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?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca


log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
Does anyone know if that comic was in any way inspired by Exalted? From what I've seen of it (including the excerpt here) a lot of rhe characters seem to have the same kind of deranged run-on sentence names
I don't know; I haven't read Abbadon's tumblr or anything. I know there was a D&D joke in the alt text of one page (which involved a fight against a ton of mimics), so it's entirely possible that Exalted or other RPGs provided at least some inspiration.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Can't believe I'm doing this..here we go..


And there is art where scale references are present that kind of art provides more information than art which does not. Do you think scale might be important information to have for a fantasy creature?

If I say it's a teacup tiger or teacup roving mauler, does that change anything about how you assess the capabilities of the creature?

No, the size doesn't change anything about my assessment of the creature, because as I mentioned, size has nothing to do with any of my points.

Additionally, if your only counter to "dictionary images provide a lot of information" is "Well, they don't provide ALL information" then... yeah, we know. No one assumes that a single image can convey every single piece of possible information. A lot =/= All

Maybe you could in the original. At max zoom, I see a line for a mouth and a lot of pixellation. Even so, based on the art, how do you even know whether it is a wild or domestic creature?

I posted as big of an image as I could.

And... you never asked about it being wild or domestic, and a "domestic" creature is just a wild creature socialized by humans. There are very little base structural differences between a "dog" and a "wild dog" or a "cat" and a "feral cat". They are the same animal, just differently socialized.

Sloths are quadrupedal mammals, so are porcupines, squirrels, corgis, guinea pigs, skunks, beavers, badgers, etc. Wide range of speeds in that group. But, who says the creature picture even runs on 4 legs?
View attachment 265638

While the picture of the kitty is cute, it is blatantly obvious from the structure of the legs that they are not bipedal.

Secondly, Sloths are quadrupeds, but their limbs are clearly not designed for speed. Just with a quick glance you could tell the claws are not shaped for proper 4-legged running, and the fact that they tend to have far longer arms than hind legs makes a huge difference.

As for porcupines, corgis, guinea pigs, skunks, beavers, and badgers you should note the size of their legs. They all have short, stumpy legs compared to their long body, which is also generally quite broad. Compare that to the long legs of the proportionally thinner tiger, and you can see why it is easy to assume the tiger is faster. Again, body shape matters for these things.


"Lives in a place where it snows" =/= "Lives in the Arctic" which is a cold climate.

"Lives in a cage with sand" =/= desert. Same with the picture of them on some mud flat. Not a desert.

As for the jungle, I will note that it is not a desert, or a region of ice, so... not sure why you included it.


Just to save us time and effort, here is a habitat map.

1667603751322.png


Do you see the way it bends around where the name "china" is? A little bit north of that is the Gobi desert. Why do you suppose Tiger populations bent around that region for thousands of years? Long enough for speciation?

Also note, that while they do get up north into Russia, that they are about as far north as Japan. Which for comparison is about as far North as the northern United States/Southern Canada. That means harsh winters, but not cold year round and likely quite warm summers as well.

So there is art which could indicate a certain cycle for the creatures it depicts. That art provides more information than this art.

No, that art provides DIFFERENT information than this art. I have never claimed, and repeatedly refuted your assertion that dictionary art provides all possible information.

Again A lot =/= All, just because you can find some information that is not included does not mean that they lack all information.

No shoulder joints are pictured. No spinal column is pictured. There is no indication of the range of postures the legs or tail could adopt.

Um... They absolutely are showing the shoulder joints. Just because they didn't do an x-ray of them doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, you know what a tail is right? A tail is an extension of the spinal column. The existence of a tail proves a spinal column.

Now, if you want to claim I cannot know the exact degrees to which those limbs have range of motion, sure, I can't tell you the exact angled degrees of motion. However, considering what I can see, I can say with certainty that they do not have a 360 degree range of movement. It would be impossible.

