Daily Art Preview

[WhatGravitas]

Thos pictures look rushed and sloppy, like the artist didn't feel interested in them and tried to rush them asap.

Looking at the minis and W&M, I see some changes in the general art direction (more "elemental", feathered wings back). Given that the deadline for this art was probably a at least month ago (to send it to the printers) - they might be rushed indeed.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Quantarum]

For things the players are meant to fight and defeat they're fine, for creatures meant to inspire awe they fall very flat.

-Q.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, where's the problem in that case?

Meaningless neologisms that make sense to no one create at least as big a barrier to entry as meaningful idiosyncrasies that might make a little bit of sense if you think about it.

The fewer barriers to acceptance of the product, the better. And that means getting rid of idiosyncrasies that only make sense to people with 25 years of experience of D&Disms.

I don't think rakshasas that look like tigers are creating any more barriers to acceptance than dragonborn, colored dragons, or gnomes without red hats. I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy and/or ancient Vedic scholarship so seriously as to dismiss a table-top roleplaying game with rakshasas that have nothing to do with ancient myths of the subcontinent. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been lead to believe?

The longevity of the ideas, as I said, doesn't have jack squat to do with how those ideas fare at the table. 25 year old blue dragons will work just as well in June, and brand new dragonborn will work pretty well, too, I imagine (perhaps aside from the unfortunate name), and I'm wagering that tiger-rakshasas will work even better than they have for the last 25 years.

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense outside of D&D. I'm pretty sure neither one will stop most people from getting the game, assuming that there is no secret cabal of dragon purists out there who refuse to purchase Dungeons and Dragons because they don't all spit fire and subsist on a diet of virgins.

A level playing field is plenty pointful. But you can't get there without killing a few anachronisms.

In terms of "barriers to acceptance," anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations, and blatant neologisms have only the mildest of effects (if I'm being generous) on a given table-top roleplaying game.

So what's the point of leveling that particular playing field?

 

[Oni]

I'm kind of mixed on the new angels. I like the general feel they have but not some of the specifics. I don't like the wispy tail, I think it looks off, legs would have better IMO. I'm not sold on the featureless face. It look goofy in profile for instance. I think I would have preferred a more fully formed face but one that was androgenous and had to make out the details on because of spilling light/darkness shrouding the features (like a face stretched over a light). Or if they wanted to go the masked look and actually have them wearing mask, whats behind could be left to the imagination and it would give more creative freedom to artist in what faces angels present to the world. I like the direction they went with the hair and the robe like armours.

Why do they have less fingers?

 

[hong]

Meaningless neologisms that make sense to no one create at least as big a barrier to entry as meaningful idiosyncrasies that might make a little bit of sense if you think about it.

Meaningless neologisms are an opportunity to create new content, free of 25 years of D&Disms and updated to the moods of the time.

I don't think rakshasas that look like tigers are creating any more barriers to acceptance than dragonborn,

There are plenty of dragonish races in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them even look like dragons.

colored dragons,

There are plenty of coloured dragons in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them are even blue.

or gnomes without red hats.

There are plenty of gnomes without red hats in fantasy outside D&D. Some of them may even look like elves.

Conversely, rakshasas that look like tigers and tigers only are needlessly narrow, rootless in a game without tigers, and miss the opportunity to universalise the concept to evil nature spirits, remnant demons in the wilderness, or intruders from the world of the fey. There is nothing about "tiger with hands backwards" that is central to any of these concepts.

I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy and/or ancient Vedic scholarship so seriously as to dismiss a table-top roleplaying game with rakshasas that have nothing to do with ancient myths of the subcontinent. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been lead to believe?

I've yet to meet anyone who takes their fantasy so seriously as to dismiss an RPG with rakshasas that don't look like tigers with hands backwards. Perhaps they are more widely spread than I have been led to believe?

The longevity of the ideas, as I said, doesn't have jack squat to do with how those ideas fare at the table. 25 year old blue dragons will work just as well in June,

Dragons are a concept wider than D&D, and dragons in D&D encompass more than just blue ones.

and brand new dragonborn will work pretty well, too, I imagine

Dragon men are similarly a concept wider than D&D.

