D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[doctorbadwolf]

I really don't understand why some folks think that halflings need to have a big impact on history in order to "deserve" their place as a common race in dnd. It's just a really strange notion, to me.

Why does it matter whether they have empires or great wars or move international politics?

Further, it's a good thing that there is a common race that doesn't do any of that. The game would lose a certain fullness, like mole without chocolate. Halflings are important because they're a large segment of the population, and they thus impact the broad culture of a given region, and help shape what a city or town looks like. They don't tend to insulate into exclusive enclaves within a city like dwarves and elves, instead being happy to live right alongside members of other communities. Their own villages tend to be out of the way, quiet, and easy to miss.

Halflings are like the broadly archetypal Canadians. No one puts Canada's army in the history books, because they don't start wars and no one starts wars with them, but when their allies go to war, especially when they go to war because someone else started it, they march with them, and they fight with a stunning ferocity and loyalty. The rest of the time, they're welcoming, they take care of their folks, and they don't try to push others around.

There are evil halflings out there, but they're fairly rare. It's also rare that a halfling lacks curiosity, or the ability to defend themselves. In past editions this was modeled by making halflings extra good with the ultimate simple weapon, the sling, and I think that should have been kept in some form.

They're fun to play, and they contribute to the world feeling real and inhabited.

 

[Krachek]

When I think of a setting, I think in terms of "foreground" and "background". The foreground is the minimalist essence that defines the setting and sets the tone. The foreground includes which characters are the main characters, which lineages are the main lineages, which places are the main places. How do these fundamental elements of the story interrelate to each other? There is no room to waste space.

The background is different, any thing could be there out in the periphery.

The Players Handbook puts the Halfling front-and-center among the four lineages in the foreground. Compared to the Human, Elf, and Dwarf, the Halfling needs to be pruned to make the foreground tighter.

There is nothing tight related to Hobbits. Unnoticeable. Tolkien don’t even mention when they appear in Arda, and before the Hobbit, they didn't have any impact on Tolkien world. It could be the same in any setting. A setting don’t have to fulfill the lore for everything since the creation.

 

[Yaarel]

Halflings are like the broadly archetypal Canadians. No one puts Canada's army in the history books, because they don't start wars and no one starts wars with them, but when their allies go to war, especially when they go to war because someone else started it, they march with them, and they fight with a stunning ferocity and loyalty. The rest of the time, they're welcoming, they take care of their folks, and they don't try to push others around.

So, the Hin are a Human ethnic group.

That is kinda the point of the original post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I was thinking of the film genre where young Humans go on an adventure.

Sure, I guess that is kind of the similar sort of appeal. Small people having big adventures.

 

[Yaarel]

There is nothing tight related to Hobbits. Unnoticeable. Tolkien don’t even mention when they appear in Arda, and before the Hobbit, they didn't have any impact on Tolkien world. It could be the same in any setting. A setting don’t have to fulfill the lore for everything since the creation.

In the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbits are central to the setting concept. Their innocence and lack of ambition makes them the only ethnic group that is uncorrupted by the Ring, which is the main plot.

(And yeah, in the context of Tolkien making folkbelief magical creatures mostly nonmagical and humanized, I do mean "ethnic group". Not to mention, the ethnic group is England, and the characters are ex-pats.)

By the way, the Hobbit is Tolkiens version of a magical creature. The Hobbit is actually the "hob", who is a house sprite, whence the love and need to be at home.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Halflings are fine, the endless amount of "the problem with halflings" threads on the other hand...

I understand it's annoying, but if they weren't an issue, why would people be complaining about them as commonly as they are? (I'm not saying that complaining about something makes that be a problem, but I'm saying that the first sign of a problem is complaint.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

except that if you remove all hobbits from Lord of the Rings, the quest would have fail and Sauron would rule the world. Indeed nothing change!

I never said they did not fit in lotr just outside of Tolkien they do not fit.

Yes. I think so.

