|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 12, 2013 17:10:07 GMT -6
I'm wondering what people here have done with gnomes as denizens of their underworlds.
I am working on a new dungeon level and was thinking about the idea of gnomes as a "neutral" inhabitant who would nevertheless be a potential foe. I'd want to play up the otherworldly, faerie nature of the gnomes, having them be capricious, and giving some of them talent with illusions (as was done in 1e), but using it to defend their territory in the dungeon.
Has anybody here used gnomes like this, or in any other way than a standard "short race"? I'm very interested in more ideas on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 12, 2013 17:34:39 GMT -6
I've used Sverfneblin (aka "Deep Gnomes") from the AD&D Fiend Folio as an enslaved workforce population in a highish level adventure. The PCs have to work with/around the gnomes in order to achieve their goals in that part of the adventure... you might see it in an upcoming Fight On! issue  |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jan 12, 2013 19:13:59 GMT -6
What you really need are gnomish knights riding gang badgers.
Just sayin'...
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jan 12, 2013 19:14:27 GMT -6
Make that "giant" badgers...
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 12, 2013 19:16:48 GMT -6
Gang badgers could be fun too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 12, 2013 19:35:42 GMT -6
Yeah, I can see badgers wearing colours. I like to use demi-humans as potential opponents, even though that never seemed to happen in official modules. If humans can be bad guys, why not elves, dwarves and, yes, gnomes? Okay, halfling adversaries tend to come off as a comedy moment unless in the form of one-off arch-enemies or the like. But gnomes, definitely. As far as gnomes are concerned, adventurers are enemies more often than not. Because gnomes have, you know, gems and stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 12, 2013 20:18:01 GMT -6
Yeah, I can see badgers wearing colours. I like to use demi-humans as potential opponents, even though that never seemed to happen in official modules. If humans can be bad guys, why not elves, dwarves and, yes, gnomes? Okay, halfling adversaries tend to come off as a comedy moment unless in the form of one-off arch-enemies or the like. But gnomes, definitely. As far as gnomes are concerned, adventurers are enemies more often than not. Because gnomes have, you know, gems and stuff. Yeah, I'm thinking that, for want of a better word, "neutral adversaries" is a theme that's really interesting to me recently. They have resources and are part of the dungeon's factionalism, and will defend their territory and riches fiercely, but aren't actively hostile to humans. I'm trying to get away from the "monster hotel" paradigm in stocking this dungeon and using factions to do it and wanted a "neutral" feature. So, secondary question: have you done this with any other creatures at different dungeon levels? |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jan 13, 2013 1:46:29 GMT -6
Make that "giant" badgers... At this early AM hour, I twice read that as "gnomish knights riding gang bangers." Probably time to go back to bed.... :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 13, 2013 2:15:22 GMT -6
So, secondary question: have you done this with any other creatures at different dungeon levels? My view of non-human races is probably strongly influenced by my early exposure to RuneQuest, where you'd be as likely to encounter any of the "monster" races as player characters. So, yes, I've always treated most intelligent races as fundamentally neutral, with tendencies but not fundamentalism towards law or chaos from the point of view of humans as the "norm". In Blueholme, because of the cosmopolitan nature of fantasy worlds as portrayed by Holmes, I have given most intelligent races an alignment ratio - rather than labelling all goblins, for example, as lawful evil, they are 2N:1LE. In other words 2 out of 3 goblins, on average, are neutral. I also have individuals of any alignment if the scenario demands it - I once had a lawful good orc NPC (essentially a paladin, although classless). He had a hard time of it, but when you feel the call ... Sorry for the ramble, but what I'm basically trying to say is that dungeons are more fun if you can't automatically predict what a given race will do. Did you ever play the Traveller scenario "Sorry!" in one of the early White Dwarfs? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 5:37:12 GMT -6
... what I'm basically trying to say is that dungeons are more fun if you can't automatically predict what a given race will do. Actually, that is in OD&D as well. The monster reaction die rolls allow for a chance to parley with monsters encountered within the dungeon. I've had parties form temporary alliances with one group of monsters on a dungeon level in order to overcome a different monster faction. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 13, 2013 6:19:25 GMT -6
I think reaction tables have been one of the things that DMs in my experience have consistently underused (myself included, if I'm honest).
