Races of... contrasting views

[MerricB]

Well, it looks like Joe and I have hit the web together with our respective reviews of the final "core" book of the Races series.

For those looking to see how we marked them, here's the links:

Races of Stone: Merric: 4 stars, Joe: 4 stars
Races of Destiny: Merric: 3 stars, Joe: 4 stars
Races of the Wild: Merric: 4 stars, Joe: 3 stars

So, those are the review scores (and links) from the cynic and optimist of ENworld. Remarkably similar, aren't they?

Hopefully Joe will be along to comment, but I thought it'd be a good idea to expound my view of the series as a whole.

The "Races of..." series marks a significant departure for Wizards of the Coast from their products for the first four years of D&D 3e: it is a generic (core) series aimed at players that has a large amount of non-game material (often referred to as fluff). That is, although there are new game options for characters, a significant portion of material is aimed at enhancing the roleplaying and storytelling aspects of the game.

This approach intensified after "Races of Stone" with the new format for prestige classes introduced in "Races of Destiny" and continued in "Races of the Wild": prestige classes moved from just being a collection of abilities to also including notes as to their place in the world. (A precursor to this can be seen in the "Planar Handbook").

It also saw them move away from the strict "Greyhawk" approach to races. Thus, three new major races got introduced (Goliaths, Illumians, Raptorans) that do not have a place in the standard Greyhawk world, but provide more options to those groups who want to move away from the Greyhawkian (or Tolkienesque) versions of fantasy races.

I don't think the series was utterly successful. There are some inconsistencies between the books (RoD refers to the elves as "specialists", whilst the big change in RotW is that elves are "generalists"). Common stereotypes of races are redefined - dwarves, halflings and gnomes all had this treatment.

The least successful of these was the dwarf redefinition, probably because we're so wedded to the Tolkien and mythological traditions of dwarves.

Halflings have problems with their Tolkien origins being used in a D&D game. (Fat stay-at-homes? Hmm). So, I didn't find the redefinition of halflings to be so much of a problem. It was also expanding upon the change from when 3e first came out, anyway.

Gnomes have had an identity crisis from day one, so their redefinition as a race was wildly successful from my point of view. Anything that makes gnomes more interesting is worthwhile! (Otherwise you just get the gem merchants with stupid accents from The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun).

I do think there's a bit of the bait and switch going on here: players who obsess only over the mechanics will buy the books to make their characters stronger, and suddenly find themselves with all these hints for roleplaying. Surely this is a good move?

That is part of the impression that I get from these books: new players are going to get a lot of help from them. For me, a 20+ year veteran of D&D and fantasy in general, I don't need as much help in understanding what a dwarf is or how to play one. However, I'm currently DMing several D&D groups, and most of the players have only really been introduced to D&D - and often the Tolkienesque literature - only in the past few years. That's over ten players. Hmm.

Eventually, I am glad to have all three books sitting on my shelf. Yes, even "Races of Destiny", and I'm sure that parts of all three books will see use in my game.

Flawed, yes, but worthy additions to the D&D canon.

Cheers!

 

[Felon]

Hmm. I thought there was loads of crunch to go 'round.

They offered a full complement of new PrC's, spells, and feats. The quantity certainly fell within normal parameters compared to the monster books (Draconomicon, Libris Mortis), setting books (either FR or Eberron), or Frostburn. Pretty much the only books they fall short to by way of comparison would be the "Complete" series.

RoS and RoW both offered a lot of cool new equipment, and not just magic items either. RoS at long last made exotic armor and shields an official option, and built on the concept of weapon-style feats presented in Complete Warrior. Likewise, RoD and RoW gave us new tactical feats.

And let's not forget monster class levels for powerful races and substitution levels for core races. Heck, RoW actually gave players a solidly crunchy reason to play an elven wizard.

Sure, lots of game detail, but I dont' think crunch was played down in the least. Well, actually I think Destiny sucked pretty hard, but the other two were worth every cent. And that's the word of a bonafide crunch hog.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, granted, the Races books weren't skimpy on the crunch, but I think some simple numbers show that they were much more heavy on the fluff than the other books.

Of the books you mentioned, I think the monster books (Draoconomicon) had the most fluff. But even then, the fluff in there was one chapter, although you could two or three chapters had fluff in it. The Races books? Three or four chapters, easily, of fluff. Each devoted to a race. That's a lot. And you could argue more, since the prestige classes incorporated a lot of fluff, as did some of the rules (like the Dwarven forges, IIRC).

 

[MerricB]

Note the "aimed at players" part of that comment - I consider setting books and monster books to be DM books, regardless of the fact that players get use out of them.

Cheers!

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, true, but any fluff is a breath or fresh air when you're playing with the Complete books and the core books.

Although I think from now on, I'll recommend the Races books to my new players.

 

[Felon]

Note the "aimed at players" part of that comment - I consider setting books and monster books to be DM books, regardless of the fact that players get use out of them.

If it's provide for player use, it's obviously aimed at them. The regional feats presented in the FR setting books, for instance, are there for players.

What books do you consider to be aimed at players besides the Race and Complete books? Why do you consider the Race books to be aimed at players and not at DM's? Why don't the several chapters of fluff indicate a DM focus?

Seems like a lot of subjective criteria is being applied to make your point. /shrug

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

In general, I thought these books seemed a bit superfluous, though Merric does have some good points about using them to introduce new players to racial concepts.

Of course, one funny observation I just have to make is that the least popular one of the three, Races of Destiny, is the only one I've actually bothered to buy- mainly because it was the only of the three that had a new race I found interesting, the Illumians. I thought they had a flavor that would fit really well with Arcana Unearthed (esp. Rune magic), and plan to use them in a future campaign. Raptorans and Goliaths, on the other hand, well, didn't do much of anything for me... mainly because they're the sort of races I actively discourage in my campaigns...

 

[MerricB]

The introduction of the new races is problematic. I appreciate that they're doing it, and that they're spending space to do it right - however, if you don't like the race, you could come away from the book with a downhearted feeling.

I don't know why, but I loved the Goliaths. I really thought they were a great race - it must have been their culture, because I'm not a big fan of melee-type characters.

Illumians and Raptorans weren't anywhere near as interesting for me. However, I'm seeing different people react well to them, so it isn't a universal thing.

(Of course, people hate gnomes or half-orcs in the main game as well... or elves...)

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hmmm, I don't think the dwarves were redefined at all, and certainly not away from Tolkein. We got some details of their culture we hadn't gotten before, and a loose political structure, but it was nowhere near as big a redefinition as in "Chainmail" or even "Dwarves of Rockhome."

And while I love fluff, I think the books were actually too light on cruch. The prestige class choices were odd -- where's my gnome trickster for non-clerics? -- there were very few new spells or magic items.

And maybe I'm weird, but I don't think monsters belong in a player book. Save that stuff up for the next monster compilation and specifically market it as working well with the Races book, instead.

 

[MerricB]

I think RoD was too light on crunch; I thought RotW and RoS were about right.

My comment about the dwarven culture applies mainly to the love of gold and gems which really seems to have disappeared - not for the better, IMO.

Cheers!