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.

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?

 

[James Gasik]

What I will say about Small races is that they often aren't optimal, and won't likely be chosen by a player who is thinking about mechanical advantages; they'll be chosen by players who think they are fun. This is especially true for the Halfling, as they are a "common" race (a lot of players seem to prefer playing something exotic, in my experience), and their racial traits aren't super exciting like resistances, free spells, abilities to fly, climb, or swim, teleportation, and so on tend to be.

This is one of the things that I really liked about Eberron as a setting; alongside fantastic, exotic races, all the PHB races still existed. Why would you play one? Because Dragonmarks (or a riding dinosaur, lol)!

There's no way that Halflings can ever be as popular as Tieflings, because Tieflings are exotic, nearly have tragic backstories built-in, and have flashy special abilities; Halflings are many things, but flashy is not one of them. And to change that, would fundamentally change what Halflings are, to the point that some people would reject them outright.

Heck, as of Monsters of the Multiverse, if you really like the idea of playing a Small character, for whatever reason, you can now play a Small Aasimar! So what's better than a Halfling? A Halfling who is part angel, I suppose.

This is why Eberron's example is so important; to make the common races interesting, you have to make them interesting in the setting. The Gnomes of Eberron basically being the postal service, and thus, the spymasters and information brokers, was brilliant. As was making Dwarves the bankers, and so on. By giving races access to a unique ability that reinforced their role in the setting, a good reason to choose to play one can materialize.

It's not the job of the PHB to make races interesting, or give them a role in the campaign. After all, the DM might decide "no dragon-men or elves" in their campaign, and if those races seem too interesting, then some players will chafe at not being allowed to play one. One could argue that the 5e PHB (and 4e before it) fundamentally failed, because they had exciting, non-bland races in them; if the game tells me I can now play a Drow, Tiefling, or Dragon-Man, all of which sound cool, it's gong to be annoying when the DM starts going on about how "there is no place for these races in my game". Cool races should be in supplemental materials, so there's no expectation that you should be entitled to play them.

Ok, I'm not being entirely serious about the PHB being a fail state, because of the race options, but I think there is something to this point of view. I've certainly seen players sigh when they're told they can't play the shiny cool thing, and must settle for the "same old boring races".

I can certainly understand why a DM wouldn't want a party full of exotic weirdos running around their setting, but I think it's also the DM's job to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of playing any race in their custom setting (just as it's the job of the setting designer to do so for premade settings).

 

[Chaosmancer]

The point has been from the very first, that the summaries of the PHB content for Humans and Halflings that were provided were accurate reflections of that content.

That you can draw parallels between the PHB Humans and Earth humanity is irrelevant to the content provided for the PHB Human. And your ability to draw those parallels certainly does not hint at a whole collection of otherwise unexpressed similarities.

Yet you continuously draw in those unexpressed similarities and then paint them as "base state" D&D humanity and then complain about how Halflings too closely resemble the "base state" humanity you have constructed for yourself.

I have not written the humans presented in Hommlet, or Saltmarsh, or Ten Towns, or any of the dozens and dozens of adventures we could reference.

This is where your argument keeps failing. I'm talking about how humanity is depicted in DnD. Does it go beyond the PHB? Yes, because humanity has been depicted rather consistently in DnD and has more than just the PHB to reference. Is it limited to a single setting? No, in fact, this depiction of humanity in DnD cuts across every single setting ever created for DnD. Birthright? They are are presented in this manner. Darksun? Same. Forgotten Realms? Same. Unlike with the halflings which is a single setting changing them, humans are consistent across every. Single. Setting.

So, is this my personal ability to draw parallels? No. This is how the writers of Dungeons and Dragons material have consistently depicted humanity. These are not "otherwise unexpressed" similarities, these are directly written into the bones of DnD from the earliest editions to now. This is not my personal constructed version, this is just the reality of DnD.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I have not written the humans presented in Hommlet, or Saltmarsh, or Ten Towns, or any of the dozens and dozens of adventures we could reference.

This is where your argument keeps failing. I'm talking about how humanity is depicted in DnD. Does it go beyond the PHB? Yes, because humanity has been depicted rather consistently in DnD and has more than just the PHB to reference. Is it limited to a single setting? No, in fact, this depiction of humanity in DnD cuts across every single setting ever created for DnD. Birthright? They are are presented in this manner. Darksun? Same. Forgotten Realms? Same. Unlike with the halflings which is a single setting changing them, humans are consistent across every. Single. Setting.

So, is this my personal ability to draw parallels? No. This is how the writers of Dungeons and Dragons material have consistently depicted humanity. These are not "otherwise unexpressed" similarities, these are directly written into the bones of DnD from the earliest editions to now. This is not my personal constructed version, this is just the reality of DnD.

The poster you replied to accurately captured the substance of the PHB content for both humans and halflings. That content indicates significant differences in cultures, values, and behavior. Full stop.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And it won't happen, until...

...everyone else, or at least a majority of same, follows on with the same change(s) and also has no problem.

The disagreements, of course, arise in discussing just what those changes should be; and that's fair enough. But it's not the least bit helpful to knock anyone's suggested change(s).

But that hasn't been happening. We haven't been discussing people's changes. We haven't gotten that chance. Especially since any time we try to discuss those changes when they come up, people start telling us that since it is their personal changes it doesn't matter what anyone else wants to do, and that this is just their version that shows the issue doesn't exist.

What you are describing would be great. It isn't what has happened in over a year and half of various halfling threads.

This follows on from the above, though, in that while it's not perhaps phrased as nicely as it could be, there's a valid point in there which says "If you think Halflings don't work you either gotta fix it yourself or follow someone else's fix, 'cause WotC ain't gonna do it.".

The Oberoni Fallacy is not a valid point. And, I'm sorry, but accusations being leveled at us aren't "not phrased as nicely as they could be" they are insults and personal attacks.

WoTC has changed in the past, they can change in the future, claiming they can never change so we should never push for change is historically inaccurate.

If the community widely adopts that homebrew fix then yes it does. And in between your quotes there's a couple of words missing; it should read "I don't have this problem any more, because I did something to fix the problem for me and me alone, therefore the problem doesn't exist for me now"; with the strong and obvious implication being that the writer feels that if you made the same fix the problem would also go away for you, lather rinse repeat until the problem is fixed comminuty-wide. Nothing wrong with saying that.

Yes, if you add words that change the meaning of what people say, they say something different. I didn't pick my phrasing randomly. If they were presenting it as only a solution for them, then I wouldn't be attacked and criticized for pointing out it was only a solution for them. Yet this entire line of quotes stems directly from exactly that, people criticizing me for "dismissing" their homebrew as only being a solution for them.

My only disagreement with you is thus that the reality of the discussion doesn't match your version.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not the job of the PHB to make races interesting, or give them a role in the campaign. After all, the DM might decide "no dragon-men or elves" in their campaign, and if those races seem too interesting, then some players will chafe at not being allowed to play one. One could argue that the 5e PHB (and 4e before it) fundamentally failed, because they had exciting, non-bland races in them; if the game tells me I can now play a Drow, Tiefling, or Dragon-Man, all of which sound cool, it's gong to be annoying when the DM starts going on about how "there is no place for these races in my game". Cool races should be in supplemental materials, so there's no expectation that you should be entitled to play them.

Ok, I'm not being entirely serious about the PHB being a fail state, because of the race options, but I think there is something to this point of view. I've certainly seen players sigh when they're told they can't play the shiny cool thing, and must settle for the "same old boring races".

I can certainly understand why a DM wouldn't want a party full of exotic weirdos running around their setting, but I think it's also the DM's job to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of playing any race in their custom setting (just as it's the job of the setting designer to do so for premade settings).

There are a lot of different angles to unpack here, and I think this is a good discussion.

For me, that first sentence I quoted feels fundamentally wrong. Because if it isn't the job of the PHB to make races interesting, then the only other published, official material that could do so are the setting books. However, you are not required to have the setting books to play DnD. Which means that we then look at one of two scenarios

1) It is the job of the GM to make races interesting
2) Races are not required to be interesting.

#1 is problematic to me. It falls into the Oberoni Fallacy and basically says that the role of the GM is to rewrite the weakest parts of the rules. Which is not the job of the GM, because why else would a GM spend money on the books? Now, maybe if none of the races were interesting, there would be some weight to the argument, but some of them are interesting, and this means that you have a unbalanced set of options.

#2 just reads wrong to me. Of course the races should be interesting, why else even have them existing?


I also think you fundamentally nail a problem, but misidentify the source of the problem. Now, maybe I am not seeing which side of the fence you land on, because you go back and forth a little bit on this. But you (jokingly) point out that the PHB "fails" because they included very interesting races, that then the DMs will remove from the game. And that is a problem because players want to play the interesting races.

Fundamentally though, that is not something to lay at the feet of WoTC, but at the DM's feet. If they are changing the baseline and the players are not happy about the changes to the baseline, then they have a self-created problem. You end up saying that you understand why DMs wouldn't want "a party full of exotic weirdos", but I think this gets back into what I discussed before. Fantasy is weirder these days. Dragonmen and Devilkin are not "exoctic weirdos" for a lot of us, but expected baselines. So, from the perspective of many players and GMs, the party that consists of these individuals isn't full of "exoctic weirdos" but just a normal party.


But I think the biggest thing where we seem to agree is that you state: "I think it's also the DM's job to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of playing any race in their custom setting (just as it's the job of the setting designer to do so for premade settings)."

If a DM is changing the baselines, then it is their job to make people excited for those changes. But it is also the job of the designer to do so for premade settings. And as much as there seems to be an idea that the PHB lacks any setting information at all... it doesn't. The PHB is the setting material for the GM that does not buy a setting book, so it is the job of the PHB's designers to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of ALL the races in that setting, and you seem to acknowledge that the Halfling certainly seems less interesting than quite a few of the other options, which is why people discuss changes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The poster you replied to accurately captured the substance of the PHB content for both humans and halflings. That content indicates significant differences in cultures, values, and behavior. Full stop.

But they did not accurately capture the depiction of humans in Dungeons and Dragons, which depict significant similarities in cultures, values and behavior with Halflings.

Full Stop.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But they did not accurately capture the depiction of humans in Dungeons and Dragons, which depict significant similarities in cultures, values and behavior with Halflings.

Full Stop.

You realize, of course, that this means that it is your opinion that the PHB does not accurately capture "humans in Dungeons and Dragons"

You also realize of course, you have now staked your claim as the single arbiter for what it means to be human and halfling across all editions and settings of D&D, D&D designers, DMs, and rulebooks be damned.

So, all anyone has to do to participate in a discussion with you on the topic of racial characteristics is to:

1. Read every published D&D product to date
2. Interpret the fullness of those published texts to form a single simultaneous understanding of "what it means" to be a particular D&D race
   1. This exercise must include a systematic review of all NPC statblocks, whereby participants must:
      1. Independently assess how representative of the race each statblock really is.
      2. Determine the personal philisophical underpinnings "implicit" in NPC statblocks where such motivations may include as much detail as "does not want to be an adventurer"
      3. Apply some kind of formula I assume?
   2. This analysis must apply some amount of weight to PHB content (but not that much, lest it spoil the conclusions)
3. Compare and contrast their synthesized conclusions and idiosyncratic interpretations, materials weighting etc. with yours.

You know, it seems like a really reasonable set of demands..

It certainly make more sense than like, just reading the most current rulebook and taking it for face value..

But, as tempting as it is..I'm afraid I'm going to pass.

 

[Faolyn]

You realize, of course, that this means that it is your opinion that the PHB does not accurately capture "humans in Dungeons and Dragons"

You also realize of course, you have now staked your claim as the single arbiter for what it means to be human and halfling across all editions and settings of D&D, D&D designers and rulebooks be damned.

So, all anyone has to do to participate in a discussion with you on the topic of racial characteristics is to:

1. Read every published D&D product to date
2. Interpret the fullness of those published texts to form a single simultaneous understanding of "what it means" to be a particular D&D race
   1. This exercise must include a systematic review of all NPC statblocks, whereby participants must:
      1. Independently assess how representative of the race each statblock really is.
      2. Determine the personal philisophical underpinnings "implicit" in NPC statblocks where such motivations may include as much detail as "does not want to be an adventurer"
      3. Apply some kind of formula I assume?
   2. This analysis must apply some amount of weight to PHB content (but not that much, lest it spoil the conclusions)
3. Compare and contrast their synthesized conclusions and idiosyncratic interpretations, materials weighting etc. with yours.

You know, it seems like a really reasonable set of demands..

It certainly make more sense than like, just reading the most current rulebook and taking it for face value..

But, as tempting as it is..I'm afraid I'm going to pass.

I think you forgot PROFIT!!!! as one of those steps.

 

[Lanefan]

The Oberoni Fallacy is not a valid point. And, I'm sorry, but accusations being leveled at us aren't "not phrased as nicely as they could be" they are insults and personal attacks.

WoTC has changed in the past, they can change in the future, claiming they can never change so we should never push for change is historically inaccurate.

The 48-year history of TSR/WotC shows they very much tend to follow play trends and preferences rather than set them.

Many tables dropped xp-for-gp in 1e. Result: 2e took it out. It never came back.
Many tables made spellcasting easier in 1e-2e. Result: 3e made casting easier across the board. It's become even easier since.
Many tables sped up hit point recovery through rest in 1e-2e-3e. Result: 4e made it crazy fast. It's still crazy fast.

I could go on at great length, but you get the point.

Hence, if you want Hobbits fixed - and it seems many here do - my solution is to fix them yourself and encourage everyone else to do the same. Then maybe by 7e that general fix-'em trend will get reflected in their "official" design as WotC once again plays catch-up.

 

[Oofta]

You realize, of course, that this means that it is your opinion that the PHB does not accurately capture "humans in Dungeons and Dragons"

You also realize of course, you have now staked your claim as the single arbiter for what it means to be human and halfling across all editions and settings of D&D, D&D designers, DMs, and rulebooks be damned.

So, all anyone has to do to participate in a discussion with you on the topic of racial characteristics is to:

1. Read every published D&D product to date
2. Interpret the fullness of those published texts to form a single simultaneous understanding of "what it means" to be a particular D&D race
   1. This exercise must include a systematic review of all NPC statblocks, whereby participants must:
      1. Independently assess how representative of the race each statblock really is.
      2. Determine the personal philisophical underpinnings "implicit" in NPC statblocks where such motivations may include as much detail as "does not want to be an adventurer"
      3. Apply some kind of formula I assume?
   2. This analysis must apply some amount of weight to PHB content (but not that much, lest it spoil the conclusions)
3. Compare and contrast their synthesized conclusions and idiosyncratic interpretations, materials weighting etc. with yours.

You know, it seems like a really reasonable set of demands..

It certainly make more sense than like, just reading the most current rulebook and taking it for face value..

But, as tempting as it is..I'm afraid I'm going to pass.

Hey now, we had a "Full Stop" dangit. Much like "dibs" it must be honored. So say we all!