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.

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?

 

[Oofta]

You did say that. If you think dwarfs should have a Charisma penalty because they're gruff and surly, then you're saying that any skill or ability that uses Charisma should likewise be penalized.

And you also said it's a bit harder for a dwarf to be not-gruff and surly. Which means a dwarf has to work at being friendly and cheerful. Which--and I say this as someone who is autistic--is exhausting. You even say that below "it takes more effort to make a surly person friendly than one who was already amiable to begin with."

Unless the dwarf is naturally not gruff and surly, or is only friendly and cheerful among humans, and in both cases, they shouldn't t get a -2 to Charisma.

And that begs the question: why does being gruff and surly deserve a -2 to Charisma, and the resultant penalty to all skills and traits that are dependent on Charisma? Why does being gruff and surly mean you don't have a strong force of will or are a good leader?

Maybe we should have a list of personalities and you have to roll on it during chargen, and each personality type determines a bonus or penalty to interactions made with NPCs. Which makes a bit more sense than a blanket penalty to Charisma.


Why should the gruff and surly dwarf be the baseline?

Because people want a baseline to start from? Because as humans we have a very difficult time portraying how a non-human species would think and act in a way that's easily quantifiable? I admit there will always be a planet of hats issue describing a non-human intelligence, I'm just not sure there's a better option. Surly but doughty dwarves is an oversimplified trope, but at least it's something to hang your hat on.

If everyone is just a human with a rubber mask, why bother having anything other than humans? On the other hand, D&D oversimplifies everything else under the sun, why is oversimplifying the difference between intelligent species like virtually all fiction (with exceptions here and there) an issue?

If you're watching Star Trek you know that most Klingons are a warrior race with a deep sense of honor. If you're watching Star Wars you know that [insert any species that shows up here] has effectively the exact same outlook, moral code, strengths and weaknesses as humans. The former makes the occasional Klingon that doesn't follow pattern stand out, the latter is just showing how many costumes people can put on.

 

[Faolyn]

Because people want a baseline to start from? Because as humans we have a very difficult time portraying how a non-human species would think and act in a way that's easily quantifiable? I admit there will always be a planet of hats issue describing a non-human intelligence, I'm just not sure there's a better option. Surly but doughty dwarves is an oversimplified trope, but at least it's something to hang your hat on.

OK, sure, but why does surly and gruff equal -2 Charisma?

If everyone is just a human with a rubber mask, why bother having anything other than humans? On the other hand, D&D oversimplifies everything else under the sun, why is oversimplifying the difference between intelligent species like virtually all fiction (with exceptions here and there) an issue?

If you're watching Star Trek you know that most Klingons are a warrior race with a deep sense of honor. If you're watching Star Wars you know that [insert any species that shows up here] has effectively the exact same outlook, moral code, strengths and weaknesses as humans. The former makes the occasional Klingon that doesn't follow pattern stand out, the latter is just showing how many costumes people can put on.

To be fair, Star Trek is a TV show with a lot of room to explain the various species than Star Wars does. (I admit, I've only watched 8 of the 9 movies, plus Rogue One, and none of the TV shows or any of the books.)

But in Star Trek, a lot of the nonhumans are different than the stereotype. We've probably met more Klingons whose idea of honor is really just bravado than we've met truly honorable Klingons (and that's completely ignoring the pre-honor "a running man can slit a thousand throats in a single night" Klingons from TOS). Vulcans very quickly showed that they were less about logic and more about coming up with logical-sounding justifications for not-necessarily logical behavior, even as far back as TOS. Bajorans are spiritual, but we've seen Bajorans who are practically areligious and Bajorans who are fundamentalists. And look at how many Ferengi we've met who don't really care about profit.

So the stereotypes in Star Trek is really just stereotypes, about as meaningful and useful as saying "Oh, you're a Capricorn? Well, no wonder you act like that," not actual facts that can be justified by a stat penalty. It's useful for creating a background character who will appear in one episode, and not that useful for creating interesting reoccurring characters.

In Star Wars, however, we don't learn all that much about races. Or at least I didn't, based on what I've seen. Going just by the movies, I couldn't tell you a thing about Wookiees. Which is absolutely fine because it means I can treat Chewbacca as an individual and not as a walking stereotype or a subversion of that stereotype.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because people want a baseline to start from? Because as humans we have a very difficult time portraying how a non-human species would think and act in a way that's easily quantifiable? I admit there will always be a planet of hats issue describing a non-human intelligence, I'm just not sure there's a better option. Surly but doughty dwarves is an oversimplified trope, but at least it's something to hang your hat on.