(perhaps aside from the unfortunate name), and I'm wagering that tiger-rakshasas will work even better than they have for the last 25 years.

If tiger rakshasas work better, it will have been because they have been reconcepted so as to have a slightly wider and more meaningful niche than "tiger in robe with reversed hands".

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense outside of D&D.

It makes plenty of sense in the overall fantasy genre.

I'm pretty sure neither one will stop most people from getting the game, assuming that there is no secret cabal of dragon purists out there who refuse to purchase Dungeons and Dragons because they don't all spit fire and subsist on a diet of virgins.

I'm pretty sure that rakshasas as tigers with hands backwards contribute nothing to getting more people to purchase the game, who would not have purchased it otherwise.

In terms of "barriers to acceptance," anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations, and blatant neologisms have only the mildest of effects (if I'm being generous) on a given table-top roleplaying game.

Nonsense. Anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and blatant neologisms have the hugest effect on first impressions, especially if those anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and neologisms have no relation to what is current in the genre.

So what's the point of leveling that particular playing field?

To make the game more sensible for people who have no particular attachment to 25 years of D&D anachronisms.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Meaningless neologisms are an opportunity to create new content, free of 25 years of D&Disms and updated to the moods of the time.

Yes, but they still create at least as big a barrier to acceptance, which means that on the issue of "leveling the playing field," it's at least a wash.

Creating new content is really a different conversation.

There are plenty of X. Some of them even Y.

Okay, lets go with D&D IP, then. Beholders, illithids, githyanki, githzerai, displacer beasts...I still don't see where there is this "barrier to acceptance" you mentioned.

And if the litmus test is "does it exist outside of D&D, too?" I think you'll find that the new stuff doesn't always meet that litmus test, either. Specifically because it's new created content.

And in either case, its preexistence doesn't create much of a barrier to acceptance.

The flagship example of how 25 years of legacy creates this barrier is in the new direction Forgotten Realms is taking, but that's rather specifically about the history and events of a world, and not a broad lesson to apply rigidly throughout the game at every level. It'd be pretty pointless to say that all monsters must either be brand new or existing and derived solely from the broader modern fantasy milieu.

Because it certainly doesn't create any real barriers to acceptance, nor does it prevent new stuff also existing.

Conversely, rakshasas that look like tigers and tigers only are needlessly narrow, rootless in a game without tigers, and miss the opportunity to universalise the concept to evil nature spirits, remnant demons in the wilderness, or intruders from the world of the fey. There is nothing about "tiger with hands backwards" that is central to any of these concepts.

Evil scheming tigers and fearful symmetry are as old as William Blake, mang. General evil nature spirits, remnant wilderness demons, or intruders from the world of fey can go by a lot of names, so there's no real "missed" opportunity. So could backwards-handed predatory cat illusionists, I guess, but since the name's already linked through Eberron, and this team obviously has some issues with naming things, I really understand why they stuck with "rakshasas."

I don't really think you need to take the word that seriously. It's just a game, and the contingent of Ramayana purists that this could be a "barrier to acceptance" for is, I'd wager, tremendously scarce.

I'm pretty sure that rakshasas as tigers with hands backwards contribute nothing to getting more people to purchase the game, who would not have purchased it otherwise.

But it probably helps maintain continuity with one of their flagship settings, where rakshasas already exist as big cat people with backwards hands, and thus ensures a clarity when the MM and Eberron talk about the same thing.

I'm guessing that was kind of an important goal for them.

More important than adhering to "hongs idea of what a rakshasas should be," probably, anyway.

Nonsense. Anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and blatant neologisms have the hugest effect on first impressions, especially if those anachronisms, idiosyncrasies, misinterpretations and neologisms have no relation to what is current in the genre.

Eberron is still current, at least for WotC, and reverse-handed tiger-people called "rakshasas" play a pretty significant role in the setting. So, it does.

