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

Because otherwise what should be monsters aren't monsters any more, leading to a slow but endless loop where (A) designers come up with new forms of humanoid monsters as opponents for the PCs which leads to (B) over time those species become PC-playable and thus watered down which leads to (C) return to (A).

IMO in any design space this sort of loop is best stopped before it starts.

And by "slow" you mean literal decades right? Because the process to get orcs to be baseline as looks to be done in One DnD took, what? 40 years?

I'm not terribly concerned by a "problem" where there is a 40 year cycle of what people are interested in.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

People have stated that there were supplemental that had non standard races. I don't remember ever seeing any until 4E's every race under the sun.

I'm not saying they didn't exist, I'm just saying I never saw them even at conventions or similar. I don't remember anybody even saying they were an option and I've played with a lot of different groups over the years.

Okay, so you mean as playable races.

Because if you were trying to argue that the existence of goblins wasn't core to DnD, I'd honestly have questions for you. Because they have been the single most common enemy EVER in DnD.
 

The hobbitish halfling has a basic fantasy problem.

Basically, the "hobbitish" halfling is "boring" because once you add more races, the aspects ofthe hobbitish halfling are easily copied.

Even with Traditional races:
  • Gnomes allows you to be Small
  • Elf allows you to be DEX based
  • Human allows you to be rural
  • Dwarf, elves, humans and all the other trad races except half orc are human colored with hornlessness,fanlessness, taillessness and humany skin.
Leaving just the Luck and Bravery which are low impact.

A successful TTRPG corparation is going to create more and more races to sel books and make money. And the halfling is one of the most vulnerable races to being overshadowed mechnaically and lorewise.
 

The hobbitish halfling has a basic fantasy problem.

Basically, the "hobbitish" halfling is "boring" because once you add more races, the aspects ofthe hobbitish halfling are easily copied.

Even with Traditional races:
  • Gnomes allows you to be Small
  • Elf allows you to be DEX based
  • Human allows you to be rural
  • Dwarf, elves, humans and all the other trad races except half orc are human colored with hornlessness,fanlessness, taillessness and humany skin.
Leaving just the Luck and Bravery which are low impact.

A successful TTRPG corparation is going to create more and more races to sel books and make money. And the halfling is one of the most vulnerable races to being overshadowed mechnaically and lorewise.
And yet, they’re still popular, after 40+ years of new races.
 

And yet, they’re still popular, after 40+ years of new races.
I'd still say at least half of that popularity is due to always being in the PHB, rarely banned, and there only being one other small race in the PHB.

Like the point of the thread, halfling is popular despite being the least integrated core race in D&D.
Orcs and goblins are more integrated in most D&D setting than Halflings.
Dragonborn, the baby of D&D PC races, more integration into D&D settings than Halflings despite a 40 year headstart. That's the problem.
 

There could be this marvelous thing where the PCs, NPCs. and enemies can be of the same race.
Which would be fine if those PCs, NPCs and enemies were all truly representative of said race and created using the same basic framework; but no, people want PCs to use different "build" mechanics and so forth. Which usually means the PCs will be overpowered in comparison to what should be their peers.

That, and people get upset when a Human (for example) culture - even if not based on anything real-world or historical - is painted in a poor light. With monster species which are clearly not real, however, this isn't (nearly as much of) an issue.
 

Why is this a bad thing?

More specifically, why is it bad that "monsters aren't monsters any more"? All that means is that you, the DM, have to come up with a reason for them to be bad guys rather than just relying on them being goblins or whatever and saying "well, they're goblins so they only exist to be killed."
Yes, I can do that extra work if I want to. If I want to. Sometimes, I can't be bothered.
 

This is really the crux of it. The game is made in such a way that having a disadvantage in one place and an advantage somewhere else doesn't always balance out.

If Bob plays a Goliath Fighter and has a 16 Strength, and my Elf Fighter has a 15, he hits more, and does a little more damage, not a big deal. But then if someone makes a Halfling Fighter and has a 13, then the gap starts becoming noticeable, and there's not a lot of opportunities to make your choice seem to be anything but a bad one; ideally, these things should balance out in some way.
And that's just it - if you want to play a Halfling, why would you make it a Fighter; and if you want to play a Fighter, why would you make it a Halfling?

The choice of species and class should, IMO, be combined; with some combinations viable (all combinations, for Humans) and some either not viable or not allowed.
Instead the rules bend over backwards to make sure shorties have to use lower damage weapons, but then turn around and let them easily get Dexterity to damage, making Strength less important.
A design mistake, IMO. Dex already has too much going for it.
 

that's not really the argument.

The argument is that rolled stat characters are virtually always higher value than point buy. The only reason to use die rolling is to have overpowered characters with no weaknesses. The proof of this is nearly all die rolled characters have higher stats than point buy ones, to the point where, at least in 3e, a point buy character was considered unplayable by die rollers.
All that tells me is the default point buy value is probably set too low.

I seem to recall the average is about 1/4 point different - something like 12.00 (array) to 12.25 (4d6k3) with point-buy in there somewhere, close to array I think - but it's a while since I did all those calculations.

There's nothing in the game that "should" be monsters.
Other than all the monsters, you mean? :)
 

I'd still say at least half of that popularity is due to always being in the PHB, rarely banned, and there only being one other small race in the PHB.

Like the point of the thread, halfling is popular despite being the least integrated core race in D&D.
Orcs and goblins are more integrated in most D&D setting than Halflings.
Dragonborn, the baby of D&D PC races, more integration into D&D settings than Halflings despite a 40 year headstart. That's the problem.
You’re still one of less than a half dozen people I’ve ever heard complain about this supposed problem, so idk about the idea it is a problem, at least so far as things wotc should worry about go.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top