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

While I'm sure I can waste my time arguing with you about how you said "little weight" and that doesn't mean "zero weight", I really don't think that is constructive when it was clear what I have meant.

Especially in light of the posts from multiple people about how the image depicted can't be trusted to be accurate, since it is a fantasy creature and therefore doesn't follow the rules. Additionally, we had that little aside about the angels and how some monsters are just "what our mortal minds can comprehend" and not what they actually look like.

I have zero interest of litigating the difference between "little" and "zero" in this current environment.



Funny, it doesn't look like that art was created on stained glass. Also, cartoons DO depict how it looks, some worlds are cartoon worlds, not photo realistic worlds, and so if it does not show how that cartoon world actually looks, then it is a bad job.

But frankly, this has nothing to do with the criticisms I have leveled against the design, and is just a pure sophistry that "well, if the art was done in a different medium or a different style, then it would be considered differently" Which is entirely pointless since I'm not discussing an art that has been done in a different medium or a different style, but the art I posted.



If someone draws a landscape of a hill that looks like an ocean, I'm going to say they did a bad job of portraying a hill. Now, maybe they are doing something symbolic, and you can find art that was made to make a land of rolling hills look like an ocean, using a visual metaphor, but that is clearly different than what I'm talking about. Because the visual metaphor is clear in their design and artistic choices. It isn't like they tried to make a land of rolling hills that looked like an ocean that really looked like a urban skyscraper. Which again, would be a failure of their artistic design.

If the artist of the Ravager intended it to have shapeshifting legs without bones and tendons, then depicting it with bones and tendons UTTERLY FAILS THEIR DESIGN. I do not understand how this is such a contentious point of discussion.



Do you?



Does it matter since I can't even get to the point of "the thing clearly looks like X"? Seriously, you all are jumping down my throat to insist things that you cannot see must be true, just to justify a bad design as not actually being bad. I do not understand it. The thing doesn't have shapeshifting legs, that is abundantly clear. If the artist wanted to depict shapeshifting legs, they should have done so, not relied on the observer to psychically understand that this fantasy creature actually looks differently than it was depicted.



And what I'm suggesting is that if you are supposed to look at the Mona Lisa and say "She is clearly supposed to be the King of Germany" then the artist did a bad job. You people are adding unsubstantiated "facts" to this creature solely to defend something that does not need to be defended. It doesn't hurt the game to admit that the Ravager was a bad design. I don't care that if I look at a cartoon illustration of a person it has been simplified from the photo of the person, because this isn't a cartoon design, this is much closer to a photo realistic design and so I don't need to consider "what if it was a cartoon and you had to interpret" or "what if it was a stained glass design instead". Because we have the art, we aren't guessing at what the art looks like, it is right there.
I find your expressed concern for your time curiously at odds with the verbosity of your response.

It's not a matter of litigating the difference between little and zero. It is the existence of a range of values rather than a binary set of outcomes. As I said in the post which you chose to reply to, the more fantastical the creature, the less representational the art, the more load you should expect to pick up with imagination and other descriptive material (and vice versa).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad




Lanefan

Victoria Rules
How about a devastating roar that inflicts sonic damage and causes people to panic? Or fire. Fire is always good.
OK, the damaging roar with a fear (or stun?) effect is a possibility.

Or. as it has two mouths, it sucks in all the sound on one side (giving a cone-shaped 'silence' effect) and blasts it out the other.
 


Oofta

Legend
OK, the damaging roar with a fear (or stun?) effect is a possibility.

Or. as it has two mouths, it sucks in all the sound on one side (giving a cone-shaped 'silence' effect) and blasts it out the other.
Or it has one mouth that absorbs all sound in a cone and then expels it in a roar. It works like an anti-verbal-component-magic-zone, kind of like a limited version of a beholders eye ray.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top