As a scholar, Tolkien spent a great deal of time working from manuscripts. Likewise, as a storyteller, in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien creates a narrative persona who bases his story on his compilation and translation of ancient manuscripts. This persona operates within his story’s narrative frame as an analogue for Tolkien’s own work with manuscripts. Readers have long sought for Tolkien’s sources. The mythologies of medieval Northern Europe have been especially beneficial in helping us understand the influences on Tolkien. No study, however, currently exists that pursues the “manuscript sources” used by Tolkien’s narrative persona. But a reading that attempts to pursue these sources may also prove beneficial. Just as Tolkien inserts himself, in the form of his narrative persona, into the framework of Middle-earth, so also is the reader invited to read The Lord of the Rings from within this same framework. Tolkien wanted to his story to be read from inside Middle-earth as an artifact of history. This study will propose that—by simulating the kinds of phenomena around which a modern compiler of medieval manuscripts and stories has to work: fragmented manuscripts, lacunae, dittography, palimpsests, and variable texts—Tolkien has successfully distressed his story in such a way that it has gained the atmosphere of an ageing legend. The argument of this thesis is that Tolkien’s imitation of classical and medieval manuscript realities is even ambitious enough to suggest that Tolkien’s narrative persona has culled his story from the manuscripts of at least three major literary traditions, each of which is distinct in its interests, concerns, iconographies, historiographies, and themes. In addition to revealing where and how Tolkien has distressed his narrative, this study will also seek to identify what portions of the narrative belong to which of the three major traditions and tease out the implications of the interactions between them. / Thesis (DLitt)--University of Pretoria, 2015. / English / DLitt / Unrestricted

This paper presents a comparative study on two Tabletop Roleplaying Games, Dungeons & Dragons and Blades in the Dark. This paper takes a look at the narrative differences within the two systems. More specifically investigate if Blades in the Dark is more playerdriven than Dungeons & Dragons. The two tested as closely as possible and will be compared with each other. This is a close reading on the rules and player agency rather than a one-on-one comparison. The comparisons were made regarding the mechanics and narrative differences within the systems rather than quality of the story. This study was conducted by running two sessions, one for each system, played by separate groups with the same game scenario and premise. Meaning that the background for both games, character and plot for the session were the same. Comparisons were made by observing player decisions, situations that arose and the influence that the gamemasters had on the game. It was found that there is a clear difference between the two systems, this difference regarding whether the players were reacting to the gamemaster, or the other way round. In Dungeons & Dragons, it was observed that the players reacted and acted according to what the gamemaster explained and played out, whereas in Blades in the Dark it appeared to be the opposite. Here we found that it was the Gamemaster who was reactive to the players instead. The paper concluded that Blades in the Dark is the more player-driven system. This short study could later be built upon and used by game developers to keep in mind and plan their future game systems around. Taking these observations on emergent narrative in Tabletop Role-playing Games into account can be used to create more player-centric and player-driven games. Meaning that the players are more in influence and decisions to make in the story and game. / I detta papper presenteras en jämförande undersökning av två rollspelssystem, Dungeons & Dragons och Blades in the Dark. Det här papperet kollar på skillnaderna när det kommer till spelar-drivet berättande inom de två spelen. Mer specifikt så utreds om Blades in the Dark är mer spelar-drivet än Dungeons & Dragons. De två kommer att testas så likt som möjligt och jämföras med varandra. Detta är en noggrann läsning av reglerna och spelarnas påverkan på spelets berättande, där vad som undersöks är spelets funktioner och skillnader i hur de berättas och presenteras, snarare än kvalitén på spelen eller berättelserna. Denna studie genomfördes genom att hålla två sessioner, en för varje system, spelad av separata grupper men med samma scenario och förutsättningar. Jämförelser gjordes genom att observera spelarbeslut, situationer som uppstod, samt det inflytande som spelmästare hade på spelet. En tydlig skillnad blev synlig mellan de två systemen var gällande huruvida spelarna reagerade på spelmästaren eller tvärtom. I Dungeons & Dragons observerades att spelarna reagerade och agerade enligt vad spelmästaren förklarade och spelade ut. I Blades in the Dark studerades en motsatt effekt, här upptäcktes att det var spelmästaren som reagerade på spelarna istället. Med denna undersökning kom vi fram till att Blades in the Dark är det mer spelar-drivna systemet. Den här studien kan i framtiden användas och byggas på av spelutvecklare för att göra nya spelsystem, med dessa observationer som framkom, kan komma till användning för att göra fler spel med mer spelar-drivet fokus. Vilket innebär att spelaren har mer inflytande på historiens som berättas och spelet i sig.