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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Certainly, Corellon Larethian and the other members of the Seldarine are not worshipped on Krynn, so it seems very likely that the Elves of Krynn are not, in fact, the same race (who were created by Corellon, mind. Or, for another example, Eberron doesn't even necessarily have Gods in the same way other settings do, and certainly has no Araushnee/Lolth, but definitely has Drow!).
In my view they're still Elves and still very similar to other Elves elsewhere, even if more or less cut off from their pantheons. The tricky bit might be explaining how they got to those worlds, but hey - an ancient history involving spacefaring Elves and lost technology can't be that hard to dream up, can it? :)
TLDR: what's in a name?
In this case, everything; as the name "Human" carries - quite rightly IMO - a massive weight of assumption with it.
That which we call Humans might not be people like us at all!
Then after your plot-twist reveal (which is a cool idea,) they should be called something else. Also, what would you call non-augmented ordinary Humans in the meantime, in order to differentiate?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not to me; and I'll admit this is the one (and I think only!) part of @Chaosmancer 's argument with which I somewhat agree.

Where Humans are the same as us is (assumed to be) in their physical selves. The average in-setting Human is generally assumed to roughly fit within the same bell-curves of heights, weights, body types, physical capabilities, etc. as seen here on Earth and to (usually) have two arms, two legs, and one head. Put another way, were any of us dropped into a D&D setting world we would in theory - ignoring external things such as clothing, gear, etc. - be able to blend into a crowd of other Humans and nobody bat an eyelid. Flip side: a D&D-setting Human dressed in 21-century Earth fashion walking down a local street should in theory be neither less nor more noticeable than anyone else you pass by.

All of your bullet points speak to how those Humans relate to differences between the setting environment and real-Earth but none speak to what Humans in fact are; which is to say, the same as Earth Humans.
Anatomy just isn't that much of a distinguishing feature in a setting full of humanoid creatures where the anatomical differences are mostly undiscussed. Put a D&D Dwarf or Elf in 21st century garb, and I think the number of batted eyelids is comparable with the D&D Human.

On the flip flip side, even on real world Earth, if you transport a human from one place to another with very different cultural values, ways of life etc. and the locals can identify the outsider very quickly even if the outsider physically resembles the local population. I call this the "American, yes?" effect.

How much larger might such differences be once you take away all the shared context?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I have provided the reasoning why D&D humans are not the same as real Earth humans at least twice now. But hear is the rundown of a few reasons.

  • They exist in a setting where magic is possible..
  • They can perform magic (at least some if them can)
  • They share the magical setting with a wide variety of fantasy races and creatures with a correspondingly wide variety of fantasy capabilities
  • Active tangible, provable deities
  • Death and the afterlife are much better understood (and death need not be permanent!)
  • Earth history is not a precondition baked into their existence as such
    • No War of the Roses
    • No African slave trade
    • No French revolution
    • No Great Schism
    • No Rennaissance
    • No Dark Ages
    • No Enlightenment
    • No Industrial revolution
    • No Information Age
    • No Civil Right movement
    • No Boxer Rebellion
    • No Evolution
    • Entirely different creation myths
    • Etc.
    • Etc.
    • Etc.
Your willingness to shrug all this stuff off and go "Nah, same as Earth humans in every possible way" is astounding to me.

BTW, if you feel compelled to address this post bullet by bullet, bringing in random scraps of Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun or whatever other setting lore across five editions, just don't.

I will not read it, and it should not be necessary to address the broader point of how setting differences may impact racial characteristics, and then further how we can move forward discussing the racial characteristics included in the PHB on an even footing.

Game of Thrones? Heck, Tolkien? Stormlight Archive? Avatar? How many settings would I need to go and bring up that feature literally all of the exact same points, yet feature humans?

Yes, in a fantasy world, magic is real, monsters are real, and they had a different history. Yet, somehow, I imagine if I went to people and said "The people of the world of Westeros aren't human" or "the Men of Middle-Earth aren't Human" anywhere but this thread where you have staked this out as a position against me, I'd be laughed out of whatever discussion it is.

Is the world different? Of course it is, I've never tried to claim that the worlds of DnD aren't different than our own. I've stated that humans are human. The humans of Westeros are human. The Humans of Middle-Earth are human. And nothing you stated about DnD humans would be "unnatural" about them. They are still pretty much the same. it isn't a matter of history, or religion. It is a matter of the essential nature of humanity.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I was just talking with some friends about a late 90's JRPG, Xenogears. Basically, a gigantic spaceship, the Eldridge, crash lands on an unknown planet, and ten thousand years later, the protagonists are trying to deal with an ancient conspiracy and an even more ancient superweapon. It is revealed later in the game that all of the "humans" in the game were actually created by a computer, and are not actually descended from survivors of the crash at all; they are part of a millennia-long project to rebuild the aforementioned superweapon, which is (in part) the explanation for why they have unusual abilities, including what passes for "magic" in the game. Further, even the game's "save points" are in-universe constructs that record the memories of humans, so that the puppet masters (well, some of them) can keep tabs on the great experiment.

