GMT -6
Even the word "Thangorodrim" is a name in Black Speech. Pointless pedantry alert: Thangorodrim is actually Sindarin for "Mountains of Tyranny." The -rim suffix is a dead giveaway for Tolkien's Elf-tongue. |
|
Elphilm
Level 3 Conjurer
ELpH vs. Coil
Posts: 68
|
Post by Elphilm on Mar 9, 2015 7:07:31 GMT -6
They blend into backgrounds, thus making excellent scouts- does this relate to Bilbo in the Hobbit before discovering the ring? I imagine the ability comes from the Prologue to the Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien writes that hobbits "possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical." |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 9, 2015 11:35:15 GMT -6
They blend into backgrounds, thus making excellent scouts- does this relate to Bilbo in the Hobbit before discovering the ring? I imagine the ability comes from the Prologue to the Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien writes that hobbits "possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical." Elphilm, this exactly the type of commentary I had in mind. Are the rules and descriptions true to the sources? And what are the sources? What's convenient about looking at Chainmail's Fantasy Supplement and considering it's influences is that it represents a compressed time period before Dave Arneson used it as a spring board and Gary ran with it. Alot of it's content would make it's way into the LBB's, some altered, some unchanged. When it comes to the future development of D&D and the explosion of popularity that resulted, there is the question of whether the tail is wagging the dog. How much of the common lore that we now accept as fact from the literary sources is actually the result of D&D evolving and adding to those stories? What material was totally fabricated in order to make the game more interesting and/or challenging? In later years, D&D would be the inspiration for authors and TSR would employ writers to weave stories based on the game. It could be asked, how has Chainmail/D&D shaped the way we understand Tolkien and other authors? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 13:09:42 GMT -6
Even the word "Thangorodrim" is a name in Black Speech. Pointless pedantry alert: Thangorodrim is actually Sindarin for "Mountains of Tyranny." The -rim suffix is a dead giveaway for Tolkien's Elf-tongue. d**n YOU Of course it is! |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 9, 2015 17:06:19 GMT -6
I imagine the ability comes from the Prologue to the Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien writes that hobbits "possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical." Elphilm, this exactly the type of commentary I had in mind. The ability of hobbits to move silently outdoors was mentioned even earlier, in the first chapter of the Hobbit: "There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off." You also mentioned that this ability did not carry over to D&D. While that's true for the LBBs, Holmes brought it back for Basic (probably based on consulting Chainmail), and then Moldvay Basic quantified it as a 9 in 10 chance of hiding outdoors. Hobbits' ability with slings is probably based on Bilbo's accuracy with stones, mentioned when he battles the Spiders in Mirkwood: "Bilbo was a pretty fair shot with a stone, and it did not take him long to find a nice smooth egg-shaped one that fitted his hand cosily. As a boy he used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet games of the aiming and throwing sort—indeed he could do lots of things, besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven’t had time to tell you about. There is no time now. While he was picking up stones, the spider had reached Bombur, and soon he would have been dead. At that moment Bilbo threw. The stone struck the spider plunk on the head, and it dropped senseless off the tree, flop to the ground, with all its legs curled up." There are also Hobbit archers mentioned in the Prologue of the Lord of the Rings, sent to war against the Witch-King, implying it was something they were good at. At the end of the book, in the Scouring of the Shire, we also see Hobbit hunters using bows to great effect against the ruffians and Wormtongue. Greyhawk (via the correction sheet) implements this as a +3 to hit with slings. In Basic, Holmes (perhaps not seeing the correction sheet) used a +1 to hit with any missile weapon - which seems a bit more representative of Bilbo and the other hobbits' general ability at aiming. In the Monster Manual, Gary broadened the +3 to slings and bows. Gygax professed his preference for the Hobbit over the Lord of the Rings, so perhaps it's not surprising that these traits go back to the Hobbit. See also: Hobbits as the Rangers of BasicTolkien's Wild Hobbits |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 10, 2015 7:02:22 GMT -6
