General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I personally blame TSR for the lack of traction with gnomes.
Visual design not encouraging for the target age group to play one. CHECK.
Campaign worlds that use gnomes primarily as jokes. CHECK
Rest of the campaign worlds simply eliminate gnomes. CHECK
Yeah, yet we're surprised that gnomes have no traction, why?
Well, remember that from the perspective of someone who started with BECMI (or really just BE), an equally radical departure from the implied setting came when we picked up AD&D for the first time. Good and evil as alignments? Race and class tracked separately? Blue dragons and white dragons are evil now? (A particularly harsh blow to those of us who liked having them as potential allies.) Half-orcs? Gnomes?
*somewhat tangential*
Exactly- This is something that is very fundamental to the differences between 4E and 3E as a whole.
3E walked that hardcore AD&D milleau line- really holding to those original Literary influences that Gary (and many others, including myself) held as "sacred". Nearly everything about the way the world works has been defined. "Cosmology? heres "the Great wheel" and a list of 56 Gods and what their priests can and cannot do, what they wear, what they eat on the second Tuesday of each month, and detail after detail, after detail. It's your game, but we have provided 12 different campaign worlds that all revolve around these basic premises and everything willl be designed with this in mind".
4E is very much the Little Brown Book/Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D mindset- where AD&D-isms, and the literary traditions are not as ingrained nor adhered to in the "world" and rule-set. Nearly everything about the way the world works is undefined. "Cosmology? uhm..well you can have Gods...or not... you can define it yourself or use this very basic outline we have provided. Or maybe you want to uses the Norse Mythos? or maybe adventurers who ascended to Godhood? It's your game, kid: Knock yourself out"
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
I'm not a huge fan of dragonborn myself, but that's mostly because I think they don't need to really exist. What needs to exist is robust rules for playing actual dragons alongside other PC's, since that what people actually want. They don't want to be a little dragon knock-off, they want to be a dragon. In any game where people can play a dragon, dragonborn are redundant and useless.
And for whatever its worth, I allow both 4E version Tieflings (descendants of human nobles who bargained with demons and who had a large empire in the past) and the 2nd Ed version "Planetouched" (People with assorted planar blood in them and strange, random characteristics)
Both versions have their fans and I try to accommodate them both
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Last edited by Amphimir Míriel; 4th May 2009 at 11:31 PM..
Hmm...yeah, it seems that the dragonoid concept certainly has traction...
....of course dragonborn are different....but perhaps my dislike of them comes solely from the name and the look. I probably would have no problem with them, even their existing 4e backstory, if I thought the name or the look were appealing in any way.
The "fiendish" concept also has traction, though not every fiendish creature is a 4e tiefling, either.
So I guess the answer to the OP is more along the lines of: "Those things have ALWAYS had traction, this is just the most recent form of them," rather than "Dragonborn are dumb."
I think this puts it pretty well for me.
The 4e ideas have always had traction, but I think the 4e renditions of them perhaps ironically have less traction then they have before. From what I've seen, tieflings are much more popular when I use a variant of the 2e version (Ask "Ok, so you're part demon. How does this SHOW on your character?" instead of telling them), and dragonborn are a lot more popular when I describe them as being more dragon then man (lose the breasts and snouts, describe them more as humanoid dragons. I've found the draconian model/artwork works a hell of a lot better then the 4e dragonborn one. Draconian by Jason Engle - Fantasy art galleries at Epilogue.net - Fantasy and Sci-fi at their best is a good illustration of how I picture and describe them)
That said, Eladrin are rather popular, though I suspect it's because players can finally put the dwarf and elf variant glut to rest. Or rather, Eladrin are very UNpopular, but well liked because of it, because now, to quote others, "Everything I hated about elves was removed and put into one race, so now I can like the good about elves and hate the bad in a much more convinent manner!"
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
4E is very much the Little Brown Book/Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D mindset- where AD&D-isms, and the literary traditions are not as ingrained nor adhered to in the "world" and rule-set.
Not true. I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E. I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.
Not okay. Don't tell people what they do or don't think. ~ PCat
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
Last edited by Piratecat; 5th May 2009 at 02:34 PM..
All the best points have already been made. But they're a little spread out over the course of 10 pages, so here's a good summary of what I think is an excellent response to the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
Older players love the tropes, but newer players are ever so slightly a group of culture aliens. So they look at halflings, and see "people who are short like children." Ok. And dwarves? "People who are short and also fat." And half elves? "People who are.... umm...." Halflings and Dwarves have cultures, sure, but those cultures are largely just copies of existing human cultures, meaning that its trivially easy for someone to create a human PC who's stolen the Halfling or Dwarf cultural shtick. And Half Elves are just... a bag full of empty.
Meanwhile Tieflings and Dragonborn are interesting and unique. Tieflings have an obvious hook (humans except demon touched) and they have physical differences on an entirely different scale from "really short" or "short and also fat." Dragonborn also have an obvious hook and physical differentiation that stops them from being "humans but kinda not."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget
What needs to exist is robust rules for playing actual dragons alongside other PC's, since that what people actually want. They don't want to be a little dragon knock-off, they want to be a dragon. In any game where people can play a dragon, dragonborn are redundant and useless.
