# The Unified Theory of Gnomes



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2007)

Reposting myself from October. People periodically link to the post in an old thread I made, with my explanation that, IMO and IMC, I don't see gnomes has having too many disparate focuses; they have one focus that's never been properly identified as such:



			
				The most devilishly handsome gnome there ever was said:
			
		

> Gnomes are the equivalent of magical rabbits. They are smaller and weaker than almost everyone else (except for kobolds, whom they compete for living space with -- no one ever remembers that kobolds also live in dark forests per the RAW). EVERYONE can wipe them out if they want to, so gnomes, like rabbits, have learned to hide.
> 
> They're not illusionists because they're into Zen Buddhism, as Races of Stone tried to explain. They're illusionists because, if they're not, the local orc tribe will dig them all up and eat them during the next lunar eclipse.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Self-QFT!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2007)

And, for the record, all of this is how gnomes are played by me and IMC in practice:

One of the two gnomes IMC (Ebuferpaly Potentloins, gnome rogue/cleric of Garl Glittergold) is currently investigating an attempted murder in the gnomish enclave of Wit's End, a combination between a faerie mound, a gnomish commune and an old text adventure-style puzzle dungeon. Illusions abound and go even deeper than that, as very little is as it seems in Wit's End.

In the game I play in, my gnome illusionist/bard/gnome paragon (after this adventure, when I get my next level), Baeril Underhill, is a consulting detective in Ptolus -- basically an excuse for him to badger people to tears with endless questions -- investigating the apparent threat of a gnome illusionist intent on disrupting the wedding between two noble families. Here, it's pretty clear, that even less is as it seems than in Wit's End.

For Baeril, life is all about having layer upon layer of illusions piled upon him. He dresses like a crazed Swiss mountaineer and yodels and claims to come from a gnomish nation no one's ever seen. When he succeeded on his saving throw in a _zone of truth_, he pretended otherwise and proceeded to annoy the crap out of everyone by quizzing them about their personal secrets and announcing opinions that made him look foolish, so he could then start saying some inaccurate things because everyone now "knows" he's forced to tell the truth.

In late 2008, when the rumored arcane magic book comes out with the core illusionist class that WotC has mentioned, I'll use the retraining rules to turn Baeril from a gnome wizard to a gnome illusionist, as his "archetypal gnome" thing is really me playing with 3E mechanics currently. He'll still yodel and still wear lederhosen, though.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 30, 2007)

I support your theory and promise never to throw fruit at my gnomish neighbors.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2007)

Oh, and even Zogonia subscribes to my Unified Theory!







ANYONE could be a gnome!


----------



## Jinete (Nov 30, 2007)

I really liked your Gnome flavor, but I don't think it fits my vision of what a 4e PC is going to be. 

From the mechanics and flavor previews, I see 4e characters as "Going Around Kicking The Crap Out Of Evil With Our Cool And Balanced Powers" not "Going Around Outsmarting People Because We Are In Fact Weak" 

I'm not saying you couldn't fit a Gnome as you imagine him in your 4e campaign, I just think that he would be the outsider. Well, maybe not in *your* campaign he wouldn't, but in campaigns that will go with the imaging and flavor that the WotC give us.

I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## withak (Nov 30, 2007)

That description is full of win. I will be using gnomes just like this IMC.

That said, I agree with Jinete. This sort of flavor doesn't seem to mesh well with what 4e wants out of its PCs. This sort of gnome isn't "heroic" enough, at least not in the ass-kicking sense. That said, there is no way I would discourage a player from creating a gnome of exactly this sort to use as a PC. It'd be way too much fun.

It will be interesting to see what kind of flavor gnomes get in the 4e MM.


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 30, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> From the mechanics and flavor previews, I see 4e characters as "Going Around Kicking The Crap Out Of Evil With Our Cool And Balanced Powers" not "Going Around Outsmarting People Because We Are In Fact Weak"



"Going Around Outsmarting People Because We Are In Fact Weak" is just a smart way that weaker guys use for "Going Around Kicking The Crap Out Of Evil With Our Cool And Balanced Powers" efficiently.

And there are many ways to be heroic. You don't need to literally kick some butts to be a hero.
Probably this idea is just a consequence of the game favoring combat while leaving role-playing behind.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 30, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I really liked your Gnome flavor, but I don't think it fits my vision of what a 4e PC is going to be.
> 
> From the mechanics and flavor previews, I see 4e characters as "Going Around Kicking The Crap Out Of Evil With Our Cool And Balanced Powers" not "Going Around Outsmarting People Because We Are In Fact Weak"
> 
> I'm not saying you couldn't fit a Gnome as you imagine him in your 4e campaign, I just think that he would be the outsider. Well, maybe not in *your* campaign he wouldn't, but in campaigns that will go with the imaging and flavor that the WotC give us.



I agree with the above (including the "I like your style" part).  D&D 4E is catering to the "butt-kicking" style of game.  Roleplayers will be just fine because there's no rules that can stop you from roleplaying; but ever race has to "kick ass" in combat its own way.  Gnomes (as you present them) are all avoid avoiding combat.

You know what the second-most-famous[1] saying is among the Gnomes? "Never get in a fist fight with tall folk when death is on the line."

I'm glad you wrote the above now.  I still think Gnomes will remain an NPC race IMC, but now I have some really good ideas how to play them.  I hope the 4E MM does a good job of presenting some similarly unified, coherent and playable picture of them.


[1] The most-famous is of course "Never get in a land war in Asia."


----------



## Clavis (Nov 30, 2007)

Excellent work, Whizbang! I love your take on Gnomes.

Gnome love is good love!


----------



## Irda Ranger (Nov 30, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> And there are many ways to be heroic. You don't need to literally kick some butts to be a hero.



Yes, but it is a design goal of the 4E designers that PC's do not have to "take turns" having fun.  Everyone should be relevant to all encounters.

Whereas, if the Gnome is in the middle of out-smarting a tribe of orcs, the other classes will have little to do.  Similarly in a heavy melee the Gnome would be left out.



			
				Wepwawet said:
			
		

> 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.  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.


----------



## epochrpg (Nov 30, 2007)

When gnomes come out for 4E they will have rainbow mohawks, stingers instead of full beards,  and ride around on dinosaurs in the feywild.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 30, 2007)

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


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2007)

From another thread, a post that nicely encapsulates the idea:


			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I get the impression that if UT-Gnomes ever had a full blown nation, most people wouldn't even know it was there; of if they suspected, all the details would be wrong.
> 
> I can just picture now an adventurer wandering through some woodland and suddenly a Gnome appears: "Ok, look here pal." says the Gnome "We've tried to do this the easy way by presenting you with easier paths to walk down, but you keep picking the hard ones. You've deliberately avoided every inviting elven camp we led you to. You've ignored and dragon spoor dropping we left lying on this road, and even avoided that one orc encampment when we thought reverse-psychology would get us somewhere. I don't know how or why you're doing it, or if you are deliberately seeking the Gnomish settlements, but it's gotta stop. Go back."
> 
> ...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 30, 2007)

I play in Ptolus, where gnomes and halflings are explicitly two branches of the same race (and both are technically a type of elf). Baeril forever goes around asking if people have read his favorite book, Letters to the Quickling, which, he explains is a book in halfling (called "quickling faen" in Ptolus) from the creator god of the gnomes, attempting to bring them back into the light, dogmatically speaking.

Of course, it's a little more complicated than that, and Baeril is actually testing everyone he meets:


			
				Our campaign wiki said:
			
		

> A series of letters from the priesthood of Garl Glittergold written in Halfling to a nomadic band of quickling faen in Rhoth. The letters are written as though Garl himself were the author, and the book is sometimes called Garl's Letters to the Quickling.
> 
> The book spells out a philosophy for gnomish life, where illusion is woven into the fabric of every day life. Early on in the Letters, "Garl" describes gnomes and halflings as rabbits, living in a hillside surrounded by bears, wolves, giant snakes and other predators. The halfling hares attempt to escape the bigger and more dangerous races around them by outrunning them. In the end, though, the halflings are cornered or simply run to ground and consumed. In contrast, the gnome rabbits dig hole after hole in the hill, riddling it with countless numbers of false dens, confusing the predators, who search endlessly for the true gnomish lairs. In the interim, the gnome rabbits move into a hollow tree overlooking the hill, where none of their predators think to look for them at all.
> 
> ...



