4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by rounser

Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is. Then ask them what an elf is.

Odds are that you aren't likely to play dnd with any of these total strangers, and they likely won't care what your dnd characters race is called. Why is this a problem?

Originally Posted by rounser

And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone. D&D deserves better than this in the core.

So if they'd named the race Sidhe or high-elf, it would have been okay? The name is your major concern? well, then i could think of a very easy solution to your problem.

I realize you have problems with the feystep ability, but this also has an easy solution. don't use the race, or change the ability to something you like.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by rounser

Ask anyone in the street what an eladrin is. Then ask them what an elf is.

I rest my case.

And I don't care about your protestations about sidhe and Tuatha de Danaan - your argument is shot down on a name basis alone. D&D deserves better than this in the core.

You are contracting yourself here. You mention that DND should have either a mythological basis for the races or a strong tie to Tolkien and the elves in previous editions don’t have either. The Elf and Eladrin splint in 4e is exactly what your asking for yet you have a problem with them. I’m confused.

They had to call the Eladrin something, maybe high elves would have been better, but that argument is weak and comes across as mindless venting.

[rounser]

A lot of people, even you in your earlier post, complain that 4e departed from what was the core implied dnd setting. And now you want to remove the original parts? Wouldn't that make it even less dnd?

Well, you'd still have the MM to quirk it up with D&Disms...doesn't get much more D&D than drow hanging out with mind flayers, for instance...and the spells for your magic missiles and fireballs, and the magic items for your flying carpets and vorpal swords. That's one heck of a lot of D&D, right there.

The core classes and races should IMO play "straight man" to the vast weirdness of the optional implied setting on the DM's side of the fence, which gets a lot less screentime, and is much more easily customisable to personal tastes (e.g. don't like a monster, don't use it). At least begin with a semblance of pseudomedieval heroes, then go berserk with the Eyebrows of Vecna and tapdancing Tarrasques. And if it's your style, a party packed with warforged, dragonborn, goliaths and other freaks, but keep it optional and out of the core implied setting.

I think Gygax wrote an essay to this effect in the 1E DMG. He emphasised humans as being the cornerstone of a D&D world as the most populous race and default PC race, because it anchored the game thematically.

Clerics always struck me as a sort of kludge to make the game go. Something like "We need priests for healing magic....but um, healing isn't enough of a hook, no-one wants to play them...okay add armour and weapons and make them fight better to make them more appealing....oh wait, they look too much like fighters now....um....okay, restrict them to bludgeoning weapons....oh wait, they don't look like priests anymore....okay, let's call them something esoteric like 'clerics'. Sorted!" If they really are priests, or healers, then I think they could benefit from a redesign to make them appear more as that.

[rounser]

So if they'd named the race Sidhe or high-elf, it would have been okay?

High elf would have been okay. People know what an elf is, and can guess that this is a specific type of elf.

Sidhe is no good, the vast majority of people don't even know how to pronounce that one, let alone what it is without explanation.

I’m confused.

That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?

I don't see where this confusion is coming from. It seems pretty obvious to me. It's a made-up word with zero mythological resonance. What's to get confuddled about?

There's a place for eladrin, but it's not in the first PHB which defines the nature of the game and the non-optional makeup of a thousand worlds, IMO.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by rounser

That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?

I don't see where this confusion is coming from. It seems pretty obvious to me. It's a made-up word with zero mythological resonance. What's to get confuddled about?

Most people wouldnt know what half the stuff in the PHB is about at first glance in any edition.

The word Eldarin means "Elvish" in Quenya, one of the languages of Middle-earth

So there is one of the ties with Tolkien that you wanted.

There's a place for eladrin, but it's not in the first PHB which defines the nature of the game and the non-optional makeup of a thousand worlds, IMO.

I disagree, I feel they are much better for the game and I'm happy that gnomes and half-orcs were removed.

But then again half my players group would not exist if you had your way. I've a Dragonborn fighter, a Tiefling rogue and an Eladrin feylock.

[rounser]

The day when hyena-people are okay but dragon-people are hands-off is the day i´ll get off the D&D train.

Bring on gnolls as a PC race in the first PHB and we'll talk.

And no, they don't deserve to be there either IMO (unless maybe there are a hundred other monsters in there to keep them company so they don't seem so arbitrary). The person who did it would show a distinct lack of gnolledge.

[rounser]

Most people wouldnt know what half the stuff in the PHB is about at first glance in any edition.

