Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[Falling Icicle]

Everyone has to make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis for what character concepts they want to allow. I'm just trying to point out that the DM should be making this decision only to maximize total player enjoyment. When the players enjoy themselves, the DM does too... at least, that's how it works for me.

I disagree. As another poster pointed out, would you allow space marines in your D&D game to "maximize total player enjoyment?" If a player insisted on playing such a character, I would ask them why they cant have any fun playing something that's available in the world. If a player refuses to play anything other than a Dragonborn, I would posit that it's the player, not the DM that is being unreasonable.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No one has a problem with this when it is true.

The problems happen when its not true, but the DM says it anyways as a cover for just not liking tieflings. Then you get into conflict, because the DM is implicitly saying "I think your character idea is lame/nerdy/immature/munchkin, and would prefer you pretend to be something mature and grown-up, like a short hairy fat man with alcohol abuse problems. And I'm going to use my informal authority as the DM to force you to do it, too."

At that point, you find a new DM, simple as that.

Here's the thing: the DM DOES have complete control over the setting. That's why he's the DM. That's his job. A good DM isn't a dick about it, and a bad one you leave.

Oh, you mean a game we can just sit down and play, instead of some fan-wankery world-building exercise that has to take place to provide a common point of reference?



Oh noes, they're actually reaching out to the majority of gamers that don't have much time to do that stuff, instead of the Doug Douglason Portals Into a Realm of Epic Gygaxian Fantasy DMs who spend weeks determining the economic structure of lands half-a-world away from their current campaigns.

One man's problem is another man's solution.

You're not so good at debate.

First of all, I would hesitate from calling all homebrew "fan-wankery world building exercises," as it is, at best, stupid and wrong. Secondly, I'm sure some gamers DON'T have that much time, and there's nothing wrong with preset worlds (I'm a fan of quite a few, myself). But I maintain that the CORE RULES shouldn't involve the fluff; instead, books for the actual campaign should have the fluff. That way you can seamlessly shift from one setting to the other or to homebrew if you want.

 

[Kordeth]

You know. Aside from a Single Feat name (Golden Wyvern Adept) and the wizard implement article from what was it, November, we haven't seen hide nor hair of any indication of Setting Material in the classes.

And in fact, a more recent post from...I think WotC_Miko confirmed that the phrase "Golden Wyvern Adept" appears nowhere in the PHB, so even that's not an issue.

And really people, with the sole exception of being a proper noun, is "Tieflings originated in an ancient empire called Bael Turath" any more "built-in fluff" than "dwarves live in mountains and don't get on well with elves?" I think not.

 

[Lizard]

Oh, like the "dwarves hate giants" and "dwarves hate orcs/goblinoids" fluff that turned into mechanics, so I had Greyhawk dwarf fluff entwined with my game? Or the "elves get trained with swords and bows" stuff which defines some characteristics of elven society for me (obviously of a martial bent if ALL elves are trained in weaponry)?

Yeah, that's easily ignored.

"Dwarves have +1 vs. giants" == a nice springboard for creativity. WHY? Do they train against large foes? Is it a gift from the gods? Do giants just have trouble hitting dwarves? It distinguishes dwarves mechanically without forcing anything into the world. Every DM can look at this and have it inspire him, or he can just say "Whatever, that's just how it is." and move on. He doesn't have to rip anything out, because there's nothing there.

"Dwarves have +1 vs giants because during the Great Wars of the First Aeon, the Giant Gods dids't smite the great dwarf city of Beirstine, and thence did the king of the dwarves, Drunkbeard the First, say unto the gods...."== straitjacket which must be purged before any real work can be done.

One gives a fact and says:"Create a reason!" The other slams a mess of assumptions into your face.

Oh, you mean a game we can just sit down and play, instead of some fan-wankery world-building exercise that has to take place to provide a common point of reference?

How do you reconcile this with "Well, anyone who doesn't like the names can change them!"? Either we're all supposed to rip out the flavor text (losing the common reference point), or we're just supposed to suck it up. Pick one, please.

(And, likewise, why is it when I ask for just such a baseline for mechanics that matter -- see the succubus thread and it's many digressions -- I'm told "That's not how 4e does things!" A shared baseline of fluff and roll-your-own mechanics is about the OPPOSITE of good game design.

Oh noes, they're actually reaching out to the majority of gamers that don't have much time to do that stuff, instead of the Doug Douglason Portals Into a Realm of Epic Gygaxian Fantasy DMs who spend weeks determining the economic structure of lands half-a-world away from their current campaigns.

One man's problem is another man's solution.

It takes five minutes to whip up some pseudo-Tolkien drivel about why elves hate dwarves and get on with the orc-bashin'. For Ghu's sake, I was making my first (crappy) D&D world about 6 hours after I played my first game and a month before I got the rules! It's not hard to sketch enough of a world to start playing in, and you can fill it out later. Hell, I did some of my best worldbuilding with the old Judge's Guild book of random names. ("Lessee, King (roll) Olaf the (roll) Troll (roll) burner. Olaf Trollburner. Hmm. OK, there was a big invasion of trolls, and Olaf summoned some wizards and fireballed 'em all, which burned out the forest of..(roll) Broken (roll) Crystal..." If you want to write the next great fantasy novel, it might take time. If you just want to hammer up the flimsy stage dressing needed for your first dungeon crawl, it's trivial. Really. It is. And the game books should show this and encourage it and get people creating again. The ability to create, or adventure in, a world which is truly your own is one of the things which sets roleplaying apart from MMORPGs, and it needs to be encouraged as the fun part of the game, not sneered at as a chore someone must be forced to do. You don't HAVE to build a world..you GET to build a world. What's cooler than that? Who doesn't want to be God?)

