# Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?



## Aloïsius (May 2, 2009)

We have 4e since last year. Have you the feeling that the new races, tiefling and dragonborn, have gained the same "traction" than the good old standard D&D races (dwarf, elf, halfling...) ? Or are they rather the 4e equivalent of the  half-dragons or half-outsider of 3e : popular for min-max build but rather bland inside ? 

I'm still not convinced with their graphic design, especially the horn and tail stuff of the tiefling. We have been accustomed to it since at least Age of Worms from Paizo, I still don't like it. 

So, do you use them in your campaign ? Do you like to play them as a PC ? Do your DM allow them in his/her game ? Do you think they will disappear in the next edition ?


----------



## ferratus (May 2, 2009)

I'm discouraging Dragonborn myself, but given that there were 3 half-dragons in my 8 years of playing 3e, and 3 dragonborn in the first 8 months of playing 4e, it seems my dislike of them is not universal.

I haven't seen any Tieflings yet, but then I haven't seen any drow either and we all know how popular they are.  I also have only seen one elf, while I have seen 4 eladrin.   Of the PHB2 classes, only the Deva has been adopted, because someone wanted to play an Avenger (not having much fun with the defender role of the dragonborn paladin he was playing earlier).  I'm playing a half-orc, but I was playing a homebrew half-orc before then.   Otherwise, people are still too busy playing their PHB1 races and classes to adopt the new ones.  

Humans have taken a huge hit in popularity now that they aren't quite as obvious a choice as they were in 3e, but are still more popular than they were 2e.  Dwarves and halflings seem to be about the same for popularity as they were in 3e.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 2, 2009)

Well Tieflings have always been popular with my group. For myself and one other player the vast majority of our characters are Tieflings. They in general too have been a popular race since 2e.

I have seen a increasing number of Dragonborn on the forums so I think they are growing in popularity.

I can't really see either dissappearing in the next edition, especially not the Tiefling.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 2, 2009)

Both dragonborn and tieflings have appeared as PCs in my campaign.


----------



## Shemeska (May 2, 2009)

Tieflings didn't have to try very hard, because they've been around and popular since 2e.

I -adore- tieflings. But, I cannot stand the appearance and homogeneity of appearance that 4e forced onto tieflings. Gone are the grab-bag of random fiendish traits, mixed bloodlines, and unique individual appearances, all in favor a default origin story for all tieflings and a set of gigantic horns, a thick brow-ridge, and overly large tail. They've lost some of their hallmarks of the last twenty years in the process of WotC including them as a core race, and IMO too much was forcibly sacrificed in the process.

Suffice to say, tieflings won't be going anywhere come next edition, though I suspect we might see them return to having more of their original variety back versus the 4e monolithic default. Same thing with genasi who look radically different in 4e to the point of being almost different creatures.

Dragonborn... I honestly can't say. I'd be fine using them as characters as they are or even as alternate half-dragon PCs in a 3.x game. I can't really speak on their traction come next edition though. They'll probably still be around, but perhaps less prominance, especially if any putative 5e decides to take a different route than 4e style-wise and try to reclaim all the players that dropped out (kinda like 3e with 2e).


----------



## Maggan (May 2, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> So, do you use them in your campaign ? Do you like to play them as a PC ? Do your DM allow them in his/her game ? Do you think they will disappear in the next edition ?




1. Yepp, we use them a lot. They are very popular among the players, as exciting new races to complement the old and, to us, stale dwarfs, elfs and humans.

2. Sure do. My current PC is a dragonborn fighter.

3. Again, yes. We allow all playable races.

4. Hmmm, will they disappear in the next edition? No, I don't think so. They might be retooled and reprioritised, but I don't think they'll disappear wholesale. 

/M


----------



## jdcash (May 2, 2009)

I play a dragonborn and love it.  Have not had experience with tiefling.  A little too dark in origin for my tastes, but I see no reason why others would not like/use them.


----------



## Piratecat (May 2, 2009)

Out of 13 characters we have 4 humans, 3 half-elves, 2 warforged, 1 elf, 1 dragonborn, 1 doppelganger, and 1 wilden. I've played a dragonborn myself (and loved it), and I have some tiefling NPCs waiting around in the wings. No one in my group seems worried or put off by the new races.

I have changed some tieflings' appearance, however. I'm happy letting some of them appear albino, and the size of tails and horns varies quite a bit.


----------



## Wormwood (May 2, 2009)

We've had tiefling and dragonborn characters since we played our first game of 4e.

The races fit just fine.


----------



## Runestar (May 2, 2009)

Considering that I grew bored of sundry races many years back, and cannot picture myself ever playing any of them save human, I don't see how the new races can be any worse for me.


----------



## Psikus (May 2, 2009)

Dragonborn are, by far, the most played race in my group. I think they're definitely here to stay. As for tieflings, we have only had one so far. I like their new appearance and unified origin, but we just don't have the kind of players that should go crazy for them (i.e. drow players). That said, I'd bet that the dark, tortured race that will get real traction this edition are Shadar'kai (and they aren't even in a PHB yet!)


----------



## Pickles JG (May 2, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I -adore- tieflings. But, I cannot stand the appearance and homogeneity of appearance that 4e forced onto tieflings. Gone are the grab-bag of random fiendish traits, mixed bloodlines, and unique individual appearances, all in favor a default origin story for all tieflings and a set of gigantic horns, a thick brow-ridge, and overly large tail. They've lost some of their hallmarks of the last twenty years in the process of WotC including them as a core race, and IMO too much was forcibly sacrificed in the process.




+1. But I can just use the 2e fluff & art & be happy.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (May 2, 2009)

I don't care much for Dragonborn, but I love Tieflings. I know there are some people who miss the random features that Tieflings could have and dislike the homogenization of features in 4E, but in my opinion random features would be more indicative of an Abyssal origin than an Infernal one. I especially didn't like previous editions' depictions of them with goat legs, and there are still some 4E Tiefling illustrations that I don't care for. 

This illustration, though, is awesome.


----------



## Cadfan (May 2, 2009)

In my area, Tieflings and Dragonborn are pretty popular.

Halflings, Half Elves, and maybe Dwarves... not so popular.  Straight up lame, even.

I think those three have conceptual problems for newer players.  Older players love the tropes, but newer players are ever so slightly a group of culture aliens.  So they look at halflings, and see "people who are short like children."  Ok.  And dwarves?  "People who are short and also fat."  And half elves?  "People who are.... umm...."  Halflings and Dwarves have cultures, sure, but those cultures are largely just copies of existing human cultures, meaning that its trivially easy for someone to create a human PC who's stolen the Halfling or Dwarf cultural shtick.  And Half Elves are just... a bag full of empty.

Meanwhile Tieflings and Dragonborn are interesting and unique.  Tieflings have an obvious hook (humans except demon touched) and they have physical differences on an entirely different scale from "really short" or "short and also fat."  Dragonborn also have an obvious hook and physical differentiation that stops them from being "humans but kinda not."


----------



## Hexmage-EN (May 2, 2009)

Dwarves are my favorite race, and I especially love the art direction for them in 4E. 

In fact, let me rank the PHB and PHB2 races by how much I like them:

1) Dwarf
2) Gnome
3) Tiefling
4) Goliath
5) Human
6) Elf
7) Deva
8) Eladrin
9) Half-Elf
10) Half-Orc
11) Dragonborn
12) Shifter
13) Halfling


----------



## Hereticus (May 2, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> We have 4e since last year. Have you the feeling that the new races, tiefling and dragonborn, have gained the same "traction" than the good old standard D&D races (dwarf, elf, halfling...) ? Or are they rather the 4e equivalent of the  half-dragons or half-outsider of 3e : popular for min-max build but rather bland inside?




Tieflings at least have some tie-in to a previous edition, and some before that if you include fiendish heritage creatures like Cambions and Alu-Demons.

If I were designing the Dragonborne and Dragonspawn races, I would have tied them in as sub-races of Lizardfolk.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 2, 2009)

In our highest level party, I play a Dragonborn Warlord, and another player a Tiefling Paladin. It was either our first or second regular D&D 4 game, and I don't think anyone of us regrets their racial choice.

But I don't want to play just one races, so in the other campaigns I ran with other race/class combinations.


----------



## Shemeska (May 2, 2009)

Hexmage-EN said:


> I don't care much for Dragonborn, but I love Tieflings. I know there are some people who miss the random features that Tieflings could have and dislike the homogenization of features in 4E, but in my opinion random features would be more indicative of an Abyssal origin than an Infernal one. I especially didn't like previous editions' depictions of them with goat legs, and there are still some 4E Tiefling illustrations that I don't care for.
> 
> This illustration, though, is awesome.




I see your brow-ridge and raise you goat legs.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 2, 2009)

Tiefling picture competition! I am so there *begins scrounging around* Hmm... Diterlizzi had a Tiefling picture I really liked, got to find it.

Say, Shemeska do you know of any 2e book that had a particular focus on Tieflings?


----------



## Hereticus (May 2, 2009)

Psikus said:


> Dragonborn are, by far, the most played race in my group. I think they're definitely here to stay. As for tieflings, we have only had one so far. I like their new appearance and unified origin, but we just don't have the kind of players that should go crazy for them (i.e. drow players). That said, I'd bet that the dark, tortured race that will get real traction this edition are Shadar'kai (and they aren't even in a PHB yet!)




Fourth edition was set up so all classes had a combat aspect to them. Moreso than in the previous three editions. With the PHB1, Dragonborn were the only race with a Strength bonus. There was a built-in popularity for combat maximization.

Now with Half Orcs and Goliaths, they no longer have the Strength bonus monopoly.


----------



## Shroomy (May 2, 2009)

Of the two, I think that the dragonborn are the most popular, but I expect that both races will make the inevitable transition to the new edition.  8-10 years of continual support will do that.


----------



## C_M2008 (May 2, 2009)

They're not leaving, get used to it.


----------



## Nai_Calus (May 2, 2009)

Don't like the appearance or default background of either. Of course, if I run 4e I'm going to be near completely disregarding the default background of *everything*, and changing the appearance of a few races entirely, and throwing some out in the process that don't fit at all with what I want in a prime world.

Dragonboobs will be one of the 'out' things. I don't like Dragons at all, and if they're present at all in worlds I come up with, they're myths someone made up out of seeing some other kind of monster. I also dislike 'monster' races, which, let's face it. Dragonborn are monsters.

(And no it's not just 'ew it's new I don't like it', I'm seriously considering dumping *halflings* in favor of gnomes, because I like having a small number of races and two short things is eh)

Let's see, ranking things, for me:

1: Eladrin. (The parts of Elves I liked without the dull tree-hugging, with some weird fey-ness thrown in for good measure? Sweet! Though my eladrin are a race that's slightly over 500 years old that breeds like rabbits wherein not a single one has yet died of old age.)
2: Half-Elf. (I have a fondness for them from a PC)
3. Gnome. (I like the little buggers for some reason)
4. Dwarf. (See gnome)
5. Half-Orc. (Fondness for them from a PC too)
6. Drow. (See Half-Orc and Half-Elf, though the drow I'd use in 4e would completely toss out the usual flavour on them.)
7. Human. (They're there.)
8. Elf. (4e split the elves and the tree-hugging nature thing was the boring part)
9. Halfling. (Meh.)
10. Genasi. (OK idea, hate look, but it'll get redone if it's in at all)
11. Deva. (Deva manage to be more boring than Aasimar ever supposedly were. I *like* Aasimar.)
12. Goliath. (Does nothing for me, but doesn't really offend me.)
13. Tiefling. (Never liked them that much to begin with, 4e look is eh, redone if it's in.)
14. Shadar-kai. (Hot Topic race)
15. Shifter. (Pointless furries.)
16. Dragonborn. (Monster lizard people with females that have boobs. No thanks. Plus they step fluff-wise on where I want to take Dwarves, so meh.) 

I still like the 'old' races and find them fun still, so most of the new ones are 'meh, what does this do conceptually that I can't do with an elf, or a dwarf, or even a human?'. I've never found being a weird race necessary to making a character that's interesting to me. In fact I've never found a reason to *be* a weird race. Drow and half-orcs are about as weird as I get. Anything I wanted to do I can do with an old boring normal race. So there's no appeal for me in the odd ones. (And yeah, halfling is a notable exception to this. I just plain like gnomes better.)

*shrug*


----------



## Mad Mac (May 2, 2009)

From what I've seen, both races are pretty popular. I think Eladrin are the clear winner in terms of popularity, though. 

  I'm not sure how I'd rank the core 8 races in the PHB, but I'd probably put Eladrin, Elves, and Dragonborn near the top, with halflings and dwarves being less popular, and Humans/Tieflings somewhere in the middle. Just my impressions from my own play time, and skimming dozens of PBP games. 

  On second thought, grouping Dwarves with Haflings is a little too harsh. They definately more popular than halflings. I'm just not sure they beat out anything else.

  The PHB 2 races haven't been out long, so I haven't got a feel for how popular they'll be. I think I've seen more shifters and Deva's than anything else though, and I haven't seen anyone play a half-orc at all yet. The PHB 2 classes favoring wisdom could be skewing the results though. 

  Oh, and for the FRPG races, I've seen a lot more Drow than Genasi. I haven't seen anyone make a genasi that wasn't a Swordmage or Taclord, either.


----------



## Grydan (May 2, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> From what I've seen, both races are pretty popular. I think Eladrin are the clear winner in terms of popularity, though.




Heh, I play in one group (which has experienced several players coming and going, and a TPK which had us all whip up new characters) and DM another, and I've yet to see a single Eladrin PC (excluding a DMPC wizard used in the very first session I played in, who never appeared again).

First PC I played was a Dragonborn, and there's one in the campaign I DM (and the player is terribly fond of the character, more attached to it that any of the other players seem to theirs). The next character on my lengthy list of things I want to play is another Dragonborn. There's a tiefling warlock a little further down the list for which I have an awesome Reaper mini that I'm painting, which is a first for me.

Between the two groups, here's what I've seen so far:

Dragonborn - 3
Drow - 2
Dwarf - 3
Eladrin - 1 (DMPC)
Elf - 2
Genasi - 1
Half-Elf - 2
Halfling - 2
Human - 4
Tiefling - 1


----------



## Dire Bare (May 2, 2009)

Tieflings already had traction, as they have been around since 2nd Edition.  It's a large part of the reason why they were "promoted" in 4th Edition.  Dragonborn also already have traction, just not under the name "Dragonborn".  Half-dragons were ridiculously popular in 3rd Edition, so including Dragonborn in 4th was also a no-brainer.

The upcoming Wilden race, however . . . .


----------



## Aloïsius (May 2, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Tieflings already had traction, as they have been around since 2nd Edition.  It's a large part of the reason why they were "promoted" in 4th Edition.  Dragonborn also already have traction, just not under the name "Dragonborn".  Half-dragons were ridiculously popular in 3rd Edition, so including Dragonborn in 4th was also a no-brainer.




But the new tiefling is not the old one (while the difference between eladrin and grey elves are minor) and the dragonborn is not an half dragon. The "new" versions could have lost the traction the old ones had. 
From what I read here, it seems that they are a success.


----------



## Shemeska (May 2, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> The "new" versions could have lost the traction the old ones had.




Depends on who you ask I think.


----------



## Lizard (May 2, 2009)

None of either (not even as NPCs) in our first 4e game; none so far planned for our second.

FWIW, in the 4e world I'm building, Tieflings and Dragonborn are part of the history; halflings, dwarves, and gnomes are not.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 2, 2009)

Generally speaking Tieflings are Tieflings from past to this edition. I like the base stats they got in 4e (especially compared to 3.5), and while I like the variable appearances that is a very easy change.

The one thing I would like to see return would be the various different minor powers they could have at character creation. But without the random dice roll, I never liked that particular element.