Surly but doughty dwarves are more of a rubber mask than dwarves with some physical differences, and some differences of basic perspective as a result, but capable of the same range of behavior as humans.

If everyone is just a human with a rubber mask, why bother having anything other than humans? On the other hand, D&D oversimplifies everything else under the sun, why is oversimplifying the difference between intelligent species like virtually all fiction (with exceptions here and there) an issue?

Put simply, fiction isn't, generally, a roleplaying game. You aren't taking on a persona when you read Lord of The Rings.

And make no mistake, other fiction is being examined in this light as well. I think roleplaying games have gotten hit first, insofar as they have been, because your character is, for many people, personal.

Roleplaying games also tend to describe races in a way that is distinct. I'm not sure how to articulate the difference, but it very much "hits different" as the kids say.

If you're watching Star Trek you know that most Klingons are a warrior race with a deep sense of honor. If you're watching Star Wars you know that [insert any species that shows up here] has effectively the exact same outlook, moral code, strengths and weaknesses as humans. The former makes the occasional Klingon that doesn't follow pattern stand out, the latter is just showing how many costumes people can put on.

IMO that makes Klingons less good for roleplaying than Ithorians.

But, it also isn't quite true. Star Wars species do differ from humans quite a bit, they just aren't as monolithic as Star Trek species, because Star Trek species often seem to be basically exactly the same person repeated over and over again.

Neither are wholly monolithic, but Star Wars, IMO, treats sentient beings as sentient beings. If all dwarves act a certain way, and even one that acts differently is to some degree fighting their inborn nature and impulses, I'm not sure dwarves are as free of will as a human. I, like many others, have no interest in roleplaying a lack of free will.

 

[Stormonu]

So players in your game are expected to optimize?

I ask because it sure sounds that way, when you state you "wouldn't let someone" play a character who isn't up to snuff.

Not optimize, but if the party would be better off without another player's character around - or they're a millstone around the group's neck, that's a problem.

Example: player wanted a mute druid. Because of the muteness, they couldn't cast most of their spells. That character either ought to be able to contribute via wildshape, select spells that don't require a verbal component or have some way of casting spells without using verbal components (silent spell or somesuch). Otherwise, they're going to be a big hinderance to the group. And this was a character someone in my group actually wanted to play - they ended up relying a lot on wild shape, and I forgot what we did about spells - I think most were ones without verbal components.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not optimize, but if the party would be better off without another player's character around - or they're a millstone around the group's neck, that's a problem.

Example: player wanted a mute druid. Because of the muteness, they couldn't cast most of their spells. That character either ought to be able to contribute via wildshape, select spells that don't require a verbal component or have some way of casting spells without using verbal components (silent spell or somesuch). Otherwise, they're going to be a big hinderance to the group. And this was a character someone in my group actually wanted to play - they ended up relying a lot on wild shape, and I forgot what we did about spells - I think most were ones without verbal components.

Sounds like it worked out. There's a difference between wanting a glaring weakness and deciding to be a jerk. Perhaps folks should stop assuming the latter and be a little more charitable?

 

[Lanefan]

You did say that. If you think dwarfs should have a Charisma penalty because they're gruff and surly, then you're saying that any skill or ability that uses Charisma should likewise be penalized.

Not the person who said it, but I agree with it.

On a broader scale, I strongly support the idea that some species are better (and in some cases, much better) suited for some classes and-or roles and less (or much less, or even outright can't be) suited for others, with Humans being the baseline equally suited to all.

And that begs the question: why does being gruff and surly deserve a -2 to Charisma, and the resultant penalty to all skills and traits that are dependent on Charisma? Why does being gruff and surly mean you don't have a strong force of will or are a good leader?

Because species other than Dwarves don't quite get how you're trying to lead them, or tend to react more negatively to the way you approach conversation, or etc. etc.

The "other than Dwarves" piece is the key here; as stat bonuses and penalties use Humans as a baseline, what the game is mechanically comparing is how effective a typical Dwarf will be vs a typical Human. This doesn't (or shouldn't!) apply when dealing with other Dwarves.

Why should the gruff and surly dwarf be the baseline?

Dunno. It could just as easily be Hobbits or Tieflings or Minotaurs that fill the "gruff and surly" niche, but somebody has to; and tradition gives that niche to Dwarves just like it gives happy-go-lucky to Elves and contented homebody to Hobbits.