If you were to create a Xenogears 5e game, the players would be humans...but at the same time, they also wouldn't. This extends to D&D as well; not all Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halfings, Humans, etc. across the various campaign settings have the same origins. What we call an "Elf" on Eberron might be mechanically similar to one from Greyhawk, or Krynn, but may not be related in the slightest.

Certainly, Corellon Larethian and the other members of the Seldarine are not worshipped on Krynn, so it seems very likely that the Elves of Krynn are not, in fact, the same race (who were created by Corellon, mind. Or, for another example, Eberron doesn't even necessarily have Gods in the same way other settings do, and certainly has no Araushnee/Lolth, but definitely has Drow!). This extends to Humans as well; there is no reason to suppose that a D&D Human is actually a member of homo sapiens sapiens, and they might be so genetically different that they cannot interbreed (assuming D&D has DNA at all)! Now that's a plot twist I'd like to see in an isekai story!

TLDR: what's in a name? That which we call Humans might not be people like us at all!

-Though in all fairness, in the Forgotten Realms, at least, Humans are heavily implied to be from our Earth (or maybe the other way around!), due to ancient contact between Toril and our planet.

I think the big point you are missing though is that in Xenogears it is a twist. It isn't the norm or the expected.

Sure, you can go forth with the twist that DnD humans are completely inhuman and not related to humans at all... but there is literally zero reason to think that would be the case. In fact, unless it was explicitly stated like it was for Xenogears, the assumption will be and should be that they are in fact... humans.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
In my view they're still Elves and still very similar to other Elves elsewhere, even if more or less cut off from their pantheons. The tricky bit might be explaining how they got to those worlds, but hey - an ancient history involving spacefaring Elves and lost technology can't be that hard to dream up, can it? :)

In this case, everything; as the name "Human" carries - quite rightly IMO - a massive weight of assumption with it.

Then after your plot-twist reveal (which is a cool idea,) they should be called something else. Also, what would you call non-augmented ordinary Humans in the meantime, in order to differentiate?
1667954446150.png
 

Game of Thrones? Heck, Tolkien? Stormlight Archive? Avatar? How many settings would I need to go and bring up that feature literally all of the exact same points, yet feature humans?

Yes, in a fantasy world, magic is real, monsters are real, and they had a different history. Yet, somehow, I imagine if I went to people and said "The people of the world of Westeros aren't human" or "the Men of Middle-Earth aren't Human" anywhere but this thread where you have staked this out as a position against me, I'd be laughed out of whatever discussion it is.

Is the world different? Of course it is, I've never tried to claim that the worlds of DnD aren't different than our own. I've stated that humans are human. The humans of Westeros are human. The Humans of Middle-Earth are human. And nothing you stated about DnD humans would be "unnatural" about them. They are still pretty much the same. it isn't a matter of history, or religion. It is a matter of the essential nature of humanity.
Except that I haven't said that humans are not human. I have said..repeatedly, that D&D Humans motivations, behaviors and values are consistent with those the PHB supplies.

There is no need whatsoever to graft on real world human nonsense. You can totally do so if you like, no one will stop you. But it is a personal preference not a universal truth.

In the same way, when others graft on their personal views of halflingness to that of the PHB, they are engaging in the exact same exercise of personal preference.

So you have choices.
  1. You can discuss personal preferences, which should not be expected to have any impact beyond the individuals
  2. You can discuss game material, where the amount of editorial intent is equal, and both sides have access to the same content. Such discussion is at least applicable to the broader game.
  3. You can continue your exercise in hypocrisy where you bring your full set of personal preferences and understanding of humanity, treat it as universal truth that applies any and all fantasy settings, and then dismiss all others' personal preferences regarding halflings, limiting their discussion only to game materials, and then declare victory in your "good faith" discussion.
You can choose whichever one you want. #3 is a bad choice though.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Except that I haven't said that humans are not human. I have said..repeatedly, that D&D Humans motivations, behaviors and values are consistent with those the PHB supplies.

There is no need whatsoever to graft on real world human nonsense. You can totally do so if you like, no one will stop you. But it is a personal preference not a universal truth.

In the same way, when others graft on their personal views of halflingness to that of the PHB, they are engaging in the exact same exercise of personal preference.