Oh and Shemeska, did you notice my post about if you knew any Tiefling heavy 2e books?


----------



## CapnZapp (May 2, 2009)

Tieflings are a decent concept.

Dragonborn are an abomination that simply does not exist IMC. Some things, like "can I play a Dragon" have an easy answer.


----------



## Inyssius (May 2, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Some things, like "can I play a Dragon" have an easy answer.




And that answer is *"Yes, but..."
*


----------



## CapnZapp (May 2, 2009)

No. 

Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.

_Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.


----------



## alleynbard (May 2, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
> 
> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.




This sounds very badwrongfun to me.

Is that what you meant?  

Actually, I will admit I started off kind of irritated but now I am interested in hearing your reasons for this opinion.  If you don't mind clarifying that is.  I am not looking to shoot you down, but I want to hear what you have to say. I find myself fascinated.  I am one of those "live and let live"  kind of guys, so it would be cool to hear your reasoning. 

Personally, I am not overly bothered by how Wizards is producing material, but I can see your point of view.  But does your thoughts on the subject go further than that?



In answer to the OP, I think both races have some pretty good traction.  I have seen both dragonborn and tieflings at my table. But that is only a simple story from one game table and is likely not representative of the whole community.  I would like to see them appear more often in the future, if that means anything.


----------



## Mark (May 2, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> So, do you use them in your campaign?





I think for most long time rpgers, they fundamentally change the flavor of traditional campaigns where such races might only have a place as NPC races, if at all.  IME, they tend to appeal most to newer players, particularly those who come from a CRPG backgrounds, for whatever reasons.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 2, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
> 
> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.




Opinions aren't facts.



			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> I -adore- tieflings. But, I cannot stand the appearance and homogeneity of appearance that 4e forced onto tieflings. Gone are the grab-bag of random fiendish traits, mixed bloodlines, and unique individual appearances, all in favor a default origin story for all tieflings and a set of gigantic horns, a thick brow-ridge, and overly large tail. They've lost some of their hallmarks of the last twenty years in the process of WotC including them as a core race, and IMO too much was forcibly sacrificed in the process.




Sounds like something a 3PP should jump on.  Goodman Games did something for Dragonborn already, right?  Bringing back some of the old school flavor of Tieflings should be a piece of cake.


----------



## Ravellion (May 2, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
> 
> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.



I had a four paragraph post typed, but it would derail the thread and I don't really want to discuss it. Suffice it to say, I thank you for your apparent insight into _my game_, but I find it strange that you strangely cannot say anything useful about _your own game_. Ie. I strongly dislike your rhetorical choice of words, as it leaves no room for discussion as you give no arguments, you state as fact, and you state as universal.

In any case, minor cosmetic reasons aside, my opinion on the new races: tieflings don't do it for me as a core race, as it implies that they are common, which in my opinion undercuts their natural "brooding, dark, angsty outsider" niche. Dragonborn work just fine for me as a non evil warrior race. I quite like them stat wise, and the Dragon article made it quite easy for me to fit them in. It's almost like they've always been a part of the world. I suspect because they are different enough from dwarves that the warrior culture aspects don't clash to much (dwarves IMC have always been rather xenophobic).


----------



## tsadkiel (May 2, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
> 
> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.




This is why I've banned every PC race except gnomes.


----------



## alleynbard (May 2, 2009)

tsadkiel said:


> This is why I've banned every PC race except gnomes.




Good choice!  XP for you!


----------



## Shemeska (May 2, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> Sounds like something a 3PP should jump on.  Goodman Games did something for Dragonborn already, right?  Bringing back some of the old school flavor of Tieflings should be a piece of cake.




Nice idea. Hell, I'd work on it. 

Though doesn't 4e have some freaky clause about forbidding changing the default flavor and definition of core material? Of course, that's only if you used the GSL I suppose.


----------



## Bumbles (May 2, 2009)

Well, I often find myself with human-only worlds, but that's merely my habit, rather than any kind of definitive statement on my part.  I just have to make myself include the others on purpose.

As far as it goes, I find the Dragonborn and Tieflings quite appealing, and I'm quite happy to play them, or play in worlds with them.  The Eladrin also work for me.  I'm undecided on some of the PHB2 races though.


----------



## alleynbard (May 2, 2009)

I should point out, because I think it is relevant to my opinion, that I am one of those guys that opens the door and invites all the new races right on into his world. I can always find room for them somewhere (hidden city, pocket dimension, etc.)  My new homebrew is partially inspired by Republic Era Star Wars so a diverse set of races suits me.


----------



## alleynbard (May 2, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Nice idea. Hell, I'd work on it.
> 
> Though doesn't 4e have some freaky clause about forbidding changing the default flavor and definition of core material? Of course, that's only if you used the GSL I suppose.




I think it says (and I am not entirely a reliable source  ) that you cannot re-define a race. 

Now, Goodman produced the rather nice dragonborn sourcebook.  But I don't think they really changed the appearance of the race overall or its "role" in the game. They just provided a slightly different and more in-depth backstory, cultural details, and generally more involved fluff. 

Not horribly helpful, I know.


----------



## Wormwood (May 2, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> I should point out, because I think it is relevant to my opinion, that I am one of those guys that opens the door and invites all the new races right on into his world.



You're definitely not alone.

If a race captures a player's imagination and interest, I will find a place for it. 

Hell, I consider that a crucial part of my job as DM.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 2, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> But the new tiefling is not the old one (while the difference between eladrin and grey elves are minor) and the dragonborn is not an half dragon. The "new" versions could have lost the traction the old ones had.
> From what I read here, it seems that they are a success.




The new tiefling is the old tiefling.  Some of the details have been changed, of course.  And this pleases some and displeases others.  But the basic idea of a devil-tainted race of humans, we still got that.  And, really, the fiddly details aren't really all that different.

Same story with the dragonborn.  The details have changed even moreso, but we still have the idea of a half-dragon/half-human race.

Even eladrin aren't really all that new.  It's just the high elf concept separated from the wood elf concept.

The details are important and can sometimes make or break a concept, but the concepts themselves are already popular and have existing "traction" . . . 4th Edition just cements this by giving these particular concepts center stage along with the classics.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.



  Jeesh.  Don't let the man tell you what to play, right?



> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.




So, _limiting_ options makes your game _richer_?  If you dislike dragonborn (or any other bit of the game) and don't see a place for them in your game, that's fine of course.  But I, for one, embrace the idea of being an open GM.  Saying "yes" is a lot more fun, and ultimately richer, than saying "no".  YMMV, of course.

If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick.  Not to be all pouty because I couldn't play my dragon-man, but I've just gotten tired of playing with closed GMs who feel like limiting player choice is somehow taking a brave stand against the "excesses" of the new regime (WotC).


----------



## darjr (May 3, 2009)

Dragonborn and Tiefling are popular enough around here.

In the games I play and the others I've seen or heard about.

I do like the idea of the random traits of Tieflings and a third party expanding on it.

If not expanding Tieflings in this way, why not a different, abyssal tinged, race.

Or a far realm tainted race.


----------



## Cadfan (May 3, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> So, _limiting_ options makes your game _richer_?



I don't really agree with most of the sentiments he expressed, but yes, sometimes limiting options can make the game richer.  A smaller number of playable races can allow you to spend more time fleshing out each one.

The way I generally do things is to give the players a general premise, find out what the players want to play, and then trim off anything that neither my nor their needs requires.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick. Not to be all pouty because I couldn't play my dragon-man, but I've just gotten tired of playing with closed GMs who feel like limiting player choice is somehow taking a brave stand against the "excesses" of the new regime (WotC).



Deja vu.

I like gully dwarves (yes, I know), and pseudodragons, and have asked for them as PCs in the past, but wouldn't want them in every campaign.  I think that's the problem with core dragonboobs (apart from thinking the concept is lame and the artwork ugly).  They're not any good as an everyday meal, IMO.


> So, limiting options makes your game richer?



Of course!  It's like cooking or music - it's as much what you leave out as what you put in.

You want every world to look the same and kitchen sink _everything_?  Everywhere would be like Eberron, which tried that, with mixed results.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2009)

Weren't there dragonborn, or something like them, in the same setting that (unfortunately, IMO) spawned gully dwarves and. . . those other two racial variants (TSNBN, by me anyway)? With some terribly unfortunate name, IIRC. But then, I've not read the books, so, not sure.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Weren't there dragonborn, or something like them, in the same setting that (unfortunately, IMO) spawned gully dwarves and. . . those other two racial variants (TSNBN, by me anyway)?



Draconians.  Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, had a good name and fair artwork, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid), hinting at their status as abominations.  

Also had a compelling backstory (made from corrupting stolen good dragon's eggs).  About a million times cooler than dragonboobs IMO, and primarily stayed NPCs as most good monsters should, most of the time.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> Draconians.



Ouch. Yeah, that's the name, alright.  Then again, I've heard worse. . .



> Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid).  Also had a compelling backstory (made from corrupting stolen good dragon's eggs).  About a million times cooler than dragonboobs IMO, and primarily stayed NPCs as most good monsters should, most of the time.



Ah. So, not really a PC race, and not really all that similar. OK. Well, it's not a setting I've really looked into much. And, as I'm sometimes liable to do, I've tended to dismiss it out of hand a bit too readily, perhaps.

[. . . we now return you to your. . . ]


----------



## Nymrohd (May 3, 2009)

Actually the chromatic draconians were good and were PC races.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> You want every world to look the same and kitchen sink _everything_?  Everywhere would be like Eberron, which tried that, with mixed results.




Allowing a player to play a dragonborn is a far cry from making your campaign exactly like all the others, kitchen sinks included.  I tend to run my games in Mystara, and dragonborn do not exist in my campaign at this point.  I haven't disallowed them, they just haven't come up yet.  If a player wants to play a dragonborn in my game, do I need to create a dragonborn nation or culture to let this happen?  I could, of course, and that'd be great.  Or I could allow this character concept with any number of backstories.  My favorite one is how the dragonborn were introduced in 3rd Edition, as an "evolved" race dedicated to the Platinum Dragon.

Official 4th Edition campaigns from WotC will try to give strong backgrounds to all the new races and classes, which makes sense.  But Eberron is hardly a clone of Forgotten Realms and my campaign doesn't need to be either if I allow dragonborn.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Actually the chromatic draconians were good and were PC races.



Is this in one of the attempted resuscitations of the setting or the work of some obscure prequel book?  Saga edition maybe?  I don't detect their presence in the War of the Lance, which is pretty much all I tuned in for.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> Draconians.  Definitely not a PC race, definitely villains, had a good name and fair artwork, and did freaky things when they died (like their bones exploding or turning into pools of acid), hinting at their status as abominations.




Draconians weren't originally a PC race, but it didn't take long for that to change.  Rules to play draconians existed in 2nd Edition (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've looked) and they definitely existed in 3rd Edition.  Margaret Weis even wrote more than a few books with draconians as the main protagonists (Kang's Regiment).

It's a bit of the klingon syndrome . . . take a villian so cool that everybody wants to be them . . . but there is a long history of playing dragon-men in D&D and fantasy gaming, including Dragonlance.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Allowing a player to play a dragonborn is a far cry from making your campaign exactly like all the others, kitchen sinks included.



But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time.  It's kitchen sinking every campaign world.  Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs.  Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs.  Etcetera.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Ah. So, not really a PC race, and not really all that similar. OK.




So were Drow once upon a time, but then came a certain book series, and we all know where that lead.

Sadly, the books about Kang's Regiment just weren't as popular.

Still, I would say that the Dragonborn are the effective descendants of those draconians in some ways.  Heck, I'm sure there's somebody out there who is running a campaign with that as their origin.

Or somebody might have something like the Where Dragons Lie books by Salsitz.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Draconians weren't originally a PC race, but it didn't take long for that to change. Rules to play draconians existed in 2nd Edition (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've looked) and they definitely existed in 3rd Edition. Margaret Weis even wrote more than a few books with draconians as the main protagonists (Kang's Regiment).



Okay, that was after I tuned out.  I think they should probably have stayed villains, and I think I'll try and remember them that way.  It's a bit like Darth Vader being ruined a bit by whiny Anakin.  It might have more depth, but sometimes you just want straight up bad guys.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> Is this in one of the attempted resuscitations of the setting or the work of some obscure prequel book?  Saga edition maybe?  I don't detect their presence in the War of the Lance, which is pretty much all I tuned in for.




I don't think the "good" chromatic draconians ever appeared in any novels.  I think they were introduced in 3rd Edition, but maybe they showed up in 2nd somewhere.  While I'm okay with the idea of PC draconians, I don't think the chromatic draconians were a well executed idea.  But the reason why they exist, is because fans wanted to play draconian PCs.  

There were still rules introduced to play good old fashioned "metallic" draconians.  As the setting progressed draconians were portrayed as a slave race to Takhisis . . . with some reveling in that role and others rebelling against it.


----------



## Hereticus (May 3, 2009)

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> Okay, that was after I tuned out.  I think they should probably have stayed villains, and I think I'll try and remember them that way.




Heh, while I'd allow a draconian PC in a Dragonlance game, if I ever ran one . . . . I like them as villians better myself.  Same goes for drow and klingons!  But there's always room for a draconian "Drizzt" . . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.
> 
> Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.




Now that is a group I'd leave immediately.  Punish a player for coming up with a character concept I didn't care for?  I stopped doing that when I was 12 . . . no, wait, I didn't even do that way back then.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> So were Drow once upon a time, but then came a certain book series, and we all know where that lead.



Not disregarding what you posted after this bit, by the way, just hoping for a brief history lesson (well, the time of a specific turning point, anyhow). Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced _officially_ (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race? Not meaning to derail anything, and it actually seems kinda on topic. Anyway, does anyone happen to know?

Oh, and what was the _very first_ previously monster-only PC race in D&D of any kind? Half Orc, perhaps? And when did that make an appearance?


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced officially (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race?



 To my knowledge, Unearthed Arcana 1E.  1E Fiend Folio had some rules you might use in making a PC dark elf, but mostly UA.  These are both based on the Giants/Drow series, though, and maybe a dragon article before that (knowing the source of much of UA).


----------



## Remathilis (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time.  It's kitchen sinking every campaign world.  Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs.  Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs.  Etcetera.




Yeah like half-orcs in Dragonlanc... DOH! 

Or gnomes in Dark Su... Ooops!

Or paladins in Ravenlof.... Dang it!


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick.







Dire Bare said:


> Now that is a group I'd leave immediately.





Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining?  Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games?  If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time.  It's kitchen sinking every campaign world.  Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs.  Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs.  Etcetera.




No, not at all.  A good example is muls, half-dwarves, from Dark Sun.  They are an iconic race of the setting and help define the feel of it.  If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun?  Of course not.

I allow anything and everything within the rules into my game.  That doesn't make my game world identical to any other, nor does it make a kitchen sink world.  I allow dragonborn, but nobody's asked to play one yet and as so they don't exist in my world . . . yet.  If and when somebody asks, I'll allow them and I'm not really worried about diluting the purity of my world.  Same goes for goliaths, wardens, invokers and other bits too.

If I created kingdoms and huge backstories for every race and class in my game that closely mirrored WotC's stuff, then that might start to make my world to look a little unfocused and kitchen-sink-esque . . . but even in that case, so what?  I'm not writing novels in this setting, I'm running a table-top game for my friends every other week or so.

I've seen closed DM's shut down player ideas often enough in my gaming career, and I find it anti-fun for the most part.  I love GMs who are open, because it frees everybody at the table to just relax and have fun!  It's only a game afterall!

I do draw the line sometimes at player-created classes and races unless I trust the player to come up with something balanced.  But I rarely outright say "no", I'd rather work with the player to rework the class or race (or feat or whatever) that to simply ban it.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun? Of course not.



