D&D 4E 4E Halflings unrecognizable from Tolkien hobbits

[Charwoman Gene]

Let's face it, half-dragon or reptilian heroes have been around since Snake Eyes in G. I. Joe.

/facepalm

 

[Satori]

I'm quite surprised that some people object to the physical changes Halflings are undergoing.

In my experience, nearly all players want a muscular, athletic, heroic looking character. Halflings, with their feathery curls, big hairy feet, chubby cheeks, and rotund beer bellies do not cut the picture of muscular athleticism that most players want for their characters.

I can see where the more "classical" gaming generation (I didn't say "older"!) is miffed at the changes, as it pulls away from the Hobbit theme. However, wasn't the true irony of LotR that such a silly, un-athletic, un-heroic, tubby, and chubby race (and main characters, for that matter) accomplished amazing feats through sheer force of will and dumb luck?

Maybe the idea of playing "The Chubby Pre Schooler" in a fantasy roleplaying game appeals to some people...but I don't find it a stretch that some want a leaner, meaner halfling in their games.

 

[Clavis]

What in their blog posts or marketing copy would you say is demonstrating this attitude that their original and recent concepts are already iconic? Or are you taking the simple fact that they're choosing to supplant the familiar halfling paradigms--which, in certain instances, are iconic--with these new concepts as proof of such an attitude?

Since the discussion is about Halflings, I would take the fact that WOTC has changed the definition of "Halfling", without changing the name, as evidence that they expect D&D players to simply accept their authority to define fantasy tropes in whatever way the corporation likes. Some people like having somebody else define things for them, and will accept whatever definitions they are given. I do not.

Aside from the question of what their attitude might be, I think it's kind of bizarre to object to the creation of new concepts in place of borrowing ones, however iconic. Obviously, D&D has a rich history of assimilating pop fantasy tropes, but I would hate to see such a practice regarded as preferable to orginality. That way lies the stagnation of culture. And Hollywood.

I don't want WOTC to redefine things that already have perfectly good definitions. The more the game draws upon common knowledge, the easier it is to play and DM.

The other issue is that I have been a homebrewer for almost all of my time DMing. I don't care about how Halflings were defined in any particular official Campaign setting, because I'm never going to use those settings. What I want from a game company are tools to empower my creativity. Give me building blocks that I can put together in ways that please me and my players. That's the hobby for me: creating settings and watching how the players develop the world over the course of their adventures.

What I'm seeing from WOTC is a complete, proprietary setting hard-wired into the rules. I don't want to be a mere rules referee running somebody else's creations which are no better than my own. I'll accept bits and pieces from great authors (like Howard, Vance, Tolkien, etc.) whose creations are perhaps better than my own, however!

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm quite surprised that some people object to the physical changes Halflings are undergoing.

In my experience, nearly all players want a muscular, athletic, heroic looking character. Halflings, with their feathery curls, big hairy feet, chubby cheeks, and rotund beer bellies do not cut the picture of muscular athleticism that most players want for their characters.

Ah, but don't forget that people are not quick to change (*raises hand* ). The stereotypical hobbit has been a beloved figure in fantasy literature for decades now. It has become a tradition, both in terms of literature and the D&D game. It's hard to break traditions.

That being said, we also should not be afraid of new interpretations of classic themes.

I can see where the more "classical" gaming generation (I didn't say "older"!) is miffed at the changes, as it pulls away from the Hobbit theme. However, wasn't the true irony of LotR that such a silly, un-athletic, un-heroic, tubby, and chubby race (and main characters, for that matter) accomplished amazing feats through sheer force of will and dumb luck?

What tends to be forgotten in these discussions is that we're discussing the basic guidelines of the race. Adventuring hobbits such as Bilbo and Frodo were exceptions to the rule, much as Drizzt was the exception to the rule where drow are concerned. While the hobbit race as a whole may not be prone to adventure, a rare individual may rise up to become an adventurer.


The "traditional hobbit vs. modern halfling debate" is one that seems to have been raged on these boards for some time now. There will never be a winner to the debate, as we all have different views on what a halfling should be. My advice is to take the latest PHB as a suggestion, then run with the type of halfling you want to use.