So you have choices.
  1. You can discuss personal preferences, which should not be expected to have any impact beyond the individuals
  2. You can discuss game material, where the amount of editorial intent is equal, and both sides have access to the same content. Such discussion is at least applicable to the broader game.
  3. You can continue your exercise in hypocrisy where you bring your full set of personal preferences and understanding of humanity, treat it as universal truth that applies any and all fantasy settings, and then dismiss all others' personal preferences regarding halflings, limiting their discussion only to game materials, and then declare victory in your "good faith" discussion.
You can choose whichever one you want. #3 is a bad choice though.

Okay, what does DnD humans match the PHB description have ANYTHING to do with this? Because you seem to have forgotten that this was the post I responded to that you took umbrage with.


I’d just like to comment on this piece here because humans in DnD are fantastical in their own way, while not explicitly magical humans are noted as being highly ambitious and adventurous, putting their hand to all things, humans contain a certain drive that pushes them to great feats, it’s one of those things that goes overlooked because it’s not explicitly listed in their stat blocks and not directly correlated to actually playing one as it’s just as easy to pick a dragonborn or a drow(and are more likely to want to be because they’re ‘exciting’ and humans are ‘boring’ because nobody is a dragonborn in reality and so it’s different) unless you’re rolling on race tables for your character and let’s be honest how many people actually do that beyond one shot characters?

Halflings fill the niche realworld humans would have in a fantasy world who are used to lives of good food and comfort but also have their own spin on them, they’re unobtrusive in the world both in the sense they’re stealthy and that they don’t carve their lives into the environment but adapt to it, they’re noted as one of the most friendly races to a decent degree, and while this is just me speculating on the point my guess is that while halflings might partake in wars or have joined existing ones they probably have a lesser record of actually starting them

A post which states, and I will quote again without the quote box in case you have CreamCloud0 blocked, which may have caused this entire thing, since you responded to me quoting them.

"...humans in DnD are fantastical in their own way, while not explicitly magical humans are noted as being highly ambitious and adventurous, putting their hand to all things, humans contain a certain drive that pushes them to great feats,.... Halflings fill the niche realworld humans would have in a fantasy world ..."

In other words, the initial point was not "DnD humans do not match the PHB description." The initial point is that the PHB description and therefore DnD humans match with real world humans. And since DnD/PHB humans are real world humans, because Real World humans are "noted as being highly ambitious and adventurous, putting their hand to all things, humans contain a certain drive that pushes them to great feats"

And, despite that being true, they are also people who wish to live lives of good food and comfort. We don't need halflings to fill the role of Real World Humans, because DnD humans fill the role of Real World Humans.



So, no, I do not need to have a personal interpretation that DnD humans don't match the PHB. That is nonsense and nothing at all like what I was saying. It would be a misrepresentation of my entire argument. This is also not a hypocrisy. I am, as you wanted to put it, discussing the game material, just with the added understanding that every single thing in the PHB describes humanity as it exists on Earth, and we do not need to split off a section of human nature to have it in the halflings. Humans in the PHB can cover being ambitious AND loving their homes and their comforts and their families. You know, like real humans on the planet Earth. And I have additional evidence of every single human NPC ever written for Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, you may argue, if you wish, that the PHB does not describe humanity as we know it on Earth, that it somehow describes something beyond the human expeirence. You can argue that halflings are actually closer to what humans of Earth are and fulfill their role in the PHB. I'd be interested what role you think Humans in the PHB fill if it isn't the role of humans, but I'd kindly ask you to stop and actually pay attention to what I am arguing instead of declaring me a hypocrite because you have stuffed nonsense into my mouth and declared it my argument.
 

Okay, what does DnD humans match the PHB description have ANYTHING to do with this? Because you seem to have forgotten that this was the post I responded to that you took umbrage with.




A post which states, and I will quote again without the quote box in case you have CreamCloud0 blocked, which may have caused this entire thing, since you responded to me quoting them.

"...humans in DnD are fantastical in their own way, while not explicitly magical humans are noted as being highly ambitious and adventurous, putting their hand to all things, humans contain a certain drive that pushes them to great feats,.... Halflings fill the niche realworld humans would have in a fantasy world ..."

In other words, the initial point was not "DnD humans do not match the PHB description." The initial point is that the PHB description and therefore DnD humans match with real world humans. And since DnD/PHB humans are real world humans, because Real World humans are "noted as being highly ambitious and adventurous, putting their hand to all things, humans contain a certain drive that pushes them to great feats"

And, despite that being true, they are also people who wish to live lives of good food and comfort. We don't need halflings to fill the role of Real World Humans, because DnD humans fill the role of Real World Humans.



