|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:36PM
#321
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Schwalb floated a bubble in his article. We don't "know" anything just because he posted an idea in one article.
I don't think Schwalb would be searching for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I'll take him at his word that it's an issue. Otherwise, there's no point to the developers blogging about what issues they're working on.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:57PM
#322
|
|
|
How exactly does it accomplish this? Does a lable give a "traditional-minded DM" leverage against a player? If so, how does it give any more leverage than saying "DMs should come up with a set of character creation guidelines for each campaign, weighing player input as they see fit"? How could a "trouble-making rules lawyer" use a lack of labels to argue which races are to be included in a given campaign? Doesn't saying "DMs should come up with a set of character creation guidelines for each campaign, weighing player input as they see fit" also pull the teeth of said rules lawyer? Furthermore, how does placing said lables encourage "bad behavior or bias" in a way that the latter doesn't?
A label is presumably meant to help the traditionalist say no. What other value does it have? If you've played D&D for a while, you know when things were first introduced. I don't need any help to know that drow showed up in 1E UA or that half-orcs took a siesta for part of 2E or that warforged showed up first in 3E Eberron. I bet you don't either. I don't think a new player has any reason to give a hoot.
But I have seen posters here complain about players who think anything in the PH is on the table, no matter what the DM says. I have seen DMs assert the PH classes are balanced while splat stuff isn't (separate issue but similar reasoning). I don't have these opinions or experiences, but my travels here tell me that some DMs have conflicts with players and want the rules to keep players in check when these situations arise. My take is that labels are a very heavy-handed, clunky way to do it, and that they don't go very far in treating people like adults who can resolve problems reaonably.
That's where the bad behavior and bias come in. I don't want DMs thinking the labels are a substitute for civil conversation. I don't want players getting annoyed when I have a world in which someone can't play his beloved halfling (common) yet someone else is allowed to play a shifter (rare). I'd rather see every group make an effort to communicate and compromise than try to use these rarity tags as a substitute for common sense and reason.
What makes WotC think they can decide what race is common, uncommon or rare in my campaign world?
Well, thankfully they're not deciding that at all. Again, you're reading into it something that's not there.
You really don't think that slapping 'rare' or 'common' on a race will confuse anyone? Why would people read that as some kind of meta-label ("rare in fantasy settings as a whole, wtfever that means") versus a more useful statement about a campaign world?
"Can I be a dark elf if Bobby already is one? It says they're rare so maybe that's weird."
"Sure - the 'rare' just means you'll rarely be allowed to play onein D&D as a whole ."
"Oh you mean most other DMs wouldn't say yes?"
"I guess so... I haven't done a survey or anything."
Seriously, could it be any less intuitive?
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 6:22PM
#323
|
|
|
the core player's handbook should be settingless. it should not imply anything more then "here are a bunch of races, classes & rules to play the game".
I dont agree - even if it is nothing more then the 4e "points of light" setting, it needs some kind of default gateway if only to put everything in perspective.
ie Warforged are supposed to be "rare" compared to what?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 6:28PM
#324
|
|
|
the core player's handbook should be settingless. it should not imply anything more then "here are a bunch of races, classes & rules to play the game".
I dont agree - even if it is nothing more then the 4e "points of light" setting, it needs some kind of default gateway if only to put everything in perspective.
ie Warforged are supposed to be "rare" compared to what?
I agree with you about the default setting. Besides, if they had a default setting, then they could have a page that illustrates the idea that some races are (insert tag here) when they would be (insert tag here) in another setting. A default setting feeds right into the setting-specific concept of races because they will need to specify that the default assumptions for that setting don't necessarily apply to other settings, especially homebrew ones.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 6:32PM
#325
|
|
|
The rarity listing suggests two things to me, one, that the race in question does some non-standard stuff that can turn the tide of certain types of adventures (warforged: immunities, drow: spell resistance et al, eladrin: teleport) or that in default campaigns the race may be literally rare to see walking around in a village (duergar, tiefling etc.).
I wouldn't deny a 4th edition players PC wishes but I own many, many, 1st edition modules that would snap if a Warforged was one of the PCs. Warforged, Thri-Kreen, and Drow completely change the way a party makes camp at night, explores the wilderness/underdark.
As new PC races are introduced they would fall into one of the categories based on default usage. A Bugbear may be considered uncommon, while a Meazel might be considered rare. As with my previous example of the Drows fiend folio frequency of Very Rare (at best) the race in question can have whole cities and culture attached to it later or it can be reduced to none in any given campaign.
The article didn't seem to say that mechanics played a role in these labels. If a lot of 3E game mechanics (immunities and spell resistance, for example) are prominently featured in DDN, then that would make some sense. But even if this labeling scheme is concerned with races that change how the party operates, why not worry about elves, who can trance, and dwarves, who can see in the dark depending on edition? Why are gnomes in a different tier - is it the ability to speak to burrowing mammals? And half-elves - what's their secret weapon? I don't see it. This seems to begin and end with tradition. It's fine with me if someone's campaign works that way - why does the game have to take extra steps to endorse that?
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 6:33PM
#326
|
|
|
Schwalb floated a bubble in his article. We don't "know" anything just because he posted an idea in one article.
I don't think Schwalb would be searching for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I'll take him at his word that it's an issue. Otherwise, there's no point to the developers blogging about what issues they're working on.
Even a designer can be wrong, and from the feedback here it seems he was at least partially wrong after all. I too am against such a classification. Make it clear that racial options are to be discussed before the actual game, and that a DM can ban a race, if he absolutely must. Make it also clear to DM's that they should always consider what their players want and maybe budge a little to allow a race, even if they personally don't like them all that much.
Beyond that? Nothing. Leave out any nonsense like rarity and other labels. Present all races equally. Including Tieflings and Dragonborn.
Because if someone can't swallow this tiny bit, then why should anyone else swallow some of the other stuff we don't like? Why do I have to put up with chiefly vancian classes, if we can't ask some grognard to jump over his shadow that - GASP! there exists a race that is not utterly overused already?
Leave that stuff out for good. It's up to the group or the world-builder(s) to decide what is rare and what is not. The basic manual should never use such labels.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 6:50PM
#327
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
@MechaPilot
I think they should have a lightweight implied D&D setting. Nentir Vale in fact is fine for me. Other than what they did to the Forgotten Realms, I never had much problem with 4e fluff.
I think these should be the implied setting commonalities if they must exist (again I prefer a strong paragraph).
Common: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing
Uncommon: Gnome, Half-Orc
Rare: Dragonborn, Tiefling
Now if you notice I chose those races based on their frequency of appearance in Players Handbook 1. That was my criterion - how common they are in D&D 1e through 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 7:15PM
#328
|
|
|
@MechaPilot
I think they should have a lightweight implied D&D setting. Nentir Vale in fact is fine for me. Other than what they did to the Forgotten Realms, I never had much problem with 4e fluff.
I think these should be the implied setting commonalities if they must exist (again I prefer a strong paragraph).
Common: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing
Uncommon: Gnome, Half-Orc
Rare: Dragonborn, Tiefling
Now if you notice I chose those races based on their frequency of appearance in Players Handbook 1. That was my criterion - how common they are in D&D 1e through 4e.
That would work for me, so long as it was explained that 1) those rarities were specifically for that setting, 2) that DMs were free to alter them if they choose to, 3) that other settings will likely have other rarities, 4) that rarity doesn't mean only one player can choose to play a given rare race, 5) that rarity is a matter of population and is not a commentary on the race's power level.
Of course, given how much will need to be explained about the rarities for them to do it properly, rarities will have to be accompanied by at least 2-3 paragraphs in addition to the paragraph about checking with your DM for approval.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 7:17PM
#329
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Schwalb floated a bubble in his article. We don't "know" anything just because he posted an idea in one article.
I don't think Schwalb would be searching for a solution to a nonexistent problem. I'll take him at his word that it's an issue. Otherwise, there's no point to the developers blogging about what issues they're working on.
Even a designer can be wrong
A designer can be wrong about the solution, but it's unlikely they'd misidentify the problem. And since I've heard people complain about tieflings and dragonborn being in the PHB, I'm inclined to agree with him that it's a problem. But I'm alos beginning to recognize that any solution begets other problems, which is why I think this may be unsolveable and that saddens me, because it may be that the D&D consumership is irrevocably fractionalized. It may be they are even prone to fractionalization, which means that eventually, it won't just be Hasbro that doesn't see worthwhile profits. This hobby could end up going the way of ham radio.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 7:23PM
#330
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I am not against a D&D Next "Red Box" if you will. I wouldn't buy it or encourage anyone else to though. If WotC thinks the market is there and it solves some of these "core vs. non-core" issues, I'd say go for it.
Just, uh, think of it as a ten-dollar buy-in, or a quick buy for the guy who shows up and just uses everyone else's books.
|
|
|