It is no different from bringing in a Dragonborn to Dark Sun. In that setting, this lineage isnt part of the foreground. But, if the player is desperate to play one, the DM can figure out how it relates to the foreground. Maybe, the Dragonborn has something to do with the Sorcerer Kings. Maybe the Dragonborn is the result of a mad-science arcane magic experiment. In any case, the Dragonborn character is rare or unique within the setting, or at least from somewhere far away in the periphery. The character has little or no impact on the rest of the tone of the setting.

Likewise, even tho the Halfling contributes less to (any?) D&D setting, a DM can make room for a Halfling character if a player wants to invest in one. The DM can think about how the Halfling relates to the setting foreground. A simple solution is the Halfling is actually a little Human.

I approach the D&D game as players play a character, and the DM plays a world. I consider the setting a kind of character. Generally, a player has complete control over their own character concept. The DM has complete control over the setting. When a player wants something that fits less well into the setting, I consider it the responsibility of the DM to figure out how to make the desire of a player happen. At the same time, I consider it the responsibility of the player to work with the setting and even to try invest in the setting. Any negotiations between DM and player are in good faith.

Dragonborn are dray in 4e look it up.
personally, I like a tightly built setting just one which is wide in the kind of plots you can do.

I really don't understand why some folks think that halflings need to have a big impact on history in order to "deserve" their place as a common race in dnd. It's just a really strange notion, to me.

Why does it matter whether they have empires or great wars or move international politics?

Further, it's a good thing that there is a common race that doesn't do any of that. The game would lose a certain fullness, like mole without chocolate. Halflings are important because they're a large segment of the population, and they thus impact the broad culture of a given region, and help shape what a city or town looks like. They don't tend to insulate into exclusive enclaves within a city like dwarves and elves, instead being happy to live right alongside members of other communities. Their own villages tend to be out of the way, quiet, and easy to miss.

Halflings are like the broadly archetypal Canadians. No one puts Canada's army in the history books, because they don't start wars and no one starts wars with them, but when their allies go to war, especially when they go to war because someone else started it, they march with them, and they fight with a stunning ferocity and loyalty. The rest of the time, they're welcoming, they take care of their folks, and they don't try to push others around.

There are evil halflings out there, but they're fairly rare. It's also rare that a halfling lacks curiosity, or the ability to defend themselves. In past editions this was modeled by making halflings extra good with the ultimate simple weapon, the sling, and I think that should have been kept in some form.

They're fun to play, and they contribute to the world feeling real and inhabited.

name a nation or a culture without a history, the halflings could have been made two seconds ago and nothing changes, it is not logical or even reasonable I need the sense that they did things or had things happen to them otherwise you have no story with them.
the Canadian army was known to be apparently terrifying in world war two plus you can still look them up they did things halflings literally did nothing other than building a house and smoke since their creation, look I am not ambitious but that is just nuts.

There is nothing tight related to Hobbits. Unnoticeable. Tolkien don’t even mention when they appear in Arda, and before the Hobbit, they didn't have any impact on Tolkien world. It could be the same in any setting. A setting don’t have to fulfill the lore for everything since the creation.

it would be nice to explain them at some point as dnd is not a novel sooner or later you should explain the fourth most common race in the setting as that just makes sense but they can't as there is nothing to work with or inspire.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You could just as easily reverse that, to be fair. What would change if Dakaan was an ancient Halfling empire?

Well, for one, it wouldn't have the three goblinoids as a part of it. There's also the fact that Dhakaan is compelling because it takes a spin on typically evil races and gives them an interesting and compelling culture and acceptable motivations for disliking humanity. IMO, that story would be much worse if you were to just change the nation of typically monstrous races of Goblins, Bugbears, and Hobgoblins to the bland short people of Halflings.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, the Hin are a Human ethnic group.

That is kinda the point of the original post.

No.

 

[Yaarel]

Halflings are like the broadly archetypal Canadians, ... they don't start wars and no one starts wars with them.

Actually, if there was ever a war between the US and the old USSR, the first things that Russia would do, would be kill everyone in Toronto in a nuclear holocaust, so as to interfere with the steel industry of the US. Russia would invade Norway in a blitzkrieg, because the Norwegian fjords were resistant to nuclear warfare. If a nuke went off in one fjord, the neighboring fjords would be less affected. Russia declassified this information some time ago.