Is D&D 4E too "far out" to expand the market easily?

[Particle_Man]

Actually, Tanis was a product of rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanis_Half-Elven

There's a bit in the wiki article about some book down the line taking a different view, but I've read about two dozen DL novels and had never heard of that. Nor would anyone who stopped at just the original trilogy.

Yikes! I only read the original trilogy and the Twins trilogy so I guess I missed that one. If it was in the original trilogy I *really* missed it, but it was a long time ago.

However, the fact that it shocked me indicates to me at least that I wasn't expecting a half-elf child to be a product of rape. It can happen, as humans rape other humans and a child can result, and I guess the authors were going for that to add pathos to the character (those awful humans!). But I wouldn't expect it to be the norm of human-elf pairings. Most of the elf stories I read either have the elves be so different that breeding with humans simply isn't possible, or has it be a result of desire on both sides (although sometimes adultery is involved, a variation on the "changeling" theme).

The only "loving parents" version of a human and orc producing a half-orc I have encountered was the parody in Order of the Stick, which was funny precisely because it was not the expected norm. Even Grunts, the 2nd most sympathetic account of Orcs I have read, has them portrayed as rapists. Only Orkworld, the most sympathetic account I have read, goes for the "doomed noble savage" archtype instead. And that was John Wick deliberately trying to redefine the orc.

So while I am shocked at Tanis's being a child of rape, I would still maintain that the expectation of a human-orc pairing would be rape (The orc as rapist, and the human as rape victim), and that half-orcs thus have an unsavory past that might put people off, in a way that they wouldn't be put off playing a Dragonborn (the "good guy strong guys").

A half-elf does not have to carry (and I think would not be presumed by most players, new or old, to carry) the connotations of child of rape, any more than a human child has to be a product of rape. Thus one can play a half-elf without worrying about rape in the near (or even distant) past if one doesn't want to.

The one common theme about half-elves is that they tend to be rare (why else would Tanis be called Tanis Half-elven, unless that was a rare thing to be?). Since the Unearthed Arcana for 1st ed AD&D (whereupon half-elves no longer monopolized the cleric-magic-user (or cleric-fighter-magic-user) multi-class niche), the makers of the 4 editions of D&D have thoughtfully accomodated the rarity of half-elves by making half-elves mechanically inferior to all other core racial options.

 

[Fenes]

The webcomic "Dungeon INC." has the half-orc be the product of a noble getting really, really drunk, and stumbling into an orc ambush on the way back from the tavern. While his comrades get killed, he mistakes the orc woman that goes for him for a beautiful human woman, and hits on her. She is flattered, and things proceed to the bedroom.

 

[haakon1]

The fact is, the anti-hero syndrome now has a reason to exist. What made the OT Star Wars so popular was its focus on rebellion, a common theme in the late 70's and early 80's. PT was popular (despite its sad writing and directing) as national pride was the norm, and EpIII came along just as Bush was beginning to lose his constituency. There is prime ground in identifying with one's time, and if there were ever a need for an anti-hero, it's now. People are sour about their current situation, not just in the united states, but around the world. They want figures to identify with, because they feel downtrodden. If you think the anti-hero is played out now, then you're going to be absolutely sick and tired of them a decade from now. Perhaps at that time it will swing around full circle to the need for puritanical heroes. But these dark times are most certainly not it.

I don't know what PT is.

I believe what made Star Wars ("A New Hope" and the universe it spawned) so popular is that it was counter-counter-culture. This was the era when America had just lost in Vietnam, we were in between two gas crises, and the global economy was in a tailspin -- a lot like now, actually.

The popular culture was full of darkness and ennui. "Good movies" were supposed to be about how the Man is keeping us down and meaningless of it all. Even action genres were about the decline of civlization and the Man With No Name or Charles Bronson gunning down masses of mooks.

Into this darkness stepped rosy-finger Lucas. Lucas studied classical mythology (Joseph Campbell's hero with a thousand faces academic work) and wrote a classic heroic myth. Lucas also studied Golden Age movies of the 1930s-1950s and borrowed liberally from them -- Westerns like "The Searchers", samurai flicks like "The Hidden Fortress", etc. He totally changed what Hollywood and popular culture focused on with the movie that created the blockbuster genre.

As for whether classical heroic storytelling or gritty anti-hero stories are more likely to draw in the masses now, let's compare the revenue for "Kung Fu Panda" -- as classic hero/martial arts story in cartoon form -- with the revenue for "Hellboy: The Golden Army" -- a classic evil-looking dude who doesn't take any crap and kicks Drow butt in bodacious ways story. I'm guessing the hero wins.

