• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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.

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

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Doesn't the fact that they don't have the mechanics of little children already make them a fantasy race?
Not really because there's no real mechanics for little children.

They are short and light in a game where being short or light have almost no mechanical significance. Their shortness or lightweight means nothing really. There is little otherness of fantasy in their height or weight in the mechanics nor story.

It's halflings being small and lucky that distinguishes them. Dwarves are also short but qualify as medium so dwarves ended up needing significant mechanical features to pull fantasy.

With the next edition or half edition likely allowing small size humans, halflings will end up leaning more and more to luck and possibly naturally agility or stealth.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Not really because there's no real mechanics for little children.

They are short and light in a game where being short or light have almost no mechanical significance. Their shortness or lightweight means nothing really. There is little otherness of fantasy in their height or weight in the mechanics nor story.

It's halflings being small and lucky that distinguishes them. Dwarves are also short but qualify as medium so dwarves ended up needing significant mechanical features to pull fantasy.

With the next edition or half edition likely allowing small size humans, halflings will end up leaning more and more to luck and possibly naturally agility or stealth.
Meh. There are only so many ways to distinguish between the different races. I figured out a small cultural niche default for my halflings, if a DM can't figure out it out then perhaps they shouldn't be part of that world. It's not like there's much of anything to distinguish the majority of playable races in the first place.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Meh. There are only so many ways to distinguish between the different races. I figured out a small cultural niche default for my halflings, if a DM can't figure out it out then perhaps they shouldn't be part of that world. It's not like there's much of anything to distinguish the majority of playable races in the first place.

I disagree with that. There are tons of ways to distinguish races. D&D just has been in a sort of tunnel vision of the ideas for a long time.

A cultural or cosmetic niche doesn't automatically infer a large amount of fantasy. A race of purple-eyed humans who like sailing is technically fantasy but barely invokes fantasy.
 

Oofta

Legend
I disagree with that. There are tons of ways to distinguish races. D&D just has been in a sort of tunnel vision of the ideas for a long time.

A cultural or cosmetic niche doesn't automatically infer a large amount of fantasy. A race of purple-eyed humans who like sailing is technically fantasy but barely invokes fantasy.

Tons of ways? Really? We used to have dwarves that were strong and sturdy but gruff and a bit surly. We can't have that now because that dwarf PC can't optimize for all possible class options and obviously any penalty is a naughty bad thing. If you establish a default culture, people nitpick it. If you give them exclusive bonuses accusations of typecasting abound.

I don't think there is a great way of distinguishing races for every campaign in existence, there are simply too many races to give them truly unique feel. Nowadays everybody has to be special and unique with no built in limitations. Just like everyone else. So if you think there's ways of making them unique without also limiting without stepping on someone's toes please feel free to provide an example.
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
Every player character is proficient in daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, and light crossbows (at a minimum). This doesn't mean every encountered humanoid is proficient at least six weapons.
Why would we ever think that every other feature is consistent for 100% of a group?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Tons of ways? Really? We used to have dwarves that were strong and sturdy but gruff and a bit surly. We can't have that now because that dwarf PC can't optimize for all possible class options and obviously any penalty is a naughty bad thing. If you establish a default culture, people nitpick it. If you give them exclusive bonuses accusations of typecasting abound.

I don't think there is a great way of distinguishing races for every campaign in existence, there are simply too many races to give them truly unique feel. Nowadays everybody has to be special and unique with no built in limitations. Just like everyone else. So if you think there's ways of making them unique without also limiting without stepping on someone's toes please feel free to provide an example.
Literally dozens of races.

I can design 12 unique races that are different from current D&D races.

I mean there isn't an official playable plant race in the current edition. And only 2 constructs. Then there is my name.

The question is not if you can make distinguishable races but if the community will accept them.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Tons of ways? Really? We used to have dwarves that were strong and sturdy but gruff and a bit surly. We can't have that now because that dwarf PC can't optimize for all possible class options and obviously any penalty is a naughty bad thing. If you establish a default culture, people nitpick it. If you give them exclusive bonuses accusations of typecasting abound.
How does "can play in any class" mean you can't be a strong, sturdy, gruff, or surly dwarf? You can certainly put your ASIs in to Strength and Con, and Charisma in D&D means force of personality, wittiness, and ability to influence others, all of which dwarfs have always had in spades; it doesn't mean prettiness, politeness, or sweetness. Giving dwarfs a penalty to Charisma never made any sense when compared to how dwarfs have always been shown in all forms of media.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
How does "can play in any class" mean you can't be a strong, sturdy, gruff, or surly dwarf? You can certainly put your ASIs in to Strength and Con, and Charisma in D&D means force of personality, wittiness, and ability to influence others, all of which dwarfs have always had in spades; it doesn't mean prettiness, politeness, or sweetness. Giving dwarfs a penalty to Charisma never made any sense when compared to how dwarfs have always been shown in all forms of media.
1666033198998.png
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
How does "can play in any class" mean you can't be a strong, sturdy, gruff, or surly dwarf? You can certainly put your ASIs in to Strength and Con, and Charisma in D&D means force of personality, wittiness, and ability to influence others, all of which dwarfs have always had in spades; it doesn't mean prettiness, politeness, or sweetness. Giving dwarfs a penalty to Charisma never made any sense when compared to how dwarfs have always been shown in all forms of media.
That may have quite a bit to do with the drift in what Charisma represents in D&D. Back in 1e, it was a measure of a character's physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. It didn't really track exactly the same as it does in 5e as confidence, eloquence, and leadership. It certainly didn't indicate anything related to being able to project your personality with actual magical force. That didn't come around until 3e.
Gruff and surly don't really scream magnetic or persuasive. So dwarves were penalized with respect to non-dwarves in the game mechanics of the time.
 

Oofta

Legend
Literally dozens of races.

I can design 12 unique races that are different from current D&D races.

I mean there isn't an official playable plant race in the current edition. And only 2 constructs. Then there is my name.

The question is not if you can make distinguishable races but if the community will accept them.

I can state "I can make the most amazing thing evah!" but the proof is in the pudding. I agree that I could make a dozen different unique races but the reality is that WOTC is constrained by social norms and expectations. Things that I don't find particularly bad (like my aforementioned dwarves not making optimized wizards) is going the way of the dodo bird.

So given those constraints ... what would you do? Other than making cannibal vegetarians a possibility?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top