To make the game more sensible for people who have no particular attachment to 25 years of D&D anachronisms.

It's just as sensible regardless of how long the D&Disms have been in force.

Secondly, given that the genre is "fantasy," I think people are much more accepting of new weirdness than you're giving them credit for. 50% of fantasy is "Take this mythic word and apply it for your own purposes." (The other 50% is probably "Mimic Tolkien.") I mean, the first few hits when you google "Bahamut" are about the dragon-king/dragon-deity, rather than the fish that supports the world (you get an early wikipedia reference for that, though). Fantasy has often championed the illogical mish-mash of cool old words and new concepts.

I don't think many people will have much trouble grokking tiger-rakshasas (especially with Eberron to help them) or cerulean aardvark hardcore, or whatever, regardless of how long either has been around.

 

[hong]

Yes, but they still create at least as big a barrier to acceptance, which means that on the issue of "leveling the playing field," it's at least a wash.

A barrier to acceptance that applies equally is better than a barrier to acceptance that applies unequally.

Creating new content is really a different conversation.

You can't create new content without breaking a bit of old content.

Okay, lets go with D&D IP, then. Beholders, illithids, githyanki, githzerai, displacer beasts...I still don't see where there is this "barrier to acceptance" you mentioned.

There is also not much reason for illithids, githyanki, githzerai and displacer beasts to exist either. But you can't discard everything at once, or the fanbois will cry; so we start with rakshasas and move upward. Beholders are allowed, having taken on a life of their own in fantasy games other than D&D (and the same for drow).

And if the litmus test is "does it exist outside of D&D, too?" I think you'll find that the new stuff doesn't always meet that litmus test, either. Specifically because it's new created content.

It is new created content that is consistent thematically with existing material in other forms.

And in either case, its preexistence doesn't create much of a barrier to acceptance.

The flagship example of how 25 years of legacy creates this barrier is in the new direction Forgotten Realms is taking, but that's rather specifically about the history and events of a world, and not a broad lesson to apply rigidly throughout the game at every level. It'd be pretty pointless to say that all monsters must either be brand new or existing and derived solely from the broader modern fantasy milieu.

It would also be pretty pointless to say that stupid monsters must be kept without regard for the fact that they are stupid.

Because it certainly doesn't create any real barriers to acceptance, nor does it prevent new stuff also existing.

Stupid monsters in profusion are most certainly a real barrier to acceptance, and prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them.

Evil scheming tigers and fearful symmetry are as old as William Blake, mang.

And there is no reason that reconcepted rakshasas cannot exist in D&D, as long as they are suitably modified and updated for the times.

General evil nature spirits, remnant wilderness demons, or intruders from the world of fey can go by a lot of names,

Like rakshasas.

so there's no real "missed" opportunity.

There is plenty of missed opportunity to turn rakshasas into something other than a D&D ananchronism.

So could backwards-handed predatory cat illusionists, I guess, but since the name's already linked through Eberron, and this team obviously has some issues with naming things, I really understand why they stuck with "rakshasas."

It is important that the name is linked with Eberron, why?

I don't really think you need to take the word that seriously. It's just a game, and the contingent of Ramayana purists that this could be a "barrier to acceptance" for is, I'd wager, tremendously scarce.

Tch. The idea is to free the concept from needless specificity. If you tell me that rakshasas now need to have a hundred hands and a dozen heads, in keeping with the image of Ravana, I will tell you that you are merely substituting obscurity for anachronism.

But it probably helps maintain continuity with one of their flagship settings, where rakshasas already exist as big cat people with backwards hands, and thus ensures a clarity when the MM and Eberron talk about the same thing.

Rakshasas with backwards hands can certainly exist at the same time as rakshasas without backwards hands. As nature spirits, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to take on a myriad different forms, on top of their shapechanging powers. But rakshasas with backwards hands have no reason to be held up as being more representative of such a race than other rakshasas.

I'm guessing that was kind of an important goal for them.

More important than adhering to "hongs idea of what a rakshasas should be," probably, anyway.

Give it time.

Eberron is still current, at least for WotC,

Thus proving that Eberron, too, suffers from 25-year-old D&D anachronisms. And in fact adds on another layer of 8-year-old D&D anachronisms. by adhering to this idea that the rules inform the design of the world.

and reverse-handed tiger-people called "rakshasas" play a pretty significant role in the setting. So, it does.

And it could be significantly improved by removing these anachronisms.

It's just as sensible regardless of how long the D&Disms have been in force.

What?

Secondly, given that the genre is "fantasy," I think people are much more accepting of new weirdness than you're giving them credit for.

This is not new weirdness. This is old weirdness. This is outdated weirdness. This is outdated weirdness with no reason to exist other than one random source that EGG saw once upon a time. There is no reason to maintain this weirdness other than soppy sentimentality.

50% of fantasy is "Take this mythic word and apply it for your own purposes." (The other 50% is probably "Mimic Tolkien.") I mean, the first few hits when you google "Bahamut" are about the dragon-king/dragon-deity, rather than the fish that supports the world (you get an early wikipedia reference for that, though).

You'll notice that I never said anything about Bahamut, who has indeed taken on a life of his own.

Fantasy has often championed the illogical mish-mash of cool old words and new concepts.

You mean like Golden Wyvern Adept, White Raven Onslaught, and Exploding Fuchsia Midget...?

I don't think many people will have much trouble grokking tiger-rakshasas (especially with Eberron to help them)

If they need a non-core setting like Eberron to help them, then the concept has already failed.

 

[Klaus]

Whoa. Derail much?

So, how 'bout them PHB pictures, eh?

 

[I'm A Banana]

A barrier to acceptance that applies equally is better than a barrier to acceptance that applies unequally.

I still don't see any barrier to acceptance. I see it in the FR case, with regards to setting history. I don't see it in the monster case, because there's really no history, just kind of the same stuff over and over again -- nothing to 'catch up on,' like there is in FR.

Perhaps you could help and show me where a lone 25 year old D&D anachronism is preventing someone from playing D&D?

You can't create new content without breaking a bit of old content.

No, you can. It happens a lot. All the time, in fact. Sometimes you break old content, too, especially when you can make the end product better for it.

I just don't see a game where rakshasas are, say, nature demons, as any inherently better than a game where rakshasas are backwards-handed tiger-people.

Perhaps you can show me why this is important?

But you can't discard everything at once, or the fanbois will cry; so we start with rakshasas and move upward.

4e makes fanbois cry a lot. I'm sure the Great Wheel and FR history and half-orcs and druids were bigger blows than rakshasas.

So they'd probably only keep the rakshasas if there was a reason to keep them beyond "appeasing the fanbois." There'd be significantly less reaction with these things than there would be with most of the stuff they've been tormenting the trufans with.

This really doesn't look like its about 25 years of fanbois or "barriers to acceptance."

It is new created content that is consistent thematically with existing material in other forms.

I'm pretty confident when the 4e rules are released that I'll be able to pick out at least a handful of things that really aren't, and that would fail the "general zeitgeist" litmus test at least as badly as the rakshasas do.

It would also be pretty pointless to say that stupid monsters must be kept without regard for the fact that they are stupid.

So this is looking more just like you personally think the rakshasas are/have been stupid. Which is cool, but, you know, there might be other opinions which WotC would be perhaps slightly interested in supporting. Such as those Eberron fans who like the idea of evil big cat people as a distinct evil demonic race.

So "Only fanbois <3 the dumb rakshasas!" would be misleading at best.

"What hong thinks is stupid" doesn't enter into it. "What would offend the fanbois" probably doesn't either (here, at least). "What helps us maintain Eberron extraplanar bad dudes as distinct from Default D&D extraplanar bad dudes" might.

Stupid monsters in profusion are most certainly a real barrier to acceptance, and prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them.

