Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms
- Thread starter rounser
- Start date
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
ha
This whole discussion is a waste of time
We are dealing with the company that came up with the name 'Gleemax'. When was the last time you heard anyone saying that was a good (or even an OK) name. Yet they stick with it.
So, get used to sucky names.
Ken
This whole discussion is a waste of time
We are dealing with the company that came up with the name 'Gleemax'. When was the last time you heard anyone saying that was a good (or even an OK) name. Yet they stick with it.
So, get used to sucky names.
Ken
Lurks-no-More
First Post
No, it won't; and if it is, it's much less than "faerie" or "fey" or whatever. I'm betting that the people having most trouble with it are the older gamers.theredrobedwizard said:
Agreed. Warlord, although not perfect, is probably the best consensus choice: it implies someone who wages war and leads. (And the people who complain about Warlock and Warlord being confusing probably shouldn't play D&D in the first place. Too confusing.)
Agreed. In my opinion, that joke was in terribly bad taste.
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.
Last edited:
Touche, but that's a different kind of wacky IMO.
Bigby's Crushing Hand: funny as in ha-ha.
A D&D class named "warlord": funny as in strange.
And crushing hand is one of several hundred spells, that might get cast once in a while. If you have a "warlord"-without-an-army-or-nation-for-that-matter in every second party, that's a lot more screentime than Bigby ever got.
D&D has plenty of stupid in it (stwingers, anyone?), but it's generally seasoning, not prime time. And easily overlooked in the case of a monster, say, by simply not using it.
Not so eladrin and warlord. Core class and races in PHB1 are prime time, 24-7. Nuts to you if you don't like them, because they're going to be everywhere.
Last edited:
Look, slappy, you try poring over statblocks at one in the morning and tell me if you want things to be easier to tell apart, or less easy to tell apart. I know what I want; you just might take a year or two of dealing with it to come to the same realization.Lurks-no-More said:
Actually, no, you're on the wrong track about my position. The less D&Disms the better, IMO. They're game artefacts (as in, bits of noise, not magic relics) that are there for the purpose of making D&D a better game - or there just because someone thought it was cool, maybe - and compromise it's role as "pulp S&S fantasy simulation"...and for some of us, suspension of disbelief. I just don't buy that the average adventuring party has a "warlord", which makes it harder to believe in the game's world. A balance needs to be struck. The concepts and ideas behind the new classes and races are solid, but some of the names aren't.
You could throw the argument back at me and say, "elves are a D&Dism, many S&S worlds don't have them", but I'd defuse your argument by saying they have strong, strong, strong mythological basis and resonance. Wizards and magic likewise have strong mythological resonance, and belong. Eladrin don't, they're just a made-up word with no meaning, and it shows, which is a pity, because the concept behind them is strong and would fit...but with a name like that they don't belong in the core of the game, IMO.
What's in a name? A lot of information, and given that races and classes have their concept as their raison d'etre, the whole reason for bothering with a class system in the first place, IMO there's no room for compromise. Warlock is an excellent choice, warlord really poor, IMO. Needs to go back to the drawing board for something less specific in meaning.
Of course, nothing's perfect, and the game needs to compromise between the needs of D&D as a game and a simulation. But on the whole, if I could wipe out some of the more glaring D&Disms in the core (e.g. clerics, vancian magic, double weapons) without hurting the game elements of D&D, I'd do it. You'd end up with a very flexible palette to make S&S worlds with, which D&D already is to an extent...except for the D&Disms, and now they're adding some more unnecessarily, just based on some weird names. Remember that a whole lot of the appeal of D&D is as a fantasy world construction kit - WOTC should realise this by noting that the majority of players homebrew.
That's not to say don't have double weapons, classes with names like "hexblade", robot PCs, psionics, magic trains and such...just please put them somewhere optional, where they belong.
Last edited:
