Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4192877" data-attributes="member: 2067">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?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?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."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.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.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. 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?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?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. 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification