D&D 4E Rich Baker on Gnomes in 4E

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, the designer's attempts at lingo hasn't exactly been bleeding edge, now has it?

It's been a lot closer than the crowd using it in a derogatory fashion has been.

It's as if, to make fun of them saying something was "cool," everyone suddenly started talking about how "far out" and "groovy" 4E was, in some sort of "I'm less hip than you" race to the bottom.

 

[JohnSnow]

*AHEM*

Did anyone READ what I posted? The original poster specifically asked Rich about "margin races" like avariel and aquatic elves.

Rich said: "we won't have a lot of support for marginal races in our printed product." Two sentences later, he specifically mentions avariel and aquatic elves. So clearly, Rich's paragraph 2 is referencing question 2.

His first paragraph was about gnomes, since question 1 was about gnomes. And in that paragraph he said that gnomes would get a full PC writeup in 2009, but that there *might* be some stuff for them in the FR campaign setting.

And just to hammer home the point, his third paragraph was about saurials, since question 3 was about saurials.

The post was probably intended to be right behind the questions, but other people slipped in while Rich was writing it.

Don't get hung up on Rich's use of the phrase "marginal races" in a post where he mentions gnomes. He was clearly responding to 3 different questions, one of which specifically asked him about "margin races" (and gave the examples of aquatic and sea elves). All Rich did was make the English correct by changing a noun to an adjective.

Sheesh.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So what you're saying is we need a master list of races and a Marginal Column so we can have a Y/N next to 'em?

Uh... no.

What's I'm saying, based on the current CORE races is that I don't expect what WoTC employees think of as marginal races to be what I consider to be marginal races.

*AHEM*

Did anyone READ what I posted? The original poster specifically asked Rich about "margin races" like avariel and aquatic elves.

Rich said: "we won't have a lot of support for marginal races in our printed product." Two sentences later, he specifically mentions avariel and aquatic elves. So clearly, Rich's paragraph 2 is referencing question 2.

His first paragraph was about gnomes, since question 1 was about gnomes. And in that paragraph he said that gnomes would get a full PC writeup in 2009, but that there *might* be some stuff for them in the FR campaign setting.

And just to hammer home the point, his third paragraph was about saurials, since question 3 was about saurials.

The post was probably intended to be right behind the questions, but other people slipped in while Rich was writing it.

Don't get hung up on Rich's use of the word "marginal races" in a post where he mentions gnomes. He was responding to 3 different questions, one of which specifically asked him about "margin races." All Rich did was make the English correct by changing a noun to an adjective.

Sheesh.

 

[JohnSnow]

So what you're saying is we need a master list of races and a Marginal Column so we can have a Y/N next to 'em?

Uh... no.

What's I'm saying, based on the current CORE races is that I don't expect what WoTC employees think of as marginal races to be what I consider to be marginal races.

But the point is that a WotC employee didn't come up with the term. All he did was acknowledge it based on a poster's use of the phrase "margin races" in one paragraph of a post specifically asking about avariel and aquatic elves. He then used it in one paragraph of his own post, again specifically mentioning avariel and aquatic elves.

IMO, anybody who can't understand this based on what was asked and what Rich wrote is just looking for a reason to be offended. Rich absolutely did NOT say "marginal races like gnomes" and he didn't even coin the stupid term (other than to correct its grammar).

Now, I know a lot of people are looking for reasons to be offended. But just because WotC has decided gnomes aren't popular enough to be in the first PHB doesn't mean they consider them a "marginal race."

But hey, whatever, think what you want. I was just pointing out the logical result of looking at it from the standpoint of a post that asked a question and one that answered it.

Tell me - would you view it differently if Rich had numbered his paragraphs 1, 2, 3?

 

[rhm001]

Saurials? Sea-elves? Avariels? Come on, people, even the most devoted fanboys of these races have to admit they're marginal at best.

While I'm willing to agree on Avariels and Saurils (heck, they're supposed to be in *1* valley in FR, right?), I think sea-elves have a lot of potential in a PoL campaign. If the idea is that civilization has been thumped by all of these dark forces and is trying to recover, I think there's a lot of potential in a Savage Tide/Lovecraftian game, where you have costal human and halfling (a halfling New Orleans-style trading city, hmm...) PoLs trying to help sea-elven guerillas stave off the [sahaguin, aboleth, any number of potential 4e MM races] invasion that has captured most of their cities and is threatening to "come on to the beach," as it were. (Add in "Lovecraftian" w/ hybrids running some of the human or sea-elf PoLs, and the surprise when PCs figure it out...).

For that, it's nice to know what you're working with and have a decent starting point, whether you're doing it as a campaign and have sea-elf PCs or are doing it as a "stop over" between dungeons and just want a better idea of how to write up the sea elves and their (still-held and conquered) cities.

I'll grant you that it might not be PHB2-strength, but I'd call it somewhere betwen that and "marginal".

 

[JohnSnow]

I'll grant you that it might not be PHB2-strength, but I'd call it somewhere betwen that and "marginal".

Sure. In any campaign that involves a coastal town, island adventuring, or ships, 1 person in 30 might be interested in playing a sea elf. Quite honestly, I think they're about as deserving of a full race write-up as, say, centaurs. I imagine you might get enough rules to make characters out of them in a Monster Manual, although maybe not the first one.

Which is to say, marginal. Probably, at best, 1 PC in 1000. Simply because their campaign relevance is a bit corner case. Not as basically a "friendly monster race," but as a long-term member of a regular adventuring group.

Now, if there's a 4e version of Stormwrack, or a similar supplement intended to extend the possibilities for ocean adventuring, I totally agree with you. I'd rather see aquatic elves than the orca-people.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

* nt *

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The orca people (darfellan) were awesome and not merely because they weren't sea-[ordinary MM/PHB race]-people.

 

[Another Gnome]

Well, reading this thread has certainly made me regret introducing the term "marginal race" to 4E lingo.

I would also defend my grammatical choice by comparing "margin race" to the commonly used "back cover text" but that's not really the point here, I suppose...

 

[Mistwell]

Just one more reason not to waste any money on WotC in the new year...

I like how helpful your post was, to everyone. Really, we were all wondering "Is this another reason for 3catcircus to post about how he doesn't plan on moving over to 4e", and you answered our question! I'm so happy now. I feel informed by your deep analysis. Thank you.