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

[Don Durito]

I have the book, but, it's on my other computer's Fantasy Grounds. I believe that every race in the PHB plus a bunch of others appears in the setting. It's got a LOT of races.

That's basically what I expected.

 

[Don Durito]

Wouldn't that speak to the fact that having a given race in the PHB is a restriction on what WotC will produce? If your new race must include all the races, then, well, it has to have halflings.

Well yes. But it also has to have gnomes and dwarves and elves.

As I said earlier, I find halflings more malleable than dwarves and elves. If I had a player who really wanted to play a halfling I could fit them into anything with little trouble.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why do I want them to be anyone? No one is playing a halfling.

I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, I just have a different one. I want every race that I include in my world to be drawing to my players. I get that players want to play races they like, but I also like making races likeable and giving them good lore. I did it for all the races I included in my world. The world inspires the characters that the players want to play in my games, not the other way around. It's perfectly fine both ways, I just prefer my version (as do my players, as they are typically indecisive about what character they want to play).

 

[Minigiant]

I think you are seriously underestimating people's willingness to accept thematic constraints on races. Look at the recent thread about human only games. The vast majority of responders were perfectly ok with a game that had NO non-human NPCs.

That was for players not DMs.

The problem is not fear of player arguments.

It's that new people naturally usually don't rock the rock the boat.
And those who do are often overconfident and fail due to it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well yes. But it also has to have gnomes and dwarves and elves.

As I said earlier, I find halflings more malleable than dwarves and elves. If I had a player who really wanted to play a halfling I could fit them into anything with little trouble.

That's because they're basically just humans, but short. Elves and Dwarves have their niche and are meant to be less malleable. Humans are supposed to be diverse because we are, and that bleeds into Halflings to prevent them from having the same design as Elves and Dwarves.

 

[Don Durito]

That was for players not DMs.

The problem is not fear of player arguments.

It's that new people naturally usually don't rock the rock the boat.
And those who do are often overconfident and fail due to it.

So what is the issue? That new GMs might feel they need to use Halflings? Why aren't we similarly bothered about them feeling compelled to use Dwarves?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I have the book, but, it's on my other computer's Fantasy Grounds. I believe that every race in the PHB plus a bunch of others appears in the setting. It's got a LOT of races.

That's basically what I expected.

There are actually more races in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount (12 full races and 4 subraces for PHB races) than there are in the PHB (9 races).

Halflings appear in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, as do Gnomes and every other PHB race and most Volo's races. There's even a new subrace for Halflings in EGtW (Lotusden Halflings, which are nature/agricultural halflings).

 

[Minigiant]

So what is the issue? That new GMs might feel they need to use Halflings? Why aren't we similarly bothered about them feeling compelled to use Dwarves?

I am actually.

If your eadmy comment, you'd know I am upset about 5e not teaching all these new DMs how to design, adjuicate, and create.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So what is the issue? That new GMs might feel they need to use Halflings? Why aren't we similarly bothered about them feeling compelled to use Dwarves?

Because Dwarves are cool.

Okay, I'm kidding. I do prefer Dwarves over Halflings for reasons that I've described in this thread, but I do feel the same way about Dwarves, Elves, and even Humans. I don't think D&D should have any core races, because that then gives some impression (no-matter how "weak" it is) of what "Core/True D&D" is. I want the PHB to have at least 20 races in it, and I would like it to have Humans first and then the rest of the races in alphabetical order. No "common/core" or "uncommon/exotic/monstrous" races, because those are all subjective. Gnomes might be uncommon on the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, but there could be a homebrew world where they replace Humans, and that would be a completely valid D&D world. The PHB shouldn't label any style of D&D as "Core/Common", because that then works to enforce the status quo that is no more superior than any other style of D&D.

 

[Don Durito]

Well I agree. No core races. But I think it's very unlikely that 6e will have the same common/uncommon split. That's obviously a product of 5e post edition wars and its hyper-traditional approach. (13th Age released about a year earlier also made Tieflngs and Dragonborn 'optional').

But I'm basing that in part in that I don't think the distinction has ever amounted to anything anyway. There's quite a few things in 5e that are like that. Natural language so the DM can make judgement calls, largely superseded by Sage Advice and a player culture that wants specific rules, modular options in the DMG that are for the most part completely ignored etc The game that was released in 2014 is not the game that has developed in the wild.