Design & Development: Halflings [merged]

[Ruin Explorer]

That condemning cliche halflings is pretty much gilding the lily?

gild the lily
1. To adorn unnecessarily something already beautiful.
2. To make superfluous additions to what is already complete.

So you're saying that it's obvious that halfings are cliched, and that point it out is unecessary, or that 4E's races already had "the bases covered" and thus it was unecessary to make halflings "kewl"? Because I agree with the former, but I think that latter is pretty short-sighted thinking.

I'm getting the impression that this is the case for a much larger %age of posters here than I would previously have believed, given the general contempt for anything in a game system which isn't focused, with laser-like precision, on killing monsters and grabbing loot.

Sounds like a straight-up accusation of badwrongfun to me. You know I actually sympathize with your "D&D is about more than shanking Beholders in a Dungeon with a +5 sword" POV, but I think this sort of snarky superior "Well IN MY GAME we have REAL STORIES!" attitude doesn't add anything to your argument. Well, except snark, and I speak as one who knows snark.

I just can't see playing a character without at least a page or two of bio at this point, and I trust to the DM to interactively 'flesh out' his family, friends, relationships, and history over gameplay.

Why do you need a hobbit to do that? Why can't you have a similar story with anothe race? Why, in particular, do you feel that you MUST have a pastoral race (not just people) character who is forced into adventuring, rather than, just y'know, a homebody of any race?

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I like the appeal of the new halfings. They have a definitive tie to some element within the game, instead of being just the "little people", less vestigial.

Even though I don't even use demihumans in my game, I completely plan to steal the idea behind river barge "gypsie" folk for one of the mannish subraces of my gaming world.

 

[Steely Dan]

Snarky commentary isn't neccessary. Seriously; I think we're all adults here.

Well, considering who he was responding to (and their tone), I thought it was perfectly acceptable.

 

[Steely Dan]

Sounds like a straight-up accusation of badwrongfun to me. You know I actually sympathize with your "D&D is about more than shanking Beholders in a Dungeon with a +5 sword" POV, but I think this sort of snarky superior "Well IN MY GAME we have REAL STORIES!" attitude doesn't add anything to your argument. Well, except snark, and I speak as one who knows snark.

What he said.

 

[Lizard]

Not a single bit of your character's personality would be invalidated by 4e.

Hell, you could have explored the exact same stories with a half-orc, human or dwarf.

Don't recall saying they would be/I couldn't.

The bulk of roleplay is diceless talking; it can be done in any system.

(Of course, in 4e, my old character couldn't have Perform (Oratory) or Craft (Poetry), which he used regularly despite 0 levels of Bard....my current character would be better off in 4e, as he currently gets 1 skill point per level. With Knowledge (Religion) +1, total, the running gag is that he has his god's name tattooed on his wrist so he doesn't forget it...)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don't recall saying they would be/I couldn't.

You distinctly implied it.

Playing a character who learns how to be a hero, because he has to, is much more enjoyable than playing Thrud Nounverb

In the context of this discussion of how halflings have been changed from hobbits to boat-people, and how this, in your opinion, is clearly a bad thing. Why is it we need hobbits? Why can't we RP the same from almost any race? I mean, you've acknowledged you can so I'm just really unclear on the hobbit-need...

 

[Lizard]

gild the lily
1. To adorn unnecessarily something already beautiful.
2. To make superfluous additions to what is already complete.

So you're saying that it's obvious that halfings are cliched, and that point it out is unecessary, or that 4E's races already had "the bases covered" and thus it was unecessary to make halflings "kewl"? Because I agree with the former, but I think that latter is pretty short-sighted thinking.

Pointing out that D&D is already a huge mound of cliches, and whining that halflings are cliched is superfluous and pointless. What's one more cliched race? All we're arguing over is WHICH cliches to use.

Sounds like a straight-up accusation of badwrongfun to me. You know I actually sympathize with your "D&D is about more than shanking Beholders in a Dungeon with a +5 sword" POV, but I think this sort of snarky superior "Well IN MY GAME we have REAL STORIES!" attitude doesn't add anything to your argument. Well, except snark, and I speak as one who knows snark.

People can have whatever fun they like; the games I run, as opposed to the games I play in, are skewed towards adventure, since I don't do family&friends games well. However, I've rarely seen so much contempt for roleplaying or non-combat activity among presumably post-adolescent gamers as I have on this 4e board. It's...depressing. Obviously, 4e is focused much more than 3e on dungeon crawls, and this board is mostly filled with people looking forward to 4e, so there's a certain statistical skew.

Why do you need a hobbit to do that? Why can't you have a similar story with anothe race? Why, in particular, do you feel that you MUST have a pastoral race (not just people) character who is forced into adventuring, rather than, just y'know, a homebody of any race?

Why have races at all, for that matter? Earth has many hundreds of cultures with only one race.

In general, the answer is, in a race which produces adventurers by the bucketloads, Joe Sixpack doesn't NEED to Answer The Call, because Chunk Beefcake has already done so. I don't see why Riverboat Gypsies -- in a world where EVERY race regularly produces adventurers -- are more interesting than *one* (PC) race which *doesn't*.

 

[Steely Dan]

Obviously, 4e is focused much more than 3e on dungeon crawls

Since when did your speculation become that which is obvious?

 

[HeinorNY]

Because a person who has lost everything an instant and is thrust into a universe he can barely understand -- and yet must make sense of to survive -- is much more interesting than someone who solves every problem by hitting it until it stops moving.

That sounds very dramatic indeed until you realize Arthur Dent is a character from a comedy. You just can't get his situation very seriously.
Conan is much more than a smasher dumb barbarian, he is smart, charismatic and honor bound. Just for being honor bound is enough of a nice roleplaying challenge.
And Conan also has a very interesting and complex background. Arthur is just the ordinary boring human guy from earth.

Been playing it twice weekly since 3e came out, and running it. Haven't had any trouble so far.

Cool, so everybody can be happy in 4E too

 

[Lizard]

Since when did your speculation become that which is obvious?

Since, uhm, just about every design essay has said "We thought about how this works in combat..." or "We retooled monsters to make encounters more interesting..." or "Monsters only exists for five rounds, so they have no abilities useful to them beyond their brief moment on stage..." or "We want more adventuring time..." or "Traps weren't interactive enough for the whole party..." or "If you're using Craft, you're not having fun..." or "Well, we have a social encounter system, we just won't tell you anything about it. It's a *surprise*." (OK, I made up the last one...)

I mean, let's not sully this fascinating debate with unnecessary side quests. Anyone who thinks 4e will be less, rather than more, focused on killing things and taking their stuff than 3e, raise your hands. OK. Now..all of you with your hands up...My name is Prince Abeddo M'gambe of Nigeria, and I have 50 million dollars I need help getting out of the country...

("More focused" does not mean "Exclusively focused". I think that will be 5e.)