Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms

[Hairfoot]

I agree with the OP, but I think WotC is just following its nose toward the biggest market.

Remember, this is the mob that made Magic: the Gathering absolutely huge. I still dislike it, and before it arrived it was hard to imagine a fantasy-themed card game getting so big, especially one which had to keep inventing ever-odder fantasy concepts to sustain the market.

But big it is, and the audience lapped up the strangeness.

They know what they're doing.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Why is everyone who wants their D&D conservative an old grognard with irrelevant tastes, and therefore a luddite has-been to be scorned? Why can't we please everyone? It's sooooo easy to do, just keep the wacky stuff out of the PHB! Put it in a big old tome like the FRCS or ECS, or big supplemental book, or PHB2. Everyone's happy. Done!

I showed D&D 3E to a 12 year old neighbour yesterday - he just picked up one of the books and went "cool" at the illustrations, I didn't intend to show it to him or sell him on it. Wanted to know how it was played, so I explained that you read this book if you were a player, these if you were running the game. He couldn't see the point of it when computers existed. I agreed. Far too much reading when you could just hop on a machine and all the work was done for you. If I was 12 again I'd share his perspective. What I know of 4E flavour makes me share his perspective, and yeah, some poorly names are enough to stuff it up, IMO. There's a lot of power in a name.

In fact, I think his point of view applies to any age group if D&D is going to put "aesthetic challenges" as hurdles in front of enjoyment of the game. Why bother invest time in a game that you have to fight to be what you want it to be? Heck, M:tG was always a much better payoff in terms of time investment:enjoyment ratio than D&D is.

The one thing D&D has/had going for it over it's direct competitors is the self actualisation and creativity associated with it (even M:tG has a social aspect), and if WOTC is going to stamp their personal specific aesthetic all over the core in preference to something generic S&S fantasy in style because they don't seem to understand a large part of the appeal of their own game is creating your own world and legends, why bother?* I'm not saying don't design, don't create, just keep the stuff that should be optional, optional...and that which should be generic, generic.

*: That said, I'm cool with the new flavour heavy stuff added to the implied setting, e.g."...empire of tieflings". That's a good idea - inspirational, saves time, guides new players. That should be compatible with not wanting a race called "eladrin" and a class called "warlord" by default in every....single...D&D....game.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

The tragedy of this post is that I can't fit it into my signature.

 

[Campbell]

I still don't get the 'taking stuff out is hard' argument. Banning stuff is easy. I say 'No Elves' and no one plays an elf. It really is that easy.

 

[Andor]

Incidentally, when are we going to see Bigby's Bitch Slap? Isn't it an obvious avenue?

Bigby's Slapping Hand has been around for a while now...

 

[med stud]

Another WOTC creation, another badly chosen name for a core part of the PHB.

Concept of a leader class and a fey magic elf race - great, no problem with that. The names, warlord and eladrin, don't work for me. Why can't they just use classic, generic fantasy names? Why are they getting ridiculous (warlord) and arbitrary (eladrin) with them? Why are we getting more D&Disms in the core, as if the cleric wasn't enough?

This is D&D, WOTC, and you're spiked chaining it further into D&Dism territory. It'll map even less to classic swords & sorcery fantasy tropes, because you'll have to explain to newcomers that warlords don't have armies, and what the heck an eladrin is, and so on. You're polluting the implied setting by making this stuff core.

D&D is already full of D&Disms, but generally they're optional and can be ignored, by not using that supplement. By moving them to centre stage and putting them in the PHB you don't even really give people an option to ban them, because it's a pain in the neck to state that such and such parts of the PHB don't apply to this campaign. Or have to put up with the annoyance of reading "eladrin" and "warlord" every time if you rename them.

I understand that WOTC wants to give the game a shake-up, but for something as minor as names, it's just so trivial to do a good job with something classic and generic instead of putting a sore thumb into every campaign out there.

A lot of people play D&D as a sort of Sim S&S Fantasy World game, and by pushing your brand as a specific, non-generic entity with a specific, extremely quirky implied setting you may find that aspect of D&D's ability to deliver on that suffering. Thus far it's hewed fairly closely to Tolkien, who stuck to mythology, which was okay (everyone knows what a dwarf is)...

...but now we're going all Planescape and WoW. "Fey elf" and "demonic blooded human" and "leader" have mythic resonance as tropes, but the names chosen to represent them need an overhaul IMO.

As if the implied setting wasn't already quirky and idiosyncratic enough...

One thing I thought about when reading this is how popular classic Sword and Sorcery is today? How many people get their view of fantasy from reading Conan and Elric? I don't think it is that many. When going to a regular book store, I see lots of fantasy books but I have never seen Conan or Elric these days. When I was young I found Conan all by myself in a book store, I don't think I would have if I was 10 years old again. LotR is still going strong by merits of the movies and due to the fact that the books are popular.

