|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 10, 2016 21:00:01 GMT -5
It's not too much of a stretch to figure out where Hobbits come from-- JRRT. It's cool how they were embraced and included in the ORS (Original Rules Set), along with dwarfs, elves and, the sundry of fantastic creatures and beings found throughout the lit of the past.
As this (thread) is a discussion, inspection (and perhaps analysis) of their (Hobbits) role in the great big campaign, I will assume (and hope ) that others will be offering their own discoveries as to the nature of Hobbits, as provided in the manuals specific to the OD&D game.
Here's one odd thing that sticks out early on (and, no, I'm not the first or only one to notice this, as it has been the subject of discussion in other forums):
Hobbits are, for some reason, excluded from the list of those possible to Retain. Not sure why this is so, since the very first Hobbit the world was introduced to (Bilbo Baggins) was, very clearly, a retainer!
I'm also not quite sure why Hobbits are/(were) given unlimited access in the Thief class. Not that I'm arguing dwarfs and elves are better attuned to the actions/function, but--by the standard of their development as seen in the lit of their origins, thieving was hardly apparent within their culture. At his best, Bilbo was a bungling thief, where happenstance and Gandalf's interceptions aided him more than his own ability as a thief per se. Of course, nowadays, the idea of Hobbit/Halfling/Thief has become so acceptable, it is as cliche as female dwarfs all being bearded.
Well, demz iz mye tots about it.
What's yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 11, 2016 7:09:30 GMT -5
Hobbits are Lawful and Halflings are a completely different Chaotic creature.  I seldom if ever these days include Hobbits in my game and never include halflings. Hobbits, if I were to use them, could be hirelings or henchmen either one. I don't normally include thieves IMC these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 11, 2016 7:17:27 GMT -5
Hobbits are, for some reason, excluded from the list of those possible to Retain. Not sure why this is so, since the very first Hobbit the world was introduced to (Bilbo Baggins) was, very clearly, a retainer! 'Cause Bilbo Baggins is obviously a player-character. Probably because one of the features of the thief class is that advancement for all demi-humans is unlimited. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2016 9:51:40 GMT -5
Short people got... I love Tolkien and I adore his characterizations of hobbits. I just don't use 'em. Though I hate to see them misrepresented as well. Gary never liked LotR and was happy to see the Hobbit portrayed by Bell in CD&D as the skinny prussian-hatted slinger that it was... I absolutely detest that illo! Gary laughed and rubbed his hands together upon noting my reaction, btw... Now back to CCC's continued over-analyzation of everything (something not only endemic to him, i might add...)... You certainly would "not be sure of the why Hobbits were given unlimited access to the thief class" because you are not EGG nor were you inside his head (like you are inside ours, now) when he decided to make that decision. And don't ask me either, for I was probably at home stocking a dungeon, or if near X-mas, a stocking... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2016 12:06:25 GMT -5
He made up some sh*t he thought would be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2016 12:08:18 GMT -5
He made up some sh*t he thought would be fun. He was in a hurry, that's why... so he made up "stuff" that worked. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 11, 2016 12:58:26 GMT -5
Along these lines: I've been interested in the apparent textual sources in LOTR for a lot of the hobbit/halfling stuff in early D&D publications. For example:
"Deadly accuracy with missiles?" Well...
As to unlimited progression as thieves, I've seen it said elsewhere (maybe on this board?) that the unlimited progression for demihumans in the thief class was because thieves had no btb endgame -- lordship, becoming a local ruler, etc. So they aren't limited because progression in that class doesn't lead to ruling humans. Thieving is just its own thing, not a way to gain secular power. After all:
Generalize tower to strongholds, and you see why they don't make it up to name level. Further...
"some as like minding other folk's business and talking big..." -- that is, most Hobbits aren't into that.
Dwarven save: Bilbo's association with dwarves.
Limited to 4th level: Merry and Pippin's (and Sam's, I guess) semi-retirement after their training up to "hero" throughout the novel?
They've been trained not for more training, but to "set things to rights" in their own land. "Hero" is more than enough for this.
They can't be retained because they're not into that sort of thing. Try to get most Hobbits away from their native land to go on an adventure. No way!
The above is not meant to suggest that EGG had this or that specific passage in mind when coming up with this or that racial feature or ability. However, the extreme popularity / faddishness of LOTR in the late 60s / early 70s makes it seem not at all insane that these ideas were generally around and that some of them made it into the D&D books in some form or another.
Further, it helps me to consider Hobbits as just another part of the "everything and the kitchen sink" gonzo nature of the implies setting (or multiplicity of implied settings). They look central as they can be PCs from the very beginning, but they're just being imported into a more general setting (heavily flavored by LOTR, but not really Middle-Earth, of course you may disagree). They came from Tolkien's works, so they have some of the features noted there, with mechanical effects.
EDIT: Regarding unlimited progression as thieves for Hobbits, consider also Gollum's characterization of Bilbo as a "thief" -- in his eyes, surely the worst possible thief. Also Gollum himself as a very advanced thief -- sneaking, hiding, attacking from behind...
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 11, 2016 13:20:11 GMT -5
Gary use something that was resoundingly faddish and working even if he did not like it? SURE. He was ultimately a business man, but he disliked Tolkien's works except for The HOBBIT, which he read chapter by chapter to his children. So it does ultimately derive back to a polyglot of things, really. But it all worked as a place-holder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 21:51:24 GMT -5
Yep. More time has been spent analyzing the game than was spent creating it.
|
|
