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.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with writing dragonborn out of a setting. Sometimes specific races just don't fit the overall themes or moods of the world.
But conversely, there is also nothing wrong with keeping them in. Each DM must make that decision for himself, and tell the players up-front about what is and what isn't permissible for his campaign.
(For the record, my own setting didn't have any dragonborn before 4E - but I've come up with an origin story for them which not only fitted well, but significantly improved some aspects of the setting IMO...)
__________________
- a 4E setting for urban adventures! Join the ENWorld Urbis Group!
This has probably already been said but my job as DM is to run a fun game for my friends.
I've had players play races & classes I don't like before but never allow my personal feelings on the matter to affect their game fun. As such on the rare occasion's I do say no to something my group know that it is purely to preserve the games feel/setting and to enhance their fun.
Always try to say yes, being creative and finding the right place for something is what being a DM is about.
__________________ Hardcore Alternity GM
“The beauty of the soul shines out when a man bears with composure one heavy mischance after another, not because he does not feel them, but because he is a man of high and heroic temper”
Come check out & discuss my favourite setting "Birthright" at The Piazza or at it's home "Birthright" at the Wotc forum.
Because some games shouldn't be forgotten Alternity.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with writing dragonborn out of a setting. Sometimes specific races just don't fit the overall themes or moods of the world.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arawn76
Always try to say yes
No.
Just like that, you can selectively, using your judgement, say 'yes' or 'no' on a case-by-case basis. Win/win.
Always try to say yes, being creative and finding the right place for something is what being a DM is about.
I agree. It may not be possible to say yes, but no shouldn't be automatic. Instead of looking for ways it won't fit, look for ways it can be fitted into the game. Unless of course, you get the occasional player who looks for exploits rather than fun, and brings you the uber-powered god race of Doom! Doom I tell you! Doom!
We started with two Dragonborn, two Tieflings, and two Eladrin. Since then, we've lost and retired some characters, but most of these guys were merely replaced by newer and wackier races. We've seen a couple Warforged, a Minotaur, a Gnoll, a Goliath, a Drow, a Deva, a Shifter, a Half-Elf, a Dwarf, an Elf, and one Human possessed by aberrant spirits (ironically, the human is probably the most bizarre PC).
Dragonborn and Tieflings aren't going anywhere, I'm certain of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rounser
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.
What are you trying to say about Eberron? It's pretty obviously a popular setting, and with good reason: it's amazing and original!
I honestly don't think that this is something that you can judge a year into this. It's the sort of question that you need to wait for another edition, should there be one, to answer.
A large part of why I don't like Dragonborn and wouldn't include them is my personal heresy:
I don't like dragons. As myths, sure, they work great. And that's the only way they'd appear in a campaign I'd be running, as myths.
Giant uber-intelligent flying lizards that breathe fire/cold/acid/cotton candy/whatever and breed with anything that moves are not something I want to fit into a game world.
Dragon-people therefore really don't fit either.
For the record, I use primarily human/elven/other common sentient race opponents, with some oozes, aberrations and oversized vermin and eventually some fiends. Most of the latter are the fault of wizards creating/summoning things. I'd use a Rust Monster(In fact, there are several my 3.5 party may encounter if they don't start searching for traps in the place they're currently in, placed there by the wizard owner to help take care of any pesky adventurers that come in. He got them from the area of the world that's being corrupted by the Far Plane). I wouldn't use a dragon.
There's also that 3.5 has made me hate running a game and I enjoy mostly the worldbuilding aspect since the players I have are terrible at playing and even worse at actually RPing, so mostly I'm just boredly fudging rolls so they don't die while they mindlessly kill and loot and complain about walking right into the traps they should know by now are there without even trying to look for said traps. So you'd better believe I'm making a world I enjoy, because it's going to be most of my fun.
And I will not use all the races if I don't want them for various reasons - Even ones that do exist may be horrifically rare, to the point of the PC being the only one in the entire world, with what that entails. I'd rather have a few races I can detail than a bunch of races I only throw together some afterthought junk on because they're redundant, or I just plain don't care enough about them to be able to do them justice.
(With the setup I like to use there's also the little issue that anyone playing a dragonborn is going to instantly get cries of 'aaaaaaaaah! monster!' and either utterly shunned or attacked by a frightened mob, since holy crap, giant lizard-looking thing with ginormous teeth just walked into the village.)
