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

[Paul Farquhar]

But there's a big difference between Player Characters and worldbuilding.

Definately.

In my experience, plenty of players like playing halflings.

Yup, just had another one turn up!

The failure lies entirely on setting writers never even attempting to include them meaningfully in the worldbuilding.

The setting writers don't need to include them. By their nature they keep out of things and avoid notice. It doesn't matter if the PC halflings are the only halflings in the game.

 

[Cadence]

Just to add to @Chaosmancer's point, all you have to do is look in the DMG for race specific magic items. That right there gives more lore to dwarves and elves. Do halflings even have a race specific magic item in the DMG?

Or, think of it this way. Dwarf = Axe. Elf = Bow. Halfling = ? It took Dragonlance to give them a hoopak and that hasn't even managed to make it's way into mainstream D&D.

Again, it all comes down to archetypes. Halflings just don't have the traction that other races have.

I thought halfling was sling or just throwing a stone.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Definately.

Yup, just had another one turn up!

The setting writers don't need to include them. By their nature they keep out of things and avoid notice. It doesn't matter if the PC halflings are the only halflings in the game.

then why have something you never going to use in a setting, if you give players an option it should be used in the setting.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

then why have something you never going to use in a setting, if you give players an option it should be used in the setting.

Why? Do rabbits exist in your setting? Do you describe their cities and empires? Strange quarks exist in RL, but don't play any role in conventional physics. Sometimes things just exist because they exist.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Why? Do rabbits exist in your setting? Do you describe their cities and empires? Strange quarks exist in RL, but don't play any role in conventional physics. Sometimes things just exist because they exist.

halflings, unlike rabbits, are player-facing and what the player gets to choose should at least a bit matter in setting otherwise what is the point in letting them pick it?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

halflings, unlike rabbits, are player-facing and what the player gets to choose should at least a bit matter in setting otherwise what is the point in letting them pick it?

Because they want to.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Because they want to.

when you should make it good for them, make it matter.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

when you should make it good for them, make it matter.

The whole point of playing a halfling is they don't matter. People choose them because they don't want to be associated with war, imperialism and aggression.

Consider Yoda. His species is basically Star Wars halfling. He doesn't need a whole planet full of yodas running round conquering the universe in order to exist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

While there's an element of "eye of the beholder", I also think there's an argument that, in a game that takes as its premise heroic adventurers motivated to confront the adventures and challenge the GM frames them into, lore about strife and enemies does more heavy lifting than lore about the love of simple things. We can see this in both The Hobbit and LotR. The love of simple things matters to the inner lives of the Hobbit protagonists, but - by default - that sort of inner life doesn't feature prominently in D&D play, does it?

It informs the attitude of the character. Sure, in D&D you're expect to face dangerous foes and harrowing situations. And a character who has some ancient grudge with orcs or whatever, who is used to thinking the world as place filled with such conflicts will react to that completely differently than one that doesn't have such a background, one who has generally optimistic attitude to life. Like contrast Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn with the hobbits in LotR.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, you decide to completely ignore the fact that I said, explicitly, "I'm not saying whether the lore is good or bad or if it resonates with someone, I'm saying it exists"


I mean, you are accusing me of saying that I find enemies more interesting, when I specifically said that all I was saying is that the lore exists. It is present. If elves have lore for friends and lore for enemies that is two units of lore. It is bigger than just having lore for friends, which is one unit of lore. If elves have lore for internal strife, then that is one unit of lore, and if halflings have no internal stife that is zero units of lore.

So, from those two things, elves have three units, and halflings have one unit. 3 > 1. Objectively bigger. Objectively more.

Objectively, as I stated, Elves and Dwarves have more lore. Elven and dwarven lore is objectively larger and more complex than halfling lore. I am making no claims about elf or dwarf lore being more interesting right now, that is subjective. But in terms of size, that is objective.

So, please do not accuse me of claiming my subjective opinion on intererst is objective. I am not saying that. I recognize it isn't. But, objectively, Elves and dwarves have more lore. That I will claim to be objective.

This is utterly bizarre way to count things. The writeups tell us how each of these species feels about each of the three other species. And it's not just enemy/friend, it in more nuanced than that even in those couple of sentences That's 'three units of lore' about this for each.

And you may keep saying that this is not about what you personally find interesting, but that's still just you failing to be objective. You're picking and choosing what sentences you choose to count as 'units of lore'. Is halflings being generous 'a unit of lore'? is elves being 'slow to make friends' 'a unit of lore'?