 

[Lanefan]

Not optimize, but if the party would be better off without another player's character around - or they're a millstone around the group's neck, that's a problem.

And the solution to that in-character problem can and IMO every time should be found in-character. A few options, running the gamut from decent to nasty: The PCs try to address the weakness in the new character if possible (e.g. getting a Heal cast to cure the Druid's mute-ness, below). The PCs turn down the new character's offer to join. The PCs sneak off and leave the ineffective one behind in town. The PCs make sure the ineffective one is front-and-centre in some dangerous situation then hang it out to dry. The PCs slit the ineffective one's throat in the night.

I've seen all of these happen in play. Been on the receiving end of a few, too.

Example: player wanted a mute druid. Because of the muteness, they couldn't cast most of their spells. That character either ought to be able to contribute via wildshape, select spells that don't require a verbal component or have some way of casting spells without using verbal components (silent spell or somesuch). Otherwise, they're going to be a big hinderance to the group. And this was a character someone in my group actually wanted to play - they ended up relying a lot on wild shape, and I forgot what we did about spells - I think most were ones without verbal components.

 

[Stormonu]

And the solution to that in-character problem can and IMO every time should be found in-character. A few options, running the gamut from decent to nasty: The PCs try to address the weakness in the new character if possible (e.g. getting a Heal cast to cure the Druid's mute-ness, below). The PCs turn down the new character's offer to join. The PCs sneak off and leave the ineffective one behind in town. The PCs make sure the ineffective one is front-and-centre in some dangerous situation then hang it out to dry. The PCs slit the ineffective one's throat in the night.

I've seen all of these happen in play. Been on the receiving end of a few, too.

We play by different rules, I guess. I want the players to be a team. If the group had to resort to any of the methods above*, I'd rather just not allow the character at all in the first place. I've got finite time and patience, and I'd rather not waste either my time or my group's time on something none of us enjoy in the first place. In the example above, I worked with the player pre-game to sort out the in-game effects of being mute so that the player could enjoy it without either dragging the game down to a crawl or frustrating the other players.

* The Heal could be an eventual goal, but not where the character is ineffective until it's been cast.

 

[Faolyn]

Not the person who said it, but I agree with it.

On a broader scale, I strongly support the idea that some species are better (and in some cases, much better) suited for some classes and-or roles and less (or much less, or even outright can't be) suited for others, with Humans being the baseline equally suited to all.

Because species other than Dwarves don't quite get how you're trying to lead them, or tend to react more negatively to the way you approach conversation, or etc. etc.

The "other than Dwarves" piece is the key here; as stat bonuses and penalties use Humans as a baseline, what the game is mechanically comparing is how effective a typical Dwarf will be vs a typical Human. This doesn't (or shouldn't!) apply when dealing with other Dwarves.

Dunno. It could just as easily be Hobbits or Tieflings or Minotaurs that fill the "gruff and surly" niche, but somebody has to; and tradition gives that niche to Dwarves just like it gives happy-go-lucky to Elves and contented homebody to Hobbits.

So all species not only have stereotypes, but nearly all members of those species follow those stereotypes--and even those who subvert have the same penalties as the rest do (which means that, mechanically, they don't subvert the stereotype), and there is no way for species to learn how to communicate with each other fully or to see past those stereotypes.

Yeah, no. That sounds terrible.

Elves are happy-go-lucky? How does that mesh with the stereotype of elves as haughty and standofffish who look down at the shorter-lived races, all of which are also common elf stereotypes and all of which are far more deserving of a Charisma penalty than gruff and surly. Instead, many of them in 5e get a Charisma bonus--including the murderous drow. And in earlier editions, drow never got a Charisma penalty.

So what is it that Charisma is supposed to mean exactly? Are we saying Charisma is primarily appearance, so it doesn't matter that elves are snots and drow are outright evil because they're pretty and both of them are descendants of alien fey, but dwarfs are short and hairy and not too attractive so give them the penalty?

 

[Hussar]

If everyone is just a human with a rubber mask, why bother having anything other than humans? On the other hand, D&D oversimplifies everything else under the sun, why is oversimplifying the difference between intelligent species like virtually all fiction (with exceptions here and there) an issue?

Why do you feel it is the job of the game and game designers to define your character? Because that's essentially what you're saying. You're saying that it's better that the game and the game designers tell everyone who plays this game that the expected way to play X race is to do it in this specific way and anything else is playing against type.

Wouldn't it be FAR better to let players decide that?