Wait, I don't see any musculature in this art..surely you don't mean to suggest that a tiger can jump without muscles?

This is just pettiness at this point. Muscle is beneath fur, skin and fat. If you could see the exact lines of muscle, the animal would be dead and shaved. And we don't need to see the muscles to know it has muscles. It is a mammal. There is not a single mammal, let alone a single vertabrate that lacks muscles.

But a unicorn can fly without wings... foot structure is not pictured, shoulder joints are not pictured.

Some unicorns can, however this isn't a picture of a fantasy creature, so it, like every other creauture in the real world cannot fly without wings.

And don't try and pull anything with sugar gliders or "flying snakes" either, those are creatures that glide, they do not fly.

Foot is pictured well enough to see enough details, same as the shoulder joints.

View attachment 265663
View attachment 265664View attachment 265665
Yeah..no way at all..for art to indicate any of these things..

A picture of a humanoid does not count for anything regarding intelligence. The assumptions of "human" are too forefront in a human mind.

The picture of the beholder is amusing, but what if I told you that book was a picture book and it doesn't understand anything it is seeing, it just likes the colors? You cannot tell if it is actually intelligent or not from that picture, just that it can look inside of a book.


As for the gnoll art, you could show a picture of a man being hit in the face with a leaping fish, or a fish eating a man's arm, that doesn't mean fish are aggressive. I can just as easily find art that wouldn't lead to any assumption of a gnoll beingagreeive. Here, I have some saved

natasha-scheraya-gnoll-sm-fa.jpg


df20e39995aa7319866871a9489e4da3.png


tumblr_10f8422cc26f05c19412bb90035ae67f_075df976_540.png


Ok let's recap.. of your responses, how many did not rely on prior knowledge of the capabilities of other felines? Almost none.

And the definition indicates that a tiger is a large carnivorous feline. So what incremental information does the dictionary art provide?

Or..let's put it another way, how many of your answers change if you don't have the art at all.

If the answer is "not many" or "not any", then maybe it's fair to say that the art carries "little weight".

Additionally, if you replaced the dictionary art with one of the other tiger images in this post, would you be able to provide any more or better answers to the questions.. If the answer is "yes", then you might say that the dictionary art carries "less weight" than other styles of illustration.

So, since art of a feline shows a feline, just like the word feline... the art carries "little weight"?

This is like saying a pciture of a tree carries little weight compared to the word tree. Right now, as you read "tree" you are conjuring an image of a tree. The word and the picture are linked. One does not have more weight than the other.

Notably, you might have raised a child at some point, and had flashcards. These cards show a picture (usually of something the child can recognize) and then the associated word. We do this because the word without the context is meaningless to the child, who cannot recognize what these strange symbols mean. The art and the word are equal in this regard, because they convey the same information, which allows the child to associate the two.

So, if your point is "words convey meaning too"... congrats, that doesn't take anything away from the meaning and information conveyed by the art. Just like having art that shows something different from something else conveys different information doesn't mean the first picture lacks all information.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Has it, though?

If it gives me more to work with than I had before, I don't see that as a failure but rather as a net positive.

It's WAY easier to describe a new creature by holding up a picture and saying "It looks much like this except for [elements A, B, and C]" than it is to try describing the creature all the way from A to Z with words only.

And it is even easier to hold up a picture and say "it looks like this"

If the art is supposed to represent the creature, then it should represent the creature. Art supposed to represent a snake with rings has failed if I must hold up a picture of a snake and say "this, but with wings" because it is a picture of a snake, not a snake with wings, which it is supposed to be.

Or, to give a non-art example, a bar of steel might give me more to work with than I had before, but it is still a terrible knife.

While it may well have improved since, the D-Beast art I'm familiar with is pretty vague, as is most of the art in the 1e monster books. And that's kind of the benchmark I'm using here: art that gives a vague idea but leaves some room for malleability and alteration if one wants to describe the creature a bit differently.