The moment Baeril finds someone who's read the book and understands that it's actually a guide for life, and not a political satire or a book of children's stories, he knows that he's foudn someone he's going to have to watch very closely. For the most part, though, no one bothers with the book or, if they do, they misunderstand it pretty severely, which is all to the good.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 30, 2007)

withak said:
			
		

> That description is full of win. I will be using gnomes just like this IMC.
> 
> That said, I agree with Jinete. This sort of flavor doesn't seem to mesh well with what 4e wants out of its PCs. This sort of gnome isn't "heroic" enough, at least not in the ass-kicking sense. That said, there is no way I would discourage a player from creating a gnome of exactly this sort to use as a PC. It'd be way too much fun.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what kind of flavor gnomes get in the 4e MM.




That was a splendid description, I loved it.

No matter what 4e "wants" out of my PC...I reckon I'll just make what I want and go with it from there.  

There is no reason that this type of flavor could not be part of 4e.  There will always be room for RP and cool backstory.


----------



## Driddle (Nov 30, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> When gnomes come out for 4E they will have rainbow mohawks, stingers instead of full beards, and ride around on dinosaurs in the feywild.




That would so totally RAWK!!!   

...   And yet, I'm still not sensing a unified racial "focus" thingy that so many people have been whining about lately. Sure, they've got the rainbow mohawk-feywild dinosaur synergy going on, but after that they would seem to lose _cohesion_. I mean, like, are your envisioned 4th edition gnomes designed to be battlefield-manipulating ranger types or striker spellswords or ego-flatulating janitors or what?

I'm hoping that by v5.5, someone will have developed an easy-to-remember, three-word stereotype description that will give gnomes a home again in the PHB.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> When gnomes come out for 4E they will have rainbow mohawks, stingers instead of full beards,  and ride around on dinosaurs in the feywild.




And even that is a marked improvement over their previous portrayal, which was "too elvish to be a dwarf, and to dwarvish to be an elf and too short to be anything else."


----------



## Mercule (Nov 30, 2007)

Hmm....  Now I have a good reason to keep gnomes IMC.

Heck, it gives me a good reason to add halflings back in: they exist only as cover for gnomes.  The only reason halflings still exist as a race is because the gnomes have marginally protected them as part of the smokescreen.

I'm not a big fan of either smaller race, but I am absolutely astounded that WotC would keep halflings over gnomes.  When I matured enough as a GM to realize I didn't have to keep everything in the PHB, halflings were the first thing to go.

Edit:  I don't hate halflings or anything.  They aren't interesting enough to hate.  Now, kender: those I hate.  Tinker gnomes, too.  Dragonlance is a shining example of how some campaigns have some cool ideas for within that framework, but the ideas really don't port well.  Then again, ticker gnomes were lame, even in Dragonlance.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of either smaller race, but I am absolutely astounded that WotC would keep halflings over gnomes.




You're surprised that Wizards would keep an icon of modern fantasy (halflings) over a race that has inconsistent portrayals depending on the source?


----------



## Klaus (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And even that is a marked improvement over their previous portrayal, which was "too elvish to be a dwarf, and to dwarvish to be an elf and too short to be anything else."








"Watch it, longshanks."


----------



## Mercule (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You're surprised that Wizards would keep an icon of modern fantasy (halflings) over a race that has inconsistent portrayals depending on the source?




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.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 1, 2007)

I've never used or allowed gnomes in my campaigns until Eberron; I think they made a very interesting set of design decisions regarding gnomes in Eberron and it works very well for them there.

I do like the Dustyboots version too, though.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Dec 1, 2007)

Driddle said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that by v5.5, someone will have developed an easy-to-remember, three-word stereotype description that will give gnomes a home again in the PHB.



"Jokes Involving Blackpowder" 
"Forest-Spirits With Ammo"
"Q Meets Mr. Bean"
"The Swiss, Shorter"


Seriously though, in trying to think of Gnomes in a 4E context I realized that Gnomes seem fairly related to the Feywild, and we already have two Feywild races.  Three really would be a lot.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Dec 1, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've never used or allowed gnomes in my campaigns until Eberron; I think they made a very interesting set of design decisions regarding gnomes in Eberron and it works very well for them there.



