Why all the fiendish love?

[Wormwood]

So even if tieflings start at 3rd ed caliber, they could grow to better resemble, say, modern half-fiends.

Oh, yes please!

 

[Celebrim]

Perhaps broadening the image of D&D beyond of "you play members of the Fellowship of the Rings" could appeal to a segment of that audience?

Bitter?

That description of play or party composition hasn't really ever been true, and it certainly hasn't been true during the last 20 years or so (with the possible exception of Birthright, which hardly anyone remembers). You'd have to go back to the early '70's to hear anyone describe D&D that way except as an attempt to poison the well.

 

[Imp]

As written, sure. But remember that playable races in 4th ed are supposedly much more detailed and get better as you go up in levels. So even if tieflings start at 3rd ed caliber, they could grow to better resemble, say, modern half-fiends.

Oh, that is my hope. I'm not after cutting them out necessarily, I just have the vague hope of making people aware that they need a lot of work before they become a really fun concept. That is, if they aren't already... it seems pretty obvious.

 

[GreatLemur]

The other issue is that "kewl things" are not going to appeal to anyone unless they can manage to advertise those "kewl things". Very few people are going to pick up a core book and read it for themselves in a bookstore. So, "kewl things" like Tieflings are not going to sell product because nobody's really going to know about it outside of the current grognards.

Maybe that's why they put one on the cover.

But really, it's worth pointing out that word-of-mouth is a bigger factor, here. I don't think many people get started playing RPGs because they pick up a rulebook at Borders without ever having heard of it before. People get started because some gamer friend of theirs proposes the idea, and then tells them what they can do and be in that game. Since I've been sick of elves and dwarves for the past decade and a half, I've gotta think including something more unusual in the core books is a good move.

That description of play or party composition hasn't really ever been true, and it certainly hasn't been true during the last 20 years or so (with the possible exception of Birthright, which hardly anyone remembers). You'd have to go back to the early '70's to hear anyone describe D&D that way except as an attempt to poison the well.

That seems like a pretty accurate desciption of the core races, to me. Sure, you've also got half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes, but that doesn't really take the party demographic very far out of Lord of the Rings territory. (Of course, if you go outside the core races it's a whole different story, but I think what we're discussing here is the core, right?)

 

[Wormwood]

That seems like a pretty accurate desciption of the core races, to me. Sure, you've also got half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes, but that doesn't really take the party demographic very far out of Lord of the Rings territory. (Of course, if you go outside the core races it's a whole different story, but I think what we're discussing here is the core, right?)

Correct. Broad strokes and core assumptions are what I am referring to.

We D&D players already know that D&D can be more than just elves, dwarves and wizards.

My question is . . . does anyone else?

 

[see]

What about tabletop roleplayers who simply don't play D&D.

Perhaps broadening the image of D&D beyond of "you play members of the Fellowship of the Rings" could appeal to a segment of that audience?

The segment just isn't that big. The vast majority of tabletop gamers play D&D; the vast majority of the ones who don't are gamers who used to play D&D, and quit. The never-played-D&D segment of TRPG players is tiny.

 

[Felon]

The segment just isn't that big. The vast majority of tabletop gamers play D&D; the vast majority of the ones who don't are gamers who used to play D&D, and quit. The never-played-D&D segment of TRPG players is tiny.

Do you have data you can produce to back these claims up? D&D is the dominant game, that can be accepted on face value, but terms like "vast majority" and "tiny" require some backing up.

 

[KarinsDad]

What about tabletop roleplayers who simply don't play D&D.

Perhaps broadening the image of D&D beyond of "you play members of the Fellowship of the Rings" could appeal to a segment of that audience?

Possibly, but this sounds like speculation.

Of all of the gamers I know (which is well over a hundred), most people either play DND as their primary game system, or they refuse to play DND. Most of the those play either GURPS or Heroes (i.e. Champions, not Fantasy Hero). People tend to be stuck in their ways, so I don't see WotC pulling a lot of non-DND roleplayers into the fold. I might be mistaken, but I seriously doubt it. There seems to be a strong divide between DND players and players who don't want a level based system.

 

[Rechan]

Possibly, but this sounds like speculation.

Of all of the gamers I know (which is well over a hundred), most people either play DND as their primary game system, or they refuse to play DND.

I don't know. I got a lot of responses to my "What Else do you play?" thread.

 

[Baby Samurai]

The Tiefling in the PHB will make me think twice before I invest my money in 4e. I see it as a complete waste of space.

You would actually not buy a new edition of a game, I assume you enjoy, because they include a race you're not fond of?

My buddy hates orcs and half-orcs with a passion, but that didn't stop his enjoyment of 3rd edition.