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

[doctorbadwolf]

Tolkien was popular for decades because there was so much less.

He’s still the most popular speculative fiction author of the modern age. His prominence hasn’t gone away with the flood of newer works.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even as far as Appendix N is concerned, there are some clear failures. For instance, it's very hard for an episode of D&D to resemble a typical REH Conan story.

The reasons why are probably too numerous to list in this thread - but two are (i) the lack of a mechanism in D&D for chance/helpful encounters of the sort that so often help Conan (eg in Tower of the Elephant; in The Scarlet Citadel; in The Hour of the Dragon); and (ii) the complete absence of incentives to give up the treasure in order to do the right thing (in classic D&D this leads to losing XP, not winning the game).

OGL Conan had a half-baked Fate Point mechanic to try and handle (i). As best I recall it did not have anything much to deal with (ii) - maybe a rule that prevents accumulation of character wealth?

Those are things that needn't be mechanics. Especially (ii).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

He’s still the most popular speculative fiction author of the modern age. His prominence hasn’t gone away with the flood of newer works.

And Mozart, Picasso, Lovecraft, and other creators that helped found a theme/genre in their work are also still prominent/well-known. That doesn't mean that every orchestra ever in the future of all orchestras have to play a piece by Mozart, or that anyone that every Cosmic-Horror themed book, movie, tv-show, and game have to include something from Lovecraft. People who found/codify genres are popular because they're the people you learn about in the history books. Their renown is not dependent on every part of their work being good or necessary to be included in something inspired by their works.

 

[Faolyn]

This? "Except it feels like in the beginning it was "Halflings are close to Humans, and Gnomes are close to Dwarves". The only thing it feels like Halflings and Gnomes have is size."

I hadn't realized they'd posted so many between that post and mine, sorry. It's the one that went: "I wish people had the same restraint about Dwarves and mining and Elves and woodsy stuff." Or, if you can assume that dwarfs do the best mining and elves do the best woodsy stuff (or arcane stuff), then you can assume that halflings do the best cooking and/or farming.

No it isn't. I'm sorry but I've seen this a few times. I've seen this with people rolling digital dice. Sometimes the only 1 they roll is when they have advantage and it doesn't count anyways.

I've literally never seen that happen. Sure, whole games can go by without a 1, but I've never seen anyone never roll a 1 (or whatever the worst number is for the game in question). Even the absolute luckiest guy I ever knew, the guy I watched roll for stats with other people's dice and come up with multiple 18s in a row and who managed to draw all face cards and/or spades when making a Deadlands character, rolled crit fails once in a while.

I mean, I guess if you are playing with the same person in the same campaign for years on end, and you somehow keep track of every single roll they ever make... it might show some sort of pattern, but 1's are actually decently rare. Not that surprising that sometimes someone doesn't roll one for a campaign.

1 in 20, or 5% of the time, is not that rare.

Your good answers have included "just say they were lucky when they succeed" and "have the players do it". I don't know where you get the idea that I'm acting like I don't know how to DM.

Because you seem to think it's up to you to dictate how a player acts or responds.

I'm actually acting like I should be able to make scenarios or imagine scenes where a player's race can matter... but running into the problem of it only mattering less than 5% of the time, or not feeling particularly special in the way it is supposed to.

There's more to being a halfling than just luck and bravery. Also, I gave you several suggestions as to how to use luck in a non-dice-oriented way. If the halfling was raised in a traditional halfling way, then involve something like that, where knowledge of halfling customs and traditions come in handy. (Of course, that would require you to acknowledge halflings have customs and traditions.) Or have them encounter an NPC who prefers halflings for one reason or another (maybe they're also a halfling, maybe they prefer halfling friendliness or forthrightness to the duplicitous or suspiciousness of other races, maybe they're a halfling-eating monster in disguise). In this case, that halfling PC would be able to shine and that would probably be a lot more fun for that player than just having them use one of their traits.

