Community

Sep 4, 2009 -- 11:16PM, Anubis_Reynard wrote:

as someone with 9 RPGA characters, 7 of which are gnolls, I've encountered suprisingly few problems. (though I havn't done Dale 1-2 yet)

Well, my take on it is something like this - In previous editions of the game, monstrous pc characters, races with bad reputations, antisocial races, et al - They had penalties for social interactions in certain circumstances built right into the race's mechanics. This ranged from fairly simple reaction penalties, to actual rules that affected how you played (an interesting example: the extremely antisocial sylvan/wild elf incurred a hefty XP penalty if they made friends too fast). However these penalties were thought out and weighed against the race's bonuses and abilities in an effort to make the races fair and balanced. Now in 4E no PC races are supposed to have any kind of mechanical hindrance or penalty. In the case of monster races, this can be a bit problematic.

By using any amount of logic and common sense, a DM would think that a Gnoll PC playing in DALE 1-2 should incur penalties to social endeavors and skill checks and whatnot. It makes sense, and given the story to not give the Gnoll a penalty would be ludicrous. However with the design of 4E actually giving the Gnoll PC that penalty is seriously unfair. In 4E roleplaying has been given a mechanical interpretation and signifigance comparable to combat encounters in the form of the Skill Challenge, and to give a PC a penalty based solely on his choice of race and not his actions or decisions in the game is unfair. Given the design of the rules, a DM saying that Gnolls should have a social penalty when there isn't one built into their race mechanics (and balanced against their race's advatnages as there was in previous editions) would be the same kind of unfair as if a DM were sit down at an LFR table and say "Because Drow have Darkvision and are depicted as disliking light I am ruling that your Drow rogue is going to take a -2 penalty to his attack rolls in daylight."

While I've run DALE 1-2 a couple of times, luckily I have not run it for any Gnoll PCs yet. I am really not looking forward to it because my only options would be to A) Give the Gnoll PC a mechanical social penalty, B) Allow the session time and the spotlight to get hogged up as I run through a bunch of probably one on one RP with the Gnoll player as he earns the trust of those involved, or similarly create a story that excuses his acceptance in this situation where he should clearly NOT be accepted, or C) break all immersion and realism as his race is effectively ignored.

A) is a bad choice because of it's unfair application as I've described above, and I will not ever choose this option.

B) Could actually be doable ... in a home game without time constraints and with a group of players that wouldn't mind one player getting the spotlight for awhile.

So unfortunately C) is probably going to be the only viable option when running in a slot at a convention or public game, which kind of sticks in my craw. Despite how absurd the world of D&D (and especially Faerun) is, I really like to strive for whatever shreds of realism and immersion I can scrape out when I run, but to me fairness to the players is going to be the deciding factor.

And all of this could be avoided by WOTC. If when they release "monster races" or races with a bad reputation or some other kind of flaw - if they had just included some penalties, and then balanced them out with some more robust abilities or benefits.

Oh well, your opinions may vary I am sure.

Sep 7, 2009 -- 1:53AM, Madfox11 wrote:

B does wonders if done with care (don't spend too much time on it). The player of the gnoll definitely did not feel welcome when I ran that adventure, but nor did I ruin his fun by letting lose the mob or constantly confront them by anti-social NPCs. I didn't give the PCs any social penalties since the gnoll kept  its distance, but the scene at the gates and the fact that two guards constantly followed the PCs made it clear they did not trust the gnoll (remember: the PCs did save the merchant, and they spoke for the gnoll).

See as somebody with a Gnoll Barbarian I take great pride when NPC's give him a hard time because it shows their FEAR and usually after he saves their bacon they shut up. Too me there is nothing better than making some self righteous NPC drop a deuce only to have him grovel at the feet of my Barbarian for protecting his butt "It's good to be the king".      

Sep 9, 2009 -- 10:37AM, Anubis_Reynard wrote:

I see the fear associated with gnolls and such to be a RP schtick, but not mechanically relivant beyond the mechanics of Intimidate (which they get a +2 to, and which make the target hostile, and the gnoll entry implies they think it's diplomatic to intimidate people)

I agree with everything  you're saying fuzzy. You've got it down. It should be handled through RP, but not having them unfairly penalized in a skill challenge, which is a mechanical aspect.