In my own case, I gave it a great deal of thought, and came up with several different subraces, allowing for traditional hobbits, kender, polar versions, and more. Sometimes, the answer isn't X or Y, it's Z: all of the above.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ah, but don't forget that people are not quick to change (*raises hand* ). The stereotypical hobbit has been a beloved figure in fantasy literature for decades now. It has become a tradition, both in terms of literature and the D&D game. It's hard to break traditions.

Why are people so surprised that the 4e halfling is not a hobbit when the 3e halfling wasn't a hobbit, either? It hasn't been a hobbit for 8 years, and I don't really recall a huge demand for hobbit-halflings during 3e, so why is it such a huge deal now?

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

"Nay. I dinnae ken what ye mean by that laddie. Are ye by any chance trying to say that ye cannae hear a Scots accent when ye see one? An' ye do nae recognize it when ye do?"

Was it really THAT hard to hear the accent there? Yes, it's horrible and cliché, but it's certainly present. Maybe I'm just more used to it from reading dialogue in comic books. And in those "och," "dinnae ken," "nae" an' the like are traditional for "Scottish" characters, like Moira MacTaggert and Rahne Sinclair from the X-Men series.

Heh, I'm an X-Men fan myself, and those comics are rife with entertainingly bad accents. Moira MacTaggert is probably the prime example of bad Scottish accents, in any medium.

Anyway, you missed the part where I conceded (or I just didn't communicate that well enough)! I'm willing to accept that dwarves had obviously Scottish accents in some novels - I just haven't read any that were as definitively Scottish as your quote above. It's also probable that the Scottish dwarf entered into the gaming subculture through those very sources - and I've little doubt that the creators of Warcraft 2 were a part of that culture. I'm now just trying to pin down an earlier sound-using source than Warcraft 2 - and none have cropped up so far, probably because speech wasn't that common in earlier computer games, and dwarves weren't in many fantasy films either.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Ah, but don't forget that people are not quick to change (*raises hand* ). The stereotypical hobbit has been a beloved figure in fantasy literature for decades now. It has become a tradition, both in terms of literature and the D&D game. It's hard to break traditions.

Hobbits appear in two novels. Yes, those two novels are immensely popular, but hobbits don't have anything like the traction of elves or dwarves, or we'd see them in someone else's work! I can't think of a "halfling" race in even crappy knockoff fantasy that doesn't alter the hobbit mold at least somewhat.

As for breaking traditions in D&D, it's been happening for over twenty years at a minimum, ever since Dragonlance stepped forward and said "No hobbits in this D&D setting." Dragonlance was hardly revolutionary in other aspects, either, so the fact that TSR staffers felt it was worth discarding them back then can't be laid at the foot of change for change's sake.

 

[Dr. Prunesquallor]

Hobbits appear in two novels. Yes, those two novels are immensely popular, but hobbits don't have anything like the traction of elves or dwarves, or we'd see them in someone else's work! I can't think of a "halfling" race in even crappy knockoff fantasy that doesn't alter the hobbit mold at least somewhat.

I suspect the reason we don't see "hobbits" in someone else's work is because they know they'd lose their shirt without the history D&D and WFRP have. Think about it. Immediately after a big movie trilogy you "just happen" to come up with some sawed-off protagonist race. McKiernan's Iron Tower wouldn't get pubished today and Willow would go straight to DVD. "Hobbits" don't appear all over the place because they are iconic, not because they're unknown.

Elves and Dwarves, in contrast, appear everywhere because they are generic. Ocs, like hobbits, are not. D&D, like Warhammer and WoW, was able to stake a claim in the Orc before the movies. Could they now? Honestly, I don't think so. "We're calling them the same thing, but they have pig snouts/they're green." Would that fly if the Tolkien estate decided to sue in the current climate? If I created a campaign settng with something called the "Shadowfell" wouldn't WOTC be on me like white on rice? Even if it dealt with creatures of elemental shadow rather than undead?

 

[Wormwood]

Why are people so surprised that the 4e halfling is not a hobbit when the 3e halfling wasn't a hobbit, either? It hasn't been a hobbit for 8 years, and I don't really recall a huge demand for hobbit-halflings during 3e, so why is it such a huge deal now?

Because 4e kicked over the nostalgia antpile.

Next month we can expect a similar outcry over the omission of the Bec de Corbin.

 

[Steely Dan]

Next month we can expect a similar outcry over the omission of the Bec de Corbin.

Ugh, you just reminded me of that tedious article in an old Dragon – "A Nomenclature of Polearms" (because we didn't have enough in 1st Ed…).