Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[DandD]

...I don't think you've been following me as closely as I think you have been.

And I shouldn't. Normally, most people who start to get repetitive about their dislikes on this message board tend to land on my ignore list. I'm pretty sure that I do too on theirs, so all is fine and dandy then.

I have said - several times, now - that 4e is a wonderfully-constructed mechanical combat engine. It is well-designed, and it performs its purpose well. Anything beyond that, and I think it fails miserably, but for combat, it most certainly sings.

All I remember is that you were one of those who voiced their complaints time and time again back then. You might have changed now, which I don't know.

I know - by giving it a good once-over - that it does not serve my purposes. That does not mean that I have no interest in putting it through its paces. After all, in designing my own system, I need to know what works, what doesn't, and why. How am I supposed to gain that experience without playing and experiencing multiple systems?

Well, if you're a "simulationist", looking for what works in a game that people rather place in the "gamist" section (whatever this categorization is worth for) rather strikes me as time-inefficient.

... *sigh*

There is a difference between complaining about a system and arguing/discussing its finer points.

Yes. Unfortunately, most of the notorious complainers of 4th edition on this very message board don't discuss, but just vent their "nerd-rage". But then again, that's what the ignore feature is for.

I'm sure the parts of the community that you are so thinly stabbing at appreciate that quite a bit.

But you would agree that I would look like an imbecile if I went to these other message boards and complained all the time about the "suckyness" of the particular edition now, wouldn't you?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you need one summer to decide if the game really is for you, then the game is better than what you really think. Other people would only need 1 minute at most after reading the basic rules to decide if they want to play that system or not.

In any case, I wish you fun with your campaign. And if you dislike the system after an entire summer, then good for you too. I just hope that you will have become wiser and not continue complaining about a system that you don't play anymore, like other posters, who waste their time and their energy telling us everybody how much they hate 4th edition.

Hmmm, perhaps I should tell on the Dumpshock forums how much I dislike SR 3rd edition, and how The Dark Eye 4.1 sucks compared to TDE 3.

Nah, that would make me look like an imbecile.

Wouldn't you have to complain about Shadowrun 4E?

 

[GnomeWorks]

And I shouldn't. Normally, most people who start to get repetitive about their dislikes on this message board tend to land on my ignore list. I'm pretty sure that I do too on theirs, so all is fine and dandy then.

Fair enough.

All I remember is that you were one of those who voiced their complaints time and time again back then. You might have changed now, which I don't know.

Because it was relevant, at the time. The past few months - weeks, even, perhaps - have seen my views on gaming and D&D in general change dramatically.

Well, if you're a "simulationist", looking for what works in a game that people rather place in the "gamist" section (whatever this categorization is worth for) rather strikes me as time-inefficient.

...no, not really.

Yes, D&D 4e is gamist. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have useful bits that can be cannibalized, or gaming concepts that don't deserve to be discussed. Just because we can throw labels around doesn't mean we should totally ignore things that don't fall under our preferred labels.

Yes. Unfortunately, most of the notorious complainers of 4th edition on this very message board don't discuss, but just vent their "nerd-rage". But then again, that's what the ignore feature is for.

That term is getting rather tired.

But you would agree that I would look like an imbecile if I went to these other message boards and complained all the time about the "suckyness" of the particular edition now, wouldn't you?

Some folk have more of an emotional attachment to their game of choice than others. There is nothing wrong with being upset when that game changes radically.

D&D seems to hold a very strange place in the world of gaming. It is what most people start with, and it is - I think - the easiest game to find a group for. As such, I imagine a good deal of people who are irked by 4e are irked because they may not have examined other gaming options, or are irked because - if they do decide to go to something else - their options for finding gaming groups will be radically reduced.

 

[DandD]

Wouldn't you have to complain about Shadowrun 4E?

Nah, I accepted it. It's better in most cases than 3rd (4th still has its glaring mistakes). I'm wondering if D20 Modern with 4th edition rules might supersede the Shadowrun rules.

Perhaps then I would complain about SR all the time, because New D20 Modern would make a better Shadowrun game than Shadowrun could ever do.

Oh well, time will tell if I become a well-known imbecile or not.

 

[AllisterH]

Not really on topic, but at least 3E started the trend with multiple Elf subraces including different statistics for each subrace. There was typically always the split between "woodsy elf" and "wizardy elf" (and it existed in the sub-races, too - Wood, Wild etc. elves for woodsy, High and Sun Elves for wizardy), and I am glad they finally "solved" this by splitting the race in two distinct, but related races.

Er, isn't this a 2E development.

I;m pretty sure that the Dragonlance and the FR campaign boxed sets AND Complete Book of Elves is where the split first came from.

 

[Tervin]

The "elven split" problem is a lot older than D&D. You can blame Tolkien if you want to. Compare the Eladrin in the LotR trilogy to the Elves in the Hobbit... (Or just read the Silmarillion for the same thing with more explanation as to why.)

I would trace it even further back, to the word "elf" being used for very different peoples of fey origin. The Eladrin solution is the best I have seen in any game that tried to handle it.

 

[Ginnel]

I love Dragonborn and Tieflings, more races more cool stuff, the only thing I'll say is that is I ever run D&D again is that I'll have the current tiefling illustration be one of several houses of tieflings during the empire, each with different looks to them e.g goat legs and tiny horns, pointed tail and red skin, etc. (but then again I love the planescape setting feel)

More races the better especially when they're so different, especially after the human, the short human, the short stocky human, the 3 humans with pointy ears, the more distinct characteristics of dragonmen and devil humans are somewhat overdue imo, and can lead to interesting bias.

Our current 4th ed party consists of 2 dragonborn 2 tieflings a dwarf and a half elf.

The planescape 3rd ed game I ran had a troll, thri-kreen, human, succubus, and an undead, but that was a deliberately no holds barred game.

and our current Wednesday game, a norse themed one is 4 humans maybe 5 if you count the (hag/lycanthrope/human) and a gnome.

I get the impression from the players that they like to try new things out all the time and won't stick to stereotypes the edition helps with both the races and the classes, this is a good thing tm.

 

[Rel]

Oh well, time will tell if I become a well-known imbecile or not.

You keep using that word. If you're implying that those who have complaints about 4e are "imbeciles" for doing so then knock it off. Anybody who can express such complaints in a civil manner is welcome here. Anybody who wants to call them names for doing so is not.

 

[Mercurius]

OK, after five pages of replies I might be inclined to change my original vote from "dislike" to "indifferent" because I see a lot of creative takes on the two races. I do agree with the sentiment that the canonical version of tieflings is not quite as interesting as the old school Planescape one, which offered all sorts of fun customization options (including the potential for Hoof-and-Mouth Disease!). In some sense it would be interesting to do the same with Dragonborn and make them more customizable, even with a semi-shapechange capacity that develops over time--starting with very young dragon form at early levels all the way up to ancient at higher levels.

 

[Jack99]

...because that clearly has so much relevance.

And yes, I am currently playing 4e.

Just because it has no relevance for you, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a relevance for me. And my musing was in no way, shape or form related to specifically you, just to be clear.