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.

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

Chaosmancer

Legend
Carnival row is basically steampunk D&D.

But it isn't the medieval Fantasy that most people are associating with DnD's brand.

Trust me, I'd love to have more DnD by Gaslight, it is an amazing and cool world to explore. But I'm not going to pretend that the people claiming that we have to keep halflings because Tolkien is too iconic to fantasy to not keep them actually want DnD by Gaslight. They don't.

'Fantasy' makes for a poor genre descriptor as it covers most any non-earth stuff that doesn't fall into the sci-fi bucket and pretty much any earth stuff with any kind of magic at all.

It's basically "miscellaneous" by definition.

Makes it really silly then to claim one or two authors as the be all, end all, and only high water marks that matter then, doesn't it? Seems like it would be incredibly silly to try and contain such a broad and diverse genre under that single umbrella.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
So... don't hold the people who looked at a bad design and copied it without a second thought responsible for their work?

No thanks. You decided to use the design whole-sale, then it is your fault that the design was used whole-sale, you don't get to blame other people for your lack of desire to alter the design.
Why is it bad design for you?

More specifically, why is that bad design and things like beholders acceptable design?
 

Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
WoW was inspired by DnD, right? But what else was it inspired by? Well, it was inspired by Kung-Fu Panda. Which was inspired by Bruce Lee, and Kill Bill, and chinese mytholofy. So, what if DnD takes inspiration from WoW that was given to WoW by Kung-Fu Panda? WoW also has some pretty clear inspirations from some Christian Mythology. So does DnD. Would it bad to pass notes between the two things on better ways to use the same source material?
Pandaren actually pre-date Kung-Fu Panda. They showed up proper in Frozen Throne with the whole founding of Orgrimmar quest, Chen's one of the heroes you can have
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Why is it bad design for you?

More specifically, why is that bad design and things like beholders acceptable design?

It is a lion's head surrounded by five legs. The only form of locomotion it would have is spinning like a wheel. This is inherently silly looking. Additionally, as it is just a lion's head, the main form of attack would be to bite someone, however, it cannot bite someone. Since it can only move in a wheel motion, it cannot approach someone with the lion's face, the only way to face someone would be to spin on a leg. Therefore it is incredibly difficult to imagine it biting anyone. Therefore its main form of attack must be to trample people with the lion's paws. Which, again, makes for a rather silly visual. Finally, due to the various things I have mentioned above, this thing would often never see where it is going, or anyone behind it. It would be unable to turn its head except by rotating its entire body, giving it maybe a 120 degree field of vision and massive, easily exploitable blindspots.

All in all, it comes across as less dangerous than an actual lion, and something that could never actually exist, I can't even imagine how the thing eats without falling and being unable to get back up.


The beholder's main form of locomotion is flying. This inherently and immediately resolves dozens of problems. Additionally, multiple eyes and tentacle stalks are unnerving, especially with the inherent asymmetry of a massive eye in the center and tiny eyes surrounding it. This gives it the unnatural vibe you expect from a cosmic horror. Additionally, it is often portrayed with the eye beams, an integral part not only of the beholder's design but a massive spike in both threat and customization. You need only to come up with additional effects for the eyes, and you have made a new version of the beholder. I have seen multiple variations of the Beholder's design, all keeping the same key principles, and many of them are terrifying. Additionally, having a true 360 degrees of vision not only increases the threat level of the creature, but allows for unnerving conversations, especially as it looking at you is the same as it pointing a weapon in your direction. Finally, it seems like something which could actually exist, its form while using an unnatural logic does follow a logic that could allow it to exist and be a threat.


I believe that answers the question fairly well?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
It is a lion's head surrounded by five legs. The only form of locomotion it would have is spinning like a wheel. This is inherently silly looking. Additionally, as it is just a lion's head, the main form of attack would be to bite someone, however, it cannot bite someone. Since it can only move in a wheel motion, it cannot approach someone with the lion's face, the only way to face someone would be to spin on a leg. Therefore it is incredibly difficult to imagine it biting anyone. Therefore its main form of attack must be to trample people with the lion's paws. Which, again, makes for a rather silly visual. Finally, due to the various things I have mentioned above, this thing would often never see where it is going, or anyone behind it. It would be unable to turn its head except by rotating its entire body, giving it maybe a 120 degree field of vision and massive, easily exploitable blindspots.
That makes about as much sense as saying that a crab can't pinch someone because it can "only" move sideways.

And you didn't actually read the monster's entry. I looked it up. First, it has two heads, one on either side of its body, and All Around Vision. Secondly they don't have a bite attack. Instead, they have a claw attack, and have a special "Tumbling Attack" where they basically run over everyone in their path and do claw damage to them. It also has Fast Healing, Spell Resistance, Darkvision and low-light vision. And while the entry doesn't say so, I would assume it's not stiff and could actually bend its body fairly well. It doesn't do a ton of damage, but it's only CR 3.

It's honestly not any "sillier" than a lot of other D&D monsters are. At least it isn't a one-off like a piercer!

All in all, it comes across as less dangerous than an actual lion, and something that could never actually exist, I can't even imagine how the thing eats without falling and being unable to get back up.

The beholder's main form of locomotion is flying. This inherently and immediately resolves dozens of problems. Additionally, multiple eyes and tentacle stalks are unnerving, especially with the inherent asymmetry of a massive eye in the center and tiny eyes surrounding it.
Hate to break it to you, but from an artistic perspective, that's a perfectly acceptable form of symmetry. It's not even occult balanced. It's got eyestalks up top and a big eye in the middle of a round body. I'll accept that you find it creepy, since creepiness is in the eye of the person looking at the beholder, but if you're looking for asymmetry, look at a flounder, or a fiddler crab.
 

But it isn't the medieval Fantasy that most people are associating with DnD's brand.

Trust me, I'd love to have more DnD by Gaslight, it is an amazing and cool world to explore. But I'm not going to pretend that the people claiming that we have to keep halflings because Tolkien is too iconic to fantasy to not keep them actually want DnD by Gaslight. They don't.



Makes it really silly then to claim one or two authors as the be all, end all, and only high water marks that matter then, doesn't it? Seems like it would be incredibly silly to try and contain such a broad and diverse genre under that single umbrella.
"Iconic to DnD" seems like it could reasonably include "DnD by gaslight". I rather suspect that setting technology is one of the more insignificant elements that makes DnD what it is.

Yes it is difficult to make an "iconic or not iconic to general fantasy" case based on examples from the genre. Exceptions to D&D tropes abound, but can also be reasonably argued to belong to a different family of fantasy from DnD. Both sides are both right and wrong.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
That makes about as much sense as saying that a crab can't pinch someone because it can "only" move sideways.

Do... do I need to explain how arms and joints work? I didn't think I did, but if you think comparing a crab's arm to a head without a neck makes any sense.... do I need to explain that to you?

And you didn't actually read the monster's entry.

You are right, because the design was so stupid I had no desire to look it up.

I looked it up. First, it has two heads, one on either side of its body, and All Around Vision. Secondly they don't have a bite attack. Instead, they have a claw attack, and have a special "Tumbling Attack" where they basically run over everyone in their path and do claw damage to them. It also has Fast Healing, Spell Resistance, Darkvision and low-light vision.

So, I was right about them not being able to bite anything and that they have to roll over it with their feet? Sure, I was wrong about it having only one head (something impossible to know for how it is depicted) but the only thing that solves from my description is the vision issue. Every other thing I said is still 100% valid.

Also, how does darkvision, low-light vision, fast healing or spell resistance mean anything for their design? I can make up a dozen better creatures that have those traits AND reasonable ability to threaten people AND don't look this stupid.

And while the entry doesn't say so, I would assume it's not stiff and could actually bend its body fairly well. It doesn't do a ton of damage, but it's only CR 3.

You can assume all you want. The direction of those legs, the way their joints work and face, and the lack of any actual body structure other than leg, hip, head, tells me it would be incredibly stiff. Notably, legs do not bend 90 degrees away from their joints without breaking. That is the point of joints.

It's honestly not any "sillier" than a lot of other D&D monsters are. At least it isn't a one-off like a piercer!

Piercers actually make quite a bit of sense. They seem stupid because they cannot be allowed to operate properly in a DnD adventure. However, they are ambush hunters with perfect camoflauge and a massively deadly attack. With a 30 ft ceiling (not hard to assume in the underdark when Cathedral ceilings 50 ft high are fairly common for stalagmite formation) they deal an average of 10.5 damage. Which doesn't seem like enough, but can kill most humanoids pretty easily. Additionally, they are colony creatures who fight together, meaning that a large creature like a Giant Lizard (not uncommon in the underdark) with their 10x10 "shadow" could be hit by four of them, for 42 damage, which kills it twice over (You really only need two shots)

Finally, they are the larval form of a far deadlier predator, which could trivially help them fend off and kill any creatures which survive their initial attack, and leave the scraps for the young to eat. As a colony creature, they are social to some degree and sharing food would be common. And with a 50 ft radius threat ranger, Ropers can cover large swathes of the piercers territory.

Again, something that logically could exist, hunt and feed itself with methods that make a large degree of sense.

Hate to break it to you, but from an artistic perspective, that's a perfectly acceptable form of symmetry. It's not even occult balanced. It's got eyestalks up top and a big eye in the middle of a round body. I'll accept that you find it creepy, since creepiness is in the eye of the person looking at the beholder, but if you're looking for asymmetry, look at a flounder, or a fiddler crab.

And yet, I wasn't talking about an artistic symmetry at all. I was talking about a biological assymetry. There is a reason that many things supposed to be unnerving and wrong have only one, large, central eye. As a species that has evolved to recognize human facial designs, and having binocular vision like the overwhelming majority of animals on the planet (seriously, even most insects appear to have two eyes) seeing a creature with only a single eye is unnerving to a degree. We are somewhat used to it, because it has appeared so often in media, but it appears so often in media because it is effective.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
"Iconic to DnD" seems like it could reasonably include "DnD by gaslight". I rather suspect that setting technology is one of the more insignificant elements that makes DnD what it is.

You'd think, but I was just involved in a "no artificers in my DnD because technology doesn't fit MY setting" discussion yesterday. Many people have a highly specific and unwavering vision of DnD are western european medieval arthurian depictions and nothing else will work for them (while ignoring the many things that would be in a medieval european setting like guns and clockwork and the things that wouldn't be nearly so common like massive galleons)

Yes it is difficult to make an "iconic or not iconic to general fantasy" case based on examples from the genre. Exceptions to D&D tropes abound, but can also be reasonably argued to belong to a different family of fantasy from DnD. Both sides are both right and wrong.

Uh huh.

I'm sure that the people saying that DnD (the game with space aliens, massive robots, laser guns, medieval fantasy settings, far east fantasy settings, post-apocalyptic fantasy settings, gothic horror fantasy settings, dragons, giants, cthullu and psychic garbage monsters) is bigger than Tolkien are totally wrong, because things like sci-fi, gaslight, steampunk, and other mythologies are not "DnD"
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Do... do I need to explain how arms and joints work? I didn't think I did, but if you think comparing a crab's arm to a head without a neck makes any sense.... do I need to explain that to you?
Do I need to explain how a creature with jointed limbs work?

You are right, because the design was so stupid I had no desire to look it up.
So you made a poor judgement based on incomplete data. That was not smart of you.

So, I was right about them not being able to bite anything and that they have to roll over it with their feet? Sure, I was wrong about it having only one head (something impossible to know for how it is depicted) but the only thing that solves from my description is the vision issue. Every other thing I said is still 100% valid.

Also, how does darkvision, low-light vision, fast healing or spell resistance mean anything for their design? I can make up a dozen better creatures that have those traits AND reasonable ability to threaten people AND don't look this stupid.
You claimed it was weaker than a lion. It has abilities that make that not so.

And this creature looks no stupider than, quite frankly, most traditional D&D monsters, like chimeras. You're just not used to it.

You can assume all you want. The direction of those legs, the way their joints work and face, and the lack of any actual body structure other than leg, hip, head, tells me it would be incredibly stiff. Notably, legs do not bend 90 degrees away from their joints without breaking. That is the point of joints.
You know the anatomy of a magical beast probably made by a Vestige to be a servitor? Do tell.

And yet, I wasn't talking about an artistic symmetry at all. I was talking about a biological assymetry. There is a reason that many things supposed to be unnerving and wrong have only one, large, central eye. As a species that has evolved to recognize human facial designs, and having binocular vision like the overwhelming majority of animals on the planet (seriously, even most insects appear to have two eyes) seeing a creature with only a single eye is unnerving to a degree. We are somewhat used to it, because it has appeared so often in media, but it appears so often in media because it is effective.
And it's not biologically asymmetric either. It actually displays perfect bilateral symmetry when seen from the front, and radial symmetry when seen from above.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Just trying to give you some advice. Take it or leave it, I'm not discussing this topic with you any more.

I always love how your advice seems to assume I'm a massive egotist who can't see past his own nose. Really endears me to your ideas to constantly be attacked every time you discuss things with me.
Mod Note:

The two of you seem to but heads most of the time you encounter each other in the same threads. And when you do, you make it abundantly clear that you have a friction-filled past history with each other,

Perhaps it’s time for y’all to reduce everyone’s headaches and just mutually ignore each other.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top