That's a mighty weak straw man you've set up there.  I've not said that you'd make your world like Ravenloft by including lycanthrope PCs either.  You're shadowboxing with this line of argument.

If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them.  Do you understand what this actually means?  It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish.  It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining?  Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games?  If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.




Thanks for assuming!  If somebody asks me, "Hey, you play D&D?  You wanna play with my group this Saturday?"  If I'm free I'll usually say "yes" before "researching" the game.  When I first sit down with the DM (or email), I'll ask for any house rules and I'll stick to them, including banned races or classes.  There is so much out there I can always find a different class or race that will be fun.

But if the DM simply bans dragonborn (or something else) because they're just silly dragonbewbs who don't belong in a real D&D game . . . that's a warning sign this isn't a DM whose style is going to be fun for me.  If he/she doesn't want me to play a dragonborn because they don't fit the campaign style they are running, well that's fine.  It might seem a fine distinction, but it's all about attitude.

Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, I'll ask for any character creations rules or limitations and be told, "whatever you want".  Then when I show up with my dragonborn, or soulknife, or whatever, I'm sneeringly told that class or race is lame and isn't allowed.  Not fun.

But as I do prefer to play with folks who are open and fun . . . like me!  . . . this is rarely a problem.


----------



## Hereticus (May 3, 2009)

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.



Dire Bare said:


> Now that is a group I'd leave immediately.  Punish a player for coming up with a character concept I didn't care for?  I stopped doing that when I was 12 . . . no, wait, I didn't even do that way back then.




I agree with you.

The DM serves the role of refereeing the game, they do not own it and should not dictate.

I do not like inflexible DMs who are control freaks.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 3, 2009)

Dragonborn and Tieflings have both been pretty popular in our games. In a commission of heresy of the highest order I kicked the gnomes out of the Kron Hills in Greyhawk and installed the dragonborn there.

I would most like to play the races in this order...

the races I prefer
1. Human
2. Eladrin
3. Dragonborn
4. Deva
5. Elf
6. Half-Elf

the tolerated
7. Dwarf
8. Genasi
9. Goliath
10. Halfling
11. Gnome

the hated
12. Shifters
13. Shadar-Kai
14. Drow
15. Tiefling
16. Half-Orc


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them.  Do you understand what this actually means?  It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish.  It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.




I can understand what you're saying regarding working with less to make more, but I think you may want to work on how you're trying to express your idea.

Leaving out the dragonboobs comments might help, for example.  It comes across as a bit derogatory.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> If I'm free I'll usually say "yes" before "researching" the game.
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, (. . .)





In over 35 years of gaming I think I may have found myself in a situation like you describe only a couple of times and both times poor communication can be blamed.  Again, without making any assumptions, I can only suggest that if you seem to be in this situation as often as a "99%" figure might suggest (100+ such games?), you might need to have a bit more conversation before joining games.


----------



## rounser (May 3, 2009)

> Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, I'll ask for any character creations rules or limitations and be told, "whatever you want". Then when I show up with my dragonborn, or soulknife, or whatever, I'm sneeringly told that class or race is lame and isn't allowed. Not fun.



Alright.  Take out the building up of false expectations and the sneering; is it okay then?  Like Mark I can't say I've encountered your 99 percenters much.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> That's a mighty weak straw man you've set up there.  I've not said that you'd make your world like Ravenloft by including lycanthrope PCs either.  You're shadowboxing with this line of argument.
> 
> If you kitchensinked everything core into every world, it would ruin them.  Do you understand what this actually means?  It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish.  It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.




Straw man?  Shadow boxing?  Do I even understand what this means?  Whatever.

I think it's pretty clear we just have different ideas of what worldbuilding is all about.  If I'm building a world that I'm going to write novels in, then I would probably be more selective.  If I'm building a world to play D&D games in, then I won't be.  Or if I'm using a published campaign setting, any of them, I also allow just about anything to go.  

The only reason I can think of to be so selective is if I'm shooting for a real tight theme, like a low-magic setting with a more historical feel.  Or a setting based off Greek mythology or something where dragons don't really play much of a part.  But a standard D&D setting?  Nah.  D&D is already "kitchen-sink", even old-school D&D, and me allowing dragon-men or plant-men or whatever isn't going to really dilute it any further.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> In over 35 years of gaming I think I may have found myself in a situation like you describe only a couple of times and both times poor communication can be blamed.  Again, without making any assumptions, I can only suggest that if you seem to be in this situation as often as a "99%" figure might suggest (100+ such games?), you might need to have a bit more conversation before joining games.




Without making any assumptions, huh?  Heh, without reading my entire post as well . . . 



Dire Bare said:


> But as I do prefer to play with folks who are open and fun . . . like me!  . . . this is rarely a problem.




99% of the time I've found myself in those situations, but those situations have been quite rare.

Obviously, if the DM has restrictions that the player doesn't hear until he sits down with his newly rolled-up character, there has been a communication breakdown.  But I think it's fair if asked to sit down to a 4th Edition D&D game, to assume races and classes from the existing rules are allowed, unless told otherwise.  

And if my new DM wants to ban a race from the published rules, that's fine, but it is a sign of a "closed DM" to me and a hint that this might not be the game for me (it's not a given, just a sign).  So I sit down and play a few sessions only to later decide it's not a good fit . . . so what?  No skin off anybody's back, I just move on and the group just keeps playing the way they like.

I don't think sitting down to a new game of D&D should require all that much more "research" than sitting down to a new game of poker.  It's a game.  An involved game that many have turned into a lifestyle hobby (including myself), but still a game.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> Alright.  Take out the building up of false expectations and the sneering; is it okay then?  Like Mark I can't say I've encountered your 99 percenters much.



I hope I'm not developing a habit of quoting myself, but . . .



Dire Bare said:


> But if the DM simply bans dragonborn (or something else) because they're just silly dragonbewbs who don't belong in a real D&D game . . . that's a warning sign this isn't a DM whose style is going to be fun for me.  If he/she doesn't want me to play a dragonborn because they don't fit the campaign style they are running, well that's fine.  It might seem a fine distinction, but it's all about attitude.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Without making any assumptions, huh?  Heh, without reading my entire post as well . . .





If I do not quote your entire post, you assume I didn't read it?  Okay.




Dire Bare said:


> 99% of the time I've found myself in those situations, but those situations have been quite rare.





You either do not understand how percenatges work or believe that 100 times or more is rare.




Dire Bare said:


> Obviously, if the DM has restrictions that the player doesn't hear until he sits down with his newly rolled-up character, there has been a communication breakdown.





That would be my other point.




Dire Bare said:


> But I think it's fair if asked to sit down to a 4th Edition D&D game, to assume races and classes from the existing rules are allowed, unless told otherwise.





I think if you wind up in as many games that are not to your liking as your posting indicates then all of those DMs are not communicating well.




Dire Bare said:


> And if my new DM wants to ban a race from the published rules, that's fine, but it is a sign of a "closed DM" to me and a hint that this might not be the game for me (it's not a given, just a sign).  So I sit down and play a few sessions only to later decide it's not a good fit . . . so what?  No skin off anybody's back, I just move on and the group just keeps playing the way they like.





If you know that a banned race is going to make you leave a campaign after several games you probably shouldn't join in the first place.  The time of your own that is wasted is multiplied by however many other players are in the campaign.  You might also have taken a seat from someone else with more dedication to a campaign that would have stayed with the group rather than ignored an obvious sign and left later.  It's kinda rude, actually.




Dire Bare said:


> I don't think sitting down to a new game of D&D should require all that much more "research" than sitting down to a new game of poker.  It's a game.  An involved game that many have turned into a lifestyle hobby (including myself), but still a game.





You seem to want to downplay the obvious communication difficulties that arise from your experiences (by throwing quotes around the word "research") when all it really means is that you should be more forthcoming with the other members of a group, a group that is kind enough to invite you to play.  It really isn't much different than walking off a softball field in the third inning of the first game of a season because playing fast pitch is something you've decided retrospectively is not your bag.  Sure, they are both just games but it doesn't reduce your responsibility to be honest and up front with the other participants.  At the very least, you should let people know that you have a habit of walking off after a campaign has begun because of thingsyou knew in advance so that the other players have the option of inviting someone else to play who has fewer stipulations and quirks.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> You seem to want to downplay the obvious communication difficulties that arise from your experiences (by throwing quotes around the word "research") when all it really means is that you should be more forthcoming with the other members of a group, a group that is kind enough to invite you to play.




You have this backwards, or at least, you're leaving out one very important aspect, namely the group's responsibility to make things clear on their own.

I don't know about anybody else, but if I'm making a campaign, and I have something different, or something basic excluded, I'll include it in my handout.

If somebody tells me a "whatever" then that's when I'll be concerned when they say no to something, and I don't mean a "no because it won't fit with what's going on in the game" but the derisive and snide noes that involve terms like dragonboobs.



> At the very least, you should let people know that you have a habit of walking off after a campaign has begun because of thingsyou knew in advance so that the other players have the option of inviting someone else to play who has fewer stipulations and quirks.




Could be a bit less judgmental, don't you think?   Me, I think it's important to be fair with a group, get a genuine feel for them, before you decide to leave or not.  Which may happen, but if you're going to knock a guy because he didn't just up and leave, but tried to give the group a chance, then well, I'm concerned that you're the one with the bad expectations.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> You have this backwards, or at least, you're leaving out one very important aspect, namely the group's responsibility to make things clear on their own.





Honestly, that was one of the things I initially posted but as the discussion wore on and with the admission by him that this happens a great deal to him, I think I kinda came to the realization the lack of communication (or ignoring of the signs, as he also claims to do) is something for which he seems to _bare_ responsiblity.




Bumbles said:


> Could be a bit less judgmental, don't you think?   Me, I think it's important to be fair with a group, get a genuine feel for them, before you decide to leave or not.  Which may happen, but if you're going to knock a guy because he didn't just up and leave, but tried to give the group a chance, then well, I'm concerned that you're the one with the bad expectations.





Sure, when it happens once or twice.  To read his posts, though, this seems to be an epidemic in his game experiences.  I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt.  His posts remove more and more doubt as he becomes more explicit.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> Honestly, that was one of the things I initially posted but as the discussion wore on and with the admission by him that this happens a great deal to him, I think I kinda came to the realization the lack of communication (or ignoring of the signs, as he also claims to do) is something for which he seems to _bare_ responsiblity.




Then I can only say you have misread his words, as that is not the impression I got at all.

Believe it or not, he was not saying he runs into it all the time, just that most of the time when he does, it's often because the DM said "whatever you want" instead of giving the information upfront.

See the problem there?



> I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt.  His posts remove more and more doubt as he becomes more explicit.




Hmm, I think you came to the wrong conclusion from the start, and you're just not listening to the clarifications.   See, you were totally wrong with how you understood his 99% number, and that's what has gotten you on this wrong course.


----------



## Hereticus (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> In over 35 years of gaming I think I may have found myself in a situation like you describe only a couple of times and both times poor communication can be blamed.  Again, without making any assumptions, I can only suggest that if you seem to be in this situation as often as a "99%" figure might suggest (100+ such games?), you might need to have a bit more conversation before joining games.




I had a bad situation with a control freak DM about three years ago. I was told he was like that, but being new to the area I was jonesing for a game.

My wife and I played the first week, and I didn't see any problems. But my wife (she is an HR manager, and is trained to look for personality traits) said the guy was creepy and too controlling. I went the second week without her, and there were no incidents. But afterward a chain of emails went around and he went off the deep end blaming me for taking an elven racial mod for a stat that a core book said I had.

We we were not suppose to take those adjustments, and he accused me of trying to sneak it by him. Never mind that he collected our character sheets at the end of the game, and it was clearly marked. All the other players did it too, but he singled me out because I asked him if I could drop one stat by two to raise another by one. Heck, two other players had 18s from the racial adjustments, and the Dwarf often mentioned his 2 Charisma. you can't roll a 2 on 3d6, but it is a Dwarven adjustment.

Anyway, I try to be more careful with the groups I join, and with the players I let in to my groups.

I make it a point to avoid any group that will allow a Kender character or have one as an NPC. That is a sure sign that the group won't be for me.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Then I can only say you have misread his words, as that is not the impression I got at all.
> 
> Believe it or not, he was not saying he runs into it all the time, just that most of the time when he does, it's often because the DM said "whatever you want" instead of giving the information upfront.
> 
> See the problem there?





Yes.  Your post is different from his.  Twice in this thread he discounts people's experiences by posting his penchant for simply walking away from a game after having joined because of soemthing that in my experience is usually known upfront about a campaign.  Then he goes into a rather convoluted rationale about communication problems but also, and here is where it seems to really stray from your conjecture, that he also joins games knowing that there is a gamebreaker for him and later leaves.  It's all rather bizarre.


----------



## JeffB (May 3, 2009)

I'm up front about house rules-have to be.

Running my 4E Nentir Vale game last year (currently not gaming though for life reaaons) my group knows I'm very much a grog, and they also have  similar tastes. They didn't want anything to do with Dragonborn, and while I've warmed up to Tieflings (the 4E version, I cannot stand prior versions), not a one has been desired as a PC, nor did the group encounter any. So they rpetty much don't exist either. 

In my homebrew world (regardless of edition or even system- I used it for RQ, T&T and other things at times), there are no dragonborn, eladrin, 1/2 races of any kind (including elves), and gnomes/halflings are extremely rare. Its very S&S and humano-centric.

Generally though I tend to play with people of similar mind/tastes and I don't tolerate power/character build gamers- thats my goal anyways   I learned to avoid those kinds of players when I was in junior high. When 3E came out I had a couple players like that and I bowed out after awhile- they sucked all the fun out of the thing trying to game the system.

Maybe thats the O/AD&D 70s influence, or just makes me a control freak, but I like a certain style  of game, and if I'm running it/doing all the work, I want to provide the kind of world I enjoy making/creating. :shrug:


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

yeah, those little quirks to character creation are one reason I prefer them to be written out.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> Yes.  Your post is different from his.




It's a more accurate paraphrasing than yours.  I suppose his initial words were insufficiently clear, but he has since tried to explain it to you.

99% of the time where he has run into these situations, he's been told the whatever.  This doesn't tell you how often he's run into these situation in general.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

I hope you've had this cleared up for you.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> 99% of the time where he has run into these situations, he's been told the whatever.  This doesn't tell you how often he's run into these situation in general.





Of course it doesn't but it certainly implies it has either been over one hundred or close enough to one hundred that he doesn't bother using a less hyperbolic figure, like saying 'nine out of ten' or a 'the dozen or so times' or something more down-to-earth.  I'd personally be astonished if it was more than a few dozen but also, now that he has elaborated, I'd be just as surprised if this doesn't happen to him with a good deal of regularity.  And since he has been playing since the Eighties and has numerous reasons why he would walk away from a game, I'm inclined to take him at his more-literal word.  Ironic, too, that his difficulties at communicating with DMs mirrors his difficulty at explaining his difficulty communicating with DMs.  But all of that doesn't bother me as much as the admission that he's cool with regularly joining games he knows have rules that would cause him to walk.  That's just bad form.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> Of course it doesn't but it certainly implies it has either been over one hundred or close enough to one hundred that he doesn't bother using a less hyperbolic figure, like saying 'nine out of ten' or a 'the dozen or so times' or something more down-to-earth.




Then I can only say that I feel you're relying too much on your interpretation of his hyperbole as meaning something more literal.  I'm afraid it's coloring your perceptions.  Now I personally don't like it when people use made-up statistics, I prefer not to use them myself, but I also try not to interpret them as meaning anything significant.



> But all of that doesn't bother me as much as the admission that he's cool with regularly joining games he knows have rules that would cause him to walk.  That's just bad form.




