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.
Of the two, I think that the dragonborn are the most popular, but I expect that both races will make the inevitable transition to the new edition. 8-10 years of continual support will do that.
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
Don't like the appearance or default background of either. Of course, if I run 4e I'm going to be near completely disregarding the default background of *everything*, and changing the appearance of a few races entirely, and throwing some out in the process that don't fit at all with what I want in a prime world.
Dragonboobs will be one of the 'out' things. I don't like Dragons at all, and if they're present at all in worlds I come up with, they're myths someone made up out of seeing some other kind of monster. I also dislike 'monster' races, which, let's face it. Dragonborn are monsters.
(And no it's not just 'ew it's new I don't like it', I'm seriously considering dumping *halflings* in favor of gnomes, because I like having a small number of races and two short things is eh)
Let's see, ranking things, for me:
1: Eladrin. (The parts of Elves I liked without the dull tree-hugging, with some weird fey-ness thrown in for good measure? Sweet! Though my eladrin are a race that's slightly over 500 years old that breeds like rabbits wherein not a single one has yet died of old age.)
2: Half-Elf. (I have a fondness for them from a PC)
3. Gnome. (I like the little buggers for some reason)
4. Dwarf. (See gnome)
5. Half-Orc. (Fondness for them from a PC too)
6. Drow. (See Half-Orc and Half-Elf, though the drow I'd use in 4e would completely toss out the usual flavour on them.)
7. Human. (They're there.)
8. Elf. (4e split the elves and the tree-hugging nature thing was the boring part)
9. Halfling. (Meh.)
10. Genasi. (OK idea, hate look, but it'll get redone if it's in at all)
11. Deva. (Deva manage to be more boring than Aasimar ever supposedly were. I *like* Aasimar.)
12. Goliath. (Does nothing for me, but doesn't really offend me.)
13. Tiefling. (Never liked them that much to begin with, 4e look is eh, redone if it's in.)
14. Shadar-kai. (Hot Topic race)
15. Shifter. (Pointless furries.)
16. Dragonborn. (Monster lizard people with females that have boobs. No thanks. Plus they step fluff-wise on where I want to take Dwarves, so meh.)
I still like the 'old' races and find them fun still, so most of the new ones are 'meh, what does this do conceptually that I can't do with an elf, or a dwarf, or even a human?'. I've never found being a weird race necessary to making a character that's interesting to me. In fact I've never found a reason to *be* a weird race. Drow and half-orcs are about as weird as I get. Anything I wanted to do I can do with an old boring normal race. So there's no appeal for me in the odd ones. (And yeah, halfling is a notable exception to this. I just plain like gnomes better.)
From what I've seen, both races are pretty popular. I think Eladrin are the clear winner in terms of popularity, though.
I'm not sure how I'd rank the core 8 races in the PHB, but I'd probably put Eladrin, Elves, and Dragonborn near the top, with halflings and dwarves being less popular, and Humans/Tieflings somewhere in the middle. Just my impressions from my own play time, and skimming dozens of PBP games.
On second thought, grouping Dwarves with Haflings is a little too harsh. They definately more popular than halflings. I'm just not sure they beat out anything else.
The PHB 2 races haven't been out long, so I haven't got a feel for how popular they'll be. I think I've seen more shifters and Deva's than anything else though, and I haven't seen anyone play a half-orc at all yet. The PHB 2 classes favoring wisdom could be skewing the results though.
Oh, and for the FRPG races, I've seen a lot more Drow than Genasi. I haven't seen anyone make a genasi that wasn't a Swordmage or Taclord, either.
Last edited by Mad Mac; 2nd May 2009 at 06:42 PM..
From what I've seen, both races are pretty popular. I think Eladrin are the clear winner in terms of popularity, though.
Heh, I play in one group (which has experienced several players coming and going, and a TPK which had us all whip up new characters) and DM another, and I've yet to see a single Eladrin PC (excluding a DMPC wizard used in the very first session I played in, who never appeared again).
First PC I played was a Dragonborn, and there's one in the campaign I DM (and the player is terribly fond of the character, more attached to it that any of the other players seem to theirs). The next character on my lengthy list of things I want to play is another Dragonborn. There's a tiefling warlock a little further down the list for which I have an awesome Reaper mini that I'm painting, which is a first for me.
Between the two groups, here's what I've seen so far:
Tieflings already had traction, as they have been around since 2nd Edition. It's a large part of the reason why they were "promoted" in 4th Edition. Dragonborn also already have traction, just not under the name "Dragonborn". Half-dragons were ridiculously popular in 3rd Edition, so including Dragonborn in 4th was also a no-brainer.
The upcoming Wilden race, however . . . .
__________________ Brian Zuber
Proud Member of ENWorld since 2000 (under several lost screen names). Gaming since the mid-80s!
