What's the big deal about gnomes not being in the PHB? **Edited for adversarial tone*

[Klaus]

I'm not a big fan of the gnome

I know a lil' svirfneblin combat miner who says YOU LIE!!!

You furball-spewing scallywag...

 

[Patlin]

I tend to agree with the original premise (no big deal looking in the MM as opposed to the PHB for gnomes) with a slight caveat. If PHB races all get racial feats to choose from, then I would hope that a MM entry for a race intended to be playable would include a few racial feats. In other words, I don't think we know yet whether or not the MM will give playable races equal treatment compared to the PHB. I hope so, especially if Githzerai are playable. I'm playing one now and enjoying it, and wouldn't mind playing one in 4e at some point.

Also, I like the harder edge fey creatures seem to be getting in 4e, and I wonder whether Gnomes will share it. The gnome in the tiefling/gnome cartoon had some pointy looking teeth!

"Mom! I'm a Monster!"

 

[Doug McCrae]

2. This is just another symptom of the same issue. The 4e designers seem to have no respect for the game we've been playing for years and are hellbent on making an entirely new game from the ground up, taking some inspiration and elements from D&D and using the D&D name.

What do you want? 1e with the surprise rules fixed? That would be totally pointless. We can write minor rules corrections ourselves. We need game designers to design new systems, to do the hard work, try and test new ideas, put them through some serious mathematical analysis and playtesting. WotC does these things.

We don't need a retread of 1e, 2e or 3e because those games already exist.

3. So instead of holding any regard for the game's heritage and traditions, this has turned into a popularity contest?

It's called listening to the customer. A 'popularity contest', conducted via market research, is exactly how these issues should be decided, assuming WotC wish to stay in business.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Since neither of us have conducted a scientific poll of D&D players, such speculation is useless.

I haven't. You haven't. WotC have.

 

[Rechan]

To quote Noonan:

To keep things reasonable, I'll count only people who knew they were playtesting a future edition of the game--playtesters for Book of Nine Swords, Star Wars Saga Edition, and Monster Manual V don't count. (Whether they should count is a different question, and an interesting one.) And I'm going to assume a table size of six for a few playtests where we had only the DM report in (which would make more sense if you knew what the test was). Doing some back-of-the-3x5-car d math, I think we're at something like 400 so far. Give me a plus/minus of 50 on that.

Well, hmm. That specific number is going to beg comparisons to 3rd edition playtesting. So it's important to deliver a caveat. The 4e playtesting methodology is a lot different than the 3e playtesting methodology was. Much of the 3e playtesting boiled down to "Here's the manuscript...tell us what you think." In some ways, that's a great playtest. Your testers are motivated (hell, they're frickin' elated!) and you get some great snapshots into ongoing play. Testers are often really good at big-picture issues that come up in an ongoing campaign--after all, they're staring at the future of their chosen hobby, so they ask some very pointed questions.

The other cool thing about that playtest methodology is you see what people play when you give them the whole sandbox. If they collectively gravitate toward certain play styles and certain mechanical elements (classes, races, etc.), well, you just gained insight into a fundamental question of RPG design: "Will anyone care about this thing I'm making up?" But it's a double-edged sword. In an open playtest like that, you don't control what people actually test. If few people choose druids, for example, any issues with that class may remain unseen until you're done with playtesting. If few people engage in high-level play, then you don't get much feedback on the high-level experience.

If, for example, WotC handed all the material to the 400 4e playtester tables, and barely anyone picked up a gnome and ran with it, that tells WotC that gnomes aren't important to the majority of the players.

Is it WotC's job to say, "Well, barely anyone played this. But because three guys did, we should put it in for the three guys that play it"?

As a business, they're going to try and get as much of their money's worth. It serves WotC as a business better to tuck the gnome in the MM where those who want it can have it, but to put their flagship things like Dragonborn and Tieflings where they are, so they grab the eyes of new players.

Sure, it sucks if you're the guy who likes to play what the market research and the playtest research deems a small minority. But it's not out of maliciousness or because WotC wants to kill D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the difference between putting a race in the PHB vs. putting a race in the MM...since they are in the MM they could be used as a Player race IMC.

The three letters with which you close your paragraph are the key. "IMC."

IME, there are many, many DMs who will not allow players to venture forth from races & classes not in the PHB or other similar tomes.

Thus, even though the gnome is in the MM, there will be DMs who disallow its use simply because it isn't in the PHB.

Personally, I'm not one of them, but in 30 years of gaming, I'd say at least 33% of my DMs were like that.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So, basically, the 4e design team is fanatically bent on "improving" every race and fluff aspect of the game, and since they couldn't find a new gnome they liked, they didn't include it? Why couldn't they just leave them as they were?

They couldn't leave it as it were because it was almost a waste of page space. Obviously there will be groups that found the gnome popular, but WotC does real market research as well as playtesting (as oppose to a 200-respondent internet survey, that isn't real market research to my PoV) and came to the conclusion that gnomes aren't popular.

This isn't the first time WotC dropped a race either. Half-orcs existed in older versions of DnD, but didn't make it into the 2e rules. (They came back for 3e; I think they are being dropped again for 4e.)

 

[The Little Raven]

So, basically, the 4e design team is fanatically bent on "improving" every race and fluff aspect of the game, and since they couldn't find a new gnome they liked, they didn't include it? Why couldn't they just leave them as they were?

Why should WotC remain a Gygax tribute band forever? Why can't they actually do what they want with the property they own?

 

[Falling Icicle]

What do you want? 1e with the surprise rules fixed? That would be totally pointless. We can write minor rules corrections ourselves. We need game designers to design new systems, to do the hard work, try and test new ideas, put them through some serious mathematical analysis and playtesting. WotC does these things.

We don't need a retread of 1e, 2e or 3e because those games already exist.

You can't tell me that all that changed from 2nd to 3rd edition, or even from 3rd to 3.5 was the surprise rules. A rules update is fine. I'd even say it's needed. But they can improve the mechanics without drastically changing all of the fluff. The fluff changed very little from one edition to another prior to this. 4e is more than just a new edition. It's a completely new game.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Why should WotC remain a Gygax tribute band forever? Why can't they actually do what they want with the property they own?

They can do anything they want with the property they own. It's their right. It's also my right to object if I don't like what they're doing. It's my right to not buy their product if I don't like it.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.