4th Edition ruined Genasi

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
CrimsonLotus's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-05-17
4th Edition ruined Genasi

http://www.wizards.com/files/367_Ecology_Genasi.pdf

After reading the above, I lost any remaining goodwill I had toward 4th edition. If 4th Edition once had the privilege of my benefit of the doubt, this must surely be the final nail in the coffin. To be honest, I was irritated enough with the homogenisation of tieflings into one, indistinct mass. In a way, that was fair enough, since tieflings could be rendered like a kind of concept: redemption, rebirth, a new identity for a new world and so forth. But grossly generalising genasi irrespective of elemental heritages is simply lazy.

No, I'm not an odious purist - to the contrary, I think artistic license goes a long way in fantasy, but there is simply no excuse for dumbing down, laziness and poorly written banalities. Which is precisely why I try to give genasi, when and where I can, fair treatment both when I run Planescape and when I write for this site (genasi play a prominent role in my latest article) and others. Conversely, if there is any flavour, brio or verve in 4th Edition, I have yet to see it.

Rant over. Shall return to my life now.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

Everything's simplified in 4e. I do find it wearing to have everything credited to the same handful of origins (the primordials, the gods, the Far Realm, Bael Turath, the fomorians) again and again. In 3e, a creature might be from outer space, a parallel universe, any of dozens of planes of existence, the distant past, the future, a reality that no longer exists, a wizard's experiments, or any number of imaginative possibilities, while in 4e it almost always boils down to those five (the only exceptions I can think of are certain creatures of shadow and the obyriths... I suppose hobgoblins and drow also constitute separate origins - and I was very happy to see obyriths given a relatively fresh origin, although Demonomicon was for the most part just a rehash of previous material awkwardly shoehorned into the new cosmology. At least they managed to fit most of the previous material in, something I was dubious was even possible in the reimagined Abyss. We still lost the War of Ripe Flesh, one of James Jacobs' cooler ideas, and the consequences of that war like Malcanthet, Red Shroud, and Lynkhab).

But, of course, that's 4e core, and the point of core (as a point of entry into the game) is to be simple, while individual campaign settings can be more complex. And the Planescape and 3e books (and websites) still exist, regardless of what WotC does.

And some of WotC's designers still manage to come up with some very cool concepts even straightjacked by the extremely limited palette they have to work with. Comparing current 4e core to what TSR was churning out during various dull periods, I think they're significantly better, and the average quality of 4e books is significantly better than the average quality of 3e books. The quality of generic "core" fluff in 4e is better than generic "core" fluff in previous editions, which mostly relied on setting-specific material (Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, etc.) to be any good, outside of Dragon Magazine and the like.

As for genasi, I really like treating separate flavors of genasi separately (and even different families of fire genasi might have very, very different histories). That said, there really hasn't been much development on genasi outside some relatively brief notes in the Forgotten Realms setting listing possible origins for them on that world, so it's not like the 4e genasi are replacing anything that was terribly developed. As the history of a single type of genasi, or perhaps a replacement for ruvoka, 4e genasi aren't bad.

CrimsonLotus's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-05-17
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

You're right, 4E genasi were not exactly displacing a well-established mythos. Nevertheless, even in 2E, different genasi heritages had distinct characteristics and attribute modifiers associated with them, which, at least on a mechanical level, made them distinctive when compared to the process of simplification/streamlining undertaken by 4E.

Re: fluff in 4E, I generally agree that production values, if all things were to be considered, should be deemed higher than preceding editions. Ultimately, however, it boils down to the concepts the players want to focus on. I have always placed a premium on historical/social depth and this is, frankly, hard to effect on the basis of 4E material in its current state.

No, I'm not going to jump on the hate 4E bandwagon, but I will politely retain my reservations regarding the excessive standardisation of races/cultures etc. I am, however, happy to acknowledge that most players are more interested in the mechanics or other aspects of the game and - slightly OT here - in that respect, I would agree that 4E does a better job of making the game instantly playable.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

You're welcome to your reservations, and I share them. Uh, cheers!

Calmar's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-06-07
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

I'm no fan of 4E, but I wasn't really aware of any meaningful fluff for the (air) genasi, either... Puzzled

In the old FR I knew they mostly were descendants from humans and djinni.

__________________

"La la la, I'm a girl, I'm a pretty little girl!"

--Bel the Pit Fiend, Lord of the First (in a quiet hour of privacy)

Archdukechocula's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2008-02-24
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

A limited pallet is never a limited pallet in the hands of a great artist. A broad pallet is only good at disguising the untalented. The limitations of Greek mythology produced great stories for well over 1000 years, and hell inspires to this day. This in spite of its "limited" and incestuous nature. The problem with making a compelling story is rarely the number of options available. It comes down to making something compelling with the tools you are given.

Personally, I have never much liked the "more=better" mentality of D&D, because if anything I feel it waters down the human drama in favor of novelty. When you get right down to it, the quality of your world when you roleplaying is almost entirely dependent upon the DM and the players. The system sets the tone, but the expression is born from the creators.

CrimsonLotus's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-05-17
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

@Archdukechocula - I agree, which is why sites like Planewalker should be considered vital to the whole D&D enterprise. My main concern with the 4E Ecology of the Genasi was simply the fact that, to me at least, the tone of 4E has become anodyne and rather characterless, especially when compared to the brave new world of Planescape back when it was originally released for 2E.

@Calmar - I don't think the material preceding the 4E on the topic of genasi was perfect, but I do think that, with the resources currently available to WotC, they could have done a better job of seizing the opportunity on the ecology of the genasi and producing something vaguely which was actually thought provoking.

I think that player/DM input is absolutely vital, but there is nothing wrong with WotC providing valid ideas to stimulate debate and motivate further discussion. So far, when it comes to those elements termed "fluff" or "flavour" (ie. what actually distinguishes D&D from a wargame IMHO) 4E has been disappointing in those regards.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
Re: 4th Edition ruined Genasi

I'm with you and I'm not with you, Archduke. Great art can certainly be created with a limited palette, but to say a broader palette is only good for disguising ineptness is... well, let's just say that statement paints with far too large a brush. It ignores all the great art painted with full palettes, to say nothing of underselling the surprising diversity of Greek mythology.

More important is that you're ignoring the difference between a campaign setting and a campaign. To try to fit every single thing into a single campaign is lunacy. A campaign setting, on the other hand, isn't the work of art, at least not the one the players experience. It's the box of paints the artist has available. The artist can select the paints deemed most appropriate from that box in order to construct the palette. Some things can and should be left in the box, but it's nice to have them available so that the artist can control what kind of painting is desired.

Some settings (Dragonlance, for example, and Birthright) deliberately limit the colors allowed in the box in order to limit the possible palettes that can be made. This is fine. For the core books to do this, however.. while it provides a simpler entry into the game, it also gives gamers a poorer range of choices, which is certainly a trade-off. If you believe that, in generic products, that it should be the gaming group who chooses the palette and that it's the gaming company's job merely to make the paint, this may be a problem.

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.