Halflings. Love/Hate?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Jamfke

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
4,944
D&D's IP free version of a Hobbit was not a favorite of mine. They rarely ever got used in any of the games I ran or played in. I don't plan on having them in any upcoming games that I'm putting together either. I just felt like if I wanted to play a Hobbit I'd play the Hobbit or LotR or whatever. So what's the consensus?
 
I'm not a huge fan of them in most games, but then I'm not a great fan of Tolkienesque elves and dwarves in most settings either. In D&D specifically they were constantly shapeshifting, which didn't help them. They started out as basically Bilbo, then they turned into Kender in Dragonlance, became more generally roguish but still recognizably Tolkien-based in Forgotten Realms (since that is the most LotR style setting D&D has had no surprise there), then became nomads in 3rd edition, then in 5e they're balloon headed weirdos who can be all or none of the above. At least most other places they show up they're still pretty much Hobbits still. If you're going full Tolkien you might as well include them in my opinion, although D&D specifically suffers from having too many short races.
 
They're fine in Middle-Earth. For a fantasy RPG, this is the only time I've liked a treatment.

For that matter, I think most demi-human races suck in fantasy games when they are not just allowed, but encouraged to be playable; they almost always end up having the mystery and mystical sucked out of them ("people in funny hats" syndrome).
 
I've never really included them in anything other than Middle Earth based games and even then they tend to stay in the Shire. In fantasy games, I always went the gnome route instead.
 
I don't have any strong feelings. I think it's what a setting does with them that makes them interesting or not.

I like them in The One Ring and Changeling: The Dreaming (boggans)

I think D&D settings could do more with them.
 
They're fine in an LotR game obviously and D&D genre games, but outside that I wouldn't use them.

They're one thing, along with the Cleric and Elves, where I wish DCC had clung less to D&D and tried to be a bit more pre-80s Fantasy by not having them and instead having more weird fantasy classes. Like have a properly designed amoral Pixie/Fairy class or something.
 
Last edited:
I've never really included them in anything other than Middle Earth based games and even then they tend to stay in the Shire. In fantasy games, I always went the gnome route instead.
I find the D&D Gnome can easily replace three core Tolkienesque races Halflings, Elves and Dwarves. They live underground, check for Halflings and Dwarves. They are short, check for Halflings and Dwarves. They're nature fans and have an affinity for animals, check for Elves and at least a half-check for Halflings. They're inherently magical, again, check for Elves. So you get three races for the price of one by substituting in Gnomes for all of the above.
 
I liked Ed Greenwood's take on them in the Five Shires gazetteer for the Mystara setting. It added some depth to them while keeping them familiar enough to be accessible. Most other treatments I've seen either keep halflings too close to Tolkien or make them so different they might as well be a new species/race entirely.
 
They're fine in an LotR game obviously and D&D genre games, but outside that I wouldn't use them.

They're are one thing, along with the Cleric and Elves, where I wish DCC had clung less to D&D and tried to be a bit more pre-80s Fantasy by not having them and instead having more weird fantasy classes. Like have a properly designed amoral Pixie/Fairy class or something.
For D&D, I'm down for goblins or even bullywugs in place of hobbits.
 
I like halflings. I don't particularly care in any given instance whether they're included or not though. Gnomes, on the other hand, can all die in a tire fire.
 
They're fine in an LotR game obviously and D&D genre games, but outside that I wouldn't use them.

They're are one thing, along with the Cleric and Elves, where I wish DCC had clung less to D&D and tried to be a bit more pre-80s Fantasy by not having them and instead having more weird fantasy classes. Like have a properly designed amoral Pixie/Fairy class or something.
I'm planning to include some of the fey as playable races in a project I'm working on. Goblinoids too.
 
Never really saw a point to having them and Gnomes in the same game, they can both tell basically the same story, and even that you can basically lump in with Dwarves. 5e's art of them is some of the few definite duds in the book, too.

They and Gnomes would be the first races on the chopping block for me.
 
