Yep Kender.
Bwaaahaahaahaaha!
You know, I never liked the Kender. But seeing all the butthurt from the usual suspects makes me think this is perfectly OK. After all, if I'm probably not going to allow dragonborn or warforged PCs, how hard is it to ignore kender as well? Not hard at all.
I once had a player who only ever played intersexed kender/fae/eladrin.
I'm pretty sure I can handle a warforged.
Explain/link please?
Quote from: Piestrio;682536Explain/link please?
Don't have a link. TWitter feed I think. TBP thread might have a link
Kender are so entwined with Dragonlance, I couldnt imagine the setting w/o them, but I don't want to see them become a standard D&D race. They'd just be redundant with Halflings.
What's a "warforged"?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;682537Don't have a link. TWitter feed I think. TBP thread might have a link
Ah.
Well cool. I like DragonLance quite a bit.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682538What's a "warforged"?
Robot people.
Quote from: Piestrio;682540Robot people.
Yeah, if you're going to have warforged, tieflings, and dragonborn, you might as well have Kender, as they are just as much, if not more, part of the D&D legacy as those three races.
There is a use for Kender as a race in D&D.
You just about automatically know that the person who wants to play that race in game is going to be a douchebag. So they are a douchebag early warning system.
They also make excellent missile weapons.
Quote from: jeff37923;682543There is a use for Kender as a race in D&D.
You just about automatically know that the person who wants to play that race in game is going to be a douchebag. So they are a douchebag early warning system.
haha, very true.
...which is basically to say "not at all". Since we stopped playing 4e, none of those races have been at the table.
Maybe they will forget about psionics & monks.
Quote from: JonWake;682545They also make excellent missile weapons.
True!
I admit, I
love their tiny little screams as they fly through the air.
Please, everyone knows goblins/kobolds have better aerodynamics.
For best effect, stick a Pickelhaube/Turkish helmet on them.
Quote from: Rincewind1;682550Maybe they will forget about psionics & monks.
Psionic Monk Warforged Kender is a cartoon megafranchise just waiting to happen.
Quote from: Rincewind1;682553Please, everyone knows goblins/kobolds have better aerodynamics.
For best effect, stick a Pickelhaube/Turkish helmet on them.
Yeah, but cleaning out the barrel after a shot is a bitch
Quote from: jeff37923;682543There is a use for Kender as a race in D&D.
You just about automatically know that the person who wants to play that race in game is going to be a douchebag. So they are a douchebag early warning system.
Kinda like Pookas from CtD...
Quote from: TristramEvans;682538What's a "warforged"?
Magic robot.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;682571Magic robot.
It's actually pretty metal.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;682571Magic robot.
Doesn't exactly scream D&D to me.
Quote from: jeff37923;682543There is a use for Kender as a race in D&D.
You just about automatically know that the person who wants to play that race in game is going to be a douchebag. So they are a douchebag early warning system.
The Gungan race option of D&D?
Quote from: TristramEvans;682576Doesn't exactly scream D&D to me.
C'mon Gary once played a Balrog.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682576Doesn't exactly scream D&D to me.
Well, more like an independent, self-aware golem. What's not D&D about that?
Quote from: JonWake;682579C'mon Gary once played a Balrog.
So what?
Quote from: nightwind1;682581Well, more like an independent, self-aware golem. What's not D&D about that?
Well, let's say it doesn't evoke TSR D&D for me...
Quote from: Piestrio;682583So what?
So claiming that a wacky character race 'doesn't sound like D&D' has a pretty high fucking bar to pass.
Quote from: JonWake;682586So claiming that a wacky character race 'doesn't sound like D&D' has a pretty high fucking bar to pass.
Why should I care what gary did?
Or where you think "the bar" is for that matter?
Quote from: JonWake;682586So claiming that a wacky character race 'doesn't sound like D&D' has a pretty high fucking bar to pass.
I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race. Sure, I suppose you could play anything. But why warforged and not otyoughs, ettins, or harpies? Fuck it, let's cast aside all our straightlaced inhibitions and make piercers a playable PC race.
Quote from: Haffrung;682589I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race. Sure, I suppose you could play anything. But why warforged and not otyoughs, jackalweres, or harpies? Fuck it, let's cast aside all our straightlaced inhibitions and make piercers a playable PC race.
It's easier to relate to a Fantasy C-3PO than to a Piercer.
Quote from: Rincewind1;682590It's easier to relate to a Fantasy C-3PO than to a Piercer.
Or a fantasy Mr Data.
There are interesting 'not a real boy' interactions to much about with.
Quote from: Piestrio;682587Why should I care what gary did?
Because claiming something is or isn't "D&D" is a bit silly when the pater goddamn familias did some extremely wacky shit.
Quote from: Piestrio;682587Or where you think "the bar" is for that matter?
Depends on the setting. In Ravenloft, I'm loathe to even let an elf in, let alone a sentient golem-thing.
In Dark Sun, I could see the forgotten remnants of a dead age occasionally waking up.
In Eberron, they're an intrinsic part of the setting.
In your home brew, you make the call. Play in a fantasy Earth akin to Ars Magicka, play humans.
The warforged make sense in the context of Eberron and are a great addition in the setting. In a setting which would involve some form of science fantasy, arcanotech or whatever you'd want to call it, they could be used for great effect as Player Characters. I think they are one of the more clever additions to the game of these past few years, actually.
The Kender. . . The Kender are useless.
Quote from: Haffrung;682589I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race.
How popular was Joe Madureira's
Battlechasers comic book?
I always felt that Calibretto was the inspiration for the warforged.
Quote from: Benoist;682595The Kender. . . The Kender are useless.
Oh, I think there's some use for Kender.
...
...
Give me a minute.
Oh, they make great...
Shit, nevermind.
Quote from: Haffrung;682589I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race.
Because in the pulp setting of Eberron, they're a riff on the returning soldiers from WWI, rebuilt from the ground up to be war machines, then when peace broke out, left to their own devices.
It works well in Eberron, because Eberron is basically every pulp trope with a thin layer of Dungeons and Dragons over the top.
Gygax played another creature from Tolkien's fantasy in a game where the 5 staple races are taken from Tolkien fantasy? Why that's so wacky ANYTHING GOES!
I don't know Eberron, and 'warforged' may fit great in that setting, and I've nothing against the concept at all, but yeah, doesn't exactly scream generic "D&D".
Quote from: TristramEvans;682604I don't know Eberron, and 'warforged' may fit great in that setting, and I've nothing against the concept at all, but yeah, doesn't exactly scream generic "D&D".
Neither are Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape or Dark Sun.
Quote from: Novastar;682608Neither are Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape or Dark Sun.
Exactly. I wasnt thrilled about the inclusion of Tieflings in 4th edition as a standard race either. But that was before I even read 4th edition and there were many other things to complain about. But yeah, if anything I'd drop Halflings as. " standard race" and just go with a core of human, dwarf, and elf. Leave the rest to supplements.
But that's me.
Quote from: jeff37923;682543There is a use for Kender as a race in D&D.
You just about automatically know that the person who wants to play that race in game is going to be a douchebag. So they are a douchebag early warning system.
