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

[Leontodon]

For me the problem with the races "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" is that their symbolical value is alien to heroic fantasy. Both Races have symbolical links to the devil. The dragon being a medieval symbol for pagan beliefs and the devil himself and well the tiefling should be obvious. Deeply ingrained in their horned and red eyed image is the message that they are NOT the good guys. One could always explain the half-orc as the tragical, misunderstood loner, but now it gets very awkward with two races in the game who have the sentence:" Smash me back into hell!" written all over their faces. European culture does simply not support a positive picture for these kind of characters.

 

[Doc Eldritch]

You know, this is something that always bugged me. Half-Orcs in D&D were weaker, a little smarter, and nicer than Orcs, right?

But Tolkien's half man, half orc creatures, the Uruk-Hai, were far smarter, stronger, and far more ruthless than either orcs or men, and towered over them. Where did half-orcs in D&D even come from?

I don't think the Uruk-Hai were smarter than men. Perhaps as smart, but not smarter. Stronger and more ruthless, definitely, and more hardy than men or orcs or goblins.

 

[Plissken]

I never thought D&D had a medieval background. I always thought it was sword & sorcery, high fantasy with lots of craziness in it. 2nd ed. AD&D was very medieval european but I think the reason is because of the moral panic at the time.

 

[Korgoth]

in fact, 3E and now 4E were the only editions that gave you a reason to play a human at all.

Oh, and OD&D. And Holmes. And B/X. And BECMI. And 1E. And 2E. But aside from those...

 

[Corjay]

This is one of the few negative points regarding 4e that I can agree with. Yes, the fantasy element of 4e is a tad disconnecting because it's hard to suspend belief. I think that is a trend that began with 3e, but I think it has more to do with the art than the mechanics.

 

[rounser]

Yup, one step too "wahoo" in the core implied setting. D&D only really ever approximated generic fantasy, but this time they've gone a bridge too far and it can't even do that any more without non-trivial renovations, like ripping out eladrin, dragonborn, warlords and tieflings.

 

[AllisterH]

Eladrin? That's far-out fantasy? Isn't the eladrin/elves split simply the grey elves/forest elves split that has been true since 1e? Similarly, the warlord represents the battle captain archtype. I never would've considered those two as far out fantasies (the shapechanging druid would I suspect surprise more people).

I still wonder though, what makes half-orcs and gnomes NOT "far-out" but Dragonborn and Tieflings are?

Like I said, there's a long history in both D&D AND non D&D media where you can see "monstrous" characters like Dragonborn and Tieflings. These aren't new concepts for people to understand I would argue.

Now, GNOMES and HALF-ORCS. Again, which media influence do those harken to?

 

[rounser]

Eladrin? That's far-out fantasy?

Yup. Ask someone on the street what an eladrin is, and be prepared for a "what?" or a blank stare.

WHY OH WHY they didn't go with High Elf and Wood Elf is a mystery. Oh, wait, no it's not - Eladrin is a trademarkable name, high elf isn't....assuming that's the reason, it's a poor one, and very hard to defend. Compromise D&D for silly legal reason. It's not even a good name. "Eldar" is a good name, and this is a third rate clone of that.

blah blah gnomes and half-orcs blah blah

Mythology and Tolkienism, respectively. Everyone knows about them, names not contrived. Case closed.

 

[Corjay]

Yup. Ask someone on the street what an eladrin is, and be prepared for a "what?" or a blank stare.

WHY OH WHY they didn't go with High Elf and Wood Elf is a mystery. Oh, wait, no it's not - Eladrin is a trademarkable name, high elf isn't....assuming that's the reason, it's a poor one, and very hard to defend. Compromise D&D for silly legal reason. It's not even a good name. "Eldar" is a good name, and this is a third rate clone of that.

Mythology and Tolkienism, respectively. Everyone knows about them, names not contrived. Case closed.

The question "what's in a name?" now enters the picture. You could quote Shakespear's "woulds't a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" Come on, you call a high elf an Eladrin, and suddenly it's not a high elf? For cryin' out loud, does a Cherokee stop being Indian because you call him a Cherokee? Does a British man stop being British because you call him English?

Dude, that's just flawed. So what that the average person doesn't know what an Eladrin is. All you have to do is explain that an Eladrin is a high elf like Elron from LotR and suddenly they understand. What's the big deal? Do you know what "isospin" is? Does your not knowing somehow change that it exists?

As for whether the name is good or not, I think it's fine. I just nullified your opinion, because that's exactly what it is.

 

[rounser]

The question "what's in a name?" now enters the picture.

Would we be playing this game if it were called Eladrin & Dragonborn? No. Not iconic, not timeless, just contrived and "huh?"-creating.

And poor old Shakespeare gets trotted out every time I bring this up. Time to get critical on this out-of-context analogy:

Look, the implied setting is not a hot woman. Hot women could be called Faeces Mud or Genital Herpes, and they'd still be a hot woman, and someone would want to date them and romance them, and that's what the bard was talking about. The D&D implied setting got wrong is not a hot woman, and has no such licence to stupid names.