D&D 4E Why I'm "Meh" About 4E

[Dausuul]

It isn't as easy as using the new rules and saying "Sorry, but tieflings, eladrin, and dragonborn don't exist in my world." That will just cause long faces and resentment among my players. I have a hard enough time keeping "optional" races like illumians and raptorans out of my campaigns as it is. I don't think it would be as simple a matter to keep core races out of the game. Imagine sitting down to play a 3E game to hear the DM tell you "Sorry, but elves don't exist in my world." As a long-time player of primarily elf characters, such a campaign probably wouldn't hold much interest for me.

My own solution to a similar problem has been to find out why exactly my players want to be race X, and then come up with a new race that meets their requirements while still being appropriate to my campaign world. So there are no dragonborn in my planned 4E setting, but there is a race called furies which use dragonborn stats and fulfill a similar "warrior race" role. And tieflings don't have horns or big long tails.

The thing is... people will still show up to your gaming table wanting to play tieflings and dragonborn. The only difference is that now, not only will you not be allowing them to play the race they want, you won't be allowing them the edition they want, either. What's the gain?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm fairly "pro-4e", but I disagree. If I want my game to be "as fun as possible for players" and also want to run a campaign based on Pax Romana, then elves, dwarves, dragonborn, teiflings, etc. don't fit and neither do psions or laser guns. Maximizing fun, would require me to restrict choices for the players.

Thaumaturge.

I'd say in this case, unless your players are dumb, they won't WANT to play elves in a Pax Romana campaign, so you won't have to "restrict" anything.

If your players really really want to play elves and don't care that it'd mess up the setting, then "maximizing fun" might well entail not playing that campaign.

The OP's case is a bit more of a gray area, but I'd say he should explain to his players why he wants to get rid of certain races, and if they still disagree, he should be ready to either lay down the law or else make some concessions. Sticking with 3.5 so he can claim that dragonborn "aren't core in THIS edition" seems like a silly way of avoiding confrontation.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Generally speaking... getting a game together doesn't necessarily involve telling 4-6 other people that they're going to play in your vision and like it. Knowing what your players like and what kind of consensus you can all find is part of DMing. For example, if you know that the majority of your players cannot control themselves when it comes to wanting new splatbook stuff and will absolutely leave and play something else if you go hacking out big chunks of material (and may not be easily replaced), then that's totally different from being in a group where people don't really care all that much and just want to play whatever (or are enthused about your vision).

If your group are splatbook addicts, then 3.5 allows you to limit how much you have to say no... because there are no more new splatbooks!

I'm guessing the people who say "Let me play a warforged psion or else I quit" today are the same people who will be saying "Let me play 4e or else I quit" in six months... and either way, good riddance!

 

[Voss]

Last time I checked, high elves and grey elves didn't have an innate teleportation ability.
It doesn't really sound like eladrin are 'just high elves' to me.

I can sympathize with the races issue though. I expect to turn off some potential players (at least there is the possibility of people walking away) for my own setting, since most of the races are getting the ax. Along with a fair bit of the sillier fluff. I'm trying to convince myself its a weeding out process, however.

On the other hand, I wouldn't ever want to run a 3rd edition train-wreck game, or go back to clunk that is 2nd. At this point the only other edition I'd actually be willing to run is BXCMI, but finding people for that would be... difficult.

 

[Craw Hammerfist]

Imagine sitting down to play a 3E game to hear the DM tell you "Sorry, but elves don't exist in my world."

Been there, it made no difference. I have played in several home brew worlds that exclude "core" races. It never bothered me or any of the other players. As a DM, I'm not shy about excluding something. I hate double weapons. Two bladed swords/axes, direflails, etc. don't show in my game. Purely a pet peeve. None of my players complained (I'm not sure they even noticed.) Of course, I typically game in the 30+ crowd and mature gamers tend to be less hung up on getting to play some specific combination. This is not to say that younger gamers are less mature...OK, well actually it is to say that.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm fairly "pro-4e", but I disagree. If I want my game to be "as fun as possible for players" and also want to run a campaign based on Pax Romana, then elves, dwarves, dragonborn, teiflings, etc. don't fit and neither do psions or laser guns. Maximizing fun, would require me to restrict choices for the players.

Thaumaturge.

.....I agree in a technical sense, but when I hear DMs express this sort of opinion, it makes me leery of them and their games. I guess I've been burned too many times by DMs who feel that their decision not to permit something counts as world-building, and therefore justifies itself.

 

[Vayden]

You could always try Dausuul's mechanic - "slap a fresh skin on it and ignore the odd muscles underneath" - I'm going to be in his first 4E game, and I'm gung-ho to play a Dragonborn, but I'll be playing a Fury instead. The parts I wanted (sweet melee positive race and honor-bound mercenary culture) and the parts he wants (nothing with scales). I'm mildly bummed, but it's a good compromise. For Greyhawk, a particularly militaristic clan of dwarves or nomadic humans would have fit my wants just as well as Dausuul's Furies.

 

[Cadfan]

Been there, it made no difference. I have played in several home brew worlds that exclude "core" races. It never bothered me or any of the other players. As a DM, I'm not shy about excluding something. I hate double weapons. Two bladed swords/axes, direflails, etc. don't show in my game. Purely a pet peeve. None of my players complained (I'm not sure they even noticed.) Of course, I typically game in the 30+ crowd and mature gamers tend to be less hung up on getting to play some specific combination. This is not to say that younger gamers are less mature...OK, well actually it is to say that.

Are you saying that a group of people who ban OTHER PLAYERS from using weapons they think are dumb is a more mature group than the people who feel kind of put out that some dudes forbid their character access to a weapon choice based on a pet peeve?

 

[rkanodia]

Are you saying that a group of people who ban OTHER PLAYERS from using weapons they think are dumb is a more mature group than the people who feel kind of put out that some dudes forbid their character access to a weapon choice based on a pet peeve?

QFT. To counter the anecdotal evidence given above, I will say that I have become less of a 'whittler' as I get older, turning instead to a 'big-tent' mentality. Want to play a loxo hexblade? Sure, why not - it's no skin off of my teeth. Finding a 'place' for pretty much anything in a campaign world is trivial.

 

[Thaumaturge]

.....I agree in a technical sense, but when I hear DMs express this sort of opinion, it makes me leery of them and their games. I guess I've been burned too many times by DMs who feel that their decision not to permit something counts as world-building, and therefore justifies itself.

Oh no doubt. I have played under a few heavy-handed DMs who thought they were Hollywood directors, and the players had better respect their "author-i-ty". Conversely, I have played in a few very gripping campaigns which had such limitations. Limitations don't make the DM heavy-handed. The DM being heavy-handed makes the DM heavy-handed.

Thaumaturge.