I disagree. One of my players ran a Kender, and she wasn't a douchebag at all. Hell, I'd happily run a Kender myself, and I'd like to think that I would actually be easy to run a game for. I don't screw other players over, because it's just not cool. So sorry, but I treat these negative stories about Kender players as Internet myth. A properly run Kender can be lots of fun. :)
Edit: For the record, I believe that Kender only belong in either
Dragonlance or
Planescape campaigns, but I do still like Kender...
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682617I disagree. One of my players ran a Kender, and she wasn't a douchebag at all. Hell, I'd happily run a Kender myself, and I'd like to think that I would actually be easy to run a game for. I don't screw other players over, because it's just not cool. So sorry, but I treat these negative stories about Kender players as Internet myth. A properly run Kender can be lots of fun. :)
I understand your disagreement, it is just that the key word/tricky phrase here is "A properly run Kender can be lots of fun." Based on your posts that I have read, I'd be willing to let you play a Kender at a game I was running because I do not think you would be a douchebag. It is just that "properly run" can mean being a douchebag in game to a certain type of Player. This same type of Player loves Gungans and Ewoks in
Star Wars and Malkavians in
Vampire as playable races. I try to nip that in the bud when it shows up.
Yeah. They're sort of the Malkavian's of D&D. Done right, Malks are lots of fun. Done wrong, and the table has to invest in some quicklime and shovels.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682604Gygax played another creature from Tolkien's fantasy in a game where the 5 staple races are taken from Tolkien fantasy? Why that's so wacky ANYTHING GOES!
I don't know Eberron, and 'warforged' may fit great in that setting, and I've nothing against the concept at all, but yeah, doesn't exactly scream generic "D&D".
How is running a Warforged any more "wacky" than running a Balrog? Honestly, I just don't see the problem. At this point, after a zillion editions of D&D, and countless published campaign settings....there really is no generic D&D any more (sadly). Not even Greyhawk is "generic" now.
Anyway, the Warforged could be defined as a type of self-aware, sentient Golem. They have a largely humanoid form, so they can use most weapons and equipment that Humans can. They're not intrinsically evil (at all), so they can more easily cooperate with Humanity.
Now if you're saying that 5e should be based upon Greyhawk.....well, fine. That would be a reasonable statement, but then it wouldn't actually be a generic campaign setting any more, and would instead be focused on a very
specific setting....namely Greyhawk.
Quote from: jeff37923I understand your disagreement, it is just that the key word/tricky phrase here is "A properly run Kender can be lots of fun." Based on your posts that I have read, I'd be willing to let you play a Kender at a game I was running because I do not think you would be a douchebag. It is just that "properly run" can mean being a douchebag in game to a certain type of Player. This same type of Player loves Gungans and Ewoks in Star Wars and Malkavians in Vampire as playable races. I try to nip that in the bud when it shows up.
I do understand what you're saying, but if the players are mature enough, then they'll refrain from acting out in a douchey way. If I was running a Kender, then I simply wouldn't steal from other PCs, or taunt them. Why piss off my friends? We're all here to have fun.
Hostile NPCs might be fair game though, so the DM would need to stay alert... :)
Quote from: TristramEvans;682604Gygax played another creature from Tolkien's fantasy in a game where the 5 staple races are taken from Tolkien fantasy? Why that's so wacky ANYTHING GOES!
What about the time they played as undead? They started as skeletons, then leveled up to vampires. Ended up in a flying level draining battle with other undead. As they drained each other's levels, they devolved into lesser undead until they hit one that couldn't fly.
Then it was raining zombies.
Yeah, anything goes.
In and of themselves the warforged arn't a problem, but when combined with other elements of the Eberron setting (from what I know of it) the whole thing seems to lean far more heavily towards steampunk. Like the lightning rail system for example. When magitech gets that deeply embedded into a setting, it's steampunk, not so much fantasy. A bit like Full Metal Alchemist.
Quote from: The Traveller;682641In and of themselves the warforged arn't a problem, but when combined with other elements of the Eberron setting (from what I know of it) the whole thing seems to lean far more heavily towards steampunk. Like the lightning rail system for example. When magitech gets that deeply embedded into a setting, it's steampunk, not so much fantasy. A bit like Full Metal Alchemist.
*shrug*
Some people don't like bloodthirsty grimdark swords and sorcery, so they don't play Dark Sun. Some people don't like baroque character pieces, so they don't play Ravenloft. Some people hate psuedo Victorian madcap fantasy, so they don't play Planescape.
Some people hate
joy, so they don't play Spelljammer.
Dungeons and Dragons hasn't been one thing for a very long time. I think it's one of its strengths. One group can play a group of murderhobos who have both alignments: Kill Shit and Get Paid, another can play set piece battles on a floating piece of the Outer Planes filled with the Ten Ascended Gods.
It's like the lingua franca of nerdom.
How many of those settings have elves? How many have dwarves? All of them. How many have Kender or Warforged? One apiece. What are those setting specific races doing in the base game?
Ugh. I never had the misfortune to play in group with a kender, but just from their appearances in the novels, I loathe them. One time I was rooting Evil to win so Tasslehoff would die a horrible death. Gah!
I generally don't like any of the races named with a Past Participle.
Quote from: Bobloblah;682656How many of those settings have elves? How many have dwarves? All of them. How many have Kender or Warforged? One apiece. What are those setting specific races doing in the base game?
Going on current speculation:
It looks like the core rules will contain Modules for playing in the five 'most popular' D&D settings. The three apparently named so far are Ravenloft, Planescape and Ebberon. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms would look to be the obvious other two.
I suspect Greyhawk (and possibly Mystra) just will not need a Module, it is after all pretty much what core D&D is.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682609Exactly. I wasnt thrilled about the inclusion of Tieflings in 4th edition as a standard race either. But that was before I even read 4th edition and there were many other things to complain about. But yeah, if anything I'd drop Halflings as. " standard race" and just go with a core of human, dwarf, and elf. Leave the rest to supplements.
Me as well. Playing alternative races is fine, if that's what the setting supports. But D&D is supposed to be a generic fantasy game that you can tweak as desired. Introducing weird creatures as core races is just a bad idea. Which ones do you include? Which setting assumptions are you introducing by including them?
Quote from: JonWake;682652*shrug*
Some people don't like bloodthirsty grimdark swords and sorcery, so they don't play Dark Sun. Some people don't like baroque character pieces, so they don't play Ravenloft. Some people hate psuedo Victorian madcap fantasy, so they don't play Planescape.
Some people hate joy, so they don't play Spelljammer.
Dungeons and Dragons hasn't been one thing for a very long time. I think it's one of its strengths. One group can play a group of murderhobos who have both alignments: Kill Shit and Get Paid, another can play set piece battles on a floating piece of the Outer Planes filled with the Ten Ascended Gods.
It's like the lingua franca of nerdom.
But you can't possibly include all that stuff as default content in a core product. So what do you include and what do you exclude?
For the core book, the races should just be the traditional core ones like they have currently.
Then they could put out a "Worlds of D&D" book which includes the races and classes from most of the other settings.
Guys, there is no indication, at all, that he is saying these will be core races. All he said was they will be back in the game in some manner, and combined with past things he's said about setting modules I think it's obvious that's what he means.