 

[Lizard]

And in fact, a more recent post from...I think WotC_Miko confirmed that the phrase "Golden Wyvern Adept" appears nowhere in the PHB, so even that's not an issue.

And I can't help imagining this change was due to persistant whining.

And really people, with the sole exception of being a proper noun, is "Tieflings originated in an ancient empire called Bael Turath" any more "built-in fluff" than "dwarves live in mountains and don't get on well with elves?" I think not.

I think so.

How do you propose we resolve this conflict?

(I'd be happy with "Tieflings are the descendants of an ancient people which made a pact with dark forces." This leaves all the details up to the DM, while still defining the race and explaining its powers. You have a lot more freedom. Was it an empire or a small cult? Which dark forces? Are they still around? Gods or demons? Do they patronize the Tieflings or not? Etc, etc, etc. Good fluff should inspire creativity by getting the DM to ask questions of himself; bad fluff gives you all the answers. (Note this applies to core rules, not to setting books, obviously.))

 

[Kordeth]

"Dwarves have +1 vs. giants" == a nice springboard for creativity. WHY? Do they train against large foes? Is it a gift from the gods? Do giants just have trouble hitting dwarves? It distinguishes dwarves mechanically without forcing anything into the world. Every DM can look at this and have it inspire him, or he can just say "Whatever, that's just how it is." and move on. He doesn't have to rip anything out, because there's nothing there.

"Dwarves have +1 vs giants because during the Great Wars of the First Aeon, the Giant Gods dids't smite the great dwarf city of Beirstine, and thence did the king of the dwarves, Drunkbeard the First, say unto the gods...."== straitjacket which must be purged before any real work can be done.

Have we seen any 4E racial abilities that are described in this manner? Because all I've seen is "eladrin can teleport 5 squares once per encounter" or "dwarves are moved one less square when subject to a push, pull, or slide." Period. End of list. Once again, "tieflings come from Bael Turath" is exactly as much fluff as "dwarves come from mountains," with one proper noun being the only difference. There's been absolutely no evidence of in-depth setting fluff as the basis for powers anywhere in what we've seen of 4E.

How do you reconcile this with "Well, anyone who doesn't like the names can change them!"? Either we're all supposed to rip out the flavor text (losing the common reference point), or we're just supposed to suck it up. Pick one, please.

Umm....players who like/don't care about the core fluff can run right out of the box, players who don't can easily strip the fluff out? It's not like it's a binary situation here.

The ability to create, or adventure in, a world which is truly your own is one of the things which sets roleplaying apart from MMORPGs, and it needs to be encouraged as the fun part of the game, not sneered at as a chore someone must be forced to do. You don't HAVE to build a world..you GET to build a world. What's cooler than that? Who doesn't want to be God?)

World building is awesome. World-building is fun. World-building is bloody time-consuming. Some folk have time to build a world, and that's awesome. Me, I work anywhere from 40-60 hours a week depending on how crunched we are, and I have other commitments outside that. If it's a choice between using my D&D prep time to flesh out the background of my campaign world or prep an actual adventure I can actually run for actual players--I'd rather use the core-book fluff and spend the time designing and building a kick-butt adventure.

And really--has anybody who has a problem with the core books including some light fluff actually met a player or DM who was utterly paralyzed in his world-building abilities by book-related fluff. Is there a single world-builder out there incapable of saying "okay, forget the books, in my world stuff works like this?"

 

[The Little Raven]

"Dwarves have +1 vs. giants" == a nice springboard for creativity. WHY? Do they train against large foes? Is it a gift from the gods? Do giants just have trouble hitting dwarves? It distinguishes dwarves mechanically without forcing anything into the world.

Have you actually read the entry? It explicitly tells you why they have it: special training that dwarves undergo, during which they learn tricks that previous generations developed in their battles with giants.

One gives a fact and says:"Create a reason!" The other slams a mess of assumptions into your face.

Wrong, since learning "tricks that previous generations developed in their battles with giants" slams you with the assumption that dwarves have long fought giants in order to develop techniques that every single dwarf has.

How do you reconcile this with "Well, anyone who doesn't like the names can change them!"?

I don't. World-builders (being "advanced" players) will build worlds, regardless of what any core material says. People who just want to play the game will be able to just use the core material as written. Nothing to reconcile.

(And, likewise, why is it when I ask for just such a baseline for mechanics that matter -- see the succubus thread and it's many digressions -- I'm told "That's not how 4e does things!" A shared baseline of fluff and roll-your-own mechanics is about the OPPOSITE of good game design.

Don't ask me about things that happen in threads I don't read, because I won't give you an answer.

What's cooler than that?

Being able to play a game without having to build a world because there's an implied setting that does the heavy lifting for me.

 

[Spatula]

....and the implied setting debate rears its ugly head again. There goes that thread.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Seriously? You people worry about an implied setting? Seriously?
This is your problem? That WotC gives you suggestions for the flavor text of your game, that you are under no compunction to accept whatsoever?
Good gravy.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Seriously? You people worry about an implied setting? Seriously?
This is your problem? That WotC gives you suggestions for the flavor text of your game, that you are under no compunction to accept whatsoever?
Good gravy.

The worry, albeit possibly unfounded, is that WotC will be TOO drawn into the fluff for the 4e setting, which will make transitioning into a different setting to be more difficult and irritable then neccisary.