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

[Paul Farquhar]

They were included because they were there in the past. Not exactly the most compelling reason to include anything.

Wrong. 4e threw out a whole lot of stuff, and look at how well that went down. 5e realised history matters.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not quite sure about the UK Football reference. Know nothing about it.

Every year in premiere league soccer, the three worst teams in the highest level gets bumped down, and the best in the league right below them get moved up.

 

[Cadence]

Well if we're talking about D&D then if you're playing a wizard you're only allowed to be a Jack Vance character.

and Tolkien, I will give him this, he's definitely had more of a lasting impact than Jack Vance. I don't think I've ever seen Jack Vance mentioned in a context other than someone trying to explain where D&D's funky magic system comes from (or the related context of rattling off a laundry list of people who influenced Gary Gayax)

The short story anthology in his honor a few years back had a bunch of prominent authors saying how he influenced him iirc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nothing goes on forever. Why don't TV series just keep changing with the times and never end?

Some do. E.g. Doctor Who. Watch An Unearthly Child (1963). Now watch Revolution of the Daleks (2021).

 

[Don Durito]

Wrong. 4e threw out a whole lot of stuff, and look at how well that went down. 5e realised history matters.

Yes. I like 4e, but the same thing could well repeat itself. Those who don't like a particular change objecting, while others see those people as stuck in the past and against progress and modernisation.

And here's me on the sidelines thinking: "If you want progress and modernisation, maybe check out one of the games out there that aren't nearly fifty years old."

Rpgs should definitely change with the times, but D&D doesn't necessarily have to be the vehicle for that. It's a bit like charging breathlessly into the future with an anvil tied to your ankle.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes. I like 4e, but the same thing could well repeat itself. Those who don't like a particular change objecting, while others see those people as stuck in the past and against progress and modernisation.

And here's me on the sidelines thinking: "If you want progress and modernisation, maybe check out one of the games out there that isn't nearly fifty years old."

No one's gonna get to upset if halflings are included.

Lots of people upset if they're excluded. 5% of millions of players.

 

[Hussar]

Because then you'd also have to get rid of all those other races that people don't use?

But seriously, does it actually hurt you that they're in the PH? If it's just that you want other, different races in the main book, then why not advocate for larger page counts with a larger chapter for races instead of getting rid of something that 5% of people like when you can and apparently have already ban it at your table.

@Faolyn, things would go a lot more smoothly if you would stop making assumptions about other people's games.

Ban halflings? Why would I do that? I have repeatedly stated that no one at my table plays them or, at the very least, it's once in a blue moon that they get played. So, why would you claim that I've banned something? What are you trying to prove?

Ok, we get rid of the other races that people don't use. Great. What's the problem? Since so few people are using them, it's not really going to bother a lot of people if they get moved to the monster manual. And, hey look, we can add races in that hopefully gain more traction, like tieflings and dragonborn already have. What's the point of having options in the PHB that are so unused?

Again, it's not about liking or disliking halflings. Or gnomes. Or half orcs. Heck, at some point of time or another, I've played all three. Why would I dislike something that is so unimportant? It's like the old giant table of polearms in 1e. Sure, there are those out there that want an expanded equipment list. But, guess what, they lost that argument. Every edition of the game has truncated the weapon list because so many of these things were just taking up space.

So, why would I want an expanded PHB? So we can cart around the cruft that has accumulated in the game to make some very small minority of gamers happy? Don't care. It's not making the grade, so it gets cut. Anything that doesn't make the grade SHOULD get cut. Or, at least moved around a bit so that it can make room for stuff that is making the grade.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. This is an issue with them. Granted. But it also makes them more interesting.


Nothing goes on forever. Why don't TV series just keep changing with the times and never end? There's only so far you can stretch a concept. The Ship of Theseus is an interesting concept but if replacing all the parts of the ship also meant turning it into a completely different kind of ship as well, I think most would concede it is not infact the same ship.

Doctor Who would like to have a word.

As would James Bond.

As would a number of daytime soap operas.

Never minding the plethora of remakes and reinvisionings.

How many Transformers cartoons are there? How long has Batman been in print? or Superman? or Spiderman? We've had a different Superman prime time TV show on in some form or other for most of my entire life. And have you seen that thing they call Star Trek? Yeah, that's been around a couple of years.

There are actually quite a few properties that have reinvisioned themselves and reinvented themselves and kept right on trucking.

 

[Hussar]

Wrong. 4e threw out a whole lot of stuff, and look at how well that went down. 5e realised history matters.

No, they realized that how they presented the changes mattered. Not the changes themselves. Good grief, 5e changes and throws out far, far more than 4e ever did, right down to ejecting alignment, one of the core elements of D&D and people LOVED it.

Never minding how much 3e changed things from 2e.

The whole "Well, 4e failed, so, we can never change the game" ignores the fact that 3e was huge departure from 2e. And 5e has rewritten the backgrounds of virtually every single element in the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, they realized that how they presented the changes mattered. Not the changes themselves. Good grief, 5e changes and throws out far, far more than 4e ever did, right down to ejecting alignment, one of the core elements of D&D and people LOVED it.

Never minding how much 3e changed things from 2e.

The whole "Well, 4e failed, so, we can never change the game" ignores the fact that 3e was huge departure from 2e. And 5e has rewritten the backgrounds of virtually every single element in the game.

Deleting raves,most classes and probably feats is a no no.

Some things people care more about it's not an absolute.