So, about those halflings...

[Celebrim]

Which is my primary problem with Hobbits.

Other than 'Empire of the Petal Throne' I can't think of an RPG where the culture of fantasy races' isn't human - and I'm not even completely sure I'm not giving Tekumel too much benefit of the doubt either.

 

[Hairfoot]

On this thread I can see a lot of the thinking behind the 3E "Star Trek D&D" phenomenon, with parties full of templated celestial half-illithid/dragon/tanarii adventurers - i.e. a character can't be defined and interesting unless it belongs to an unusual race.

I've played several old-style halfling characters, and I can honestly say that none of them lived up to the "lazy farmer" sterotype. Some of them have been hard, bitter little b'stards with histories of violent upheaval from their lands and communities in flight from war and genocide.

As Whizbang said,

If most humans aren't adventurers, why does what a non-adventuring hobbit is like matter when it comes to the adventuring ones?

This complaint has never made a lick of sense.

 

[Exen Trik]

I'm a bit more fond of the 3e version, but that's mostly because the classic hobbit doesn't interest me much as a PC race. Now, I'll admit halflings need a better shtick - mechanically and flavor wise - but in general a quick little roguish race is the kind I'd prefer to play.

Not kender though. I wouldn't play a halfling like a kender, unless perhaps it's mental scores were really bad.

There's some other options too, if you like kender but still want your hobbits you can have them as closely related subraces, that have little to no mechanical difference. Or just different cultures: the roaming adventuresome bands that stay lean and athletic, or the stay at home types who take it easy and put on a bit more weight. And of course for halflings, the sedentary lifestyle promotes hair growth on their feet.

IMO, the Small races should move at the same speed as Medium races in combat (or in other situations where tactical movement is required), but their overland speed should be reduced to 2/3 of what a human could move.

That would be a nice racial ability for halflings specifically, call it "quick stride" or somesuch. They would still have the same overland speed, and maybe the same limit when flat out running, but their move action is the full 30'. Or have a fast movement talent tree for the rogue that does this, which would in a sense make the class "favored" for halflings and other short folk.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I agree, but I don't ever get the impression that people want alternatives to the Tolkien 'Hobbit' because they want something more challenging to role-play. Rather, I think the driving force in Halfling redesign is to deliver more of the 'kewl'. Imagining yourself in the role of an adventuring portly hairfooted tweed-wearing country squire just doesn't have the same ego boosting properties as the alternatives.

While this is a great put-down of people who don't agree with your position, and I hate to burst your bubble, I always just thought that it got tiresome after a while to come up with yet another reason why the homebody country bumpkin decided to take up a life of danger and adventure, despite the fact that his race is practically defined by their aversion to doing so, Bilbo & family being the exception that proves the rule. The concept of halflings as worldly nomadic traders as opposed to fat farmers with wooly toes seemed to make a lot more sense given the number of adventurers drawn from their ranks.

I think what you have going in the D&D experience is largely the same attraction of modern vampires, larger than life action movie heroes, wuxia, anime, and comic book superheroes. I think that they are tapping into that most powerful ancient pagan experience - the notion of the bad-ass demi-god, particularly one that can violently impose his will. Essentially, this is all Hercules worship in a different form, and 'the Frodo' and all his cousins is most emphatically the anti-Hercules. So what the good professor was going for just runs completely counter to the majoritarian attraction of gaming, and his vehical is ill-suited to it. Naturally, its going to be scorned and abandoned in favor of something that brings more of the 'kewl'.

You're right, man. When I think "violent bad-ass demi-god," I think "3E halfling."

 

[Hairfoot]

I always just thought that it got tiresome after a while to come up with yet another reason why the homebody country bumpkin decided to take up a life of danger and adventure, despite the fact that his race is practically defined by their aversion to doing so

But the race has never been defined by that, only portrayed. The "defining" description of hobbits was, of course, Tolkien's, in which he detailed a community which lived in fertile lands and hadn't faced any sort of threat in centuries. Of course they were homebodies! Any race would be under those circumstances. I notice no-one ever says "humans are boring because they're all like the provincial dimwits at Bree".

Real world gypsies don't wander because they like it. Mostly they are the remnants of genocide and forced relocation, and would love to settle down somehwere comfortable if they were able. Instead, the implication is that 3E halfligns are biologically driven to wander, and hobbits are biologically inclined to be dull bucolic types.

From wikipaedia: "About the year T.A. 1050, they [hobbits] undertook the arduous task of crossing the Misty Mountains. Reasons for this trek are unknown, but they possibly had to do with Sauron's growing power in nearby Greenwood, which was later named Mirkwood because of the shadow that fell on it as Sauron searched the area for the One Ring. The Hobbits took different routes in their journey westward, but as they began to settle together in Bree-land, Dunland, and the Angle formed by the rivers Mitheithel and Bruinen, the divisions between the Hobbit-kinds began to blur."

For several centuries, Tolkien's hobbits were in relocation. In other words, they were nomadic gypsies. The race is how you play it. Old-style halflings don't have to be lackadaisical farmers unless that's how you like them.

 

[Andor]

In my campaign I treat Halflings in a way that's a take-off on Tolkien. Where Tolkien meant hobbits as a sort of ode to English country folk, I make Halfling culture into a parody of American country (redneck) folk. My halflings eat too much pork fat, make moonshine, steal from outsiders, and are noted for that lack of "book learnin''. Their religion centers around charismatic preachers, and features speaking in tongues, faith healing, and lots of singing. They wear mullets, and often work as carnies.

You can have halflings be country folk, without making their lives bucolic.

I am now terrified of your halflings. I'd rather meet the ones from Athas.

 

[Jhulae]

I love the 3rd Edition halflings. I never played an AD&D halfling, because I hated the 'furry feet' and heavy Tolkien infulence. I did play a halfling in Mystara, but there was a 'subrace' that basically looked like the 3rd Edition halflings.

I also never played a Kender (even though they had the right look) because of their personality.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I voted for hobbit-like, but actually, I think I'd rather have them yanked out, entirely. I like Tolkien's use of hobbit as analogues for common everymen that we (as readers) can identify with. However, I've never really liked hobbits as PCs, even when I was running MERP. I'm not claiming it's universal, but for some reason players of such PCs seem to make the character annoying. I think I'd rather have a moody non-evil drow ranger (with scimitars) as a PC, rather than an inquisitive and acrobatic halfing rogue. (Well, maybe...I might consider setting myself on fire as an alternative... )

I've never liked kender or 3E halflings, either. For "little people" I think I'd prefer something more fey. I'd rather have a gnome-like race (as long as it doesn't include the "tinker" concept) than a halfling-like race.

YMMV. I can't explain my irrational dislike.

 

[Celebrim]

While this is a great put-down of people who don't agree with your position, and I hate to burst your bubble...

How are you bursting my bubble?

To begin with, are you asserting that anyone playing an RPG in order have the satisfying experience of vicarious bad-assitude ought to be ashamed of it? If not, then why are you insisting on see my observation of this fact as a put down? Do you feel ashamed of it or something? I assure you that my observation of this fact is based not only on personal experience, but by the open admission of scores of people on these boards that that is one of the reasons that they game and who unlike you don't seem to think that's a problem. I've got no problem with people who want to put on mental capes and play something like M&M. By all means, go for it. All I'm doing is explaining why Tolkien's 'Hobbits' aren't terribly appealing if that is why you want to play, and as such - not unsurprisingly - a sleaker, more adventurous, lethal, martial sort of racial flavor is created for them. The fact that I prefer a very different sort of play style from the sort that tends to be most popular is first of all the reason I enjoy DMing more than being a PC, and second of all doesn't mean the other sort is badwrongfun. At the most, I think of it as being a less intellectual sort of play, but intellectualism isn't the end all be all of anything either.

I always just thought that it got tiresome after a while to come up with yet another reason why the homebody country bumpkin decided to take up a life of danger and adventure, despite the fact that his race is practically defined by their aversion to doing so, Bilbo & family being the exception that proves the rule. The concept of halflings as worldly nomadic traders as opposed to fat farmers with wooly toes seemed to make a lot more sense given the number of adventurers drawn from their ranks.

Not only does this not burst my bubble, but it doesn't seem to have alot to do with what I actually said, and it looks alot like an admission of a far deeper failing than simply wanting to imagine yourself in a super-heroic role. I imagine you think you've put me down, but I think you are pretty far from your mark. Not only do you seem unfamiliar with the source material, but you are pigeoning the race into the same sort of 'either-or' hole that I was ealier speaking out against. Why do you think 'worldly nomadic traders' is oppossed to 'fat farmers with wooly toes'? Leaving aside the appendices, it isn't even in opposition to the LotR itself, as we eventually learn over the course of the story that the Hobbits of the Shire are quietly quite cosmopolitian traders indeed.

You're right, man. When I think "violent bad-ass demi-god," I think "3E halfling."

Sarcasm doesn't work over the net nearly as well as you think I does. But, as for what you seem to intend to say, that's exactly the reason I don't expect them to last. Third edition 'sexed up' the halfling just about as far as you can sex up unmagical little people, and you are quite right - they still don't bring enough of the kewl. But the fact that they don't bring the kewl, doesn't in any way actually address or even counter my point as to why D&D has gotten away from the Tolkien inspired halfling appearance and flavor. I don't think it has anything to do with making it easier to think of reasons why halflings have gone adventuring, because any excuse you could use for a human works just as well for a Hobbit.

You can get all hostile if you want. It really doesn't bother me. But its entirely unnecessary.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

You know how cartoons always have the annoying little sidekick as part of the team? Usually with a stupid name? That's what hobbits/halflings/tinker-gnomes/gully-dwarves are, all too often. Gleek. Uni. Scrappy Doo. Keyop. Blip.

I think that perception of them is why I don't like them. Almost as bad is the "anti-annoying-sidekick" version. You know, "hey, my halflings aren't goofy at all, they're vicious little cannibals that file their teeth into points and cover themselves with tribal tats."