|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 4:14AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
The only reason I can think up for a setting change like this (because it's poorly developed) is trying to make it more palatable to white American middle-class moms so they'd buy the game for their kids.
you are being overly specific in singling out this demographic. There are lots of others who are offended by condoning genocidal behavior, and some in your specified demographic who would not view the killing of orcs as such. I don't fit your demographic, enjoy D&D, but don't find it very palatable.
The canon is what it is, and in this case it seems to be that orcs are accepted - at least in the North, not necessarily the other regions. I'm stating the canon has been developed poorly, in a way that makes no sense and detracts from the play experience. And really, the anti-orc KKK is just stupid, no matter how you spin it.
During times of crisis, people generally do not embrace the stranger with the grey skin, bad hygiene and tusks. They either kill him outright, or if he behaves well, find an excuse to kill him. The clergy will demand the abomination be destroyed. There will be torches and pitchforks. Again, this should also apply to the tieflings and dragonborn.
This applies to all strangers, not just those of specific races, as seen in real world history, and tends to be restricted to limited areas for limited periods of time. Foreign humans are likely to run into similar prejudice in some places. It should not affect the general playability of a member of any race. The orc, goblin, elf, or whatever PC should run into prejudice in some places, but it shouldn't normally be kill on sight.
4e seems tp be getting away from the "this race is always evil" stereotype, allowing for a full spectrum of alignment within each race, even if there are racial rendencies towards certain behavior. I thibk that is a definite improvement to the game.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 4:47AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
you are being overly specific in singling out this demographic. There are lots of others who are offended by condoning genocidal behavior, and some in your specified demographic who would not view the killing of orcs as such. I don't fit your demographic, enjoy D&D, but don't find it very palatable.
I singled them out because they are relevant from a marketing point of view. There are many signs of the game being simplified in both rules and setting flavour for a younger generation. The World of Warcraft design is another example of this. In the rules, I could live with it, but when it saps the depth of a setting and removes extant conflict and adventure hooks, it pisses me off.
This applies to all strangers, not just those of specific races, as seen in real world history, and tends to be restricted to limited areas for limited periods of time. Foreign humans are likely to run into similar prejudice in some places. It should not affect the general playability of a member of any race. The orc, goblin, elf, or whatever PC should run into prejudice in some places, but it shouldn't normally be kill on sight.
It means the development of orcs into a tolerated race is unlikely to have happened in the first place. They've traditionally been killed on sight, and a change like this is not credible. Some of the other races should have hefty penalties in certain regions. Looking back at the kobold debacle, however, I suspect this will not be. Truly, it has to be a fantasy world, for people to be this open-minded and accepting.
4e seems tp be getting away from the "this race is always evil" stereotype, allowing for a full spectrum of alignment within each race, even if there are racial rendencies towards certain behavior. I thibk that is a definite improvement to the game.
Yeah, the full spectrum of good, evil or unaligned. They should've kept the old system or just removed it altogether. This monochromatic bastardisation is pretty much useless, unless it's a tool for simplifying moral quandaries into bite-sized chunks, in which case it is even worse.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 9:36AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2003
|
LMAO, you guys still going at it in this thread? I thought this would've died down over night. I got a good laugh to see this desultory argument continued.
My point is that it is not an apropriate benefit for delving. WotC and the RPGA made a bad choice offering creation cards, inappropriately referred to as promo cards, as a rewards for delving. They should have given something else.[/quote]
The promotional creation cards are here and a part of the new campaign. This thread can go on for three hundred more indignant posts and it shall not change the fact that convention goers earned the cards and are probably gonna use them. And, I doubt that any more acrimonious declamations shall prevent the RPGA from presenting like cards at future shows. Fortunately, they get to decide what to offer at their events. I support then one hundred percent.
Happy gaming, lol. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an Orc fighter/paladin to make for LFR. :evillaugh
-------- Don (Greyson) --------
Non-smoker, White, Non-golfer, U.S. American
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 10:59AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2004
|
I, for one, see little interest in creation cards. As rewards they are lousy, since it doesn't add anything to the depth of the character or the game.
And living on the other side of the atlantic outright means I'm unable to attend any kind of big big D&D con ever (partly due to the airport security; I don't want to come in contact with that). Then again if you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for attending a convention ... in addition you have to *PAY* for the games?! No, no no no no no no... NO! This whole thing is horrible, horrible commercialism, and I'm wondering what on earth is driving people to go and PAY $25 or more just to create a kobold, orc or whatever in a living campaign? Why not just play the odd character in a home campaign?
Also I agree on NiTessine's point of view of them partially destroying realism. As much as it would be a fantasy world, D&D itself is unrealistic enough. Not everything must be pink and blue just because it's fantasy.