Favorite Settings: Love all of the official settings, Mystara is my nostalgia fave! Trying to create a homebrew that blends the best elements of the various settings. Favorite Edition: Can't decide between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, like them both!
Tieflings already had traction, as they have been around since 2nd Edition. It's a large part of the reason why they were "promoted" in 4th Edition. Dragonborn also already have traction, just not under the name "Dragonborn". Half-dragons were ridiculously popular in 3rd Edition, so including Dragonborn in 4th was also a no-brainer.
But the new tiefling is not the old one (while the difference between eladrin and grey elves are minor) and the dragonborn is not an half dragon. The "new" versions could have lost the traction the old ones had.
From what I read here, it seems that they are a success.
None of either (not even as NPCs) in our first 4e game; none so far planned for our second.
FWIW, in the 4e world I'm building, Tieflings and Dragonborn are part of the history; halflings, dwarves, and gnomes are not.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
Generally speaking Tieflings are Tieflings from past to this edition. I like the base stats they got in 4e (especially compared to 3.5), and while I like the variable appearances that is a very easy change.
The one thing I would like to see return would be the various different minor powers they could have at character creation. But without the random dice roll, I never liked that particular element.
Oh and Shemeska, did you notice my post about if you knew any Tiefling heavy 2e books?
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
Not including things is what makes your game richer.
This sounds very badwrongfun to me.
Is that what you meant?
Actually, I will admit I started off kind of irritated but now I am interested in hearing your reasons for this opinion. If you don't mind clarifying that is. I am not looking to shoot you down, but I want to hear what you have to say. I find myself fascinated. I am one of those "live and let live" kind of guys, so it would be cool to hear your reasoning.
Personally, I am not overly bothered by how Wizards is producing material, but I can see your point of view. But does your thoughts on the subject go further than that?
In answer to the OP, I think both races have some pretty good traction. I have seen both dragonborn and tieflings at my table. But that is only a simple story from one game table and is likely not representative of the whole community. I would like to see them appear more often in the future, if that means anything.
Last edited by alleynbard; 3rd May 2009 at 12:02 AM..
I think for most long time rpgers, they fundamentally change the flavor of traditional campaigns where such races might only have a place as NPC races, if at all. IME, they tend to appeal most to newer players, particularly those who come from a CRPG backgrounds, for whatever reasons.
Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
Not including things is what makes your game richer.
Opinions aren't facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shemeska
I -adore- tieflings. But, I cannot stand the appearance and homogeneity of appearance that 4e forced onto tieflings. Gone are the grab-bag of random fiendish traits, mixed bloodlines, and unique individual appearances, all in favor a default origin story for all tieflings and a set of gigantic horns, a thick brow-ridge, and overly large tail. They've lost some of their hallmarks of the last twenty years in the process of WotC including them as a core race, and IMO too much was forcibly sacrificed in the process.
Sounds like something a 3PP should jump on. Goodman Games did something for Dragonborn already, right? Bringing back some of the old school flavor of Tieflings should be a piece of cake.
Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
Not including things is what makes your game richer.
I had a four paragraph post typed, but it would derail the thread and I don't really want to discuss it. Suffice it to say, I thank you for your apparent insight into my game, but I find it strange that you strangely cannot say anything useful about your own game. Ie. I strongly dislike your rhetorical choice of words, as it leaves no room for discussion as you give no arguments, you state as fact, and you state as universal.
In any case, minor cosmetic reasons aside, my opinion on the new races: tieflings don't do it for me as a core race, as it implies that they are common, which in my opinion undercuts their natural "brooding, dark, angsty outsider" niche. Dragonborn work just fine for me as a non evil warrior race. I quite like them stat wise, and the Dragon article made it quite easy for me to fit them in. It's almost like they've always been a part of the world. I suspect because they are different enough from dwarves that the warrior culture aspects don't clash to much (dwarves IMC have always been rather xenophobic).
__________________ "The best advice I ever got was from an elephant trainer in the jungle outside Bangalore. I was doing a hike through the jungle as a tourist. I saw these large elephants tethered to a small stake. I asked him, 'How can you keep such a large elephant tied to such a small stake?' He said, 'When the elephants are small, they try to pull out the stake, and they fail. When they grow large, they never try to pull out the stake again.' That parable reminds me that we have to go for what we think we're fully capable of, not limit ourselves by what we've been in the past." -Vivek Paul
Sounds like something a 3PP should jump on. Goodman Games did something for Dragonborn already, right? Bringing back some of the old school flavor of Tieflings should be a piece of cake.
Nice idea. Hell, I'd work on it.
Though doesn't 4e have some freaky clause about forbidding changing the default flavor and definition of core material? Of course, that's only if you used the GSL I suppose.
__________________ "I can just see the 4e adventure anthology "Tale from the Limited Staircase"." - Ken Marable
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