Ah, do you know what I like about Eberron gnomes? _They've tried to get rid of the "funny" names._ I have to admit, these names are among the greatest dealbreakers for me for "traditional" gnomes.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Watch it, longshanks."




Sure thing, diminutive dwarf... or bald halfling... or freaky-deaky giant baby-thing.

Gah!

Never again, Klaus! That thing gives me the creeps.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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.




Y'know, I've often thought to myself... if I could travel back in time, I'd convince Gygax to just name halflings gnomes in D&D, to avoid the hobbit and lawsuit stuff, as well as to condense the two "really little" folk.


----------



## The Merciful (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You're surprised that Wizards would keep an icon of modern fantasy (halflings) over a race that has inconsistent portrayals depending on the source?



Iconic? The only work of fantasy that I can think of using halflings besides of D&D is Lord of the Rings. Sure, the short folk arch type is around and well, but as far I know they tend to be called gnomes. At least in post-WoW world.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Y'know, I've often thought to myself... if I could travel back in time, I'd convince Gygax to just name halflings gnomes in D&D, to avoid the hobbit and lawsuit stuff, as well as to condense the two "really little" folk.



See, my first thought would be to go sleep with Marilyn Monroe just before she was a big star, but I suppose your idea is a good one, too.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

The Merciful said:
			
		

> Iconic? The only work of fantasy that I can think of using halflings besides of D&D is *Lord of the Rings*.




And that is the most iconic fantasy work of our time, so yeah, it makes halflings icons, just as it made the modern notion of elves, dwarves, and wizards (ala Gandalf) into icons.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> See, my first thought would be to go sleep with Marilyn Monroe just before she was a big star, but I suppose your idea is a good one, too.




See, I merely said "often thought." I didn't think my first thought was appropriate for these boards, despite my attempts to edit it in order to attain a PG-13 rating.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 1, 2007)

YES.

OH GOD YES!

I had one of those "aha!" moments just when I read that.

Halflings are roaches. Vile little survivors who lurk in dark places and steal what the bigfolk leave laying around.

Gnomes are rabbits. Burrow-dwelling critters who remain unseen and who prefer to keep their predators guesing.

It's a sneak vs. a trickster. Brilliant.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 1, 2007)

Whizbang summed up my gnomes quite nicely.

IMC, there were 4 "true" races created from the body of a dead god - dragons from blood, giants from bone, humans from flesh, and gnomes from the organs.  So, gnomes are mysterious and hidden.  They are much as whizbang described, living in familial burrows (a "wyr") much of the year, and gathering in secluded winterhalls during the winter.  Their homes and lands are cloaked in illusion and misdirection.

There is a second, darker race of gnome, though.  If common gnomes are rabbits, these are closer to rats (which are also burrowing mammals, btw), living in sprawling underground kingdoms just beneath the surface, spreading tales of subterranean cities of gold and gems (and make no mistake, these gnomes are rich, lending a smidgen of truth to these tales), and then taking what they will from those foolish enough to fall for their ploys (not all the gnomes survive this way, of course - some labor honestly, albeit sullenly).  Enchanted dancing princesses, trees of gold and silver with gemstone fruit - these are gnomish tales to lure the unwary.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> See, my first thought would be to go sleep with Marilyn Monroe just before she was a big star, but I suppose your idea is a good one, too.



Also, putting money into Microsoft in the mid 80s.  And dinosaur ranching.  And terrorizing Babylonians with a Cessna.  And winning the Nobel prize a few times.  And punching Eugene Schieffelin right in his big, fat face.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 19, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> There is a second, darker race of gnome, though.  If common gnomes are rabbits, these are closer to rats (which are also burrowing mammals, btw), living in sprawling underground kingdoms just beneath the surface, spreading tales of subterranean cities of gold and gems (and make no mistake, these gnomes are rich, lending a smidgen of truth to these tales), and then taking what they will from those foolish enough to fall for their ploys (not all the gnomes survive this way, of course - some labor honestly, albeit sullenly).  Enchanted dancing princesses, trees of gold and silver with gemstone fruit - these are gnomish tales to lure the unwary.



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.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 19, 2007)

I will play a gnome one day.


