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?

 

[Gammadoodler]

And what does "incrementally" even mean in this context? Because, again, the further you push "care more about other people" the more you are just saying "is a good person". And again, putting halflings out as the kindest, nicest, goodest race is not a good design space. Because Morality is not a racial trait.

Honestly, this isn't even a factor of "you just don't like it" it is literally putting halflings on a pedestal. They are too good and pure to care more about X than they care about other people and making them comfortable. Maybe this is just me having that mid-western/Southern influence, but that is just what good people do. And having halflings be the goodest of boys requires then making all the other races look worse. "Why don't those humans care about their fellow man instead of profit." Isn't a story I'm interested in (as a writ-large racial story), but becomes inevitable when you make halflings the race that cares more about their fellow man than profit. Because that means no one else cares as much as halflings do.

Incrementally here is meant to express that they invest some amount more in time and energy investing in people than other races do.

It does not mean that halflings are the only ones doing so. It's the same way dwarves being Incrementally better crafters reflects that they have invested more time and energy getting better at crafting than other races have while acknowledging that other races do craft stuff.

Time and energy are finite resources. Investments in one area mean sacrifices in another. Halflings are not the best crafters, or empire builders, or mages. Their time and energy is spent elsewhere.

From a worldbuilding perspective, which was where this all started, all that is required is to plot out the incrementally different results of their incremental time and energy expenditure, the same way you would with every other race.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean big evil all they do is small, they are bit parts the race.

This is a problem because ....?

There are after all many many more bit parts than big bads. Halflings not throwing their weight around like divas but instead getting on with their lives and by getting on with their lives making the actual situation clear is refreshing.

 

[Minigiant]

No, it doesn’t. It talks about tendencies. Halflings do all the things humans do, just with different frequency and some different motivations.

Sure, there are exceptions

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

 

[Faolyn]

I mean big evil all they do is small, they are bit parts the race.

You don't think assassinating a noble or member of royalty is big? How do you define "big evil"? Only cosmic evil?

And again, what sort of evil would elves and dwarfs do that is unique to them? You keep ignoring this question.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sure, there are exceptions

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

Immediately..and I mean immediately after it says they don't have kings or nobles, it says..

"..instead looking to family elders to guide them."

Who do you think the crime bosses are in a crime family?

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, there are exceptions

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

That doesn't follow. They would still have managers and owners. The local pub has one. There's someone who runs the library. There's someone who is the head of the merchant caravans. And there would be They're not chaotic anarchists (don't forget: they're nearly always listed as being Lawful in alignment). A halfling crime boss would be more like an owner or manager than a king. They would be the head of the family. It would just be a crime family.

And that is, again, a racial tendency. Just because halfling society as a whole doesn't have kings doesn't mean that there aren't halflings with dreams of becoming one, either for good or for ill.

 

[Azzy]

Sure, there are exceptions

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

Does not follow.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, there are exceptions

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

That is a leap, not a direct logical conclusion from the statements in the books.

Edit to add: a don isn’t a noble or a king.

 

[Lanefan]

IF the only thing that made you special was that other people weren't allowed to play rogues and you weren't allowed to be a wizard, then you aren't really special.

Also, yes, clearly the lore and design that doesn't make them feel special doesn't make them feel special, and discussing ways to change that with people is a way to address what we do want. I'm not particularly interested in giving them dwarven toughness, that seems to be a bit unfair to dwarves. I'm not really sure what we could want from "nimbleness" because that is a such a broad and oversaturated area it could be anything. And bonuses to throwing things is just... weird. So your 2e or 1e version of the race also doesn't seem to fit into a modern design. But it is difficult to discuss with you how we could even change things, because you often don't even know what rules have changed. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I've noticed this a lot where you will say "it works fine for me, becuase I'm not using the rules you are" which... isn't helpful.

It's helpful in that it allows me to look at these things from a broader perspective than just within 5e and bring that perspective to these discussions.

That, and to me the rules of any edition exist only as a foundation on which to kitbash the bespoke system best suited to a given DM's own table. Which means, if you don't like the way 5e mechanically does its Hobbits, kitbash them until you do like it. WotC ain't gonna fix 'em for you.

And...how is bonuses to throwing things any weirder than various other abilities some creatures get?

I fundamentally disagree. Nothing about your race determines whether you can worship the gods or worship nature (cleric or druid). Nothing about your race determines if you can devote yourself zealously to a cause, hone your body and mind, or break with the norms of society for the left handed path or for the wilds of the world (Paladin, Monk, Rogue, or Ranger). Nothing about your race determines if you can learn how to fight, or if you throw yourself into fights with a supernatural fury (Fighter or Barbarian). Nothing about your race determines if you can study magic, study engineering, study music, make deals with otherworldly entities or be born with magical powers (Wizard, Artificer, Bard, Warlock or Sorcerer)

Where I think a character's species should have a lot to say abut many of these things. Yes, any species can try almost any of these things (I still like the idea of some species being flat-out unable to be certain classes e.g. no Dwarf Wizards) but some species will be better suited for some types of activities and-or classes simply by what they are, and in some cases your species will fight you if you want to play it as a particular class. Otherwise you might as well get rid of all the PC-playable species except Humans, as there's no good reason to keep the rest.

Allowing the combinations doesn't make the game lesser, because it tells people that any combination of things is possible and supported.

My point is that not all of those combinations of things should be equal.

I actually had experience with the opposite some time ago. Some friends desperately wanted to play pathfinder to do a specific genre of game. I agreed and tried building a character. I had an idea of what I wanted, and picked the race that fit and noticed they mentioned an ability that worked with a specific class, so I started building the character. Only, one of my friends pointed out that despite having an ability directly linked with the class, the race had a restriction that completely ruined any attempt to use that class, and it was completely nonviable. I could have gone forward with it anyways, played that nerfed character, but I didn't I made something that worked. And you know what? I'm still being constantly overshadowed by people who knew the system better and built something better. If I'd gone with my original idea? It'd have been a joke and if I didn't quit, I'd have rerolled a new character.

Missing some restriction until it's too late in a heavy system like PF is perfectly understandable. That said, were it me; on hitting that speed bump I'd have asked myself whether the species or the class was more important to my concept (but see below), and on the fly changed the one that was not.

Needlessly limiting race/class combos or setting restrictions where only certain things are viable, is bad game design for a Tabletop RPG in my opinion. All it does is funnel people into making the same decisions, and punish those who don't.

This is something I don't mind, within reason. I don't see making the non-standard decision as punishment, though; I see it as an intentional decision to play against type and see how it goes. Sometimes it works out hella well. Other times it doesn't; and the same can be said for characters who didn't go down a non-standard path.

Then again, and this is probably worth noting as it seems a different approach than yours, I rarely if ever start the roll-up process with anything more than a vague idea of what I want to end up with, as I know the odds of the dice giving me what I want are sometimes slim. Going in to the char-gen process with a character concept already fully-formed is IMO a recipe for disappointment.

 

[Lanefan]

But the 5e lore says halflings don't have kings and nobles. That would include knows and nobles of the underworld. Therefore you wouldn't except halflings to be dons and crimeboss or having empires unless the setting is heavy on subverting tropes like Dark Sun or Eberron.

You're the DM at your table. You're not married to the lore in the books as written.

If Hobbits in your setting have kings and nobles, then so be it. No harm done; carry on.