From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used. For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might even fit some current-day people. So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term. Most/all my D&D groups used the term.

Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not ruleset edition, which didn't change).

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 11/4/2024 8:07 AM, David Chmelik wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used. For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might even fit some current-day people. So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term. Most/all my D&D groups used the term.

Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not ruleset edition, which didn't change).

I think unless you specifically base the creature you describe with it
on the specific hominid you still might be in hot water. By now the
rights holders have learned how to actually deal with IP rights for game properties. Back then they were likely unaware of how it worked, and
only TSR's release of The Battle of the Five Armies board game made them
even aware of the use of hobbits in DND.

By the way I recently leared that ICE gained the rights to publish the Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game by the outrageous act of "actually asking
the rights holder".
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:47:46 +0100, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/4/2024 8:07 AM, David Chmelik wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used. For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might >> even fit some current-day people. So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term. Most/all my D&D groups used the term.

Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not
ruleset edition, which didn't change).

I think unless you specifically base the creature you describe with it
on the specific hominid you still might be in hot water. By now the
rights holders have learned how to actually deal with IP rights for game >properties. Back then they were likely unaware of how it worked, and
only TSR's release of The Battle of the Five Armies board game made them >even aware of the use of hobbits in DND.

Yeah, regardless of what the original poster believes, "hobbit" is
still a copyrighted term. It is very much _not_ a generic term and the rights-holders would probably look askance at any attempt to make use
of it without their permission.

You could argue that copyrights are far too broad and long, and that
terms like "hobbit" --specifically referring to a short race of
very-humanlike humanoids with a tendency towards furry feet and big
appetites-- shouldn't still be protected, as its most famous use was
first popularized in 1937. That's a long time for it to enter public
domain! But you'll need to get the law changed first. Until then, the
term is protected _at least_ until 2032.

The word "hobbit" existed before Tolkien, of course, but it was one of
a many names for supernatural critters, and could just as well have
described a bugbear as an elf. If you want to write a book where your characters refer to a poltergeist as a hobbit, the Tolkienist's
probably wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on (although you can be
sure they'd fight it in court anyway, and they have more money than
you ;-). But if you're trying to refer to a short human as a hobbit...
you're probably not going to win.

By the way I recently leared that ICE gained the rights to publish the >Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game by the outrageous act of "actually asking
the rights holder".

Presumably, they did this because those same rights holders made quite
a fuss with TSR/D&D using the names without permission. ICE saw an
opportunity and swooped in. And, having discovered -again thanks to
their dispute with TSR- that there was such a thing as RPGs, the
Tolkien estate saw an opportunity and accepted.

But yeah... the early years of tabletop (and computer gaming, for that
matter) were a free-for-all when it came to copyrights, with
intellectual property rights being violated quite unconcernedly.







--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 11/7/2024 4:57 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The word "hobbit" existed before Tolkien, of course, but it was one of
a many names for supernatural critters, and could just as well have
described a bugbear as an elf. If you want to write a book where your characters refer to a poltergeist as a hobbit, the Tolkienist's
probably wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on (although you can be
sure they'd fight it in court anyway, and they have more money than
you ;-). But if you're trying to refer to a short human as a hobbit...
you're probably not going to win.

Now that you mention it there might be a better case for making a Kender equivalent and calling THAT one a hobbit. Just give them pointy ears and
the unnatural ability to steal stuff (unlike actual hobbits where only breakfast might be unsafe) and you should be golden.

By the way I recently leared that ICE gained the rights to publish the
Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game by the outrageous act of "actually asking
the rights holder".

Presumably, they did this because those same rights holders made quite
a fuss with TSR/D&D using the names without permission. ICE saw an opportunity and swooped in. And, having discovered -again thanks to
their dispute with TSR- that there was such a thing as RPGs, the
Tolkien estate saw an opportunity and accepted.

But yeah... the early years of tabletop (and computer gaming, for that matter) were a free-for-all when it came to copyrights, with
intellectual property rights being violated quite unconcernedly.

I don't remember where I saw it exactly but in some old fanzine/magazine
of the time I recently came across a discussion on copyright that just
turned out to grossly misrepresent actual copyright/trademark law.
Should have written down where I found that one.
After reading that I understood a bit why people thought they could get
away with it: they were working on an understanding of copyright law
that was outright wrong.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:07:35 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used. For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might >even fit some current-day people. So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term. Most/all my D&D groups used the term.

Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not >ruleset edition, which didn't change).

"Troll" is the term I would apply to this.

There was no Balrog in 1e (it was a Type VI demon, ex: "Balor"), nor Ent
(it was Treeant), nor Nazgul.
--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 11/7/2024 9:01 PM, Zaghadka wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:07:35 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used. For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might >> even fit some current-day people. So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term. Most/all my D&D groups used the term.

Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not
ruleset edition, which didn't change).

"Troll" is the term I would apply to this.

There was no Balrog in 1e (it was a Type VI demon, ex: "Balor"), nor Ent
(it was Treeant), nor Nazgul.

I assume he meant ODnD, which is what I think he meant with the
difference between literary and ruleset edition.

Thankfully there are nerds interested in everything (I am not precluding myself from being one) so someone made a blogpost listing all of the
changes they did in that regard: http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2022/02/removed-or-changed-references-to-jrr.html

They changed stuff starting from the 5th printing of Chainmail 3rd
edition and the 6th printing of the Original Dungeons and Dragons Box Set.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:01:46 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 07:07:35 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:

There was no Balrog in 1e (it was a Type VI demon, ex: "Balor"), nor Ent
(it was Treeant), nor Nazgul.

If I recall, Treants and Balrog were mentioned in OD&D (and Chainmail)
but never the Nazgul. By the time AD&D/Basic rolled around, the real
Nazgul (which is to say, the Tolkien estate's lawyers) had convinced
TSR of the wrongness of this and the monster names were all either
changed or erased from the game.

But to some degree, it's understandable why TSR (and everyone else)
did this). Copyright was in a state of flux. Copyright law was changed
in 1976, greatly extending copyright term length. Prior to that,
copyright lengths varied from 28 to 56 years (depending on renewal),
so something released in 1937 could conceivably have been public
domain in 1977. If you weren't keeping track of these new laws -which
it is almost certain none of those amateur publishers were- their
confusion is almost forgivable.

(especially since in US law copyright was originally only for 14 to 28
years _total_ and that's probably what most laymen were taught in
school. Remember, before the Internet and Wikipedia, it was hard to
get up-to-date information on a topic if it wasn't central to your interests/profession).

All the moreso since that same lack of communication often meant it
was hard for the IP owners to even LEARN that their IP was being
violated. But as it became easier for even small brands to go
cross-country (as it started doing in the sixties and seventies) it
also became easier for copyright holders to catch these scofflaws.

Add into that the fact that many of the terms and ideas used by
Tolkien were themselves based on older concepts most _definitely_ in
public domain, and it's no wonder Gygax and the rest thought it was
all in fair use.

So it was a mix of poor information, changing laws and a crackdown on
IP violations nationwide in the 1970s that got TSR (and many others)
into hot water. Had D&D released fifteen years earlier, they might
have gotten away with it. ;-)



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2