What didn't exist when I was young (and before that) is the massive influence of computer games; tons of people play computer games, probably before they will get into D&D. I think computer games and LotR will be "familiar territory" for people getting into RPGs.

I also think that if you just get into D&D, Warlord doesn't sound more stupid than druid and eladrin isn't more counterintuitive than gnoll. People will see elf and think Legolas, see dwarf and think Gimli, see eladrin and they learn that these are sort of elves that like magic. They will see warlord and learn that warlords use their abilities to buff the party.

I can't see why people that are new to the game would find eladrin and warlords would be something bad. I really can't.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I also think that if you just get into D&D, Warlord doesn't sound more stupid than druid and eladrin isn't more counterintuitive than gnoll. People will see elf and think Legolas, see dwarf and think Gimli, see eladrin and they learn that these are sort of elves that like magic.

Exactly, it has taken me many years to separate the homoerotic connotations from the word/title "Ranger".

 

[Fifth Element]

Exactly, it has taken me many years to separate the homoerotic connotations from the word/title "Ranger".

Is there something about Aragorn we should know about??

 

[Baby Samurai]

Is there something about Aragorn we should know about??

You mean when he worked as rough trade on the streets of Gondor?

 

[Desdichado]

Over generalising is better than splitting hairs? That's pretty subjective. Most of the sub-sub-subcategories of fantasy are arguably a load of BS, but YMMV. I know they exist, I just don't necessarily buy into them, because they lead to hair-splitting, chinstroking threads like this where there's no good term to explain a very common concept.

1) You picked the least interesting part of my post(s) to respond to and ignored the rest. Bravo. :\

2) Clearly you think they're a load of BS since you can't be bothered to use the correct ones. Hence your inability to communicate clearly since you are stubbornly refusing to use them in even a general way that approximates their commonly accepted definitions.

3) Calling S&S a "sub-sub-subcategory of fantasy" is patently absurd. S&S and high fantasy are arguably the two largest, broadest categories in the genre, not esoteric minutia.

4) Again, "But I think the distinction and unique particulars of S&S specifically are pretty relevent to the discussion. I agree that D&D is more S&S with an overlay of high fantasy, but what you're really saying---in so many words, if I can be so bold as to attempt to paraphrase for you---is that you want to minimize the actual S&S elements in D&D and go for something more like high fantasy. The unique D&Disms are usually the elements that most strongly correllate D&D to the S&S subgenre." and "But I agree; D&D specifically doesn't limit itself to imitating one fantasy subgenre. Which is why I guess I'm missing the point or purpose of rounser's complaint. What good does more generic do you, anyway? D&D may not necessarily be generic, but it certainly is extremely broad, which gives you almost all of the same advantages. True, it's littered with D&Disms, but there so much freakin' material to work with that you can turn D&D into almost whatever you want with a minimum of work.

Just for laughs, I've been "Ray Winningering" up a setting that's specifically designed around the premise that magic doesn't exist at all and in its place we have psionics. Since that changes the feel so significantly, I decided that the standard elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. racial array doesn't feel right either. But I can do all this with stuff that's already in print easily. D&D is so broad that complaining about D&Disms seems futile. Rather, if you don't like them, just don't use them. The idea that, "well eladrins are now 'core' and it's harder to take them out" doesn't seem to hold much water. Like I said, I've been developing a campaign that gets rid of elves, dwarves, half-elves, halflings, gnomes, paladins, wizards, druids, etc. Literally 75% of the PHB is gone. I don't understand the notion that it's "hard" to do so.

The D&Disms that bother me more and are harder to get out are system, not flavor issues. Hit points and levels, for example."

 

[Benben]

Just for laughs, I've been "Ray Winningering" up a setting that's specifically designed around the premise that magic doesn't exist at all and in its place we have psionics. Since that changes the feel so significantly, I decided that the standard elves, dwarves, halflings, etc. racial array doesn't feel right either. But I can do all this with stuff that's already in print easily. D&D is so broad that complaining about D&Disms seems futile. Rather, if you don't like them, just don't use them. The idea that, "well eladrins are now 'core' and it's harder to take them out" doesn't seem to hold much water. Like I said, I've been developing a campaign that gets rid of elves, dwarves, half-elves, halflings, gnomes, paladins, wizards, druids, etc. Literally 75% of the PHB is gone. I don't understand the notion that it's "hard" to do so."

Don't leave us hanging! Start a new thread (if you already haven't) with your ideas on this world. What races did you use? What classes?