The Unified Theory of Gnomes

[JohnSnow]

Uh huh. And "they're sedentary English gentlemen with a penchant for stealth -- oh, wait, they're wandering gypsy-like folk -- no, sorry, they're boat people of the bayou" is so consistant.

Halflings are flailing for an identity as much, if not more, than gnomes. Neither race is particularly well defined. At least gnomes have something to draw from in real-world fey and short elf myths. Halflings are either made up whole-cloth for D&D or drawn from a modern fictional source that intentionally made them to be the least likely race to adventure.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the PHB isn't big enough for both short races. I just would have gone with gnomes, since they have something resembling an identity.

The smart thing to do would be to drop one race or the other, and recast the other one without tying it to a specific cultural identity. Personally, I don't like gypsy-esque halflings, and I've never liked gnomes. Actually, that last isn't entirely true. I liked gnomes in Midnight where their flavor is basically identical to that of the 4e halfling (river-travelling traders with a winning personality). However, in Midnight, they made halflings into dark-skinned, wolf-creature riding mini-elves - which didn't work for me at all.

Nearly every attempt to use both gnomes and halflings ends up with one race getting the cool flavor and the other getting the shaft. In Birthright, halflings got some awesome flavor and gnomes got cut. Even in Eberron where both races are arguably "cool," that "cool" flavor is accomplished by making one an urban race and the other a barbaric race.

Ptolus makes them cousins and could just as easily make do with just one race. The Arcana Evolved distinction between quickling and loresong faen is, IMO, pretty weak.

What I'd like? Give us one race, and make them more similar to traditional halflings than traditional gnomes so that they don't look like emaciated dwarves. A little taller wouldn't hurt thought, so that they're closer to four feet than three. Funnily enough, that sounds like the 4e plan. And they look a fair bit like the warrow, from Dennis McKiernan's Mithgar books. And that works for me. Which is why I didn't mind the changes in Third Edition either (although 3e made them a bit too short, IMO).

 

[Cthulhudrew]

And I thought the gnome history was the same as the Halflings and Dwarves.

The best part about that Nodwick strip? Apparently the elves read it and decided to do the same thing in 4E.

"Eladrin."

Pfaw.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ptolus makes them cousins and could just as easily make do with just one race.

This has actually been a rich source of roleplaying for me in the Ptolus game where I play Baeril Nebehed Callad Segerf Wanderwild Underhill, gnome illusionist/bard/paragon. The fact that it only takes dressing differently and shifting accents to "become" a halfling is a pretty potent trick to have in the arsenal for a trickster.

You know, I've always been sorry that Monte Cook's Gnome Trickster PrC from the Dragon Annual never made the jump into Complete Adventurer or Complete Arcane. Probably more than a little underpowered, but I thought he really nailed the gnomish flavor. The illustration with it was great as well.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I'd love to see the spriggans brought back and made the derro/duergar to the gnomes' dwarves.

I'd actually like to see them do something with the Gremlin (the Moldvay/Castle Amber version) as the anti-Gnome myself. I've been working on a 3.5 version of that creature that would also be suitable as a PC race for some time now, but haven't quite gotten it to my liking.

Anyway, loved your take on the gnomes, Whizbang. It really works. It also reminds me a lot of the "Empire of Dorfin IV" as revealed by Bruce Heard's first Princess Ark article in Dragon.

 

[helium3]

Further (and this goes for ALL editions of D&D, and other games as well), if there isn't enough roleplaying at the table to suit you, that's your and your DM's fault; not the game's. There's no rule in the book that says (or could be enforced) "Don't even try convincing the Baron to lend the party horses; it's against the rules."

Combat and other "objective outcome" events are the game engine's responsibility. Roleplaying is the character/player's responsibility.

I know what you mean. I get so irritated when we're playing Monopoly and the other players won't go along with my role-playing. I mean, just because there aren't any rules telling me how to do it doesn't mean I can't role-play how upset my character is when I have to mortgage one of my properties to pay rent.

My point being that one of the things a "game engine" needs to do is facilitate the specific set of behaviors that comprise the game. The "game engines" for chess, risk and monopoly don't have rules for role-playing, nor do they create situations that force the players to engage in role-playing simply because they aren't role playing games.

The "game engine" for a role-playing game better either contain rules for handling role-playing situations or create situations where role-playing is required. If it doesn't, it's not a role-playing game. It's something else.

 

[Dormammu]

Probably this idea is just a consequence of the game favoring combat while leaving role-playing behind.

Dead wrong. The game is NOT leaving role-playing behind. We absolutely know that they are providing "social encounter" rules and "extended Diplo" rules.

You do realize that making rules for resolving social and diplomatic counters is a reduction in role-playing right? You're turning social interactions into dice rolls...

 

[Dormammu]

My point being that one of the things a "game engine" needs to do is facilitate the specific set of behaviors that comprise the game. The "game engines" for chess, risk and monopoly don't have rules for role-playing, nor do they create situations that force the players to engage in role-playing simply because they aren't role playing games.

Right on. D&D has always been combat-oriented, but that doesn't mean making it more combat-oriented is a good thing. It occupies a point on the spectrum and moving that point away from RPG style can definitely be overdone. Does anyone really want D&D to become Mordheim? Unless you do, you must concede that there is a point of combat-orientation that breaks the RP in RPG.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

You do realize that making rules for resolving social and diplomatic counters is a reduction in role-playing right?

No, it's most empathically not a reduction in role-playing; it's giving you solid rules to support your roleplaying, so that the naturally charismatic and fast-talking players won't rule the social interactions no matter what their characters can do.

Have you ever played any of the White Wolf's Storyteller games (Vampire, Werewolf, Exalted...)? They all have extensive social-encounter rules, embedded deep in the system, and yet they're games that consistently and effectively support and encourage roleplaying.

You're turning social interactions into dice rolls...

Do you believe the people who would turn their social interactions into just a few dice rolls would be any more inclined to roleplay without those rules? In my experience, it's the opposite.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Along with the trickery/illusionist aspect of Gnomes, I always saw them as tinkerers. I don't think this is a niche covered by any other class. You could argue dwarves, but I see them as more of industrialist, which I think is different than a tinkerer. When I think tinkerer, I think clockwork contractions. I also see them as more of jewelcrafters than dwarves would be. Dwarves I see as working with metals more than gems.

So that is one niche/sterotype I see Gnomes fulfilling.

 

[Nellisir]

I'd love to see the spriggans brought back and made the derro/duergar to the gnomes' dwarves. They "they can grow!" schtick shouldn't be all that defines them, although it has in previous editions, IMO.

My Tome of Horrors says spriggan never left.