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

[Neonchameleon]

Yes.
But it is also proof that many people don't get or like halflings. Especially in their default 5e or FR/GW state.

You think that if we had an "I hate elves" thread there wouldn't be more people chiming in? Rather than a few people displaying their passionate loathing with at least two people writing literally hundreds of comments about how they hate halflings.

And I don't think an "I hate gnomes" thread would go on half this long because gnomes don't strike anywhere near the same deep chord with people.

 

[Minigiant]

You think that if we had an "I hate elves" thread there wouldn't be more people chiming in? Rather than a few people displaying their passionate loathing with at least two people writing literally hundreds of comments about how they hate halflings.

And I don't think an "I hate gnomes" thread would go on half this long because gnomes don't strike anywhere near the same deep chord with people.

Yeah.

But this isn't even a "I hate halflings" thread. It's more a "I think D&D misuses halflings" topic with many discussing whether or not it does.

Personally I don't think a "D&D misuses elves" or "D&D misuses gnomes" thread would go as long because common issues with those races is not poor usage.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Evidence needed.

it might be anecdotal but there is a stereotype for it or just being a CN diet kender in the new guard communities.

 

[Don Durito]

it might be anecdotal but there is a stereotype for it or just being a CN diet kender in the new guard communities.

Can't be very new guard if they're being compared to Kender, a race from a campaign setting that has been out of print for a generation.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Can't be very new guard if they're being compared to Kender, a race from a campaign setting that has been out of print for a generation.

I am comparing them to kender out of the need to condense it into words I can spell as otherwise it would take 50 words and I suck at written communication.

 

[Oofta]

And I don't understand how that can be possible. Genasi fill their niche of being elemental/half-genie people. Tiefling fill the niche of being fiend-touched people. If I ever get the chance to play another character, I know that there will be dozens of races more appealing to me than Genasi, Tieflings, and others, but there's a difference between "I find this race appealing for a PC" and "I find this race appealing as a fantasy race for the game/my world". Genasi are interesting to me from a world-building perspective (as a sort of ambassador/messenger/trader race between the humanoid races and genies, and people that have conflicted opinions on both sides of their parentage). Halflings are simply not, for the many reasons that I've outlined in the OP and throughout the thread.

I don't find genasi appealing as a race that I could play for a future character, but I do find them appealing as a race to populate the elemental planes in my world and to fulfill certain themes that other races can't do.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that you don't want to play them (quite honestly, the more races that I don't want to play, the easier it is for me to play the characters that I want to, because I have less options to choose from), but it's typically a bad thing from a design standpoint if you don't want anything to do with them as a DM.

Probably. I've tried to be reasonable, but I don't think this discussion is getting/going anywhere.

We just look at different things and have different ideas of what makes a race interesting. To me genasi are just "let's through things in a blender and see what comes out". They don't represent anything, they just happen to be a rando combination. My campaign doesn't need an ambassador to the djinn any more than they need a half dwarf or half dragonborn. As I said earlier, the fact that some people think gnomes and halflings are effectively the same shows how we think about races completely different. That's fine.

I think that one of the strengths (and for some, weaknesses) of D&D is that it's a big tent. So, as I said before, it's okay to agree to disagree. Sometimes it's the most reasonable response of all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My campaign doesn't need an ambassador to the djinn any more than they need a half dwarf or half dragonborn.

Heh heh... I don't even think I've ever even used a djinn as an encounter, let alone need an ambassador race for them.

 

[Oofta]

Heh heh... I don't even think I've ever even used a djinn as an encounter, let alone need an ambassador race for them.

Yeah, I'm trying to imagine a campaign where djinn are so central to the world that you need them as a specific ambassador. I guess in a campaign where the D&D elemental planes were a big deal ... but that's quite a specific niche.

 

[FrozenNorth]

No, I absolutely dispute this. I've spent 1000s of words on this.
I will not, and must not, destroy my characters and stories just to please some rando on ENWorld. My halflings have never been human. They were not born human and no more tell human stories than dwarves tell human stories.

So, who’s asking you to “destroy your character sheets”? No one has asked you to do that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Ennh...it is a function of the mechanics. I'd agree that not much is done with it in setting. Doesn't make it less true. Notably, it's true of all the small races, so they are hardly unique in that respect, but I'd argue it is a physiological difference that is getting ignored in favor of "just a short human".

Given the mechanics of D&D, wouldn’t every short human have exactly the same trait?