Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ (He/Him)
The thing is, "about young or inexperienced DMs" are not likely to care about this at all. This is an issue for long-time D&D fans that are used to tradition.
D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
- Thread starter Parmandur
- Start date
"non-demi-god"? I hate to break it to you, but Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.
I wonder if he was an early version of a Grey Power Ranger. They never use more power than seems required (hence they don't call out the Zords right away) .
Heroes and wizards don't need to be human.
From the rules themselves we get Elric.
From Gygax's "Fantasy Wargaming a'la Tolkien" in Panzerfaust #60 in 1973 (see: Fantasy Wargaming a la Tolkien by Gary Gygax) using Chainmail Fantasy Rules, we get a Dwarf Hero (Dain and retinue), Elf Hero (Elvin King), Dwarf Hero (Thorin and Company), and 1 Goblin Anti-Hero. I'm not sure what to make of the "name and retinue" descriptor, but the Elvenking and Goblin Anti-Hero are listed alone as I would have expected.
I think I was looking at a 3rd edition first printing:
I was using this version: A Blackmoor Timeline
Rawse the dwarf is played in 997 (1972). The half-elf Meridan Veslo is mentioned being played by someone, but it isn't clear how much later. Mello the halfling is mentioned in 995 (1971).
One of my favorite games of all time had some folks using OD&D, some AD&D, and some B/X
Which, if having races besides human was important, fits with the fellowship ones being the key ones people thought were important.
The complete listing of types in (I think) the 1st printing of 3rd edition are:
1) Hobbits
2) Sprites (and Pixies)
3) Dwarves (and Gnomes)
4) Goblins (and Kobolds)
5) Elves (and Fairies)
6) Orcs (with five types from Tolkien)
7) Heroes (and anti-heroes)
8) Super Heroes
9) Wizards (including Sorcerers, Warlocks, Magicians, and Seers)
10) Wraiths (Nazgul etc.)
11) Lycanthropes - two main types are Werebears and Werewolves.
12) Trolls (and Ogres) - They suffer no light penalty (so LotR and not Hobbit fitting) and true ones are credited to TH&3L.
13) Balrogs
14) Giants
15) Ents
16) Dragons - "is typified in Tolkien's The Hobbit" **
17) Rocs - Does not mention giant eagles
18) Elementals - I'm guessing Elric helped encourage this
19) Basilisk (Cockatrice)
20) Chimera (including Griffons, Hippogriffs, Wyverns, etc...)
21) Giant Spiders and Insects
22) Giant Wolves (including Wargs and Dire Wovles) - Have goblins riding on their back
23) Wights (and Ghouls)
Of the 23 entries, 17 are things that occur in the Hobbit and LotR [18 if we do what Gygax does in a 1973 article and count Eagles as Rocs]. Does that decently cover everything in the Hobbit and LotR if you add a variety of light sensitive trolls and Oliphaunts? That's a pretty good hit rate for someone compiling a list of monsters without having the book well in mind.
Of those mentioned, three are explicitly from Tolkien, and another three explicitly call out Tolkien.*
The three fantasy races match the three in the fellowship. The LotR is specifically called out in the products. If the attention the LotR gets over the other sources had annoyed him for decades, that feels like a reason his mind would downplay their influence in retrospect.
* Do you know of an on-line copy of the full "“Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien," from La Vivandiere in 1974? It looks like it has some good quotes. Black Gate » Articles » Inspiration and Emulation, Tolkien and Gygax Gygax on Tolkien (Again) I think I'd like to read that in its entirety (and the various comments I can find on line) before commenting further.
** As an aside, I like that it has the other future dragons of AD&D, with an extra too...
Last edited:
Helldritch
Hero
And right there you're dead wrong. I support about 20 or so young or not too experienced DMs in my area and they range from 13 to 35 years old and they did voiced their concern to me. Unfortunately, you will not hear from them as most are speaking only French.
Most of them were spectators of our Friday night D&D and learned either right from me or came to appreciate my style and the style of the other three DMs that play ar the store and are coincendentaly, DMing a lot like me as two of these were introduced in the hobby by myself in the late 80s and late 90s respectively. And they have these concerns...
But is it because me and the other DM discussed this in front of many people? Did we influenced them that much with our own concerns? Probably yes. But, save for 5 teenagers that are DMs, the others are adults and they can make up their mind on their own.
I know of 5 DMs that welcome these changes (and not only the racial ones but also some of the rule changes we are aware of) and they're all under 30. So maybe it is also a generational thing, a view point
that young adults share. Needless to say that we had some nice debate too (and they were cordial debates) I do hope, however that the Tasha's book will state with a big boxed warning that these rules and changes are optional...
Everything in D&D is optional.
The only difference is whether you as a DM who has opinions on what should and should not be allowed to appear in your game... has the backbone to stand up to your players and defend your choices on which things to not include (even if they say they want to use them). If you can't do that... if you can't say 'no' to your players and you let them play with character bits you don't care for... that's not WotC's problem. And you can't expect WotC to not publish things just because you can't be bothered to defend yourself and your decisions.
