D&D 4E 4E Halflings unrecognizable from Tolkien hobbits

[Zander]

Some of of think that Gygaxian fantasy...

That's so well said, I'm going to add it to my sig!

 

[Clavis]

That's so well said, I'm going to add it to my sig!

Thank you!

 

[Zander]

Actually, I think that's largely a side-effect of Tolkien's dialogue. Gimli had a penchant for saying some distinctly "scottish" things, like "Aye." His speech is less...particular.

One might even gather that since Tolkien tended to model the Northern men (after whom the dwarves are said to model their speech) on those from the northern British isles - that is, the Scots. So, I think Mr. Rhys-Davies provided his interpretation of Gimli based on his reading of Tolkien's work.

While it's true that Tolkien based his fantasy races on real world cultures (sometimes blending a couple), I think you've got the wrong one. Tolkien gave his dwarves old Scandinavian names so at least part of their inspiration came from Nordic culture. But when asked, Tolkien said: "I do think of the Dwarves as Jews". So some Jewish influence should be considered too.

As for dwarves being portrayed as Scottish in media other than writing, Games Workshop had miniatures of dwarves in kilts as early as the mid '80s. One mini from their 1985 Dwarf Lords of Legend set was called Angus. He wore a tartan kilt and sported a tam o'shanter. Can't get more Scottish than that!

 

[Hussar]

"Some of us think that Gygaxian fantasy, a rich and meaty stew of great fantasy authors spiced with classical mythology and medieval legend, just tastes better than WOTC's homogeneous corporate gruel." Clavis

Isn't it interesting though. Much of the Gygaxian Fantasy" at the time when 1e was being written was hardly classic at all. Take Three Hearts and Three Lions. It was about 15 years old when 1e came out. That's not classic. Moorcock's Elric made his first appearance in the same year and the first novel five years later.

That makes Elric as "classic" as J. K. Rowlings in fact.

If you go back through that list in the DMG, you'll find that many of those works were only a decade or so old at the time of 1e being released. 1e wasn't based on "classic" fantasy. It was based on what was popular at the time.

The more things change eh?

 

[shilsen]

Isn't it interesting though. Much of the Gygaxian Fantasy" at the time when 1e was being written was hardly classic at all. Take Three Hearts and Three Lions. It was about 15 years old when 1e came out. That's not classic. Moorcock's Elric made his first appearance in the same year and the first novel five years later.

That makes Elric as "classic" as J. K. Rowlings in fact.

If you go back through that list in the DMG, you'll find that many of those works were only a decade or so old at the time of 1e being released. 1e wasn't based on "classic" fantasy. It was based on what was popular at the time.

The more things change eh?

Bingo!

I haven't played 1e myself, but I've picked up a fair bit about it from ENWorld and have read Gary expanding in great detail about it (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that after so many years and water under the bridge, he's not that reliable a commentator on it either). It seems fairly clear to me that 1e was a hodge-podge of very divergent influences, essentially drawn from whatever fantasy was popular at the time and the various things that Gygax (a very eclectic reader) had read and liked. D&D has always had more or less a fairly arbitrary kitchen-sink approach and flavor, and I don't think that's ever going to really change.

 

[Mallus]

D&D has always had more or less a fairly arbitrary kitchen-sink approach and flavor, and I don't think that's ever going to really change.

Exactly right.

Shil, this hoo-ha is just further proof that everything is susceptible to the blight of orthodoxy.

 

[Clavis]

Originally Posted by clavis
"Some of us think that Gygaxian fantasy, a rich and meaty stew of great fantasy authors spiced with classical mythology and medieval legend, just tastes better than WOTC's homogeneous corporate gruel." Clavis

Isn't it interesting though. Much of the Gygaxian Fantasy" at the time when 1e was being written was hardly classic at all. Take Three Hearts and Three Lions. It was about 15 years old when 1e came out. That's not classic. Moorcock's Elric made his first appearance in the same year and the first novel five years later.

That makes Elric as "classic" as J. K. Rowlings in fact.

If you go back through that list in the DMG, you'll find that many of those works were only a decade or so old at the time of 1e being released. 1e wasn't based on "classic" fantasy. It was based on what was popular at the time.

The more things change eh?

Of course, I didn't write "classic", I wrote "great"!. It isn't that WOTC is ripping off contemporary popular fantasy and that I object; it's that they're making stuff up and expecting us to treat their creations as if they were already iconic. If WOTC was taking things from, say, Neil Gaiman and adding them to the game, that would actually be good. As it stands, however, WOTC is busily ignoring the actual popular mythology in favor of their own creations, which they can legally defend as Intellectual Property. Case in point: the new halflings (and I'm including 3rd edition). More people than ever know Tolkien's Hobbits, yet WOTC prefers their own silly creations. Another case in point: the Dragonborn. If WOTC paid attention to popular mythology, they would have created a reptilian race that used mind control magic and could assume human form (a la Howard and contemporary conspiracy theorists).