Wizard?
Dwarf?
Thief? (Okay, I'm cheating a bit there...)

But you do have something of a point. I've already said that Paladin, Cleric, and Ranger could do with a rename, so I'm consistent with my own thesis, at least. And they're not made-up words, unlike eladrin and dragonborn. Because they're real words fallen into disuse ("ranger" excepted, perhaps), they sound less contrived than...well, contrived words. Maybe that's why we're seeing them pop up elsewhere (e.g. Paladins in the movie Jumpers).

So there is one of the ties with Tolkien that you wanted.

I don't want "ties with Tolkien". I think D&D's core implied setting needs ties with fantasy's Universal Myth (or whatever the term was Lucas used to describe what Star Wars tapped into), because Lord of the Rings does a good job of tapping that, and so should D&D. That's the stuff worlds are built of.

You know, the story everyone feels they know even when they've never heard it before. Tropes with mythological resonance that fire the imagination. D&D's thematic lifeblood, cliche all the way.

[cwhs01]

dangit, i have no idea how to multiquote
but anyway..

Originally Posted by rounser

That people in the street have no idea what an eladrin is?

This is an example of why these discussions go so badly. You are answering another question than was asked

And also, i'd still like an answer from you as to why it matters that the people on the street know what kind of race your dnd character belongs to? The only one i could come up with, was for marketing purposes of the dnd brand and broad appeal of the game. But names are not notoriously difficult to change. So why has it upset you?

[rounser]

And also, i'd still like an answer from you as to why it matters that the people on the street know what kind of race your dnd character belongs to?

Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example. It's a powerful word. Like those Power Word spells (remember them?) Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden. The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.

Eladrin? No signal. Even after you know what they are, it still requires mental translation, at least for me ("oh right, they're sidhe/faeries/magic elves/seelie"). That would change with time, but IMO the implied setting shouldn't require that, and you're still imposing some arbitrary word which might be bad and sound contrived on a thousand worlds, which is bad form. (Note that this is not an issue with the MM, because monsters get so little screentime compared to core, first PHB PC races.)

We could rename wizards as fizban. That too would be a bad move. Or have wizards and fizban in the implied setting, with wizards as magic users who don't heal, and fizban as magic users who do. That's approximately the situation we have with elves and eladrin. It's just sort of arbitrary and contrived, and not appropriate beyond a single specific world.

[cwhs01]

Originally Posted by rounser

Because there are all sorts of associations with the word "wizard", for example. It's a powerful word. Like those Power Word spells (remember them?) Elf is similar - lots of associations and ideas spring to mind unbidden. The sort which trigger ideas for worldbuilding, adventures, and characters.

Eladrin? No signal. Even after you know what they are, it still requires mental translation, at least for me ("oh right, they're sidhe/faeries/magic elves/seelie"). That would change with time, but IMO the implied setting shouldn't require that, and you're still imposing some arbitrary word which might be bad and sound contrived on a thousand worlds, which is bad form. (Note that this is not an issue with the MM, because monsters get so little screentime compared to core, first PHB PC races.)

okay. Thats what i was looking for, an answer. I might not agree with you, but through dialogue, a solution could be found to make the 4e acceptable for your homegame. My suggestion is to change the name of the eladrin race to high-elf or sidhe, when playing your own games.

Your input is online and wotc (represented in this thread by my hero, mr. scott rouse) knows about these objections. They may decide not to change how they do things wrt naming conventions of new races, but then again, they might.

Originally Posted by rounser

We could rename wizards as fizban. That too would be a bad move. Or have wizards and fizban in the implied setting, with wizards as magic users who don't heal, and fizban as magic users who do. That's approximately the situation we have with elves and eladrin. It's just sort of arbitrary and contrived, and not appropriate beyond a single specific world.

hmm. I don't think it is an entirely apropriate example you give, but also earlier you were arguing that a single shared world was a good thing? a shared implied core setting. Now its not? Does it depend on what the shared setting contains? Should it stay hardcore vanilla, and only include fizbans and eladrin in expansions?

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Very well put. People expend a lot of energy here discussing things they don't even like.

And, oddly enough, when they do discuss things they don't even like, people who do like those things expend a log of energy trying to convince them that their reasons for not liking it are wrong.



If you don't want to talk about why people don't like moonpies, don't engage in conversations about why people don't like moonpies. Seriously. How many conversations about how people do like moonpies have you seen me comment in?


RC

[firesnakearies]

I'm not sure why the mythological symbols of a handful of cultures from one rather small and specific part of the world count as "generic".


