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

So, you have completely abandoned your own statements that fear and the frightened condition aren't the same thing, to now claim that they are the same thing.
Not even slightly. There is no conceivable way you could have gotten that from what I wrote. You have to be deliberately misconstruing what I wrote. You have to be. There is no possible way you could truly think that "has same ability to be afraid or not afraid of mundane things as everyone else, plus has bonus to avoid being Frightened" means "being afraid and being Frightened are the same thing."

Which means I'm just going to skip to...

2) Most elves probably are very powerful mage-fighters. Player character elves aren't because that would disrupt the balance of the game. It isn't exactly difficult to explain to someone that starting as a 16th level Bladesinger isn't going to work when the rest of the party is starting at level 2. There is a disconnect between the game and the lore, but it is an easily understood and accepted disconnect, especially since the game doesn't give elves any mechanical bonuses to the number of class levels they have.
DING DING DING! You have your answer here! Giving player character halflings supernatural luck would disrupt the balance of the game.

"It isn't exactly difficult to explain to someone that giving one character constant miracles isn't going to work out when the rest of the party doesn't." You didn't even want to have halflings find copper pieces or not get splashed by mud because it wasn't fair.

Media and D&D alike keep presenting elves as having decades to centuries to perfect their fighting and magic skills. Elf, when it was a class, was a fighter/mage combo. Everything points to elves being fighter/mages and that even a mere century-old elf--the equivalent of an 18-year-old human--should far outstrip humans in their capabilities. And attempts by media and to come up with logical reasons why elves aren't all nigh-godlike in their abilities range from non-answers (elves just... don't bother to reach high levels) to rather poor attempts at psychology (they don't feel the need to rush like humans--which doesn't make sense in a world where monster attacks are a very common threat) to meta-reasons (level limits) to the downright silly (they grow up proportionally slowly, so a 30-year-old elf is still in diapers).

Instead, elves get free weapon proficiencies and most of them get a cantrip or low-level spell(s) to represent that they are built to be fighter/mages. If you're OK with that--if this is truly an "easily understood and accepted disconnect"--then you should also be able to accept that halflings get to reroll 1s to represent that, as a race, they are built to be lucky.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, you have the publication data and know how well it sold? You are aware of exactly how popular it was, where all it was published, and how widely spread it was? Well, I should say is, since it is still being sold and is rated quite highly, so people who look for other DnD comics are likely to find it.
According to Wikipedia, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was listed as #18 in hardcover nonfiction bestsellers by Publisher's Weekly of the week ending with November 16, 2015, and it appears to have sold nearly 8,000 copies in its first week. While I don't know many copies are still being sold, Amazon lists the book as currently being #13 in Puzzle & Game Reference books, #38 in Dungeons & Dragons books, and #35 in Activity Books, all of which suggests that it's still being sold in decent numbers.

This site, Comichron, actually lists the number of copies of various comics sold during months. In its first month, August '10, the D&D comic (cover price: $1) sold 23,657 copies. (For comparison, Red Robin which I really liked, sold over 34,000.) That's pretty good, but the next available data was for November--apparently it didn't sell in September or October--and the price had been raised to $3.99 and the number of copies sold had dropped to 15,462, while Red Robin was selling over 31,000 copies. In December, the D&D comic had dropped again, to 11,623 copies. It continues to drop in sale for the remainder of its existence. In July of '11, the hardcover of D&D: Shadowplague sold only a little more than 500 copies.
 

That may be true, but there are also players who dive into the lore of another race, to create "lore-friendly" names, figure out where their people live, and try to inject some of that culture into their play.

At least, I've seen it happen.

But with humans, their culture is usually so generic, just some variation of real-world human cultures, that, at least in my experience, human PC's are just regular people.
Yet even there a player can, with relative ease, come up with a "lore-friendly" name and inject some of that character's faux-Earth culture into play.

If I've got a character named Asgeir Bronnisdottir who usually fights with axe and shield as a shieldmaiden and who in her spare time likes drinking mead and boasting of her accomplishments in battle, it shouldn't be hard to figure out what culture she's from. :)

Ditto if I've a character named Marcus Publio Vestalis, faithful Cleric to Mars and whose family home is a villa in the hills and who has in his background a few years of service in the 4th Legion.
Only a few settings have given us unique enough Human cultures embraced by players to make characters that really stand out.
Yes, the setting does need to support these cultures; but even absent that it's trivially easy to add them in if-when desired.
 

