Design & Development: Halflings [merged]

[Lizard]

Probably because hobbits are boring and lame? Wow... I'm a typical human farmer, only fun-sized. Whee!

As opposed to "I'm a typical human gypsy, only fun sized"?

The idea of halflings-as-farmers is that they're not human; they don't have human desires for wealth, power, fame, glory. They aren't poor peasants kept down by The Man; they're passionately content with their "humble" lot, and can fight like rabid badgers multiclassed into barbarian if they have to in order to keep it. For all their seeming weakness, they remain free and self-ruled without the apparent versataility of humans, the stolid might of dwarves, or the mystical cunning of the elves. They are free landowners in a world mostly filled with slaves and serfs; they are happy to stay at home in a world where "Adventurer" is a job description; they do not seek power in a world where you can't walk a mile without encountering an evil wizard, mad warlord, or crusading king; they are, when you think about it, very strange and alien. That kind of normalacy just isn't normal, and thinking of the motives for a member of this race to leave home -- once you get beyond the stereotype of "I'm just too cool for this lifestyle!" -- is fascinating and leads to truly interesting characters, characters who may not WANT to adventure but have become, by necessity, good at it.

Cunning thieving riverboat gypsies with a lust for adventure and excitement? Yeah, THAT'S strange and unusual in a typical fantasy world!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Playing a character who learns how to be a hero, because he has to, is much more enjoyable than playing Thrud Nounverb

So you play one hobbit like that. Nally Nimbletoes or Dran Muffinhider or whatever. Congratulations. You've now played the only hobbit that ever needs to be played. Its done. You've made the progression from copying Batman or Wolverine or whatever to copying Frodo. You've certainly progressed as a roleplayer, because you chose to be a weak character. Panties drop in your wake because you took skill focus: cooking. You've won D&D!

Now put a fork in the race. Its done. For everyone IMO, since that boring cliche character can be filed alongside AxeBeard MacAleHammer, the scottish dwarf. They're on moratorium for this edition now.

 

[HeinorNY]

I'm ok with the 4E halfling just as I was ok with 3E haflings, but I kind of miss the "improbable hero" aspect of the good old hobbit.

 

[Lizard]

Now put a fork in the race. Its done. For everyone IMO, since that boring cliche character can be filed alongside AxeBeard MacAleHammer, the scottish dwarf. They're on moratorium for this edition now.

Ah, yes, I forgot...what matters is what cool powers you have. That is the beginning and end of personality.

Can you show me how any of the races presented thus far encourage cliche-breaking? Or how playing Tasslehoff is more original than playing Frodo? ("Annoying" is not the same as "original")

Let's see...based on the 4e previews thus far, we can play Legolas (Elf), Elrond (Eladrin), Gimli (Dwarf) or Tasslehoff (Halfling). No real information on Tieflings (Drizzt with a tail), or Humans (Captain Generic) yet.

And if you think there's only one way to play an initially unwilling or reluctant hero...or that every one such is Frodo...well, remind me not to game at your table nor invite you to mine.

(My last halfling character was much more Casanunda than Frodo, anyway...then he managed to get a milkmaid "in a family way" and had to deal with being a somewhat reluctant family man while also being a semi-professional adventurer, with both his birth family and marriage family being deeply disapproving of all of his various lifestyle choices...convincing the in-laws that the money he brought in to the family was worth the risk, especially when he came back from one such foray in two separate boxes, was always a fun prelude to a new story arc. But I digress. (Yeah, characters in the games I play in have families, social responsibilities, and lives beyond the dungeon. Go figure.))

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let's see...based on the 4e previews thus far, we can play Legolas (Elf), Elrond (Eladrin), Gimli (Dwarf) or Tasslehoff (Halfling). No real information on Tieflings (Drizzt with a tail), or Humans (Captain Generic) yet.

Sounds like every edition of D&D to me, what's your point?

(Yeah, characters in the games I play in have families, social responsibilities, and lives beyond the dungeon. Go figure.))

'Cause no-one else's does. What are you even saying there if that's not what you're saying?

 

[HeinorNY]

After 30 years of RPing, playing Arthur Dent is FAR more interesting than playing Conan.

Why?

Playing a character who learns how to be a hero, because he has to, is much more enjoyable than playing Thrud Nounverb, whose entire personal story arc is "When I was young, I killed one hit die monsters. Now I kill 20 hit die monsters. That's character development!"

Partially agree. Actions should define heroism and not the contrary. I choose Frodo Baggins over Harry Potter 10 out of 10 because of that. But I don't think a character needs a deep background in order to be interesting and fun to play.

One of my favorite characters was a rogue in a Testament game. Strength 6. Constitution 6. "Coward" flaw. "Run" feat. When trouble beckoned, you could be sure he'd be over the next hill, returning only when it was time to pick some locks and grab some gold.

Considering this statement and the rest of your post, maybe D&D is not the right game to fulfil your RPG desires. I don't mean to make any claim, just assuming.

 

[Lizard]

Sounds like every edition of D&D to me, what's your point?

That condemning cliche halflings is pretty much gilding the lily?

'Cause no-one else's does. What are you even saying there if that's not what you're saying?

I'm getting the impression that this is the case for a much larger %age of posters here than I would previously have believed, given the general contempt for anything in a game system which isn't focused, with laser-like precision, on killing monsters and grabbing loot.

 

[Wormwood]

(Yeah, characters in the games I play in have families, social responsibilities, and lives beyond the dungeon. Go figure.))

Not a single bit of your character's personality would be invalidated by 4e.

Hell, you could have explored the exact same stories with a half-orc, human or dwarf.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

So you play one hobbit like that. Nally Nimbletoes or Dran Muffinhider or whatever. Congratulations. You've now played the only hobbit that ever needs to be played. Its done. You've made the progression from copying Batman or Wolverine or whatever to copying Frodo. You've certainly progressed as a roleplayer, because you chose to be a weak character. Panties drop in your wake because you took skill focus: cooking. You've won D&D!

Now put a fork in the race. Its done. For everyone IMO, since that boring cliche character can be filed alongside AxeBeard MacAleHammer, the scottish dwarf. They're on moratorium for this edition now.

Snarky commentary isn't neccessary. Seriously; I think we're all adults here.

 

[Lizard]

Why?

Because a person who has lost everything an instant and is thrust into a universe he can barely understand -- and yet must make sense of to survive -- is much more interesting than someone who solves every problem by hitting it until it stops moving.

Now, in my current game, I am playing someone like that -- a half-ogre paladin whose solution IS to smite until it can't be smitten no more. Why is he interesting? Because he's usually in situations where smiting doesn't work and only causes MORE problems, and his slow journey to understanding this is what makes him fun to play. (And, yeah, when it finally IS ass kicking time, he does indeed kick some serious ass...)

Partially agree. Actions should define heroism and not the contrary. I choose Frodo Baggins over Harry Potter 10 out of 10 because of that. But I don't think a character needs a deep background in order to be interesting and fun to play.

I just can't see playing a character without at least a page or two of bio at this point, and I trust to the DM to interactively 'flesh out' his family, friends, relationships, and history over gameplay.

Considering this statement and the rest of your post, maybe D&D is not the right game to fulfil your RPG desires. I don't mean to make any claim, just assuming.

Been playing it twice weekly since 3e came out, and running it. Haven't had any trouble so far.