In one of my games, I'm playing a tiefling. Resistant to fire damage. I've been hit by fire damage exactly twice during the game, and we've been playing it for quite some time now. (Perhaps amusingly, one of those times was when I was trying to disarm a magical trap and rolled a 1. Being a halfling could have come in handy then!) Lots of radiant and necrotic damage, lots of weapon damage, almost no fire damage. Also, my character is a Levestus tiefling--in case you don't remember, this is the type with all the ice-based powers. She gets the ray of frost cantrip... but since I'm playing a swashbuckler rogue by class and professional duelist by career choice, and therefore mostly do 1v1 melee fighting, she has also used that cantrip twice, maybe three times, and once it was to try to put out a fire (not the one from the trap).

So, the fire resistance and cantrip have come into play less than 5% of the time. Does that make these traits useless? Does that make my character boring, because two of her traits have barely been used? No, it doesn't. This character is hella fun to play. And the DM is a good DM. He doesn't need to play to my race to have my character or the game be enjoyable.

So your "good answer" that I am acting like a person who doesn't know how to DM because I didn't agree with... relies on the player roleplaying their character as superstitious. And that way, the player, who knows that they are acting and their luck isn't tied to the halfling ability, will feel like their halfling is extra lucky?

If you have a player who doesn't roleplay their racial traits, that's on them, not the race. Also, why do you demand halflings be racial stereotypes?

Yeah, that is some great advice there. Real DM 301 stuff. Just hope the player does the work for you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's up to the player to roleplay their own character?

Literally the player's only purpose in the game is to play their own character!

This isn't hoping the player "does the work for you." This is hoping the player actually chooses to roleplay their character. When you are playing, do you except the DM to dictate all your emotions to you?

Well, oh wonderful DM who is so much better than me. What if the player doesn't decide that their halfling is supertitious... and doesn't feel like their character is lucky. What then? just ignore them?

Then those things aren't important to to that player, and there's no reason for you to keep trying to emphasize them. Instead, emphasize things that are important to that player. Don't try to force them to play something they don't want to.

Yeah, I get that part. But do two times of mentioning a player getting lucky in say... three months of gaming really make the player feel like their character is supernaturally lucky? That's the problem point. Not that I don't understand the concept of describing a lucky break.

Does the player need to feel like their character is supernaturally lucky? If you have three months of gaming and nobody tries to charm the elf, does that make that trait useless or make the elf's player have less of a good time?

See, the one time we had a halfling in a different game... no, it wasn't enough for them to feel super lucky. In fact, I never once (and I was a player) felt like their character was extra lucky.

Am I misremembering, or didn't you start this thread saying you couldn't recall the last time someone in a game you were in played a halfling? Because this sudden introduction of a halfling from a different game who you didn't feel was lucky is awfully suspicious.

But let's say you're telling the truth here. This halfling? Not your character. It's not up to you to determine if the character was "extra lucky." It's also not up to you to determine if the actual player liked the character or not. If the player said "boy, I don't like playing this halfling; it's just not lucky enough," then you might have a point. Did they?

And you just did something that I asked about earlier. You gave the halfling player an extra gold piece, because they are lucky. I asked about doing that sort of thing. See, I worry that doing that feels like favoritism. After all, they just go an extra resource the other players didn't get. Is that really the right way to go with it? Giving them free things?

So, if you do things to make halflings feel lucky, that's favoritism. If you don't do things to make halflings feel lucky, then halflings are pointless or can't be run properly. Uh-huh.

Do you honestly think you have to keep giving this individual random gold pieces just to make them feel lucky? Do you think you can't do this as a one-off and have something else interesting happen later, in another adventure? For that matter, do you really have players who would resent it if one character got an extra coin that one time because they had a racial trait that would make them lucky? If so, those aren't really nice players.

And yes, I can narrate people failing to hit the halfling as lucky. That is a consideration. But, also, doesn't that only really work in an ambush scenario? I mean, if the majority of the time the halfling player gets attacked, it is some lucky break, then it seems really weird, especially if I have to have control the character to manipulate them into position to describe them luckily being missed.

