'hobbit' generic/scientific term now that should be used

[David Chmelik]

'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).

[Kyonshi]

Post by David Chmelik
'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".