Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8111158" data-attributes="member: 8461">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:<img src="https://i.imgur.com/Awx3qda.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />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:<img src="https://i.imgur.com/EUKNPhL.jpeg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />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 <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Grognardia</a> 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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification