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

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Given the sheer amount of races available, I would say that any one race is irrelevant to the hobby at large, with the exception of humans, which are, IMO, the most boring and bland of races.

I mean, stop to think about it, what is the place of humans in a fantasy world? They aren't the most magical. They don't have special abilities. They aren't long lived. They're just...there.

Oh we're told they're the most prevalent and ambitious, etc.,etc., but their mechanics certainly don't reflect anything other than a minor buff to all stats which really doesn't matter.

The only reason V Humans are on the map is because Feats aren't exactly balanced compared to racial abilities.

I bet if we had Strongheart Halflings, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
First we absolutely do rewrite elves. And add subrace after subrace to the point the race means just about nothing.

Second dwarves are little more popular than halflings. If we look at the 2019 subrace breakdown then we find that 3.4% of characters are lightfoot halflings and another 1.3% stout halflings. If "no one" plays halflings then twice nowt is still nowt - and no one plays either hill dwarfs or mountain dwarfs. So let's kick both of them out of the PHB because, despite the oodles of lore they are given by your standards "no one" plays them. 4.7% Half Orcs - or almost exactly as popular as halflings.
Again, half-orcs are likely getting the boot. I wonder if we'll see all this hand wringing and loud proclamations when that happens. After all, by your argument there should never, EVER be any race removed from the PHB.

Who knows what halflings would have been if we had been force-fed them as much as we have dwarfs. Instead they get a place in the PHB and as mentioned about two lines in some adventures. And yet halflings are almost as popular as dwarfs.

But I'm pretty sure that the only reason to throw halflings and gnomes out of the PHB is that roughly half of halfling concepts could easily be gnome concepts if halflings weren't there and roughly three quarters of gnome concepts could easily be be halfling concepts if gnomes weren't already there (especially now the mad engineers get a class so there's no need to add a ridiculous race). The insistance on cutting the bottom two especially when a lot of the concepts that they can fulfil overlap looks like a serious case of motivated reasoning, deliberately looking at where the halflings are and then setting the bar just over their heads.

Can you give a non-arbitrary reason why the bottom two must be removed together. And why this is somehow better than removing the bottom one or the bottom four. There's an obvious reason to remove the bottom one, especially when concepts overlap. Because that way you don't get interference. And you don't get silliness by splitting a race into subraces and then removing all the subraces because they break about evenly, dwarf-style.
Nope. It's purely arbitrary. I picked two because two is a nice number for experimenting with new race options. We got two new races in 4e (carried over into 5e) that have proven very popular, so, just carrying on with that number. Could be one. Could be 4. You seem to think that I care which races are removed. I really, really don't.

My argument has ALWAYS been the bottom two. Mostly because 2 is what was added and that seemed to work fantastically well. Three or four is probably a bit too much because it would impact too many other things. But, remember, I've always argued for REPLACE, not remove. Drop the bottom two and ADD two new options to make sure that niche's are covered. Kobolds largely cover both the tech/clockwork aspect of gnomes and the sneaky/size schtick for halflings, so, I could easily see kobolds replacing both nicely. Which leaves room for a new option, like, say, goliaths, since big PC's are a niche that it wouldn't hurt to cover.

But again, I'm not wedded to any particular option. I did mention a small/medium fey anthro race. Someone mentioned Hengiyokai - they'd actually be a pretty cool concept that fills pretty much all the niche's for gnomes and halflings as well. Again, I'm not terribly picky. Whatever works is whatever works.
 

Hussar

Legend
Given the sheer amount of races available, I would say that any one race is irrelevant to the hobby at large, with the exception of humans, which are, IMO, the most boring and bland of races.

I mean, stop to think about it, what is the place of humans in a fantasy world? They aren't the most magical. They don't have special abilities. They aren't long lived. They're just...there.

Oh we're told they're the most prevalent and ambitious, etc.,etc., but their mechanics certainly don't reflect anything other than a minor buff to all stats which really doesn't matter.

The only reason V Humans are on the map is because Feats aren't exactly balanced compared to racial abilities.

I bet if we had Strongheart Halflings, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!
Heh, if we're going by personal anecdotes, I haven't had a human PC in a game in a few years now. And, honestly, even going back all the way to 1e, I was often the only human PC or maybe one of two. Most of the PC's were demi-humans or various other options. So, I dunno who's playing all these humans, other than me (typically), but, someone apparently is. :D
 

MGibster

Legend
In 3e, Lidda would be completely unrecognizable as a halfling to a D&D player in 1982.
With that obscenely large, grotesque head of hers, I bet they'd think she was a sidekick to the mindflayer or perhaps a monster in her own right.

Me? I just wish people would actually take the argument at face value instead of ascribing all sorts of motives and assumptions to what I'm saying. All I said was that the least popular two races be removed from the PHB and shunted to a different book, in favor of two new options which hopefully would gain more traction with gamers.
I'm not a fan of dragonborn, but, a lot of people are, so it makes sense for them to stay in the PHB. I'm kind of with you on halfing and gnomes even if I like the former.
 

MGibster

Legend
I mean, stop to think about it, what is the place of humans in a fantasy world? They aren't the most magical. They don't have special abilities. They aren't long lived. They're just...there.
They're typically the baseline all other races/species are measured against in RPGs. Just once, I'd like to see human beings as the nasty brutish race that's bigger and stronger than everyone else.
 


Heh, if we're going by personal anecdotes, I haven't had a human PC in a game in a few years now. And, honestly, even going back all the way to 1e, I was often the only human PC or maybe one of two. Most of the PC's were demi-humans or various other options. So, I dunno who's playing all these humans, other than me (typically), but, someone apparently is. :D
It think it's an artefact of people using D&D beyond to test things, rather than people actually playing them. Humans make a convenient baseline. I've seen a couple of vuman PCs, but no standard humans.
 

Hussar

Legend
With that obscenely large, grotesque head of hers, I bet they'd think she was a sidekick to the mindflayer or perhaps a monster in her own right.


I'm not a fan of dragonborn, but, a lot of people are, so it makes sense for them to stay in the PHB. I'm kind of with you on halfing and gnomes even if I like the former.
Big head? Lidda? I never thought that.

Lidda-The-Halfling.jpg


Seems a pretty normal head to me.

But, yeah, this has nothing to do with personal preference for me. I honestly don't really have much of an opinion either way on halflings or gnomes. I've seen them both done very well. Then again, that's true for just about any race I've seen played. For me, it's about making the PHB relevant to what is actually getting played.
 

You know, this is one of the reasons I kind of wish Hussar just didn't post. Because... he's the only one talking about kicking halflings out of the PHB.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to remove halflings from the PHB. Not because I don't like them, I do. But it might stop people whining about them and wanting to change them if they weren't in the core rules, and therefore obvious they don't have to have them.
Everyone else is talking about rewriting them.
I think changing a thing because some people don't like it is a good way to end up with something that no one likes.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top