Again, that was one example. And nobody but you said "the majority of the time."

And sure, I could ignore it... but since you seemed so appalled at the idea that I find this ability difficult to balance in the narrative, then clearly most DMs must also need to go back to DM 101 and look up what the word lucky means in the dictionary.

I'm appalled because you seem to think that halflings have to be stereotypes, that you have to dictate how the PCs feel or react, that you still refuse to accept what their traits actually do, that you seem to refuse to actually think about any of the things I've written, and that you seem to be incapable of coming up with examples of being lucky on your own.

So... we don't use crit-fails, but I should describe an avoided crit-fail anyways? Then when a different player rolls a 1, what then? For the halfling it was almost this devastating thing, but for the next player it isn't?

That's inconsistent.

Sigh. See, right here, this is you refusing to think about what I wrote.

Yes, you can describe what could have happened, even if you would never actually roll on some crit fail table. (And no, I don't use crit fail/success tables either. Doesn't mean I can't use them for description inspiration.)

Yeah, no. I'm not going to alter a character just to try and make the halfling who is supposed to be super lucky, appear for a moment to be super unlucky, because their signature ability didn't activate properly.

And again, you're refusing to think. I gave you an example.

And anyway, you seem to think it's up to the DM to tell the player how to think and act. Those types of DMs are usually fine with removing all of the PC's hair.

I do describe degrees of success and failure. For everyone. I narrate results probably too much at times, but I have a lot of players who don't. But you missed the entire thing I was saying. Half your "great answers" seemed to depend on a mechanic I don't use. Because it is a homebrew rule we specifically dislike.

First off, I have repeatedly said that this is a non-mechanical description. I have never once said you had to use actual crit fail tables or anything like that. I never use them myself. But I can damn well describe what happens when something goes really right or really wrong.

Secondly, I don't believe that you actually describe degrees of success or failure. If you did, then you'd already know how to describe something that's particularly well-done or badly done.

If this is the extent of your "superior GMing" then maybe you need to stop insulting my own skills, because at least I don't assume you use optional rules.

Maybe you need to actually read what I write.

Of course I would like that ability. Seems like a good ability. Does it seem like enough to be a supernaturally lucky person whose entire race is known for being supernaturally lucky?

No. It really doesn't. It just seems like a nice meta, safety net.

Just like a dwarf's poison resistance and an elf's charm resistance are nice, meta, safety nets.

If it all relied on the players RPing, then how was my struggle with it bad GMing? Heck, you should have been asking what I was even talking about because the GM plays no part in these abilities, because the players do all the work.

Since you refuse to understand the different roles that DMs and PCs have, then that indicates that you have trouble with DMing.

OK, I am going to ask you a serious question here: What do you think players are supposed to do, and what do you think DMs are supposed to do?

Because while homebrewing that alcohol is a poison doesn't change anything. Homebrewing to make it so that a character is REQUIRED to be scared when seeing an army is taking away the player's control of their characters emotional reaction.

How is that different from requiring a halfling to feel or act brave or lucky?

And, why might I possibly need to showcase halflings as being unusually brave in non-magical situations? Oh... I don't know, it might be because everyone is constantly saying how halflings are unusually brave in non-magical situations. As though it was a defining part of their race.

The race. Not every individual has to be brave all the time.

Actually looking through the books, I'm surprised I don't see it there. So I guess my issue was that they aren't actually particularly brave, and are just inured against unnatural fear. So all those times people talked about halflings being halflings and doing things like happily walking into the Tomb of Horrors just to see what is there, they are wrong. Halflings aren't unusually brave. Just resistant to magical fear.

Or those people were talking about halflings in general. Just like, as a race, dwarfs are stern and stoic. But you can still have a jolly happy dwarf.

So, wait. Which is it? Are halflings unusually brave? Or do they just resist magical fear? You were just asking me why I needed to even show that feature, and now you are trying to "introduce me to emotions" to show that they absolutely need to portray that feature.

