• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Gods forbid their dwarven wizard doesn’t have that 16 in INT at 1st level rather than maybe try to play into their superior CON score and HP or AC with dwarven toughness or armour training or whatever other subrace bonuses they have.
Or, some people don't want to not be able to play a sickly dwarf.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Chaosmancer

Legend
Dwarfs still have common identifying factors in One. In fact, they've been given a hugely flavorful bonus: stonecunning is now tremorsense, which is both unique to them and is far more useful, mechanically, then just getting a bonus to know the history of stonework--which is something that is totally useless if you have a DM who themself doesn't know and can't improvise the history of whatever piece of stonework the dwarf is looking at.

I don't even like One all that much (I've got Level Up, thenk yew), but even I have to admit that is a cool racial ability.

A +2 to a stat, by comparison, is boring. Does it matter if you get that bonus because of your race or because you hit 4th level and put the bonus into it?

No no no, see you don't understand. They can't have a special and cool ability, becuase they are just funny looking humans now that they don't get +1 higher than any human can get. Giving them a special sort of ability doesn't change that at all. Neither does literally everything else about dwarves, because they were ruined forever.

/heavy sarcasm

Honestly, the biggest limiting factor on people for "every race is the same" is the fact that we insist on the most generic and boring things (only humanoid body shape) and have pinned everything on the most boring of possible distinctions.

You want different?

Plasmoids and Thri-Kreen. Those are insanely different from the norm, the problem isn't "can we make fascinating races" it is "can we make fascinating races that don't unbalance the game" Because THAT'S the hard part. Balancing them against the standard human.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Or, some people don't want to not be able to play a sickly dwarf.
Has anyone on here ever run into. a DM that wouldn't let a player have their character take some extra weakness? (Say to decline to take an ASI or to put 6 somewhere instead of 8 as a low array score or to not be tough or lucky). Unless the player was going to do a parody of someone with a disability I think I'd be fine with that.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
But a dwarf can be just as good as a human as those things however the concept of DnD dwarves is that their culture is not that way inclined, they’re serious, they’re honest, they’re gruff, so they have a little further to go to match a human at those things on an even footing.

But the thing is, all that i really hear people saying when they complain ‘but why does my character have to have the negatives every member of this race does’ is that they care more about bonuses or their own character than the fidelity to the setting and lore they’re putting them into, sure adventurers are special, but you’re not so special that you should defy the inherent nature and culture of your species ‘just because I want them to’.

Why not?

As a White Midwestern American man I should be into guns, hunting, cars and trucks. I should have a favorite football team and like grilling. I live in an area where camouflage can be considered formal wear and a lot of people live on farms and go hunting. I should think emotions are for sissies and real men drink beer and talk with their fists.

Guess how many of those traits apply to me?

So why can't my fantasy character be as different from their culture as I am from mine? Why must my character be caught up in tropes of their society like it is some sort of monolith.

Why is it so important to you that MY character fit YOUR stereotypical culture to the point where I can't show that the society is far more complex than the three paragraphs you devoted to it? All dwarves are gruff and surly, and no dwarf has ever found music to be beautiful and moving and sought to explore that. A race of ARTISANS not appreciating the beauty of ART is nonsense. The typical excuse is that it isn't permanent, it is ephemeral and therefore less valuable. But you know what that would mean? That would mean that some dwarves would work to try and make non-ephemeral music. Because that makes far more sense. And maybe you don't think that makes sense, but this ISN'T YOUR CHARACTER.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Has anyone on here ever run into. a DM that wouldn't let a player have their character take some extra weakness? (Say to decline to take an ASI or to put 6 somewhere instead of 8 as a low array score or to not be tough or lucky). Unless the player was going to do a parody of someone with a disability I think I'd be fine with that.
I generally discourage that sort of thing, and I have seen DMs just say no to it.

For me, I prefer character creation to have the same rules for everyone, because it helps to ensure that I can go hog wild running the game absolutely by the seat of my pants.

But huge swaths of players also aren’t willing to accept “the DM can just fix it” answers, at least rhetorically.

They also don’t care that D&D races aren’t ethnicities but species. They’re playing a humanoid sapient being, and it just feels gross to see the rules of the game say that their physically lazy nerd Minotaur librarian is still stronger than a human farmer because your race determines how strong you start out as. None of the counter arguments about math matter.

Even the “16 at level 1” thing isn’t actually about the 16 for a lot of people, it’s that the lesser starting stat comes from their race.
 

Stormonu

Legend
Has anyone on here ever run into. a DM that wouldn't let a player have their character take some extra weakness? (Say to decline to take an ASI or to put 6 somewhere instead of 8 as a low array score or to not be tough or lucky). Unless the player was going to do a parody of someone with a disability I think I'd be fine with that.
Eh, I can't say I've stopped someone, but I certainly wouldn't let someone do something that dragged the entire party down because they couldn't pull their weight.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Plenty of humans are serious, honest, and gruff while still being charismatic.

And apparently, no dwarf could ever be as good a musician as a human, as intimidating as a human, or as persuasive as a human because all dwarfs are serious, honest, and gruff. It must be absolutely exhausting to be a friendly and cheerful dwarf, since they have to force themselves to act in that way. They must be like the opposite of a person with ASD, where instead of masking to appear normal they have to mask to appear abnormal.


OR! It could be that people don't want to pigeonhole entire races as being gruff and surly. It's lazy to write it so that every member of any one race will have the exact same type of personality. Not even every member of a breed of animals that's been specifically bred to have a single temperament will actually have that temperament. With a self-aware, fully-sapient race? Heck no. The idea is ridiculous, and it's even more ridiculous to say "since dwarfs are surly, they get a penalty to a stat that's only tangentally related to surliness and will penalize them in things that have nothing to do with surliness."

If all you can "really hear" is that people are complaining about their character, maybe you need to listen a bit more.
I think you're right in principle, but in my experience, I've never heard anyone make these complaints in an actual game when it didn't affect their personal PC. The broad (and perfectly valid) issues you're describing tend to be made manifest on forums and the like, but in game, there always seems to be a PC who doesn't like their stat penalty at the heart of it. I'm glad to hear that isn't the case with you.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Has anyone on here ever run into. a DM that wouldn't let a player have their character take some extra weakness? (Say to decline to take an ASI or to put 6 somewhere instead of 8 as a low array score or to not be tough or lucky). Unless the player was going to do a parody of someone with a disability I think I'd be fine with that.
Happens in every game I run. We roll stats, and in practice most of the party has a demonstrably crappy stat  somewhere.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Eh, I can't say I've stopped someone, but I certainly wouldn't let someone do something that dragged the entire party down because they couldn't pull their weight.
So players in your game are expected to optimize?

I ask because it sure sounds that way, when you state you "wouldn't let someone" play a character who isn't up to snuff.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top