D&D has rid itself of many stupid monsters, and it has invented stupid monsters to replace them (flumph vs. phantom fungus! triapheg vs. ythrak! myconids vs. desmondu!), and it will continue the process ad nauseum.

It really doesn't prevent reasonable monsters from being designed to replace them. Eight years of 3e saw over 5,000 monsters, and monster manuals are one of the best selling product lines the game has, probably including 3rd party stuff. There's a LOT of room for new hotness in that category. A lot of room for new stupidity, too, but fortunately with monsters there is a built-in failsafe: if the DM thinks its dumb, it dosn't get used, and so it gains none of that "traction," and all it did was waste a little bit of time and money being developed. It definitely doesn't stop anyone from using the game for the hotness in spite of the stupidity.

Also, the idea that rakshasas as evil tiger-critters are stupid is not as universal as you seem to think it is.

Also also, the idea that stupid monsters in profusion is a barrier to acceptance is something I'd like to see a bit more concrete information on than your say-so. I kind of doubt that is anything resembling a truism.

And there is no reason that reconcepted rakshasas cannot exist in D&D, as long as they are suitably modified and updated for the times.

All we know about them right now in 4e is that they have assassins who look like panthers with reversed hands. Is this not suitable to you?

There is plenty of missed opportunity to turn rakshasas into something other than a D&D ananchronism.

Based on that picture, you say that? Really, you know what they're like in Eberron, right? They've been more than a D&D anachronism for at least as long as that idea. It just didn't require turning their hands around. Are you not okay with this? Do you feel that WotC should not be okay with this?

It is important that the name is linked with Eberron, why? ... Rakshasas with backwards hands can certainly exist at the same time as rakshasas without backwards hands. As nature spirits, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to take on a myriad different forms, on top of their shapechanging powers. But rakshasas with backwards hands have no reason to be held up as being more representative of such a race than other rakshasas.

Eberron is important as one of WotC's flagship settings, one where they can develop IP that they can milk, like FR. Rakshasas figure into that IP, by being one of the major villains in the setting, as backwards-handed tiger/big cat critters. It makes a lot more sense to preserve that potential cash cow than it does to adhere to getting rid of "what hong thinks is stupid" as some sort of bible for what should be in the monster manual. A similar case is probably made with regards to the illithids, githzerai, and githyanki. To a lesser degree, Shadar Kai fall into this, too, I'd imagine.

They're all things with some sort of traction that helps WotC give D&D (and Eberron) its own image, one that can sell.

Since there's no real reason to get rid of them (because barriers to entry don't exist and what hong thinks is stupid isn't a consideration), since there's plenty of reason to keep them (Eberron must be milked, they work as backwards-handed tiger/big-cat villains in a William Blake kind of way), they've been kept.

Thus proving that Eberron, too, suffers from 25-year-old D&D anachronisms. And in fact adds on another layer of 8-year-old D&D anachronisms. by adhering to this idea that the rules inform the design of the world. ... And it could be significantly improved by removing these anachronisms. ...
This is not new weirdness. This is old weirdness. This is outdated weirdness. This is outdated weirdness with no reason to exist other than one random source that EGG saw once upon a time. There is no reason to maintain this weirdness other than soppy sentimentality.

I do think that the design team probably has a more nuanced view of what backwards-handed rakshasas can accomplish for D&D and Eberron than you do.

It's not about retaining pointless anachronisms as much as it is about developing D&D as distinct from "General Fantasy Milieu." Get a new catchprase for the month, dude. "Everyone who doesn't hate these rakshasas is just a fanboi" isn't one of your better ones. Maybe go back to the wang jokes, those worked for you.

If they need a non-core setting like Eberron to help them, then the concept has already failed.

Eberron wants to be part of the fantasy melieu as distinct from other genre tropes. WotC wants the next FR out of it, and they're not going to treat it like a secondary D&D brand so much as a brand in and of itself. Things that aren't shared by other settings, that require people to buy things with that particular brand name on it, are a Good Thing for that goal.

 

[A'koss]

The Balor is up now - and Swekel has done a great job on it.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/artpreview