The main place this comes up with the 1e art is colour. Black and white art doesn't show the creature's colouring, so if for example I want Displacer Beasts to have orange skin then that's what they have, with nothing to gainsay my word.

And notably, in the art I was using, it was colored, so I have the color to speak about.

But, look at the two art pieces here

1667606088224.png


1667606145496.png


Both are clearly panther-like creatures, both have six legs, both have tentacles on the back with spiked ends.

Sure, the bottom art is more representational, but the vast majority of the information you need is still in both.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Actually, not quite. Here's the actual numbers:

84 Human
41 Elf
21 Dwarf
17 Part-Orc
14 Part-Elf
13 Hobbit
11 Barbarian
4 Gnome
8 other, including four reincarnated characters who changed species
=======
213 total

Um... what do you mean not quite?

I guessed 85 humans, you have 84.
I said human + elf + dwarf would be 149 and 84+41+21 = 146
I said hobbits would were half (not fully accurate since I know that 6 is not half of 10, but it was close enough) and you show that the dwarf at 21 and the hobbit at 13... which is a little over half.

Sure, I wasn't exact, but I was using percentages, and I was dang close. So, what was "not quite right" about my assessment?

For this and other reasons, I really do recommend erring on the side of keeping too many stats on one's games over the long run rather than too few. :)

Eh, I really have no interest in trying to keep statistical records of my games.

Humans are a constant, and I'm a bit Gygaxian in that I do prefer a Human-centric game. After that, I've found the other species tend to rise and fall in popularity over the years. My other two big campaigns, for example, produced 225 PCs between them (and amazingly evenly split: 112 in one and 113 in the other) and of those only 7 were Part-Orc; but now they're more popular - mostly, I think, due to the stupendous success of one Part-Orc in the game I play in. Elves, by contrast, were big in the middle campaign, even outnumbering Humans.

Which, again, explains why you haven't really seen anything as an issue. Your games are largely human-centric. Many are not.

Those tables are not this table. :)

And That table is not these tables. Obvious statements are obvious.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Um... what do you mean not quite?

I guessed 85 humans, you have 84.
I said human + elf + dwarf would be 149 and 84+41+21 = 146
I said hobbits would were half (not fully accurate since I know that 6 is not half of 10, but it was close enough) and you show that the dwarf at 21 and the hobbit at 13... which is a little over half.

Sure, I wasn't exact, but I was using percentages, and I was dang close. So, what was "not quite right" about my assessment?
You seemed to think Hobbits were 4th, where they're in fact lower.
Eh, I really have no interest in trying to keep statistical records of my games.
Well, then, guess that means you're stuck with using data from people like me, who do. :)

At least it gives me something to back up the anecdotes: when I say "in my experience x-y-z has been the case" regarding what's been played in terms of species and-or class, I can prove it. I've also got up to date numbers around character deaths, level losses, sessions played, and adventures per character for every character; and some five-years-old data on starting stats vs career length from a large sample (over 100 characters, maybe 150, I forget now).
Which, again, explains why you haven't really seen anything as an issue. Your games are largely human-centric. Many are not.
No accounting for taste, I suppose.
 



No, the size doesn't change anything about my assessment of the creature, because as I mentioned, size has nothing to do with any of my points.

Additionally, if your only counter to "dictionary images provide a lot of information" is "Well, they don't provide ALL information" then... yeah, we know. No one assumes that a single image can convey every single piece of possible information. A lot =/= All



I posted as big of an image as I could.

And... you never asked about it being wild or domestic, and a "domestic" creature is just a wild creature socialized by humans. There are very little base structural differences between a "dog" and a "wild dog" or a "cat" and a "feral cat". They are the same animal, just differently socialized.



While the picture of the kitty is cute, it is blatantly obvious from the structure of the legs that they are not bipedal.