I don't necessarily hate halflings, but I'm not a fan of the fact that they're basically a ripoff of Hobbits. I like Elves and Dwarves as standard fantasy races for RPGs, because they're creatures from real life myth that are particularly prevalent in fantasy. But halflings/hobbits belong in Middle Earth...mostly.

One thing that can be said in favor of halflings, though, is that pygmy humans are a thing in real life. And there's also a lot of precedent in fantasy and myth about "little people"--and not just fairies/fey, but actual small sized "humans" or hominid races. So there's a strong case to be made for having some type of "tiny humans" in fantasy settings. I just wish they were better integrated and unique to the specific setting, rather than trying to pigeonhole a generalized version of "hobbits".
 
I'm not a huge fan of them in most games, but then I'm not a great fan of Tolkienesque elves and dwarves in most settings either.

One thing that can be said in favor of halflings, though, is that pygmy humans are a thing in real life. And there's also a lot of precedent in fantasy and myth about "little people"--and not just fairies/fey, but actual small sized "humans" or hominid races.
Bottom line, this, for both halflings and dwarves (and gnomes and smaller-statured orks for that matter). Willow's folks are fine. Most of the others are annoying...but that makes them so much better than elves, I'm willing to overlook some deficiencies, sometimes:devil:!
 
I am 100% fine with 'hobbits' in the right setting, I like Hobbits, and Hobbits is what I'm looking for out of Halflings. Once we move to Halfling Paladins riding armoured war dogs and wielding little lances I start to have some doubts...
 
Bottom line, this, for both halflings and dwarves (and gnomes and smaller-statured orks for that matter). Willow's folks are fine.

Oh, yeah! I thought about Willow too. Those were are good example of a "little people" race done right. Also loved their pixies. Not necessarily how I'd do them, but properly integrated into the world.

Most of the others are annoying...but that makes them so much better than elves, I'm willing to overlook some deficiencies, sometimes:devil:!

O...M...G.......BLASPHEMY! Elves are the most exalted beautiful master race. How could you?!?
 
One thing that can be said in favor of halflings, though, is that pygmy humans are a thing in real life. And there's also a lot of precedent in fantasy and myth about "little people"--and not just fairies/fey, but actual small sized "humans" or hominid races. So there's a strong case to be made for having some type of "tiny humans" in fantasy settings. I just wish they were better integrated and unique to the specific setting, rather than trying to pigeonhole a generalized version of "hobbits".
Why do they need to be a separate defined race in the game, then, and not just be... short humans?

I am 100% fine with 'hobbits' in the right setting, I like Hobbits, and Hobbits is what I'm looking for out of Halflings. Once we move to Halfling Paladins riding armoured war dogs and wielding little lances I start to have some doubts...
Honestly that shit is more likely to make halflings appealing to me.
 
Honestly that shit is more likely to make halflings appealing to me.
We all have our I like that shit buttons. I think it's Midgard from Kobold press that has nomadic Halflings riding dinosaurs? That's awesome. How that's materially different that the Paladin on a dog example is purely my taste. YMMV.
 
Never really saw a point to having them and Gnomes in the same game, they can both tell basically the same story, and even that you can basically lump in with Dwarves. 5e's art of them is some of the few definite duds in the book, too.

They and Gnomes would be the first races on the chopping block for me.
D&D Gnomes offer far more than D&D Dwarves in my book. Keep the Gnomes, lose the Dwarves and the Halflings.
 
Halflings are great in Middle Earth. I have no interest in seeing them elsewhere. Ditto for Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarfs. Setting authors who still want them should dig deeper into their creativity until they find races different enough to deserve different names. Failing that, stick with humans and create interesting and distinctive cultures. One of those human cultures might even tend toward being shorter than others, but if it feels like a hobbit, start over and keep trying.
 
I love Hobbits and always have them in my fantasy games, any version with the serial numbers filed off I still have in setting as Hobbits, so rural, unobtrusive small folk. Never played in a D&D game where we did not have a Halfling thief. It got to the point we joked there must be some Halfling Mafia.

