RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to...

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

Some D&D creatures from past editions may be really ridiculous, but always they can return in an article on April's Fool. And hiring the right designer the ridiculous spider-horse can be used to sell figures for collectors.

There is a really good marketing reason about halflings and gnomes shouldn't fall in the oblivion. If someday Hasbro wants to produce a family-friendly animated sitcom set in a D&D world (maybe in Witchlicht) then halflings and gnomes are the perfect choice, with the comingsoon ardlings.

A true creator has to can find any possible use in all the things within reach.

little-red-riding-hood-stewie.png


1667107949108.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad


No, dwarves I'd give to Tolkien, he seems to have locked them in pretty sturdily. But, you know, a lot of people would like to do a bit more with dwarves than has traditionally be done.
My dwarves take more from Russia than Scotland. They are stolid fatalists who see the value of enduring, despite the fact that their leaders are insane, the Underdark is trying to kill them, and most of their diet consists of fungi and fermented goat’s milk.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
My list stops where I stopped it. "Badly made", like your other arguments, is personal subjective opinion dressed as objective truth.

No duh it is subjective. Why do you think I keep saying "and that can be discussed"? It is almost like, and stop me if I go to fast, I understand my opinion isn't the law of reality.

However, just because my opinion isn't objectively true doesn't mean I need to sit around silently while other people say "this is the way it should be, because I like it this way" because THEY aren't objectively right either. This may shock you, but advocating for the status quo is STILL advocating for something you like. This seems to be the thing you guys don't get in these conversations, just because I acknowledge everyone can have their own tastes and opinions doesn't mean all conversation stops and we go with your version of things. Because "I pick no change" is still picking something you prefer over something you don't.

This doesn't go "you aren't objectively right, end of conversation, I win". Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved upon. But I have to spend so much energy just fighting the very notion that no one could possibly have found a real problem with halflings, and it is exhausting. By the way real =/=objective, so don't go trying to say that I'm twisting myself in knots here. But so few people are willing to actually engage in a proper discussion, instead they want to misreprent things and continue to act like nothing has changed in thirty years and everything they thought is true is forever true.
 

Oofta

Legend
No duh it is subjective. Why do you think I keep saying "and that can be discussed"? It is almost like, and stop me if I go to fast, I understand my opinion isn't the law of reality.

However, just because my opinion isn't objectively true doesn't mean I need to sit around silently while other people say "this is the way it should be, because I like it this way" because THEY aren't objectively right either. This may shock you, but advocating for the status quo is STILL advocating for something you like. This seems to be the thing you guys don't get in these conversations, just because I acknowledge everyone can have their own tastes and opinions doesn't mean all conversation stops and we go with your version of things. Because "I pick no change" is still picking something you prefer over something you don't.

This doesn't go "you aren't objectively right, end of conversation, I win". Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved upon. But I have to spend so much energy just fighting the very notion that no one could possibly have found a real problem with halflings, and it is exhausting. By the way real =/=objective, so don't go trying to say that I'm twisting myself in knots here. But so few people are willing to actually engage in a proper discussion, instead they want to misreprent things and continue to act like nothing has changed in thirty years and everything they thought is true is forever true.

Saying "I [don't] like" or "I prefer" are subjective statements. Saying something is "badly made" sounds like dressing up opinion as objective fact.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
But your DM might have; or if you were the DM you've consulted yourself.

Nope, I don't work for Wizards of the Coast and I don't know anyone who works for Wizards of the Coast. Any other interpretation is misunderstanding my point.

Thing is, what some consider a problem (they're the "everyman") others consider their best feature.

I am aware. I disagree with these people, as I have laid out. I even put up good reasons for my disagreement.

In this case, it is. If two things draw their influences from each other, what results is a feedback loop - otherwise and elsewhere known as an echo chamber.


It is, when considering what influences what.

It is impossible to have an artistic echo chamber if you pull from multiple media sources.

Let's just follow the rabbit hole a bit, shall we?

WoW was inspired by DnD, right? But what else was it inspired by? Well, it was inspired by Kung-Fu Panda. Which was inspired by Bruce Lee, and Kill Bill, and chinese mytholofy. So, what if DnD takes inspiration from WoW that was given to WoW by Kung-Fu Panda? WoW also has some pretty clear inspirations from some Christian Mythology. So does DnD. Would it bad to pass notes between the two things on better ways to use the same source material?

Final Fantasy may have been partially inspired by DnD, but it also many times has pulled inspiration from Japanese culture and even Hinduism. So, if we are inspired to take things from Final Fantasy, we aren't just getting DnD, we are getting DnD with specific things added into the mix, and we can then even look at those things added into the mix and follow them back to THEIR sources.

Even things that are purely American Fantasy can add elements that were not present in DnD, can give new takes on old ideas, and we shouldn't just ignore those. Because they can be better than what we have,

And even if all of it is inspired by DnD, grabbing from WoW, Final Fantasy and American Fantasy Novels gives you three different sources. And all those things are likely going to be pulling from everything around them as well. Because no art exists in a vacuum. You can't make art that doesn't rely on something someone else made. Tolkien stole from other artists as well. Blatantly.

DC should look at Marvel, for sure. Marvel don't need to look at anyone, they're doing just fine as it is. :)

Marvel Live-Action Movies? Sure. Marvel animated shows suck compared to DC's. And even Marvel Live-Action Movies have deep flaws in them that people are starting to notice after all these decades of them, and there are solutions out there for them, if they are willing to look at other properties and see what works.

