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

[Chaosmancer]

And D&D halflings don't have furry feet anymore, but we all still know where the tropes come from. Tall, graceful, magical, arrogant, forest-dwelling, archer elves and rugged, greedy, dour, taciturn, heavily-armored warrior dwarves didn't come from Lewis or Dunsany or Anderson or Norse mythology. Also:

"Elves often live to be over 1,200 years old, although long before this time they feel compelled to depart the realms of men and mortals. Where they go is uncertain, but it is an undeniable urge of their race." —2nd Ed. PHB

That ain't a riff on L. Frank Baum's version of elves, friend.

And now in 5th edition elves are reincarnated after their eyes show the symbol of Sehanine Moonbow. Or they are sealed in pocket dimensions of their own personal heaven while their greatest heroes are made deathless eternal rulers. Or whatever else there is

That ain't from Tolkien, Friend.

 

[lingual]

Yes, I do think that the majority of people would benefit from better halfling lore. And I think I have a good idea.

Are you offended that someone like their own idea and thinks that it is good? Are you offended that I want to improve the game long-term? Should I just shut up, sit down, and let things continue exactly as they were made 50 years ago when someone else had an idea they liked and thought the majority of people would find better than what already existed and many people were happy with. I'm sure plenty of people told Gygax and Arneson that they shouldn't bother making anything new, because many people were happy with the war games as they existed.


Seriously, why is it so offensive to people that I want to try and make things better? I'm not even advocating for huge sweeping changes that would invalidate halflings as they stand. I'm advocating for some rather small scale changes and expansions.

No. I dunno about others. Personally, I just think it's silly to suggest that halfling get errata'ed out of the Players Handbook. Dunno if it was you who wanted that. But others here suggested it. Like they want to ruin the fun for others.

Opinions are fine. They can get silly when they cross over and become requests or demands for official rules changes...like we are anything close to the average customer anyways. Opinions also get silly when ppl can't get the fact they might disagree.

I see this on this forum quite often. Some think they "own" the game. Being able to homebrew their own campaign isn't enough and they need validation that their view is the correct one over others and then the back and forth starts.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm just grabbing bits and pieces, I'm getting tired of repeating myself and going nowhere.

You are trying to draw a parallel between musical notes which have specific physical measurable mathematical relationships with each other to story setting thematics, which do not.

Even in music theory though, your "objective" components only exist in a shared cultural context. There are various instances of regional folk music that do not adhere to the "rules" for those components.

The last sentence there is literal nonsense. I suspect something got list in translation. The ability to use a particular piece of music in a scene has nothing to do with the existence of archetypes and tropes.

Actually, it does. Musical tropes exist. The dramatic swell of music before the final confrontation or somethign epic happening is a trope. A trope that can then be subverted by starting that swell, starting that moment, and then cutting it off as something less dramatic happens. Or by using that dramatic swell of music for something as simple as heating up a burrito in the microwave.

We might have less writable math involved, but story elements do have something measurable in them. We can tell when a scene goes on too long, or a moment is too short. Being less precise doesn't mean these things don't exist.

Are you claiming authoritative consensus, or not. That would be a different claim.

I don't think I could claim a true consensus without somehow being able to poll a far larger portion of the community than I have access to. However, I can go and find a few sources in a few moments to show that this is not simply my own personal observation.

My internet is currently spotty, but this link Tolkien and Dungeons & Dragons supposedly leads to an article that the preview says "In brief, D&D (as constructed by Gygax) is not an extension of Tolkien's secondary world; in many ways it lies entirely in opposition to its central themes and core values."

Once I can actually get my computer to go to the site, I plan on reading more of the article, but I think this is enough to at least show I'm not alone in this deduction.

So there's three things here.
1. Perhaps I need to read more criticism, but I rather suspect that claims of objective truth are rare, and frequently met with scorn.
2. And I haven't made this clear before, and I think it's one of the main reasons I find your claim so unbelievable, D&D is not a monolithic entity with one design intent and theme. The intents and themes are tied to the specific tables.
3. I didn't say all criticism is null and void. I said your particular criticism is not "proof" the assertion that hobbits "don't work in the D&D mythos"

I'm only going to address #2. DnD has its own set-up and its own tropes and themes. Yes, individual tables can change things and twist things one way or another, but to try and claim that each table is an island, and that DnD has no shared values is... just flat wrong. Yes, people can refine things in their own ways, but let us just take a single thing to prove my point. DnD magic is safe, and it does not harm a caster to cast magic.

