Update 37 - River-hobbits

[Radhruin]

Because secretive doesn't exclude adventure. A spy is secretive but lives an adventurous life. Being an adventurer doesn't mean you have to expose all of the culture and secrets of your people.

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

 

[Kipp]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

But secretive doesn't mean being isolationist.

 

[Happy Kirby]

As I say being secretive and/or adventurous going together depends on personal view, and ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races, that's what I think.

 

[Arabani]

I agree and thats more or less the justification for any race being any class (outside of beorning).

The day when we get hobbit-beornings will probably be the happiest day of my lotro life, even if I do not like beorning in general and do not really play the class.

 

[Radhruin]

But secretive doesn't mean being isolationist.

They're not being secretive; people know about them. They've apparently already been going around calling themselves River-hobbits to outsiders. I pointed out earlier how going around calling themselves that should have attracted the wrong sort of attention when the Nazgul were in Rhovanion looking for the Ring, because Smeagol's people had lived by the river and there was a big question mark over where they'd gone. It's an unfortunate clash between the plot and the 'River-hobbit' meme.

 

[Muffy]

ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races

Wait, what... does that... mean? Pardon, but could you restate that? I'm having the worst time understanding that statement.

 

[Happy Kirby]

Wait, what... does that... mean? Pardon, but could you restate that? I'm having the worst time understanding that statement.

If you read the lore description of River hobbit sub race, you will understand. Unfortunately I don't have my pc here so I can't show u

 

[Demelsa]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

This. This is what I sloppily tried to explain in my morning rush. It’s not consistent and there’s a lot of confusion, even with an intro. However explained.

 

[Happy Kirby]

This. This is what I sloppily tried to explain in my morning rush. It’s not consistent and there’s a lot of confusion, even with an intro. However explained.

Tbh I'm not really sure about the consistency. In 1 perspective, it's not. In another perspective (misthalow being known of existence before the 3 modern hobbits sub-race), it's makes sense. we probably need the lore writer to come here and explain to us..

 

[Demelsa]

I think my rushed point wasn’t exactly about secretive verses adventurous and them not being able to coincide. It’s more the general confusion surrounding the lore of these hobbits.

What exactly makes these Fallohidish hobbits River-hobbits though? I’d love some insight into that. There is a disconnect there that isn’t ignorable to me and many players. River-hobbit screams stoor and that was the general expectation for the race. You could say our bad for having expectations, but as you can see from the debate in this thread, we are invested in hobbits, we love LOTRO, we anticipated a new hobbit race with excitement.

Fallohide is likely a conscious choice. More marketable? Maybe. I wish they were called something else at this point.

 

[Radhruin]

As I say being secretive and/or adventurous going together depends on personal view, and ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races, that's what I think.

It isn't (consistent, that is) and the more you keep going on about personal views rather than having any real explanation the shakier you make it look. The Lyndelby hobbits are a bit of everything, just like hobbits elsewhere are, there's nothing about them that makes them seem like Fallohides in particular because for whatever reason the devs didn't make the effort to do that.

As for being secretive versus isolationist, if they weren't isolationist then the outside world would have had the best part of fourteen hundred years to find out they were there just by chance from seeing them going to and fro. I don't think that's the sort of secret that could feasibly be kept for such a long time.

 

[Demelsa]

Tbh I'm not really sure about the consistency. In 1 perspective, it's not. In another perspective (misthalow being known of existence before the 3 modern hobbits sub-race), it's makes sense. we probably need the lore writer to come here and explain to us..

True, if we knew where they were coming from it might help understanding and being more accepting of them.

 

[Happy Kirby]

It isn't (consistent, that is) and the more you keep going on about personal views rather than having any real explanation the shakier you make it look. The Lyndelby hobbits are a bit of everything, just like hobbits elsewhere are, there's nothing about them that makes them seem like Fallohides in particular because for whatever reason the devs didn't make the effort to do that.

As for being secretive versus isolationist, if they weren't isolationist then the outside world would have had the best part of fourteen hundred years to find out they were there just by chance from seeing them going to and fro. I don't think that's the sort of secret that could feasibly be kept for such a long time.

That's why I said I'm not really sure and need the lore writer to come here and explain. I view the lore on multiple perspective, not just 1. Lore sometimes can be verily confusing and need verification

 

[Happy Kirby]

Fallohide is likely a conscious choice. More marketable? Maybe. I wish they were called something else at this point.

Yeah, body wise, Fallohide-like being the fittest of the 3 so they are the most suitable choice for anyone who doesn't like fatty hobbits. So.. the different of River-hobbits and shire-hobbit need to be closer to fallohides and farther from the rest

Since the sub-race being misthallow maybe we should call them misthallow or lyndelby or ancient hobbit? This maybe not official but maybe what we call in a group

 

[Gryffs]

Since there seems to be uncertainty about whether the height was altered, it would be interesting if we could see images of current "river hobbits" next to Shire Hobbits, as we've seen on earlier pages of this thread, so we can compare. I'm not on Bullroarer, or I'd take the picture myself.

 

[MadeOfLions]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

Welcome to Beta, where games change in development.

When I added the Intro, I also changed Meneldir's dialogue in the original 'Before the Shadow' instance -- the storyline of 'Instance: Humble Beginnings' makes River-hobbits much more rare than we were originally planning, where their backstory wouldn't have been specified. Now that they're definitely from Lyndelby, I think it's pretty well-specified that you're much more unique than you would have been if adventuring ran in your family.