Halfling PCs resist magical fear. Halfling NPCs are as brave as you, the DM, want them to be.

I would rule Dragon fear as magical. That's why the brave orcish barbarian who wants to die in glorious battle is running away from the dragon instead of fighting.

Yes, that's what happens when you are in a class that doesn't give you proficiency in or any bonuses to Wisdom saves. The brave orcish cleric is probably fine, though.

So, then gnomes would be unusually brave. Except they aren't. Which brings me right back to where I was and you avoiding answering anything I asked previously

That is literally the opposite of what I have told you numerous times.

Halflings are brave. In mundane situations, PC halflings are as brave as their players want them to be, plus they get a bonus to their saves against any effect that would cause them to be frightened. This includes any sort of homebrew fear affects the DM wants, monster-caused fear if the DM decides it's nonmagical in nature (if you put a dragon in an antimagical zone, it's still a football field-sized murder machine. I'd say it's still incredibly frightening.) NPC halflings get the bonus and are exactly as brave as the DM wants them to be.

Gnomes are magic resistant. PC gnomes are as brave as their players want them to be in mundane situations and they get a bonus to Int, Wis, and Cha saves--but if they ever come across something that causes the frightened condition that isn't magical or is but relies on a different save instead*, then the gnome gets no bonus. NPC gnomes are not particularly brave, although the DM is free to make them as brave as they want them to be.

There are several monsters that cause the frightened condition that relies on other saves. Demiliches and orange grungs inflict it on a failed Con save. The lizardfolk subchief from Ghosts of Saltmarch inflicts it on a failed Dex save. The pterrafolk from Tomb of Annihilation inflicts the condition on a successful dive attack; ditto for the lost sorrowsworn, who puts the frightened condition on anyone it hugs*. Mind you, on the last two, halflings also wouldn't get a bonus because there's no save involved--but the halflings would get a bonus against the demilich, grung, and subchief and the gnomes wouldn't. Likewise, gnomes have no particular bonus against spells that require attack rolls instead of saves.

**It's actually a grapple. I just like to think it's so lost and alone it needs a hug. And the hug is really scary. I can't tell if that's aw or ew.

And in telling me what skills to develop I've got a whole lot of you not understanding the questions I put forth and telling me to just have the players do it. After all, the players are in charge of their characters. Which is the problem with the whole "unusually brave" angle, that you just completely ignored in favor of asking if I even need to show it and telling me to homebrew it.

Your questions are all "How can I possibly do I do this thing that you've explained to me ten times already?" Forgive me for not answering you for an eleventh time.

Oh, and now players are in character of their characters? Have you finally listened to me? Now you just need to learn the difference between a PC and an NPC!

And I did offer ways to improve halflings, but no one cares about that,

Really? Where? So far, all I've seen is you saying "yeah, it would be cool if they did this, but it's not canon lore yet."

 

[Hussar]

My ears are burning.

Since I've been invoked a couple of times, I thought I'd clarify my point.

I argue that halflings should be moved to the MONSTER MANUAL. Not some other book. The Monster Manual. Those that want to play Halfings will have the stats they need right out of the gate, but, a race that has failed for fifty years to gain any significant traction gets pushed out of the Player's Handbook to make space for a new option. Considering halflings can't even gain more traction than either Dragonborn or Tieflings, despite having every possible advantage, moving them to the Monster Manual would have zero impact.

To me, this is just a win- win. Those that want to play halflings are completely unaffected, but, those of us who never see halflings appear at the table get new options. I'm sorry that this is seen as "hating" halflings or being some sort of badwrongfun thing. To me, that's just bizarre. Halfings should be in the game, I have no quarrel with that. I think they should be. Obviously they have their fans. But, do we have to be chained to decisions made half a century ago that have failed for half a century to make any real inroads into the gaming zeitgeist?