I don't really get the kender hate.
For me Lidda was the promotion of the kender to being the official D&D halflings from 3e on.
Quote from: Haffrung;682589I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race. Sure, I suppose you could play anything. But why warforged and not otyoughs, ettins, or harpies? Fuck it, let's cast aside all our straightlaced inhibitions and make piercers a playable PC race.
They are not true golems, and they make sense in the setting the are from.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;682679I don't really get the kender hate.
For me Lidda was the promotion of the kender to being the official D&D halflings from 3e on.
Lidda was hawt
What a good idea to have a book for each setting. Then you can have each one nuanced to suit the different preferences of different players and writers. Dragonlance does seem to generate a lot of hate doesn't it? Wasn't it also one of the most popular and best selling setttings/sequences for the game in TSR days?
Quote from: Haffrung;682675But you can't possibly include all that stuff as default content in a core product. So what do you include and what do you exclude?
I like Warforged (played one recently), but I wouldn't put them into the core rules. Just include this...
* Dwarf
* Elf
* Gnome
* Halfling
* Half-Elf
* Half-Orc
* Human
....and that's it. That should be just fine. The "weird" races can be placed into a supplement.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682717I like Warforged (played one recently), but I wouldn't put them into the core rules. Just include this...
* Dwarf
* Elf
* Gnome
* Halfling
* Half-Elf
* Half-Orc
* Human
....and that's it. That should be just fine. The "weird" races can be placed into a supplement.
Yeah, this.
See, the uncommon races work best to me when they are used to help define a setting. Warforged make sense in Eberron and help define it, but don't really make as much sense in Dark Sun or Ravenloft.
EDIT: I can easily see Warforged in Iron Kingdoms.
I have no problem with this so long as the rules make it clear that the GM is in charge of what races (official or otherwise) are allowed in their campaigns. Neither Warforged nor Kender are found in the Hidden Valley (one of my homebrew worlds) and they are unlikely to come through gates from another world and the Hidden Valley doesn't have an natural gates. Neither are native to Arn, but with the way gates work there have one come through from elsewhere would probably not be a problem. But they would not be added as native races to either world just because they are official races in the current version of D&D -- and IMHO players should not expect them to be.
Quote from: RandallS;682732I have no problem with this so long as the rules make it clear that the GM is in charge of what races (official or otherwise) are allowed in their campaigns. Neither Warforged nor Kender are found in the Hidden Valley
The simpler solution is: don't include them in the core rules. Hopefully Mistwell is right, but after 4E, I wouldn't assume anything.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682717I like Warforged (played one recently), but I wouldn't put them into the core rules. Just include this...
* Dwarf
* Elf
* Gnome
* Halfling
* Half-Elf
* Half-Orc
* Human
....and that's it. That should be just fine. The "weird" races can be placed into a supplement.
And I don't see any point to the gnome, half-elf, and half-orc except they were in the game since AD&D. For someone who learned the game later, tieflings are core. Rather than try to show fidelity to a particular era or tradition, I'd rather WotC went with a core made up of the stuff that is common across all editions. So:
Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Maybe halflings
Give a couple variant races for dwarves and elves. Maybe go really crazy and give a bunch of options for human backgrounds, the way Fantasy Craft does.
Quote from: Haffrung;682758And I don't see any point to the gnome, half-elf, and half-orc except they were in the game since AD&D. For someone who learned the game later, tieflings are core. Rather than try to show fidelity to a particular era or tradition, I'd rather WotC went with a core made up of the stuff that is common across all editions. So:
Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Maybe halflings
Give a couple variant races for dwarves and elves. Maybe go really crazy and give a bunch of options for human backgrounds, the way Fantasy Craft does.
Half elf and half orcs are in The Lord of the Rings, the former being Elrond and by extension Arwen, the latter are Saruman's doing. I mean I get what you're saying, don't misunderstand.
Quote from: Haffrung;682758And I don't see any point to the gnome, half-elf, and half-orc except they were in the game since AD&D. For someone who learned the game later, tieflings are core. Rather than try to show fidelity to a particular era or tradition, I'd rather WotC went with a core made up of the stuff that is common across all editions. So:
Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Maybe halflings
Give a couple variant races for dwarves and elves. Maybe go really crazy and give a bunch of options for human backgrounds, the way Fantasy Craft does.
The "point" of those races, is that without them...the game would feel incomplete to a very large number of people. You know this. We all know it. I just can't imagine most gamers switching to an edition of D&D that only had Humans, Dwarves, and Elves. In this day and age, it would feel too limited. We'd have people saying:
"Where are all the other races? They're gonna put the other races in a supplement in order to
screw us for more money. To Hell with this. Let's play some AD&D/3.x/Pathfinder instead!"
Your method sounds interesting for a fantasy heartbreaker, but it wouldn't bring the various edition warriors together (not that it's possible anyway). Frankly, I'm not sure it would even claim as much market share as 4e ever did.
If you tell people that they can't have their Gnome Illusionists, Half-Orc Barbarians, and Half-Elven Bards....then people will have a shitfit, and abandon your game for other games that better serve their needs. If it makes you feel any better though, I'd happily experiment with the game you're describing (at least temporarily), but seriously.....let's not talk such crazy talk.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682777market share as 4e ever did.
If you tell people that they can't have their Gnome Illusionists, Half-Orc Barbarians, and Half-Elven Bards....then people will have a shitfit, and abandon your game for other games that better serve their needs. If it makes you feel any better though, I'd happily experiment with the game you're describing (at least temporarily), but seriously.....let's not talk such crazy talk.
But for players of a newer provenance, the expected races include tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn. So again, where do you draw the line? At the state of the game circa 1998?
How about you draw the line at the races that are included in virtually every published campaign world? Why wouldn't you do that? Races, to a degree, imply setting (like so many other things). In many ways this, "Oh, just include them!" thinking is what derailed the Forgotten Realms under 4E. I know it seems like it should be just as easy to remove races as add them, but in practice this never seems to be the case.
Put the races that are present in almost all settings in the core rules, add the others in their respective campaign supplements.
Quote from: Haffrung;682787But for players of a newer provenance, the expected races include tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn. So again, where do you draw the line? At the state of the game circa 1998?
So, one edition where these became "core" should be the norm?
Where the line should be drawn is what was common to the majority of editions of D&D. 5e was supposed to be a step back to what was core of D&D... That means pulling from the majority of content, not from the minority (especially the minority that alienated so many fans).
Early (OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI)*
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling
Mid (1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e)*
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc
Late (4e, Essentials)**
Human Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin, Halfling, Tiefling, Dragonborn, etc
Common to all editions (roughly):
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling
Common to Most Editions (roughly):
Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc
Common to ONE Edition (1.5 but who's counting...) :
Eladrin, Tiefling, Dragonborn, etc
So yeah, I think going with what is common to most editions is the better policy... Anything else isn't core to D&D...
* Just rough approximations for ease of grouping
** Not going to list all the odd races 4e splatbloat churned out... None of which should have been considered "core"
I get the point of half orcs because they fill a niche ("the Brick"), but half elves don't serve any useful purpose. In Tolkien it was merely an epithet, Elrond half-elven was indistinguishable from an elf. The only time I saw it serve a purpose in D&D was to play up the romance novel angst in Dragonlance.