There are also Hobbit archers mentioned in the Prologue of the Lord of the Rings, sent to war against the Witch-King, implying it was something they were good at. At the end of the book, in the Scouring of the Shire, we also see Hobbit hunters using bows to great effect against the ruffians and Wormtongue. This only suggests they were light troops, not front-line fighters, which makes sense for hobbits. We never see any indication that hobbits are especially good with bows, just that they use them. When you're smaller and weaker than your opponents, this makes perfect sense. Bilbo is the only character we see who is explicitly good at throwing and aiming. Generalizing from a single character to an entire class of characters is common in D&D. Examples include the ranger (Aragorn), barbarian (Conan), monk (Kwai Chang Caine) and vampire (Dracula). |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 10, 2015 13:13:35 GMT -6
I think it is well established that the fantasy supplement to CHAINMAIL was a direct response of war-gamers who wanted to reenact battles from the hobbit and lord of the rings. The fact that Gary himself played multiple versions of the battle of the five armies is a testament to this very fact. This doesn't have any bearing really on gary's own preference for Jack Vance Fritz Lieber and Michael Moorcock who clearly play a much, much larger role in d&d's tone. For example, there is no evidence that any player in Gary's home campaign ever having played a Hobbit character, but rather lots of Vancian wizards like Bigby, Rary, Mordenkanien etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 10, 2015 15:30:13 GMT -6
I stumbled across this guys page and wanted to share the link since it compiles alot of research in one place. He draws from Appendix N in siting his sources for AD&D, so it is not specifically Chainmail or even OD&D. When looking at things like this I often wonder if Chainmail's contribution or influence on the game were even considered. I'll be interested to read through it to see if he presents anything unique. I already see he skips over Elementals, but he does make some interesting suggestions about H.P. Lovecrafts influence. Sources of D&DTake a look and see if you find yourself agreeing or thinking otherwise with his findings. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 10, 2015 19:59:21 GMT -6
I have a few thoughts about this list in relation to the Fantasy Supplement. The most immediate one is the Wizard who becomes a complete rewrite in D&D. Some would say they were weakened considerably from those in Chainmail.
Consider the following-
1. fight as 2 AF or MH
2. can handle magic weapons (includes swords and bows)
3. become invisible
4. can see in darkness
5. affect enemy morale as Superhero
6. throw magic missiles (lightning bolts & fire balls) and cast terrible spells.
7. impervious to normal missiles
To me there is nothing noticeably Vancian about them in Chainmail. Nor perceivable of Malory's Merlin or Tolkien's Gandalf.
The power levels of Wizards and, I would also imagine, the spell complexity table were a later addition not found in the first edition of the rules. Also, there were some spells added at that time. Most of the spell list would carry over to D&D.
We also have this idea of dueling wizards and counter-spells that becomes less prevalent in OD&D. Though TSR does produce MAR Barker's game "War of Wizards" in 1975.
Two possible influences come to my mind. Neither are from Tolkien. Howard's Xaltotun in Conan the Conqueror and Marvel's Dr. Strange- Sorcerer Supreme.
Some of Dr. Strange's Spells:
Bolts of Balthakk
Flames of the Faltine
Image of Ikonn
Light of the All-Seeing Eye of Agamotto
Shield of the Seraphim
Vapors of Valtorr
Mist of Morpheus
Seven Suns of Cinnibus
Sorcerer's Sphere
A possibility is that the wizard was an amalgamation from multiple sources also.
L. Sprague de Camp's, Goblin Tower, was first published in 1968, for instance. But, the story has a different tone then what most would easily accept as a possible source.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Mar 11, 2015 10:48:08 GMT -6
The wizard is, at it's most basic, an amalgam of the cannon and the catapult from CM (which is exactly what the lightning bolt and fireball powers are). All of the other powers (magic swords, become invisible, see in darkness, impervious to normal missiles) don't necessarily have to be inspired by anying. They could very well be a grab bag of fey powers and hero abilities.
