Question for the grognards: Why does D&D have dwarves/elves/hobbits etc.?

[Geoffrey]

They're in there because the players demanded it. I'm not sure you can blame Gygax so much, and in the 1st edition DMG he kinda makes like the races were included over his objections.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. Look at the original 1974 D&D rules, in which players had the following four racial choices:

1. "Should anyone want to play one", there were Hobbits: They could be fighters. And that's it. They could reach 4th level. That's it.

2. Dwarves: They could be fighters. That's it. They could reach 6th level. That's it.

3. Elves: They could be fighters and magic-users. They were limited to 4th level as fighters and 8th level as magic-users. Not as bad as dwarves and hobbits, but not that great either.

4. Humans: They could be any class, and they were unlimited in levels (with 20th-level humans mentioned).

It is clear that the original rules heavily favor the playing of humans. What the devil is a 6th-level dwarf going to do in a party of 14th-level humans? Hide? Cower? Die?

To my mind, it is too bad that Gary included non-human races as player character races. It was an unfortunate and merely cosmetic Tolkienism to include dwarves, elves, and hobbits. The Weird Tales roots of D&D would be more apparent without demi-human PCs confusing the issue.

 

[Melan]

1. "Should anyone want to play one", there were Hobbits: They could be fighters. And that's it. They could reach 4th level. That's it.

That's nothing compared to Chainmail, where the contempt is literally dripping from the page - something along the lines of "these diminutive chaps have little place in a wargame, but if you really wish to include them, here are the stats".

 

[kenobi65]

That is marketing on the personal scale. My players want to play ninjas, I make rules for them to play ninjas. Just like I'd put ninjas in a for-sale game if people wanted 'em, no matter how silly I think they are.

Fair, but folks in this thread are using "marketing gimmick" in the same manner they'd talk about collectible miniatures or limited-edition printings.

At the point in time we're talking about, no one, not even Gary, had any clue that the game would take off the way it did. Geoffrey's quotes would suggest he grudgingly included them because some of his core players wanted to play those races, not because he was thinking, "boy, if I put in more Tolkein stuff, I bet I sell more copies!"

I do recall reading that there were some threats of legal action from the Tolkein estate back in the early days, which is why "hobbits" became "halflings", "ents" became "treants", and "balrogs" became "Type VI Demons" or whatever -- I suspect that TSR's lawyers believed that "elves" and "dwarves" had enough other non-Tolkein citations that they were safe. It may well be memories of that legal action that had made Gary attempt to put distance between D&D and Middle-Earth in the various discussions that have been mentioned here.

 

[Ourph]

Okay, I have known since almost day one that LotR was not a big influence on D&D.

I don't know that this is an accurate statement. I think when Gary et al. insist that Tolkien wasn't a major influence on D&D it is usually in the context of playstyle, not flavor (such as the types of races available or the make-up of an adventuring party). IMO, D&D was intended to allow Tolkien style player characters in a world where the adventures, society, mythos, etc. was based around the other literary influences (Vance, Burroughs, Anderson, Howard, etc.) Gary often cites. Where D&D did NOT draw inspiration from LotR (at least in D&D's original form) was in the structure of the adventure itself. It's obvious from the 3LB and supplements that the "point" of adventuring wasn't to go on epic quests like that undertaken by the Fellowship of the Ring, but to explore forgotten tombs for treasure and to relieve gangs of slavers of their ill-gotten wealth. The fact that the hobby later embraced the LotR adventure paradigm just points out that the popularity of the LotR probably meant the game would have headed in the Tolkien direction no matter what Gary and Co. did with the original game.

Yes, inclusion of Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and multi-racial adventuring parties was a marketing ploy (or a concession to fellow gamers or whatever), but I think it was also a recognition that some of the flavor aspects of Middle-Earth (ascendance of man, Elves as a fading race, Hobbits as pudgy, reluctant burglars, etc.) could be successfully and entertainingly integrated with a sword & sorcery based adventure theme - and that options could make the game more fun.

 

[Mean Eyed Cat]

I think there is a lot of truth in this. Look at the original 1974 D&D rules, in which players had the following four racial choices:

1. "Should anyone want to play one", there were Hobbits: They could be fighters. And that's it. They could reach 4th level. That's it.

2. Dwarves: They could be fighters. That's it. They could reach 6th level. That's it.

3. Elves: They could be fighters and magic-users. They were limited to 4th level as fighters and 8th level as magic-users. Not as bad as dwarves and hobbits, but not that great either.

4. Humans: They could be any class, and they were unlimited in levels (with 20th-level humans mentioned).

Not to derail [too much], but this brings up an interesting notion about my response above. Gnomes were probably introduced as an option for playing a magic-using small person [as an illusionist].

 

[Particle_Man]

I think gnomes are names as such in Three Hearts and Three Lions, but are not there associated with illusion magic.

Trolls as regenerating creatures are definitely from Three Hearts and Three Lions.

And I would say Tolkein's influence on D&D is hard to deny (unless one is denying it for purely legal purposes).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The elves, dwarves, and especially the hobbits of D&D are Straight Outta Middle Earth (yo), NOT the versions of folklore. Nor have I ever seen 'em in anything pre-Tolkien. I've read about 50% of Vance's books and enough of Poul Anderson to not see anything like 'em in there.

Yep, exactly. That's why Tolkien's elves are 6'5" and D&D's are 5'.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

BTW, if you really want to see something that influenced D&D, check out the "Complete Compleat Enchanter" by Decamp. It has everything from Somatic components to cockatrices to Frost Giants.

 

[Geoffrey]

Gnomes were probably introduced as an option for playing a magic-using small person [as an illusionist].

What is interesting is that gnomes were first included as a PC race in the AD&D Players Handbook published in 1978. Even as recently as the 1977 Monster Manual, gnomes did not have any magical abilities. In the very last paragraph of the MM's description of gnomes, it is noted that there are unverified rumors of gnomes with magical abilities of up to 4th level. (In the OD&D books published 1974-1976 gnomes were nothing more nor less than shorter dwarves.)

In the 1978 Players Handbook, gnomes cannot be magic-users but can be illusionists (of up to 7th level, if I remember rightly). And illusionists are presented as a merely optional sub-class in the Players Handbook.

 

[Darklone]

In "Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien On the D&D and AD&D Games" in Dragon 95 Gary tried really hard to discount Tolkien's influence on the game, to the point of suggesting that European folklore and mythology were equally, if not more, important influences on the demihuman races. Frankly, and with due respect to Gary, I thought his argument was patently ridiculous.

Seconded.

North European elves and dwarves have as much to do with D&D elves and dwarves as the D&D gorgons have with ancient Greek mythic gorgons. Sure, these iron bulls who breath death do exist in mythology... Gilgamesh.

IME, D&D races and other stuff is not based on Europes mythology. Perhaps on the impression the game developers had about it...