My problem is that WOTC is not continuing the hodge-podge tradition of D&D, but is trying to impose a boring, homogeneous mythology that they can claim Intellectual Property rights over.

And I'm not touching the anime subject, because it seems to be the third rail of conversation on this site.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, just for giggles, I'm going to go through the bibliography listed in the DMG and list the publication dates as well.

• Anderson, Poul. THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS 1961 ; THE HIGH CRUSADE 1960; THE BROKEN SWORD 1954
• Bellairs, John. THE FACE IN THE FROST 1969
• Brackett, Leigh. (SF writer who wrote Empire Strikes Back)
• Brown, Fredric. (SF and Mystery Writer)
• Burroughs, Edgar Rice. "Pellucidar" Series (mostly 20's and 30's with the latest in 1969); Mars Series (1912-1942); Venus Series (1930's with the latest in 1970) ((Conspicuously absent is mention of Tarzan))
• Carter, Lin. "World's End" Series 1974
• de Camp, L. Sprague. LEST DARKNESS FALL 1939; FALLIBLE FIEND 1972; et. al.
• de Camp & Pratt. "Harold Shea" Series (1940-1960); CARNELLIAN CUBE 1948
• Derleth, August. (Lovecraftian Horror) 1920's-1970's
• Dunsany, Lord. Credited as one of the first modern fantasy authors. 1900-
• Farmer, P. J. "The World of the Tiers" Series (1965-1993); et al.
• Fox, Gardner. "Kothar" Series 1969 "Kyrik" Series 1975; et al.
• Howard, R. E. "Conan" Series 1932+
• Lanier, Sterling. HIERO'S JOURNEY 1975
• Leiber, Fritz. "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" Series; et al. 1940's-1970's
• Lovecraft, H. P. (1919-1931)
• Merritt, A. CREEP, SHADOW, CREEP; MOON POOL; DWELLERS IN THE MIRAGE; et al. (1917-1934)
• Moorcock, Michael. STORMBRINGER 1965; STEALER OF SOULS 1963; "Hawkmoon" Series (esp. the first three books) (1960's)
• Norton, Andre. (Primarily SF) 1930's to Present day
• Offutt, Andrew J., editor SWORDS AGAINST DARKNESS III. 1978
• Pratt, Fletcher. BLUE STAR 1952; et al
• Saberhagen, Fred. CHANGELING EARTH 1973; et al
• St. Clair, Margaret. THE SHADOW PEOPLE 1969; SIGN OF THE LABRYS 1963
• Tolkien, J. R. R. THE HOBBIT; "Ring Trilogy" 1954
• Vance, Jack. THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD 1966; THE DYING EARTH 1950; et al.
• Weinbaum, Stanley. SF Author. Died 1934
• Wellman, Manly Wade. SF and Weird author from 1929-1987
• Williamson, Jack. SF writer from the 1930's to present
• Zelazny, Roger. JACK OF SHADOWS 1971; "Amber" Series 1970's; et al.

Phew. That's the lot.

Facinating to look at this now. So many of these authors are very contemporary with the publication of OD&D and even AD&D 1e. Plus, a fair number of the authors aren't fantasy authors at all, but rather SF authors. Williamson for example is about as hard SF as they come.

I must remember to link to this whenever someone complains about warforged or other SF tropes in D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Case in point: the new halflings (and I'm including 3rd edition). More people than ever know Tolkien's Hobbits, yet WOTC prefers their own silly creations. Another case in point: the Dragonborn. If WOTC paid attention to popular mythology, they would have created a reptilian race that used mind control magic and could assume human form (a la Howard and contemporary conspiracy theorists)

Yet, the new halflings are pretty much kender in disguise. So, they're actually basing it off some of the most popular D&D material from twenty years ago.

And, reptilian shape shifters in Howard? I only read Conan, so, which series did that come from? Let's face it, half-dragon or reptilian heroes have been around since Snake Eyes in G. I. Joe.

 

[Clavis]

Yet, the new halflings are pretty much kender in disguise. So, they're actually basing it off some of the most popular D&D material from twenty years ago.

True, but that material is still nowhere near as well-known as LOTR. We know about it because we are gamers. If I say "Dragonlance" to the average person, however, they'll think I'm talking about a male enhancement product.

And, reptilian shape shifters in Howard? I only read Conan, so, which series did that come from? Let's face it, half-dragon or reptilian heroes have been around since Snake Eyes in G. I. Joe.

The Serpent People are the primary villains of the Kull stories (which are the prehistory of Conan's world). I don't personally have any problem with reptilian heroes. I just wish WOTC would have made them more iconic relative to culture outside of the game world.