Most of the "spells" unless I'm mistaken were added in the 3rd printing of CHAINMAIL which post-dates the publication of D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 11, 2015 14:05:50 GMT -6
A Chainmail Wizard can throw either fire balls or lightning bolts, not both, so each Wizard is either like a catapult or like a cannon.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 11, 2015 17:10:52 GMT -6
So, you guys are crediting the inclusion of the wizard in Chainmail to Dionysius the Elder* and Berthold (Schwartz) The Black*. That actually sounds pretty good  *I didn't make these guys up. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 12, 2015 5:59:34 GMT -6
There are also Hobbit archers mentioned in the Prologue of the Lord of the Rings, sent to war against the Witch-King, implying it was something they were good at. At the end of the book, in the Scouring of the Shire, we also see Hobbit hunters using bows to great effect against the ruffians and Wormtongue. This only suggests they were light troops, not front-line fighters, which makes sense for hobbits. We never see any indication that hobbits are especially good with bows, just that they use them. When you're smaller and weaker than your opponents, this makes perfect sense. Bilbo is the only character we see who is explicitly good at throwing and aiming. Generalizing from a single character to an entire class of characters is common in D&D. Examples include the ranger (Aragorn), barbarian (Conan), monk (Kwai Chang Caine) and vampire (Dracula). There is one other instance of a hobbit with good aim. As the party is leaving Bree, Bill Ferny appears inside a house window from across the road and begins taunting them. Samwise Gamgee responds by throwing an apple, hitting Bill square in the face and knocking him down. So we have one general description of hobbits preparing for war by arming missile weapons, and two specific instances of hobbits demonstrating a good arm. As there aren't any descriptions or examples of hobbits who aren't good shots, it seems like it would be easy to assume that it's a racial feature. I would say that I independently conceptualized hobbits as being crack shots when I first read through The Lord of the Rings, but unfortunately I was already exposed to ICE's Middle-earth Roleplaying before I read LotR. It might be worth noting that in MeRP hobbits grow up with considerable skill in missile and thrown weapons, but no skill in any other form of combat. We can't discount the possibility that Pete Fenlon and Coleman Charlton were influenced directly by D&D during the design of MeRP, especially since their RoleMaster rules were originally developed as house rules for an OD&D Middle-earth campaign Fenlon began running in 1974. Still, Fenlon was and is a pretty avid Tolkien enthusiast, so I'd lean on arguing that both he and Gygax (or whoever offered the idea to him) were equally swayed by Bilbo's rock and Sam's apple to extrapolate that hobbits were just good at that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 12, 2015 7:23:21 GMT -6
Good find, Starbeard. In the original draft of that scene it was Trotter, a wild Hobbit, who threw the apple that hit Bill Ferny.
BTW, great choices for your handle & avatar. I've been a fan of T.Rex for about 20 years, and love the Beard of Stars album. Like Chainmail/D&D, Marc Bolan's work is another instance of the influence of Tolkien on the popular culture in the late '60s/early '70s. "He was a wizard and he was my friend".
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Mar 12, 2015 8:03:21 GMT -6
That's right, I had forgotten about Trotter. What a different story The Lord of the Rings would've been if Strider had been a Hobbit (or an Elf, for that matter)!
Thanks for the kudos. I'm a big Tyrannosaurus Rex fan, and have even gone so far as to take inspiration from Marc Bolan's lyrics for NPCs and locales. At times I've amused myself by using fantasy and prog rock of the 60s/70s as a metaphor to describe the different TSR D&D versions: 'If you think of Yes or Emerson Lake & Palmer as AD&D, then Tyrannosaurus Rex is definitely OD&D, and T.Rex is Holmes Basic.' I'm not sure what B/X or BECMI would be, though. Jethro Tull?
|
|
