Post Reply
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 6:53AM
#1841
|
|
|
Thanks Rich! The only surprise to me was catfolk. They certainly seem to have their fans around here!
I kind of wonder about this too. Of course, it's a little more complex than that.
Are there a hell of a lot of D&D players who want to play, for lack of a better word, catgirls? In my experience with exactly how popular topics on that subject are on the Races board, yes. There's probably a larger, silent group who would take this option if it was available as well, but don't feel the need to press for it.
Did anyone really like the 3.5e Catfolk specifically? No, not so much. They were another terrible LA +1 race that, while sufficiently statistically superior to not be LA +0, were boring and not usually worth losing a level over.
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 9:34AM
#1842
|
|
|
Sorry to break it to you..
But internet polls are worthless. For many reasons, it had been explained a few times. They are meaningles at the end.
You and WotC can ignore it all you want. I think it has more bearing than you give it credence. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am. Freedom of speech baby!
For anyone who is interested...
I believe that you fall into the disinterested group.
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 10:29AM
#1843
|
|
|
But internet polls tend to reflect the views of the general populace in landslide reactions, and that's what you've got there.
It's probably representative enough of the committed Realms fans, Candlekeep.com being the most 'inside' of Realms sites, much less so of the current and certainly potential Realms market as a whole.
Rich, I don't understand your Halruaa comment, unless you're going to make everywhere culturally uniform subarctic town-studded wilderness. As for the struggle to find the Realms' unique selling point, won't that be much harder if you force it to mirror all the new norms of D&D? (And easier, of course, if you let the Realms' virtues shine without the chain of clever gimmickry that's obscured them for 20 years and don't just give up on describing how the setting works.)
Your company's silence on the anniversaries remains perplexing.
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:16PM
#1844
|
|
|
@ Rich Baker: What can you tell us about Gnomes in 4E FR? Are they going to look and act like that ridiculous creature we saw in the Tielfing/Gnome Flash cartoon?
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:31PM
#1845
|
|
|
Look? Yes, that's what gnomes look like now. We've been casting about for a good look for gnomes for years; for my own part, I sorta like this one. That's probably a "retcon," because it's pretty strange to say that something happened to change a race's appearance. So gnomes have always looked that way. (We didn't illustrate all that many of them in 3e or 2e anyway.) Act? No, not really. It's a cartoon. I don't expect Realms gnomes to sit down for TV interviews or talk about which book they get to appear in.
@ Rich Baker: What can you tell us about Gnomes in 4E FR? Are they going to look and act like that ridiculous creature we saw in the Tielfing/Gnome Flash cartoon?
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:33PM
#1846
|
|
|
Rich will Half Giants and or Goliaths make it into the 4E Realms? I have been a good little poster, so please could you answer this little question. If not I understand, Thank you anyway Kind Sir.:)
:tiphat:
"The Anti 4E Realms posters MUST be stopped"!!!
Just kidding Ladies and Gentlemen!:D
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:34PM
#1847
|
|
|
Keep in mind, the "traction" thing was my own highly subjective guess about how people out in the audience were using the critter. In the case of "catfolk" I distinctly remember hesitating about that, just for the reasons you give -- some number of folks out there want to play catgirls. In any event, it's nothing we need to publish in a hurry.
I kind of wonder about this too. Of course, it's a little more complex than that.
Are there a hell of a lot of D&D players who want to play, for lack of a better word, catgirls? In my experience with exactly how popular topics on that subject are on the Races board, yes. There's probably a larger, silent group who would take this option if it was available as well, but don't feel the need to press for it.
Did anyone really like the 3.5e Catfolk specifically? No, not so much. They were another terrible LA +1 race that, while sufficiently statistically superior to not be LA +0, were boring and not usually worth losing a level over.
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:37PM
#1848
|
|
|
Goliaths, probably yes. Half-giants, not so sure. We think that goliaths and half-giants hold down some pretty similar territory, and it's not clear that there should be two character races there or one well-defined one. In that contest, we think goliaths probably win. You won't see much attention given to goliath homelands or characters in the 2008 Realms releases, but we're thinking of earmarking a spot or two for later, so that when the core game does come out with goliaths, you know where in Faerun they're from.
Rich will Half Giants and or Goliaths make it into the 4E Realms? I have been a good little poster, so please could you answer this little question. If not I understand, Thank you anyway Kind Sir.:)
:tiphat:
"The Anti 4E Realms posters MUST be stopped"!!!
Just kidding Ladies and Gentlemen!:D
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:43PM
#1849
|
|
|
Goliaths, probably yes. Half-giants, not so sure. We think that goliaths and half-giants hold down some pretty similar territory, and it's not clear that there should be two character races there or one well-defined one. In that contest, we think goliaths probably win.
You won't see much attention given to goliath homelands or characters in the 2008 Realms releases, but we're thinking of earmarking a spot or two for later, so that when the core game does come out with goliaths, you know where in Faerun they're from.
Thank you for the Reply Rich.
Also Wizards Presents: Races and Classes, has me excited about the 4E Ruleset!:w00t: :clap: :plotting: :lightbulb :evillaugh :dancin: :angelhide :cheer: :love: :king: :devil: :angel: :schemes: :ayyyy!: :bow: :cloud9: :tiphat:
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2007 - 12:50PM
#1850
|
|
|
My "commonality of experience" remark is simply this: It might be too easy to play FR games that have nothing in common with each other, other than D&D. Johnkretzer asked me why we would possibly consider a world with lesser diversity to be an improvement -- I was pointing out reasons that an "intellectual property" with a tighter focus would be better for us than one that was all things to all people. You can certainly come up with arguments in the other direction; it's not clear that "focused" is always superior to "general." Here's an example: In the Dragonlance setting, it's a sure bet that every player who's played in that setting has fought draconians at some point. It's a common experience all Dragonlance players share and can compare. In core D&D, adventures like Tomb of Horrors used to be a common experience; everybody played it at some point. (These days, something like Forge of Fury might be a better bet.) In the Birthright setting, you ruled kingdoms. In Planescape, you went to Sigil. Those are common experiences of those settings. Halruaa was just an example I used of a game that would look and feel like it belonged to a totally different "IP" than the more center-of-the-road FR games. (Halruaa looks more like Eberron than it does Forgotten Realms, in my opinion.) We'd like more Realms games to share the Waterdeep-Silver Marches-Cormyr-Dalelands experience, because those areas are really the heart of the Realms and share the strongest elements of Ed's original vision for the setting. I'd like to encourage people to play there, instead of running Lost World games down in Chult or magical Three Musketeers games in Halruaa. Could the world still include such places? Sure. But it's not really part of the common Realms experience.
It's probably representative enough of the committed Realms fans, Candlekeep.com being the most 'inside' of Realms sites, much less so of the current and certainly potential Realms market as a whole.
Rich, I don't understand your Halruaa comment, unless you're going to make everywhere culturally uniform subarctic town-studded wilderness. As for the struggle to find the Realms' unique selling point, won't that be much harder if you force it to mirror all the new norms of D&D? (And easier, of course, if you let the Realms' virtues shine without the chain of clever gimmickry that's obscured them for 20 years and don't just give up on describing how the setting works.)
Your company's silence on the anniversaries remains perplexing.
|
Post Reply
|