If you feel that strongly that dwarves should only get +2 to CON and not any other scores... then tell your players you aren't using Tasha's options to change the racial bonuses. That's it. That's all there is to it. And if they don't like it... either tell them too bad, or get over yourself and your picadillos about what is "true" D&D and let your players have their fun. Your choice.
The only difference is whether you as a DM who has opinions on what should and should not be allowed to appear in your game... has the backbone to stand up to your players and defend your choices on which things to not include (even if they say they want to use them). If you can't do that... if you can't say 'no' to your players and you let them play with character bits you don't care for... that's not WotC's problem. And you can't expect WotC to not publish things just because you can't be bothered to defend yourself and your decisions.
If you feel that strongly that dwarves should only get +2 to CON and not any other scores... then tell your players you aren't using Tasha's options to change the racial bonuses. That's it. That's all there is to it. And if they don't like it... either tell them too bad, or get over yourself and your picadillos about what is "true" D&D and let your players have their fun. Your choice.
Helldritch
Hero
Again, yes and no. When something is in an official book, it has a grain of non optional. A lot of people will say that this is not an UA, but an official book. And try to argue with that without passing for a stubborn or heartless person for not allowing the pet peeve of someone that sees what he or she wants in an official book.
You dismiss the power of "official book" way too easily.
Don Durito
Hero
As I said earlier, they've had issues in the past where rules elements have created drift in what players expect of the game. One example is Half Elves, which are now considered "iconic" Charisma based characters, but in 2E were more seen as quiet outsiders - their description says they tend to be Rangers or Druids, but they didn't have level limits as Bards, so Half-elf bards became a thing.
Two weapon Fighting for Rangers became a thing, and people spent years arguing about that. Dex is so powerful for finesse weapons because 3E made them a thing. Great Weapon Master seems to be a thing because Power Attacking with 2 handed weapons was such a common thing in 3.5.
Synergies that rules create lead to reshaping of expectations, but imperfectly and can lead to division and edition wars down the road about what the game should be - which are not good for the game in the long term.
WOTC in the last two editions (5E and 4E essentials) doubled down on a lot stereotypes and race class synergies, even when a lot of the player base was asking for the opposite, and other games (such as 13th Age) were going in a different direction. It's hard to believe that this was not a conscious decision - so that they must have thought there was some value at the time in holding the line rules wise.
(My personal preference would be to make all non-human races explicitly optional and give the DM a toolkit to make new races and stop shoe-horning the unbelievably tired tropes of Tolkienish races into everything. So personally, I think Elves having bonuses to Strength rather than Dex is just putting lipstick on a pig.)
Two weapon Fighting for Rangers became a thing, and people spent years arguing about that. Dex is so powerful for finesse weapons because 3E made them a thing. Great Weapon Master seems to be a thing because Power Attacking with 2 handed weapons was such a common thing in 3.5.
Synergies that rules create lead to reshaping of expectations, but imperfectly and can lead to division and edition wars down the road about what the game should be - which are not good for the game in the long term.
WOTC in the last two editions (5E and 4E essentials) doubled down on a lot stereotypes and race class synergies, even when a lot of the player base was asking for the opposite, and other games (such as 13th Age) were going in a different direction. It's hard to believe that this was not a conscious decision - so that they must have thought there was some value at the time in holding the line rules wise.
(My personal preference would be to make all non-human races explicitly optional and give the DM a toolkit to make new races and stop shoe-horning the unbelievably tired tropes of Tolkienish races into everything. So personally, I think Elves having bonuses to Strength rather than Dex is just putting lipstick on a pig.)
It kind of feels like the things that are actually marked optional in the books (like these things in Tasha's) are a whole different level of optional from the things that are just sitting in the PhB and DMG. It feels like the ones labeled "optional" need to be asked about by the players, and the others need to be pre-emptively taken care of by the DM.
In this case, I wonder if part of the angst is worrying that it won't be marked optional in future editions. Doesn't everyone like to have their favorites (and obviously better for general usage) choices marked as the default?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
This gets into the "the rules don't say you can't do it" philosophy of permissiveness, which is an iffy take on things at best. The rules present a default assumption of humanity throughout (particularly since the majority of the book is concerned with medieval historical warfare), and the sections on elves, dwarves, etc. make no particular mention of them having any particular capabilities at the man-to-man level. I suppose you could rule that your hero, super-hero, etc. was a demihuman, but that's going beyond what's actually in the text.
Except that's not "from the rules themselves." That text you posted makes it clear that such specific instances are beyond what the normal rules cover, and are essentially relegated to DIY interpretations.