Other pop culture playoffs: Spider-Man 3 (ooh, in black!) versus 1 & 2. Or "Hancock" at the beginning of his movie versus Hancock at the end. For me, the heroic versions are more interesting.

As for what "anti-hero" means, Wikipedia and TVtropes give complicated, conflicting answers. What I mean is main characters who are characterized by their kewlness and in-your-face-itude, whose greatness comes from pwning other characters and hopping on their corpses, in contrast to the classical hero who struggles to triumph over evil within and without, for a cause greater than himself, and is neither vindictive nor cruel. Think the Predator versus Samwise Gamgee.

Back to the point here . . . umm, something about D&D? Whatever, I guess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As for whether classical heroic storytelling or gritty anti-hero stories are more likely to draw in the masses now, let's compare the revenue for "Kung Fu Panda" -- as classic hero/martial arts story in cartoon form -- with the revenue for "Hellboy: The Golden Army" -- a classic evil-looking dude who doesn't take any crap and kicks Drow butt in bodacious ways story. I'm guessing the hero wins.

Other pop culture playoffs: Spider-Man 3 (ooh, in black!) versus 1 & 2. Or "Hancock" at the beginning of his movie versus Hancock at the end. For me, the heroic versions are more interesting.

These are terrible comparisons, dude. Really terrible. Like, are you trying to make bad comparisons intentionally?

I mean, comparing an animated kid's movie with a heavy-supernatural action movie? What? Comparing a BAD movie to a GOOD movie? Huh? Why? Hancock is well known for the fact that the first half is better. Just check out reviews.

What's different nowdays is that virtually all heroes incorporate a carefully-measured dose of rebellion and anti-heroism, so drawing the distinction between hero and anti-hero has become very tricky. Hence the "confused"-seeming articles you reference. Even in Star Wars, Han Solo is I think regarded by most sane people as an "anti-hero", in that his manner, demeanour and stated desires conflict with those traditionally associated with heroes. He also shot first, lest we forget. Ultimately his actions are heroic, but the same is true of virtually every anti-hero.

I mean let's all forget that Pirates of the Carribean series of movies took close to a billion dollars three times in a row with a cast of characters the majority of whom could be described as anti-heroes.

 

[Hussar]

I mean let's all forget that Pirates of the Carribean series of movies took close to a billion dollars three times in a row with a cast of characters the majority of whom could be described as anti-heroes.

Why would you describe Captain Jack Sparrow as an anti-hero? Which other characters would you describe as anti-heroes?

 

[Corjay]

Because Sparrow is by definition a bad guy who is only after his own ends, but ends up doing the right thing when it's most important. There's no better definition of an anti-hero. He's not exactly the prince of goody-two-shoes heroes.

 

[haakon1]

Why would you describe Captain Jack Sparrow as an anti-hero?

Yes, in the sense that he's not "good".

But no, in the sense that he doesn't fit the "1990s anti-hero" archetype of an angstful jerk with an anger management problem who leaves a trail of bodies behind him and dresses like he belongs in the alt.rock video.

His reliance on cleverness and his good nature actually hint as a more classical hero, a bit more like an Erroll Flynn character than an 1990's angry at his mom character.

 

[haakon1]

These are terrible comparisons, dude. Really terrible. Like, are you trying to make bad comparisons intentionally?

It's not intentional.

 

[Hussar]

Because Sparrow is by definition a bad guy who is only after his own ends, but ends up doing the right thing when it's most important. There's no better definition of an anti-hero. He's not exactly the prince of goody-two-shoes heroes.

Yes, in the sense that he's not "good".

But no, in the sense that he doesn't fit the "1990s anti-hero" archetype of an angstful jerk with an anger management problem who leaves a trail of bodies behind him and dresses like he belongs in the alt.rock video.

His reliance on cleverness and his good nature actually hint as a more classical hero, a bit more like an Erroll Flynn character than an 1990's angry at his mom character.

Wow, how far will you guys go to not call someone evil?

This guy sold his soul to the devil so he could be a captain. He betrays everyone around him. Good nature? What good nature? Even cleverness? When is he actually clever?

That's not, "not good", that's evil.

See, angsty jerk is NOT an anti-hero. It's just an angsty jerk.

 

[Scribble]

I think the part of those movies that makes them sell so many tickets is the johhny depp part, and not so much the hero or anti-hero bit.

Also, what's her face is hot.