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

[Hussar]

Thanks @Cadence. My googl fu failed me and I only found an old set of stats.

 

[Greg K]

I think this was due to the idea there would be big pushback against them. You see the same in 13th Age. A product of the edition war - people hated 4e so they hated everything about 4e

Personally, I think there was a lot of good things about 4e. For my preferences, Dragonborn and Tieflings were not among them. However, my dislike for Tieflings as PCs (regardless of the changes in 4e and 5e) goes back to 2e and my dislike for Dragonborn predates 4e and is just a continuation of my dislike for similar concepts in 3e supplements.

 

[Don Durito]

Personally, I think there was a lot of good things about 4e. For my preferences, Dragonborn and Tieflings were not among them. However, my dislike for Tieflings as PCs (regardless of the changes in 4e and 5e) goes back to 2e and my dislike for Dragonborn predates 4e and is just a continuation of my dislike for similar concepts in 3e supplements.

I'm not saying that's the only reason to dislike them.

It's just that I think the idea that were was a particular deep and lasting animus towards these two particular D&D races that warranted specific kid glove treatment in the PHB hasn't really seemed to pan out.

Gnomes, Half Elves, and Half-Orcs got the uncommon race treatment, so it seems to be mostly a recognition that these three races were not historically included in a lot of the classic settings. There were no Orcs in Dragonlance or Dark Sun and no Gnomes in Dark Sun or Birthright. (Every setting had half-elves (I think...maybe not Birthright?) so I don't know why they were uncommon).

The implication that every setting has Elves, Dwarves and Halflings seems a little odd, but I guess that historically, in terms of official settings that's true.

I guess it could be argued that it also implies that the GM should include them in any setting they create, but that sort of flies in the face other things in the book and ultimately seems pretty meaningless anyway. (You know, my book, I'll do what I want with it).

 

[jayoungr]

If it has to be done by the players, then it isn't fixing the world-building issue.

World building isn’t important. Races exist to facilitate the players in making player characters.

I'd like to zero back in on this exchange because I think it might actually be getting at where all these pages of discussion have been going. Because I'm willing to bet that virtually everyone in this discussion is a DM and therefore, on some level, a worldbuilder (or at least an interpreter of published worlds). And that means they may see issues that seem huge to them, but that their players don't notice or don't care about.

World Building is important. Many people find it much harder to make player characters if they don't understand where those player characters live.

I'm sure there are some, but I would need some convincing that it's a serious problem for a large percentage of players. Some players focus more on skills and personality than background; others have no problem saying "My character comes from a peaceful and boring little hamlet and couldn't wait to get out of there as soon as possible." And this thread, which is currently also on the front page, suggests that player interest in settings is highly variable:

D&D General - Do players REALLY care about the game world?

Over the decades of playing and running games and creating what I think of as fascinating worlds, I was informed in a non-insulting "yeah, cool. Nifty. Uh, when can we kick ass?" sort of way that my players don't really care about the world except in the context of having a place to adventure...

www.enworld.org

 

[jayoungr]

I just loathe the fact that D&D can never break the shackles of Tolkienism and remains mired in dead authors.

I'm really scratching my head at this one. You clearly have a set of ideals for D&D that I just can't wrap my head around. From your post, I get this whiff of an idea that newer fantasy represents some kind of progress, moving toward something that's objectively better than older stuff?

To me, D&D is a tool for telling adventure stories about characters. Having a range of options for those characters, drawing inspiration from both classic and contemporary fantasy, seems like a good thing.

 

[Mind of tempest]

That’s a fair point, but what I was more challenging is the particular ideas of animism that they tend to speak of as if it’s a well established fact, rather than a thing not all experts on Norse beliefs and culture agree on.

Hell yeah. I tend to use halflings in ways where they have only gone to war for defense of thier homes or thier allies’ homes, and fight very well and fiercely when they have to, but would rather avoid a fight. The one thing I use from MToF for them is that their games are also training systems. Every halfling in my games also is proficient with slings, and halfling commoners are proficient with stealth and either athletics or acrobatics, and know how to coordinate to a greater degree than I assume for humans, because they grow up training to defend thier homes.

Yeeeaah. “Debate me or you’re a bad person”.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, sorry.

that sat halflings are just nothing but ordinary people is insane as literally, every race has to produce lots of ordinary people if they want a working society, thus it is not a point to the halflings

 

[Mind of tempest]

I'd like to zero back in on this exchange because I think it might actually be getting at where all these pages of discussion have been going. Because I'm willing to bet that virtually everyone in this discussion is a DM and therefore, on some level, a worldbuilder (or at least an interpreter of published worlds). And that means they may see issues that seem huge to them, but that their players don't notice or don't care about.



I'm sure there are some, but I would need some convincing that it's a serious problem for a large percentage of players. Some players focus more on skills and personality than background; others have no problem saying "My character comes from a peaceful and boring little hamlet and couldn't wait to get out of there as soon as possible." And this thread, which is currently also on the front page, suggests that player interest in settings is highly variable:

D&D General - Do players REALLY care about the game world?

Over the decades of playing and running games and creating what I think of as fascinating worlds, I was informed in a non-insulting "yeah, cool. Nifty. Uh, when can we kick ass?" sort of way that my players don't really care about the world except in the context of having a place to adventure...

www.enworld.org

I am primarily a player and have never dmed and I care for more than stats as I look for something to inspire me about the race if I want to play one.

This is great.

I play the Halfling as mercantile river nomads. Sometimes they settle down among sedentary populations. In some Human cities, the Halflings integrate well, sometimes mixing in, sometimes forming neighborhoods.

Your description is great for what it looks like, when Halflings settle down among Dwarves.

I have to ask why use halflings for that role literally any race fits in about as well so why halflings?

See my point earlier in the thread was:

Halflings aren't very interesting but are very malleable and easy to rework in interesting ways.

Elves and Dwarves aren't very interesting and aren't really all that easy to rework in interesting ways and still appeal to the players who want to play them.

Halflings, are easy to use, and to adapt to something that doesn't feel like it belongs in a twee 1980s fat fantasy epic.

Elves and Dwarves are best replaced with something else: Shifters, or Kenku or Firbolg or something.

To me that's a score for halflings.

My priority for D&D is that it be a toolkit, or a smorgasboard of options. So I'm opposed to making Halflings less malleable.

I would argue that halflings are not malleable at all the player of halflings are into the stats for them or they just want to be a hobbit, so people who want lucky or bilbo.

This thread is taking trollish proportion. Not surprising, troll don’t even agree on how to properly cook a dwarf, so cooking a halfling is even more debatable!

you mince then turn them into a burger barbecue them then cote the meat in apple and lemon with a dusting of sugar.

Hm..here's a thread from a few.montha ago on Halflings and Gnomes. Some repeats from the last 40+ pages, but a few things that at least feel new after the past few dozen. D&D General - why do we have halflings and gnomes?

It made it to 104 pages and I'm only up to number 2 though. Still, gives this thread something to strive for in length!

you mean my thread yeah, I now get the basic slot halflings and gnomes fit into setting wise but halflings are still terribly done.

Or maybe, just maybe, like the last time this came up a lot of people like halflings the way they are.

The core races all represent at their base an aspect of humanity. Elves are back to nature types, dwarves are no-no sense hard workers. Halflings? Happy pastoral types, the literal "little people" that are happy being farmers or shopkeepers. Sometimes they go on walkabout before settling down.

I enjoy playing that happy-go-lucky PC. A lot of people do. Just because that's not what you want doesn't mean it's a problem for the majority of people.

you honestly want the fourth most common to have no real goals or history in a setting and not even the choice of whether it is happy go lucky? what is the point of them they are like goliaths just one archetype pretending to be a race.