So, no, I do not need to have a personal interpretation that DnD humans don't match the PHB. That is nonsense and nothing at all like what I was saying. It would be a misrepresentation of my entire argument. This is also not a hypocrisy. I am, as you wanted to put it, discussing the game material, just with the added understanding that every single thing in the PHB describes humanity as it exists on Earth, and we do not need to split off a section of human nature to have it in the halflings. Humans in the PHB can cover being ambitious AND loving their homes and their comforts and their families. You know, like real humans on the planet Earth. And I have additional evidence of every single human NPC ever written for Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, you may argue, if you wish, that the PHB does not describe humanity as we know it on Earth, that it somehow describes something beyond the human expeirence. You can argue that halflings are actually closer to what humans of Earth are and fulfill their role in the PHB. I'd be interested what role you think Humans in the PHB fill if it isn't the role of humans, but I'd kindly ask you to stop and actually pay attention to what I am arguing instead of declaring me a hypocrite because you have stuffed nonsense into my mouth and declared it my argument.
Their initial point was..this is how humans are described in the PHB, with an accurate summary of the PHB Human write-up

Your response was.. "yeah..but humans are also a lot of other things that are not described in the PHB" (you gave examples of wanting to live lives of good food and comfort..)

They also made the point that halflings are described a certain way in the PHB, and included an accurate summary of the PHB write-up for Halflings.

The extra-PHB characteristics you pulled in and ascribed to D&D Humans coincide with some of those from the PHB Hafling description.

Your conclusion was that by failing to bring in the non-PHB Human stuff that you brought in, they were failing to fully capture D&D Humans, making them "inhuman".

And this was all in service of an upstream conclusion that D&D Halflings are "too human" because they feature some extra-PHB human characteristics.

The fullness of my disagreement with you is that you claimed they were overstating human characteristics from the PHB, when, in fact, they were describing those characteristics accurately. We've since gone on to discuss the value of the PHB description and whether it makes sense for it to exclude the extra characteristics you brought in, and/or the many others that can come from an understanding of real world humanity.

If your ultimate contention is that D&D Humans aren't "human" if they fail to bring in all that extra stuff. And that Halflings are "too human" by having too many of those extra-PHB "human" characteristics, then your position is exactly as I have described.

The other part of this is..

Simultaneously, in other strands of conversation, when someone describes their experience or interpretations of halflings, your response has frequently been "well that's just your thing" accompanied by a dismissive "good for you" followed by a "but halflings need to be fixed in the game, not just your setting".

Thus the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
In my view they're still Elves and still very similar to other Elves elsewhere, even if more or less cut off from their pantheons. The tricky bit might be explaining how they got to those worlds, but hey - an ancient history involving spacefaring Elves and lost technology can't be that hard to dream up, can it? :)

In this case, everything; as the name "Human" carries - quite rightly IMO - a massive weight of assumption with it.

Then after your plot-twist reveal (which is a cool idea,) they should be called something else. Also, what would you call non-augmented ordinary Humans in the meantime, in order to differentiate?
This brings up an interesting point: what do people call Variant Humans, to differentiate? In-universe, so to speak. Is there some fundamental difference between Humans and Variant Humans? Is one a sub-race of the other? Are we not supposed to use both in the same game? If a Human woman meets a dashing Variant Human man, and they have a child, would that child be a Half-Variant Human?

Ok, I'm slightly joking, but I think it speaks to my point. We already have two different versions of Humans in D&D (pending the D&D ONE update?), and yet we call both Humans. But despite being mechanically distinct from one another, there is no lore whatsoever that says either is anything but Human. So one could say that we already have two separate races who are called Humans...
 

Oofta

Legend
This brings up an interesting point: what do people call Variant Humans, to differentiate? In-universe, so to speak. Is there some fundamental difference between Humans and Variant Humans? Is one a sub-race of the other? Are we not supposed to use both in the same game? If a Human woman meets a dashing Variant Human man, and they have a child, would that child be a Half-Variant Human?

Ok, I'm slightly joking, but I think it speaks to my point. We already have two different versions of Humans in D&D (pending the D&D ONE update?), and yet we call both Humans. But despite being mechanically distinct from one another, there is no lore whatsoever that says either is anything but Human. So one could say that we already have two separate races who are called Humans...

They're called variant humans because "This is an option for humans you can use if feats are allowed in your game" is just a tad too long.

I suspect it will go away with 1E since they're simplifying the choice between a +1 for 2 ability scores or a feat. It will be interesting to see if they make any further restrictions because as it sits right now, everybody gets a feat at first level and a human gets an extra one 1st level. Means that a human PC could get a +4 to any ability score at 1st level. But that's a topic for the other forum.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top