He doesn't know that.  What he said was that there are signs that cause concern, but is willing to give people a chance.  I consider that good form, as it gives folks a chance rather than just snapping to a judgment.   I'd much rather have somebody sit in a few games and leave than just up and go.  If your preferences are different, well, alrighty, that's your preference, but it's not mine.

Anyway, that's enough digression for me.

Anybody think the Deva, Shifter, Goliath, or any other race is going to join the ranks of the "common races" or have any other candidates?


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Then I can only say that I feel you're relying too much on your interpretation of his hyperbole as meaning something more literal.  I'm afraid it's coloring your perceptions.  Now I personally don't like it when people use made-up statistics, I prefer not to use them myself, but I also try not to interpret them as meaning anything significant.





I prefer people to at least attempt to communicate accurately and it has become apparent that he has trouble in that area.




Bumbles said:


> He doesn't know that.  What he said was that there are signs that cause concern, but is willing to give people a chance.  I consider that good form, as it gives folks a chance rather than just snapping to a judgment.





He's said twice in the thread (the posts that started all of this) that barring a race causes him to walk from a game and then later says that he is quite comfortable joining a game that bars a race knowing he will just walk away later.  That's bad form.


----------



## Ravellion (May 3, 2009)

rounser said:


> If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them.  Do you understand what this actually means?  It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish.  It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.



 Who is kitchensinking? And would it really ruin it? Do you really think the spice thing is a good analogy? I don't, but I'll run with it. Perhaps if I gave each race a perfectly equal place in the world, each with an entire fleshed out nation on the same continent. But I need not do that. Some of them are nothing more than a pinch of salt, and others are admittedly added by the spoonful.

If someone really believes your dish is too bland and needs some ground chilis, because he simply really likes spicy food, no matter how many times you tell him he'll just have to make do with the basil and the ginger already included, it isn't going to satisfy him.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

I prefer the analogy of a buffet restaurant.

You can get Pizza, Salad, Steak, Fish, Dessert, and what you prefer on your plate can be a complete mish-mash that's totally different from somebody else's!

I don't know if the average campaign is a single table, or if the DM is like a parent preparing a plate for the children though..


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> I prefer the analogy of a buffet restaurant.
> 
> You can get Pizza, Salad, Steak, Fish, Desert, and what you prefer on your plate can be a complete mish-mash that's totally different from somebody else's!





I hope the drinks come with free refills while enjoying the desert.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 3, 2009)

> Anybody think the Deva, Shifter, Goliath, or any other race is going to join the ranks of the "common races" or have any other candidates?




  As I mentioned earlier, it's too early to tell, but my hunch is that the Shifter and Deva (more Deva) have some traction, and the rest are pretty niche. 

  Goliath is a good race, power-wise, and a solid concept, but it doesn't own the market on being the big, tough race, or even the St/Con race. It's like releasing another small race when you already have halflings and gnomes. It doesn't have a lot of space to gain traction, but I still rather like it. 

  Gnomes are still popular among gnome fans, who are very devoted but not very numerous. I think the revamp will help a bit, but I don't expect Gnomes to take off and become the new elves or anything. 

  Half-Orcs...well, let's just say that there was a far bigger uproar about _Gnomes_ being left out of the first PHB, and there inclusion in PHB2 doesn't seem to have generated much interest either. I like how their St/Dx split makes them ideal Brutal Rogues, and I don't find anything objectionable about how they were implemented in 4th, but being the angry dude with overbite doesn't seem to have the same kick when Dragonmen, Mini-Giants, and beastmen are standard race options. And that's coming from someone who liked playing Half-Orcs a lot in 3rd edition. 

  Just my opinion of course, but I haven't seen _anyone_ try to play one yet.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> I hope the drinks come with free refills while enjoying the desert.




Only the soft drinks.  Not the Orange Juice.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> As I mentioned earlier, it's too early to tell, but my hunch is that the Shifter and Deva (more Deva) have some traction, and the rest are pretty niche.




Which niches would you say they best fill?  The Shifter and the Deva compared to the others that is.



> Gnomes are still popular among gnome fans, who are very devoted but not very numerous. I think the revamp will help a bit, but I don't expect Gnomes to take off and become the new elves or anything.




MyfavoritengnomesarethetinkeronesbutwhatdoIknow?


----------



## Mephistopheles (May 3, 2009)

Across the three groups I'm playing in we've got the following representation:

6 humans
3 dwarves
3 elves
2 eladrins
2 halflings
1 tiefling
1 goliath
1 half-orc

(Disclaimer: one of the groups started out with players restricted to human characters but later relaxed the restriction and now has six humans out of seven characters.)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 3, 2009)

When it comes to setting up a game, I don't have anything concrete till myself and the players mutually agree on stuff. I think up general ideas, themes, campaign type, etc. Then we together hash it out, talk about what we would like and go from there.

In my games I outright tell my players to just look at the stats. Since it can be refluffed. So if they just want to play a Dragonborn then they are brought into the world. If they want to play something that appears as one but has another race's stats then those appear in the world, etc.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 3, 2009)

Mark said:


> I prefer people to at least attempt to communicate accurately and it has become apparent that he has trouble in that area.






Bumbles said:


> Then I can only say that I feel you're relying too much on your interpretation of his hyperbole as meaning something more literal.  I'm afraid it's coloring your perceptions.  Now I personally don't like it when people use made-up statistics, I prefer not to use them myself, but I also try not to interpret them as meaning anything significant.




All I can say is, Mark, you don't get me.  It must be my lack of communication skills. Or we have a fundamental difference of understanding when it comes to the use of percentages.  Bumbles, man, you understand.  You feel me!  



Bumbles said:


> Anybody think the Deva, Shifter, Goliath, or any other race is going to join the ranks of the "common races" or have any other candidates?




I think the classic aasimar, now the deva, does have a bit of traction, but not nearly as much as the Tiefling.  The new deva doesn't quite do it for me completely, but I'm warming up to it.  Shifters rock and have become popular, but they have a ways to go before becoming an integral part of D&D.  I love goliaths too, and the niche they fill, half-giant, is an important one.  But I don't think they've earned their place yet either.  Whether they become a "necessary" part of the D&D experience depends on how well WotC develops them over the next couple of years or so.


----------



## Mark (May 3, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> All I can say is, Mark, you don't get me.





Oh, I understand well enough.  I just don't find it condusive to getting a campaign off on the right foot.  Sadly, you seem to realize that and just not care.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 3, 2009)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with writing dragonborn out of a setting. Sometimes specific races just don't fit the overall themes or moods of the world.

But conversely, there is also nothing wrong with keeping them _in_. Each DM must make that decision for himself, and tell the players up-front about what is and what isn't permissible for his campaign.


(For the record, my own setting didn't have any dragonborn before 4E - but I've come up with an origin story for them which not only fitted well, but significantly improved some aspects of the setting IMO...)


----------



## Arawn76 (May 3, 2009)

This has probably already been said but my job as DM is to run a fun game for my friends.

I've had players play races & classes I don't like before but never allow my personal feelings on the matter to affect their game fun.  As such on the rare occasion's I do say no to something my group know that it is purely to preserve the games feel/setting and to enhance their fun.

Always try to say yes, being creative and finding the right place for something is what being a DM is about.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 3, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Personally, I see nothing wrong with writing dragonborn out of a setting. Sometimes specific races just don't fit the overall themes or moods of the world.



Yes.



Arawn76 said:


> Always try to say yes



No.

Just like that, you can selectively, _using your judgement_, say 'yes' or 'no' on a case-by-case basis. Win/win.


----------



## Eridanis (May 3, 2009)

Three pages of this thread are people talking about what was actually meant in the others' post. Cut it out and get back on topic, please.


----------



## Bumbles (May 3, 2009)

Arawn76 said:


> Always try to say yes, being creative and finding the right place for something is what being a DM is about.




I agree.  It may not be possible to say yes, but no shouldn't be automatic.  Instead of looking for ways it won't fit, look for ways it can be fitted into the game. Unless of course, you get the occasional player who looks for exploits rather than fun, and brings you the uber-powered god race of Doom!  Doom I tell you!  Doom!


----------



## doctorhook (May 3, 2009)

We started with two Dragonborn, two Tieflings, and two Eladrin. Since then, we've lost and retired some characters, but most of these guys were merely replaced by newer and wackier races. We've seen a couple Warforged, a Minotaur, a Gnoll, a Goliath, a Drow, a Deva, a Shifter, a Half-Elf, a Dwarf, an Elf, and one Human possessed by aberrant spirits (ironically, the human is probably the most bizarre PC).

Dragonborn and Tieflings aren't going anywhere, I'm certain of it.



rounser said:


> Of course!  It's like cooking or music - it's as much what you leave out as what you put in.
> 
> You want every world to look the same and kitchen sink _everything_?  Everywhere would be like Eberron, which tried that,* with mixed results.*



What are you trying to say about Eberron? It's pretty obviously a popular setting, and with good reason: it's amazing and original!


----------



## Squizzle (May 3, 2009)

I honestly don't think that this is something that you can judge a year into this. It's the sort of question that you need to wait for another edition, should there be one, to answer.


----------



## Ulthwithian (May 3, 2009)

Well, I've noticed that Eladrin are very popular.  A current tally of which races have been seen in the group I'm with:

Human: 2
Eladrin: 3
Tiefling: 1
Dragonborn: 1
Dwarf: 2
Half-Elf: 1

Personally, I think the Deva has great traction.  At least, I hope so.


----------



## Nai_Calus (May 3, 2009)

A large part of why I don't like Dragonborn and wouldn't include them is my personal heresy:

I don't like dragons. As myths, sure, they work great. And that's the only way they'd appear in a campaign I'd be running, as myths.

Giant uber-intelligent flying lizards that breathe fire/cold/acid/cotton candy/whatever and breed with anything that moves are not something I want to fit into a game world.

Dragon-people therefore really don't fit either. 

For the record, I use primarily human/elven/other common sentient race opponents, with some oozes, aberrations and oversized vermin and eventually some fiends. Most of the latter are the fault of wizards creating/summoning things. I'd use a Rust Monster(In fact, there are several my 3.5 party may encounter if they don't start searching for traps in the place they're currently in, placed there by the wizard owner to help take care of any pesky adventurers that come in. He got them from the area of the world that's being corrupted by the Far Plane). I wouldn't use a dragon.

There's also that 3.5 has made me hate running a game and I enjoy mostly the worldbuilding aspect since the players I have are terrible at playing and even worse at actually RPing, so mostly I'm just boredly fudging rolls so they don't die while they mindlessly kill and loot and complain about walking right into the traps they should know by now are there without even trying to look for said traps. So you'd better believe I'm making a world I enjoy, because it's going to be most of my fun.

And I will not use all the races if I don't want them for various reasons - Even ones that do exist may be horrifically rare, to the point of the PC being the only one in the entire world, with what that entails. I'd rather have a few races I can detail than a bunch of races I only throw together some afterthought junk on because they're redundant, or I just plain don't care enough about them to be able to do them justice.

(With the setup I like to use there's also the little issue that anyone playing a dragonborn is going to instantly get cries of 'aaaaaaaaah! monster!' and either utterly shunned or attacked by a frightened mob, since holy crap, giant lizard-looking thing with ginormous teeth just walked into the village.)

Mos Eisley Cantina kitchen sink is nice and all, if that's what you're going for and what you want. But if I want the Mos Eisley Cantina I'll either play a Star Wars game and do it literally, or I'll start a Planescape game and we can have awesomely weird locations to go with our weird monster races.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 3, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Just like that, you can selectively, _using your judgement_, say 'yes' or 'no' on a case-by-case basis. Win/win.



No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.


----------



## Loonook (May 3, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.




Not every game is a vast collaborative exercise in creativity... hell, most aren't.  Games can be highly creative (players can build organizations, raise kingdoms, topple tyrants, create towns out of their minds)... but everyone operates within the confines established by the initial theme.  We operate within plenty of issues when we initially start any game; we decide the rules set, the basic setting (or to play in a pre-written CS), any house rulings which will pop up.  

And if you are a player, it is within your scope to choose not to play in a game which doesn't fit your specific ideas of what it should be.  However, no player has the right to have the game completely bent to their will over the will of all of the players and/or the DM.  The DM is the storyteller, R&D, economist, referee, and a hundred other jobs... and for doing all of that work, the DM gets to have more say than any single player. 

If you want to play a game where everything is topsy turvy its your go... and no one can hold you to it.  It's entirely within the right of any player to leave the game... but don't become too dramatic and believe that accommodation is a necessity.  Accommodation in gaming only works during that period where the initial frameworks are being set... and then at specific points when the group can get together and discuss things.  Otherwise a nice, long, dramatic storyline could be uprooted every time a new sourcebook comes out... and that would be a very sad thing.

The beauty of any roleplaying system, and especially games in the vein of d20 or WoD is that they can have a thousand options... or a handful.  We're supplied a number of tools which are only limited by imagination... but in making such a large amount of tools available there should be established local restraint.  I've seen too many games fall apart because of complaints about sourcebook X, or race Y, and it can be a sad thing.

If you like the stats of the thing, you could play any creature with similar.  Dragonborn, Tieflings... they don't need to LOOK like lizards with attitude, or cheap demon doll knockoffs.  On the other hand, you could have a scaly man who walks about with the same stats as any other race.  Transformations, demonic bargains, horrible eldritch forces... all sorts of tropes could make for a more interesting character with similar stats. 


Sell your soul?  You could be a tiefling... stats and all.  Born under the auspice of the Dragon Star?  Look... he seems to be a scaly.  Doesn't force a DM to create an entire civilization around the new sourcebook... and lets you have your freedom in a way that doesn't destroy narrative focus by causing a divergence into a path which may prove antithetical to the campaign.  Character growth, story growth, and player growth should not be set akilter to worldbuilding... but they shouldn't shoehorn a world on the whim of a single player.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


PS: On the note of the original thread... I always liked the concept of tieflings, but hate the idea that every tiefling has to be some hot-eyed horned mess.  Same goes for Dragonborn, Warforged, etc.  It's about what you want to play, or run... not about what gets thrown in your lap by the newest sourcebook.


----------



## CelticMutt (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> I think for most long time rpgers, they fundamentally change the flavor of traditional campaigns where such races might only have a place as NPC races, if at all.  IME, they tend to appeal most to newer players, particularly those who come from a CRPG backgrounds, for whatever reasons.



Tieflings have been around since 1994.  Dragonborn are effectively descendants of a) Half-Dragons (1994), b) the Dray (1994), and C) Draconians (1984).  While CRPGs may have enhanced their appeal, Tieflings and "Dragon-men" have had fans well before the era of CRPG really took off (I'd say with Baldur's Gate in '98 & Everquest in '99).



rounser said:


> But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.




Firstly, using the term "Dragonboobs" is nowhere near as clever and witty as you seem to think it is.  Secondly, Dragonborn already exist in Dark Sun in the form of Dray, and could easily exist in Ravenloft thanks to the Mists.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> Firstly, using the term "Dragonboobs" is nowhere near as clever and witty as you seem to think it is.



I don't think it's witty or clever, but I'll not give these contrived imposters the time of day by calling them by their poorly chosen name.  They deserve mockery.  Heck, I save to disbelieve that "they" exist as a core PC race in any D&D milieu worth a damn.


> Secondly, Dragonborn already exist in Dark Sun in the form of Dray, and could easily exist in Ravenloft thanks to the Mists.



Barney the Purple Dinosaur exists in both too as a core PC race by this logic, because there's purple dinosaur-like critters in dark sun and he's certainly horrific enough to be taken by the mists.  When's he appearing in the core, is there still room in PHB3?  What a load.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

CelticMutt said:


> Tieflings have been around since 1994.  Dragonborn are effectively descendants of a) Half-Dragons (1994), b) the Dray (1994), and C) Draconians (1984).  While CRPGs may have enhanced their appeal, Tieflings and "Dragon-men" have had fans well before the era of CRPG really took off (I'd say with Baldur's Gate in '98 & Everquest in '99).





To be fair, having fans and being integral for PCs are very different things.  As in what you quoted, I do not debate that they have been around for some time as NPCs and evil beings.  And for me, long timeRPGers can date back as far as 1974.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 4, 2009)

"Traction" isn't something that individual groups get to determine.

IMO, tieflings already had some form of traction: they were popular in 2e, and appeared with some frequency in 3e. They weren't exactly the tieflings of 4e, though...I'm not sure how many peoples' tieflings are an ancient empire of debauched evil with big awkward tails and big ridiculous horns. My tieflings are more in the 2e Planescape vibe, with being shunned outcasts, mutation-offspring that result from curses and unknown parentage. The birth of a tiefling is a cause for lamentation, accusation, and infanticide in most societies, but enough manage to be hidden, or be subtle, or survive despite the attempts at murder. They were suspicious outcasts with no claim to honor in PS, which made them appealing player characters (outcasts often are), and in most of my non-planar settings, the dial just gets turned up a bit higher (since fiends are a rarer thing). 

Dragonborn are a bit harder to judge. They certainly didn't have any traction at all before they appeared in the 4e core book, but the ones in the 4e core book aren't really the same thing as they were before (except for that unfortunate and narm-inducing name). Playing dragon-people definitely has its appeal, and the whole "honorable empire" thing is appealing, too. They do have trouble in that they are pretty monstrous, but most fantasy -- especially newer fantasy -- is very accepting of monstrosity from sympathetic characters.

I'm not a huge fan of dragonborn myself, but that's mostly because I think they don't need to really exist. What needs to exist is robust rules for playing actual dragons alongside other PC's, since that what people actually want. They don't want to be a little dragon knock-off, they _want to be a dragon_. In any game where people can play a dragon, dragonborn are redundant and useless.

Also, I really think their look is tremendously unappealing. I see they are spikey lizard-men without tails, but that aesthetic isn't something I want for any of my characters (or most of my PC's). I'd rather have Kobolds as a PC race. 

Tieflings have had traction, though I'm not sure their 4e-ified version is the most popular version.

Dragonborn don't have traction in and of themselves, but the idea of playing a dragon certainly does -- if you give players a way to be a dragon, dragonborn become pointless. I'd prefer to give people what they want, honestly.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 4, 2009)

> To be fair, having fans and being integral for PCs are very different things. As in what you quoted, I do not debate that they have been around for some time as NPCs and evil beings. And for me, long timeRPGers can date back as far as 1974.




  Eh, I was playing Half-Dragons in Second edition around 94 or 95-ish. That was a good 14-15 years ago. A playable race concept doesn't have to date back to '74 to be valid or popular.



> Dragonborn don't have traction in and of themselves, but the idea of playing a dragon certainly does -- if you give players a way to be a dragon, dragonborn become pointless. I'd prefer to give people what they want, honestly.




  I wouldn't be so confident about that. I got over playing a Dragon years ago, and I still like Dragoborn. That is, I really would rather play a Dragonman than a Dragon, and I'm sure I'm not alone. They also overlap with the lizardman concept, which has also been popular for a good while now.


----------



## Aus_Snow (May 4, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> No, that's simply not helpful. If you are in a collaborative creative enterprise, you should always try to accommodate the others in your enterprise. Simply shutting others out, even if you think it is reasonable, is antithetical to the collaboration.



Whatever else might be the case, it was certainly no less helpful than what you have just suggested there. In other words, your _opinion_ on this matter is certainly no more valid than mine. And yes, that's all it is.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> Eh, I was playing Half-Dragons in Second edition around 94 or 95-ish. That was a good 14-15 years ago.





You're the first person I have heard that has done so.  What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?


----------



## Mad Mac (May 4, 2009)

> You're the first person I have heard that has done so. What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?




  To be honest, I don't remember the name of the supplement. I'm tempted to say Council of Wyrms (the box set that let you play full dragons, which I also used) but I could be mistaken on that. I lost my 2nd edition stuff a long time ago, so I'm strictly working off memory here. 

  I do know that you gained different ability score adjustments and racial abilities based on the Dragon type you selected. It was very similar to the Half-Dragon template in 3rd edition, to the point that I think they used it as inspiration.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 4, 2009)

> I wouldn't be so confident about that. I got over playing a Dragon years ago, and I still like Dragoborn. That is, I really would rather play a Dragonman than a Dragon, and I'm sure I'm not alone. They also overlap with the lizardman concept, which has also been popular for a good while now.




In my mind, they absolutely do not overlap with the lizardman concept. Playing a dragon and playing a lizard-person are fundamentally different experiences. In the latter case, you work with lizard stereotypes -- hissing crocodiles, cold-bloodedness, perhaps a certain sinister hiss, maybe partially aquatic, or able to stick to walls...you know, things that make you a *lizard* person.

Playing a dragon is about arrogance, greed, knowledge, breathing fire, flying around, etc.

If there was a dragon race that could fit the mold of other PC races....heck, if the "Dragonborn" mechanics were just appropriated for an *actual* dragon instead of the bagged cereal version of a dragon, dragonborn would evaporate as unnecessary.

But dragonborn (probably as much for the horrible name as anything else) kind of annoy me, so there very well could be something about the inherent concept that I'm totally missing. 

Lizardmen I like for their own reasons, but dragonborn are not lizardmen -- it takes more than scales to be a reptile, y'know?


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> You're the first person I have heard that has done so.  What supplement did you use that detailed the PC class?




Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.

I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".

Dragonmen are a much wanted race it would seem. Personally, I never understood the appeal but looking at the 3e supplements and the number of dragon-focused products as well as the sheer number of half-dragon/dragonnmen remplates races and prestige classes, SOMEONE out there has got to be buying it...

(I know many here would deny to the high heavens that dragonmen are not that popular, but seriously look at how many dragon-related things came out in 3.x...WOTC isn't in the business of producing money losers)


----------



## Barastrondo (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> I don't think it's witty or clever, but I'll not give these contrived imposters the time of day by calling them by their poorly chosen name.  They deserve mockery.  Heck, I save to disbelieve that "they" exist as a core PC race in any D&D milieu worth a damn.




Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.


Anyone here remember this old Dragon magazine article where they introduced enchanted dragon's teeth? Plant one, and up pops a warrior in color-appropriate mail, with an elemental power matching the parent dragon. D&D spartoi, essentially. I did that once, in a Hollowfaust-set one-shot testing out 4e. 

Of course, as far as traction goes, I'm kind of in a weird space. I've been using dragon-people-type PCs since 1990, purely on the merits of the old Ral Partha draconian miniatures, and demon-blooded people since... well, about the same amount of time, only we started using tiefling rules instead of homebrews (like the homebrew demon-blood rules from Mayfair's old Demons line) when they finally came out. So I sort of feel like 4e used to hang out at my old college gaming sessions.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 4, 2009)

> I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".




Hmm...yeah, it seems that the dragonoid concept certainly has traction...

....of course dragonborn are different....but perhaps my dislike of them comes solely from the name and the look. I probably would have no problem with them, even their existing 4e backstory, if I thought the name or the look were appealing in any way.

The "fiendish" concept also has traction, though not every fiendish creature is a 4e tiefling, either. 

So I guess the answer to the OP is more along the lines of: "Those things have ALWAYS had traction, this is just the most recent form of them," rather than "Dragonborn are dumb."


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Council of Wyrms had rules for Half-dragons IIRC.
> 
> I personally see the dragonmen as simply the successors to Draconians and one of the FIRST requests Weis and Hickman ever got was "We want rules for playing draconians".
> 
> ...





Okay.  I'm convinced that the "dragonman" heritage and traction, if not massive, is at least longer-lived than I would have at first given credit.  Fair enough.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.



Probably because it's not what I said.  I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such.  No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 4, 2009)

> If there was a dragon race that could fit the mold of other PC races....heck, if the "Dragonborn" mechanics were just appropriated for an *actual* dragon instead of the bagged cereal version of a dragon, dragonborn would evaporate as unnecessary.




  Again, I disagree. They may be redundant in your mind, but it's not a universal opinion. I'm just going to leave it at that. 

  As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted. 

  Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa. 

  My impression from CRPG's is that lizardmen used to be popular, and then were somewhat eclipsed by Dragonmen. Most games don't offer both.

  In terms of style though, I do wish they had given the big lizard tails to the Dragonborn instead of the Tieflings.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> As for Lizardmen vs Dragonmen, of course the details are somewhat different, but it's a smaller difference than say, Dragonmen and halflings. I could take the rules for Dragonborn, have him spit poison or something, and roleplay him as a lizard-dude if I wanted.
> 
> Obviously we have different minds on this, I just feel that having Dragonborn reduces the chances of seeing lizardmen as a PC race, for various reasons, and vice versa.
> 
> ...





This, too, all rings true with me.


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Probably because it's not what I said.  I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core, of any D&D milieu worth being called such.  No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a hoser.




*LOL*

DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...

In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> *LOL*
> 
> DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...
> 
> In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....





I think your definition of core is overbroad.  Most consider the core setting to be whatever the core books (first three in each previous edition) utilize to be the only core setting.  Sometimes it is hard to even tell what that is unless you look at the deities section.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> *LOL*
> 
> DRAGONLANCE. DL even more than Forgotten "Everything & the Kitchen Sink" is a core D&D setting and that has Draconians...
> 
> In fact, I'd say Gnomes are less core to D&D than even Dragonborn....



The whole thing revolves around PC races, being present or not by default in all settings.  You don't understand these distinctions, or they don't matter to you, so it is useless pointing them out to you.  Unhappily for me, people like you are now in charge of D&D.

Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E.  No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both.  Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> I think your definition of core is overbroad.  Most consider the core setting to be whatever the core books (first three in each previous edition) utilize to be the only core setting.  Sometimes it is hard to even tell what that is unless you look at the deities section.




Um by that reasoning, dragonborn and tieflings are core since they are part of the first 3 books.

If you look by setting then only humans, elves, dwarves and halflings qualify as core.

If you are stating that each edition has a core setting (in 2e/3e I'd argue it was FR), then dragonborn and tiefling both could be considered core as FR had half-dragons and tieflings back even in 2e


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> The whole thing revolves around PC races, being present or not by default in all settings.  You don't understand these distinctions, or they don't matter to you, so it is useless pointing them out to you.  Unhappily for me, people like you are now in charge of D&D.
> 
> Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E.  No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both.  Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.




Hmm?

Forgotten Realms, even in 2e, was regularly mocked by Greyahwk fans (especially on the old mailing list - hell that was one of the defining differences between GH and the Realms) as the kitchen sink setting. If it existed in a D&D product, the assumption was ALWAYS that it could be found in the Realms.

Snce when did Eberron take over that "kitchen sink" title from the Realms?
My understanding is that Eberron was the "what would happen if the people actually used the rules of the game - thus Eberron has continual light posts whereas the Realms doesn't even though it SHOULD)


----------



## doctorhook (May 4, 2009)

I quite like Dragonborn, but I'm willing to concede that their art direction needs refinement. I'm fine with the lack of tails and horns; what I mean is that I think they should be... sharper? They seem too round to me... I'm not totally sure what it is that bugs me about their look, but I'm sure it will evolve with time. (I might just be tired of Wayne England's odd looking faces...)

In comparison, I quite like the look of Tieflings, though I think they need clearer guidelines to their artists regarding tail size; they appear to vary wildly.



Barastrondo said:


> Wow, "no setting that includes game element X could possibly be any good." You don't tend to see that one trotted out very often these days.



I suspect it's simply his true colours showing.



rounser said:


> Probably because it's not what I said.  I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such.  No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.



Here's what you said. (I'm quoting for my own reference.):[sblock=Originally posted by rounser]I don't think it's witty or clever, but I'll not give these contrived imposters the time of day by calling them by their poorly chosen name. They deserve mockery. Heck, I save to disbelieve that "they" exist as a core PC race in any D&D milieu worth a damn.[/sblock]Based upon this comment, it's pretty obvious to me that you hold either Dragonborns or 4E in irrational contempt. I say "irrational" because you offer no explanation. Worse, your comment is also a thinly veiled shot at 4E, implying that it isn't "worth a damn."

You seem to be suggesting that neither Dragonborns nor any other sort of anthropomorphic dragon have a place in the D&D core rules as a PC race, but you haven't made it clear why you think it would be best that way; obviously the notion of "dragon-people" is popular enough, so why should they be excluded?



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> Okay. I'm convinced that the "dragonman" heritage and traction, if not massive, is at least longer-lived than I would have at first given credit. Fair enough.



Does it make a difference how long they've been a part of the game? In my opinion, it shouldn't; rather, inclusion ought to be (and AFAIK, is) determined by a combination of interesting possibilities and popular interest, both qualities which Dragonborn (or the "dragon-people" they represent) seem to have in spades.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Um by that reasoning, dragonborn and tieflings are core since they are part of the first 3 books.





Well, yes, they are with 4E and 4E is meant to have an open-ended core throughout the yearly books, but has that really been at question in this thread?  I think the premise of the thread is to discern whether or not having made them core has really caught on and whether their history in the gamehas anything to do with that for good or ill.  Unless I am not quite following the OP.

btw, "Um?"  When did you start posting like that? 




			
				Aloïsius said:
			
		

> We have 4e since last year. Have you the feeling that the new races, tiefling and dragonborn, have gained the same "traction" than the good old standard D&D races (dwarf, elf, halfling...) ? Or are they rather the 4e equivalent of the half-dragons or half-outsider of 3e : popular for min-max build but rather bland inside ?
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> So, do you use them in your campaign ? Do you like to play them as a PC ? Do your DM allow them in his/her game ? Do you think they will disappear in the next edition ?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 4, 2009)

I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes. But it was always controlled, and focused there was still a sense of intermingling themes, concepts, etc.

FR on the other hand always felt simply slapped together, no real focus of all the elements they just threw in there with no focus, themes, concepts, etc. being expressed.

I think the fact that we have seen that both dragon-man/lizard man races and Tiefling/fiendish races have had a strong following is a very good reason for their inclusion in core. Core should focus on what have strong followings and take from that. Give the people what they want essentially.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Does it make a difference how long they've been a part of the game?





Seems to have been part of the OP question.


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes. But it was always controlled, and focused there was still a sense of intermingling themes, concepts, etc.
> 
> FR on the other hand always felt simply slapped together, no real focus of all the elements they just threw in there with no focus, themes, concepts, etc. being expressed.
> 
> I think the fact that we have seen that both dragon-man/lizard man races and Tiefling/fiendish races have had a strong following is a very good reason for their inclusion in core. Core should focus on what have strong followings and take from that. Give the people what they want essentially.




Exactly.

Eberron to me has always seemed like a "focused" setting as much as say Birthright or Darksun.

The realms though...That's one of the defining aspects and part of its appeal. The fact that it does give off a slapped together anything goes vibe.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> I never really viewed Eberron as a kitchen-sink setting, it uses a large majority of stuff in D&D yes.



Bollocks.  It had a design goal of "everything in 3E D&D has a place here", and is the only setting designed that way (until perhaps 4E FR, who knows what they've done to that).  It's kitchen sink by design, the whole competition was skewed to that artificial rule, and IMO it shows.  Don't try and pretend FR has a place for everything 3E, because that's bunkum.


----------



## darjr (May 4, 2009)

Didn't Eberron not use the 'core' D&D cosmology.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> Didn't Eberron eschew the 'core' D&D cosmology.



Like that makes a difference.


----------



## darjr (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Like that makes a difference.




The difference is that you'll need to amend your version of the Eberron design goals.

I think it would be interesting to know how much use the versions of them in 3.5 were used. 

In my experience at the tail end of 3.5 they had a bit of traction.


----------



## Kinneus (May 4, 2009)

While I'm not an enormous fan of either dragonborn or tieflings, I think it was a good idea to include them in PHB as a 'core' race, even if they're not necessarily the most populous. It was really an act of mercy, for both players and DMs.

I used to help run a freeform play-by-post website, you see. And in our setting, dragons were rare and incredibly powerful beings, and demons and angels didn't even exist. Despite this, we'd still get at least one application a week from a new player trying to play a half-demon prince, or a human with a 'strange curse' that makes him look like a dragon.

The fact is, some people just really flipping love dragons and demons, and will do incredible backflips to play them or something like them. Also, I play with a lot of really casual players, and there's something about the tiefling and dragonborn that really trips their triggers. "I can be a half-dragon? I can be a freaking devil! Awesome!"

New races seem to follow this same ideal. Shifters? They let a player play a werewolf. Deva? Half-angel. Wilden? Half-plant, baby.

By putting races like this in the PHB, I felt like WotC was saying, "People want to play to this, so you better figure out a way to deal with it, DMs." I'm of the always-say-yes school of DMing, so if you get a party consisting of one half tieflings and one half dragonborn, so be it. It's up to you as the DM to remind players that just because they picked a core race from the PHB, that doesn't mean they're common or accepted. Feel free to have primitive lizardmen cower before them as gods, or for well-meaning elves to attack the 'monsters'. Have the powers-at-be act as general, racist dinks, and have small villages to shutter up their windows when the conquering heroes breeze into town.

Just because you have a dragonborn or tiefling in your party, that doesn't mean the whole world has to like them. Heck, it doesn't even mean that you as a DM have to like them. But you do have to be able to deal with them. If the dragonbon were errata'd away into oblivion tomorrow, I think you'd still have players trying to roll up humans with scaly wings and ophidian eyes and, yes, even dragonbewbs. By having them be a standard race, the players can play their favorite 'cool race' without having it be terribly overpowered or underpowered or complicated.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> The difference is that you'll need to amend your version of the Eberron design goals.



Trivia, you're grasping at straws.  They've already kitchen sinked in everything else, like some cosmology change from the great wheel is going to matter?


----------



## doctorhook (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> Seems to have been part of the OP question.



Maybe so, but does that make it relevant to whether or not they have traction now? Is the past (whatever it may be) relevant to Dragonborn's inclusion in 4E core? I'm not convinced that it is at all.



rounser said:


> Bollocks.  It had a design goal of "everything in 3E D&D has a place here", and is the only setting designed that way (until perhaps 4E FR, who knows what they've done to that).  It's kitchen sink by design, the whole competition was skewed to that artificial rule, and IMO it shows.  Don't try and pretend FR has a place for everything 3E, because that's bunkum.



Bollocks indeed. You have it backwards though; Eberron does have a place to put (basically) anything from D&D, but that doesn't mean Eberron is designed to include to include everything. Instead, Eberron was designed with enough under-detailed spaces that the setting has room for whatever D&D game elements a DM could want to include.

Eberron has a handful of close-knit themes, which make it more concise than FR. FR was conceived as a setting of thinly veiled fantasy analogues of real-world historical cultures, which is at least as "kitchen sink" as Eberron. (Dramatically moreso, IMO.)



darjr said:


> Didn't Eberron not use the 'core' D&D cosmology.



Yes, Eberron has its own cosmology.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Maybe so, but does that make it relevant to whether or not they have traction now? Is the past (whatever it may be) relevant to Dragonborn's inclusion in 4E core? I'm not convinced that it is at all.





How do you mean?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2009)

Aloïsius said:


> We have 4e since last year. Have you the feeling that the new races, tiefling and dragonborn, have gained the same "traction" than the good old standard D&D races (dwarf, elf, halfling...) ?



Too early to tell. All we can say with certainty is that gnomes have zero traction.


----------



## doctorhook (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Trivia, you're grasping at straws.  They've already kitchen sinked in everything else, like some cosmology change from the great wheel is going to matter?



Seriously, why have you decided to turn this discussion into an attack on Eberron? The mods already warned us once to get back on topic, so why do you insist on provoking fans (like me) in an unrelated topic?


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> But you do have to be able to deal with them.



In theory, a DM doesn't "have" to do anything, but a dodgy core game can make that mostly theoretical.  Make them optional, and the players your referring to would still be catered to.  Alienating the audience who doesn't want the things in every campaign, and making D&D's implied setting hokey and arbitrary doesn't make sense either.


> By having them be a standard race, the players can play their favorite 'cool race' without having it be terribly overpowered or underpowered or complicated.



False premise, because poor implementation is just poor implementation.  It doesn't justify making everything compulsory so that it gets designed correctly.  Get some new designers already if that's the case.


----------



## baphomet68 (May 4, 2009)

Bumbles said:


> Anybody think the Deva, Shifter, Goliath, or any other race is going to join the ranks of the "common races" or have any other candidates?




     I think the Deva and Goliath are great additions; and the shifter pretty cool too. I think these eclectic additions to the common races make 4e pregnant with roleplaying and story potential. While I would like the game to be more overtly roleplay focused, I think the broad selection of character races sets up real backstory potential. 

     Just because a fantasy setting does not include Dragonborn somewhere on the map seems like a poor reason for me not to be able to play one. That sort of inflexibility would certainly be a warning sign. I have always thought that the game was best when everyone - players and DM - were creatively involved.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Don't try and pretend FR has a place for everything 3E, because that's bunkum.



Not only did 3.x FR not have a place for everything 3e (though they tried to include a lot) the 3e campaign setting had to invent rules for some of the setting's peculiarities. Level adjustments, effective character levels, epic character levels and the xp system used in the 3.5 DMG all made their first appearances in the 3e FRCG.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> Seriously, why have you decided to turn this discussion into an attack on Eberron?



It's where the conversation went, and I can see a clear path from what I see as setting design problems with Eberron to problems with 4E's implied setting.  From memory, Wyatt has his name on both as the main designer.  

And what I said about the design goals for Eberron  is AFAIK true, we saw the competition rules.


----------



## doctorhook (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> How do you mean?



Well, the way I read the OP, he's asking whether or not Dragonborns and Tieflings have traction compared to more "traditional" races like Elves, Dwarves, and Halfings; he further asks if whatever traction Dragonborn or Tiefling characters have is merely the result of mechanical benefit. For my money, I don't think the OP is asking about the history of these races, nor is the history of these races directly in relation to either question.

To elaborate, since we're discussing the amount of traction Dragonborn and Tiefling have currently, I don't think it matters much whether or not they were first published twenty years ago or last Tuesday. What does matter is whether or not they *do* have traction with the fandom now, even if they did first appear only last Tuesday. The way I see it, the length of time a concept has been in publication doesn't have any direct bearing upon whether or not the current fanbase thinks something is interesting or not.

Its worth pointing out that it's not clear whether Eladrin qualify as a "traditional race" or a "new race", but what is clear is that they appear to be quite widely embraced.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 4, 2009)

I've had one dragonborn and one tiefling in my 4e game. In my 3.x games, I also had a tiefling. (Different player.) I like them, they allow players a chance to play off-beat races. Of course, I like tieflings from the days of Planescape.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Well, the way I read the OP, he's asking whether or not Dragonborns and Tieflings have traction compared to more "traditional" races like Elves, Dwarves, and Halfings; he further asks if whatever traction Dragonborn or Tiefling characters have is merely the result of mechanical benefit. For my money, I don't think the OP is asking about the history of these races, nor is the history of these races directly in relation to either question.
> 
> To elaborate, since we're discussing the amount of traction Dragonborn and Tiefling have currently, I don't think it matters much whether or not they were first published twenty years ago or last Tuesday. What does matter is whether or not they *do* have traction with the fandom now, even if they did first appear only last Tuesday. The way I see it, the length of time a concept has been in publication doesn't have any direct bearing upon whether or not the current fanbase thinks something is interesting or not.
> 
> Its worth pointing out that it's not clear whether Eladrin qualify as a "traditional race" or a "new race", but what is clear is that they appear to be quite widely embraced.





I guess I can see how this quote -




> Or are they rather the 4e equivalent of the half-dragons or half-outsider of 3e : popular for min-max build but rather bland inside ?





- might be parsed simply for its mechanical aspect but I am not sure I think any traction they have now can be completely divorced from their seeming ancestry.  Why would one want to do so?


----------



## resistor (May 4, 2009)

I really don't get the playing-as-dragons obsession.  I have never once had a player show any interest at all in playing as a dragon/half-dragon/dragon-themed-anything.

Also, what CRPGs are people referring to?  I'm not familiar with any that used players-as-dragons/half-dragons/dragon-themed-anythings.

For me, the first time I even heard of the idea was in D&D, and the first time I ever heard of someone actually wanting to use it was when WotC went gonzo with it in the "Year of the Dragon" stuff.


----------



## Bumbles (May 4, 2009)

resistor said:


> > Also, what CRPGs are people referring to?  I'm not familiar with any that used players-as-dragons/half-dragons/dragon-themed-anythings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CelticMutt (May 4, 2009)

Mark said:


> To be fair, having fans and being integral for PCs are very different things.  As in what you quoted, I do not debate that they have been around for some time as NPCs and evil beings.  And for me, long timeRPGers can date back as far as 1974.



I know you've already said you've been convinced of the tradition of the Dragonborn/Half-Dragons, but I wanted to clarify.  Tieflings, Dray, and Half-Dragons were all fully playable races as of 1994, in the Planescape Campaign Box Set, Dark Sun: City by the Silt Sea box set, and the Council of Wyrms box set, respectively.



rounser said:


> Bollocks. It had a design goal of "everything in 3E D&D has a place here", and is the only setting designed that way (until perhaps 4E FR, who knows what they've done to that). It's kitchen sink by design, the whole competition was skewed to that artificial rule, and IMO it shows. Don't try and pretend FR has a place for everything 3E, because that's bunkum.




Excpet that Eberron is not the kitchen sink you imagine it is.  If it were, every single elven sub-race, dwarven sub-race, halfing sub-race, gnome sub-race, etc. would be present.  They're not.  That shows that "everything in D&D has a place here" is false.



rounser said:


> False premise, because poor implementation is just poor implementation. It doesn't justify making everything compulsory so that it gets designed correctly. Get some new designers already if that's the case.




Poor implementation is just your opnion, not fact.


----------



## resistor (May 4, 2009)

CelticMutt said:


> Excpet that Eberron is not the kitchen sink you imagine it is.  If it were, every single elven sub-race, dwarven sub-race, halfing sub-race, gnome sub-race, etc. would be present.  They're not.  That shows that "everything in D&D has a place here" is false.




FWIW, he's not making that line up.  It was a phrase that was bandied about a lot in the build-up to Eberron, I think from a design interview or something.


----------



## CelticMutt (May 4, 2009)

resistor said:


> FWIW, he's not making that line up.  It was a phrase that was bandied about a lot in the build-up to Eberron, I think from a design interview or something.



Oh, I know that's what was said before Eberron actually came out.  But it's not 100% true of the final product.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2009)

CelticMutt said:


> I know you've already said you've been convinced of the tradition of the Dragonborn/Half-Dragons, but I wanted to clarify.  Tieflings, Dray, and Half-Dragons were all fully playable races as of 1994, in the Planescape Campaign Box Set, Dark Sun: City by the Silt Sea box set, and the Council of Wyrms box set, respectively.





Thanks for the aditional info.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Eberron is the only truly kitchen sink setting, and the guy in charge of the design of that was also the guy in charge of the design of 4E.  No surprise that ill-founded kitchen sinking is present in both.  Unfortunately there's a lot more damage to be done with the core implied setting than with any specific setting like Eberron.




There is nothing wrong with a kitchen sink setting, as long as it's done right. Fading Suns is a kitchen sink setting, and it's awesome. So is Shadowrun. And Eberron is pretty cool, too.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 4, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> In comparison, I quite like the look of Tieflings, though I think they need clearer guidelines to their artists regarding tail size; they appear to vary wildly.




Well, tail length could vary significantly from person to person... and you just _know_ that the males will take pride in their tails if they are especially long.   



Spoiler



What the females might do with _their_ tails I will leave to the exercise of the reader...


----------



## vagabundo (May 4, 2009)

I think my group of casual players are a good bellwether for this question.

Although they have been playing DND for a decade plus, they remain very casual and know little about DND-space. They would read fantasy occasionally, but not DND fantasy and would rarely read the fluff in the DND books. 

I did not run Planescape in 2e or 3e and did not buy any spats during 3e, just the core books. They have not been exposed to half-Dragons or tieflings before fourth edition.

We've been running our current 4e group for nearly a year now and these are characters they created themselves. They have tiefling (rogue) and a dragonborn (fighter) in the group, and they love them to bits. They did not pick the races for mechanical reasons as they arn't very mechanically-minded.

The races definitely have traction here, for me personnaly the Dragonborn has more traction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 4, 2009)

I wonder if the length of this thread just shows that discussing worth and unworth of Dragonborn or Tiefling has gained traction, or that the races itself gained traction?
Friction they definitely cause, though I'd say the Dragonborn "enjoys" it the most. :silly:

I am not necessarily strongly interested in playing a Dragon or Dragonhumanoid, but the Dragonborn did a lot for me thanks to their noble warrior culture. Orcs and Half-Orcs are more savage and brutal, Hobgoblin are evil and cruel. Dragonborn fill a niche I felt unadequately filled before. They remind me of Klingons. (My first Dragonborn character was therefore named after a character from a Star Trek novel by John M Ford - Krenn Rustazh).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 4, 2009)

Even if one isn't a fan of Dragonborn they also have fun racial mechanics. So it can always be reskinned. In my Vodou-esque setting the Dragonborn is simply humans from a different culture, trained in folk-magic/alchemy.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2009)

This is not the place to discuss Eberron's default design assumptions, guys. Thanks to folks who are helping keep the thread on-topic.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Probably because it's not what I said.  I said it doesn't deserve a place in the core of any D&D milieu worth being called such.  No problem with specific settings, but as a default for all settings it's a poor choice.




I'm not exactly sure how you're using milieu here. If you mean it to be the sum total of D&D as taken from the books, regardless of setting, I don't really get how there are multiple milieus: there's only the one, which started with OD&D and will keep going past 4e. If you can differentiate between editions, then how are you not differentiating between settings as well? There were no default gods in 2e, for instance, and basic D&D didn't have the Great Wheel; those imply a non-shared setting.

I don't agree anyway, though. A game that has seen rust monsters, thouls and digesters has seen a lot worse than dragonborn. (And I love thouls, but come on, troll-ghouls that are dead ringers for hobgoblins are _silly_.)


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I don't agree anyway, though. A game that has seen rust monsters, thouls and digesters has seen a lot worse than dragonborn. (And I love thouls, but come on, troll-ghouls that are dead ringers for hobgoblins are _silly_.)



If you start dissing gas spores or gorbels, Ethan, you're dead to me.


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> I don't really get how there are multiple milieus: there's only the one, which started with OD&D and will keep going past 4e.



Arguably the BECMI and AD&D ones are a bit different (e.g. no mind flayers, half orcs or flumphs in BECMI), and got recombined to an extent with 3E.  4E rewrites a lot of assumptions about the D&D universe and it's inhabitants, such that it's probably the most radical departure from the traditional milieu yet.  The non-optional PC races and their fluff, plus myriad other devils in details and disconnects are enough of a change that I don't see it as a continuation of the old implied setting anymore.


> I don't agree anyway, though. A game that has seen rust monsters, thouls and digesters has seen a lot worse than dragonborn. (And I love thouls, but come on, troll-ghouls that are dead ringers for hobgoblins are silly.)