And Tom raises good views on the equality on the issue. Sure, it's certainly unchangable that WotC will give out reward cards; because people want them. I don't understand why (in the local LG scene we just give them to whoever wants them. I also consider it "hard toiletpaper"). I still have my snowelf card, which just exists since I have no feelings towards the race. It's pointless! Then again I find all cards pointless.
I shall see if LFR becomes any good... in case it doesn't, I stop playing it. Though I don't hold high hopes for Dalelands altogether. Seems like this scene dies with LG.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 12:48PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2001
|
Yeah, the full spectrum of good, evil or unaligned. They should've kept the old system or just removed it altogether. This monochromatic bastardisation is pretty much useless, unless it's a tool for simplifying moral quandaries into bite-sized chunks, in which case it is even worse.
It seems that 4e has pushed most creatures into the "Unaligned" category. The average person is not a crusader for, or an embodiment of, good, evil, law, chaos or true neutrality. Most creatures only care about their immediate prosperity and the welfare of their family/tribe/clan.
I don't see where you're getting monochromatic bastardization from. If anything, the greying of morality makes for tough roleplaying encounters and adds to the game in my opinion.
Check out my free online comic! Familiar Ground Fantasy Humor, Familiar Point of View
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 2:11PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
I don't see where you're getting monochromatic bastardization from. If anything, the greying of morality makes for tough roleplaying encounters and adds to the game in my opinion.
It worked pretty well in the old system. Considering the commentary that got us from across the pond, I expect to see less of this, not more.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 4:36PM
#97
|
|
|
I don't think so. I do not like the idea of con exclusive benefits. There seems to be something unfair about no ever being able to get that benefit after the con. At the same time I know why con organizers like them and I do not expect them to go away.
I like campaign cards as rewards because they reward you for playing and are relatively easy to get.
I like that you get more reward points for cons. This gives a benefit to con goes but the benefit is not something that people who missed the con have no opportunity to get.
So how about AR favors? Where does "If I don't get it you don't get it" end?
After all, there are about 5 or 10 Aasimar and 1 or 2 Frost Dwarves out there. And it all came out of very specific choices from a very specific mod that pretty much only ran at DDXP and a few other places (aka the Core Special Hanging Glacier).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 6:11PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
So how about AR favors? Where does "If I don't get it you don't get it" end?
After all, there are about 5 or 10 Aasimar and 1 or 2 Frost Dwarves out there. And it all came out of very specific choices from a very specific mod that pretty much only ran at DDXP and a few other places (aka the Core Special Hanging Glacier).
It is not "If I don't get it you don't get it"; it is "choice of race should not be a benifit of attending specific cons or getting a reward for number of events played". The awardiung of those races in LG through special mods was also wrong. It wasn't a benefit to the PC in the mod but to the player, thus not appropriate. An exclusive cohort for the character in the adventure would have been appropriate but not an exclusive PC.
I don't want to see the same in LFR.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 7:06PM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2005
|
The negative opinions given show that the cards are having a negaive impact, opperating against the advancement of interest of soime people in 4d D&D in general and LG in particular, for some people.
Tom Bollis
Being very bored, I was curious about the huge outflow of negative opinions of character creation cards, so I look at how many of the 30 different posters on this thread expressed disapproval. I found 7 - Verenal, tombollis, nitessine, sieylianna, dempster, gomeztoo, and fsi-dib (although I wasn't sure about fsi I included him/her anyway). Out of the 97 posts, 30% are made by just two posters - tombollis and nitessine.
So I don't quite really see the hate over these cards. If only 6-7 people out of the entire RGPA managed to log in and express their opinion, I don't seriously think that is a bad thing.
To avoid feeding the trolls, I am over and out.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2008 - 8:48PM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2005
|
Being very bored, I was curious about the huge outflow of negative opinions of character creation cards, so I look at how many of the 30 different posters on this thread expressed disapproval. I found 7 - Verenal, tombollis, nitessine, sieylianna, dempster, gomeztoo, and fsi-dib (although I wasn't sure about fsi I included him/her anyway). Out of the 97 posts, 30% are made by just two posters - tombollis and nitessine.
So I don't quite really see the hate over these cards. If only 6-7 people out of the entire RGPA managed to log in and express their opinion, I don't seriously think that is a bad thing.
To avoid feeding the trolls, I am over and out.
You are misrepresenting the statistics here. If you check all the posts in this thread, you will finf that many say nothing about whether or not the poster consideres character creation cards a good or bad idea, and that may of the posts on either side are by a few people. The number who have spoken for the cards seems similar to the number who have spoken against. The fact that about as many people on a thread re promo cards have indicated a dislike of creation cards indicates that the general dislike should be expected to be similar to like - a significant negative impact on the market.
As I think those interested in the cards are more likely to be reading this thread, it is suprising how few have spoken out in favor of the cards.
Tom Bollis
|
|
|
