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

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.