Sure, which is an example of what I mentioned previously. You could go ahead and go beyond what the actual rules support, but then you're doing exactly that: going beyond the rules. Notice how later in the article, Gary notes that Tom Bombadil would have the ability to negate spells, could destroy wraiths and wights at a touch, and his wife Goldberry would be able to raise morale, etc. This is an example of going beyond what's actually written in rulebook, which isn't unexpected; making adjustments and alterations to the rules (or as the young people call it these days, "hacking" them) remains a notable part of the tabletop RPG tradition.
But that doesn't mean that those exceptions are actually part of the rules themselves.
Fair enough, though this confirms that the orcs are uniquely Tolkien, which wasn't really in dispute.
Is there confirmation that Rawse was a PC and not an NPC? Because I'm having trouble locating that.
Mello was a PC, played by Rick Johnson, but even leaving aside the numerous disclaimers about the accuracy of the timeline at the beginning of that article, notice that the only citation for this having happened in 1971 is "FFC 80 : 19." Which is to say, page 19 of the 1980 printing (i.e. the third printing) of the First Fantasy Campaign book (which truncated a lot, since the earlier printings had ninety-six pages and that one only had sixty-four). Moreover, the actual citation itself doesn't establish a firm date, making me wonder why Boggs put it there:
One of my favorite games of all time had some folks using OD&D, some AD&D, and some B/X
Those days of editions not mattering (which, to be fair, was because it was easier to mix-and-match them), are sadly never coming back.
That strikes me as bordering on tautological, saying that they were included because they were important, and citing evidence of their importance is that they were included.
D&D has always been a hodgepodge of influences, from popular fiction to the Bible (remember the sticks to snakes spell?), but citing any particular author as being of paramount or primary importance is something I still find iffy. The demihuman races might very well have been popular, but important?
Remember, Gary didn't bother to mention Tolkien alongside several other authors in the foreword to the original edition of D&D. If you hold that the mention of Tolkien in Chainmail is significant, then this is surely no less significant:
Actually, it's not. You see, there's a difference between things that "occur" in Tolkien and things that are uniquely Tolkien. Even granting him elves and dwarves as being completely his, a significant number of those are found in other writings, as well as myths and legends, apart from Tolkien, and so can't reasonably be attributed to his work alone.
So six out of twenty-three, not including the variants that are listed for various creatures (e.g. four different types of elementals, etc.). That's not bad, but nowhere close to a plurality.
I'm leery of trying to guess someone's state of mind, as it feels like discounting what they're saying for no other reason than "I don't agree with this." Gary admits where the halflings came from, but LotR isn't "specifically called out" with regards to the entries for dwarves and elves in Book I of the original D&D boxed set, or in their entries in Chainmail (heck, Chainmail even talks about elves turning invisible, which would have a much greater meaning if that was lifted from Tolkien!)
I don't, sadly. If you find a copy of that online please let me know!
EDIT: By the by, did you know that Maliszewski has revived his Grognardia blog? I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying reading his posts again!
I'm sure we'll bring that up when we butt heads on the old "how influential was Chainmail to D&D?" topic!
Last edited:
The rules say there are heroes and super-heroes. "Included in this class are certain well-known knights, leaders of army contingents, and similar men." doesn't read as exclusive to me. The creator of the game puts them in as whatever race they need to be when showing how the rules can be used for what they were designed to (having fantasy battles).
It feels like its decent evidence that it puts it was happening pretty early... The phrasing made it sound to me like it was PC.
Remember, Gary didn't bother to mention Tolkien alongside several other authors in the foreword to the original edition of D&D. If you hold that the mention of Tolkien in Chainmail is significant, then this is surely no less significant:
Lots of things in Appendix N are not mentioned here. The 1974 article mentions that he thinks Conan, Mouser, and Elric are characters he thinks players will find more exciting than Aragorn et.al. He also says that Tolkien was influential. Apparently the article also says lots of players kept asking for more Tolkien. That seems consistent with him using Tolkien things and getting annoyed by folks liking it so much. (I'll check around for the article).
The vast majority of things on the list occur in Tolkien. Everything that appears in Tolkien except the Oliphants occurs on the list. Every creature that is uniquely Tolkien, appears on the list. It's impossible for the entire list to be uniquely Tolkien because Tolkien didn't have that many unique creatures.
Clearly some of them weren't from Tolkien (Gnomes, Sprites, Giants), but no one ever claimed Tolkien was the only influence. But there aren't that many here.
I'm kind of surprised that Greek mythology got no play at all, but then I have to remember he was going for medieval feeling literature. There are a number of creatures from the first two Elric books and the first batch of Mouser books that could have made it. Kind of surprised they didn't.
I'll let you know when I dig up that article.
If you are worried about being seen as stubborn or heartless... then let go of the belief that dwarves should only ever have +2 to CON and elves +2 to DEX. You either can have your unchanging beliefs about the game mechanics given to the races and demand your players go along with them... or you be a willing participant in your player's desires to use and play what they want. Completely up to you. But you can't have both.
Because to demand both means WotC has to follow your edicts on what they publish and the rest of us get stuck with only what you want. And sorry, but that isn't going to happen.
Similar Threads
