|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:39PM
#311
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
At least there are people who agree with my view of the subject.
I agree with the outcome but not the drama. I would much rather make it the mindset of every DM that they sit down and define the races they want for each campaign they run. I'd like them to do it for campaign reasons and not for any other reason. I'd like there to be so many races that only a fool of a DM would allow them all.
If you look back at what TheMormegil has advocated, (s)he is for exactly that. All of us who think that a paragraph or two, telling players to check with their DMs for approval, are expressing that sentiment.
I thought I said I agreed with theMormegil's position just not with some of his hyperbole. I am advocating for just a paragraph.
@Other Anti-DM empowerment people
You're making a seriously erroneous assumption here. I don't think ANYONE in this thread has said that DMs shouldn't be empowered to exclude races, classes, or combinations thereof in their own games. Not a single person, that I'm aware of, has said the DM has to allow everything that is in the PHB. How can you reasonably paint people as being "Anti-DM empowerment" when they are saying they want the existence/frequency of races to be a matter of DM fiat and not a product of some tag?
One person did make a side comment about the group making a decision and perhaps that triggered my tirade. Sorry if I derailed this thread. Also when I put an @ at the top I do that mainly as a limitation and it's doesn't mean - all you guys are this thing after the @. What is means is for those of you that are @ then here is a comment to you. Again I think I was mainly triggered by the one post. I just didn't want to go back and look up the guys name.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:48PM
#312
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I say all of that, just to illustrate that: You're right that the labels should not imply those things, and should not be a reason, on their own, to avoid the use of components. But the reality is that, in all liklihood, they will.
Then it's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. If we don't include labels, people will be put off by the presence of uncommon races in the core books. We know this because that's the whole premise of Schwalb's article.
If we do include labels, people will be put off by the labels, and think the game is judging their desire for uncommon races to be morally questionable. We know this because a bunch of people in thist thread are saying that's precisely how they'll feel.
If we exclude the uncommon races altogether, so as to avoid labeling and alienating people, then other people will feel left out because they have to wait for supplements for their favorite races. We know this because that's exactly what happened with the lack of gnomes and half-orcs in 4e.
I don't think that, when thumbing through a book deciding whether this game is for you, anybody is going to read a paragraph about empowering DMs to choose what races goes in the campaign. That guidance is the stuff that people read after purchase. Not to say those paragraphs don't have value, but they don't address the problem. I beleive this, because that's how unfair characterizations of 4e as inhibiting roleplay, or all classes are the same got started. People saw few mechanics on socialization, or saw that powers had the same format across all classes, and jumped to conclusions, and 4e never escaped these memes.
So, in short, I think we're all screwed. The psychology of the fanbase (whether pro-label or anti-label) appears to be too hypersensitive and too ready to ditch a game due to superficialities to ever come together. The hobby is going to be stuck in fractionalization until in a few years, someone writes an article called "Whatever happened to D&D?"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:51PM
#313
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
Again again again, what does the rare tag do for your game and mine that an emphasis on world-building and DM-player cooperation doesn't accomplish? You seem to be saying that some overt show of loyalty to previous editions matters to you, which I think DDN will do by including all PH1 classes (and maybe races?) in the initial release. Do you also think that this needs to go as far as labeling each race in terms of how "comfortable" a traditional-minded, Greyhawk-style DM would feel about each race? That's really all I'm seeing from these labels - is there something else?
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:52PM
#314
|
|
|
I say all of that, just to illustrate that: You're right that the labels should not imply those things, and should not be a reason, on their own, to avoid the use of components. But the reality is that, in all liklihood, they will.
Then it's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. If we don't include labels, people will be put off by the presence of uncommon races in the core books. We know this because that's the whole premise of Schwalb's article.
Schwalb floated a bubble in his article. We don't "know" anything just because he posted an idea in one article.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:57PM
#315
|
|
|
i hate item rarity and now i hate race rarity
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 4:58PM
#316
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
Labels like "less accepted" in an IP as rich as this are always 100% unjustified.
Well, thankfully nobody's proposed having "less accepted" as a label, so there's no worries about that.
How common something is in a typical gameplay, tradition and/or setting standpoint is NOT a value judgement. "Common", "Uncommon" and "Rare" say nothing about how acceptable, valuable, morally viable, powerful, worthwhile, balanced, or whatever the race is. Nothing. Absolutely zip.
How common something is in a typical gameplay, tradition, and/or setting standpoint is not something I see as valuable to a D&D player, new or old. As such, I am not comfortable supporting it being in a PHB, or having development time and money invested in it.
Fair enough, that's your perogative if you feel that way.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:09PM
#317
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
|
"Common", "Uncommon" and "Rare" say nothing about how acceptable, valuable, morally viable, powerful, worthwhile, balanced, or whatever the race is.
And the same thing was said about the "core" label on certain parts of 3.5 - but despite that, it was the common perception that "core" elements of the game were more acceptable, valuable, morally viable, powerful, worthwhile, balanced, or whatever.
"Splat" material was often excluded just because it was not "core".
Yes, but a lot of that was simply because didn't feel like learning and dealing with additional materials (which kept increasing) or otherwise wanted a minimalist or traditionalist approach. Heck, I've always told players "Core plus (list of stuff that I'm familar with and fits the campaign)", anything else will be aprroved (or not) on a case-by-case basis.
Anyone that actually believed that anything beyond core was less "acceptable, valuable, morally viable, powerful, worthwhile, balanced, or whatever" simply because it was "not core" was/is acting in a wholly irrational manner and there's no helping people like that.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard
Vindication for every suffering and hurt
Let retribution hold dominion over earth
--Nemesis, VNV Nation
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:16PM
#318
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I wonder if the issue would be lessened if the rarity is bolded and given in examples
Turn to Dragonborn page
DRAGONBORN
COMMON in Setting Y, Setting Z
UNCOMMON in Setting M, Setting N, and Setting Z
RARE in Setting A, Setting B, Setting C, and Setting D
NONEXSISTENT in Setting J
Stats Here
Anti-labels don't feel like their creativity is downplayed. Pro-labels keep their tradition.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:18PM
#319
|
|
|
I wonder if the issue would be lessened if the rarity is bolded and given in examples
Turn to Dragonborn page
DRAGONBORN
COMMON in Setting Y, Setting Z
UNCOMMON in Setting M, Setting N, and Setting Z
RARE in Setting A, Setting B, Setting C, and Setting D
NONEXSISTENT in Setting J
Stats Here
Anti-labels don't feel like their creativity is downplayed. Pro-labels keep their tradition.
That information should be in the campaign setting books, not in the PHB.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:32PM
#320
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2011
|
which is what a lot of us have been saying: keep racial frequency to the various settings rather then the PHB.
no dragonborn in grayhawk? i'm perfectly fine with that.
dragonborn (in the form of dray) in Athas? perfectly fine with this as a case-by-case basis.
but this sort of stuff in the PHB?
no.
i simply cannot see any positive from slapping labels on any race beyond brown nosing to the grogs and a backhanded addition to those who would like the race to be seen as an equal to all others.
keep the frequency in the settings, not in the PHB.
|
|
|