I never liked D&D gnomes, why when you have Dwarves? D&D dwarves are pretty much the northern Europe version, but D&D gnomes...always seemed way off from mythology where gnomes were just not another name for dwarves. I use gnomes more as the traditional garden gnome, more faire than PC. I prefer my Dwarves like Tolkien.

Trying to keep this general though because if focused on D&D would rant and rant. In short D&D has so may sapient species each often in many flavors that it just seems to me to be simply a way munchkin build PCs, each "flavor" just providing a different set of bonuses. Even if I agreed with the take (on any species), to me it is bloat, as with the voluminous classes....driven more by the desire to sell more books than making the game "better." Don't get me started on the half-anything nonsense.
 
Halflings are great in Middle Earth. I have no interest in seeing them elsewhere. Ditto for Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarfs. Setting authors who still want them should dig deeper into their creativity until they find races different enough to deserve different names. Failing that, stick with humans and create interesting and distinctive cultures. One of those human cultures might even tend toward being shorter than others, but if it feels like a hobbit, start over and keep trying.
It is funny to me how you don't see SF setting designers just shoving in Klingons or Wookies as is (though you sometimes get species that are the same thing with the serial numbers filed off), though they will do it for fantasy races without hesitation.

Having said that, I don't mind elves, dwarves, etc in a setting as long as they make sense and they're not just exported as is from Tolkien.
 
It is funny to me how you don't see SF setting designers just shoving in Klingons or Wookies as is (though you sometimes get species that are the same thing with the serial numbers filed off), though they will do it for fantasy races without hesitation.

Having said that, I don't mind elves, dwarves, etc in a setting as long as they make sense and they're not just exported as is from Tolkien.
In SF they look different but “honorable warrior race” and “advanced, logical race” etc show up in a lot of different settings.
 
I tend to prefer my fantasy settings to be somewhere on the scale from Hyperborean to Middle Earth (modified with magic and more monsters). Early D&D and JG stuff worked for me in that regard.

Sui generis game settings (or ones tied way too close to history), just never liked. Have honestly never seen a unique setting (not licensed IP from some author) that was anything but trite, or derivative, or worse anti-derivative (where on simply makes things the opposite) let alone being internally contradictory.


The primary reason for all of this is me, and those game with, really like the REH, Fafhrd/Gray Mouser, Middle Earth etc. stuff, it so inspired our imaginations we wanted to have adventures in those worlds.

Have read a lot of other fantasy and those world may be OK to visit but lack in being a place to base a campaign. It may be I am more a sci fi guy, so set a vary high bar for created non-humans/aliens. It is a high bar to do create your own and do them well anyway, hence why most stuff is derivative.

I can go for a more human centric REH, Fafhrd type thing (though I will sorely miss non-humans as PCs and having there own civilizations can interact with) but if want to do fantasy, in my mind, any species fashioned from whole cloth stretches my ability to suspend disbelief, or more precisely care about them.

I can have an interest in a world with dwarves and elves there is a 1000 years of meat behind them and a masterwork of fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Why do they need to be a separate defined race in the game, then, and not just be... short humans?


Honestly that shit is more likely to make halflings appealing to me.

Because “game stats”.

Also, it depends on the setting. In some settings I’ve toyed with the idea of making “halflings” a variant hominid race separate but related to humans, similar how Neanderthals are basically a human sub-race. In fact, that’s probably how I tend to view halflings generally speaking. But even if they’re basically a human offshoot the fact that they’re smaller means that they at least should have smaller creature benefits and penalties.

Plus, there’s also the cultural implications of how such a race would develop. A smaller race of “humans” would be vulnerable to larger predatory creatures or even other human ethnic groups who may pick on them and treat them as inferior or even non-humans (primitive cultures don’t know genetics). That could have a serious impact on their cultural development, not just from an RP stand point, but also in terms of their starting skills and in-group/out-group relations. Which would be a relevant point to define when developing them as part of the game world.
 
Back in the in day I played a lot of halflings. Being half the size of everyone makes you feel 50% braver and more heroic.