It has, but no thoul was ever a core PC race, assumed by default to be played in every campaign.  PC races get a massive amount of screentime, whereas a thoul will generally last rounds, and the campaign moves on.  Thouls are also easy to "ban" - as DM you simply choose not to use them (although such a move would be very thoulish, IMO).


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> I think it says (and I am not entirely a reliable source  ) that you cannot re-define a race.
> 
> Now, Goodman produced the rather nice dragonborn sourcebook.  But I don't think they really changed the appearance of the race overall or its "role" in the game. They just provided a slightly different and more in-depth backstory, cultural details, and generally more involved fluff.
> 
> Not horribly helpful, I know.




Goodman have a similar book coming out for tieflings this spring, so I guess we will know soonish.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 4, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> If you start dissing gas spores or gorbels, Ethan, you're dead to me.




The dirtiest trick my cousin ever pulled in the course of DMing was make a gas spore laugh at us. Like, turn at us and chuckle. I mean, _come on_. That was just rude.

I've never used a gorbel, but now I'm tempted just as an intellectual exercise. I have an ugly craving to set them up like a Puzzle Bobble (Bust-a-Move) level and see if the players can pick out the right one to target to start the good chain reaction and not the bad one. 

(Oh god now I am a step closer to using prinnies in D&D...)




rounser said:


> Arguably the BECMI and AD&D ones are a bit different (e.g. no mind flayers, half orcs or flumphs in BECMI), and got recombined to an extent with 3E.  4E rewrites a lot of assumptions about the D&D universe and it's inhabitants, such that it's probably the most radical departure from the traditional milieu yet.  The non-optional PC races and their fluff, plus myriad other devils in details and disconnects are enough of a change that I don't see it as a continuation of the old implied setting anymore.




Well, remember that from the perspective of someone who started with BECMI (or really just BE), an equally radical departure from the implied setting came when we picked up AD&D for the first time. Good and evil as alignments? Race and class tracked separately? Blue dragons and white dragons are evil now? (A particularly harsh blow to those of us who liked having them as potential allies.) Half-orcs? Gnomes? 



> It has, but no thoul was ever a core PC race, assumed by default to be played in every campaign.  PC races get a massive amount of screentime, whereas a thoul will generally last rounds, and the campaign moves on.  Thouls are also easy to "ban" - as DM you simply choose not to use them (although such a move would be very thoulish, IMO).




Well, in my experience, you could get the exact same disconnect with gnomes. In the dawn times before Dragonlance or World of Warcraft, the only previous experience one could be expected to have with gnomes was lawn ornaments or the Gnomes art book, and the animated movie based on said book. There was really no other reason to see them — gut reaction only — as something other than silly little people with red hats beloved by children and old ladies. If you asked the prepubescent me of the time, I would have said I had no idea why they were considered possibilities for heroic sword-and-sorcery or high fantasy adventurers. And they're still controversial.

But having seen what people have done with gnomes since, I can't help but think that the problem with dragonborn is similar. They pose a stumbling block to some, seem like a good fit to others, and they react well to reskinning. They can also, of course, be banned — but I don't think that 4e is at all unworthy for including them as an option. 

If anything, I think it's neat to have a core race that looks considerably more inhuman, because that opens up thoughts about not just what races you can play, but what you can do with race as a mechanic.


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> There is nothing wrong with a kitchen sink setting, as long as it's done right. Fading Suns is a kitchen sink setting, and it's awesome. So is Shadowrun. And Eberron is pretty cool, too.



So are the World of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms. D&D has a long tradition of kitchen-sink settings. You could argue D&D invented them (or, rather, they were invented for D&D).


----------



## Sammael (May 4, 2009)

If you need to ask whether something has gained traction, _it hasn't_.


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> In the dawn times before Dragonlance or World of Warcraft, the only previous experience one could be expected to have with gnomes was lawn ornaments...



They should have remained lawn ornaments! 

Ahem, anyway...

... my group has no problem with dragon-men or devil-men. They fit our collective notion of D&D just fine. Our current campaign has a smattering of important Tiefling NPC's and one PC Dragonborn (mine).

Actually, we'll probably never have another Dragonborn PC after the way I characterized the race...


----------



## wedgeski (May 4, 2009)

This thread was never going anywhere but downhill from the start, but from my point of view, whatever gets a player excited is what goes in the game. Dragonborn and tieflings have featured heavily as PC's and as backstory NPC's, so they seem alright in my book. Campaign. Whatever.


----------



## Dragonbait (May 4, 2009)

skipping all the drek in the middle. 

Yes, they have traction. Tieflings already did (although their concept seemed to dissapear for a while during 3E, but returned with 3.5E in all the groups I played in).

Dragonborn definitely have traction now in every group I play in, too.

I'm running a FR campaign and find it harder to delineate between Eladrin and Elves than dealing with Dragonborn and Tieflings, seeing how the setting still refers to them all as Elves (Sun, Moon, Wild, Wood, and so on).


----------



## alleynbard (May 4, 2009)

Mallus said:


> They should have remained lawn ornaments!




Poor gnomes.  Gnome fans never get any love. 

I understand, gnomes can be played horribly.  And if you don't like trickster races, they can get very annoying.  Much like kender.  Actually, even as a gnome fan I rather hate the kender.  And gully dwarves are right out.


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> Poor gnomes.  Gnome fans never get any love.



I'm trying to get over my irrational prejudice against gnomes. I put them in our 4e homebrew! 

(I mean, we have devil-men, dragon-men, and robots... why not the little, red-capped bastards too?)


----------



## alleynbard (May 4, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Goodman have a similar book coming out for tieflings this spring, so I guess we will know soonish.




Yep!  And I couldn't be happier. The Dragonborn book rocked.  It really helped my dragonborn player develop an interesting and exciting background. I just told him "assume everything you read in here is true, I will integrate it somehow" and so far it has been successful.


----------



## alleynbard (May 4, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'm trying to get over my irrational prejudice against gnomes. I put them in our 4e homebrew!
> 
> (I mean, we have devil-men, dragon-men, and robots... why not the little, red-capped bastards too?)




Thank you.   Of course, just remember not all gnomes wear red caps, just the ones who dip their caps in the blood of their slain victims. 

Redcap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 4, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> Poor gnomes.  Gnome fans never get any love.




Hey, I do love the little buggers!

Repeat after me: "There is *no such thing* as a Gnomish World Conspiracy."


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 4, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Too early to tell. All we can say with certainty is that gnomes have zero traction.




Well you can't blame the poor Gnome for that- it isn't their fault the bottom of their boots is porcelain.


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2009)

I personally blame TSR for the lack of traction with gnomes.

Visual design not encouraging for the target age group to play one. CHECK.
Campaign worlds that use gnomes primarily as jokes. CHECK
Rest of the campaign worlds simply eliminate gnomes. CHECK

Yeah, yet we're surprised that gnomes have no traction, why?


----------



## JeffB (May 4, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Well, remember that from the perspective of someone who started with BECMI (or really just BE), an equally radical departure from the implied setting came when we picked up AD&D for the first time. Good and evil as alignments? Race and class tracked separately? Blue dragons and white dragons are evil now? (A particularly harsh blow to those of us who liked having them as potential allies.) Half-orcs? Gnomes?




*somewhat tangential* 

Exactly- This is something that is very fundamental to the differences between 4E and 3E as a whole. 

3E walked that hardcore AD&D milleau line- really holding to those original Literary influences that Gary (and many others, including myself) held as "sacred". Nearly everything about the way the world works has been defined. "Cosmology? heres "the Great wheel" and a list of 56 Gods and what their priests can and cannot do, what they wear, what they eat on the second Tuesday of each month,  and detail after detail, after detail. It's your game, but we have provided 12 different campaign worlds that all revolve around these basic premises and everything willl be designed with this in mind". 

4E is very much the Little Brown Book/Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D mindset- where AD&D-isms, and the literary traditions are not as ingrained nor adhered to in the "world" and rule-set. Nearly everything about the way the world works is undefined.  "Cosmology? uhm..well you can have Gods...or not... you can define it yourself or use this very basic outline we have provided. Or maybe you want to uses the Norse Mythos? or maybe adventurers who ascended to Godhood?  It's your game, kid: Knock yourself out"


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (May 4, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not a huge fan of dragonborn myself, but that's mostly because I think they don't need to really exist. What needs to exist is robust rules for playing actual dragons alongside other PC's, since that what people actually want. They don't want to be a little dragon knock-off, they _want to be a dragon_. In any game where people can play a dragon, dragonborn are redundant and useless.




I disagree, both the players who have played Dragonborn in my games have done so for different reasons. One actually liked the "girl with big boobs and spiky, scaly skin who can breathe fire" idea and the other wanted to play the "Proud, Honorable, Scaly man from a Warrior Culture"

And for whatever its worth, I allow both 4E version Tieflings (descendants of human nobles who bargained with demons and who had a large empire in the past) and the 2nd Ed version "Planetouched" (People with assorted planar blood in them and strange, random characteristics)

Both versions have their fans and I try to accommodate them both


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 4, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hmm...yeah, it seems that the dragonoid concept certainly has traction...
> 
> ....of course dragonborn are different....but perhaps my dislike of them comes solely from the name and the look. I probably would have no problem with them, even their existing 4e backstory, if I thought the name or the look were appealing in any way.
> 
> ...




I think this puts it pretty well for me.

The 4e ideas have always had traction, but I think the 4e renditions of them perhaps ironically have less traction then they have before.  From what I've seen, tieflings are much more popular when I use a variant of the 2e version (Ask "Ok, so you're part demon.  How does this SHOW on your character?" instead of telling them), and dragonborn are a *lot* more popular when I describe them as being more dragon then man (lose the breasts and snouts, describe them more as humanoid dragons.  I've found the draconian model/artwork works a hell of a lot better then the 4e dragonborn one. Draconian by Jason Engle - Fantasy art galleries at Epilogue.net - Fantasy and Sci-fi at their best is a good illustration of how I picture and describe them)

That said, Eladrin are rather popular, though I suspect it's because players can finally put the dwarf and elf variant glut to rest.  Or rather, Eladrin are very *UN*popular, but well liked because of it, because now, to quote others, "Everything I hated about elves was removed and put into one race, so now I can like the good about elves and hate the bad in a much more convinent manner!"


----------



## rounser (May 4, 2009)

> 4E is very much the Little Brown Book/Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X D&D mindset- where AD&D-isms, and the literary traditions are not as ingrained nor adhered to in the "world" and rule-set.



Not true.  I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E.  I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.

Not okay. Don't tell people what they do or don't think. ~ PCat


----------



## Mallus (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E.



Every race and class is optional, even in 4e. 



> I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.



If the new rules remind someone of the old rules, why not simply accept that at face value?


----------



## evilbob (May 4, 2009)

All the best points have already been made.  But they're a little spread out over the course of 10 pages, so here's a good summary of what I think is an excellent response to the OP.



Cadfan said:


> Older players love the tropes, but newer players are ever so slightly a group of culture aliens.  So they look at halflings, and see "people who are short like children."  Ok.  And dwarves?  "People who are short and also fat."  And half elves?  "People who are.... umm...."  Halflings and Dwarves have cultures, sure, but those cultures are largely just copies of existing human cultures, meaning that its trivially easy for someone to create a human PC who's stolen the Halfling or Dwarf cultural shtick.  And Half Elves are just... a bag full of empty.
> 
> Meanwhile Tieflings and Dragonborn are interesting and unique.  Tieflings have an obvious hook (humans except demon touched) and they have physical differences on an entirely different scale from "really short" or "short and also fat."  Dragonborn also have an obvious hook and physical differentiation that stops them from being "humans but kinda not."





Kamikaze Midget said:


> What needs to exist is robust rules for playing actual dragons alongside other PC's, since that what people actually want. They don't want to be a little dragon knock-off, they _want to be a dragon_. In any game where people can play a dragon, dragonborn are redundant and useless.
> 
> Also, I really think their look is tremendously unappealing. I see they are spikey lizard-men without tails, but that aesthetic isn't something I want for any of my characters (or most of my PC's). I'd rather have Kobolds as a PC race.





Kinneus said:


> The fact is, some people just really flipping love dragons and demons, and will do incredible backflips to play them or something like them. Also, I play with a lot of really casual players, and there's something about the tiefling and dragonborn that really trips their triggers. "I can be a half-dragon? I can be a freaking devil! Awesome!"


----------



## Shemeska (May 4, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Every race and class is optional, even in 4e.




Anything is optional in your own home games, but not for official setting support in 4e where so far every player centric element in the default core has been inserted wholescale into previously distinct settings (see the retconning of 4e Eladrin into FR, the destruction of portions of FR in order to insert a nation of dragonborn, etc).


----------



## JeffB (May 4, 2009)

rounser said:


> Not true.  I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E.  I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.





Too bad I wasn't talking about the RC.

~ edited: civility please. Using a smiley doesn't give license to be rude to people - PS~


----------



## Ktulu (May 5, 2009)

I can't honestly say.  In my current campaign, humans are the only race (though I used different Player races to reflect region).  In the planescape game we were playing in, everyone played human (that was very weird, BTW).

Only two campaigns into 4e, we don't have much data to determine whether or not we like the new races.  From a personal standpoint, I like the Dragonborn more than Tieflings, but that's just purely aesthetics.


----------



## Nivenus (May 5, 2009)

I don't actively discourage or encourage any particular races, though, I do try and make it clear what the rules within my game are regarding racial cultural values and roleplaying guidelines - while stressing they can play against type (hey, want to play an axe-crazy deva? fine with me). However, if it starts to look like everyone's the same race I start to try and encourage variety. So far it's worked alright and only two people in the group are the same race.

Incidentally enough, they're both tieflings. So I think it's fair to say devil-childs have some traction. For that matter, they've had traction since 2e it's just that they've only become core recently. I can see why. There's something indisputably (okay, _not_ indisputably) cool about the scions of demonic forces who struggle to overcome the devil within. After all, Merlin's whole backstory runs on this concept in most iterations of the character.

As for dragonborn - they seem to be accepted among my group. I don't have any players with the race but I don't have any halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, devas, shifters, or goliaths either. There is a major dragonborn NPC though and nobody throws a fit about him. Contrastly, they seem to think it's awesome when he uses his breath weapon.

Granted - most of my players are newbies (with one exception who last played D&D when it was 1e AD&D) so they're not as attached to the old races as alot of players are. But I think it's fair to say that dragonborn and tieflings were successful additions to core D&D - which seems to be what everybody else is saying anyway.


----------



## alleynbard (May 5, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Hey, I do love the little buggers!
> 
> Repeat after me: "There is *no such thing* as a Gnomish World Conspiracy."




Nice write-up. I have always been fascinated by Urbis.  Good work there.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 5, 2009)

rounser said:


> Not true.  I see the word "optional" popping up all the time in the RC, and this is the antithesis of 4E.  I know you're wanting to christen 4E with legitimacy borrowed from earlier editions, but it's just not there.




Hey guys I think Rounser dislikes 4e.

Oh hey, *WE GET IT NOW.*

Rounser, why don't you tell us about the previous editions and what you liked about the half-dragons or tieflings in those?  

Personally I continue to use 2e's tieflings (Maybe even break out those random die charts - I love random die charts!  Other players, maybe not as much.  I love them more then enough to cover for them though!)  As for the dragonborn, I don't dislike their fluff at all, but _aesthetically_ I cannot freaking stand them.  As I stated earlier, they become far more draconic looking.  And no breasts.

