Flavour matters

[GreatLemur]

So, if they are 95+% human, why are they needed in the PHB again? Why do they have special powers? Why isn't there ones only two or a few generations removed? Do tieflings mate with other tieflings, or with humans, or with both? Do all tieflings have the same powers (indicating the same tainted blood) or could there be demon-tieflings and devil-tieflings and other outsider type tieflings with different abilities? Do they all have horns? How many generations of breeding with Humans does it take for them to not be a Tiefling anymore?

We'll let you know when the game is released.

I wasn't aware that this had gone away......?

Seriously? The PCs in my games reliably end up being all or mostly human.

 

[Desdichado]

I wasn't aware that this had gone away......?

I am. I have more human characters than anything else by far (as player and DM). Probably than human characters than all other races combined, even.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seriously? The PCs in my games reliably end up being all or mostly human.

Well, there is a forum on EN World to post characters. We could easily examine the posted characters and see how many are human. IME, and from my perusal of the same, less than 50% of all characters are human.

We could also sample, say, the first 100 PBP threads on EN World, and I imagine that we'd get the same results.

RC

 

[Wombat]

A popular campaign setting, or a one-off book built around an established cool idea, is a good thing. But keep the raw guts of the game as unrestrictive as possible.

You see, I go just the opposite.

I don't believe there is a good "generic system" and I don't think there should be a generic system.

I prefer a system that emulates a specific (or at least a type of ) setting, rather than forcing a setting to conform to a given set of rules. This is an important concept to me.

One of the problems I find with systems like Heroes, GURPS, and the like is that they are flavourless -- in trying to do everything concievable, from Grim And Gritty to Wuxia, they became incredibly vague, thus, to my mind, do nothing particularly well.

Now D&D is not a generic system. D&D does D&D very well, but no other fantasy setting at all, to my mind -- not Arthurian literature, not Tolkein, not Conan, not Earthsea, not Game of Thrones. Instead, you are expected to shoehorn the "realities" of those settings into the odd tropes of class, alignment, level, XP, and suchlike, which tends to leave the settings looking very odd and not very much like their original vision. On the other hand, if you want to emulate Eberron or the Planes, D&D does a fantastic job.

So, yes, I'd rather that D&D be honest with itself and be D&D -- don't try to be generic, don't try to be Arthurian, Classical Mythology, or anything else. Eberron was a good example of what D&D is like -- a world that actually fits the underlying principles in the rules (a rather backwards way of creating a world to my taste, but still ultimately quite valid).

 

[BryonD]

You see, I go just the opposite.

I don't believe there is a good "generic system" and I don't think there should be a generic system.

I prefer a system that emulates a specific (or at least a type of ) setting, rather than forcing a setting to conform to a given set of rules. This is an important concept to me.

One of the problems I find with systems like Heroes, GURPS, and the like is that they are flavourless -- in trying to do everything concievable, from Grim And Gritty to Wuxia, they became incredibly vague, thus, to my mind, do nothing particularly well.

Now D&D is not a generic system. D&D does D&D very well, but no other fantasy setting at all, to my mind -- not Arthurian literature, not Tolkein, not Conan, not Earthsea, not Game of Thrones. Instead, you are expected to shoehorn the "realities" of those settings into the odd tropes of class, alignment, level, XP, and suchlike, which tends to leave the settings looking very odd and not very much like their original vision. On the other hand, if you want to emulate Eberron or the Planes, D&D does a fantastic job.

So, yes, I'd rather that D&D be honest with itself and be D&D -- don't try to be generic, don't try to be Arthurian, Classical Mythology, or anything else. Eberron was a good example of what D&D is like -- a world that actually fits the underlying principles in the rules (a rather backwards way of creating a world to my taste, but still ultimately quite valid).

You put "generic system" in quotes, and yet I never used the term.

And as I see it the rest of you post really just makes my case for me.
For starters I think a vast number of people would really disagree with you that D&D can nto handle the ideas you listed. I know I completely disagree with you.

Yes, D&D is D&D. It isn't Conan or Arthur. But you can (and I have on multiple occasions) very effective create either of these or a blend to taste.

So, may I suggest that we not go taking that away from me and instead continue to support you and me both by coupling the flexible core books with specific Eberron books.

