Some thoughts on 4e getting long in the tooth.

[Desdichado]

And I still believe this is only partially true. I agree they're complete and independent as core rulebooks, but I can understand the general feeling that goes toward the idea that this specific D&D incarnation cannot deliver the core D&D experience with the three core books only, and by now we all know things were made this way on purpose, so you can say WotC failed in their effort to make PHB II and MM II almost as important to play as the original ones, but they surely tried.

But we're talking about barriers to entry for new players here, right? Surely new players aren't going to be out there complaining that they can't play gnomes or fight frost giants, because otherwise they're not getting the "core D&D experience?"

I mean, I see your point, I just wonder how its relevant.

 

[Desdichado]

Essentially, with the possible exception of their involvement with technology or crafts, D&D and many other western RPGs have essentially taken most gnomish attributes in legend and assigned it to other races, like elves, dwarves, pixies, goblins and kobolds.

I think you've demonstrated the opposite of what you intended to there; what all that says to me (not that I didn't already know this) is that gnomes have no classic, traditional presence, other than as alternate terminology for other more established creatures.

But this is in fact a common feature of D&D; they take one concept, and then look at every cognate from every language for the same thing, every entry in the thesaurus for the same thing, and then make separate creatures out of all of them.

Whether that's a feature or a bug depends on personal taste, of course.

 

[delericho]

But this is in fact a common feature of D&D; they take one concept, and then look at every cognate from every language for the same thing, every entry in the thesaurus for the same thing, and then make separate creatures out of all of them.

Whether that's a feature or a bug depends on personal taste, of course.

I could certainly stand to see a compression of the range of monsters, especially when it comes to low-level humanoid monsters (Orcs, Goblins, et al), giant subtypes, and colour-coded dragons.

Although 4e has gone quite a long way towards making them mechanically distinctive, and Pathfinder has gone a long way to making them thematically distinctive, I still think a better solution is probably to have a single base monster, coupled with many easy-to-apply customisation options. This will be especially true if WotC ever get the Monster Builder properly finished and working, making creating new and variant monsters child's play (they're almost there... shame about the math).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you've demonstrated the opposite of what you intended to there; what all that says to me (not that I didn't already know this) is that gnomes have no classic, traditional presence, other than as alternate terminology for other more established creatures.

You might want to take a closer look at those legends: they are always earth-fey/elementals. They are always associated with being powerful practitioners of magic.

And as for "more established", well, that's plain wrong. Gnomes didn't show up in legends after Elves and Dwarves and steal their thunder- the names are interchangeable in many legends. In fact, in some legends, more than one term is used for the same being (like Alberich).

Or as another example, consider the Redcaps of England & Scotland: depending on where the legend is told, they are a kind of malevolent murderous dwarf, goblin, elf or fairy...that looks like what many D&D players would call a gnome...albeit with a bit more attitude.

 

[Desdichado]

You might want to take a closer look at those legends: they are always earth-fey/elementals. They are always associated with being powerful practitioners of magic.

Yes, but the same would be true for elfs, dwarfs, goblins, or a variety of other creatures. Frankly, all those legends are more associated with elfs, dwarfs or goblins, and if the word gnome is used at all, it's usually as an alternative.

And as for "more established", well, that's plain wrong. Gnomes didn't show up in legends after Elves and Dwarves and steal their thunder- the names are interchangeable in many legends. In fact, in some legends, more than one term is used for the same being (like Alberich).

No, it's not plain wrong. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. Gnome as a label is interchangeable. It's not specific. And usually the "preferred" term would be elf or dwarf. At no point is there a specifically gnomish presence that's different from the elf/dwarf/fairy/Wee Folk/Little People whatever. Alberich wasn't ever called an elf, or a dwarf or a goblin or a gnome, he was Alberich, from elbe reix, which means quite literally, "king of the elves." How you've managed to position that as evidence or a specifically gnomish presense in myth, legend and fiction is quite beyond me.

Or as another example, consider the Redcaps of England & Scotland: depending on where the legend is told, they are a kind of malevolent murderous dwarf, goblin, elf or fairy...that looks like what many D&D players would call a gnome...albeit with a bit more attitude.

In other words; goblins. I think maybe you could make a case that the gnome could represent the Wee Folk version of elves; as opposed to the "high" Tolkienian presentation of elves. But I don't think D&D has done a very good job over the years in consistantly portraying them that way, and frankly, if the gnomes were to be cast as a kind of less malevolent redcap, or other more fae-like creature, that'd kind of be a new direction for them in D&D. In D&D specifically, gnomes have been jack of all trades understudies to the dwarves, the elves and even the halflings, without really having a strong identity of their own. As much as I don't particularly care for them, I think the dragonborn have a much stronger identity, and much stronger place in D&D than gnomes do anyway. And tieflings have been growing their role in D&D ever since the days of 2e; arguably they're more iconically D&D than gnomes too. :shrug:

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but the same would be true for elfs, dwarfs, goblins, or a variety of other creatures. Frankly, all those legends are more associated with elfs, dwarfs or goblins, and if the word gnome is used at all, it's usually as an alternative.

Alberich- despite his name (which i also pointed out))- is called a dwarf or gnome (depending on translation) in the Nibelungenlied, an epic poem in Middle High German, who guards the treasure of the Nibelungen, but is overcome by Siegfried. In Wagner's opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen, this continues: depending on translation, he is chief of the Nibelungen race of dwarfs/gnomes.

Here's the NY Met's synopsis, complete with calling him a gnome

http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/history/stories/synopsis.aspx?id=78

Besides him, the Dutch king, the Norse, all use gnome as the predominant or major (as in, no other term is used more than, but others may be equally used) nomenclature.

Paracelsus' use was as the overarching terminology:

The type of gnome most frequently seen is the brownie, or elf, a mischevous and grotesque little creature from twelve to eighteen inches high, usually dressed in green or russet brown. Most of them appear as very aged, often with long white beards, and their figures are inclined to rotundity. They can be seen scampering out of holes in the stumps of trees and sometimes they vanish by actually dissolving into the tree itself.

Their king? King Gob, whose closest followers were goblins.

IOW, gnomes weren't a type of elf or goblin, elves and goblins were a kind of Gnome.

 

[Desdichado]

Alberich, the Dutch king, the Norse, all use gnome as the predominant or major (as in, no other term is used more than, but others may be equally used) nomenclature.

No, that's just exactly not true. In fact, it's the opposite of true. The word gnome was coined by Paracelsus in the 16th century. The old Norse couldn't possibly have used the term because it didn't even exist yet. In any case, it's also just flat out wrong. The Norse used local words alb and dverg which were cognates with english words elf and dwarf. There wasn't any such word as gnome.

IOW, gnomes weren't a type of elf or goblin, elves and goblins were a kind of Gnome.

Yeah, according to Paracelsus. He most likely created the word, so sure, he was trying to make it inclusive--even if what he was describing was exactly the same as what had been used for centuries already as dwarfs or elfs in folklore. In any case, nobody else used it until the late 1800s at best when as part of the Romanticist genre, the word was kind of rediscovered and used haphazardly here and there to apply to small fairy or elf-like beings. But only haphazardly. It's completely wrong to suggest that elves and dwarves were a type of gnome; gnome was a much later term that was only very occasionally used as an alternate for them. Actually, more specifically, it was used as an alternative for goblin but since there wasn't the sharp division between elf, dwarf and goblin that modern fantasy makes, it kind of picked up a few associations with the elves and dwarves as well.

And it wasn't really until the last fifty years or so saw a proliferation of mass produced garden gnomes that the term really gained enough traction to really be used seriously in the same breath as elf, dwarf or goblin anyway.

I'm really curious where you got this idea. Sure; I don't do folklore or linguistics professionally, but I've been interested in it for twenty five years or more, and everything I've ever read anywhere suggests the exact opposite of what you propose, and the provenance of the word gnome is fairly well known. You're just plain wrong here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Paracelsus didn't create the term, he popularized it.

 

[Desdichado]

Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you. He created it, it wasn't popularized until centuries later.

 

[AeroDm]

This has been by far the most educated thread jack I've ever read. Congrats.