I think dragonborn - or draconian - or half dragon - or vague dragon man - is a good race to have.  I do agree, however, that if you have players who "want to be a dragon," then you should _let them be a dragon_.  It's no more unfitting in most campaigns then dragon-people would be, and it's certainly fitting in with 4e's design philosophies, take that as you will.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 5, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Personally I continue to use 2e's tieflings (Maybe even break out those random die charts - I love random die charts!  Other players, maybe not as much.  I love them more then enough to cover for them though!)



Leave the chart take away the randomness. While I get the reason, I dunno I didn't like how if I had a specific character concept how it could get messed up by the random rolls. Now if got a less concrete concept then yeah tis better.

I hope one day 4e could bring this back. Perhaps those Player's Handbook Races books could have it. Be a good place for it.


----------



## RefinedBean (May 5, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Hey guys I think Rounser dislikes 4e.
> 
> Oh hey, *WE GET IT NOW.*




I must spread some experience around, yadda yadda.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 5, 2009)

Oh, side note on dragonborn:

Several of my friends who do like 4e have almost all mentioned that they think dragonborn is just "too good" compared to the others.  They have mountains of awesome racial feats while other classes get bland +number ones, and they're amazing at a very large array of classes, far more then other classes.  Their main complaint is that they think WotC wanted dragonborn to be a big draw, so they focused a lot on them mechanically - to the detriment of other races.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 5, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think dragonborn - or draconian - or half dragon - or vague dragon man - is a good race to have.  I do agree, however, that if you have players who "want to be a dragon," then you should _let them be a dragon_.  It's no more unfitting in most campaigns then dragon-people would be, and it's certainly fitting in with 4e's design philosophies, take that as you will.



Playing an actual dragon in 4e wouldn't be particularly difficult. Especially with the assumptions that the powers a race has in the MM isn't necessarily what all members of the race have. Choose two ability scores to give pluses to, think of a power to give the race, and finnish it off with a couple of misc. features.


----------



## outsider (May 5, 2009)

Tieflings and Dragonborn seem to have plenty of traction.  In the case of Tieflings at least, the reason isn't mechanics as they've generally been considered subpar.

While I don't really get Dragonborn, it's always been obvious to me that people will want to play them.  Out of the 5 people in my first serious D&D group, 3 of them have latched onto the concept.  One asked if he could play a dragon man when the group first formed, as he'd never played D&D before(this was in the early 2nd edition days).  The other two started playing half dragons/dragon disciples in 3rd ed, and at least one of them is playing a Dragonborn now.  I really don't get the appeal, but it's obviously there.

Tieflings I haven't seen quite as much of, though I personally like them alot.  I suspect that their mechanics are holding them back, and they'd get alot more use if they were were as obviously powerful as the other races.  The Drow steal their thunder to a degree, as they do the angsty role almost as well, with much stronger mechanics.  I certainly see them more than halflings though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Anything is optional in your own home games, but not for official setting support in 4e where so far every player centric element in the default core has been inserted wholescale into previously distinct settings (see the retconning of 4e Eladrin into FR, the destruction of portions of FR in order to insert a nation of dragonborn, etc).



I don't think FR is such a great example. There were many reasons the changes were made. Dragonborn were not the sole reason for the changes, I suspect they might have been one of the less important. Introducing a new race into FR isn't that hard, especially since the PoL Dragonborn aren't exactly a common race. They _had_ a big empire, but that's long gone and now they are more or less mercenary nomads.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 5, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> Nice write-up. I have always been fascinated by Urbis.  Good work there.




Thanks. I wanted to get beyond the "crazy inventor" archetype of gnomes, since the dwarves also fit into the "craftsman race" archetype - so I needed more to distinguish them.

And the way gnomes seem to fade from sight - both physically and socially - well, it makes you think about them, doesn't it? They don't look tough or imposing, so what's their shtick?

And then I remembered all those old jokes about the "Gnomes of Zürich" and the rest fell into place. Now gnomes are an entire _race_ of manipulative masterminds - or are they? They certainly deny it - but can you believe them?

Despite seeming entirely harmless and inoffensive, gnomes do worry a lot of people. Whether those worries are justified is up to the DM...


----------



## ferratus (May 5, 2009)

It isn't as if they couldn't have introduced the Dragonborn on the western continent north or south of Maztica, and have them enter the setting through Baldur's Gate.

No, the changes to the Forgotten Realms were story changes because they thought it would improve the setting in its own right, rather than trying to make it fit 4e specifically.


----------



## AllisterH (May 5, 2009)

outsider said:


> While I don't really get Dragonborn, it's always been obvious to me that people will want to play them.  Out of the 5 people in my first serious D&D group, 3 of them have latched onto the concept.  One asked if he could play a dragon man when the group first formed, as he'd never played D&D before(this was in the early 2nd edition days).  The other two started playing half dragons/dragon disciples in 3rd ed, and at least one of them is playing a Dragonborn now.  I really don't get the appeal, but it's obviously there.
> 
> .




This is EXACTLY what it is like for me. I've had players asking for Dragonmen since the 2e days and like outsider, I don't get the appeal, but I can't deny that it has some sort of traction. 

re: Lizardman vs Dragonmen
And no, they don't want to play a lizardman. A Dragonman race must have Wings and be able to fly eventually and most imprtantly, a breath weapon is a MUST.

re: Eladrin vs elves
A lot of my people seem happy with the split. They get to play the Sidhe they want and leave the "that half of the race is plain uninteresting" by the wayside. To me, it seems like a 50/50 split between those that prefer Eladrin to Elves and vice versa.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 5, 2009)

I've come around to the idea that dragon-people fill a comfortable niche. My original idea was too much in my own biases (toward weird races, and away from what I don't like about Dragonborn), but further consideration opened my eyes that there is an appeal for dragon-people (though I still think a PC-dragon would kind of shoehorn in on their territory, I get that dragons aren't necessarily appropriate PCs). 

I'd still say it's not the Dragonborn or the Tieflings that have "traction" per se, as these concepts existed in gaming before these races. I'd say that tieflings and dragonborn are 4e's way of giving players things they want to play (devil-people and dragon-people). 

I also say that the most recent edition's creative side seems a little borked -- tieflings and dragonborn both look tremendously goofy to me, and the name "dragonborn" is pretty vile to me. But those are aethetics. It's OK to have dragon-people and devil-people, and those do make sense (well, kind of) in core D&D. They are more "monstrous" races, however, so they won't be appropriate for every high-fantasy setting. 

Thus, for me, I'm less inclined to play a dragonborn or a tiefling than I was in 3e to play a half-dragon or a tiefling, because everyone's imagination will be filled with eyeless tentacle-haired dinosaur-men and buttock-heads and dragonbewbs and tails that make chairs impossible. 

I'd still play a different kind of dragon-person (or a dragon) or a different kind of (2e-ified) tiefling, I'm just not partial to their most recent forms.

Though that might have more to do with 4e's broadly cartoony (in places) art style and the inability of designers to name things without sounding like two year olds just slamming words together. It's aesthetics. I don't begrudge their existence or their mechanics necessarily.


----------



## Obryn (May 5, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, side note on dragonborn:
> 
> Several of my friends who do like 4e have almost all mentioned that they think dragonborn is just "too good" compared to the others.  They have mountains of awesome racial feats while other classes get bland +number ones, and they're amazing at a very large array of classes, far more then other classes.  Their main complaint is that they think WotC wanted dragonborn to be a big draw, so they focused a lot on them mechanically - to the detriment of other races.



I think that was definitely the case when PHB1 came out, but over time I think it's improved.  They were a very good fit for a lot of classes in PHB1 - they have good stats for fighters, some clerics, some rangers, and some warlocks; and have ideal stats for paladins and inspiring warlords.  I mean, that's 3/4 of the PHB right there.  They were also the only race with a Strength boost, which was appealing to 3e sensibilities where Strength was King.

Now that PHB2 and several Dragon articles have come out, we have several more Strength-based races - Warforged, Minotaurs, Genasi, Goliaths, Half-Orcs.  (Gnolls?  I forget.)  There are now better races for a lot of classes than dragonborn, so their supremacy has fallen a bit.

Other than that, I think Dragonborn mostly benefitted from having a Dragon article about them, much like Genasi did.  I don't know that it's favoritism, really; I think an article was needed on the new race, and extra feats are just kind of an expectation for articles like that.

-O


----------



## Puggins (May 5, 2009)

Dragonborn are probably the best executed race in 4e.  It doesn't make them the best race- there are plenty of classes in which they are merely good fits.  They simply happen to have an attribute combination that couples the two most popular primary attributes in the game.

Strength: Fighter, Warlord, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Warden
Charisma: Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard

Wisdom is the only other attribute that has four classes that use it as a primary.  The Dragonborn bonuses seem perfectly in character to me.  I wish they wouldn't have used Strength as a secondary attribute for sorcerers (that's the only kluge to cater to dragonborn that I've seen),   but otherwise I don't see a biased design- I see a lot of natural synergy.


----------



## alleynbard (May 5, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Thanks. I wanted to get beyond the "crazy inventor" archetype of gnomes, since the dwarves also fit into the "craftsman race" archetype - so I needed more to distinguish them.
> 
> And the way gnomes seem to fade from sight - both physically and socially - well, it makes you think about them, doesn't it? They don't look tough or imposing, so what's their shtick?
> 
> ...




You have hit on one of the wonderful things about worldbuilding when it comes to adding new races.  The mechanics evoke an idea, which inspires you when it comes time to find a place for the race in society.  Most often real world events help feed that concept.  And before you know it, you have this inspired amalgam of ideas that brings the concept into fresh territory.   

This is one of the reasons I like being presented with new races. It challenges me to find a place for these races in my world.  Not necessarily "shoehorning", but finding a logical place for the race to dwell and to integrate its back story with my homebrew without retconning.  The same goes for classes and power sources.

Once again, great stuff.  I find Urbis to be of constant inspiration.  Thanks for providing your ideas in the public forum.

I'm curious. Any thoughts on adding PHB2 races to your setting?  Do you have plans to do that?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (May 5, 2009)

alleynbard said:


> You have hit on one of the wonderful things about worldbuilding when it comes to adding new races.  The mechanics evoke an idea, which inspires you when it comes time to find a place for the race in society.  Most often real world events help feed that concept.  And before you know it, you have this inspired amalgam of ideas that brings the concept into fresh territory.




One of my major sources of inspiration are the old "Suppressed Transmission" articles by Kenneth Hite - that guy is able to find connections and inspiration in _anything_. I aspire to do the same, although I still have a long way to go...

The real world is also a major source of inspiration for me. I mean, it worked brilliantly for Warhammer Fantasy - so I figured I might as well try the same.

Oh, and since we are on the topic, I'd like to use this opportunity to plug the Arcana Wiki again, which is dedicated to finding gaming inspiration from Real World material. I used quite a few things I discovered while doing research for this wiki for Urbis as well...



> This is one of the reasons I like being presented with new races. It challenges me to find a place for these races in my world.  Not necessarily "shoehorning", but finding a logical place for the race to dwell and to integrate its back story with my homebrew without retconning.  The same goes for classes and power sources.




I experienced this strongly with the eladrin when I tried to work them into the setting. Not only did I come up with a good explanation for their existence, but I also ended up making two of the elven kingdoms of Urbis a lot more interesting than they were previously...



> Once again, great stuff.  I find Urbis to be of constant inspiration.  Thanks for providing your ideas in the public forum.




No problem. I always like to plug my stuff.   



> I'm curious. Any thoughts on adding PHB2 races to your setting?  Do you have plans to do that?




That's a tricky topic. I recently decided to move Urbis to a more "system-neutral" description, as I'm not sure what the GSL will cover once I start selling Urbis as a product - in that situation, the Urbis Wiki probably doesn't count as a "fan site" any more.

So now I'm trying to stay away from anything that's _too_ easily identifiable as D&D Product IP. The dragonborn (which I've renamed dragonkin) are already a fairly borderline case, and I'm trying to avoid adding more.

Gnomes are already a part of the setting. Half-orcs are sufficiently "public domain" that adding them shouldn't be a problem, and I actually have a writeup of them dating back to D&D3.X lying around somewhere - I just need to upload it.

I have some vague ideas of a race roughly analogous to the Devas - which I intend to call "Nephilim" - but I need to give them some further thoughts before writing them up. Goliaths and shifters are probably too D&D-specific, and I'll likely not include them.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 5, 2009)

I'd say the idea of playing a dragon person has had a long history in D&D, so the dragonborn, in one form or another, have always had traction.  What I think 4e does is finally give this very popular concept a well-deserved front-and-center role in the game. 

While I like their new backstory and the dark, sword and sorcery feel they bring to the game, I don't see tieflings quite as frequently.


----------



## Herschel (May 5, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> No.
> 
> Is the answer. Including everything only makes WotC's coffers richer.
> 
> _Not_ including things is what makes _your game_ richer.




I think I agree. WotC's goal is to provide as much saleable information to adapt to the widest variety of games. Including everything can be downright silly in many situations you can set up adventures/game worlds in. It can also be unnecessarily draining to the pocketbook, depending on your financial situation, when th emain goal is simply to play a game one enjoys. 

Back to OP question: They're here, whether I like them or not (personally, I don't). I prefer Genasi and Deva characters from the "new" races so that's what I play when I go that route. Those are simply the options I happen to like (except the spikey, crystaline "hair").


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 5, 2009)

Puggins said:


> I wish they wouldn't have used Strength as a secondary attribute for sorcerers (that's the only kluge to cater to dragonborn that I've seen),   but otherwise I don't see a biased design- I see a lot of natural synergy.




First of all, the idea of not allowing a "Dragonborn" be able to be a Dragon Sorcerer is pretty silly.  Secondly, the flavor of the class is one that emphasizes physical "getting-your-hands-dirty" natural ability- Strength is the way to get there.


----------



## Puggins (May 5, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> First of all, the idea of not allowing a "Dragonborn" be able to be a Dragon Sorcerer is pretty silly.




Eh?  Who said anything about "not allowing" them to be dragon sorcerers?  I said that I think they made strength the secondary sorcerer trait to _cater_ to Dragonborn, not to allow dragonborn to take the class and become competent at all.  If the secondary stat had been, say, constitution, it would still have had quite a bit of synergy with Dragonborn (+cha, con mod added to surges, breath weapon).  Adding a feat like infernal wrath or Gnome Phantasmist would've been all you needed to complete the package and make dragonborn top o' the line dragon sorcerers.



> Secondly, the flavor of the class is one that emphasizes physical "getting-your-hands-dirty" natural ability- Strength is the way to get there.




I see no reason why Strength works better than Constitution, which I think would've been more flavorful, at least IMO.

Mechanically, there are already tons of classes that use strength as a primary or secondary stat (9 out of 17), and only a few that use constitution at all, never mind as a primary.  Giving Con to the sorcerer would've balanced things out a bit more.


----------



## Intense_Interest (May 5, 2009)

Puggins said:


> If the secondary stat had been, say, constitution, it would still have had quite a bit of synergy with Dragonborn (+cha, con mod added to surges, breath weapon).  Adding a feat like infernal wrath or Gnome Phantasmist would've been all you needed to complete the package and make dragonborn top o' the line dragon sorcerers.




Pardon me, I should have said "not allowed Dragonborn to be the Best Dragon Sorcerers".  My mistake.



> I see no reason why Strength works better than Constitution, which I think would've been more flavorful, at least IMO.
> 
> Mechanically, there are already tons of classes that use strength as a primary or secondary stat (9 out of 17), and only a few that use constitution at all, never mind as a primary.  Giving Con to the sorcerer would've balanced things out a bit more.




I have no issue with having more (on percentage) Strength based classes, especially if those Strength based classes include some flavorful Casters rather than 15 flavors on the same Fighting-Man.

Secondly, Giving Con to the Sorcerer would've stepped all over the toes of the Warlock, who is flavor-wise a different caster and should be delineated as such.


----------