Can an individual table change that? Sure, they can, but they are certainly changing a common core of DnD.

This is the closest you can come to a "fact"? You know what facts are, right?

Yes, I know what facts are. Is what I stated a fact? You aren't answering, you are deflecting.

An analogy.. I say "I have no interest in money.."
You say "Why don't you spend your time haggling with me over price?".

More accurate anology

"This is the price of this item compared to this other item"

"I have no interest in money, why are you being so elitist to put a price on things"

"IF you want to discuss the price, we can, but dismissing that prices are put on things at a basic level doesn't make any sense"

Fine.. whatever.
All Hobbits did the entire time was integrate themselves into like every society they came in contact with...again..whatever.

Not really? I don't believe Sam and Frodo integrated themselves into the Rangers, or into the lands of Mordor. I do believe Pippin as the King's Chancellor (I think that was the role he was given) was acting against the overwhelming society he found himself in.

But, you clearly don't care, so we can drop it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I do think that the majority of people would benefit from better halfling lore. And I think I have a good idea.

Are you offended that someone like their own idea and thinks that it is good? Are you offended that I want to improve the game long-term? Should I just shut up, sit down, and let things continue exactly as they were made 50 years ago when someone else had an idea they liked and thought the majority of people would find better than what already existed and many people were happy with. I'm sure plenty of people told Gygax and Arneson that they shouldn't bother making anything new, because many people were happy with the war games as they existed.


Seriously, why is it so offensive to people that I want to try and make things better? I'm not even advocating for huge sweeping changes that would invalidate halflings as they stand. I'm advocating for some rather small scale changes and expansions.

The issue I have is that you have appointed yourself as the person who, if you had the ability, would make changes that affect everyone else, because you seem to think you know better. This is a very individualistic game, where separate groups can do what they want, and it doesn't affect any other table. If you don't like something, change it for yourself and for others you game with (if they're ok with it). There are all sorts of things in 5e (like, really quite a few) that I wish were different. I've made many posts about things in the book I don't like. If I can get my players on board, I can make those changes, and they will affect my game. Others might like things as they are, and my changes would be unwelcome. That's fine, because what I want doesn't affect them. If you got what you want, it would. That's the difference. You want to change the book for everyone, because you think you know better.
If you want to change the game for everyone, go work for WotC, or make and publish your own version that handles halflings the way you want (non-existently, I suspect). If you do want to provide your own lore to others because you think its better, create your own version and publish it, or offer it for free as fan content. IMHO, going on about how the books should be changed to what you want seems arrogant.

 

[Cadence]

My dive into the old books to defend Halflings didn't get off to a good start...

From the 1e DMG pg. 16 (with the bolding being mine):

Halflings are quite similar to gnomes, although they eat more and drink less. They also are prone to favor natural beauty and the outdoors more they they do their burrows. They are not forward, but they are observant and conversational if in friendly company. Because they are more open and outgoing than either dwarves or elves, they get along with most other races far better than the former two do. Halflings see wealth as a means of gaining comforts only, for they love creature comforts. If they are not overly brave or ambitious, they are generally honest and hard-working when there is need. Halflings love stories and good jokes and are perhaps a trifle boring at times.

But it does turn up a few things I thought were interesting.

Here's from the the 1e MM pg 50 (see below for a distinction from gnomes)...

Halflings are basically hard-working, orderly and peaceful citizens of communities similar to humans - although their villages usually contain many burrow homes as well as surface cottages.
...
In natural terrain they must be treated as invisible if they have any form of vegetation in which to conceal themselves. They have no infravision. They shun water.

Halflings speak their own language, their alignment tongue, and the common speech. In addition they speak the language of gnomes, goblins, and orcs.
...
[Tallfellows] can speak elvish and are very friendly with elves.
...
[Stouts] have infravision and can detect sloping passageways. They have no fear of water and can swim. These halflings are able to speak dwarvish and enjoy dwarven company.

The first quote in the MM provides a contrast with what it says about gnomes. For the gnomes, it says that Dwarves are "their larger cousins" (1e MM pg. 46, and similarly on 1e PHB. pg. 16). On the other hand, reinforcing the MM quote, "[h]alflings are very much like small humans". (1e PHB, pg. 17).

