4e / GSL Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

[Bumbles]

Well, I often find myself with human-only worlds, but that's merely my habit, rather than any kind of definitive statement on my part. I just have to make myself include the others on purpose.

As far as it goes, I find the Dragonborn and Tieflings quite appealing, and I'm quite happy to play them, or play in worlds with them. The Eladrin also work for me. I'm undecided on some of the PHB2 races though.

[alleynbard]

I should point out, because I think it is relevant to my opinion, that I am one of those guys that opens the door and invites all the new races right on into his world. I can always find room for them somewhere (hidden city, pocket dimension, etc.) My new homebrew is partially inspired by Republic Era Star Wars so a diverse set of races suits me.

[alleynbard]

Originally Posted by Shemeska

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 think it says (and I am not entirely a reliable source ) that you cannot re-define a race.

Now, Goodman produced the rather nice dragonborn sourcebook. But I don't think they really changed the appearance of the race overall or its "role" in the game. They just provided a slightly different and more in-depth backstory, cultural details, and generally more involved fluff.

Not horribly helpful, I know.

[Wormwood]

Originally Posted by alleynbard

I should point out, because I think it is relevant to my opinion, that I am one of those guys that opens the door and invites all the new races right on into his world.

You're definitely not alone.

If a race captures a player's imagination and interest, I will find a place for it.

Hell, I consider that a crucial part of my job as DM.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Aloïsius

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.

The new tiefling is the old tiefling. Some of the details have been changed, of course. And this pleases some and displeases others. But the basic idea of a devil-tainted race of humans, we still got that. And, really, the fiddly details aren't really all that different.

Same story with the dragonborn. The details have changed even moreso, but we still have the idea of a half-dragon/half-human race.

Even eladrin aren't really all that new. It's just the high elf concept separated from the wood elf concept.

The details are important and can sometimes make or break a concept, but the concepts themselves are already popular and have existing "traction" . . . 4th Edition just cements this by giving these particular concepts center stage along with the classics.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by CapnZapp

No.

Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.

Jeesh. Don't let the man tell you what to play, right?

Not including things is what makes your game richer.

So, limiting options makes your game richer? If you dislike dragonborn (or any other bit of the game) and don't see a place for them in your game, that's fine of course. But I, for one, embrace the idea of being an open GM. Saying "yes" is a lot more fun, and ultimately richer, than saying "no". YMMV, of course.

If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick. Not to be all pouty because I couldn't play my dragon-man, but I've just gotten tired of playing with closed GMs who feel like limiting player choice is somehow taking a brave stand against the "excesses" of the new regime (WotC).

[darjr]

Dragonborn and Tiefling are popular enough around here.

In the games I play and the others I've seen or heard about.

I do like the idea of the random traits of Tieflings and a third party expanding on it.

If not expanding Tieflings in this way, why not a different, abyssal tinged, race.

Or a far realm tainted race.

[Cadfan]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

So, limiting options makes your game richer?

I don't really agree with most of the sentiments he expressed, but yes, sometimes limiting options can make the game richer. A smaller number of playable races can allow you to spend more time fleshing out each one.

The way I generally do things is to give the players a general premise, find out what the players want to play, and then trim off anything that neither my nor their needs requires.

[rounser]

If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick. Not to be all pouty because I couldn't play my dragon-man, but I've just gotten tired of playing with closed GMs who feel like limiting player choice is somehow taking a brave stand against the "excesses" of the new regime (WotC).

Deja vu.

I like gully dwarves (yes, I know), and pseudodragons, and have asked for them as PCs in the past, but wouldn't want them in every campaign. I think that's the problem with core dragonboobs (apart from thinking the concept is lame and the artwork ugly). They're not any good as an everyday meal, IMO.

So, limiting options makes your game richer?

Of course! It's like cooking or music - it's as much what you leave out as what you put in.

You want every world to look the same and kitchen sink everything? Everywhere would be like Eberron, which tried that, with mixed results.

[Aus_Snow]

Weren't there dragonborn, or something like them, in the same setting that (unfortunately, IMO) spawned gully dwarves and. . . those other two racial variants (TSNBN, by me anyway)? With some terribly unfortunate name, IIRC. But then, I've not read the books, so, not sure.

[rounser]

Weren't there dragonborn, or something like them, in the same setting that (unfortunately, IMO) spawned gully dwarves and. . . those other two racial variants (TSNBN, by me anyway)?

Draconians. Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, had a good name and fair artwork, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid), hinting at their status as abominations.

Also had a compelling backstory (made from corrupting stolen good dragon's eggs). About a million times cooler than dragonboobs IMO, and primarily stayed NPCs as most good monsters should, most of the time.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by rounser

Draconians.

Ouch. Yeah, that's the name, alright. Then again, I've heard worse. . .

Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid). Also had a compelling backstory (made from corrupting stolen good dragon's eggs). About a million times cooler than dragonboobs IMO, and primarily stayed NPCs as most good monsters should, most of the time.

Ah. So, not really a PC race, and not really all that similar. OK. Well, it's not a setting I've really looked into much. And, as I'm sometimes liable to do, I've tended to dismiss it out of hand a bit too readily, perhaps.

[. . . we now return you to your. . . ]

[Nymrohd]

Actually the chromatic draconians were good and were PC races.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

You want every world to look the same and kitchen sink everything? Everywhere would be like Eberron, which tried that, with mixed results.

Allowing a player to play a dragonborn is a far cry from making your campaign exactly like all the others, kitchen sinks included. I tend to run my games in Mystara, and dragonborn do not exist in my campaign at this point. I haven't disallowed them, they just haven't come up yet. If a player wants to play a dragonborn in my game, do I need to create a dragonborn nation or culture to let this happen? I could, of course, and that'd be great. Or I could allow this character concept with any number of backstories. My favorite one is how the dragonborn were introduced in 3rd Edition, as an "evolved" race dedicated to the Platinum Dragon.

Official 4th Edition campaigns from WotC will try to give strong backgrounds to all the new races and classes, which makes sense. But Eberron is hardly a clone of Forgotten Realms and my campaign doesn't need to be either if I allow dragonborn.

[rounser]

Actually the chromatic draconians were good and were PC races.

Is this in one of the attempted resuscitations of the setting or the work of some obscure prequel book? Saga edition maybe? I don't detect their presence in the War of the Lance, which is pretty much all I tuned in for.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

Draconians. Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, had a good name and fair artwork, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid), hinting at their status as abominations.

Draconians weren't originally a PC race, but it didn't take long for that to change. Rules to play draconians existed in 2nd Edition (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've looked) and they definitely existed in 3rd Edition. Margaret Weis even wrote more than a few books with draconians as the main protagonists (Kang's Regiment).

It's a bit of the klingon syndrome . . . take a villian so cool that everybody wants to be them . . . but there is a long history of playing dragon-men in D&D and fantasy gaming, including Dragonlance.

[rounser]

Allowing a player to play a dragonborn is a far cry from making your campaign exactly like all the others, kitchen sinks included.

But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

Ah. So, not really a PC race, and not really all that similar. OK.

So were Drow once upon a time, but then came a certain book series, and we all know where that lead.

Sadly, the books about Kang's Regiment just weren't as popular.

Still, I would say that the Dragonborn are the effective descendants of those draconians in some ways. Heck, I'm sure there's somebody out there who is running a campaign with that as their origin.

Or somebody might have something like the Where Dragons Lie books by Salsitz.

[rounser]

Draconians weren't originally a PC race, but it didn't take long for that to change. Rules to play draconians existed in 2nd Edition (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've looked) and they definitely existed in 3rd Edition. Margaret Weis even wrote more than a few books with draconians as the main protagonists (Kang's Regiment).

Okay, that was after I tuned out. I think they should probably have stayed villains, and I think I'll try and remember them that way. It's a bit like Darth Vader being ruined a bit by whiny Anakin. It might have more depth, but sometimes you just want straight up bad guys.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

Is this in one of the attempted resuscitations of the setting or the work of some obscure prequel book? Saga edition maybe? I don't detect their presence in the War of the Lance, which is pretty much all I tuned in for.

I don't think the "good" chromatic draconians ever appeared in any novels. I think they were introduced in 3rd Edition, but maybe they showed up in 2nd somewhere. While I'm okay with the idea of PC draconians, I don't think the chromatic draconians were a well executed idea. But the reason why they exist, is because fans wanted to play draconian PCs.

There were still rules introduced to play good old fashioned "metallic" draconians. As the setting progressed draconians were portrayed as a slave race to Takhisis . . . with some reveling in that role and others rebelling against it.