My favourite D&D character goes back to when D&D 3e was launch. She was a halfling monk. She was constantly torn between the ascetic and contemplative requirements of her vocation and her halfling instincts for good food and basic comforts. Probably the toughest D&D character you'll encounter but she had heart.

I also remember in the old days of Basic D&D, reading about how halfing forces took back a fortess on borders of the Shires from the wizard Bargel . I found that was oddly satisfying.
 
We all have our I like that shit buttons. I think it's Midgard from Kobold press that has nomadic Halflings riding dinosaurs? That's awesome. How that's materially different that the Paladin on a dog example is purely my taste. YMMV.

Actually, I think it was the Eberron setting that introduced dinosaur riding Halflings. They live on the Talenta Plains, if I remember correctly.
 
I love Hobbits and always have them in my fantasy games, any version with the serial numbers filed off I still have in setting as Hobbits, so rural, unobtrusive small folk. Never played in a D&D game where we did not have a Halfling thief. It got to the point we joked there must be some Halfling Mafia.

I never liked D&D gnomes, why when you have Dwarves? D&D dwarves are pretty much the northern Europe version, but D&D gnomes...always seemed way off from mythology where gnomes were just not another name for dwarves. I use gnomes more as the traditional garden gnome, more faire than PC. I prefer my Dwarves like Tolkien.

Trying to keep this general though because if focused on D&D would rant and rant. In short D&D has so may sapient species each often in many flavors that it just seems to me to be simply a way munchkin build PCs, each "flavor" just providing a different set of bonuses. Even if I agreed with the take (on any species), to me it is bloat, as with the voluminous classes....driven more by the desire to sell more books than making the game "better." Don't get me started on the half-anything nonsense.

Agree about D&D gnomes. They’re nothing like mythological gnomes or how I’d picture gnomes to be. No one’s ever made a gnomes in any game I’ve played or ran. To say that they’d be the first race in the chopping block for me would imply that I even take them into consideration.

I also think that a lot of D&D races are just bloat to sell moar books, just like their thousand and one character classes that are really just variants of warriors, mystics and specialists. But I’m willing to forgive some races (specially elves and dwarves), given that D&D is supposed to be generic “do it yourself” fantasy at its core (at least in theory). So you need at least some classic fantasy stand-ins to serve as examples of the types of races DM could have populate their worlds. My issue is when they go off into entirely made up “fantasy” races that don’t even exist in mythology (like Dragonborn :sick::dead:), which I think should always be relegated to specific settings, rather than being offered to players right in the core bools.
 
With something as broad as D&D, what you cut out can often be as important as what you leave in. A setting with humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and half-elves is going to feel very Tolkien and very traditional. One with humans, aasimar, tieflings and genasi will be more on the sword & sorcery side with mainly humans and humans crossed with various entities from "elsewhere", or it could support a very "good vs evil" game with a lot heaven vs hell. Point is, it would be very different from a setting with the traditional tolkien races in them.

On the mythology side, the elves and dwarves of D&D are based on Tolkien and not much else. They're not particularly mythological at all.
 
I know a few Norse experts say Elf was just a word for Dwarf chosen for rhyming reasons, often to alliterate with Aesir. Dwarves of course were usually human sized.
Hmm, considering we still have Alf as a name in Swedish but nothing like Dvärg as a name (other than a term for little people) I'm not sure about that. Generally, we don't know but Alfar and Dvergar seem to mean different things a lot of the time. But they're referring to mythical entities, so there's nothing concrete there so to speak. The words may have meant different things to different people at different times. Most of what we know about Norse mythology comes from works published after it was already dead as a religion.
 
In SF they look different but “honorable warrior race” and “advanced, logical race” etc show up in a lot of different settings.

For sure; they are common tropes. But like, in Traveller, they may have the Aslan and Vargr, but they didn't just stick Wookies in there as is and call them Wookies.
 
They make great barbarians in D&D 5th edition. Dexterity AND Constitution add to Armor Class!

If you've read any of my attempts at a fantasy game you know that I lump Halflings, Gnomes, Pixies, Leprechauns, and Bogeys as cultural groups under the racial group of "Wee Folk."
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top