DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

[Clavis]

Like 3rd Ed?

Which was bad enough...

 

[Clavis]

Originally Posted by Clavis
As far as I can tell, both the elves and Dwarves of 4th edition will be as far away from Tolkien's conception of either race as they could be made.

So, first you claim that they've got some wierd conspiracy going on to remove 'public domain' creatures from the books. Then, when it's pointed out that they havent, you then change your complaint to 'it's not longer Tolkien'?

Nevermind that this is DND, NOT Tolkien. Also nevermind that you then go on to say you never liked the Tolkien version of those races anyways.

Just to make myself clear. My complaint is that the new Dryad is stupid, and an unnecessary (from my point of view) change. I then proposed a possible reason why some game elements, such as the Dryad, might be changed - to create Intellectual Property that will be the sole possession of WOTC. In a corperate environment, it's not out of the question for the legal and promotional departments to have input into the development of any new product. That isn't a "weird conspiracy"; it's just business.

Hasbro's investors aren't in the stock market to care about our game, or the future of our hobby; they just want a return on their investment. That means that the employees of Hasbo subsidiaries like WOTC need to show that they are engaged in activities that will create revenue for the parent company, and thus the shareholders. Redesigning the entire D&D game will create revenue because even people who already own previous editions of the game will purchase the new books. Completely changing game elements, even those that did not need to be changed, creates a justification (to the consumers) for a new edition of the game. Changing game elements that were based on other people's IP so that they are the unquestioned IP of WOTC can create potential future revenue streams (through licensing and the like), and thus makes good business sense.

There's nothing nefarious or weird about the process, it's how business works. Like it or not, our hobby is someone else's business, and they are going to make decisions about our hobby based on their business needs. That's just the awful truth about how the sausage is made. Almost everything made by corporations (and that means almost everything we use in life) comes about through a torturous process that involves countless company meetings, and includes input from parts of the company that might not seem at first to have any relevance to the product being created.

 

[Epic Meepo]

I mean, if a Nymph or a Dryad is just a hot chick with some powers, it might as well just be a Druidess.

And if a dwarf and an eladrin and an elf and a half-elf and a tiefling are just dudes with slightly different selections of available powers, they might as well just be humans with the ability to choose from different power lists, right?

 

[Imaro]

Just to make myself clear. My complaint is that the new Dryad is stupid, and an unnecessary (from my point of view) change. I then proposed a possible reason why some game elements, such as the Dryad, might be changed - to create Intellectual Property that will be the sole possession of WOTC. In a corperate environment, it's not out of the question for the legal and promotional departments to have input into the development of any new product. That isn't a "weird conspiracy"; it's just business.

Hasbro's investors aren't in the stock market to care about our game, or the future of our hobby; they just want a return on their investment. That means that the employees of Hasbo subsidiaries like WOTC need to show that they are engaged in activities that will create revenue for the parent company, and thus the shareholders. Redesigning the entire D&D game will create revenue because even people who already own previous editions of the game will purchase the new books. Completely changing game elements, even those that did not need to be changed, creates a justification (to the consumers) for a new edition of the game. Changing game elements that were based on other people's IP so that they are the unquestioned IP of WOTC can create potential future revenue streams (through licensing and the like), and thus makes good business sense.

There's nothing nefarious or weird about the process, it's how business works. Like it or not, our hobby is someone else's business, and they are going to make decisions about our hobby based on their business needs. That's just the awful truth about how the sausage is made. Almost everything made by corporations (and that means almost everything we use in life) comes about through a torturous process that involves countless company meetings, and includes input from parts of the company that might not seem at first to have any relevance to the product being created.

I think I get what you're saying...and to a point I agree. This is probably most pertinent when it comes to the minis and 3rd party products. We've already seen WotC choose which monsters were allowed in the SRD and which weren't (those considered their IP). This worries me even with the numerous claims of posters that if it's considered core it will probably be in the SRD. This way WotC can actually, if they so choose, keep even more creatures out of the hands of 3rd parties.

By redesigning & renaming the monsters they make old figures obsolete while also making it harder for other companies (like Reaper) to produce miniatures that are representative of the D&D model and set it up so that they can easily pick and choose what monsters are allowed to be used by 3rd party publishers.

 

[Desdichado]

Problem is, we've got two monsters fighting for that role: the dryad and the nymph which fill almost the exact same role of hawt nekkid elflike babe with foresty powers.

How is that a problem exactly? If I can't masturbate to my Monster Manual anymore, I'll have to go and get real porn or something.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Cosidering most of the minis of the set have no way to determine gender, your claim of only 5 of 60 is far less than provable.

Be fair. My claim was that only five minis in the set appear female, and that is very provable. None of the other minis appear female at all. A creature with an indeterminate gender does not appear female. It doesn't appear male, either, but that is irrelevant to my claim.

So, to be thorough, let's compare the two groups of minis whose gender is determinate:

FEMALE:
black woods dryad
drider
drow spider priestess
eternal blade
militia archer

I'm being generous and calling the dryad female, despite the fact that it is a plant, and its gender might thus be unrelated to human sex characteristics. And if you want to argue it, I'll even grant you that the halfling rogue and the snaketongue cultist might each be heavily cloaked females. And the teifling cleric might be a heavily-armored, short-haired female. So, giving the benefit of the doubt, we have at most 8 clearly female minis.

MALE:
blood of vol fanatic
bruenor battlehammer
cliffwalk archer
cyclops
drow blademaster
dwarf brawler
dwarf maulfighter
elf conjuror
farmer
feral troll
halfling enchanter
human cleric of bahamut
mercenary general
merchant guard
ogre brute
shadar-kai assassin
shrieking harpy
teifling rogue

Nothing can be said to convince me that any of the above minis is anything other than male, and in light of the minis' appearances, I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. That gives us at least 18 clearly male minis.

So I say again that there appears to be a gender bias in this set: at most 8 clearly female minis compared to at least 18 clearly male minis. More than twice as many obvious males.

To say nothing of my earlier point about designers seeming to think that a female monster of human appearance cannot possibly be a convincing "fierce defender of the woodlands." To me, that is an even more convincing argument that an unintended gender bias might be afoot.

 

[Lord Fyre]

I mean, if a Nymph or a Dryad is just a hot chick with some powers, it might as well just be a Druidess. If there is more behind it, the creature becomes very distinct.

Counterwise, why shouldn't a "Hot Chick with some powers" be used for what a Dryad or Nymph is used for in most adventures/stories right now. :\ (I suggested as much earlier in the thread.)

 

[TarionzCousin]

MALE:
shrieking harpy

My ex-wife is now male?!?

 

[Nifft]

My ex-wife is now male?!?

I'll bet this explains a lot...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kintara]

To say nothing of my earlier point about designers seeming to think that a female monster of human appearance cannot possibly be a convincing "fierce defender of the woodlands." To me, that is an even more convincing argument that an unintended gender bias might be afoot.

Well, this is fantasy, where appearances match the metaphor. (Also, I like the idea of darker, more elemental, more alien fey. Ever see Pan's Labyrinth? )

I'll give you that there are too many male figures, though. I had to see it for myself. Some of those minis could easily be women.