It's rather telling that outside of D&D, you never see halflings at all. World of Warcraft AFAIK, doesn't have halflings. I'm struggling to think of a single example of a fantasy author that uses anything resembling halflings (that isn't a Tolkien pastiche like Terry Brooks). Granted, I don't read that much fantasy anymore - I read a lot more SF - but, like I said, I can find works with elves, and dwarves and all sorts of things. But halflings? I'm really struggling to think of a single example.

So, to me, halflings are a failed experiment. They have a place in the game. Good grief, we have all sorts of things in the game that don't see a lot of daylight at tables. Fair enough. No worries. But, get them out of the PHB and make space for some new ideas. The whole argument about good vs bad lore is such a pointless rabbit hole for me. I couldn't care less if the lore for halflings would make Shakespeare weep. Doesn't matter. What matters is that, after fifty years, several editions, numerous settings, halflings are the least popular (or maybe second least popular) character race choice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There isn't such a thing as non-magical fear in the base game. Supposedly it is in Ravenloft, but I haven't read the book yet. So gnomes would then be considered exceptionally brave until a few months ago?

Sure there is. The intimidate skill exists.

And no, gnomes are resistant to mental magic. It’s not a difficult distinction. You’re aggressively not getting a very simple thing, here.

I guess I just don't understand how something that potentially has zero impact on the game and never comes up (I mean, what do you do if you have a campaign where the player doesn't roll a 1

That will never happen.

and never encounters magical fear?)

Unlikely.

is supposedly such an obvious and easy thing to make the core features of a race.

Yep.

And I'm just the only one who struggles with this.

Far as I can tell, yeah. I’ve never heard this complaint before, and even you didn’t harp on this in the last halfling thread, so it seems like an arbitrary complaint because you got no traction with other complaints.

 

[Hussar]

Sure there is. The intimidate skill exists.

Intimidate does not have anything to do with fear. The only things that grants the Frightened condition are magical

 

[Gammadoodler]

But you're providing rationalist analysis here - social history of the improvement of human technologies!

JRRT's elves aren't conceived of within that context - they're a combination of the mythical (to my knowledge at least Greek, Norse and Finnish stories/myths all feature brilliant, driven crafters) and the romantic (the lone genius).

A fantasy world that emulates JRRT is, to my taste at least, more pleasing than one which aims to replicate actual social processes of the development of technology. Hence why, as per my earlier post, I think there is no tension between elves' individualism and their great creative achievements.


I'll admit I haven't read all of @Chaosmancer's posts, which tend to be quite long, but I haven't noticed any claim that others' tables don't work. I've taken the criticism to be of the material published by WotC.

Well, I'm sorry then. I have it on good authority that D&D worlds which employ JRRTs themes simply don't work.

And to be clear, are you saying that elves as crafters is an irrational conceit, but you like it anyway..for the romance of it?

It's fine if that is the case. We all have our preferences.. just curious.

 

[pemerton]

Those are things that needn't be mechanics. Especially (ii).

Without mechanics - ie some rule whereby players can trigger a helpful encounter - then helpful encounters (eg Zenobia helping Conan escape) are dependent on GM decision-making.

In AD&D - the home of Appendix N - making choices that involve sacrificing/abandoning treasure is strongly disincentivised, because you lose your XP. That's not a game that is apt to produce fiction that resembles REH Conan stories.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I'm sorry then. I have it on good authority that D&D worlds which employ JRRTs themes simply don't work.

Given that Burning Wheel is a brilliant RPG that has amazingly Tolkien-esque Elves, Dwarves and Orcs, this claim is obviously false. I won't repeat why I think it's a strength of the game that it doesn't feature Hobbits.

And to be clear, are you saying that elves as crafters is an irrational conceit, but you like it anyway..for the romance of it?

It's a romantic one. It's not utterly absurd - some inventions have been the result of lone geniuses. But JRRT's books, the Kalevala, etc aren't conjectures in the sociology of technology. They're fairy stories!

I don't really want Taylorisation, time and motion experts, and research laboratories in my FRPGing. I tend to have plenty of that in my day job - and if I want to explore it as an aspect of RPGing, I might do it in Traveller but not in a FRPG.