Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms

[Hairfoot]

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.

I think it's largely dependent on the availability of players. In many places, if you discourage players by not allowing everything from every book, fairly soon you don't have enough for a game.

 

[rounser]

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.

This is such a tired idea that it's about as original and fresh as reinventing Tucker's Kobolds for the umpteenth time (heck, they got a boxed set. Get over it people!). It gets done in homebrews again and again and again and again, and has been ever since 2E brought in that broken psionics rulebook.

As for replacing races, well that's a part of every homebrewer's pallette. The nice thing about the default races is that they give a strong set of tropes to fall back on, and something to depart from, so that folks like you think you're being original...and that's what the implied setting's for.

I'm not surprised in the least that you're in this camp, and it explains everything you've said in this thread. You're one of many who are jaded with certain aspects of D&D. Magic isn't magical enough for you, so you bring in psionics. Sort of speaks for itself really - I've long discarded the idea that what you're describing is in any way novel, but it never ceases to amaze me how it continues to hold such a huge appeal to so many, when it seems just so banal to me.

I think the true way to invigorate D&D is at the level of the campaign arc and adventure, but it's typical for DMs to focus on a macro-level worldbuilding perspective, tinkering with races and magic systems. Because there's only a certain amount of focus and effort a person can spend, I theorise that the adventure and campaign arc automatically suffers from such a focus. I'll be interested to see if 4E caters specifically for your interests, because they seem to be pervasive (not necessarily a good thing IMO, I think people run worse games because of it).

 

[Brennin Magalus]

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

Is this an UK idiom thing?

 

[Desdichado]

This is such a tired idea that it's about as original and fresh as reinventing Tucker's Kobolds for the umpteenth time (heck, they got a boxed set. Get over it people!). It gets done in homebrews again and again and again and again, and has been ever since 2E brought in that broken psionics rulebook.

I've never claimed it was particularly innovative.

Then again, I've never actually seen it done before either, just remarked upon as an interesting theoretical exercise.

As for replacing races, well that's a part of every homebrewer's pallette. The nice thing about the default races is that they give a strong set of tropes to fall back on, and something to depart from, so that folks like you think you're being original...and that's what the implied setting's for.

You're getting nicer and nicer with every word. 1) I never claimed I was being original, so most of your post is an attack on a strawman you constructed, not an actual argument I tried to make, and 2) you don't need an implied setting to depart from; in fact, wasn't the gist of your argument that you wanted less of an implied D&D setting to begin with? Or is it that you want the same implied D&D setting that you've used in the past and are trying to now suggest that D&Disms are rooted in mythology?

Your arguments are all over the place (as is your terminology) so I'm having a difficult time pinning down exactly what you're recommending be done other than that you don't like the names eladrin or warlord. You might want to invest some time into more clearly explaining what it is you're hoping will happen here.

I'm not surprised in the least that you're in this camp, and it explains everything you've said in this thread. You're one of many who are jaded with certain aspects of D&D. Magic isn't magical enough for you, so you bring in psionics. Sort of speaks for itself really - I've long discarded the idea that what you're describing is in any way novel, but it never ceases to amaze me how it continues to hold such a huge appeal to so many, when it seems just so banal to me.

Amazing! You've garnered all that from my posts in this thread!

I think the true way to invigorate D&D is at the level of the campaign arc and adventure, but it's typical for DMs to focus on a macro-level worldbuilding perspective, tinkering with races and magic systems. Because there's only a certain amount of focus and effort a person can spend, I theorise that the adventure and campaign arc automatically suffers from such a focus. I'll be interested to see if 4E caters specifically for your interests, because they seem to be pervasive (not necessarily a good thing IMO, I think people run worse games because of it).

And now you've been able to divine how good of a DM I am from this thread! You truly are a marvelous piece of work.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not surprised in the least that you're in this camp, and it explains everything you've said in this thread. You're one of many who are jaded with certain aspects of D&D. Magic isn't magical enough for you, so you bring in psionics. Sort of speaks for itself really - I've long discarded the idea that what you're describing is in any way novel, but it never ceases to amaze me how it continues to hold such a huge appeal to so many, when it seems just so banal to me.

Changing the pallet as it were need not having anything to do with being jaded. For some, myself included, it's about reflecting a different sort of fantasy then that which you may personally enjoy. My tastes run towards darker, more visceral fantasy where heroism isn't always the order of the day and where humanity must make their own way. My games are informed by the works of HP Lovecraft, RE Howard, Frank Herbert,Roger Zelazny,Michael Moorcock, R. Scott Bakker, China Mieville and Stephen King. They are not informed by Tolkien, or the high fantasy authors that followed in his footsteps. My games don't lead that way due to any sort of jadedness. I am altogether too young to be jaded towards anything. I just have different tastes.

 

[Scarbonac]

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

What?

 

[Hussar]

I think the true way to invigorate D&D is at the level of the campaign arc and adventure, but it's typical for DMs to focus on a macro-level worldbuilding perspective, tinkering with races and magic systems. Because there's only a certain amount of focus and effort a person can spend, I theorise that the adventure and campaign arc automatically suffers from such a focus. I'll be interested to see if 4E caters specifically for your interests, because they seem to be pervasive (not necessarily a good thing IMO, I think people run worse games because of it).

Rounser, you know that I'm on board with this idea, but, I think you have it wrong. Stripping implied setting out of the core books is only good for those who want to create campaign arcs rather than world build. Now, you can design your adventures based on what you want to see happen, rather than following concepts and constraints contained within the core rules.

For example, 3e wealth by level guidelines have huge implications for a setting. By removing the reliance on magic items, we no longer have to have magic shops. How far they go with this remains to be seen, but, this is just one example.

By using races that come without the huge baggage that hangs off of the original races, you can be free to do pretty much whatever you want with that race. You're not limited to Elf=treehugger anymore. Now, you have Eladrin. What the heck is an Eladrin? Anything you want.

 

[hong]

What?

You've been using it wrong ALL THIS TIME, haven't you?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Are you talking, like, "rump ranger", or what?

Walker, Texas Ranger?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Are you talking, like, "rump ranger", or what?

Something like that – Rough Ranger/Rump Ranger, maybe it's an LA thing.