According to Wikipedia, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was listed as #18 in hardcover nonfiction bestsellers by Publisher's Weekly of the week ending with November 16, 2015, and it appears to have sold nearly 8,000 copies in its first week. While I don't know many copies are still being sold, Amazon lists the book as currently being #13 in Puzzle & Game Reference books, #38 in Dungeons & Dragons books, and #35 in Activity Books, all of which suggests that it's still being sold in decent numbers.

This site, Comichron, actually lists the number of copies of various comics sold during months. In its first month, August '10, the D&D comic (cover price: $1) sold 23,657 copies. (For comparison, Red Robin which I really liked, sold over 34,000.) That's pretty good, but the next available data was for November--apparently it didn't sell in September or October--and the price had been raised to $3.99 and the number of copies sold had dropped to 15,462, while Red Robin was selling over 31,000 copies. In December, the D&D comic had dropped again, to 11,623 copies. It continues to drop in sale for the remainder of its existence. In July of '11, the hardcover of D&D: Shadowplague sold only a little more than 500 copies.
Right, and comics only stay around for a month, so the November numbers would be for a different comic book. Given the 50 million D&D players(as of 2020) and the popularity of the FR, if less than a million total Sword Coast Adventure Guides have sold I will be shocked. It's probably greater. A million+ vs 23,657.
 

Right, and comics only stay around for a month, so the November numbers would be for a different comic book. Given the 50 million D&D players(as of 2020) and the popularity of the FR, if less than a million total Sword Coast Adventure Guides have sold I will be shocked. It's probably greater. A million+ vs 23,657.
Yeah, the November numbers suggest that over 8,000 people didn't like issue #0 enough to pay an extra three bucks for issue #1. All comics go down in sales as time goes by, so that's to be expected, but that seemed like a pretty steep drop to me. Personally, I just read the first couple of issues and... it was a decent enough comic, the characters had definite personalities beyond their race/class, their quips were amusing enough, but it didn't really make me eager to keep reading. I'm not saying it's bad, because it wasn't, but I have to assume that probably a lot of those 8,000 people felt the same way. It felt like a tie-in. As a comparison, I really, really like the series Injustice, which is also a tie-in (to a video game I have zero interest in playing, unlike D&D) and that comic kept me on the edge of my seat, even during my second or third readings.

I'm sure somebody has the numbers as to how many SCAGs have been sold in total so far. I just find can't them, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's sold a million copies so far.
 

Yeah, the November numbers suggest that over 8,000 people didn't like issue #0 enough to pay an extra three bucks for issue #1. All comics go down in sales as time goes by, so that's to be expected, but that seemed like a pretty steep drop to me. Personally, I just read the first couple of issues and... it was a decent enough comic, the characters had definite personalities beyond their race/class, their quips were amusing enough, but it didn't really make me eager to keep reading. I'm not saying it's bad, because it wasn't, but I have to assume that probably a lot of those 8,000 people felt the same way. It felt like a tie-in. As a comparison, I really, really like the series Injustice, which is also a tie-in (to a video game I have zero interest in playing, unlike D&D) and that comic kept me on the edge of my seat, even during my second or third readings.

I'm sure somebody has the numbers as to how many SCAGs have been sold in total so far. I just find can't them, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's sold a million copies so far.
I have the numbers. Exactly 69,420 copies were sold.

Trust me. This is true. There is nothing significant about that number.
 


What I did for my homebrew was mash all the small races (except kobolds) into one race, the Hobs. Goblins, halflings, gnomes - all hobs. Hobs tend to fall into different archetypes depending on life experiences, so a hob born in a "goblin" tribe thinks of itself as a goblin.
 

When ballparking these kinds of ratios, I love the curve of magnitude. (Like the golden ratio, but metric base 10.) It is great for relative ranking.

Rounding the numbers of the magnitudes:
100
79
63
50
40
32
25
20 human, elf
16
13
10
7.9
6.3 dragonborn, dwarf
5.0
4.0 halfling
3.2
2.5
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.0
So everything below 6.3 should be relegated to splat books or the Dungeon Masters Guide or the Monster Manual. So players will have a harder time finding them. That's the only objective take on this I can see.
 

So everything below 6.3 should be relegated to splat books or the Dungeon Masters Guide or the Monster Manual. So players will have a harder time finding them. That's the only objective take on this I can see.
Organizing thresholds by order of magnitude, helps decide what content is "core" and what content is "supplemental". First try reach to widest public, then try accommodate the many niches.

By the way a majority of 63% out of 100, is a big deal. Something like 79% is a defining majority. Something like 40% is a significant majority. Even 10% can change a culture.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top