If they do add any more core races, I think a Minotaur would be cooler thann a half Orc.
Hate the boobdraconians. Hope they get buried with 4th edition.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682808The only time I saw it serve a purpose in D&D was to play up the romance novel angst in Dragonlance.
In the homebrew setting I'm half-heartedly picking at, they are one of two playable demihuman races - and elves are the bad guys.
Quote from: jeff37923;682552True!
I admit, I love their tiny little screams as they fly through the air.
Screams? I thought they were saying "WHEEEEE!!!"
Quote from: flyerfan1991;682815Screams? I thought they were saying "WHEEEEE!!!"
You
must have been launching them wrong..... :p
Quote from: Haffrung;682787But for players of a newer provenance, the expected races include tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn. So again, where do you draw the line? At the state of the game circa 1998?
I know where you're going with this line of questioning, but we need to face the facts. 4e was a
failed experiment. Fans of 4e may not like this, but it's the truth. That means that we have to "draw the line" at pre-4e. Just let 4e go, and let it become its own separate
non-D&D game.
Using 4e expectations as "baseline D&D" is sheer madness, and is a recipe for disaster. But hey, if you wanna weaken or kill the D&D brand by abandoning recognizable "D&D-isms" used for over three decades, then be my guest. But then you'd better expect the player base to
fragment, just like it did when 4e was released.
Seriously, just forget 4e "expected races". In fact, the wiser choice would be to abandon any 4e expectations entirely. Not that it matters, because we might just be talking about 6e in a couple years, because WoTC will not abandon their precious "planned obsolescence model" without a fight... :pundit:
Quote from: jeff37923;682821You must have been launching them wrong..... :p
Nah, they're Kender: no fear!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;682814In the homebrew setting I'm half-heartedly picking at, they are one of two playable demihuman races - and elves are the bad guys.
Oh, I'm not saying it can't be interesting but as an overall character archetype I never saw the point of its inclusion in the main rule book unless they were going to make it more interesting or tied significantly to a default setting. I'm speaking only in terms of viewing the core rule book as intended to provide archetypal representation of a common and easily-recognizable character types from pseudo- medieval fantasy fiction in order to facilitate an easy audience buy-in and preset associations.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;682825I know where you're going with this line of questioning, but we need to face the facts. 4e was a failed experiment. Fans of 4e may not like this, but it's the truth. That means that we have to "draw the line" at pre-4e. Just let 4e go, and let it become its own separate non-D&D game.
Using 4e expectations as "baseline D&D" is sheer madness, and is a recipe for disaster. But hey, if you wanna weaken or kill the D&D brand by abandoning recognizable "D&D-isms" used for over three decades, then be my guest. But then you'd better expect the player base to fragment, just like it did when 4e was released.
Seriously, just forget 4e "expected races". In fact, the wiser choice would be to abandon any 4e expectations entirely. Not that it matters, because we might just be talking about 6e in a couple years, because WoTC will not abandon their precious "planned obsolescence model" without a fight... :pundit:
I know it's impossible for you to admit this, because you're an edition warrior and you feel your side "won" the war and so has the right to write the history, but 4e only failed in terms of how much profit WOTC wanted to make from it. However, it's an almost certainty that more people play 4e still, than play OD&D, BECIM, and 2e COMBINED. I think, if you were to add up the player base, the top three editions would be 3e/Pathfinder, 4e, and 1e, and then all others. And given that, pretending 4e should be entirely forgotten rather than adapted into the combined history of D&D is sheer stupidity.
It's far FAR easier for you to ignore a few optional module races you don't like, than it is to simply never include them in any aspect of the game. Dragonborn, Tiefling, and Eladrin should be optional races (particularly since arguably all three exist in 3e as well). But you pretending 4e never existed and doesn't have a player base because you personally don't like that edition? Yeah, that's a bad decision for D&D, and would be a foolish one.
If there is anyone WOTC should be ignoring, it's the hardcore edition warriors. They're the ones least likely to buy the new edition no matter what it's like.
More people would play 4e than those playing OD&D, BECMI and AD&D 2e combined? Sorry, Mark, I'm going to call bull on this. There is an actual renaissance going on out there that has fuck all to do with the OSR publishers, internet discussion, blogs and all that. Gamers are going back to their first loves in their middle years, play the games with their kids, who then play with their friends, and many players who have never quit playing these games at the very least on and off and who have never given a flying shit about online discussion of RPGs of any form whatsoever.
I think you are widely underestimating just how much the old editions are still played out of the internet discussion circles.
Quote from: Benoist;682851More people would play 4e than those playing OD&D, BECMI and AD&D 2e combined? Sorry, Mark, I'm going to call bull on this. There is an actual renaissance going on out there that has fuck all to do with the OSR publishers, internet discussion, blogs and all that. Gamers are going back to their first loves in their middle years, play the games with their kids, who then play with their friends, and many players who have never quit playing these games at the very least on and off and who have never given a flying shit about online discussion of RPGs of any form whatsoever.
I think you are widely underestimating just how much the old editions are still played out of the internet discussion circles.
I think there are lots of 1e players. But 2e players, OD&D players, and BECMI players, are all relatively rare breeds. I am well aware of the renaissance going on in those games - and I know you know I'm aware of it as well, as you and I discuss in almost every week in some manner. But it's still extremely small relative to the current player bases of those other three editions.
It's hard to see the forest for the trees when you surround yourself with fans of your niche interest. But, it sounds like you may be drifting that way. Those are all great games, I have nothing against them. But they simply are miniscule relative to 3e/Pathfinder, 4e, and 1e (and for 1e it's usually a heavily homebrewed version these days). Use any objective measurable data, and you will find this to be the case. And if you tell me I should just take it on faith that those other games are more popular than the data suggests, then I would have a discussion about faith with you I suppose.
There is NO measurable data. That's my point.
Quote from: Benoist;682859There is NO measurable data. That's my point.
Of course there is. You have convention games, advertised games on various "looking for players" forums, played games on online platforms like Roll20, downloads of adventures from various third party sellers, survey data from WOTC and TSR before them, interest in reprints when WOTC put out the word that they will do reprints, availability and pricing on used books from various editions relative to their print runs, etc.. There is a LOT of measurable data.
But, that was you admitting your belief is based on faith. And I know better than to argue with a man's faith. So hey, if you want to believe there are lots of 2e and OD&D and BECIM players out there relative to the number of 3e/Pathfinder, 4e, and 1e players out there, that's cool. It's wrong, but it's not a bad wrong.
I think pretty much any data on it would be very hard to determine, and for the most part anecdotes would be all we could really go on.
That is, I think both positions are kind of hard to defend, but at the same time, ignoring a portion of fans that is by all accounts NOT tiny (4e fans) completely doesn't seem the way to go. Especially when its throwing them the bone on something as ignorable by GMs as a couple of extra races.