Personally, I think there was a lot of good things about 4e. For my preferences, Dragonborn and Tieflings were not among them. However, my dislike for Tieflings as PCs (regardless of the changes in 4e and 5e) goes back to 2e and my dislike for Dragonborn predates 4e and is just a continuation of my dislike for similar concepts in 3e supplements.

can you list them it might be at least interesting?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some players focus more on skills and personality than background; others have no problem saying "My character comes from a peaceful and boring little hamlet and couldn't wait to get out of there as soon as possible."

Yep, and I’ve never had any trouble making a halfling in any world. I’m currently working on a character, and part of how I’m trying him to the setting is to figure out his family, where his home is, what they make, what trade his parents do, who he grew up with, just like I would for a small town American in a modern game.

Id that game were an FR game, I’d read up on the FR halfling gods, and talk to my DM about Kenderising them in the sense of telling their stories more as a “Uncle Brandobaris did XYZ” and “Gramma Yondalla always says such and such”.

that sat halflings are just nothing but ordinary people is insane as literally, every race has to produce lots of ordinary people if they want a working society, thus it is not a point to the halflings

I…don’t understand how you can not get it.

The point isn’t that they are nothing but ordinary folks. The point is that they are a race whose primary place in the world is to just be folks. Every race has strong people, that doesn’t make Goliath a bad race.

Further, Halflings are “just folks” in a way that no one else is, because Halflings are underestimated, assumed to be jovial nobodies, they’re smaller than even gnomes, they have no magic, they’re just brave, and lucky, and loyal to their friends, and about community, and that’s enough.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yep, and I’ve never had any trouble making a halfling in any world. I’m currently working on a character, and part of how I’m trying him to the setting is to figure out his family, where his home is, what they make, what trade his parents do, who he grew up with, just like I would for a small town American in a modern game.

Id that game were an FR game, I’d read up on the FR halfling gods, and talk to my DM about Kenderising them in the sense of telling their stories more as a “Uncle Brandobaris did XYZ” and “Gramma Yondalla always says such and such”.

I…don’t understand how you can not get it.

The point isn’t that they are nothing but ordinary folks. The point is that they are a race whose primary place in the world is to just be folks. Every race has strong people, that doesn’t make Goliath a bad race.

Further, Halflings are “just folks” in a way that no one else is, because Halflings are underestimated, assumed to be jovial nobodies, they’re smaller than even gnomes, they have no magic, they’re just brave, and lucky, and loyal to their friends, and about community, and that’s enough.

I am suggesting that "just folks" be a plus as by necessity every race produces lots of that category of people if it wants a society, so the latter half of you pint all piles to everyone and the former applies to every small race so I could replace them in the PHB with goblins and nothing would change.

 

[Hussar]

I'm really scratching my head at this one. You clearly have a set of ideals for D&D that I just can't wrap my head around. From your post, I get this whiff of an idea that newer fantasy represents some kind of progress, moving toward something that's objectively better than older stuff?

To me, D&D is a tool for telling adventure stories about characters. Having a range of options for those characters, drawing inspiration from both classic and contemporary fantasy, seems like a good thing.

And, if they were drawing from contemporary authors, I'd be perfectly happy. Good grief, it took until 4e just to get a non-tolkien race (other than gnomes I suppose) into the PHB in the first place. 5e has Dragonborn and Tieflings and then the standard Tolkien races, despite the fact that we've had rather a lot of genre fiction in the intervening time.

But, as I said, there is zero chance that the Tolkien fans will ever allow the removal of a single element from the PHB. It's just never happening. Heck, in 4e, they made halflings river dwelling traders, and people lost their collective minds. How DARE WotC change halflings. Hell, there was quite a lot of kvetching from various quarters about 3e's changes to halflings and those weren't even that extreme.

See, I have no problems with having halflings in the game. But, since so few people actually play them, why not stuff them into the Monster Manual (where people who want ot play halflings still have the option) and then free up the space for something that people will play?

Like I said though, this will never, ever happen. The shackles of Tolkien on the hobby will never go away.