I think there's something else worth keeping in mind, though: River-hobbits aren't from the Shire. Anyone who knows about the hobbits of the Shire (already a much higher number in LOTRO than would realistically be the case!) is going to see that a River-hobbit looks and feels like something different. Maybe they call you a 'River-hobbit' because a wandering Wizard casually mentioned the river-folk to them once and they didn't ask for elaboration; maybe the Stoors of Clegur believe you just love water and boats, but at least you're not from Glyn Helyg, where hobbits live in the sky. Folk in Middle-earth aren't omniscient (mostly), so I think some of the information they have about River-hobbits is likely to be a game of telephone (which hasn't been invented yet). So when they say you're a River-hobbit, they might have something different in mind. I think that's fine and pretty interesting, although Meneldir now won't say he's heard of River-hobbit adventurers before you came along.

MoL

 

[Demelsa]

I’m weary on the subject of River-hobbits. But one last reply before I take a break.

River-hobbits aren’t from the Shire, I don’t think anyone doesn’t realise this or expects them to be exactly like River-hobbits, but once again I think the core issue, even more than the lore confusion, is that they feel more like the Race of Men than Hobbits.

I think the majority here are fine with differences and don’t mind them being different to Shire-hobbits, or having variety. Even a lot of the folks who are pro this River-hobbit model seemed to be for variety. I welcomed the diverse additions to the Men models, for example. But it’s the scaled-down models of Men for hobbits that is bothering a lot of people. Hobbits are all related to each other in the end, however distantly. You’d think they'd bear more similarity than not, while still having differences.

 

[Gryffs]

Hobbits are all related to each other in the end, however distantly. You’d think they'd bear more similarity than not, while still having differences.

Yes, this. While some people are concerned over the lore aspects of the new race, for myself and many others the main concern is appearance. They look much more closely related to Men than Hobbits. This is chiefly a head/limb/torso proportion issue, although height and weight also stand out (so far).

 

[PO-TAY-TOE]

Whenever I see these new 'hobbits', I imagine the conversation behind the scenes to be something along "we need to make this new race of hobbits cuter and more appealing, not as fat and ugly as the original ones. But for financial/workload/whatever reasons, we also can't design them from scratch, so we just take the model from the race of men and make it smaller".

And all the rest of the discussion is just trying to sell these decisions, regardless if it fits with anything.
From a game perspective it makes a lot of sense (every MMO has their 'cute' races, a lot of players love that), from a lore perspective it does not.
It's a choice I guess. *shrug*

 

[RabidAttackGoat]

Thank you SSG for the couple of changes that have been implemented so far, among them being furrier feet and (possibly???) a slight adjustment to height. I was really hoping that the River-hobbit animations would bring them home for me, and don't get me wrong, it certainly helps. But still every time I look at the River-hobbit, all I see is a scaled down Race of Man model that falls a short of delivering that hobbit feel.

For me personally, I can set the new "lore" around them aside and play them as I want to easily enough - for example decide that I am a hobbit from Lyndlby that wants nothing to do with rivers, or decide that I'm actually descended-from-Smealgols-River-folk-hobbits and disregard the in-game intro/origin. This is easy enough, for me at least. As an example, I have done this in the past with my dwarf Stoutaxe PC's who, in my mind, have not done any time in Mordor.

BUT (and here's the thing)

The Stoutaxes still resemble standard dwarves enough that they do not stick out like a sore thumb at a dwarven gathering. My immersion is not broken because they bear enough similitudes to their cousins, while still being taller, with an adjusted body type and looking distinct as their own sub-race.

I would love to be able to say the same thing about River-hobbits, but they're not there yet. As they are now, they look hugely out of place when standing next to their Shire cousins, or even the hobbits of Lyndlby where they reportedly grew up. I could easily pretend that they were the young son/daughter of a farmer or blacksmith's in Bree, Gondor, etc quite easily, but there's something that is still missing which is preventing me from believing in them as hobbit cousins.

Several pages back, Bholfir did this gorgeous image manipulation of the River-hobbit model that demonstrates how powerful a proportions-adjustment would be. How much more does the left-hand image look like a hobbit while also looking quite different from their Shire cousins? The legs are reduced to the same length as the torso, and the head maybe appears to be a little bit larger in proportion to the body, while the arm length looks to be roughly the same as the original model. And of course there are the hobbit feet which have already been implemented to some degree in the test server. When I isolate the left-hand image, I see a hobbitish person - while isolating the right-hand image, I see only a barefoot teenager living in the cities of Men.

But, I don't claim to know anything at all about how creating and programming these models works, or whether the underlying "skeleton" can be adjusted in such a way for the base model. Maybe the devs can give us an insight, or maybe not. Do not misunderstand me, I am very grateful for all they have poured into this game that I love. I only know that I share the same sadness with some of the other fans of the hobbit race that have spoken up in this thread - that the currently-presented model of the upcoming River-hobbits has not seen the same love and care that the Stoutaxes or even the High-Elves saw in their creation, and after seeing the gorgeous concept art that was created for the project I feel a bit short-changed with a downscaled Man model.

TLDR: The different hobbit branches of Middle-earth are all distantly related to each other in the end. If the River-hobbits don't at least share some features/proportions with the Shire Hobbits, I personally am going to have a hard time immersing myself with them even though I really REALLY REEEEAAAAALLLLYYY want to love them. Please give the models a little bit of TLC so that I can <3