224 page book on Drow yet...

[Tinker Gnome]

Lawl Drowtales......

Anyways, I do not have any interest in most of the books put out now a days.

 

[Psion]

I find it funny that there's going to be a 224 page book on a subrace. A fricken subrace, yet WotC puts out a 160 page book on a race of creatures that are almost infinite in variety (Fiendish Codex I). :\

I mock your pain.

Drow are amongst my favorite villains. I remember the wailing and gnashing a few years over Drow. Y'know, during the supposed "year of the Drow". Well, I knew full well, I'd be playing out Plot & Poison (a way cool book, BTW) for everything it was worth. So, concerned about the reaction I was seeing here, I approached my players about whether they felt the same way.

Not a one did. They were in love with the campaign idea, and it turned out to be a cool campaign. I think some of you are over-reacting to drow. Drizzt clones are not cool, agreed. Drow, however, are.

So yeah. I'll take my wrongfun here guys. Drow are cool villains, one of the staple villains of D&D and CERTAINLY deserving of a tome dedicated to them as much as more general takes on creatures like undead or abberations (half of the book on which was spent discussing creatures with NO pedigree in D&D.)

Take a look at what Dungeon Magazine called the greatest adventure of all time. Full disclosure, I had something to do with that. But I could not have done it alone.

So bring on the drow, baybee!

 

[Fishbone]

Say it Loud! You hate Drow and You're Proud!
Why all these qualifiers? How many posts will I have to see that start or end with "I'm not really a drow hater BUT..." before people learn that hating Drow isn't a bad thing?
Its a stupid effing subrace that gets more air time than Demons and Devils. Where's the 224 page book on half species? Where is the Half-Elf and Half-Orc love, huh? Those are non-LA core races that almost never get played. 224 pages of quality material could get people to willingly play these for flavor and strength and not the "challenge" for a change.

 

[Dykstrav]

We are losing perspective with all the drow bashing. An arguement that makes us all look bad...

* Disclaimer - I don't hate drow...

We've already established that we all don't want to buy the same product. I don't happen to want to buy this one just because I've heard of it (although the content may change my mind when I get a chance to check it out), and I've elaborated on why.

That being said, I've remained civil about the fact that other people have a different opinion than I do. Insulting someone isn't a very good way to change their mind about anything. Getting worked up over people and races that don't exist doesn't make the gaming community look like it's dominated by the intelligent, articulate people that we all are.

We can disagree, but can we please be civil about it?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The bottom line is, role-playing is largely about wish-fulfillment. If you find that creepy, you're in the wrong hobby. Of course, unsolicited sexual advances on another person is inappropriate in any setting, not just gaming. But it's safe to say nobody's defending that kind of behavior here.

All I said was there is a line that I won't cross when it comes to wish-fullfillment. There are some archetypes that attract a more needy kind of wish-fullfillment than usual in role-playing, so that it becomes something the player gets invested in to the point of treading on my own feet as a DM or fellow player. I believe I made my claim pretty clearly: the rebel drow is a cool archetype, but some players with some sort of deep-seated need to rebel against their own cruel lives can take it to an uncomfortable extreme.

Now, apparently, I'm drow-bashing? Pheh. To quote a meme, "Read, comprehend, then post!" The only thing I'm doing is stating my preference for my D&D games to not be psychological catharisis for the players, and noting that some of the problems people have with drow stem from such "method role-playing."

The "creepy point" is not in the existence of drow, or the use of drow as a major element, or even in the playing of drow nessecarily. It's in a certain style of roleplaying where one over-identifies with the character, acting out very personal events in a public group setting, and that's independant of the drow (though players tend to be attracted to the "drow rebel" archetype, among other archetypes, for that).

Of course the book is unnecessary. So is Hordes of the Abyss. So is Draconomicon. So are the core rulebooks. Noone really needs any of these books.

Perhaps I should have qualified. A large book on a narrow elven subrace is *more* unnessecary than a smaller book on an entire plane, or one of the game's iconic creatures.

And yeah, it sucks not to like what the majority likes - I know how it is, very well - but it can't be changed unless you brainwash yourself into liking it. Using it as an excuse to rant about drow seems redundand, though. With all the drow bashing going on over the years, it's likely that everything you said has already been said half a dozen times. I think we should have a website devoted to drow-bashing (and generally complaining about them). Make a database about everything. It would be the efficient thing to do!

You're running paranoid, man. I haven't seen much drow-bashing at all in this thread. Statements of preference and accounts of individual "breaking points" for character self-identification, but precious little blanket statements denegrating drow or those who like to play them.

There is some book-bashing going on, but that's entirely in the realm of fair game on a d20 News & Reviews site on a thread dedicated to an upcoming book.

I don't know exactly what creepy, offensive behavior Dr. A and and Kamakaze think was being defended.

Read my post, I go into some pretty specific details about the line I'm not comfrotable crossing, all the while defending the archetypes themselves. And Dr. A agrees with it. I'm pretty sure most people would. And I've seen such behaviour defended and tolerated, much to the detriment of people's fun.

So yeah. I'll take my wrongfun here guys. Drow are cool villains, one of the staple villains of D&D and CERTAINLY deserving of a tome dedicated to them as much as more general takes on creatures like undead or abberations (half of the book on which was spent discussing creatures with NO pedigree in D&D.)

No one is telling you how to play your game, so "badwrongfun" doesn't apply here. Rather, the OP and others are saying that a big book on one elven subrace isn't a good use of WotC's time and effort.

I mean, Orcs and Goblins and Kobolds have been staple villains of D&D for just as long as the drow. I'm willing to wager that more people have faught goblins than have faught drow. You can't really effectively say that this *isn't* about what will sell rather than what DESERVES a book. That's totally a valid way to make a book (it's how Dragon Magic was concieved, and that's a nice little tome!), and it's totally valid to point out that there's a vocal minority that feels almost insulted that the resources devoted to the drow were significantly more than their favorite monster-race (which, in some cases, is 0...like the Fey).

Stop using badwrongfun as a bludgeon a-la "Munchkin."

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I'd buy it if they had a good "recipe" for making drow like that one dude from Tower of Doom and Shadows Over Mystara.

 

[catsclaw227]

I imagine that they'll give the drow a treatment that allows one to start as a 1st level character and take drow levels if they want, ala Savage Species.

But to get back at your list:

Admittedly this list doesn't have a single comprehensive book on Drow, but there certainly have been many 3rd party books, and very good ones at that. Even with all the major editing problems that Mongoose has had, they have put out some really great fluff on Drow. Goodman Games' book is very good and I am a fan of the Green Ronin stuff too. (see thread here)

The problem is that MOST gamers never even look at 3rd party material -- and what a shame that is -- and this is why WOTC maybe putting out a Drow book.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I imagine that they'll give the drow a treatment that allows one to start as a 1st level character and take drow levels if they want, ala Savage Species.

I'm quite sure they'll include that. They already gave us that treatment on the website, and it takes maybe half a page in the book, so it definetly should be in there!

Admittedly this list doesn't have a single comprehensive book on Drow, but there certainly have been many 3rd party books, and very good ones at that. Even with all the major editing problems that Mongoose has had, they have put out some really great fluff on Drow. Goodman Games' book is very good and I am a fan of the Green Ronin stuff too. (see thread here)

The problem is that MOST gamers never even look at 3rd party material -- and what a shame that is -- and this is why WOTC maybe putting out a Drow book.

There have been books about most things people are asking for. If Wizards went by that, they could only do Eb and FR books, nothing core any more.

I guess this book will have information about Drow in their two campaign settings (so instead of separate books for each campaign setting, they make one book that covers everything drow), and noone else could ever do that.

Perhaps I should have qualified. A large book on a narrow elven subrace is *more* unnessecary than a smaller book on an entire plane, or one of the game's iconic creatures.

Drow are one of the game's iconic creatures. And they're hardly a "narrow elven subrace". The fact that they work great as villains on all levels and as player characters to boot means that a large book on them might be significantly *less* unnecessary than a book on an entire plane that only really works as villains for higher-level characters

You're running paranoid, man. I haven't seen much drow-bashing at all in this thread. Statements of preference and accounts of individual "breaking points" for character self-identification, but precious little blanket statements denegrating drow or those who like to play them.

Those accounts of individual "breaking points" seem to be far more common when drow are discussed....

I mean, Orcs and Goblins and Kobolds have been staple villains of D&D for just as long as the drow. I'm willing to wager that more people have faught goblins than have faught drow.

Yeah, I guess so. But those are low-level threats, and usually either pure brutes or using simple ambushes. You can only write so much about orc berserkers before you repeat yourself. Drow are probably more complex than these three races combined.

You can't really effectively say that this *isn't* about what will sell rather than what DESERVES a book.

There's a difference? Even if it is, Wizards can't bother with stuff like that. So race X might deserve a book very much, Wizards does it, and it sells very poorly. Now someone will be lead to the gallows for that, and their last words shall be "But they DESERVED the book more!"

It might hurt those creatures' feelings not to get a book, but who cares? They're imaginary creatures. But the customers, and the people who get their money from this stuff, they are very real. So let's try not to hurt them and/or their feelings by making books to sell better.

and it's totally valid to point out that there's a vocal minority that feels almost insulted that the resources devoted to the drow were significantly more than their favorite monster-race (which, in some cases, is 0...like the Fey).

Almost not worth it. There will always be a bunch of people who will be insulted. The trick is to try to insult as few as possible, and to try to sell as many books as possible.

Wizards is too large to cater to minorities. I don't think they can make (m)any small print run books. You have to turn to 3rd-party d20 publishers for that.

 

[Pants]

I mock your pain.

Heartless bastard.

So yeah. I'll take my wrongfun here guys. Drow are cool villains, one of the staple villains of D&D and CERTAINLY deserving of a tome dedicated to them as much as more general takes on creatures like undead or abberations (half of the book on which was spent discussing creatures with NO pedigree in D&D.)

Take a look at what Dungeon Magazine called the greatest adventure of all time. Full disclosure, I had something to do with that. But I could not have done it alone.

So bring on the drow, baybee!

Hey I like drow. They're twisted, evil, magically powerful and they like spiders. Plus, they're into S&M, what's not to like? I'm just disappointed that a subrace gets more coverage than the fiends

I'll probably buy it.... unless it shoots sarin gas and acid into my eyes. But then, it'll be downgraded to 'look first.'

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Heartless

Hey, in L5R, that's an Advantage!

Hey I like drow. They're twisted, evil, magically powerful and they like spiders. Plus, they're into S&M, what's not to like? I'm just disappointed that a subrace gets more coverage than the fiends

As I said: Drow can be player characters - both in evil campaigns (where they have their intellect and the fear factor going for them) and good campaigns (where you can either follow a good drow deity and do the whole trying to redeem your race thing or go rebel) - and as enemies on virtually all levels.

Fiends can't really be played as PCs, and are mainly for higher-level enemies.

That means not only that more people will want to read about them, there are also more bases to be covered: How to play a good drow (with several archetypes), how to play an evil drow (with several archetypes), how to use them as enemies in all the possible ways (mastermind, ambusher, the whole shebang). Plus, of course, all the background info.