View Profile: GnomeWorks - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About GnomeWorks

Basic Information

Date of Birth
May 18
About GnomeWorks
About Me:
NASA software engineer.
Rocket City
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Age Group:


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
Divine Intervention in D&D games Sunday, 27th January, 2019 10:51 PM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Sunday, 7th July, 2019 06:25 AM
Join Date
Thursday, 17th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written

2 Friends

  1. MyThirdEye MyThirdEye is offline


  2. William Ronald William Ronald is offline


    William Ronald
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 24th February, 2019

  • 12:52 PM - Samloyal23 quoted GnomeWorks in post The Yogi
    The idea of a "yogi" class was first mentioned, I believe, in OA, as an oriental-sounding name for the psion. But shouldn't there be a class like that? An oriental psionic class? I was wondering... how would one go about creating a class such as this? I'm thinking a psion/monk mix, but with bonus feats like the psy war (but from the martial arts list in the OA). I like the idea of an oriental psionic class, but I'm not entirely sure about how to go about doing it. Psionics has been getting short shrift, did this idea ever get anywhere?

Wednesday, 19th August, 2015

Sunday, 13th July, 2014

  • 04:33 PM - Umbran quoted GnomeWorks in post Merwin said it better than Schwalb
    To be frank here, as a designer... Really? Because as a designer... Gentlemen, As a moderator, it is time for me to step in. First off, all the "as a designer" stuff is what's called "appeal to authority". It means diddly unless we all know what you designed, find it relevant, and like it. In general, if your argument doesn't stand up without this appeal, it isn't as strong as you might think. Moreover, once you've done that, you are essentially making it personal - from this point on, comments made aren't just about your opinions, but about your professional acumen. That's a good way for people's feelings to be bruised, so we ask you not to do this. Thanks, all.
  • 03:55 PM - Sacrosanct quoted GnomeWorks in post Merwin said it better than Schwalb
    But we've seen - repeatedly - a bunch of designers over the past couple weeks tout the rules-light line because anyone who likes heavier crunch is a jerk. Great! If we've seen it repeatedly, then I'm sure it will be easy for you to show me game designers who are calling anyone who likes heavier crunch rules jerks. Otherwise I'd hope you will stop with this nonsense. *Edit* And to be a little preemptive here, if I may. Before you say something like, "Merwin and Schwalb just did!", I should point out to you that they aren't talking about everyone who likes heavier crunch. They are talking about people who look for nothing else but to exploit the game, often at the expense of the fun of the other players. So before you answer this, you need to understand that the phrase you used was "anyone who likes heavier crunch", which includes a whole lot of people. Really? Because as a designer I am surprised at how little care and concern the recent crop of D&D designers have for mechanics....
  • 03:22 AM - Sacrosanct quoted GnomeWorks in post Merwin said it better than Schwalb
    If you tell a fighter he gets proficiency with every weapon (and D&D pretty much does), the fighter's player is going to sift through all the weapons and find the best one. Why? Because there's no reason not to. He has to give up nothing to do so. I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who do this. Are there some? Sure. But in the past 30+ years, the vast majority of players I've gamed with model their character after what they visualize him or her being, not what build gives the highest DPS. But that kind of design takes actual work. It takes consideration, it takes a large playtest group, it takes a lot of math. You know, the kind of thing that designers are paid for... the main reason these books cost money. I think you're assuming designers don't do work. Question. What complex role-playing game have you created to have this insight that we all should listen to? To be frank here, as a designer, I am beginning to take some offense at your repeated disdain a...

Saturday, 12th July, 2014

Thursday, 3rd July, 2014

  • 11:19 AM - jbear quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    ...I would seriously hope that an artist, who probably has dealt with this kind of odd color inconsistency, would notice something like that, and compensate for it. Sorry, but this statement just shows that you know very little about art and colour. It is not an inconsistency at all. Here you go, rather than talking nonsense as though you knew what you were talking about, you can learn something new and speak with authority: Colour Theory Add me to the list of those who are enjoying the art being released.

Wednesday, 2nd July, 2014

  • 07:54 AM - evileeyore quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    I have no experience with Conan. I don't care about Conan. Conan is about as relevant to me as gas-lamps and horse-drawn carriages: an interesting historical anecdote, and nothing more. You are dead to me! Alternate post: Mumble-grumble kids these days not respectin their elders! Why in my day we drove our enemies before us, saw them off our lawn, and shook our canes at them!
  • 07:06 AM - dd.stevenson quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    It's... the combination of his expression, and the depiction of violence. There's nothing else going on here: bored guy, dying gobbos. I mean, there's not even a group of adventurers. At least then there'd be some kind of implied cooperation, you know? Here, it's just... one guy, his enemies dying, "ho hum just another day." Fair enough, I suppose. Personally I think his expression is a dead ringer for the traditional martial arts slow-mo face: blank, focused. But it's hard to be sure at this resolution. 62470
  • 06:07 AM - dd.stevenson quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    Seems very "D&D: Murderhobo Edition" to me. (snip) I can't work out where you're coming from on this. There's nothing in the picture to suggest that the protagonist is a vagrant adventurer. EDIT: Or that he's committing murder for hire.
  • 05:45 AM - Unwise quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    Not feeling it. Seems very "D&D: Murderhobo Edition" to me. Sword guy looks to be completely devoid of expression... it's just very odd. I think it kind of captures that Conanesque bored expression. Where he has just killed a horror-beyond-imagining, is standing on its corpse with a woman who is hot-beyond-imagining clinging wantonly to him...and he just looks bored and vacant. I always kind of liked to picture Conan consumed with some sort of existential ennui, it was so out of place.
  • 05:28 AM - Melkor quoted GnomeWorks in post Opening Page of the PHB
    Not feeling it. Sword guy looks to be completely devoid of expression... it's just very odd. Agreed. It's ok. I'm definitely not as enamored of this pic as some in this thread seem to be.

