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

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
In a Vampire game, I had the players encounter a Son of Ether Mage (think retro-futurist mad scientist) who was a brain in a jar (he needed their help because the robots he used for his all purpose sensory organs/hands had gone rogue due to sunspot activity). In payment, he offered them some of his strange inventions. Among these was a heavily modified Desert Eagle that fired rather chunky bullets; in mid-flight, the bullet would split apart, revealing a tiny ninja robot with a sword, who would slash at it's intended victim before breaking into a zillion parts. This allowed the weapon to deal lethal damage (important when fighting vampires) and be more effective against ballistic armors (the theory was, body armor that is bullet-resistant is probably not going to be sword-resistant).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm still stuck on what would be an appropriate breath weapon(s) for that buzzsaw lion-demon from a few pages back.

Anyone got any ideas? :)
I mean, if it's made up of cat parts, i assume it's primary weapon is derision.

"Enemies All creatures this creature can see within 60 feat feel a crushing sense of inadequacy and disappointment with their contributions to society. Psychic damage + half movement speed on a failed Charisma save."
 
Last edited:





Chaosmancer

Legend
It also doesn't hurt you to admit that your opinion (that it's a bad design) is not an objective fact, and that clearly a lot of people here have managed to get some good ideas for it, which means that it's clearly not a bad design for them.

You don't like the monster? Fine. So what? Don't use it in any of your games.

Why are you people so obsessed with a thing I never claimed? I have never once said my thoughts on the design are "objective". I have said that, repeatedly. If all I needed to do was not claim that my opinions, logic, thoughts, posts, emotions, ect are not objective to get you people to stop, then none of you would ever have responded to me because I've never claimed objectively unassailable facts. And in fact, this is the second time I've spoken to you specifically Faolyn in telling you I have not tried to claim some "objectivity" that you can rail against.

Yes, I know I said the words "it is a bad design" and somehow that made you think that I was speaking on high as the ultimate authority of all things objectively true, but that's you thrusting your ideas into my post, not my post itself.

And sure, people have had some goods ideas for it. By adding in things that do not exist at all. I could argue that dinosaurs make wonderful artillery units by saying that I just believe that they have internal recoilless railguns in their shoulders, but if the artwork doesn't show railguns in their shoulders, it is a little hard for me to claim that the picture of the dinosaur led me to that conclusion. After all, there is nothing in the picture that supports that conclusion. And, in fact, evidence that leads to that conclusion being false.

And, as for your "so what" as I explained. This entire thing spawned out of a single idea. The idea that it is possible for DnD to have bad content. That's it, that's the "so what?". It is possible that not all DnD content ever created over the course of 50 years is good. Such a simple thing to try and establish.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
And sure, people have had some goods ideas for it. By adding in things that do not exist at all. I could argue that dinosaurs make wonderful artillery units by saying that I just believe that they have internal recoilless railguns in their shoulders, but if the artwork doesn't show railguns in their shoulders, it is a little hard for me to claim that the picture of the dinosaur led me to that conclusion. After all, there is nothing in the picture that supports that conclusion. And, in fact, evidence that leads to that conclusion being false.
You're the DM - you want 'em to have railguns in their shoulders? Then - ##boom## - now they got railguns in their shoulders.

(says the player whose character still has the "frickin' laser beam" she once looted from the head of a shark...)
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I find your expressed concern for your time curiously at odds with the verbosity of your response.

When I write, I am verbose. That is why it is getting more and more frustrating to try and hold any sort of conversation on this forum. Because I will spent multiple hours making responses, with the thought that I will be able to hold an actual conversation.

Then I get buried in strawmen, false accusations, and people demanding that I be silent.

It is infuriating.

It's not a matter of litigating the difference between little and zero. It is the existence of a range of values rather than a binary set of outcomes. As I said in the post which you chose to reply to, the more fantastical the creature, the less representational the art, the more load you should expect to pick up with imagination and other descriptive material (and vice versa).

Nothing about my post proposed a binary set of outcomes. You are making that up.

The creature being fantastical has nothing to do with the amount of "imagination" and "other descriptive material" I should be forced to consider before judging the art. Unicorns are intensely fantastical creatures, capable of flight, speech, magic, teleportation, having silver blood that grants immortality, unfailing senses that move beyond the physical, ect ect ect. Their design is a horse with a spiral horn. Not exactly something that needs a lot of explanation despite how intensely fantastical and magical they can be portrayed in media.

Also, again, this is not a "less representational" art style. I keep repeating it, you keep ignoring it. The art I posted is this one.

1667420897666.png


You will note, this is not a stained glass window.
This is not a cartoon.
This is not done in Crystal Cubism style.
It is not done in a mosaic style
It is not done in a futurism style.


So, since this is done in a rather realistic style, I don't need to assume that this is "less representational" because... it isn't. It just flatly isn't done in a style that demands intense interpretation of symbolic shapes, that is simplified to reduce detail, or made of a specific material like shards of glass or newspaper clippings. Your insistence that it must be treated as though it is is maddening, and if it continues I will just start insisting that we must treat it like a fully detailed, holographic 3-D model because that is just as accurate as treating it as a cartoon or a stained glass window.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Legend
I'm still stuck on what would be an appropriate breath weapon(s) for that buzzsaw lion-demon from a few pages back.

Anyone got any ideas? :)

Fire is the easy one. Lions are creatures depicting royalty, power, and passion, so flames fit both symbolically and pallete wise.

Going with radiant would match their associations with suns, as a lion head with mane has been used as a sun icon more than once.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top