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

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by Mark

You're the first person I have heard that has done so. What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?

Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Dragonmen are a much wanted race it would seem. Personally, I never understood the appeal but looking at the 3e supplements and the number of dragon-focused products as well as the sheer number of half-dragon/dragonnmen remplates races and prestige classes, SOMEONE out there has got to be buying it...

(I know many here would deny to the high heavens that dragonmen are not that popular, but seriously look at how many dragon-related things came out in 3.x...WOTC isn't in the business of producing money losers)

[Barastrondo]

Originally Posted by rounser

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.

Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.


Anyone here remember this old Dragon magazine article where they introduced enchanted dragon's teeth? Plant one, and up pops a warrior in color-appropriate mail, with an elemental power matching the parent dragon. D&D spartoi, essentially. I did that once, in a Hollowfaust-set one-shot testing out 4e.

Of course, as far as traction goes, I'm kind of in a weird space. I've been using dragon-people-type PCs since 1990, purely on the merits of the old Ral Partha draconian miniatures, and demon-blooded people since... well, about the same amount of time, only we started using tiefling rules instead of homebrews (like the homebrew demon-blood rules from Mayfair's old Demons line) when they finally came out. So I sort of feel like 4e used to hang out at my old college gaming sessions.

[Kamikaze Midget]

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

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."

[Mark]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Dragonmen are a much wanted race it would seem. Personally, I never understood the appeal but looking at the 3e supplements and the number of dragon-focused products as well as the sheer number of half-dragon/dragonnmen remplates races and prestige classes, SOMEONE out there has got to be buying it...

(I know many here would deny to the high heavens that dragonmen are not that popular, but seriously look at how many dragon-related things came out in 3.x...WOTC isn't in the business of producing money losers)

Okay. I'm convinced that the "dragonman" heritage and traction, if not massive, is at least longer-lived than I would have at first given credit. Fair enough.

[rounser]

Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.

Probably because it's not what I said. I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such. No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.

[Mad Mac]

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.

Again, I disagree. They may be redundant in your mind, but it's not a universal opinion. I'm just going to leave it at that.

As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted.

Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa.

My impression from CRPG's is that lizardmen used to be popular, and then were somewhat eclipsed by Dragonmen. Most games don't offer both.

In terms of style though, I do wish they had given the big lizard tails to the Dragonborn instead of the Tieflings.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Mad Mac

As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted.

Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa.

My impression from CRPG's is that lizardmen used to be popular, and then were somewhat eclipsed by Dragonmen. Most games don't offer both.

In terms of style though, I do wish they had given the big lizard tails to the Dragonborn instead of the Tieflings.

This, too, all rings true with me.

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by rounser

Probably because it's not what I said. I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core, of any D&D milieu worth being called such. No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a hoser.

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

[Mark]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

I think your definition of core is overbroad. Most consider the core setting to be whatever the core books (first three in each previous edition) utilize to be the only core setting. Sometimes it is hard to even tell what that is unless you look at the deities section.

[rounser]

*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....

The whole thing revolves around PC races, being present or not by default in all settings. You don't understand these distinctions, or they don't matter to you, so it is useless pointing them out to you. Unhappily for me, people like you are now in charge of D&D.

Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E. No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both. Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by Mark

I think your definition of core is overbroad. Most consider the core setting to be whatever the core books (first three in each previous edition) utilize to be the only core setting. Sometimes it is hard to even tell what that is unless you look at the deities section.

Um by that reasoning, dragonborn and tieflings are core since they are part of the first 3 books.

If you look by setting then only humans, elves, dwarves and halflings qualify as core.

If you are stating that each edition has a core setting (in 2e/3e I'd argue it was FR), then dragonborn and tiefling both could be considered core as FR had half-dragons and tieflings back even in 2e

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by rounser

The whole thing revolves around PC races, being present or not by default in all settings. You don't understand these distinctions, or they don't matter to you, so it is useless pointing them out to you. Unhappily for me, people like you are now in charge of D&D.

Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E. No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both. Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.

Hmm?

Forgotten Realms, even in 2e, was regularly mocked by Greyahwk fans (especially on the old mailing list - hell that was one of the defining differences between GH and the Realms) as the kitchen sink setting. If it existed in a D&D product, the assumption was ALWAYS that it could be found in the Realms.

Snce when did Eberron take over that "kitchen sink" title from the Realms?
My understanding is that Eberron was the "what would happen if the people actually used the rules of the game - thus Eberron has continual light posts whereas the Realms doesn't even though it SHOULD)

[doctorhook]

I quite like Dragonborn, but I'm willing to concede that their art direction needs refinement. I'm fine with the lack of tails and horns; what I mean is that I think they should be... sharper? They seem too round to me... I'm not totally sure what it is that bugs me about their look, but I'm sure it will evolve with time. (I might just be tired of Wayne England's odd looking faces...)

In comparison, I quite like the look of Tieflings, though I think they need clearer guidelines to their artists regarding tail size; they appear to vary wildly.

Originally Posted by Barastrondo

Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.

I suspect it's simply his true colours showing.

Originally Posted by rounser

Probably because it's not what I said. I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such. No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.

Here's what you said. (I'm quoting for my own reference.):

Originally posted by rounser

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.

Based upon this comment, it's pretty obvious to me that you hold either Dragonborns or 4E in irrational contempt. I say "irrational" because you offer no explanation. Worse, your comment is also a thinly veiled shot at 4E, implying that it isn't "worth a damn."

You seem to be suggesting that neither Dragonborns nor any other sort of anthropomorphic dragon have a place in the D&D core rules as a PC race, but you haven't made it clear why you think it would be best that way; obviously the notion of "dragon-people" is popular enough, so why should they be excluded?

Originally Posted by Mark

Okay. I'm convinced that the "dragonman" heritage and traction, if not massive, is at least longer-lived than I would have at first given credit. Fair enough.

Does it make a difference how long they've been a part of the game? In my opinion, it shouldn't; rather, inclusion ought to be (and AFAIK, is) determined by a combination of interesting possibilities and popular interest, both qualities which Dragonborn (or the "dragon-people" they represent) seem to have in spades.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Um by that reasoning, dragonborn and tieflings are core since they are part of the first 3 books.

Well, yes, they are with 4E and 4E is meant to have an open-ended core throughout the yearly books, but has that really been at question in this thread? I think the premise of the thread is to discern whether or not having made them core has really caught on and whether their history in the gamehas anything to do with that for good or ill. Unless I am not quite following the OP.

btw, "Um?" When did you start posting like that?

Originally Posted by Aloïsius

We have 4e since last year. Have you the feeling that the new races, tiefling and dragonborn, have gained the same "traction" than the good old standard D&D races (dwarf, elf, halfling...) ? Or are they rather the 4e equivalent of the half-dragons or half-outsider of 3e : popular for min-max build but rather bland inside ?

(. . .)

So, do you use them in your campaign ? Do you like to play them as a PC ? Do your DM allow them in his/her game ? Do you think they will disappear in the next edition ?

[Fallen Seraph]

I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes. But it was always controlled, and focused there was still a sense of intermingling themes, concepts, etc.

FR on the other hand always felt simply slapped together, no real focus of all the elements they just threw in there with no focus, themes, concepts, etc. being expressed.

I think the fact that we have seen that both dragon-man/lizard man races and Tiefling/fiendish races have had a strong following is a very good reason for their inclusion in core. Core should focus on what have strong followings and take from that. Give the people what they want essentially.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by doctorhook

Does it make a difference how long they've been a part of the game?

Seems to have been part of the OP question.

[AllisterH]

Originally Posted by Fallen Seraph

I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes. But it was always controlled, and focused there was still a sense of intermingling themes, concepts, etc.

FR on the other hand always felt simply slapped together, no real focus of all the elements they just threw in there with no focus, themes, concepts, etc. being expressed.

I think the fact that we have seen that both dragon-man/lizard man races and Tiefling/fiendish races have had a strong following is a very good reason for their inclusion in core. Core should focus on what have strong followings and take from that. Give the people what they want essentially.

Exactly.

Eberron to me has always seemed like a "focused" setting as much as say Birthright or Darksun.

The realms though...That's one of the defining aspects and part of its appeal. The fact that it does give off a slapped together anything goes vibe.

[rounser]

I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes.

Bollocks. It had a design goal of "everything in 3E D&D has a place here", and is the only setting designed that way (until perhaps 4E FR, who knows what they've done to that). It's kitchen sink by design, the whole competition was skewed to that artificial rule, and IMO it shows. Don't try and pretend FR has a place for everything 3E, because that's bunkum.

[darjr]

Didn't Eberron not use the 'core' D&D cosmology.

[rounser]

Didn't Eberron eschew the 'core' D&D cosmology.

Like that makes a difference.