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


log in or register to remove this ad



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
Are you sure that that's not just anecdotal evidence on your part? I remember a lot of Halfling characters in the AD&D era, myself. If you have some hard data though (no idea where you'd get any), please share?
 



Welp, @Hussar , that'll teach me to post from memory before checking my numbers.

Ran the numbers on our games' overall breakdown by species played. Turns out Humans are/were way more dominant than I remembered, then Elf, then Dwarf, then everyone else. Results (first number is actual, second is % of total, sorry for the lousy formatting)

572 --- 43.20 --- Human
199 --- 15.03 --- Elf
129 --- 9.74 --- Dwarf
96 --- 7.25 --- PartElf
81 --- 6.12 --- Hobbit
61 --- 4.61 --- Gnome
56 --- 4.23 --- PartOrc
39 --- 2.95 --- Barbarian (tough magic-hating subspecies of Human)
91 --- 6.87 --- Other (grab-bag of all sorts of oddities: genetic disasters e.g. Part-Ogre; characters who permanently changed species e.g. via reincarnation; one-off wonders through lucky die rolls in char-gen e.g. Dryad, Centaur, etc.)

1324 --- 100.00 --- Total
Time period covered: 1981-present day.

There's been some quite discernable and interesting trends over the years. Elves was very popular early, then few were seen for a long time, and lately they've made a comeback. PartOrcs were nearly unheard of until recently but over the last ten years they've taken off. Hobbits had a real run in the 1990s for some reason. Humans have been dominant throughout.

One real statistical oddity concerning Hobbits in my current campaign: there have been three characters able to continue their adventuring careers after reincarnation and somewhat incredibly all three of them changed from another species to Hobbit in the process; the odds of rolling Hobbit on that table are only about 6%. (these count as "Other" above) As two of those three are now long-timers, it makes the Hobbit presence seem more significant in play than the raw numbers above would suggest.

And that raises another perception-clouder: some species tend on average to last longer in play than others, and that varies greatly by campaign/game. For these I only have easily-compiled data for my own three major campaigns (which combined represent about half the total above) in terms of sessions-played per character: in the first, PartElf averaged the longest but there wasn't much variance between all eight listed above; in the second Gnomes absolutely crushed everyone else with an average career length nearly double that of any other species; and in the third (i.e. current) it's Hobbits nearly doubling the next-closest.
 

When I played AD&D, most people didn't really understand the game. Not that they didn't understand the rules (well, most of the time, at least), but that the actual...."meta", for lack of a better term, wasn't grokked.

It took awhile before someone realized that two-weapon fighting was flat out busted. Or that longswords were a superior weapon choice. Or that, really, your choice of weapon didn't matter at all, as the ways characters did damage was due to multiple attacks and high static damage.

I saw a lot of Fighters specialized in some very wonky weapons, as people looked at the weapon list and somehow assumed every weapon was somehow viable. I saw a guy specialize in whips once, and he was very confused why his character wasn't effective!

The value of a given race wasn't really seen either. Most people played humans because they didn't want to run into level limits, despite the fact that high level play was incredibly rare! It was simply the very idea that a game could progress to a point where your Elf could no longer progress as a Fighter made gamers turn up their noses a the idea.

By 2e, level caps were raised, and most groups didn't really even worry about them much. They either used rules like "single-classed demihumans have their cap increased by 2", or "exceptional ability scores raised the cap", or even "you earned half xp past your limit". Oh and the use of wish to raise one's limit was popular as well.*

*Some of these rules were in the books, presented as core or optional, mind, but whether or not any rule was on the table was something you had to find out for yourself upon bellying up to a new table.

Multiclassing was vaguely understood- players felt that the slow advancement of the first few levels would remain constant, when in actuality, all that happened is that your Fighter/Thief might be a level or so behind a single classed character- punishing at low levels, but at higher levels, it didn't matter much. You just had to put some thought into your hit point totals, and how your table calculated them.

Had a guy play an Ogre Mage once out of the Complete Book of Humanoids. Everyone kept telling him that his character would be the worst, because he earned half xp to pay for all his bennies. By 6th level, the jeers had turned into grumblings about how much more powerful the Ogre Mage was compared to their own characters.

There's a lot more, but the reason I'm being so long winded is that the value of Gnomes and Halflings was often overlooked. Most games, a -1 Strength isn't going to matter much. The difference between 18 Strength and 16 (the maximum a Halfling is allowed to have at start) is +1 to hit and damage. Weapon choice wasn't a big deal either- oh, I have to use a long sword in two hands? I can't use shields as a Thief anyways!

Those saving throw bonuses against poison and magic were worth their weight in gold as the game progressed, and the racial benefits for a Halfling Thief were equal to about half a level of Thief on their own (and given how Dex bonuses scaled, that +1 Dex could be worth an ENTIRE level at the top end!).

Gnomes had a few advantages that most players didn't even notice, like not having any limits on Strength at all! You could legally (in 2e) have a Gnome with 18/00 Strength as a Fighter, and they had a few interesting multiclassed options to work with besides. No other race in the PHB could be a multiclassed specialist mage (the absolute spell power of a Cleric/Illusionist is something to behold), and no other race could be a Cleric/Thief (a strange combination I've never seen in play, but one that sounds like a great support character).

So ultimately, there were few reasons not to play a shorty in AD&D, and a lot of reasons to do so, but what held them back was player perception. People thought Gnomes were weird, Halflings were weak, and Dwarves were...uh....beardy?
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top