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 players in your game are expected to optimize?

I ask because it sure sounds that way, when you state you "wouldn't let someone" play a character who isn't up to snuff.
There is a rather excluded middle here.

I would definitely have a word with a player who deliberately chose an 8 Int wizard. I don't care that his highest stat is Int, but, dump statting your primary stat is probably going to be something of an issue.

Not optimized can mean a lot of things.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There is a rather excluded middle here.

I would definitely have a word with a player who deliberately chose an 8 Int wizard. I don't care that his highest stat is Int, but, dump statting your primary stat is probably going to be something of an issue.

Not optimized can mean a lot of things.
Fair point. I get this. (and in my game you couldn't be an Int-8 wizard anyway as all classes have minimum stat requirements; you can't even be a wizard with Int less than 9)

But note the series of posts I was replying to started with someone seeming to suggest they wouldn't allow a character to be weakened so as to put, say, a 6 in any stat, whether class-required or not.

I mean, if I want to play a Fighter who's a brutish ugly stinky son of a cuss but who will (and can!) beat you like a drum if you tell him so, why shouldn't I be allowed to drop a 5 into his Charisma?

Or - and perhaps more to the point - why shouldn't I be allowed to drop a 6 into Wisdom and play a happy-go-lucky airhead mage who always seems to attract trouble?
 

Or, some people don't want to not be able to play a sickly dwarf.
So put your point buy or array’s 8 in con, and oh the horrors it gets bumped up to 10, a +0, my concept is forever ruined, but no hang on wait a minute, you’re still a sickly dwarf, it’s just that the most sickly dwarf is still in comparison 2 points more hardy than the most sickly human, or elf, or tiefling.

I feel like the person who cares so much to play the narrative of a sickly dwarf should also actually care about the narrative that even at their most sickly dwarves are still somewhat hardy, because that’s a defining trait of dwarves.
 

So put your point buy or array’s 8 in con, and oh the horrors it gets bumped up to 10, a +0, my concept is forever ruined, but no hang on wait a minute, you’re still a sickly dwarf, it’s just that the most sickly dwarf is still in comparison 2 points more hardy than the most sickly human, or elf, or tiefling.
Or, they can do as they please with their character in their game. 🤷‍♂️
I feel like the person who cares so much to play the narrative of a sickly dwarf should also actually care about the narrative that even at their most sickly dwarves are still somewhat hardy, because that’s a defining trait of dwarves.
Why? Why does your opinion on the topic matter to someone else playing the game how they want?
 

Plenty of humans are serious, honest, and gruff while still being charismatic.

And apparently, no dwarf could ever be as good a musician as a human, as intimidating as a human, or as persuasive as a human because all dwarfs are serious, honest, and gruff. It must be absolutely exhausting to be a friendly and cheerful dwarf, since they have to force themselves to act in that way. They must be like the opposite of a person with ASD, where instead of masking to appear normal they have to mask to appear abnormal.
I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth
OR! It could be that people don't want to pigeonhole entire races as being gruff and surly. It's lazy to write it so that every member of any one race will have the exact same type of personality. Not even every member of a breed of animals that's been specifically bred to have a single temperament will actually have that temperament. With a self-aware, fully-sapient race? Heck no. The idea is ridiculous, and it's even more ridiculous to say "since dwarfs are surly, they get a penalty to a stat that's only tangentally related to surliness and will penalize them in things that have nothing to do with surliness."

If all you can "really hear" is that people are complaining about their character, maybe you need to listen a bit more.
I’m not pigeonholing them, they can have different personalities BUT the surly serious dwarf is the baseline, you build off of that, it takes more effort to make a surly person friendly than one who was already amiable to begin with.
 

But a dwarf can be just as good as a human as those things however the concept of DnD dwarves is that their culture is not that way inclined, they’re serious, they’re honest, they’re gruff, so they have a little further to go to match a human at those things on an even footing.
Beginning in 3e, this model tends to crumble under the weight of a large number of PC races. Sure you can say that dwarves tend to be gruff and surly justifying a -2 penalty to Charisma, but it falls apart in a party with a goblin, bugbear and minotaur that inexplicably don’t get the penalty despite being monsters.

Edit. Forgot lizardfolk that are explicitly described as being off-putting.
 
Last edited:


I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth
You did say that. If you think dwarfs should have a Charisma penalty because they're gruff and surly, then you're saying that any skill or ability that uses Charisma should likewise be penalized.

And you also said it's a bit harder for a dwarf to be not-gruff and surly. Which means a dwarf has to work at being friendly and cheerful. Which--and I say this as someone who is autistic--is exhausting. You even say that below "it takes more effort to make a surly person friendly than one who was already amiable to begin with."

Unless the dwarf is naturally not gruff and surly, or is only friendly and cheerful among humans, and in both cases, they shouldn't t get a -2 to Charisma.

And that begs the question: why does being gruff and surly deserve a -2 to Charisma, and the resultant penalty to all skills and traits that are dependent on Charisma? Why does being gruff and surly mean you don't have a strong force of will or are a good leader?

Maybe we should have a list of personalities and you have to roll on it during chargen, and each personality type determines a bonus or penalty to interactions made with NPCs. Which makes a bit more sense than a blanket penalty to Charisma.

I’m not pigeonholing them, they can have different personalities BUT the surly serious dwarf is the baseline, you build off of that, it takes more effort to make a surly person friendly than one who was already amiable to begin with.
Why should the gruff and surly dwarf be the baseline?
 

Beginning in 3e, this model tends to crumble under the weight of a large number of PC races. Sure you can say that dwarves tend to be gruff and surly justifying a -2 penalty to Charisma, but it falls apart in a party with a goblin, bugbear and minotaur that inexplicably don’t get the penalty despite being monsters.

Edit. Forgot lizardfolk that are explicitly described as being off-putting.
In AD&D, with The Complete Book of Humanoids, bugbears and bullywugs only got a -1 to Charisma. But firbolgs got a -2.
 

Has anyone on here ever run into. a DM that wouldn't let a player have their character take some extra weakness? (Say to decline to take an ASI or to put 6 somewhere instead of 8 as a low array score or to not be tough or lucky). Unless the player was going to do a parody of someone with a disability I think I'd be fine with that.
Yes. One of the members of my group loves playing characters with lower stats--just so he doesn't succeed all the time--and one DM refused to let him lower his stats when he rolled really well because of that.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top