If we were going to ignore everything but the most popular edition, 3.x would be the only edition worth courting probably. (Opinion. based on anecdotes. not a statement of fact or expertise)
It's not what I am arguing, Mark, and if there is anyone here making an argument based on faith, it's you, when you are talking about things like players meetups online, conventions and the like giving a reliable idea of what the big picture we are looking at exactly looks like. This is no objective reliable data sample, because people going to cons, answering surveys, going to seek unknown gamers on the web and participating on forums are not reflective of the mass of people out there playing games with their friends and family who haven't bought product for years if not decades and don't give a shit about any of the things you mentioned.
Quote from: Benoist;682866It's not what I am arguing, Mark, and if there is anyone here making an argument based on faith, it's you, when you are talking about things like players meetups online, conventions and the like giving a reliable idea of what the big picture we are looking at exactly looks like. This is no objective reliable data sample, because people going to cons, answering surveys, going to seek unknown gamers on the web and participating on forums are not reflective of the mass of people out there playing games with their friends and family who haven't bought product for years if not decades and don't give a shit about any of the things you mentioned.
I'm not making any claims about overall statistics, but this has been my personal experience as well. In order of rarity of gamers I've known it's pretty much like this:
People who have bought a new rpg since university>People who play tournament games or at game shops> People who talk about RPGs on online forums> and rarest of all, people who go to RPG conventions
Quote from: TristramEvans;682838I'm speaking only in terms of viewing the core rule book as intended to provide archetypal representation of a common and easily-recognizable character types from pseudo- medieval fantasy fiction in order to facilitate an easy audience buy-in and preset associations.
I fear then the dark elf must be included as one of the core races.
Two and a half
decades of Drizzt novels elevated the "renegade drow" to archetypal status.
(As much as I'd hate this...)
Should we really be whining about additional content in a core book? Those who feel confident to ban races will ban them depending on a setting's needs no matter if they are in Player's Handbook of Splathouse 5, those who don't feel that will accept races from the splat anyway.
Quote from: Rincewind1;682879Those who feel confident to ban races will ban them depending on a setting's needs no matter if they are in Player's Handbook
The question is, will WotC feel confident to ban races depending on a setting's needs no matter if they are in Player's Handbook?
"There are no Warforged and Kender in the Realms despite them being in the PHB. Consult your DM if you want to import one from another plane/dimension/setting but be prepared that he might disallow it."
Quote from: Rincewind1;682879Should we really be whining about additional content in a core book? Those who feel confident to ban races will ban them depending on a setting's needs no matter if they are in Player's Handbook of Splathouse 5, those who don't feel that will accept races from the splat anyway.
Its not about additional content so much as presentation. I'd be happy with a section in the DMG describing ways to create new classes/ races, and providing examples like halfelfs, Minotaurs, dragonborn, etc. Its also about what's iconically associated with D&D.
Not that I expect WOTC will be taking any suggestions from me, rather this is the kind of streamlined approach I personally would take to the game, including knocking it down to 3 classes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682884Its not about additional content so much as presentation. I'd be happy with a section in the DMG describing ways to create new classes/ races, and providing examples like halfelfs, Minotaurs, dragonborn, etc. Its also about what's iconically associated with D&D.
Not that I expect WOTC will be taking any suggestions from me, rather this is the kind of streamlined approach I personally would take to the game, including knocking it down to 3 classes.
This somewhat depends on the simplicity of mechanics, I'd say. In 3e, if you had all 3 corebooks, you could retro - engineer various races for PC races, by taking the modifiers from DMG and Monster skills from MM.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;682881The question is, will WotC feel confident to ban races depending on a setting's needs no matter if they are in Player's Handbook?
"There are no Warforged and Kender in the Realms despite them being in the PHB. Consult your DM if you want to import one from another plane/dimension/setting but be prepared that he might disallow it."
Well, let's be reasonable - I think nobody's hoping that WotC will not screw up/blow up the settings again, with Warforged arriving on Metal Planar Enterprise to Toril (though I think they are already there) and Kender being rediscovered as a strain of halfings that lives on the moon that fell from the sky as Bale died again in battle with Trom.
Maybe they'll think about making settings that don't shoehorn every potential race into them, but that's doubtful. And to be fair - it's not exactly only WotC's fault. TSR opened that particular Pandora's Box with Time of Troubles.
One consolation is - new races or not, it'd happen any way, as there surely is some new mechanic that needs to be explained in changes in the setting, or something to sell a new setting book.
Perhaps whining was a poor term to be used, but still - those races will arrive, either in core book or a splat book. And you either have the authority to shut something off, even if it says so in the main manual, or the players'd probably walk over you with splat books anyway. And in their inevitable arrival, I am somewhat glad that they'd be perhaps in the corebook, rather than splats.
Quote from: TristramEvans;682884I'd be happy with a section in the DMG describing ways to create new classes/ races, and providing examples like halfelfs, Minotaurs, dragonborn, etc.
That's a very nice idea!
Quote from: Mistwell;682843I know it's impossible for you to admit this, because you're an edition warrior and you feel your side "won" the war and so has the right to write the history, but 4e only failed in terms of how much profit WOTC wanted to make from it.
4e failed. Just admit it. The party is over. And please quit white knighting, dude. You're famous for it, and it just gets old and tired.
As far as me being an edition warrior, if you can name a bunch of 4e threads within the past five years where I started frothing at the mouth about 4e, I challenge you to try. 4e is just too boring for me to hate. What I feel for it is just a lingering, lifeless apathy...
4e only concerns me in regards to its
negative effect on the rpg hobby and industry. It completely
fragmented both the rpg hobby and rpg industry. And guess what? That sucks. Because of its existence, online rpg discourse
devolved on various rpg forums, such as ENWorld and rpgnet, which were sites I used to enjoy very much.
Quote from: MistwellHowever, it's an almost certainty that more people play 4e still, than play OD&D, BECIM, and 2e COMBINED. I think, if you were to add up the player base, the top three editions would be 3e/Pathfinder, 4e, and 1e, and then all others. And given that, pretending 4e should be entirely forgotten rather than adapted into the combined history of D&D is sheer stupidity.
If you can prove that, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think you're full of shit, as usual.
Quote from: MistwellIt's far FAR easier for you to ignore a few optional module races you don't like, than it is to simply never include them in any aspect of the game. Dragonborn, Tiefling, and Eladrin should be optional races (particularly since arguably all three exist in 3e as well). But you pretending 4e never existed and doesn't have a player base because you personally don't like that edition? Yeah, that's a bad decision for D&D, and would be a foolish one.
What the fuck are you ranting about now? I said to put these races in a gaming
supplement. How is that ignoring "optional module races that I don't like"? I did say that I'd be willing to play a Kender, remember? I'm even using a Warforged
right now, but I explained that putting campaign-specific races in the core rules would be
unwise. It would risk diluting the tone of the various campaign settings out there...
Quote from: MistwellIf there is anyone WOTC should be ignoring, it's the hardcore edition warriors. They're the ones least likely to buy the new edition no matter what it's like.
Tell me, Mistwell. Which edition am I a "hardcore edition warrior" for? 1e? 2e? 3e? 3.5? Basic D&D? OD&D? Please enlighten me, because I'd really like to know.
Given that Kender are from 1e/2e? and Warforged are from 3rd edition, I am not sure why this has derailed into talking about 4th edition.
Quote from: jadrax;682925Given that Kender are from 1e/2e? and Warforged are from 3rd edition, I am not sure why this has derailed into talking about 4th edition.
