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

[Mind of tempest]

Quotations about hobbits from Tolkien's private letters.

Letter #17

I cannot think of anything more to say about hobbits. Mr Baggins seems to have exhibited so fully both the Took and the Baggins side of their nature.

Letter #131 footnote

The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves) – hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth. They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man – though not with either the smallness or the savageness of Swift, and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men 'at a pinch'.

Letter #178

[The Shire] is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee [1897]

Letter #180

The hobbits had been welcomed. I loved them myself, since I love the vulgar and simple as dearly as the noble, and nothing moves my heart (beyond all the passions and heartbreaks of the world) so much as 'ennoblement' (from the Ugly Duckling to Frodo).

Letter #246

He [Sam Gamgee] is a more representative hobbit than any others that we have to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a vulgarity – by which I do not mean a mere 'down-to-earthiness' – a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional 'wisdom'.

Letter #281

Hobbits were a breed of which the chief physical mark was their stature; and the chief characteristic of their temper was the almost total eradication of any dormant 'spark', only about one per mil had any trace of it. Bilbo was specially selected by the authority and insight of Gandalf as abnormal: he had a good share of hobbit virtues: shrewd sense, generosity, patience and fortitude, and also a strong 'spark' yet unkindled.

so some of the utterly unpleasant people you would ever meet without even a spark to be something more?

 

[jayoungr]

But it does sound like your DM might confuse this, and forget his players and the game itself in the process. It sounds like his worldbuilding would be better suited to story writing, or simply for the fun of worldbuilding (as a hobby/art form).

Not necessarily. I mean, some people love playing shardminds, to use your example! I think the DM is probably giving us the level of worldbuilding and range of choices he would want to have in a game he was playing. I would say the level of detail is not inconsistent with what I've seen in some published settings, anyway.

Out of curiosity, has he ever asked if you are interested in playing these sorts of alien races?

No, but if he did, I'd be diplomatic. I figure this is a "me problem," not a problem with his writing.

 

[Krachek]

For the design space matter, the new Tasha race rules may add some overwhelming work for DM. It‘s now core assumption that race can be good at any skill, be of any alignment.
That is opening up endless possibilities : My player want to be a cleric of a Lawful good orc god of knowledge!

 

[Mind of tempest]

For the design space matter, the new Tasha race rules may add some overwhelming work for DM. It‘s now core assumption that race can be good at any skill, be of any alignment.
That is opening up endless possibilities : My player want to be a cleric of a Lawful good orc god of knowledge!

that means world-building is going to get more complex.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For the design space matter, the new Tasha race rules may add some overwhelming work for DM. It‘s now core assumption that race can be good at any skill, be of any alignment.
That is opening up endless possibilities : My player want to be a cleric of a Lawful good orc god of knowledge!

It's both good and bad. Getting rid of species-wide alignment is of course a pure plus, but removing mechanical widgets that are tied to the lineage, (ASIs, skills, tool and weapon profiencies etc) makes differentiating the lineages mechanically harder. If lineages are to be more customisable, then it would make sense to get rid of subraces as a rules concept. Instead of having seven thousand different predetermined splats for elf subraces, you just have one flexible elf lineage that you can customise to represent whatever subgroups that might exist in the setting.

 

[Faolyn]

It's both good and bad. Getting rid of species-wide alignment is of course a pure plus, but removing mechanical widgets that are tied to the lineage, (ASIs, skills, tool and weapon profiencies etc) makes differentiating the lineages mechanically harder. If lineages are to be more customisable, then it would make sense to get rid of subraces as a rules concept. Instead of having seven thousand different predetermined splats for elf subraces, you just have one flexible elf lineage that you can customise to represent whatever subgroups that might exist in the setting.

That's why you need to have the lineage/culture divide, and then just make a Hobbiton culture with all those tools and skills built in.

(But yes, there should be one basic elf chassis.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

That's why you need to have the lineage/culture divide, and then just make a Hobbiton culture with all those tools and skills built in.

(But yes, there should be one basic elf chassis.)

this, I think this would help.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with the OP.

Halflings are in D&D because they are Hobbits but TSR was prevented by IPR to use the original name. Through editions they tried to make Halflings a thing of their own, but IMHO they work best as Hobbits: unlikely heroes whose stature (smaller than every other core race at least in some editions) and nature (peaceful, pastoral and valuing comforts over action) hides the possibility that some of them can instead become saviours of the world through willpower, bravery and a bit of luck.

My opinion is that it's best to make them as much Tolkien as you can, as was the original intention of D&D, and you might as well openly call them Hobbits in your private games, or don't feature them at all in the game.

 

[Mercurius]

This thread has me thinking about one of my other pet peeve tropes: i.e., that humanity's superpower is its versatility or adaptability. But I suspect that it's motivated from trying to avoid making too strong a statement about humanity and spinning something generic and inoffensive into something positive.

I would probably flat-out give humans a niche. I would say that other ancestries believe humans have a bizarre, fetishized obsession with trade, commerce, and wealth. But this obsession is the reason humans forge empires, start wars, establish global trade networks, form cosmopolitan communities, or even cooperate with other peoples, cultures, and ancestries.

I dunno, I think the versatility makes sense as it is a reflection of (or fantasy version of) our place in our own, real-world natural system. We are super versatile and will always be the default or baseline to compare all other fantasy races to, even if humans don't exist in a setting (e.g. Talislanta). So you start with humans, and then you vary it by different degrees and in different ways, and everyone from that baseline is inherently more specialized or niche.

The other thing is that humans are always presented as "general human" in the core rules, rather than specific cultural groups. Nonhuman races (and more so, sub-races) are more specific, and feel closer to human cultural/ethnic groups. In specific settings, humans will feel less generalized as the specific national groups, cultures, etc, are explored.

 

[Mercurius]

Not necessarily. I mean, some people love playing shardminds, to use your example! I think the DM is probably giving us the level of worldbuilding and range of choices he would want to have in a game he was playing. I would say the level of detail is not inconsistent with what I've seen in some published settings, anyway.


No, but if he did, I'd be diplomatic. I figure this is a "me problem," not a problem with his writing.

I appreciate you taking responsibility, and I also respect the creative work your DM obviously puts into his world-building. I'm just saying that, when it comes down to it, an RPG is a co-creative experience, and the needs and desires of players should be kept in mind. A balance is possible, but it is easy to go too far one way or the other (that is, DM control vs. player entitlement).