D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[pemerton]

Literally the player's only purpose in the game is to play their own character!

This seems like a controversial claim, even for 5e D&D!

 

[Cadence]

My ears are burning.

Since I've been invoked a couple of times, I thought I'd clarify my point.

I argue that halflings should be moved to the MONSTER MANUAL. Not some other book. The Monster Manual. Those that want to play Halfings will have the stats they need right out of the gate, but, a race that has failed for fifty years to gain any significant traction gets pushed out of the Player's Handbook to make space for a new option. Considering halflings can't even gain more traction than either Dragonborn or Tieflings, despite having every possible advantage, moving them to the Monster Manual would have zero impact.

To me, this is just a win- win. Those that want to play halflings are completely unaffected, but, those of us who never see halflings appear at the table get new options.

If a race in the MM is an option for every table, then you already have everything in there, right? So are you asking them to do (apparently) nothing by that argument by switching something from the MM to PHB? Or are you wanting them to put something entirely new in the PHB? .Or does it actually make a huge difference to players which book the races occur in?

I'm sorry that this is seen as "hating" halflings or being some sort of badwrongfun thing. To me, that's just bizarre. Halfings should be in the game, I have no quarrel with that. I think they should be. Obviously they have their fans. But, do we have to be chained to decisions made half a century ago that have failed for half a century to make any real inroads into the gaming zeitgeist?

It's rather telling that outside of D&D, you never see halflings at all. World of Warcraft AFAIK, doesn't have halflings. I'm struggling to think of a single example of a fantasy author that uses anything resembling halflings (that isn't a Tolkien pastiche like Terry Brooks). Granted, I don't read that much fantasy anymore - I read a lot more SF - but, like I said, I can find works with elves, and dwarves and all sorts of things. But halflings? I'm really struggling to think of a single example.

So, to me, halflings are a failed experiment. They have a place in the game. Good grief, we have all sorts of things in the game that don't see a lot of daylight at tables. Fair enough. No worries. But, get them out of the PHB and make space for some new ideas. The whole argument about good vs bad lore is such a pointless rabbit hole for me. I couldn't care less if the lore for halflings would make Shakespeare weep. Doesn't matter. What matters is that, after fifty years, several editions, numerous settings, halflings are the least popular (or maybe second least popular) character race choice.

It feels odd at the end of this post to read that you don't care at all about the lore as far as keeping them or not, just their popularity in the game, given that what occurs before that in the same post is all about the lack of lore outside the game.

Halflings beat gnomes still and beat half-orcs until 2019. If the only thing that mattered was long term popularity then it feels like both gnomes and half-orcs would ben locked onto the removal list first for their long-term failure. (Which would have missed a jump for.half-orcs).

 

[Oofta]

See, it is stuff like this that makes me agree with @Hussar , even if I feel like they are far too blunt.

You are putting Tolkien on a pedestal as the single most important fantasy writer of all time... and ignoring so much.

First of all, you are ignoring that Tolkien was writing in the aftermath of World War 1. Want to know why Martin seems to have a lesser cultural impact with his books than Tolkien? Let me introduce you to Television, Video Games and Facebook. That shattering of the consumer base and explosion of content plays a massive role in that point.

Heck, even if you tried you couldn't read every single fantasy book that is published over the past ten years and catch up.

But, back then? You could. Tolkien was popular for decades because there was so much less.

Additionally, I know it was edited in, but Bohandas had a really solid point in bringing up Journey to the West. Maybe you haven't heard about it, but anyone who dips into anime and Eastern Culture at all can't help but run into. It inspired characters from Goku in Dragonball, Naruto, One Piece, RWBY and dozens of other things you have never even heard of. And it was written hundreds of years before Tolkien.

And let us look at things like Avatar the Last Airbender. Massively popular and had a big impact on fantasy. But, fantasy itself is bigger now, and it is hard to make the kind of waves Tolkien did back when the pond was smaller.


Look, Tolkien was great. He left a big imprint. But dismissing literally everything that isn't Tolkien as lesser works is just... mind boggling. It completely ignores everything. There are entire genres of fantasy that have basically nothing to do with Tolkien. And they are producing quite fine works.

Once again taking a grain of truth and twisting it into something it's not.

I don't put Tolkien on a pedestal. I've read The Hobbit and LOTR a couple of times (not unusual for me) but I wouldn't put him in my top 5 favorite author list.

I'm just saying his ideas and influence, not just in D&D but fantasy in general since is not matched by Martin.

The GoT books are well received and popular. But their ideas aren't particularly special or unique. It's typical Machiavellian scheming by politicians with dragons.

To say that Tolkien was different and opened up the ideas of what fantasy can be says nothing about authors before or since.

 

[Cadence]

Even as far as Appendix N is concerned, there are some clear failures. For instance, it's very hard for an episode of D&D to resemble a typical REH Conan story.

The reasons why are probably too numerous to list in this thread - but two are (i) the lack of a mechanism in D&D for chance/helpful encounters of the sort that so often help Conan (eg in Tower of the Elephant; in The Scarlet Citadel; in The Hour of the Dragon); and (ii) the complete absence of incentives to give up the treasure in order to do the right thing (in classic D&D this leads to losing XP, not winning the game).

OGL Conan had a half-baked Fate Point mechanic to try and handle (i). As best I recall it did not have anything much to deal with (ii) - maybe a rule that prevents accumulation of character wealth?

It feels like D&D fails to capture something about almost all of the things that inspired it. Law v. Chaos quickly goes from being conflated with G&E to having G&E overtaking them on their own axis. Conan Barbarians are merged with Berserkers. Elves are neither immortal nor just better power-wise than humans. Etc...

Back to the topic of this thread, does it capture Halflings pretty well? Including usually being forgotten?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Without mechanics - ie some rule whereby players can trigger a helpful encounter - then helpful encounters (eg Zenobia helping Conan escape) are dependent on GM decision-making.

Yes. That is not a bad thing, it’s just a thing you don’t prefer.

In AD&D - the home of Appendix N - making choices that involve sacrificing/abandoning treasure is strongly disincentivised, because you lose your XP. That's not a game that is apt to produce fiction that resembles REH Conan stories.

That is fair, although I hardly think that this is a big defining part of said stories.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And Mozart, Picasso, Lovecraft, and other creators that helped found a theme/genre in their work are also still prominent/well-known. That doesn't mean that every orchestra ever in the future of all orchestras have to play a piece by Mozart, or that anyone that every Cosmic-Horror themed book, movie, tv-show, and game have to include something from Lovecraft. People who found/codify genres are popular because they're the people you learn about in the history books. Their renown is not dependent on every part of their work being good or necessary to be included in something inspired by their works.

Okay.

 

[FrozenNorth]

From the mid-70s to late-80s D&D jelled into a thing with its own mythos. The elves, dwarves, dragons, gods, spellcasting, orcs, goblins, clerics, paladins, druids, barbarians etc...have become their own D&D thing. The DNA of that was in Appendix N of the 1e DMG (there's a thread from last year on a reduced Appendix N that highlights the most obvious ones D&D General - A shorter Appendix N). Those were the ones that most clearly pressed their finger prints into it before the clay started setting. And anything after them might be great fantasy, but it has a higher bar to jump to impact it. Doesn't mean it's not great stuff, but it means it's hard for Harry Potter, or Minecraft, or Percy Jackson, or whatnot to grab a major place in the game. (Edit: And same for older things he hadn't read or borrowed inspiration from).

I disagree somewhat. D&D is a living game. Each edition is a jump forward, with things that get added and things that get left behind. Even within an edition, things get added and changed.

Vancian casting has been minimized, warlocks, dragonborn and tieflings have been added, 4 elements monks are inspired by Avatar. I suspect Strixhaven will be very Harry Potter inspired.

D&D paladins have changed substantially between 1e and 5e.

Overall, D&D remains as relevant as it has because it is willing to adapt. My hope is that it remains willing to do so in 6e, 7e and even 8e.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Halflings beat gnomes still and beat half-orcs until 2019. If the only thing that mattered was long term popularity then it feels like both gnomes and half-orcs would ben locked onto the removal list first for their long-term failure. (Which would have missed a jump for.half-orcs).

I think popularity should be AN important consideration for deciding whether a race should be a core race, a PHB race, or a Volo’s race, but it shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

Gnomes do have the advantage of being the most popular +2 Int race, while Halflings are the second most popular +2 Dex race. If we want to ensure the races have a variety in ability scores offered, this is a consideration. (Of course this is moot if Tasha’s lineage rules become the default in 6e).

 

[Cadence]

I think popularity should be AN important consideration for deciding whether a race should be a core race, a PHB race, or a Volo’s race, but it shouldn’t be the sole consideration.

Gnomes do have the advantage of being the most popular +2 Int race, while Halflings are the second most popular +2 Dex race. If we want to ensure the races have a variety in ability scores offered, this is a consideration. (Of course this is moot if Tasha’s lineage rules become the default in 6e).

I'm looking forward to seeing how the races' popularities will change in a post ability bonus world. Will dark vision and the like still be a thing?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think a halfling PC does generate a fairly strong expectation - in me, at least - of either a burglar or a surprisingly dangerous warrior. I wouldn't expect them to be overmatched, because they're a D&D character!

And this is the issue. For all people talk about playing unlikely heroes in D&D or ordinary people they are all D&D PCs. By having a visible physical disadvantage (and one without the known magical might of gnomes) halflings are as close as you get to the appearance being overmatched in D&D without fairly serious reskinning (Lazy Warlord style).