RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

They were probably the best Thieves, with the highest amount of racial modifiers to the thieving abilities, plus the "shorty bonus" to saving throws, and a few other neat tricks depending on their exact heritage- possible infravision or the ability to sense depth underground. Plus they had an incredible, if rarely discussed, ability to surprise foes, shared with Elves.
And yet, STILL they were barely being played. No competition from masses of other playable races, best choice for one of the most common classes in the game, and they were still not very popular. I think you're not really helping the case here. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I do accept that they gave them the re-roll 1's ability to represent the narrative of supernatural luck. Because that's bloody obvious. My point is that the trope of supernatural luck is bad for the game, and not in a way that is as easily understood as "why can't my character be 18 levels higher than everyone else's" And it not being allowed isn't as easily accepted as "You can't be 18 levels stronger than everyone else, because it would be bad for the entire party to have that big of a strength disparity." Because it doesn't seem that hard to do at first, it seems like you could just have a character avoid getting splashed with mud, or to find an extra copper on the streets, but when you sit at a table, and know that one person is getting special treatment, it isn't fun.
If the trope of supernatural luck is bad for the game* and thus IYO Halflings shouldn't get it, what do you propose giving them instead as their main niche benefit that no other species has?

* - to me this is an open question answerable almost only on a table-by-table basis; as where one DM might make it work really well another might butcher it, leading to a perception of favouritism whether valid or not.
If one player is constantly getting benefits? If the DM is constantly going out of their way to make sure good things happen to one character, while the others are inconvenienced or miss out? People resent that. A lot. But the halfling player may not realize it, because they don't see it as special treatment, they see it as their narrative due, because that's just how halflings are. Everyone knows bringing a level 19 character to play a level 1 game is bad. Not everyone is going to realize giving the halfling player special treatment is equally as bad for the table unless the entire group is on board with it.
What you're ignoring (or forgetting) here is that at one time there were some species-based penalties against Halflings which this luck benefit was supposed to - in balance terms - cancel out. Over time, though, those penalties (e.g. Strength -2) kinda went away, leaving just the luck benefit.
 

What PHB race are they more popular than than gnomes? What PHB race have they ever been more popular than than gnomes?
In 1e they beat Half-Orcs sideways when it came to popularity. IME it went:

Human
--- significant drop
Elf
Half-Elf
--- not-as-significant drop
Dwarf
Hobbit
--- significant drop
Gnome
Half-Orc

Now, with that said, I've got the numbers as to what's been played here over a 40-year run covering numerous campaigns and over 1300 characters... (checks records) ...dammit, only by class, not by species. Compiling species data will take a little while; stay tuned. :)
 



Y'know what? I totally forgot about half orcs @Lanefan. totally slipped my mind. Then again half orcs aren't in 2e and were almost always evil in 1e, so that would likely explain their lack of presence.
 



There was no alignment requirement for them to be evil.
Have you actually read their description in the AD&D books?

Even if they weren't required by game law to be evil, practically nothing that was ever written about them ever supported the idea that they could be good or neutral en masse. Just about every single thing written about orcs is negative--their appearance, their life style, their habits, their behaviors, their religion, even the way they create or build was described only in negative terms.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top