Secondly, Sloths are quadrupeds, but their limbs are clearly not designed for speed. Just with a quick glance you could tell the claws are not shaped for proper 4-legged running, and the fact that they tend to have far longer arms than hind legs makes a huge difference.

As for porcupines, corgis, guinea pigs, skunks, beavers, and badgers you should note the size of their legs. They all have short, stumpy legs compared to their long body, which is also generally quite broad. Compare that to the long legs of the proportionally thinner tiger, and you can see why it is easy to assume the tiger is faster. Again, body shape matters for these things.



"Lives in a place where it snows" =/= "Lives in the Arctic" which is a cold climate.

"Lives in a cage with sand" =/= desert. Same with the picture of them on some mud flat. Not a desert.

As for the jungle, I will note that it is not a desert, or a region of ice, so... not sure why you included it.


Just to save us time and effort, here is a habitat map.

View attachment 265787

Do you see the way it bends around where the name "china" is? A little bit north of that is the Gobi desert. Why do you suppose Tiger populations bent around that region for thousands of years? Long enough for speciation?

Also note, that while they do get up north into Russia, that they are about as far north as Japan. Which for comparison is about as far North as the northern United States/Southern Canada. That means harsh winters, but not cold year round and likely quite warm summers as well.



No, that art provides DIFFERENT information than this art. I have never claimed, and repeatedly refuted your assertion that dictionary art provides all possible information.

Again A lot =/= All, just because you can find some information that is not included does not mean that they lack all information.



Um... They absolutely are showing the shoulder joints. Just because they didn't do an x-ray of them doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, you know what a tail is right? A tail is an extension of the spinal column. The existence of a tail proves a spinal column.

Now, if you want to claim I cannot know the exact degrees to which those limbs have range of motion, sure, I can't tell you the exact angled degrees of motion. However, considering what I can see, I can say with certainty that they do not have a 360 degree range of movement. It would be impossible.



This is just pettiness at this point. Muscle is beneath fur, skin and fat. If you could see the exact lines of muscle, the animal would be dead and shaved. And we don't need to see the muscles to know it has muscles. It is a mammal. There is not a single mammal, let alone a single vertabrate that lacks muscles.



Some unicorns can, however this isn't a picture of a fantasy creature, so it, like every other creauture in the real world cannot fly without wings.

And don't try and pull anything with sugar gliders or "flying snakes" either, those are creatures that glide, they do not fly.

Foot is pictured well enough to see enough details, same as the shoulder joints.



A picture of a humanoid does not count for anything regarding intelligence. The assumptions of "human" are too forefront in a human mind.

The picture of the beholder is amusing, but what if I told you that book was a picture book and it doesn't understand anything it is seeing, it just likes the colors? You cannot tell if it is actually intelligent or not from that picture, just that it can look inside of a book.


As for the gnoll art, you could show a picture of a man being hit in the face with a leaping fish, or a fish eating a man's arm, that doesn't mean fish are aggressive. I can just as easily find art that wouldn't lead to any assumption of a gnoll beingagreeive. Here, I have some saved

View attachment 265791

View attachment 265792

View attachment 265793



So, since art of a feline shows a feline, just like the word feline... the art carries "little weight"?

This is like saying a pciture of a tree carries little weight compared to the word tree. Right now, as you read "tree" you are conjuring an image of a tree. The word and the picture are linked. One does not have more weight than the other.

Notably, you might have raised a child at some point, and had flashcards. These cards show a picture (usually of something the child can recognize) and then the associated word. We do this because the word without the context is meaningless to the child, who cannot recognize what these strange symbols mean. The art and the word are equal in this regard, because they convey the same information, which allows the child to associate the two.

So, if your point is "words convey meaning too"... congrats, that doesn't take anything away from the meaning and information conveyed by the art. Just like having art that shows something different from something else conveys different information doesn't mean the first picture lacks all information.
Tl;dr

And with that we've reached
The very limit of my
Participation
 


Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top