|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:26PM
#1
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
In today's D&D Next blog, Rob Schwalb talks about varying tones and preferences of the fantasy genre and how they relate to the various editions of Dungeons & Dragons. Go read the blog, post in the comments and come back here for further discussion.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:37PM
#2
|
|
|
The idea of slapping a 'rarity' on such things, I do not like. Firstly, such a system should be dependent on the DM's choice, and his setting, not the game books. I might be running a game where humans are rare and dragonborn are common and elves don't even exist. Same with classes.
Secondly ... unless you put some lame mechanic on it ('You must roll percentile dice to see what class or race you can be'), it's pretty much meaningless anyway. It reminds me of the stupidity of stat requirements for classes in 1e (and 2e? can't recall), which I also never liked. At most, you're going to get 'didn't make it, reroll, didn't make it, reroll, didn't make it, reroll ... ah, made it! Even if you say 'tieflings are rare' ... what would actually stop all five of your players from being tieflings? Heck, it even makes more sense ... if there aren't a lot of you, you're more likely to want to gather with your own kind as a matter of solidarity and mutual defense.
Third ... don't most people do this already? I can't recall ever playing in a game where I wasn't informed how likely I was to run into another of my race somewhere, or if people were going to look at me funny or not.
I officially vote this as a bad idea. However, I am very big on player choice and player options; I generally don't ban or restrict things unless I think they are mechanically unsound. It doesn't matter if I don't like it, even if I'm the DM, because it's not all about me (if that were the case, there'd be about 5 races and 11 classes in my 4e game).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:43PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I'll repost here, because there's more room for "discussion":
My one concern with the "grouped by rarity" approach is that all it really serves to do is validate certain racial inclusions/exclusions, and put a big warning sticker on certain races for new players and DMs.
I still think the better way to validate inclusions/exclusions is to just do it all with one broad-stroke "The DM says what is, and is not, in his world." It's not like folks don't already know which races are "common" in fantasy, and which are not.
And I think the "warning sticker" aspect (which can happen even if you just single a group of races out as "different" than the others), is just unfortunate.
You got beyond the idea of "one type of (correct) fantasy" - would you have if the Dragonborn and Warlord were huddled off in the corner with a big "Warning! These are just weird!" sign draped over them?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:43PM
#4
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Personal opinion...
I like it because it gives DM's permission to say "no" while still providing the options for those who say "yes." While that level of permission has always been sort of implied, it has never been expressly stated and thus new DMs have sometimes felt pressured to allow things they might not otherwise want in their campaigns. In that way, its similar to how combat roles were always sort of implied but not given a name until 4th edition. The common/uncommon/rare labels are just that, labels. Once a DM gets more comfortable with the rules, they can cherry pick from among the categories to their heart's content, but the labels serve as a rough guideline for those just starting out.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:46PM
#5
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />My one concern with the "grouped by rarity" approach is that all it really serves to do is validate certain racial inclusions/exclusions, and put a big warning sticker on certain races for new players and DMs.
That, too. Some people are likely to think that a 'rare' label means that there's something wrong/disruptive/unbalanced about the race rather than the game forcing flavor on them (which it shouldn't do).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:47PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Personal opinion...
Aren't they all? ;-)
I like it because it gives DM's permission to say "no" while still providing the options for those who say "yes."
Does it really do anything more than just give permission, though? Why is this preferable to just "giving DMs permission to say 'no'" in a clear and succinct way?
Once a DM gets more comfortable with the rules, they can cherry pick from among the categories to their heart's content, but the labels serve as a rough guideline for those just starting out.
Guideline for what, though? If all races are created equal (because none are absolutely superior choices to others), what "guideline" are you giving?
One to create a "typical fantasy world"?
Aren't the choices involved in that incredible obvious already, to anyone who would care?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:47PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
It's far worse to tell someone he cannot do something (that particular option doesn't exist, or is explicitly banned), than it is to tell someone that someone else can do something (that particular option is "icky").
As far as I care, that second guy's opinion doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:48PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
No.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:49PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
If you want race rareties they should be listed in the campaign setting.
Should the player handbook be made with a specific campaign setting in mind it should clearly be stated to look at the race rarety table in the campaign setting book if your not playing this default campaign setting.
for example Thri-kreen might be listed as rare in the player handbook and eberon campaign setting.
but might be listed as common in the dark sun campaign setting.
if a race is not mentioned in the list in the campaign setting it should be assumed to be rare (maybe even not playable)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:52PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2007
|
If you want race rareties they should be listed in the campaign setting.
Should the player handbook be made with a specific campaign setting in mind it should clearly be stated to look at the race rarety table in the campaign setting book if your not playing this default campaign setting.
for example Thri-kreen might be listed as rare in the player handbook and eberon campaign setting.
but might be listed as common in the dark sun campaign setting.
if a race is not mentioned in the list in the campaign setting it should be assumed to be rare (maybe even not playable)
I like this, The handbook races should be fairly setting neutral, just describe the physical characteristics and leave the culture and rarity to be described by the individual campaign setting. In fact I would be fine with no default campaign setting (maybe thats just me though since I have never played or ran a campaign in the default)
|
|
|