All roads lead to 4e. I for one can't wait until it's an irrelevant topic.
Unlike Kender who are always relevant.
Why god?
Quote from: jadrax;682925Given that Kender are from 1e/2e? and Warforged are from 3rd edition, I am not sure why this has derailed into talking about 4th edition.
Tieflings and Dragonborn are from 3.x as well. And Eladrin are now baked into the Forgotten Realms, which WotC is pushing hard as the default setting for Next.
The difference with 4E (as opposed to 3.x) is that races like Dragoborn and Warforged were baked into the core rules, and, as a result, shoehorned into every setting.
Quote from: Bobloblah;682949The difference with 4E (as opposed to 3.x) is that races like Dragoborn and Warforged were baked into the core rules, and, as a result, shoehorned into every setting.
And in the case of Forgotten Realms, LITERALLY smashed into it.
Quote from: Haffrung;682589I don't really understand how or why sentient and independent iron golems became a PC race. Sure, I suppose you could play anything. But why warforged and not otyoughs, ettins, or harpies? Fuck it, let's cast aside all our straightlaced inhibitions and make piercers a playable PC race.
Warforged don't exist as a random "let's take a monster and make it a PC" race. One of the basic themes of the Eberron setting is the idea that magic is harnessed as a tool for the basic challenges of society - communication, transportation, medicine, entertainment, and warfare. Warforged are mass-produced soldiers constructed during an extended period of war in the setting. One of the main things that makes them interesting as characters is that they were built as weapons in a war that's over - so what's their purpose now? They are a race without a culture, a race that can't reproduce, and many people see them either as an unpleasant reminder of the war or as dangerous weapons - guns walking around on the streets. They are part of the story of the age.
Given all that, I WOULDN'T throw warforged into just any setting. I would only use them if they are a concrete part of the setting with a story behind them, and if they have a clear place in the world. You could come up with an entirely different story - they are created by a specific country, or a specific wizard, or whatever - but I wouldn't just add them in without any story whatsoever.
With that said, I seriously doubt that's what Wizards intends to do. If Warforged and Kender are included, I expect that it will be as proof that people who are already playing Eberron or Dragonlance will continue to be able to do so in Next, NOT some sort of blanket assertion that ALL NEXT PLAYERS MUST USE THEM. Next embraces modularity; I expect they'll encourage individual DMs to use the races that make sense to them.
Welcome Hellcow.
Welcome indeed, Hellcow. :)
The appeal of warforged has got to be at least as much due to Fullmetal Alchemist as it is to Eberron.
BTW, the backstory to the golem character in Fullmetal Alchemist – a human who, as a result of a magical accident, had his soul bonded to a suit of armor, thus animating it – probably makes a lot more sense in most campaign settings than the Eberron warforged do, though the "warforged" would certainly be a freak of nature that way.
Quote from: Benoist;682866It's not what I am arguing, Mark, and if there is anyone here making an argument based on faith, it's you, when you are talking about things like players meetups online, conventions and the like giving a reliable idea of what the big picture we are looking at exactly looks like.
I said it is objective data. Obviously it's not 100% representative of the entire picture, but it's not based on your own personal gut instincts and experiences, which are definitely less objective and representative that the sort of data I mentioned.
QuoteThis is no objective reliable data sample, because people going to cons, answering surveys, going to seek unknown gamers on the web and participating on forums are not reflective of the mass of people out there playing games with their friends and family who haven't bought product for years if not decades and don't give a shit about any of the things you mentioned.
It's MORE representative, and definitely more objective, than your own experiences and instincts. It might well be off by several error factors, but with statistics you play the odds, and you use the best objective data you have. And those things I mentioned are the best objective data we have. You're depending purely on faith and beliefs about the unknown.
Quote from: One Horse Town;683705Welcome Hellcow.
Yes, welcome! You're a designer for Ebberon, and you live in Portland? How is it I never met you? Very small world.
I used to live in Portland. One of the few cities I miss. Mainly because of Powell's.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;683749Yes, welcome! You're a designer for Ebberon, and you live in Portland? How is it I never met you? Very small world.
Hellcow is
the designer of Eberron - Keith Baker, the author of the original setting search submission.
I've never played Eberron (well, outside of D&D Online) but I seem to retain this kind of trivia knowledge :)
Quote from: Mistwell;683716I said it is objective data. Obviously it's not 100% representative of the entire picture, but it's not based on your own personal gut instincts and experiences, which are definitely less objective and representative that the sort of data I mentioned.
It's not objective data since it is biased considering people who already go to cons, answer surveys and visit message boards. When we are considering the issue of who still plays what game, including the fact that many of the people being content with the game iterations they already have do not bother going for player meetups, to go to message boards or hobby stores to get with other gamers, play instead with friends, family, and people they introduce themselves to their own private hobby, this data you are considering is partial, and biased, hence, subjective.
This is really my point: you are telling me I am making a argument based on faith, but you are the one putting faith into data that is inherently biased and partial.
I think your POV on this is actually more biased than mine, because I don't pretend to show partial subjective evidence as fact, while you are.
YOU, Mark, are actually the one who came up with the notion that 4e is more widely played than OD&D, BECMI and 2nd edition COMBINED, whereas I'm saying I do not know, I cannot know, but do suspect you are off your rocker with this. As you reminded others on some other thread earlier, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, since you are the one who made the positive statement in the first place.
Quote from: Hellcow;683704Warforged don't exist as a random "let's take a monster and make it a PC" race. One of the basic themes of the Eberron setting is the idea that magic is harnessed as a tool for the basic challenges of society - communication, transportation, medicine, entertainment, and warfare. Warforged are mass-produced soldiers constructed during an extended period of war in the setting. One of the main things that makes them interesting as characters is that they were built as weapons in a war that's over - so what's their purpose now? They are a race without a culture, a race that can't reproduce, and many people see them either as an unpleasant reminder of the war or as dangerous weapons - guns walking around on the streets. They are part of the story of the age.
Given all that, I WOULDN'T throw warforged into just any setting. I would only use them if they are a concrete part of the setting with a story behind them, and if they have a clear place in the world. You could come up with an entirely different story - they are created by a specific country, or a specific wizard, or whatever - but I wouldn't just add them in without any story whatsoever.
With that said, I seriously doubt that's what Wizards intends to do. If Warforged and Kender are included, I expect that it will be as proof that people who are already playing Eberron or Dragonlance will continue to be able to do so in Next, NOT some sort of blanket assertion that ALL NEXT PLAYERS MUST USE THEM. Next embraces modularity; I expect they'll encourage individual DMs to use the races that make sense to them.
Other than the fact that I'm planning on having beef for dinner, I agree with everything here. ;-)
Quote from: Benoist;683790It's not objective data since it is biased considering people who already go to cons, answer surveys and visit message boards.
All of whom are some significant subset of players of the game. So it is objective data of a significant subset of the game. Your own experiences however are of an insufficient number to warrant being called a "significant" portion of the player base.
QuoteWhen we are considering the issue of who still plays what game, including the fact that many of the people being content with the game iterations they already have do not bother going for player meetups, to go to message boards or hobby stores to get with other gamers, play instead with friends, family, and people they introduce themselves to their own private hobby, this data you are considering is partial, and biased, hence, subjective.