Also, I really think their look is tremendously unappealing. I see they are spikey lizard-men without tails, but that aesthetic isn't something I want for any of my characters (or most of my PC's). I'd rather have Kobolds as a PC race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinneus
The fact is, some people just really flipping love dragons and demons, and will do incredible backflips to play them or something like them. Also, I play with a lot of really casual players, and there's something about the tiefling and dragonborn that really trips their triggers. "I can be a half-dragon? I can be a freaking devil! Awesome!"
Anything is optional in your own home games, but not for official setting support in 4e where so far every player centric element in the default core has been inserted wholescale into previously distinct settings (see the retconning of 4e Eladrin into FR, the destruction of portions of FR in order to insert a nation of dragonborn, etc).
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
Not true. I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E. I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the RC.
~ edited: civility please. Using a smiley doesn't give license to be rude to people - PS~
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
Last edited by Plane Sailing; 5th May 2009 at 12:38 AM..
I can't honestly say. In my current campaign, humans are the only race (though I used different Player races to reflect region). In the planescape game we were playing in, everyone played human (that was very weird, BTW).
Only two campaigns into 4e, we don't have much data to determine whether or not we like the new races. From a personal standpoint, I like the Dragonborn more than Tieflings, but that's just purely aesthetics.
__________________ "..Death greets me warm; Now I will just say goodbye.."
I don't actively discourage or encourage any particular races, though, I do try and make it clear what the rules within my game are regarding racial cultural values and roleplaying guidelines - while stressing they can play against type (hey, want to play an axe-crazy deva? fine with me). However, if it starts to look like everyone's the same race I start to try and encourage variety. So far it's worked alright and only two people in the group are the same race.
Incidentally enough, they're both tieflings. So I think it's fair to say devil-childs have some traction. For that matter, they've had traction since 2e it's just that they've only become core recently. I can see why. There's something indisputably (okay, not indisputably) cool about the scions of demonic forces who struggle to overcome the devil within. After all, Merlin's whole backstory runs on this concept in most iterations of the character.
As for dragonborn - they seem to be accepted among my group. I don't have any players with the race but I don't have any halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, devas, shifters, or goliaths either. There is a major dragonborn NPC though and nobody throws a fit about him. Contrastly, they seem to think it's awesome when he uses his breath weapon.
Granted - most of my players are newbies (with one exception who last played D&D when it was 1e AD&D) so they're not as attached to the old races as alot of players are. But I think it's fair to say that dragonborn and tieflings were successful additions to core D&D - which seems to be what everybody else is saying anyway.
Not true. I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E. I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.
Hey guys I think Rounser dislikes 4e.
Oh hey, WE GET IT NOW.
Rounser, why don't you tell us about the previous editions and what you liked about the half-dragons or tieflings in those?
Personally I continue to use 2e's tieflings (Maybe even break out those random die charts - I love random die charts! Other players, maybe not as much. I love them more then enough to cover for them though!) As for the dragonborn, I don't dislike their fluff at all, but aesthetically I cannot freaking stand them. As I stated earlier, they become far more draconic looking. And no breasts.
I think dragonborn - or draconian - or half dragon - or vague dragon man - is a good race to have. I do agree, however, that if you have players who "want to be a dragon," then you should let them be a dragon. It's no more unfitting in most campaigns then dragon-people would be, and it's certainly fitting in with 4e's design philosophies, take that as you will.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Personally I continue to use 2e's tieflings (Maybe even break out those random die charts - I love random die charts! Other players, maybe not as much. I love them more then enough to cover for them though!)
Leave the chart take away the randomness. While I get the reason, I dunno I didn't like how if I had a specific character concept how it could get messed up by the random rolls. Now if got a less concrete concept then yeah tis better.
I hope one day 4e could bring this back. Perhaps those Player's Handbook Races books could have it. Be a good place for it.
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
Several of my friends who do like 4e have almost all mentioned that they think dragonborn is just "too good" compared to the others. They have mountains of awesome racial feats while other classes get bland +number ones, and they're amazing at a very large array of classes, far more then other classes. Their main complaint is that they think WotC wanted dragonborn to be a big draw, so they focused a lot on them mechanically - to the detriment of other races.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
I think dragonborn - or draconian - or half dragon - or vague dragon man - is a good race to have. I do agree, however, that if you have players who "want to be a dragon," then you should let them be a dragon. It's no more unfitting in most campaigns then dragon-people would be, and it's certainly fitting in with 4e's design philosophies, take that as you will.
Playing an actual dragon in 4e wouldn't be particularly difficult. Especially with the assumptions that the powers a race has in the MM isn't necessarily what all members of the race have. Choose two ability scores to give pluses to, think of a power to give the race, and finnish it off with a couple of misc. features.
Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to have plenty of traction. In the case of Tieflings at least, the reason isn't mechanics as they've generally been considered subpar.
While I don't really get Dragonborn, it's always been obvious to me that people will want to play them. Out of the 5 people in my first serious D&D group, 3 of them have latched onto the concept. One asked if he could play a dragon man when the group first formed, as he'd never played D&D before(this was in the early 2nd edition days). The other two started playing half dragons/dragon disciples in 3rd ed, and at least one of them is playing a Dragonborn now. I really don't get the appeal, but it's obviously there.
Tieflings I haven't seen quite as much of, though I personally like them alot. I suspect that their mechanics are holding them back, and they'd get alot more use if they were were as obviously powerful as the other races. The Drow steal their thunder to a degree, as they do the angsty role almost as well, with much stronger mechanics. I certainly see them more than halflings though.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