Also, I understand why the original D&D implied setting was based heavily on Tolkien and European mythology, and the few other fantasy writers who existed at that time and who were all drawing from the same creative well, so to speak.

It's because that's all there was, in the entire genre.

The fantasy genre was, essentially, just being born. So the early creators of fantasy roleplaying games had very little source material to draw from. And it wasn't very diverse, at all. It spoke to the political, social, and cultural realities and sensibilities of the world at that time, but that didn't make it some kind of immutable, eternal, perfect fantasy template to be adhered to for all time, world without end.

Since then, "fantasy" as a whole has grown, a lot. It has diversified, a lot. It has evolved, building upon itself, and keeping pace with the shifting mindset of a changing world. It has gone far, far beyond the limited little window into one possible view of fantasy that Tolkien made so famously accessible to us. Creativity has bred more creativity, and now, fantasy is a rich and diverse genre which can, in truth, offer those thousands of possible worlds of wonder for us to explore.

In my opinion, the spirit of D&D is to represent fantasy as the current generation relates to it, not merely to stick to the small original seed from which an entire forest has subsequently grown. There is no more "generic" fantasy, nor should there be. The very idea of fantasy, in the modern literary, mythic, and cinematic conception, defies homogeneity and universality.


In short, there is no longer "one ring to rule them all".


It's good that D&D is stretching its boundaries with each successive iteration. It's good that D&D is challenging the old, encysted ideas of what a fantasy world "should" be. This, in my view, is what D&D is all about, and what it has always wanted to do. This is, I dare say, the duty of Dungeons and Dragons, if it wants to continue to hold the place in fantasy-lovers' hearts that it has for the last three decades.

If D&D isn't going to carry forward the torch of true fantasy roleplaying into the midst of the next generation, rather than merely through it, why bother with new editions at all? A new mechanical rules system is not, in itself, sufficient reason to update a cultural icon and means of collective storytelling like D&D -- maintaining relevance with changing intellectual and creative values is even more important.

In books, in music, in films and television, and in every other form of interactive narrative-based gaming, the paradigms have shifted. The memes have changed. The voice of our storytellers, and the drumbeat to which they dance, is decidedly different than it was thirty years ago. We continually re-invent our myths, and the tone in which we communicate and play with them. Why would D&D not participate in this process?

Adding new things to what has been does not destroy the old. Expansion does not equal invalidation. And refusing to inject anything original into a tightly-defined set of pre-existing specifics does NOT make it more "generic".


Given that there is, or should be, a dynamic, living connection between the conceptual framework of an edition of D&D and the actual culture and genre in which that incarnation is born, I say that clinging to the dusty shelves of a more limited creative library is, in fact, getting it "wrong". D&D's implied setting and theme is "right" when it arises from the contemporary pool of fantasy lore and feeling which exists NOW, not some romanticized and enshrined memory of a less-developed age.

So, I think they've gotten it a whole lot more "right" than "wrong" with 4th Edition.


We should not be asking our current "keepers of the flame" to merely tend and re-hash the visions of their forebears. That is a disservice to the great creative talents who stand at the helm of D&D today. Instead, we should embrace and support them in their turn at the wheel, allowing them to weave us new tales and paint us new symbols, just as we did for Mr. Gygax and the other "founding fathers" of the hobby.


The implied setting is surely changed, but it is far, far from "wrong".



$

[ExploderWizard]

The real truth of the whole issue is that gamers just love to bicker and debate about systems and rules. It was true before the internet became popular but mostly contained within a given group.

Paper magazine forums such the one in Dragon frequently had hot topic debates about this stuff even before there was a 2E. All of this has been going on a long time and it doesn't take a new edition or anything of the sort to keep it going.

The only major change has been the speed and convenience of the internet to provide real time response and assistance in getting a much wider audience than was possible in the days of paper.

If there was still only one edition out there then we would still be debating and arguing about it either here or another place on the net.

New editions and arguments about them are simply different fuel for the same fire. I think its a good thing overall that gamers care enough about the hobby to argue and debate about it, no matter which side of a debate they happen to be on. Arguments equal interest and thats good thing. Since we have never been content to simply choose a game we like and just play it, lets keep the fire burning. If the flame ever does go out, then so will a passionate interest in PnP roleplaying games.

[WalterKovacs]

Originally Posted by rounser

Bring on gnolls as a PC race in the first PHB and we'll talk.