Just because it's a subset, that does not make it "biased". If I do a poll and only call people with home phones or cell phones, and not include people who have no phones at all, it's not a "biased" poll, it's simply a subset of people. It's still, however, a scientific measure of that subset which can be repeated by someone else and they will get similar results within a fixed error range that can be calculated.
Bias is for personal opinion interjecting itself into analyzing data. There is no bias in analyzing data from those factors I mentioned, it's just that it accurately and objectively measures a subset of the entire population. Your method, however, is directly biased. It's purely based on your own opinion, it's not objective, it cannot be measured and repeated by someone else, there is nothing scientific at all about your own personal experiences.
QuoteThis is really my point: you are telling me I am making a argument based on faith, but you are the one putting faith into data that is inherently biased and partial.
Putting "faith" in mathematics and science isn't faith. That is, in fact, the definition of the difference between faith and non-faith. Now if I were saying something like "I believe my data is representative of the entire population of D&D, even those not reflected in the data at all", then you'd be right. But I am not saying that. All I am saying is my method objectively measures a significant subset of the whole population of players, and is therefore MORE ACCURATE, as in HAS MUCH HIGHER ODDS OF BEING MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE, than your non-scientific method.
QuoteAll we can do at this point is make an exchange of subjective opinions based on partial evidence and personal experiences, and that's where I'm telling you I think you are widely underestimating the number of people still playing OD&D, BECMI, or 2nd edition AD&D.
Show me ANY objective data that would even vaguely tend to indicate that. I am not asking for certainty, I am asking for something measurable, repeatable by someone else, and which measures a statistically meaningful sample of the total population of players. It's not like these are mystery standards. Mathematics figured out the definition of statistically significant populations long ago - and YOU PERSONAL EXPERIENCES DON'T MEET THAT DEFINITION, while the measurable data I am talking about DOES MEET THAT DEFINITION.
[quote[I think your POV on this is actually more biased than mine, because I don't pretend to show partial subjective evidence as fact,[/quote]
Wait wait wait. Partial SUBJECTIVE data? No, let's stop this bullshit right here. It's partial data, in that it's not measuring the whole population. But it's objective data. It's not both partial and subjective just because it does not measure the entire population. There is nothing subjective about the data. It's real, it's measurable, it's repeatable, it can stand up to the scrutiny of review, it's not subjective in nature.
Quotewhile you are. YOU, Mark, are actually the one who came up with the notion that 4e is more widely played than OD&D, BECMI and 2nd edition COMBINED, whereas I'm saying I do not know, I cannot know, but do suspect you are off your rocker with this. If anything, as you reminded others in some other thread, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, since you are the one who made the positive statement in the first place, and I find your evidence more than lacking.
My evidence is based on objective data, measurable and repeatable by anyone else, of a significant portion of the population, while yours is based purely on your own instincts and experiences of a non-significant portion of the population. So yes, I am saying I have met my burden of proof. Burden of proof does not mean "beyond all doubt". It means I present sufficient evidence to shift the conclusion away from the default position. When I present some objective data of a meaningful part of the question, and it's faced with only non-objective data of a non-meaningful part of the question, I've met my burden of proof. Ball is back in your court now - the burden shifts at this point to you to disprove the objective data of a meaningful subset of the population. And you can't do that based on your instincts and faith.
OK Mark. Now you're just being dishonest by pretending to miss the actual point I keep repeating. You're not dumb. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to play games for X pages as you just did on that other thread. You understood what I just told you.
We could just do a survey here. It would be about as objective.
Raise your hand if your game group still play games that have been oop for 20 years
*both hands raised*
Quote from: TristramEvans;683752I used to live in Portland. One of the few cities I miss. Mainly because of Powell's.
I lived there for years. Worked at the Hawthorne Theater. I miss Powell's. That place is where magic comes from.
Quote from: TristramEvans;683809Raise your hand if your game group still play games that have been oop for 20 years
*Raises Hands*
There is even a Cyberpunk 2013 game happening in the house, although they may be playing that because it actually is 2013...
Of course, a lot of old games have been reprinted since we last played them.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;683749You're a designer for Ebberon, and you live in Portland?
I've only been here for a year, but I'm around - I did some panels at GameStorm, and I'll probably be doing something at Guardian Games as part of the big reopening. I'm also the designer of Gloom, FWIW.
Am I thinking of something else, or wouldn't Warforged be outright forbidden by default in Ravenloft?
I'm recalling that there was a 'no monstrous' rule baked in to the setting. Particularly because being evil made you monstrous, so everything monstrous was evil, necessarily.
Am I remembering that wrong?
Quote from: mcbobbo;683817Am I thinking of something else, or wouldn't Warforged be outright forbidden by default in Ravenloft?
I'm recalling that there was a 'no monstrous' rule baked in to the setting. Particularly because being evil made you monstrous, so everything monstrous was evil, necessarily.
Am I remembering that wrong?
I don't think there's anything explicit, but your character probably would get chased out of town by an angry mob.
Quote from: Hellcow;683816I've only been here for a year, but I'm around - I did some panels at GameStorm, and I'll probably be doing something at Guardian Games as part of the big reopening. I'm also the designer of Gloom, FWIW.
Nice. I don't know how I missed you at Gamestorm.
Oh yeah I do. My helpers all bailed and I wasn't able to leave my booth ;)
I definitely need to make my way to Guardian Games.
I will admit, Eberron wasn't my favorite setting, and I felt it was a bit steam punky to me. But there can be no denying how great a setting it is, and I'm sure you have some great tips on fleshing out a setting.
If anyone likes D20 + steampunk, I highly recommend the Iron Kingdoms RPG. I am not 3e fan, but I greatly enjoyed IK.
I am cool with lots of PC races EXCEPT I want the PHB and the DMG to explicitly empower the DM to pick and choose which races are core in their world.
Of course, the problem is that WotC (and the rest) exist by selling splatbooks and thus trying to shoehorn every splat into every setting is the best financial move.
Quote from: Spinachcat;683858If anyone likes D20 + steampunk, I highly recommend the Iron Kingdoms RPG. I am not 3e fan, but I greatly enjoyed IK.
I am cool with lots of PC races EXCEPT I want the PHB and the DMG to explicitly empower the DM to pick and choose which races are core in their world.
Of course, the problem is that WotC (and the rest) exist by selling splatbooks and thus trying to shoehorn every splat into every setting is the best financial move.
Privateer Press just released (last year?) the new Iron Kingdoms RPG. It uses its own mechanics very similar to Warmachine and Hordes, so if you know either of those games, the IKRPG mechanics will be super easy to pick up. It is an excellent RPG now that it is no longer saddled with D20... The D20 mechanics were seriously holding the setting back... Now its 1000x better. Check it out if you haven't already.
Quote from: Hellcow;683704Warforged don't exist as a random "let's take a monster and make it a PC" race. One of the basic themes of the Eberron setting is the idea that magic is harnessed as a tool for the basic challenges of society - communication, transportation, medicine, entertainment, and warfare. Warforged are mass-produced soldiers constructed during an extended period of war in the setting. One of the main things that makes them interesting as characters is that they were built as weapons in a war that's over - so what's their purpose now? They are a race without a culture, a race that can't reproduce, and many people see them either as an unpleasant reminder of the war or as dangerous weapons - guns walking around on the streets. They are part of the story of the age.
