D&D General why do we have halflings and gnomes?

[Minigiant]

Oooor, not imagine the world as under so much constant attack that agrarian societies can't form independent of naughty words what give themselves crowns for stabbing people.

I'm not claiming D&D assumes a death world.
I'm saying D&D assumes a Medieval feudalism base then plucks halflings out of it and replaces that trope with nothing.
And someone mentions that the hole the game dug is empty, the response is "you fix it".

Except they do work for most people with just the base assumptions. If they don't work for you, that's a personal problem. No game can be everything for everyone. There's plenty of lore from previous editions and campaigns that you can import.

Or just don't use them.

They work in the base assumption because the players fill the holeorwait X years for a race book to fill it.
My problem is why D&D dug this extra hole it the first place and didn't fill it when they first adapted the race to a new assumption.

It's like putting TMNT in D&D sewers then specifically stating the lack of delivery pizza and of rodent ninjutsu masters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're the only one (well, you and @tetrasodium) making the assumption that every region in every campaign world is dangerous. That assumption is so illogical and obviously untrue I shouldn't even have to state that it's ludicrous. Yet here we are.

Showed you a map of Faerun. Seemed pretty dangerous

Show me any fluff in any book that states what percentage of humans are soldiers, what standard defenses are that is not campaign and region specific.

Really? Sure, I'll just whip out the 5e "Guards about town book" that gives precise percentages of something that has no associated setting.

How about I do this instead. 5e does have tables for generating random locations in towns and cities, as well as random events. This include harassment by 1d4+1 guards, it includes heavily guarded warehouses as well as warehouses full of armor and weapons.

Oh, here is a fun table, 15% chance that any residence you encounter is either a hidden den of slavers, a front for a cult, or a heavily guarded manor. Also, under the calamity section there is a 30% chance that the calamity is related to being besieged or some sort of monster attack or problem.

But none of this matter right? You are declaring victory because no one ever wrote that in 5e 10% of the male population is a guard no matter the setting or region. Doesn't matter how ubiquitous any monsters, guards, pictures in the DMG of towns with walls, none of it matters. Because I can't quote setting neutral requirements of exact guard percentages

 

[Chaosmancer]

Trading goods for money = selling. Trading one thing for another = trading. At least in 5e and how people commonly look at it. When I played magic, I sold cards for cash, but traded a bunch of rares for a Black Lotus(which I wish I still had). Your technicality doesn't change that.

A distinction without purpose. Trade is trade. Money wasn't even common for people to use until the renaissance in Europe.

No. They don't. One mule trading once in a while isn't going to need a well worn path.

Once in a while, how do you justify that?

Sure, it will be more often than every 6 months, but it's not going to be daily or weekly, either. There will probably be a light trail of some sort.

At least you finally admit there will be a trail.

Because yes, even if you travel a road once every month, after a few years, it gets to be obviously worn. Which brings us back to people following the road

I reject your False Dichotomy as False.

I reject your non-argument as non-argumentative.

You want to make a distinction between trade that involves money and trade that does not involve money... because reasons. Trade is trade. You can sell a cow for a mule and a horse. Just because money doesn't change hands doesn't change that.

 

[Oofta]

They work in the base assumption because the players fill the holeorwait X years for a race book to fill it.
My problem is why D&D dug this extra hole it the first place and didn't fill it when they first adapted the race to a new assumption.

It's like putting TMNT in D&D sewers then specifically stating the lack of delivery pizza and of rodent ninjutsu masters.

You know this ... how? For the most part I use the base assumptions from the current edition. They work just fine. Without evidence to the contrary, it's just personal preference and opinion. That's fine, make halflings work for you. I certainly tweak gnomes (and goblins) in my world to make them more interesting.

So I still don't know what you would want or expect. No they don't have kingdoms, large standing armies or other aspects that some other races have. They have as much or more lore as many of the other races.

 

[Oofta]

Showed you a map of Faerun. Seemed pretty dangerous



Really? Sure, I'll just whip out the 5e "Guards about town book" that gives precise percentages of something that has no associated setting.

How about I do this instead. 5e does have tables for generating random locations in towns and cities, as well as random events. This include harassment by 1d4+1 guards, it includes heavily guarded warehouses as well as warehouses full of armor and weapons.

Oh, here is a fun table, 15% chance that any residence you encounter is either a hidden den of slavers, a front for a cult, or a heavily guarded manor. Also, under the calamity section there is a 30% chance that the calamity is related to being besieged or some sort of monster attack or problem.

But none of this matter right? You are declaring victory because no one ever wrote that in 5e 10% of the male population is a guard no matter the setting or region. Doesn't matter how ubiquitous any monsters, guards, pictures in the DMG of towns with walls, none of it matters. Because I can't quote setting neutral requirements of exact guard percentages

I'm done arguing with you and your cherry picking of lore. Have a good one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Show me the RAW that says game black pepper mirrors the real life growing conditions of black pepper. In my experience, plants just grow in D&D. If you want to play Farmers & Almanacs, go for it. I'm happy playing D&D where plants just grow.

Well, what an argument

Plants just grow, we don't need to worry about things like common sense and logic. Lets have catcus in the tundra and pine trees in the desert.

Yeah, no, Rejecting the idea that plants somehow just magically grow where ever.

That's not true. If it was, you wouldn't find it in every city like it is. Clearly there's also a non-druid market of some sort for it, which is why druids get luck and can just buy it wherever.

Or the game provided that cost for a druid to buy one, because it is important to the character.

Otherwise your argument would mean that every village, even without a blacksmith, carries 15,000 gold plate armor. Which would be weird, unless everyone was buying armor for soldier to defend themselves from monsters....

 

[Chaosmancer]

So I guess I'm just not seeing what extra work you need to do. They leaned into The Hobbit a little too much (but then ignored the rogue aspect) for my tastes, that doesn't invalidate them.

I wonder how many times I have to repeat that I don't want to invalidate halflings until someone remembers that I keep saying that.

I'm just saying the lore doesn't work as written. That isn't a declaration of erasing them from existance or throwing them from my games. It just means they aren't making sense as written.

 

[Minigiant]

You know this ... how? For the most part I use the base assumptions from the current edition. They work just fine. Without evidence to the contrary, it's just personal preference and opinion. That's fine, make halflings work for you. I certainly tweak gnomes (and goblins) in my world to make them more interesting.

So I still don't know what you would want or expect. No they don't have kingdoms, large standing armies or other aspects that some other races have. They have as much or more lore as many of the other races.

Game assumes Medieval Feudalism
Medieval Feudalism is how most of the game's lore and rules work
Game plucks halflings out of Medieval Feudalism
Game waits 3+ years explain how halflings work outside of Medieval Feudalism with a different reason every other time.
Rinse and repeat

I want D&D to stop doing that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I still don't understand the issue. You feel halfllings as hobbits don't make sense? Make them something slightly different that does make sense?

It's D&D. It doesn't come with a setting. It comes with some optional bland fluff. Just use your option.

Making the races cohere with your understanding of how the setting works is entirely up to you.

Which I do.

Because the lore doesn't make sense.

And then people flock to tell me that the problem is me, that the lore is perfect, that I should be changing everything else because I have created a deathworld where no life can survive.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, what an argument

Plants just grow, we don't need to worry about things like common sense and logic. Lets have catcus in the tundra and pine trees in the desert.

Sure, but who cares where pepper grows vs. lettuce. Cactus in tundra is not equivalent.

Yeah, no, Rejecting the idea that plants somehow just magically grow where ever.

D&D doesn't care. If you do, homebrew your game to mirror Earth. I'm not going to bother.