Another difference between gnomes and halflings is that the former has a mutual hatred of goblins and kobolds. The 1e DD (pg. 109) explains that in part as the gnome's chief god Garl Glittergold was a "witty adventurer who collapsed the Kobold King's cavern" (in addition to being simply mischievous. On the other hand, the Halfling's Yondalla is "the Provider and Protector" who "can make barren things fertile and increase the growing rate of plants and animals to any speed she chooses." She "gives halflings the strength and determination to defend themselves" and "uses her illusionist powers to protect her worshipers." "Halflings set aside one day per week for worship of Yondalla (called "safeday"), a day which is most spent in rest and play." (1e DD pg. 110).

In contrast to this, a bunch of previous posts seem to liken gnomes more to elves than dwarves. What edition brought that change? In any case it looks like if we were simplifying based on the old days, Halflings might go with Humans while Gnomes might go with Dwarves.

Moldvay basic doesn't say much. (pg. B10) provides:

[Halflings] are outgoing but not unusually brave, seeking treasure as a way of gaining the comforts of home which they so dearly love.

while page B36 notes

Gnomes are a human-like race related to dwarves.

Of course, it notes (pg. B9) that:

The demi-human races are cousin species to humans.

So saying any of them is human-like is actually saying not much at all. The specifying of two of them being closely related feels like it provides more description - as they must all be cousin to each other as demi-humans, nothing more would need to be said if that was all that was meant.

 

[jayoungr]

Designers must be careful, because dividing up humans can become too much like reallife racism. But with caution, it can be done, but only if they feel significantly different from reallife humans.

As long as you get the minimum amount of differentiation, which I believe halfllings meet, then I think it's okay--important, even--to have a spectrum. I think most people, including the authors of the PHB, would agree that halflings are closer to humans than, say, dragonborn. A range of choices is a good thing.

By the way, you didn't answer my question about why you're unable to accept that some people find halflings to be sufficiently different from humans that they don't cause a problem. Why can't you just shrug and say "Oh well, different strokes and all that"?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Um...Black Widow has never lost most of her hearing because of her bravery. Clint is brave to the point of foolishness. It's part of why in the comics he has many ex-wives, but no stable relationships. He does what's right, even if it's terrifying, and even if it will probably suck. He is definitely noticeably more brave than most of the heroes he fights beside, even thought they are indeed quite brave.

I'm only really familiar with him from the movies, but it seems like you are describing a character flaw, "brave to the point of foolishness" which isn't something that people are saying about halflings. They are telling me that I must be able to show bravery.

This is a silly argument. The halfling is dramatically less likely to fail a save against being frightened. That is noticeably less susceptible to fear. If that doesn't stand out, something rather odd is happening.

Like being in an adventuring party full of people who are less susceptible to fear? Unless I'm throwing magical fear around all the time, then the halflings resistance isn't really coming up. And, if they and the elven fighter succeed... is it because the halfling was particularly brave? Are the characters who didn't resist the magical fear less brave?

It is a hard thing to show.

 

[jayoungr]

You know what, folks? I think I'm out of this thread.

It's clear that neither side is making headway with the other, and I'm just tired of it. So those I've been dialoguing with, feel free to respond to my points if you want, but I'm probably not going to post any more.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wouldn't Adventure in Middle Earth count?


They are a player race in MERP, and in The One Ring. I've already posted why I think that's a weakness in those systems for LotR-oriented RPGing, bit there's no denying that it's a part of those systems.

I thought Adventure in Middle Earth got wrapped into the release of The One Ring? My apologies, I didn't follow that process very closely

 

[Yaarel]

@Cadence

It looks like the problem with halflings existed since the beginning in 1e. They are simply short humans. And because they are short, are compared to gnomes.

In other words, the critiques in this thread are validated by the Basic and 1e origins.
• Delete halfling and use a Human of Small size instead, being a distinctive Human ethnicity called Hin or Halfling.
• Or merge halfling with gnome, and make them ethnicities within the same lineage.

Both of the above suggestions are legitimate.

For me, I want the halfling to move out of the foreground as part of the top four "common" lineages that get featured. But I dont mind them in the background as uncommon, alongside orc and whatnot. I feel they can stay in the PH, like other uncommon races can. However, if they exist separately, I want them to feel more distinctively different from human.