Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9298053" data-attributes="member: 18">I mean, &quot;all X race&quot; campaigns don't really count, because they're premised on that, so completely artificial. We can exclude them from consideration.Likewise if you force people to pick from human, dwarves and gnomes, you're not &quot;giving gnomes more of a spotlight&quot;, you're explicitly forcing people in a trinary choice (I mean I'm assuming from how you've phrased it they couldn't - or were strongly discouraged from - picking other races). That's like saying, if you just delete elves as a choice, elves aren't very popular! It's not proving the point you think it proves at all. Basically the sort of players who want to play a &quot;learned&quot; or &quot;erudite&quot; race just going to shift from High Elf or w/e to Gnome.Also, my brother in Garl, 2 out of 9 is still low! You gave people 3 races to pick from, and still only 2 of them picked Gnome. That's demonstrating real unpopularity.The question is whether they actually get played when there's a genuine choice, rather than when people are explicitly delimited into situations where they're the only choice or one of few (where they still seem to be unpopular!). And I've seen precisely one (1) gnome since the 1990s (where I saw I think 2, over the entire decade, and that was with far more limited race choices), and that was 4E gnome, and it was picked specifically for the connection to the Feywild, a connection which has since been severed (rather bizarrely, frankly).I've seen a slightly larger number of halflings, but not a significant number. I couldn't even begin to count the number of Tieflings or Dragonborn I've seen since 4E (and indeed Tieflings were common in 2E, and only not so in 3E because they had an LA of +1 but completely lacked the abilities to remotely justify that and had a CHA penalty, which was completely insane* - even 2E ones had a CHA bonus - might as well give Elves a DEX penalty!).* = I don't think the writer was insane to be clear - I'm pretty sure they just absolutely hated Tieflings, because they significantly changed the lore behind them from 2E - making them much more &quot;default evil&quot;, changed the stat bonuses in a bizarre way, and gave them pretty crap abilities for their +1 LA.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9298053, member: 18"] I mean, "all X race" campaigns don't really count, because they're premised on that, so completely artificial. We can exclude them from consideration. Likewise if you force people to pick from human, dwarves and gnomes, you're not "giving gnomes more of a spotlight", you're explicitly forcing people in a trinary choice (I mean I'm assuming from how you've phrased it they couldn't - or were strongly discouraged from - picking other races). That's like saying, if you just delete elves as a choice, elves aren't very popular! It's not proving the point you think it proves at all. Basically the sort of players who want to play a "learned" or "erudite" race just going to shift from High Elf or w/e to Gnome. Also, my brother in Garl, 2 out of 9 is still low! You gave people 3 races to pick from, and still only 2 of them picked Gnome. That's demonstrating real unpopularity. The question is whether they actually get played when there's a genuine choice, rather than when people are explicitly delimited into situations where they're the only choice or one of few (where they still seem to be unpopular!). And I've seen precisely one (1) gnome since the 1990s (where I saw I think 2, over the entire decade, and that was with far more limited race choices), and that was 4E gnome, and it was picked[I] specifically[/I] for the connection to the Feywild, a connection which has since been severed (rather bizarrely, frankly). I've seen a slightly larger number of halflings, but not a significant number. I couldn't even begin to count the number of Tieflings or Dragonborn I've seen since 4E (and indeed Tieflings were common in 2E, and only not so in 3E because they had an LA of +1 but completely lacked the abilities to remotely justify that and had a CHA penalty, which was [I]completely insane*[/I] - even 2E ones had a CHA bonus - might as well give Elves a DEX penalty!). * = I don't think the writer was insane to be clear - I'm pretty sure they just absolutely hated Tieflings, because they significantly changed the lore behind them from 2E - making them much more "default evil", changed the stat bonuses in a bizarre way, and gave them pretty crap abilities for their +1 LA. [/QUOTE]

Verification