----------



## The_Gneech (Dec 19, 2007)

Fight back! Demand to play a MM gnome any time someone wants to run a 4E game!

-The Gneech


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Dec 19, 2007)

I don't think it's _completely_ in line with the Unified Theory of Gnomes, but the intro to Complete Scoundrel (available here) has a nice little blurb that ties in alright.







			
				Complete Scoundrel said:
			
		

> "It's locked," Lidda said, backing away from the heavily bound iron door. Its hundreds of etched demonic faces leered at her.
> 
> "Of course it is. That's your job. Deal with it," prodded Regdar, his armor clanking as he shifted impatiently.
> 
> ...


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 19, 2007)

I see gnomes going the way of fey in 4e - morally ambiguous, with a mischevious vengeance, and a prankster compulsion (a gnome saying might be "why kill, when you can trick then kill?"). So, their racial flaw is 'deceitful'.

Physically, they have disproportionately large heads with exaggerated features, wide bulging eyes and a smirking/grinning mouth too big for their face. They stop just short of being grotesque.

Semi-underground mushroom agrarians, gnomes have low-light vision and can identify mushroom/fungus.

They are prolific merchants/bankers with a "pack rat" hoarding mentality, and can speak with vermin (moles, rabbits, rats, centipedes, spiders, snakes) who help them balance their ledgers. Gnomes are amazing coin counters and treasure appraisers, at one point having managed the finances of the empire.

They evade the goblins who hunt them with cunning traps, and are great admirers of trap-craft. Likewise, they often use unusual poisons extracted from mushrooms. Squeals of gnomish delight can be heard when an adventurer springs one of their traps.

Gnomes are consummate inventors, always looking for ways to refine their traps, improve their mushroom cultivation, and develop better accounting tools (e.g. recorder golems). Now, sometimes their inventions backfire, but for them it's about competition to see which gnome is the most ingenious rather than actually producing something.

Gnomes are masterful schemers, able to make a plan ahead of time which benefits their party (if their advice is listened to). Also, gnomes are experts at finding loopholes in laws, delighting in abiding by the letter of the law while breaking its intent.

As gnomish society values subterfuge, many gnomes learn illusory magic to hide their burrows/cities from goblin raiders and the prying eyes of men. Gnomes can “lay tricks”, that is, tie their spells to a place with a condition that triggers the spell (spell-trapping). Expect to confront many programmed illusions in pursuit of a gnomish city.

Their small size, vermin allies, and cunning allow them to vanish from sight with the slightest distraction, taking advantage of animal burrows, the hospitality of local gnomes, a faerie trod, etc.

Gnomes are always underestimated - they aren't attacked on the first round of combat unless they make themselves a loud target. As deceitful rumors surround them, feats/powers/skills which reveal information about gnomes only reveal partial truth, never the whole truth.

Gnomes are *bad ass* because they come prepared to every fight, always have an ace up their sleeve, taunt their enemies into pursuit leading into a trap, can disappear and reappear at a moment's notice, and dance around larger foes.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Dec 19, 2007)

I like it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Dec 19, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 19, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 19, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> _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 (Dec 19, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

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





			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

helium3 said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Dormammu said:
			
		

> 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 (Dec 20, 2007)

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 (Dec 20, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## helium3 (Dec 20, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> 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.




That's precisely my point.

I only have experience with Mage : The Ascension, but from that experience I've come to the conclusion (and presumably this conclusion can be extended to the other WoD products as well) that the MtA engine produces a more role-play heavy game because the rules verbiage focuses much more heavily on discussion of a character's motivations and how they affect actions. That the rules themselves are purposely designed to constantly force players to describe how they work their magic and justify it within their character's world view.

Of course, most people that play MtA (and the other WoD games) know it's a role-play heavy game, so there's probably some amount of self-selection going on there.

This whole connection between how a game's "engine" is written and the kind of game it implicitly fosters is why, when one of my friends comes to me with an idea for a new game, I tell him that the thing he needs to do before he starts scribbling down rules is to spend at least a day imagining what a group of people playing his game will be doing when they're actually playing it.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 20, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> My Tome of Horrors says spriggan never left.



 And hey! I did the art for it in the first Tome of Horrors!


