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.

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


log in or register to remove this ad


Kobolds can learn reading and writting, and this is possible when they are working for dragon patrons. Kobolds have got the potential to build a civilitation, but they can't because they aren't wellcome in any part, and they aren't enough responsible to keep the natural balance. Maybe later in a future reboot of "Council of Wyrms" the kobolds are allowed to live in Io's-blood islands, as dragons' thralls. Maybe in some part there are kobold tribes whose patron is a metalif or at least a no-evil dragon, learning to be civilized people, but Tiamat and Kurtulmak aren't happy with this at all. If they could, they would

And D&D is not the same after the impact of World of Warcraft, where the greenskins hadn't to be so evil. WotC knows it and that it the reason no-evil geenskins PCs have to be allowed in the game. Other impact was World of Darkness where the PCs were the monsters, and since then some players like to play with members of "bad guys", and not only Drizzt's rip-off.
 

In 5e, the PC versions of Kobold and Goblin have respectively:
You can speak, read, and write Common and Draconic.

You can speak, read, and write Common and Goblin.
So, it's reasonable for them to know how to read and write in general. The standard Kobold and Goblin statblocks also list those languages, although the Monster Manual only mentions knowing how to speak them.
 

A notticeable issue with D&D is that many fans prefer race mechanics that don't match the other game mechanics.

Some fans want rolling for stats to be a thing low STR small races. But then player can roll of 18 for STR on halfling, gnome, or goblin.
And should then have it adjusted downward to whatever the species maximum is for those species, which won't be 18.
Some fans what only the classic races to be defined by civilization. But then it makes "nontraditional player races" vulnerable to hit and run 5MWD tactics if they are all too stupid, lazy, or evil to be engineers, smiths, or mages.
Some fans - like me - want only the classic species to be PC-playable, returning the "nontraditional" ones to monster status.
This is where a lot of the hobbitish halflings lose their uniqueness as they morph into just into a culture f short humans at those tables.
Yup.
 

In 5e, the PC versions of Kobold and Goblin have respectively:

So, it's reasonable for them to know how to read and write in general. The standard Kobold and Goblin statblocks also list those languages, although the Monster Manual only mentions knowing how to speak them.
I'll concede this: if the PC versions can be literate then in the name of setting consistency they all can be literate.

What I won't concede is Kobold and Goblin being PC-playable in the first place.
 

And should then have it adjusted downward to whatever the species maximum is for those species, which won't be 18.
Doesn't matter. D&D doesn't make ability scores matter enough in anything but combat.

Restricting the halfling or gnome to a maximum of 16 STRvis trivial in the scope of thing unless you playing a warrior. Which at that point you are limiting the class option of a race because most editions and tables don't get deep or fine in their mechanics.

Hence all halflings PCs being the same players getting bored and...


Some fans - like me - want only the classic species to be PC-playable, returning the "nontraditional" ones to monster status.
...fans calling for nontraditional races or exotic subraces or traditional races.

When you full the fantasy of the halflings, you raise the chance of players getting bored of it. Which raise the chance of fans moving to nontraditional races, which then makes fans bored of the nonfantastical halflings even fantasy. So only halfing lovers and fresh faces end up caring about base halflings within a setting that uses base halflings.
 

To bring this to the original question (which is a fantastic feature of this site.. all you gotta do is go to the top of the screen to get on track with the thesis), I do a lot of different things with halflings (and other ancestries) as we go from world to world (assuming the world has halflings). In some they're the mean little jerks you get in Dark Sun, in some they're the lazy little jerks you get in Forgotten Realms, in others they're they oppressed little jerks you get in Golarion, in others they're big on flightless-bird cavalry. The only real, consistent thing I have when I present them from world to world is that they look as described in the player guides. The only role I really don't reserve for them is being little fools, because that makes me uncomfortable. I do try to give them cultures which are not intended to be an expy of real world cultures, again, because that makes me uncomfortable, but I do not force players to be from those "default" cultures. I do not limit them to "default" classes. I do not tell them they can only go to level 5 in Gandalf.
 

Doesn't matter. D&D doesn't make ability scores matter enough in anything but combat.

Restricting the halfling or gnome to a maximum of 16 STRvis trivial in the scope of thing unless you playing a warrior. Which at that point you are limiting the class option of a race because most editions and tables don't get deep or fine in their mechanics.
Eh, in that case the halfing just picks up a short sword or rapier and leans into DEX instead of Strength.
 

Doesn't matter. D&D doesn't make ability scores matter enough in anything but combat.
OK, but if stats don't matter then why is it that every time the roll-vs-point buy-vs array debate comes up there's repeated howls along the lines of "Stats are way too important to leave to the whim of random roll".

Can't have it both ways - either they're importasnt or they're not; and if they're important then a -2 adjust on Hobbit strength will be meaningful.
Restricting the halfling or gnome to a maximum of 16 STRvis trivial in the scope of thing unless you playing a warrior. Which at that point you are limiting the class option of a race because most editions and tables don't get deep or fine in their mechanics.
The bolded is exactly what I'm after: that most if not all non-Human species are better suited to some classes than others; and if you want to play against type you can but it's an uphill battle.

If you want all the class options equally open, play a Human. That's what they're for.
...fans calling for nontraditional races or exotic subraces or traditional races.

When you full the fantasy of the halflings, you raise the chance of players getting bored of it. Which raise the chance of fans moving to nontraditional races, which then makes fans bored of the nonfantastical halflings even fantasy. So only halfing lovers and fresh faces end up caring about base halflings within a setting that uses base halflings.
And when those same fans inevitably get bored of the nontraditional species as well, then what?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top