Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
with the Forgotten Realms becoming the new default setting for D&D in the way that Points of Light/ Nentir Vale was for 4e and Probably-Greyhawk was for 3e.
*headdesk*
Quote:
Personally I'm not that keen on the new design, as they look too cartoony and exagerated.
I read this post before I went ahead and read the article, and I thought "Oh, it couldn't possibly be that bad."
Then I got to that first image of that girl with the whip and was all "HOLY ****ING **** KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!"
So what went wrong here? Let's go through the article step by step:
Quote:
What was the issue about the halfling that haunted me? They were exactly what they were described to be . . . halflings, or half humans. I had the tendency to call them micro humans, and the biggest problem with them was the fact that I always had to tell the illustrator to put something in the image that gave them scale—otherwise they just looked like humans. SO frustrating!
Congratulations! You've finally figured out the basic problem with Rubber Forehead Aliens! Except your options are even further constrained because you try to avoid invoking real-world racial stereotypes and features like the plague (admittedly for understandable reasons), so everyone just turns out like deformed white folk. Only so many ways you can do that before everything just starts looking the same, or you take a nose dive straight into the deepest depths of the uncanny valley.
Quote:
Do you notice that she feels small? Her head-to-body ratio changes our perspective of size. It's a subtle thing, but it tends to be quite effective.
No, she feels absolutely horrifying! The first time I saw something like that thing in real life, I'd do my best to smile and nod and try to avoid asking weird questions or vomiting. I certainly wouldn't think "Aww, how adorable and friendly and idealistically pastorale! I just wanna give you a hug!"
Quote:
Some other stuff
...To be honest, I don't even really care. They're wood elves, except they're supposed to be "cute" instead of "mysterious." It's the kind of lame fluff writing I've come to expect from WotC to such an extent it doesn't even make me angry anymore when I see it.
The problem is, as always, they focus too much on the portrait instead of the world the portrait is supposed to represent. "Wood elves are mysterious" and "Halflings are friendly" sounds all well and good on paper until you realize it's all but meaningless in the context of an actual game. It doesn't help you to roleplay these characters or build stories around these cultures and societies.
Last edited by Craft (Cheese) : 11-15-2012 at 07:33 PM.
they seem to have a forest motif. nature is a big place. maybe elves will hae another motif :P
Elves live on top of the forest, Halflings live on ground level of the forest, and Gnomes live under the forest. There, distinct motifs for everyone!
__________________
"Okay, so I'm going to quick draw and dual wield these one-pound caltrops as improvised weapons..."
---
"Oh, hey, look! Blue Eyes Black Lotus!" "Wait what, do you sacrifice a mana to the... Does it like, summon a... What would that card even do!?" "Oh, it's got a four-energy attack. Completely unviable in actual play, so don't worry about it."
I just looked at the art and, wow, that's not good art. To sum it up in one word; aaaaaaaaaaaah! Seriously, I could see these as characters in the latest whimsical CGI movie du jour, but not in an RPG setting with Dragons and chainmail bikinis. And give them back the big hairy feet; that's literally their only identifiable characteristic other than being short, so if you're so worried about them looking too human why take it away?
On the plus side, I like the direction their fluff is going. 3e had a problem with overemphasizing the Halfling skill as Rogues into an entirely theft based culture, where it was even hinted in a splat that the Halfing deity was only pretending to be LG and was really CN. Hobbits were one of the most interesting and unique parts of Tolkien's books, and IMO the reason they're as popular as they are now, so paying homage to that is going to revitalize an otherwise one-note and boring race.
You know, I've realized I hate 90% of the "good races": The thieving faerunian haflings, the cleptomaniac kenders, the demented tinker gnomes, the prankster rock gnomes, the flatterer (kalamarian) forest gnomes, the aloof, vain elves, the emo Tanis-like half-elves, the even emoer Drizzt-like renegade drows...
The planetouched are like meh...
Dwarves are generally O.K., and I can probably tolerate those moth*******ng bastards, the humans, only because I am human.
Now that I think about it, I usually only play humans...
I think it's a step in the right direction. The 3E halflings that looked like adult-proportioned toddlers were just creepy and off-putting. This takes them a little closer to their hobbity roots, and makes them feel a little more like they're supposed to.
I still think the heads are too big and the feet too small, though. The mushroom hunters look pretty good (aside from the tiny legs), but the female thief looks freakish.
Ideally, I'm thinking along the lines of something that looks like a 4 foot tall Jonah Hill.
Right on the heels (ha-HA, pun) of "demon girls with huge breasts and tiny loincloths who lure men to their death with sex are a positive and totally original role model for female characters in media and isn't sexist at all!" comes "halflings don't look 'short' enough, so we gave them the proportions of a human midget in all our artwork."
Someone needs to make an "Oh, Wizards of the Coast, No" t-shirt in the vein of the John Ringo shirts.
I like Eberron halflings. Like, a lot. Those are the basic halflings in my brain.
Right on the heels (ha-HA, pun) of "demon girls with huge breasts and tiny loincloths who lure men to their death with sex are a positive and totally original role model for female characters in media and isn't sexist at all!" comes "halflings don't look 'short' enough, so we gave them the proportions of a human midget in all our artwork."
Wait, they made succubi a PC race? Or is this just the new Tiefling artwork?
Right on the heels (ha-HA, pun) of "demon girls with huge breasts and tiny loincloths who lure men to their death with sex are a positive and totally original role model for female characters in media and isn't sexist at all!"
What
fillerfillerfiller
Last edited by Craft (Cheese) : 11-15-2012 at 10:21 PM.
Oh, that thing. Normally I wouldn't bother to try defending them but you're being more than a little unfair here: Tisha was presented in the article as an example of a controversial character depiction. In no way did he claim she wasn't sexist (though he didn't claim that she was either) or even that she was a role model, of all things.
Oh, that thing. Normally I wouldn't bother to try defending them but you're being more than a little unfair here: Tisha was presented in the article as an example of a controversial character depiction. In no way did he claim she wasn't sexist (though he didn't claim that she was either) or even that she was a role model, of all things.
No.
He showed her so that two paragraphs later he could say "no, it's ok because she was all about making business decisions, therefore not sexist" and then snidely imply that if it's not DDs and chainmail bikinis, then it must be ugly.
That article is not about a serious discussion. It's about trying to shame the opposition into silence and it needs to be said. It's one more stick in the craw that indicates Wizards is not interested in addressing their fan base.
He showed her so that two paragraphs later he could say "no, it's ok because she was all about making business decisions, therefore not sexist" and then snidely imply that if it's not DDs and chainmail bikinis, then it must be ugly.
Nonsense! Fs and nothing but band-aids can be very attractive.
I'm not gonna try to argue on this because, really, it's not something I can really get fired-up over. WotC is waaaaaaaaaaaaay down there on my list of "worst offenders of sexism in gaming."
Nonsense! Fs and nothing but band-aids can be very attractive.
I'm not gonna try to argue on this because, really, it's not something I can really get fired-up over. WotC is waaaaaaaaaaaaay down there on my list of "worst offenders of sexism in gaming."
Also this probably isn't the thread for it. This thread is about halflings and how they look like CGI movie characters now.
I suspect the black sheep adventurer of the village is voiced by Jack Black.
I've always thought the Halflings only truly worked within the themes and symbolism of Tolkien's work, and transferred poorly into D&D campaign settings. You don't need a whole race to express amiability and pastoral simplicity, you just don't.
The best Halflings are, in my opinions, those who break from Tolkien. Eberron and Dark Sun in particularly. There's enough of a distinction between them and the vanilla humans of the world that they're worth portraying as something else.
Well, I think they look fine. It's new, different, and very identifiable. I could see a dozen different established artists taking this concept for the race (proportions and structure, not the color/rendering) and drawing it in their own styles without losing the visual identity of the race.
If I get time later, I'll do that myself. Maybe you guys need to get away from that set of rendering styles to see more of the design's potential.
Why add shortfolk if you are just going to make them hobbits? the default fluff for Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings is too generic and not actually separate enough to matter.
In my campaign setting, Dwarves are men of stone, who may or may not be living rock, Elves are immortal amazons, and halflings may or may not be included. Kobolds would be the lowest common denominator for Dragons.
Why add shortfolk if you are just going to make them hobbits? the default fluff for Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings is too generic and not actually separate enough to matter.
In my campaign setting, Dwarves are men of stone, who may or may not be living rock, Elves are immortal amazons, and halflings may or may not be included. Kobolds would be the lowest common denominator for Dragons.
I'm OK with the short races (and with the other races) as long as they don't make them annoying or a joke.
I like the concept of the halflings as honest, good, hardworking country people with a core of steel; I'm OK with them being nomads (boats or wagons, I don't care) too...what I don't like is when they try to make them all natural thieves just because the rogue class is the one that fits them better. Not every race need to be 100% identified with a class, sometimes the race can be just background, like being from Perrenland or Almor or Tethyr or Amn.
As for the gnomes, what is with the prankter thing? Everybody I know hates that. It's as if they were purposelly trying to make the race dislikable! Couldn't the gnomes be left as a race of brainy, peaceful, nature loving artificers and mages? The elves already fill the role of the nature-loving mages, I know, but many people dislike elves because they are often so aloof, vain, arrogant...etc., so there is a niche for the gnome race there.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Are you happy with the Halflings?
Member of the paladin fan club
