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

[Chaosmancer]

The issue is that the further into the player's purview you push it, the more you allow the player to define it, the less flexible it is as a DM tool should you want to use it. You run similar risks of powergaminess and irrelevance.

Depends on what you want to do with it. I mean, I doubt the player outlined every single past life and every single event in that past life.

Heck, most DM's only get a single history to play with for hooks for players, and that is easy enough to work with, I don't see how giving them another three for the same character is somehow more restrictive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right. And that's why people take an issue with your stance. Because you're basically saying that because both horses and goats are domesticated hooved animals that tend to hang around farms, goats are basically just small horses.

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, I probably wouldn't, but people? Yeah, people definitely would. Do. People have done and still do exactly that sort of thing. A lot. Literally on the basis of like...people in a town having darker hair, or a family line have gingers sometimes in an area where gingers are very rare, or a family having big chonky boys more often than average sized scions.

A stout family group of a people, who also have poison resistence just like dwarves do? Seems like a thing that would happen.

Maybe, but how do most people know that stout halflings have poison resistance? And why would they assume dwarves instead of something else.

And again, why write it in the book, if it isn't true and means nothing?

Why would you try to make them the only farmers?

That was something that Faolyn brought up. Since halflings are the only race that is explicitly stated as farming, then we could assume a world where halflings are the only farmers and control the world's food supply.

Of course if we don't assume they are the only farmers and that they are more than that, then that line I was given "laid back farmers who are friendly" is reduced to "laid back [people] who are friendly"

It means...that some people see a stout halfling...and think they're similar to dwarves. Like...what on Earth? This is why it's hard to even have this discussion, dude. How on earth is that a strange idea? It's just like folks saying that the Tooks have a bit of elf blood, in LoTR. You can either do something with it, or not.

So people would also see gnomes and think they have elven origins right? I mean, fey, pointed ears, they could totally do that. Lot of Gnome art looks like short elves. I'm sure there are some people who believe that about gnomes.

It isn't anywhere in the books or the lore, or mentioned in any way.

There are dozens, hundreds of rumors that people could believe about various races. An Aasimar that sins becomes a Tiefling. Firbolgs are half-gnome half giants. Goliath were humans until they were infused with the power of Earth. I could go on about probable things that people could look at one race and think.

The only one that is ever mentioned is that stout halflings have dwarven blood. And everyone is certain that it is utterly meaningless and has nothing to do with anything... so why did they put it in the book? There are lots of fake rumors that they could have added to lots of races, but the only one they did it for was the halflings? Why?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

Because we've gone over this for hundred pages. You can read the PHB like the rest of us, we're tired of quoting it for you just for you to make up excuses why nothing counts, whilst arbitrarily accepting equally flimsy fluff when it comes to the other species.

 

[Bardic Dave]

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

Let’s focus on your last statement for a second, because I think it really gets at the heart of the issue. You’ve positioned yourself as the arbiter of which distinctive traits are sufficient to differentiate halflings from humans to a satisfactory standard. Apparently supernatural luck, courage, tenacity, nimbleness, physical differences (size, body proportions, pointy ears, walking speed), stealthiness, a tendency to blend into the background, a love of creature comforts and cozy places, a tendency toward open-mindedness and being welcoming, and the various other traits that have been mentioned in this thread and/or the source material don’t pass muster for you. Fine, that’s your prerogative. Apparently, a similar list of differences between goats and horses does meet your standards. Okay, no problem.

The issue is how you’ve presented these subjective judgments as the objective truth, when they’re nothing of the sort. You keep insisting that we have some kind of burden to refute your assertion that these differences aren’t good enough, as if it’s not just a matter of differing preferences.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You realize the more you make this list, the more ridiculous it ends up sounding right?

Yeah, we get it. They are all mortal bipeds that eat. You've described everything from Trolls to pixies. But if you want to argue that there is the same level of difference between trolls and halflings as there is between humans and halflings, maybe move away from things like "can think" and give us things that actually end up mattering to most people.

I mean, if I went up to someone and said "Well, there really isn't any significant difference between a horse, a rhino and a goat" they'd act like I was insane.

And I wonder why this is so important a hill for you to build, but when asked to move past "do they have two arms, two legs, two eyes and a mouth" into something like "how are their cities different" you immediately dismiss it as "conjecture" and put no effort into it. Sure, halflings would build on a half scale compared to humans. Got anything else? Because "human city but smaller" drives straight into what we keep seeing with halflings. Human but small.

And, there are a lot of dwarven, human, and elven cities in the lore. Don't think those are exactly "conjecture" I think they kind of exist, are mapped, and have some noticeable differences.

I literally have no idea how the concept that the various "humanoid" races could be considered "basically human" is so difficult for you? The name is on the goddamn tin.

Separately, you realize your comparison of rhino, horse and goat is like a perfect analog to the halfling conversation we're currently having right?

You say it would be insane to state that there are no significant differences between the three of those creatures but your argument for halflings being basically human is perfectly rational.

The part I dismissed as conjecture includes dragonborn facial anatomy, and racial patterns of conversation. It's the same type of conjecture that leads people to conclude that centaurs cannot climb. It's just the lens you use to view creatures. It's neither factual, nor universal.

The city building would also be my conjecture, but... they take up less space, weigh less, and their stuff weighs less so yes, smaller structures, but also lighter weight materials, longer spans, etc. It also means that halfling dwellings can exist in more locations both underground and above it, for example as tree houses, on cliff faces, etc. In addition, they have a wider variety of creatures that can serve as mounts, with all the agility, speed, and carrying capacity benefits mounts can provide, with far fewer of the burdens so structures and spaces can afford to be generally more accommodating to creatures used as mounts. Do you see how all this starts adding together? Ultimately, I think you are vastly underselling how important scale is to how we live. I mean, would you say that giants are just big humans?

Then,
If you start layering in considerations for how an innately sociable race, that values having a good time, is lucky, nimble, and less susceptible to fear might choose to live...yeah...verrry different.

Buuut.. all of that..is also conjecture, so I'm not going to claim it as absolute truth.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Depends on what you want to do with it. I mean, I doubt the player outlined every single past life and every single event in that past life.

Heck, most DM's only get a single history to play with for hooks for players, and that is easy enough to work with, I don't see how giving them another three for the same character is somehow more restrictive.

Sure, and the gaps are 100% in the DMs control. Exactly as I stated in the first place.

 

[Faolyn]

Why would you try to make them the only farmers?

I suggested to Chaosmancer the idea that halflings could be considered the best farmers and chefs (in the same way that dwarfs are considered the best miners and smiths), or that city-dwelling humans could rely on halflings to do the farming for them. And Chaosmancer decided that I meant that they could be the only farmers.

 

[Faolyn]

In a game where everything is very concrete, I agree.

Yeah, that's what I meant: specifically for D&D and games like it. I don't know from Monsterhearts (beyond that it has a sexual element that ensures I likely won't play it), but in a system like D&D and with a typical D&D setting, I'd say it's very difficult to have something both playable and still mysterious.

 

[Faolyn]

That's followed up in the next section "Each birth represents an elf soul that has been to Arvandor and returned. Mortal elves cannot know if it is the soul of someone recently dead or someone who died millennia ago. They cannot even be certain it is an elf of the same world. The only assurance they have is that it is an elf of their own kind, for when the primal elves went against Corellon and took permanent shapes, they chose this fate for themselves." There's a little bit more about it and what they call The First Reflection.

Has anyone done a campaign yet where elf souls are getting captured so either new elves aren't being born or they're being born soulless?