Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

Bumbles · May 2, 2009

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 · May 2, 2009

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 · May 2, 2009

Shemeska said:
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 · May 2, 2009

alleynbard said:
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 · May 2, 2009

Aloïsius said:
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 · May 3, 2009

CapnZapp said:
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 · May 3, 2009

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 · May 3, 2009

Dire Bare said:
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 · May 3, 2009

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 · May 3, 2009

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.

Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

Bumbles

First Post

alleynbard

First Post

alleynbard

First Post

Wormwood

Adventurer

Dire Bare

Legend

Dire Bare

Legend

darjr

I crit!

Cadfan

First Post

rounser

First Post

Aus_Snow

First Post

Similar Threads