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 13, 2013 6:28:13 GMT -6
I think reaction tables have been one of the things that DMs in my experience have consistently underused (myself included, if I'm honest). Very much agreed. This is what I'm designing my current dungeon for - planning out the large-scale factions on different levels so that players can work with one against the other. Not always what you'd expect either; the goblins would be more open to negotiation from outsiders than the gnomes on this level. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 20:00:50 GMT -6
I think reaction tables have been one of the things that DMs in my experience have consistently underused (myself included, if I'm honest). To my mind they are so much a part of the game I can't imagine playing without them. It gives me (the ref) a chance to play a bit! I'm sorry to hear they have fallen from use. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 14, 2013 7:54:42 GMT -6
To my mind they are so much a part of the game I can't imagine playing without them. It gives me (the ref) a chance to play a bit! I'm sorry to hear they have fallen from use. It's interesting, because I think at some point the idea of "reaction rolls" just fell out of the game - even though they were always there mechanically - in favor of the assumption that monsters were simply and implacably hostile to adventurers. I very much agree that it's a much better exploration game if you play the reaction table instead of assuming "hack and slash." I think that's why the "non-evil" entries in the Monsters & Treasure book are so promising, you can really play something very different from the stereotype of "kick in the door and kill the orc" gaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jan 14, 2013 8:21:09 GMT -6
I think both reaction rolls and morale rolls I had overlooked for years until playing Chainmail and seeing the powerful effect of morale in a battle. Now I often do either check depending on circumstances. Makes for some fun twists. Like Cameron said, it gives the DM a bit of fun too.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 14, 2013 8:53:21 GMT -6
I think both reaction rolls and morale rolls I had overlooked for years until playing Chainmail and seeing the powerful effect of morale in a battle. Now I often do either check depending on circumstances. Makes for some fun twists. Like Cameron said, it gives the DM a bit of fun too. Yeah, I always take careful stock of morale when I'm running, and a PC group that is winning a fight with, say, a bunch of goblins will almost inevitably have at least one try to run / surrender. Which has gotten to a lot of fun interactions. Which reminds me of an article I wrote for my blog back when I was updating it regularly: Goblin doesn't have a word for "friend", about the linguistic problems of haggling with goblins. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 15, 2013 9:05:56 GMT -6
It's interesting, because I think at some point the idea of reaction rolls just fell out of the game - even though they were always there mechanically - in favor of the assumption that monsters were simply and implacably hostile to adventurers. Ironically, I remember reaction rolls being phased out of games for exactly the opposite reason - that monsters were people, too, and the DM should play them like characters and not rely on random rolls to determine their attitude. It was only later that monsters = foes became common. So (in my sphere of gaming, anyway) good intentions led to this pass. Back on topic - I fully intend to reinstate this concept in future Adventures in Blueholme. Both the reaction roll, and the possibility of meeting implacable gnomish adversaries as well as helpful gnomish henchmen, not to mention hobgoblin barmaids. It's the melting pot for me! |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Jan 15, 2013 9:41:12 GMT -6
Or see Kenzer's The Invasion of Arun'Kid for hostile gnomes...
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
|
Post by runequester on Jan 15, 2013 21:17:03 GMT -6
In my current campaign, a band of gnomes were in the dungeon scouting it out to see if it could be colonized by them, as their original home was destroyed (this will tie into the overall "big boss" that has been moving different tribes of humanoids into the dungeon, to do some nefarious thing or other)
|
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Jan 16, 2013 12:36:44 GMT -6
Love the article. In a session I ran, the players encountered some wary but not immediately hostile goblins. One of the characters spoke goblin, so they offered to share with the goblins a cask of wine they had plundered. The goblins asked what "share" was, so the characters explained, and everyone in both parties had some wine. After this the goblins determined sharing was stupid, because they could just take all the wine, which the characters let them do, parting ways without coming to blows. The party deftly avoided combat with wandering monsters, but left their hirelings confounded and terrified that their employers were friends to goblins. Dispositions of goblins and hirelings throughout the encounter were determined with reaction rolls. |
|
|
|
Post by drskull on Jul 5, 2013 7:09:32 GMT -6
I have a hard time keeping my players from killing every elf, dwarf and gnome they run into in the dungeon. My guys are almost always neutral bastards, and since I use the old "Monster and Treasure Assortments" to stock some of the dungeons, they know that the elves, gnomes and dwarves are very likely to be carrying magic gear. We also had one unfortunate campaign where the PC's were most chaotic and were leading a mixed force of orcs and gnomes (I can't for the life of me remember how that came about), when they ran out of provisions, they ended up feeding the gnomes to the orcs.
Come to think of it. I'm beginning to question why I play with these guys.
|
|