OK, but that's still no excuse to ban ox-drawn wagons from the roads; which in analogy seemed to be what you were trying to suggest.

Um... we should absolutely ban ox-drawn wagons from the roads. It is illegal to go so far UNDER the speed limit for a reason. This has nothing to do with the analogy, just cold hard reality there.

But more to your point, if you want to keep your ox-drawn wagon, you have it. But we can update to cars in the production lines for other people. Because there is no need to keep telling them that this is the best form of transportation we can make. If people want the wagons, musuems exist, people have pictures of them, people will still have some sitting in their barns, but we don't need to keep making them.

It sounded from your earlier posts like you wanted to excise things from D&D history altogether.

You can't excise things from DnD's history. That doesn't make sense. You'd have to delete the old books, and no one is saying that.

What you do is make better stuff for the current version of the game. You don't reprint the stuff from the history, you update it.

There's a big difference between not republishing something and excising it from history. That said, full backward-forward compatibility between all editions would sure be nice.

Yeah, I know there is a difference. That's why I advocated for one, and not the other.

And sure, it would be nice, but it is also largely impossible to do in any official capacity. Too much changes, the fundamentals of the systems are incompatible.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
Saying "I [don't] like" or "I prefer" are subjective statements. Saying something is "badly made" sounds like dressing up opinion as objective fact.

I'm sure someone thought this was well-designed, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten published

1667145349241.png


However, in my completely subjective opinion (as objective opinions don't exist) this is badly designed and doesn't deserve to be brought forward into the newer editions of DnD.

See, it is this strange thing that happens. If we can agree "some things are badly designed" even if that is purely a subjective judgement of something, then we can begin to discuss "is this thing badly designed?". Instead, you insist halflings are perfect and refuse to consider they could be improved, and the VERY IDEA that something in DnD's past COULD POSSIBLY have been badly designed has required me to make multiple posts and argue fervently that somethings are badly designed.
 

Oofta

Legend
I'm sure someone thought this was well-designed, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten published

View attachment 265176

However, in my completely subjective opinion (as objective opinions don't exist) this is badly designed and doesn't deserve to be brought forward into the newer editions of DnD.

See, it is this strange thing that happens. If we can agree "some things are badly designed" even if that is purely a subjective judgement of something, then we can begin to discuss "is this thing badly designed?". Instead, you insist halflings are perfect and refuse to consider they could be improved, and the VERY IDEA that something in DnD's past COULD POSSIBLY have been badly designed has required me to make multiple posts and argue fervently that somethings are badly designed.

Just trying to give you some advice. Take it or leave it, I'm not discussing this topic with you any more.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
No duh it is subjective. Why do you think I keep saying "and that can be discussed"? It is almost like, and stop me if I go to fast, I understand my opinion isn't the law of reality.

However, just because my opinion isn't objectively true doesn't mean I need to sit around silently while other people say "this is the way it should be, because I like it this way" because THEY aren't objectively right either. This may shock you, but advocating for the status quo is STILL advocating for something you like. This seems to be the thing you guys don't get in these conversations, just because I acknowledge everyone can have their own tastes and opinions doesn't mean all conversation stops and we go with your version of things. Because "I pick no change" is still picking something you prefer over something you don't.

This doesn't go "you aren't objectively right, end of conversation, I win". Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved upon. But I have to spend so much energy just fighting the very notion that no one could possibly have found a real problem with halflings, and it is exhausting. By the way real =/=objective, so don't go trying to say that I'm twisting myself in knots here. But so few people are willing to actually engage in a proper discussion, instead they want to misreprent things and continue to act like nothing has changed in thirty years and everything they thought is true is forever true.
As @Oofta mentioned above, your statements read like objective fact when they really aren't. If you didn't want people to call you out on that, I would suggest expressing your opinions as opinions.

A lot of things have changed in 30 years, that's actually objective. In general, I prefer 5e's ruleset to the 1e game that DL was made for and that I grew up on (although I do like Level Up better, and there are a number of things in 1e I like over 5e, including their design philosophy). I feel the 2e and 3e updates to DL worked hard to be additive rather then remove elements or add ones that were clearly stated as not being present.

5e is not doing this. The design philosophy has shifted in just the last 2-3 years. I strongly suspect that if Dragonlance had been released for 5e in, say, 2016, we would get a substantially different product than we are getting now, and likely one I would actually spend money on. But of course that's speculation.

The point is, people have different opinions on what game elements are or are not important, and what things should change or not change. In my opinion, relatively little in any established setting should be changed, mostly just the anti-inclusive stuff I mentioned, and even that can be additive (witness the new Ravenloft handling of the Vistani. They didn't actually remove the possibility of events happening as they did, but they did expand and enhance their culture so they weren't a bad stereotype). It gives players and DMs options they should have front and center without being prescriptive.

I stand by my opinion that orcs as anything more than a one-of-a-kind oddity are unnecessary and IMO unwanted for DL. A sidebar similar to Theros would be sufficient to deal with the issue to my satisfaction. For other stuff added to the general game over time? That can be a discussion I would be happy to engage in, but my answer is never going to be, "If it's in the PH, it's in every campaign setting".
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top