But if you are the opposite of unrestrictive, as you yourself said, then that means you are for restrictions. I can not begin to fathom how restricting other peoples games is a good thing.

 

[kenmarable]

Responding to the original post rather than the tiefling debate, I never really took a step back and realized that about Incarnum and Tome of Magic, but that is spot on!

Now, I don't think ToM is as much of a mechanical mess as many think, but then again I use Ari's modifications to the Shadowcaster, so that certainly helps. But yes, I think the "coolness" of the fluff really helps sell books and gets people talking about them - just as long as the mechanics aren't too far gone, like it appears to most with truenaming. The implementation is far enough off that the coolness of the concept doesn't win out.

Although I'm not exactly enamored with everything they've produced, I am glad to see a set "story department" within WotC R&D. So that's certainly a step in the right direction (just so long as their stories don't always integrate so deeply with the rules that it's too hard to use my own). But creating a "story department" is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm hoping someday in 4e incarnum is revisited with a better treatment and gets the appreciation it deserves.

 

[KarinsDad]

You put "generic system" in quotes, and yet I never used the term.

And as I see it the rest of you post really just makes my case for me.
For starters I think a vast number of people would really disagree with you that D&D can nto handle the ideas you listed. I know I completely disagree with you.

Yes, D&D is D&D. It isn't Conan or Arthur. But you can (and I have on multiple occasions) very effective create either of these or a blend to taste.

It often cannot handle the ideas without house rules.

If you want Rangers without spells, you have to houserule it.

If you want magic items created by Wizards without a feat, you have to houserule it.

His point that seems to be lost in the shuffle is that DND is a specific flavor based partially on fluff and partially on crunch.

That flavor does not translate to GURPS or HEROES or even HARP (which is a Rolemaster/DND blend) at all.

And with the number of changes in 4E, it might not translate well to 4E either. Sure, there were changes in 3E, but most of them were mechanical (e.g. the introduction of AoOs, a circular initiative system, etc.).

However, there were some 3E flavor changes. All Wizards got familiars (if they want). Rangers got species enemies and lost magic user spells. Although there are rules controlling this, these are mostly flavor changes. In the large scheme of things, they are relatively minor. A player can play a Wizard without a familiar and feel like 2E. A player can play a Ranger PC without having him try to track down species enemies and the additional divine spells make up for the klunkiness of losing a few magic user spells.


But, Rangers could still cast spells in 3E (as they could in 1E and 2E). If, for example, Rangers cannot cast spells at all in 4E, that is both a crunch and fluff change where it will not feel like a DND Ranger anymore. At least for some people.

There's a major difference between modifying which spells can be cast a little and preventing spells from being cast at all.

The designers could come up with a non-divine Ranger (i.e. stealth, scouting, etc.) and it wouldn't be a DND Ranger anymore, at least IMO.


I do think that if the designers cross certain lines, the game will not feel like DND as much or maybe hardly at all. Granted, we will all get used to it, but that's not exactly the point.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I feel flavor is important, but on the campaign level (and not the rules level).

 

[wingsandsword]

I don't recall anyone complaining about the Sorcerer being several generations removed from a Dragon. There was no "OH no my PCs will be acting like their dads are Dragons", and no "So they're 5% Dragons, why are they in the PHB again?"

I recall that quite clearly, there were objections to it, but since it was minor throwaway fluff that wasn't integrated into settings much it didn't really matter. When some settings came out with their 3e versions, and you had former Wizards that were now Sorcerers (like The Symbul in Forgotten Realms), but they weren't draconic, just more "primal" wizards and less academic, the draconic heritage thing became a footnote.

However, with 4e it seems like instead of rewriting core-rules fluff to fit specific settings like dropping the draconic heritage issue in some campaign settings, in 4e they are rewriting the setting to accommodate the 4e core fluff (like the changes to Forgotten Realms revealed in The Grand History of the Realms).

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree that flavour matters; in fact, descriptions are far more important to me than the rules. I shape the rules to my descriptions and do my best to avoid restrictions from and not do the opposite.

What bothers me is sometimes folks go too far and say "System Doesn't Matter", which is just not true IMO.