----------



## GreatLemur (Dec 20, 2007)

Said it before, I'll say it again: To give gnomes their own coherant niche, WotC needs to start thinking about _alchemy_.  It interfaces nicely with the tinker gnome riff (which, let's face it, is the most interesting thing anybody's done with gnomes in decades) and their Artificer role in Eberron, while still fitting easily into a more standard fantasy setting.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> 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.



Hell, they oughta just make the derro into the evil, Underdark-dwelling version of the gnomes, seeing as the dwarves already have the duergar as their opposite number.  There's a lot of potential for a strong "insane, malevolent, secretive artificer" concept where D&D gnomes and the derro's weird source material overlap.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 20, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And that is the most iconic fantasy work of our time, so yeah, it makes halflings icons, just as it made the modern notion of elves, dwarves, and wizards (ala Gandalf) into icons.



Unfortunately, as of 3E the D&D Halfling bears zero resemblence to hobbits, aside from height, making the hafllings not iconic at all.  Gnomes at least spring from real-world mythology, and D&D tries to stay somewhat true to that mythological concept (trickery, connections with nature).


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Dec 24, 2007)

Decided to dig this thread up because, after looking through "Races and Classes", I felt that D&D's official statement that they don't know what to do with Gnomes without going the "Tinker Gnome" route just showed a lot of laziness there.  ...And the recent "4th edition interview" cartoon hints that folks at Wizards might simply not care enough about Gnomes.   :\ 

But thanks to the Feywild, there's a perfect use for Gnomes.  Send them back to their mythological roots as a Fey race connected to nature and illusions, with an elemental affinity to the earth.  They may be small, but have potent magical abilities thanks to their Fey nature, letting them weave illusions and communicate with animals, and are ingenious, nearly devilish tricksters.

Basically, less Crazy Tinker Gadgeteer, more Wily Trickster Fey.


----------



## Mad Mac (Dec 24, 2007)

> But thanks to the Feywild, there's a perfect use for Gnomes. Send them back to their mythological roots as a Fey race connected to nature and illusions, with an elemental affinity to the earth. They may be small, but have potent magical abilities thanks to their Fey nature, letting them weave illusions and communicate with animals, and are ingenious, nearly devilish tricksters.




  This is probably what they will do. For the record, this is the idea progression they gave in Races and Classes. 

Idea#1 Tinker Gnomes. Popular, but done to death in WoW and seriously impacts the technology level of the setting. 

Idea#2 Replace Rock Gnomes with the more focused Svirfneblin or Forest Gnomes. Didn't like it, feeling it was just shifting gnomes to be more dwarf or elf like. 

Idea#3 Base the Gnomes on the Whisper Gnomes and tie them in with elves as advisors and spies. Didn't like the co-dependent race dynamic making both elves and gnomes less cool on their own. 

Idea#4 Twist idea#3 so that Gnomes are actually the servants of _evil_ Fey who only recently escaped. Made Gnomes dark and dangerous, but ultimately figured it was too out there and not at all connected to what Gnomes used to be. 

  Race and Classes says that they hadn't come to a decision on Gnomes yet, but I think they've made some progress since then. Based on the flash cartoon it  looks like they're designing gnomes to be some sort of wild fey thing, but not as dark as old idea#4.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Dec 24, 2007)

Idea #5. Take every possible gnome concept and turn it into its own race in the PHB.

Wait, that would just be silly. That would be like having a magic-only elf and a forest-only elf and a kinda-human diplomacizing elf all in the PHB at the same time.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 24, 2007)

Well it's not like the plethora of needless elven subraces is somehow new to 4e.  4e is just putting grey / high / sun elves into the PHB for the first time.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 25, 2007)

Fantastic take on gnomes!  I really like this flavor.  A buddy of mine played a deep gnome once who fit this model nicely.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 25, 2007)

Wow. This may be the perfect take on gnomes.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 25, 2007)

I like the idea, too. But with a caveat: I don't really see it as a core player race. If so much focus is put on their "hidden existence", the spot light of being one major player race hurts them. Everyone reading the races section of the PHB will know what Gnomes really are. 

The Changlings in Eberron might suffer the same problem, but their focus seems more on hiding/concealing the individual, not the race, so the problem isn't as pronounced. There isn't a secret agenda behind the Changlings. (But there might be one for the individual Changling)


----------