Tuesday, 22nd April, 2014

  • 07:29 PM - Celebrim quoted GnomeWorks in post Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
    ...Oberoni, I'm pretty sure. No, and indeed, heck no. If for no other obvious reason, because of the next sentence - the one you don't quote - specifically says that the RAW can be internally consistant to setting as well. But also, because as part of the larger point, setting and system aren't the same thing and are only tightly coupled if we choose to couple them. The same system can produce multiple games and multiple settings depending on the many other inputs recieved to the game. Changing the dials on the setting doesn't necessarily change the system and changing the dials on the system doesn't necessarily change the setting. I won't even get very deeply into the fact that you are misusing the Oberon Fallacy, which has to do with defending that the rules aren't bad because they can be changed, something that isn't even remotely what is being discussed here. You also seem to be continually forgetting what you originally argued for that prompts my comments, so what's the ...
  • 06:11 PM - Celebrim quoted GnomeWorks in post Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
    I care about internal consistency. As a DM, it is literally the most important thing for me... You have affirmed otherwise elsewhere. So I don't really see the point you're trying to make, here. I'm saying you are in charge. The default setting, the marketable settings, the economicly viable settings have nothing to do with whether the system works. They aren't meant to be internally consistant, so the fact that they aren't internally inconsistant is no evidence at all of whether the system can hang together. When I make changes to the system, it's never out of a belief that an internally consistant setting couldn't be created from the rules, but either out of a desire for a slightly different setting, or out of a desire for a slightly different game. Yes. It's easier to simply remove the offending element than think through the ramifications of it, especially when I don't particularly enjoy that element and the resulting ramifications it would have. This argues against your ...
  • 05:04 PM - Celebrim quoted GnomeWorks in post Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
    Hmm. The implied setting of D&D rarely ever seems to take Raise Dead into account. There's a disconnect between the world the mechanics are telling us exist, and the fiction we're being sold on. So, in a roundabout way, it is the system's fault. No, not at all. The success of your average mindless action packed summer blockbuster or of a setting like Forgotten Realms shows that most people don't give a flying fart about internal consistancy and logic. They are too busy having visceral fun to care about tangental intellectual integrity and those settings are meeting the needs they actually have in a way they approve of. And that's pretty much how it should be. We would be nothing less than pretentious to demand a setting prioritize internal consistancy when 95% of the settings audience doesn't care and in fact would probably enjoy it less if it did provoke that sort of thought. It's only worth demanding internal consistancy when the person himself has said, "I wish things were more inte...
  • 04:15 PM - Celebrim quoted GnomeWorks in post Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
    Or... you could just cut it, and not have to go through all that. But I don't want to 'cut' it. It's another tool in the tool box for creating good stories. Among other things, it's a cushion against having the effects of bad luck wreck good ongoing stories and character development. It has a gamist value for making a better game, and it has a narrative value because many of the best stories involve characters coming back from the dead, and it has a simulationist value because of the interest of thinking about how it impacts the social life of a world where magic is real and the dead coming back might be less than extraordinarily unusual. I mean, it seems to me that most DMs don't think through the logical ramifications, as you have. Most of the DMs I've dealt with certainly haven't. That's not the systems fault.
  • 03:54 PM - Celebrim quoted GnomeWorks in post Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting
    Was wondering when this was going to be brought up. Raise Dead - and spells like it - causes far too many issues in regards to versimilitude. No one of any importance would die, save by old age. Actually, the idea that important people would be raised from the dead threatens my versimlitude. In fact, by law in most of my world it's illegal to raise an 'important person' from the dead in most cases. Once you are dead, threatening the natural order of the world by bringing you back tends to cause way too many problems. For example, suppose you have a situation where a King is killed. At that point, his 40 year old son is now the lawful king after having waited to obtain the throne for many years. If you raise the king back to life, does his son cease to be king and must he now keep waiting? Is it possible to have reverse succession? Can a king be uncrowned? Can you have two lawful kings? Will now the son resent the father, or if resentment is already present, will it be increased...
  • 03:16 PM - ren1999 quoted GnomeWorks in post (In WWF Voice) Let's Get Ready to Fumble!
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand the fascination with fumbles. Probabilistically speaking, this whole "1 is a fumble" thing means that, every time I try something, there is a 5% chance that I am going to completely and utterly screw it up. This does not jive with my real-world experiences. Not only that, but the concept of fumbles completely and utterly screws with the notion of how competent these people are. A first-level character has almost always been presented as a cut above the rest, yes? Why is it, then, that he has the same chance of making a complete idiot out of himself, that some normal plebe has? And that just gets worse as the character levels. Twentieth-level fighter, fighting with Vecna - oops, rolled a 1! I just tossed my sword over there, like some kind of bumbling idiot. If something happens in a game of D&D that someone starts playing this, then there is something fundamentally wrong going on. Mr. Murphy strikes high and low. The greatest warriors make mistakes, an...

Saturday, 19th April, 2014

  • 10:35 PM - JRRNeiklot quoted GnomeWorks in post From what you've seen so far, do you think D&D Next will be a success or a failure?
    I don't think that 5e is going to end well. The initial release will, of course, go swimmingly. For whatever reason, gamers like the new shinies, and will almost assuredly buy the core if for no reason other than to simply have it (I bought the 4e core at a midnight release, and I actively disliked the game). But beyond that? I am seriously dubious. Here's what I said about 4e before it's release: No, 4e will not succeed in the long run. It may do very well for a few months, a year, but due to declining sales, we'll see 5e just before the Mayan apocalypse. I foresee history repeating itself here. Well, except for the Mayan Apocalypse.

Monday, 31st March, 2014

  • 08:10 PM - Li Shenron quoted GnomeWorks in post Status of skills/tools and expected changes
    I disagree with the implied premise here that there should always be a chance of failure in everything you do. I disagree as well with that, but I also disagree with the opposite i.e. that there should be an area of the game where you have no chance of failure/success. This is the problem of a rule such as Take20. Without such rule, the DM can still put a locked door and simply tell you "you succeed, you're a good enough Rogue", put another locked door and tell you "you fail, you're not yet good enough", then put a third door and make you roll the dice. Take20 takes the third option away, or force the DM to have a battle or a storm around to justify the call for a check. You say you don't like randomness, and that's totally legitimate. But just as you can say it's irrelevant to roll because anyway the result is binary, I could say that you might as well be required to roll because anyway the result is binary, and the DM's pre-made decision of your success/failure is not less arbitrary as t...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

GnomeWorks's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites