|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:32PM
#341
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I don’t like new coke I won’t drink new coke and you can’t make me.
But that's no excuse to complain when the local grocer stocks Dr. Pepper, nor pitch a fit when someone else decides to purchase it.
If you want to prevent people from buying Dr. Pepper, open your own grocery, and tell your customers "no" when they ask for it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:11AM
#342
|
|
|
I might have missed it (because I skimmed like crazy), but I didn't find any posts from people who admit to not playing 4E because of the fact that the PHB had tieflings and dragonborn. These are the people I would like to hear from on this issue, because I have started wondering whether rarity labels would even make a difference to them.
None of the posters said they wouldn't buy the game because it contains freak races.
I'm one of those that had an instant dislike for 4th edition because of these kind of details (freak races, wierd class presentation, very few of the traditional D&D spells). To be honest, rarity labels wouldn't have helped at all because I doubt you notice these details when you're skimming through the rules.
In the end, it's not just one thing that makes you dislike an edition, it's a multitude of little details that make you less inclined to put up with the real problems of an edition (like broken casters or very long combat).
Now that I think about it, none of the solutions I've seen would have made a difference for me when I first got my hands on 4th edition, I still would have felt unease seeing dragonborns and eladrins in the PHB. These labels really are totally useless. Either you include the freak races in the PHB and you make sure that the more traditionalist players don't have much more to complain about, either you don't include the freak races.
No matter what you do, someone will be unhappy. Just make sure that you don't give anyone too much to be unhappy about and it should be fine.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 3:50AM
#343
|
|
|
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.
A designer can and certainly will be wrong about identifying problems, regularly so, even. It's part of the job, IMO. It marks a good designer to be capable in seeing that he misidentified a problem and take it from another point of view then.
As far as fractionalization goes: Yes, but that's normal. Look at video games, for example, and see how much individual games of a series can split fans. I found Modern Warfare (the first) to be quite fun, but beginning with the second one the story got out of hand and things started to be "like the last one, just with more strange and awesome!", which didn't quite resonate with me, coming from the first one.
Fact is, one day a new game will come out that will be interesting enough to play for me and the guys whom liked MW2 and MW3, too.
The same, pretty much, happens with most things out there. Check music - how many people like album X but hate album Z of the same artist, while others love X and Z and yet another hates X's guts but epitomizes Z to be the pinnacle of all music.
Check comics. Check movies.
It's what we, as humans, are prone to do and will always do. It's inevitable. What you can't do, IMO, then, is actually design for something to collect a fractured fanbase wholly. You will end up with a thing that will likely please neither. Kalnaur states it in another thread quite fittingly - why should he put up with a new edition that does not improve on his favorite edition? Why should he buy the game when it takes more time to assemble a 4E-like game and does not actually improve upon the things he sees as flaws? Why should he? It's an extremely valid opinion, one I see close to my own, actually.
This leads me to the point in my prior posting again: If a small paragraph does not suffice to say that races can be a DM-limited choice, and that groups should talk about it, then stop right here. Race rarity will - for a lot of people - carry a connotation of "judgement" by the designers. The point was brought forward before, and it is an important one - it will imply some things to most people. ANd that's bad. Leave it at the paragraph - those that cannot bear to see a Dragonborn in the same book as an Elf... I would say they are S.O.L. then, since we already hand over an olive branch by ways of the mentioned paragraph.
This leads to DM's being able to restrict races, to players freely choosing their races in general and no value judgements implied by anyone. It is the way to make the most people happy on this non-issue. Why not simply go the way of least resistance?
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 30, 2012 - 5:15AM
#344
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
@Leichenreiter
I agree with Leichenreiter on this issue. This is not going to ever be a deal breaker. As a player I'm never going to choose my DM because of a race he allowed or banned. He either creates compelling campaigns for me or he doesn't. If he does then I don't care about which races he selects to make his next one. If I am in love with a particular race then perhaps I'd petition for a world with that race next time around if it got missed. I'd never leave a good DM over this.
@All
What insults me as a player and enjoyer of the traditional fluff is the notion I get from this article that the pro-Dragonborn/Tiefling camp are openminded and easy going and it's just us nerdrage grognards that can't get along. I'm all for anything so long as it also includes the things I like. I think races take up so little space that we honestly should have twenty. The bang for the buck is well worth it. Give me 4 races for each mathematical archetype. Instead of making humans different just give them alternate versions that are like each of the other races mathematically (not special power wise but +2 to x attribute wise). I think grognards get more angry when thier own traditions are getting destroyed and trashed (gnome for example. I've never seen a gnome played but come on just include it.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:30AM
#345
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
But that isn't a deal breaker for me. I can ignore them, Just as I do with the stuff out of Ebberon. I'd rather not have to deal with it at all, but I can live with it.
Thanks for the response. I'm glad to hear that you would not avoid D&D simply because it had some races you dislike.
Of course we all would prefer to not have to deal with things we don't like. We would all like the PHB to contain our perfect lineup of races and classes. But that isn't going to happen, because we are all different. The best option is what has been suggested by the designers: have the PHB include all the races and classes that have ever been in a PHB 1. This way you keep races like gnomes (thanks for bringing that up, Shasarak) which many people missed from the 4E PHB 1 (one of my friends, for example), but you also get to keep races like the Tiefling and Dragonborn which many people like (myself included).
What people view as cannon or core in their Dungeons And Dragons is very important to them, for me these are the core races Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling and Ork. I see no reason to include any races from fringe D&D, Dragon born, Warfarged etcetera in the player’s handbook. These races belong in their own campaign settings and not in the players hand book. I don’t like new coke I won’t drink new coke and you can’t make me. I would like to see lot of the info in the 3.5 players handbook one and two in 5th addition, what I want is a super complex character creation system with a lot of non-generic choices for my players. If rarity labels bind the races to a primary campaign setting I think there a great idea. Lots of player choice means within the structure of a campaign setting, I don’t want to see any Warforged in gray hawk, this takes something away from the uniqueness of each setting.
Bolded for emphasis.
As I said above, we all have different ideas on what we like. You even say, "for me", which made me happy. You didn't state it as an objective fact, you clearly are talking about your own preference.
But then you lose your message when you say, "I see no reason to include any races..." This is going to be a strong statement, just to warn all of you: I feel that if you can't see a reason to include anything in the game that you dislike, you shouldn't participate in the design process. We aren't designing D&D Asperdn edition here, we are designing D&D Next. The point isn't to make something perfect for YOU, but something that will be able to appeal to all of us.
You bring this point home when you say, "I don’t like new coke I won’t drink new coke and you can’t make me." No one is making you drink new coke. What you are saying is that not only will you not drink new coke, but you will boycott a store that even so much as sells new coke even if they also sell the type of coke that you prefer.
Unless the PHB is focused on an actual setting (as opposed to a generic setting like Points of Light), there is no reason why it shouldn't include more than the 5 races you view as core.
What do you mean by "If rarity labels bind the races to a primary campaign setting I think there a great idea."? Do you mean that rarity labels should refer to specific campaign settings (so for Dragonborn it might say Dark Sun Only, for example), or that rarity labels should exist to tell players how rare the races are within the generic campaign setting presented in the PHB?
If the PHB contained dragonborn and tieflings but marked them as Rare, would you then be ok with having them included?
@Gnarl: thanks for the response, it aligns with my views. If Aspardn is indicative of these sorts of players (I would like to hear from more), it doesn't seem like rarity labels will make a difference (although his last statements might imply that it would...the post was a bit contradictory throughout, which is why I asked for clarification above).
I'm sure this is clear by now, but I feel it is the absence of races that makes more of an impact than the presence of races. As I said, one of my friends was upset by the lack of gnomes in the 4E PHB. Gnomes were his favorite race, and not being able to make one was quite annoying. Not enough to prevent him from playing, but it did really bother him. This is why I support the idea of including all races and classes that have ever been in a PHB 1. If your favorite character was something that used elements from one of the many supplemental books that came out over the many, many years of D&D, you will likely understand why an exact fit doesn't exist in the PHB 1. But if your favorite is something that you could have made in the past using just the PHB 1, you have a reason to be upset if it no longer exists.
But if all of your favorite options are there, you have nothing to be upset about. The fact that there are new races that don't appeal to you shouldn't prevent you from enjoying the game. And if it does, as I said above, you shouldn't be playing a part in the design process.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:32AM
#346
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2009
|
I was one of the players who never really liked 4e, and that that impression was set fairly quickly. I can only speak for myself, but race was just one of several elements that made the edition unappealing. It wasn't like I opened the PHB, saw a tiefling as a standard race, gagged, and vowed never to touch the book again. Things just didn't feel right. On its own, I could have overlooked the races, but in combination with the other elements, foremost in my mind being the dramatic alterations to the spell and ability systems and the 'game-ization' of previously organic elements ("skill challenges", etc.), it just wasn't worth investing in.
I also began to associate it with players whose playstyle was radically different from what I was used to. I come from a background of D&D that might be labeled by some as "simulationist". To me, it just meant internal consistancy. If I do these things, appropriate concequences will happen. I am level 3, I should not expect to be given personal appointments with the king. I saw 4e players as being bred to believe that they are the center of their worlds, and preferring wish-fulfillment to role playing. Races like dragonborn and tieflings being considered standard was emblematic of this. It wasn't just that races other than the previous norm were available, it was also what they were. Has anyone else noticed the relative lack of talk about eladrin? I think it's because they don't step on these toes so hard.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with that style of play. It's just not how I saw D&D. It's not like that style of play didn't exist pre-4e either, it just seems like 4e made that the norm, and built it into the rules.
(These are, of course, generalizations.)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 8:40AM
#347
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I've never seen a gnome Tiefling played but come on just include it.)
FTFY Now does that feel better? Except I have seen a number of Deva played abd they are great.
I hate Dwarves and Halflings.... ditchem in the dirt for all I care. I know others with similar thoughts on elves saying they are the ultimate in boring fantasy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 8:55AM
#348
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2012
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />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?
I just wanted to say... I've seen less human, dwarven, and halfling Mary Sues than I did other more obscure races - in fact in a lot of cases, the more obscure the race gets the more it becomes as "special snowflake". I can't say this happens all the time, or that elves don't fall victim to it more often than not...
But I'd rather see a race be overused than an underused race used for the sole reason its "different" with a player having no real going for his character other than "he's unique and cool and stuff".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:27AM
#349
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I've never seen a gnome Tiefling played but come on just include it.)
FTFY Now does that feel better? Except I have seen a number of Deva played abd they are great.
I hate Dwarves and Halflings.... ditchem in the dirt for all I care. I know others with similar thoughts on elves saying they are the ultimate in boring fantasy.
Garthanos. I'm not sure what FTFY means but I feel like you are beating me up like I'm trying to stomp out of existance the dragonborn and tiefling. I'm not. Please pick on someone who is actually disagreeing with you 
If you read my posts above, I've said all along that I'm for including the various races. My preferences for what would be in a campaign I'd play might vary from yours but I believe on this issue we are allies. I'm for a paragraph that empowers DMs and not for the tags. I can live with the tags though because regardless of what they say my DM would do what he wants anyway. I have an experienced DM.
By the way I have seen a tiefling and dragonborn and eladrin played. And I am not against all the PHB 1 races and ten more if people want them. Just tell DMs - "You are expected nor bad if your campaign concept does not include every single one of these races every single time."
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:52AM
#350
|
|
|
Missed this Friday, now it's all exploded all over the place.
Race rarity is a bad idea.
Suggesting what races DM limit is also a bad idea. A paragraph in the DMG suggesting it would be cool.
And honestly, the number of PH races only grew in 4e because of multiple PHs which has less to do with design and more to do with greed.
|
|
|