And no, they don't deserve to be there either IMO (unless maybe there are a hundred other monsters in there to keep them company so they don't seem so arbitrary). The person who did it would show a distinct lack of gnolledge.

Just a question ... wasn't the gnome a bit arbitrary in 3.5?

Also:

People know what elves and dwarves are. But, pre-LOTR movie release though, most would think that a dwarf was someone now preferring to be called little person and elves worked for Santa. Even post-LORT movies, people wouldn't know what a halfling is, they know what hobbits are.

Also, the spellcasting of MOST fantasy falls much more in line with 4e, with some spells being cast constantly without much effort, with different spells ranging from the at-will, to a few times per day, to once per day, to on rare occaisions of the ritual type spell.

EDIT:

As firesnake eluded to ... generic means pertaining to the genre. A generic setting should follow the tropes and trappings of the genre. So unless there is a subversion of the genre involved with the dragonborn or the warlord, etc ... It's hardly not generic. They may not be "cliche", but they are certainly not genre bending. Warforged would be getting into a different genre (steampunk). Monk would be dipping into the oriental setting.

In fact ... the concept of power sources as they've presented them is a great way to "subdivide" the genres of games.

You have martial ... the Batman/Captain America of the heros, people who are exceptional paragons of humanity ... not actually given any external power source. Then you have arcane and divine... two spheres of magic. Arcane is often a fantasy power source, whereas divine is something that may not exist in all fantasy situations, but shows up in some. You could cut the divine out completely and go with only martial and arcane. Thanks to the warlord in fact [and soon the bard]. Also, a fighter that leads ... that's something that is in fantasy that wasn't really in the earlier editions. You had stuff like the leadership feat, or earlier, that high level fighters would get followers and man-at-arms and the like. However, the warlord, in core, is something that was lacking for the genre. Perhaps the healing part of the warlord is a bit tacked on to have him fit the role of pseudo-cleric, but most of his power is in leading the other PCs.

With PHBII they'll add some other genre staples, the primal class is another fantasy power source, with it's nature based magic ... not to mention you get Conan the Barbarian and Elan the Bard. Eventually there will be the Oriental Adventures (ki power source), etc.

[WalterKovacs]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

And, oddly enough, when they do discuss things they don't even like, people who do like those things expend a log of energy trying to convince them that their reasons for not liking it are wrong.



If you don't want to talk about why people don't like moonpies, don't engage in conversations about why people don't like moonpies. Seriously. How many conversations about how people do like moonpies have you seen me comment in?


RC

It is, however, implied or explicitly stated in many of the arguments "why should I ..." And thus, people give the answer to that.

Or, there is a chance that either the person complaining, or more likely, someone reading what the person is saying, has not actually played 4e, or played much of it. Giving a dissenting opinion is unlikely to convince the original complainer, but there is likely someone reading it that may be inclined to agree, but that a compelling argument may sway.

Unless people post topics looking for people to say "me too" ... they are inevitably asking for dissenting opinion either looking for a fight, or more likely, to either convince them otherwise or at least get a better view of the situation. By finding out why people DO like the game, they can use that to better articulate why they don't like it, and ultimately, what it is they are looking for in a game. In many cases the "feature, not a bug" is one of those things. 4E, for example, tries to make the sweet spot be 1-30 ... so it may be that what some don't like about it is that they liked having the tough "slog" at early levels and the godlike power at high levels, they just may not have been able to articulate it. Or maybe if say their DM is switching to 4e and they don't like it, they'll at least be able to understand why a DM would like 4e even if they as a player don't.

[firesnakearies]

Yeah. I don't argue because I want the other fellow to shut up or say, "Oh wow, you're right!" I argue because I want to learn.

People usually won't tell you the really good stuff that they've thought up unless you disagree with them a bit first.

[ShinHakkaider]

Here's a Kitten picture for Mearls:

Burn 4th Edition or I'll shoot this cat....

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by WalterKovacs

It is, however, implied or explicitly stated in many of the arguments "why should I ..." And thus, people give the answer to that.

Please note: I am not saying, "Do not argue about moonpies." I am saying, "IF you do not want to argue about moonpies, THEN do not argue about moonpies."


RC

[firesnakearies]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

I am saying, "IF you do not want to argue about moonpies, THEN do not argue about moonpies."

Crazy talk!

[Hussar]

The problem with the "person on the street" standard is that Dobby the House Elf is probably every bit as well known as Legolas to that average person. When you say Elf, the concept that gets brought up isn't necessarily "fairy dude that's better than you in every way" anymore.