Mos Eisley Cantina kitchen sink is nice and all, if that's what you're going for and what you want. But if I want the Mos Eisley Cantina I'll either play a Star Wars game and do it literally, or I'll start a Planescape game and we can have awesomely weird locations to go with our weird monster races.
Just like that, you can selectively, using your judgement, say 'yes' or 'no' on a case-by-case basis. Win/win.
No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.
__________________ Dark God of Facetiousness and Vaguely Lobsterlike Things
No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.
Not every game is a vast collaborative exercise in creativity... hell, most aren't. Games can be highly creative (players can build organizations, raise kingdoms, topple tyrants, create towns out of their minds)... but everyone operates within the confines established by the initial theme. We operate within plenty of issues when we initially start any game; we decide the rules set, the basic setting (or to play in a pre-written CS), any house rulings which will pop up.
And if you are a player, it is within your scope to choose not to play in a game which doesn't fit your specific ideas of what it should be. However, no player has the right to have the game completely bent to their will over the will of all of the players and/or the DM. The DM is the storyteller, R&D, economist, referee, and a hundred other jobs... and for doing all of that work, the DM gets to have more say than any single player.
If you want to play a game where everything is topsy turvy its your go... and no one can hold you to it. It's entirely within the right of any player to leave the game... but don't become too dramatic and believe that accommodation is a necessity. Accommodation in gaming only works during that period where the initial frameworks are being set... and then at specific points when the group can get together and discuss things. Otherwise a nice, long, dramatic storyline could be uprooted every time a new sourcebook comes out... and that would be a very sad thing.
The beauty of any roleplaying system, and especially games in the vein of d20 or WoD is that they can have a thousand options... or a handful. We're supplied a number of tools which are only limited by imagination... but in making such a large amount of tools available there should be established local restraint. I've seen too many games fall apart because of complaints about sourcebook X, or race Y, and it can be a sad thing.
If you like the stats of the thing, you could play any creature with similar. Dragonborn, Tieflings... they don't need to LOOK like lizards with attitude, or cheap demon doll knockoffs. On the other hand, you could have a scaly man who walks about with the same stats as any other race. Transformations, demonic bargains, horrible eldritch forces... all sorts of tropes could make for a more interesting character with similar stats.
Sell your soul? You could be a tiefling... stats and all. Born under the auspice of the Dragon Star? Look... he seems to be a scaly. Doesn't force a DM to create an entire civilization around the new sourcebook... and lets you have your freedom in a way that doesn't destroy narrative focus by causing a divergence into a path which may prove antithetical to the campaign. Character growth, story growth, and player growth should not be set akilter to worldbuilding... but they shouldn't shoehorn a world on the whim of a single player.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
PS: On the note of the original thread... I always liked the concept of tieflings, but hate the idea that every tiefling has to be some hot-eyed horned mess. Same goes for Dragonborn, Warforged, etc. It's about what you want to play, or run... not about what gets thrown in your lap by the newest sourcebook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
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.
Tieflings have been around since 1994. Dragonborn are effectively descendants of a) Half-Dragons (1994), b) the Dray (1994), and C) Draconians (1984). While CRPGs may have enhanced their appeal, Tieflings and "Dragon-men" have had fans well before the era of CRPG really took off (I'd say with Baldur's Gate in '98 & Everquest in '99).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rounser
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.
Firstly, using the term "Dragonboobs" is nowhere near as clever and witty as you seem to think it is. Secondly, Dragonborn already exist in Dark Sun in the form of Dray, and could easily exist in Ravenloft thanks to the Mists.
Firstly, using the term "Dragonboobs" is nowhere near as clever and witty as you seem to think it is.
I don't think it's witty or clever, but I'll not give these contrived imposters the time of day by calling them by their poorly chosen name. They deserve mockery. Heck, I save to disbelieve that "they" exist as a core PC race in any D&D milieu worth a damn.
Quote:
Secondly, Dragonborn already exist in Dark Sun in the form of Dray, and could easily exist in Ravenloft thanks to the Mists.
Barney the Purple Dinosaur exists in both too as a core PC race by this logic, because there's purple dinosaur-like critters in dark sun and he's certainly horrific enough to be taken by the mists. When's he appearing in the core, is there still room in PHB3? What a load.
__________________ "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 rounser; 4th May 2009 at 03:57 AM..
Tieflings have been around since 1994. Dragonborn are effectively descendants of a) Half-Dragons (1994), b) the Dray (1994), and C) Draconians (1984). While CRPGs may have enhanced their appeal, Tieflings and "Dragon-men" have had fans well before the era of CRPG really took off (I'd say with Baldur's Gate in '98 & Everquest in '99).