Given all that, I WOULDN'T throw warforged into just any setting. I would only use them if they are a concrete part of the setting with a story behind them, and if they have a clear place in the world. You could come up with an entirely different story - they are created by a specific country, or a specific wizard, or whatever - but I wouldn't just add them in without any story whatsoever.
With that said, I seriously doubt that's what Wizards intends to do. If Warforged and Kender are included, I expect that it will be as proof that people who are already playing Eberron or Dragonlance will continue to be able to do so in Next, NOT some sort of blanket assertion that ALL NEXT PLAYERS MUST USE THEM. Next embraces modularity; I expect they'll encourage individual DMs to use the races that make sense to them.
One of my favorite people! Welcome Hellcow!
I think the Warforged can also work well if your setting has an ancient magically-advanced lost civilization that might have used them as troops or servitors. That's how I used them when I had a player interested in one in a PoLand campaign.
Quote from: Spinachcat;683858If anyone likes D20 + steampunk, I highly recommend the Iron Kingdoms RPG. I am not 3e fan, but I greatly enjoyed IK.
I am cool with lots of PC races EXCEPT I want the PHB and the DMG to explicitly empower the DM to pick and choose which races are core in their world.
Twinks who do not respect the idea that the GM is there to set standards and referee on those standards are not going to respect that idea if it's reiterated on paper.
JG
Quote from: Sacrosanct;683825I will admit, Eberron wasn't my favorite setting, and I felt it was a bit steam punky to me. But there can be no denying how great a setting it is, and I'm sure you have some great tips on fleshing out a setting.
It's not a setting that works for all stories or all players. It's not as "high magic" as many people think - for example, in the 3.5 setting teleportation is quite rare and there's no common equivalent to guns (magical or otherwise) - but it's still an acquired taste. Nonetheless, there's a lot of interesting stories to tell there.
For anyone using the setting, I've been posting Eberron Q&As (http://keith-baker.com/category/gaming/eberron-faq/) occasionally on my website.
Quote from: Hellcow;683912It's not a setting that works for all stories or all players. It's not as "high magic" as many people think - for example, in the 3.5 setting teleportation is quite rare and there's no common equivalent to guns (magical or otherwise) - but it's still an acquired taste. Nonetheless, there's a lot of interesting stories to tell there.
For anyone using the setting, I've been posting Eberron Q&As (http://keith-baker.com/category/gaming/eberron-faq/) occasionally on my website.
I ran a fantastic mini campaign set in the lower levels of Sharn called Five Corners Square, where the PCs had to negotiate the fragile peace between three mobs, the cops, and a monstrous incursion. Whenever I can't think of a storyline for Eberron I just realize that I love pulps and bastardize half-forgotten episodes of The Shadow.
I really like the War aspect of the setting, as in, you know, fantasy World War II, and the whole kind of ... Maltese Falcon, for lack of a better reference coming to mind, type of mysteries waiting to be uncovered since that troubled, all-out destructive war period ended.
Yes, I like Eberron. A lot. With 1st edition rules... it'd be a blast.
I'm kind of curious what Hellcow thinks of DDO, given it's one of the few MMO's that manages to keep my interest, and I think a lot of that has to do with the uniqueness of the Eberron setting.
Indeed, welcome aboard HellCow!
Quote from: JonWake;682652One group can play a group of murderhobos who have both alignments: Kill Shit and Get Paid
Where do I sign up?
Quote from: Benoist;683806OK Mark. Now you're just being dishonest by pretending to miss the actual point I keep repeating. You're not dumb. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to play games for X pages as you just did on that other thread. You understood what I just told you.
Naw, I responded to every point you made, genuinely, with attention to detail, because I felt you deserved a thoughtful response. You, on the other hand, grouped it all, hand-waived everything I just said, and responded with essentially a "Ditto what I said last". Which is, at best, rude. Better to not respond at all, than to go out of your way to post a "fuck you" like that.
I DO understand what you're saying. And I think you're wrong. And I explained, in detail, why I think you're wrong. You can not like my opinion, but you can't pretend I missed the point of what you said. I got the point, most assuredly. And, I think your point is faulty.
Quote from: Grymbok;683784Hellcow is the designer of Eberron - Keith Baker, the author of the original setting search submission.
I've never played Eberron (well, outside of D&D Online) but I seem to retain this kind of trivia knowledge :)
Eberron was the setting that got me back into D&D, and it was WotC's handling of the setting that drove me off again.
Quote from: James Gillen;683911Twinks who do not respect the idea that the GM is there to set standards and referee on those standards are not going to respect that idea if it's reiterated on paper.
JG
True, but you shouldn't play with assholes like that anyway.
Quote from: Novastar;683933I'm kind of curious what Hellcow thinks of DDO, given it's one of the few MMO's that manages to keep my interest, and I think a lot of that has to do with the uniqueness of the Eberron setting.
Honestly, I haven't played it as much as I'd like to, those I have played in the past and enjoyed it. I've met many of the designers and writers, and certainly been impressed with their passion for the setting and desire to work in a lot of pretty obscure lore (for example, the Daelkyr Orlassk). Things aren't always presented exactly as I'd do it, but that's the nature of working in different mediums; certain things that work in a tabletop RPG don't translate directly to an MMO/comic/novel/etc, and you need to come up with an interpretation that works with the medium.
Quote from: Mistwell;684174Naw, I responded to every point you made, genuinely, with attention to detail, because I felt you deserved a thoughtful response. You, on the other hand, grouped it all, hand-waived everything I just said, and responded with essentially a "Ditto what I said last". Which is, at best, rude. Better to not respond at all, than to go out of your way to post a "fuck you" like that.
I DO understand what you're saying. And I think you're wrong. And I explained, in detail, why I think you're wrong. You can not like my opinion, but you can't pretend I missed the point of what you said. I got the point, most assuredly. And, I think your point is faulty.
The feeling's mutual. When I am telling you that your data is subjective because it is partial and biased (which is actually the exact definition of "subjective", by the way), and that you basically brush it off with an opening salvo declaring I'm just making an argument based on faith because I'd be some sort of extremist or whatnot (when we are actually not talking about the game's iteration I play, run and design game materials for currently), repeating the same bits of partial, biased data intimating it's better than none at all, when I am most definitely not making ANY pronunciation one way or the other as some sort of objective fact, pointing out instead that your data sample IS partial and biased and that the only thing I could oppose to that are my gut feelings - which I pointed out, explicitly - you come off to me as an asshole pretending he doesn't get what I was just saying.
So... yeah. The feeling, or frustration, whatever you want to call it, is mutual at this point.
Quote from: MeTwinks who do not respect the idea that the GM is there to set standards and referee on those standards are not going to respect that idea if it's reiterated on paper.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;684345True, but you shouldn't play with assholes like that anyway.
That was kinda my point.
jg
Quote from: James Gillen;684704That was kinda my point.
jg
Some things are worth being blunt about.