Dragonborn/Tiefling- which campaign setting?

[Maggan]

I wonder why so few people are willing to let fantasy be fantastic.

I once talked to the owner of the gaming company responsible for Mutant Chronicles and Kult, amongst other things.

In his experience, there are few who have more conservative tastes than fantasy fans. It should be fantasy, but it shouldn't be too much fantasy.

/M

 

[Derren]

In his experience, there are few who have more conservative tastes than fantasy fans. It should be fantasy, but it shouldn't be too much fantasy.

I guess this means you have the hardline conservative who only like Conan style fantasy (which don't play D&D anyway) and "normal" conservative who only like LotR clone fantasy (who are the ones who complain now).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As I see it moste people seem to dislike tieflings and dragonborn because:

1. They wanted a different race in the PHB and hate everything other than that race
2. They hate Tieflings and Dragonborn because they are new races which were not in LOTR
2.5. Because Tieflings and Dragonborn haven't much of a role in their previous campaign they (want to) think that those races are too exotic and unsuitable for PCs.
.
.
.
.
432524235. Because the name "Dragonborn" translates really bad into Finnish.

How about: "they don't do anything for me, and I would rather have got two races that made me want to play them." That's simple, easy to understand and relate to, and isn't an ad hominem attack.

 

[Derren]

How about: "they don't do anything for me, and I would rather have got two races that made me want to play them." That's simple, easy to understand and relate to, and isn't an ad hominem attack.

While there are certainly some people where this would apply, imo most people who say this would probabl fall under point 1. The wanted some specific races to be in the PHB (e.g. Gnomes, Hobgoblins, Orcs) and hate Dragonborn and Tieflings because in their opinion they stole those PHB places from the "good" races they wanted.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

While there are certainly some people where this would apply, imo most people who say this would probabl fall under point 1. The wanted some specific races to be in the PHB (e.g. Gnomes, Hobgoblins, Orcs) and hate Dragonborn and Tieflings because in their opinion they stole those PHB places from the "good" races they wanted.

I don't know about that. I think that they probably could have come up with two brand-new races that people would be more interested in trying out. The reason I'm not interested in dragonborn is *yawn*, not that I hoped they'd put in shifters, or whatever. Dragonish races just bore me to death. Tieflings I can get into, but I've seen enough dragon-this and dragon-that to last me until 10th edition. But I can see why people might feel the same about tieflings (or elves, for that matter). And I do get the idea that the people who are gung-ho about playing tieflings are probably a minority compared to the people who either hate them or just don't care either way. I suspect that a race with wider appeal could have been conceived.

 

[Derren]

Imo its impossible to find a race which the majority of players like as only a small subset of all D&D players will be "gung-ho" for that race.
No matter if the mystery race would have been gnomes, kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs, catfolk, drow, whatever, most people would have complained that they don't like them (with gnomes probably being the best accepted because "they were always there".

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And WoTC must be of the opinion (hopefully backed by market research) that tieflings and dragonborn will appeal to a wide audience.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

And WoTC must be of the opinion (hopefully backed by market research) that tieflings and dragonborn will appeal to a wide audience.

This is probably where someone will chime in with: "Yeah, they'll appeal to the WoW-playing 12-year-olds who will say, 'I can be a dragon dude? F**KIN' AWESOME!!!11!one11! Or maybe a half-demon dude with PHAT horns? F**K YEAH!!11!!!1one111!'"

Mind you, I'm not saying that.

 

[ivocaliban]

As I see it moste people seem to dislike tieflings and dragonborn because:

1. They wanted a different race in the PHB and hate everything other than that race
2. They hate Tieflings and Dragonborn because they are new races which were not in LOTR
2.5. Because Tieflings and Dragonborn haven't much of a role in their previous campaign they (want to) think that those races are too exotic and unsuitable for PCs.
.
.
.
.
432524235. Because the name "Dragonborn" translates really bad into Finnish.

I don't really have a problem with tieflings in and of themselves. I really think their aasimar counterparts should have been included, however. I wouldn't want fire genasi being a core race without the other three showing up. Sure it may be part of this darker world view, "points of light" and all that, but for me it's like having the yin without the yang.

As for dragonborn, I see them as just another glorified lizardman, half-dragon thingy. Whether you make them dragonfolk, catfolk, yakfolk, zebrafolk or platypusfolk...I don't much care for the idea of beastmen as core.

I'm not against beastly races entirely, such as in an individual setting, but I prefer my starting point rather plain so I can add my own flavors. When you're starting with tutti frutti it's hard to know where to begin. Sure, I can pick out the bits I don't like...but I don't want to have to do that. I'd rather just buy what I like. Have it your way and all that.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'll call that crazy because in my experience, players either: 1) Don't have interests, or 2) Have interests that are so divergent you can't keep them in one place. You have Bob the Wizard wanting to trape off to the Ugly Jungle and Ed wanting to stay here to learn Wenching Fu from the elven Ron Jeremy. The individuals goals are counter to eachother.

Again, call me crazy, but it's not actually illegal for your players to sit down and collectively work out the sort of things they'd like to do, and make their characters accordingly.

When players write backgrounds that have hooks I'm happy to tie them into stories or even make the story based around them.

In my experience one, I get really short backgrounds that are mostly written so I can't pull anything from them. My mom, dad, siblings, girlfriend, best friend, and dog are all dead because of like a war and stuff.

It's not always about drawing out stuff from a character's background and weaving it into your existing storyline, though. In fact, that's really not what I'm talking about at all.

It's one thing to say "Well, this PC's sister disappeared when he was fifteen - how about I make her the lieutenant of this necromancer I've set the PCs up against?" That's cool, and I heartily approve.

However, the sort of thing I was talking about is more PC-driven than that. For instance, in my first Third Edition game: the DM was the one who came up with a wizard's guild called the Circle of Kwalish, and he introduced it into the game because one of the PC wizards was interested in learning rare spells and lore - but it was that PC who decided to enlist his fellow PCs in mounting an internal takeover of the Circle, and it was that same PC who turned the Circle of Kwalish into a cultlike group whose ultimate purpose was to provide him with the souls of loyal followers he could consume for the ritual which made him a lich.

The DM responded to these goals by figuring out all of the challenges that we would have to overcome to make it happen, and introducing all sorts of crazy complications tied in with the plotlines being pursued by the other PCs.

Basically, it's the sandbox game: your job as a DM is to create sketches of the world around the PCs, and only fill in the details when they begin to pursue one avenue or another. The Circle of Kwalish was just a thumbnail when we started the game, a generic "wizards' guild" for training and research, but it became so much more when the players decided to pursue their own goals regarding it.

So, the point in relation to this thread? Maybe there isn't one!