To be fair, having fans and being integral for PCs are very different things. As in what you quoted, I do not debate that they have been around for some time as NPCs and evil beings. And for me, long timeRPGers can date back as far as 1974.
"Traction" isn't something that individual groups get to determine.
IMO, tieflings already had some form of traction: they were popular in 2e, and appeared with some frequency in 3e. They weren't exactly the tieflings of 4e, though...I'm not sure how many peoples' tieflings are an ancient empire of debauched evil with big awkward tails and big ridiculous horns. My tieflings are more in the 2e Planescape vibe, with being shunned outcasts, mutation-offspring that result from curses and unknown parentage. The birth of a tiefling is a cause for lamentation, accusation, and infanticide in most societies, but enough manage to be hidden, or be subtle, or survive despite the attempts at murder. They were suspicious outcasts with no claim to honor in PS, which made them appealing player characters (outcasts often are), and in most of my non-planar settings, the dial just gets turned up a bit higher (since fiends are a rarer thing).
Dragonborn are a bit harder to judge. They certainly didn't have any traction at all before they appeared in the 4e core book, but the ones in the 4e core book aren't really the same thing as they were before (except for that unfortunate and narm-inducing name). Playing dragon-people definitely has its appeal, and the whole "honorable empire" thing is appealing, too. They do have trouble in that they are pretty monstrous, but most fantasy -- especially newer fantasy -- is very accepting of monstrosity from sympathetic characters.
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.
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.
Tieflings have had traction, though I'm not sure their 4e-ified version is the most popular version.
Dragonborn don't have traction in and of themselves, but the idea of playing a dragon certainly does -- if you give players a way to be a dragon, dragonborn become pointless. I'd prefer to give people what they want, honestly.
To be fair, having fans and being integral for PCs are very different things. As in what you quoted, I do not debate that they have been around for some time as NPCs and evil beings. And for me, long timeRPGers can date back as far as 1974.
Eh, I was playing Half-Dragons in Second edition around 94 or 95-ish. That was a good 14-15 years ago. A playable race concept doesn't have to date back to '74 to be valid or popular.
Quote:
Dragonborn don't have traction in and of themselves, but the idea of playing a dragon certainly does -- if you give players a way to be a dragon, dragonborn become pointless. I'd prefer to give people what they want, honestly.
I wouldn't be so confident about that. I got over playing a Dragon years ago, and I still like Dragoborn. That is, I really would rather play a Dragonman than a Dragon, and I'm sure I'm not alone. They also overlap with the lizardman concept, which has also been popular for a good while now.
Last edited by Mad Mac; 4th May 2009 at 05:19 AM..
No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.
Whatever else might be the case, it was certainly no less helpful than what you have just suggested there. In other words, your opinion on this matter is certainly no more valid than mine. And yes, that's all it is.
You're the first person I have heard that has done so. What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?
To be honest, I don't remember the name of the supplement. I'm tempted to say Council of Wyrms (the box set that let you play full dragons, which I also used) but I could be mistaken on that. I lost my 2nd edition stuff a long time ago, so I'm strictly working off memory here.
I do know that you gained different ability score adjustments and racial abilities based on the Dragon type you selected. It was very similar to the Half-Dragon template in 3rd edition, to the point that I think they used it as inspiration.
I wouldn't be so confident about that. I got over playing a Dragon years ago, and I still like Dragoborn. That is, I really would rather play a Dragonman than a Dragon, and I'm sure I'm not alone. They also overlap with the lizardman concept, which has also been popular for a good while now.
In my mind, they absolutely do not overlap with the lizardman concept. Playing a dragon and playing a lizard-person are fundamentally different experiences. In the latter case, you work with lizard stereotypes -- hissing crocodiles, cold-bloodedness, perhaps a certain sinister hiss, maybe partially aquatic, or able to stick to walls...you know, things that make you a lizard person.
Playing a dragon is about arrogance, greed, knowledge, breathing fire, flying around, etc.
If there was a dragon race that could fit the mold of other PC races....heck, if the "Dragonborn" mechanics were just appropriated for an *actual* dragon instead of the bagged cereal version of a dragon, dragonborn would evaporate as unnecessary.
But dragonborn (probably as much for the horrible name as anything else) kind of annoy me, so there very well could be something about the inherent concept that I'm totally missing.
Lizardmen I like for their own reasons, but dragonborn are not lizardmen -- it takes more than scales to be a reptile, y'know?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
