I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
If you haven't yet, I'd suggest giving a good read through of it since it spells out some info on the major events of the last century of Realms history. If it doesn't fill in the gaps, then nothing will.
Also, how Tieflings changed from half-demons to Demon-Pact people is sorta missing when I looked...
Also, HOW to actually put it into words is hard.
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
I'm one of those, except I rather like 4th. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still a 2nd ed fanatic :D ) I'm involved with a 2nd ed game that's been going on for about 10 years, and only one of them plan on being involved with a 4th ed game with me. On that note, I think I can answer your questions with some authority.
4th edition is as removed from 3rd as 3rd was from 2nd. If they want to understand the changes made in 4th, they need to understand the problems in 3rd. First, there were way too many races in 3rd. Especially with the elves. Eladrin/Elf/Drow solved this problem. Tell them to think of the Elf as a wood elf, the Eladrin as a high elf, and drow are just drow. All the other elf races and subraces were eliminated.
Teiflings have been in the game since 2nd. All they did with 4th was make them a prime race, and they set their physical features to one thing, instead of being rolled randomly.
Dragonborn came about because of how many players from 3E liked the concept, and they wanted to create one that was balanced and fun. Gnomes have not been removed from the game, they just simply aren't one of the primary races from the PHB. This is nothing new. Gnomes were always considered the forgotten race (even from 1st edition). There's very little flavor and text on gnomes, in any of the editions, especially compared to the other races. In 4th, the designers simply realized it, and removed them from the partial spot-light they were always in. There are plans to bring the gnome PC back, it'll just be in one of the campaign setting books.
The best way to understand the flavor of the game is to read the Wizards Presents pre-release books. Those explain A LOT of the changes, and what the developers were thinking when they wrote up the new game.
The biggest problem I have with 4th is how they changed the planescape setting (which was my favorite setting in 2nd). Tanar'ri and Baatezu are now creations of the deities? Fallen angels? What? No no no... They were around BEFORE the gods came into existance. They've been around far longer than anyone knows, even themselves. Plus, no Blood War? What the heck?
Deities don't rule the Nine Hells or the Abyss, Tanar'ri and Baatezu do. Sure, you can have deities run their own realms within the lower planes, but to have them rule the lower planes? No no no.. That's just not right. Bad game developer! Bad!
Blasted kids, always coming up with new words. Back when I was a boy, a devil was a devil, and a demon was a demon! Things got a little muzzy when those pesky daemons showed up, but we whacked 'em anyway...
In all seriousness... I've found that the best way to deal with a new edition of the D&D rules is to simply approach the new edition as an entirely new game. Encourage your group to leave their preconceptions behind and simply try on the new rules without comparing them to what's come before - rather like picking up a Shadowrun game after playing D&D.
Once they figure out the rules, reflavoring to the old cosmology is a simple enough thing.
Tanar'ri? Baatezu?
Blasted kids, always coming up with new words. Back when I was a boy, a devil was a devil, and a demon was a demon! Things got a little muzzy when those pesky daemons showed up, but we whacked 'em anyway...
In all seriousness... I've found that the best way to deal with a new edition of the D&D rules is to simply approach the new edition as an entirely new game. Encourage your group to leave their preconceptions behind and simply try on the new rules without comparing them to what's come before - rather like picking up a Shadowrun game after playing D&D.
Once they figure out the rules, reflavoring to the old cosmology is a simple enough thing.
That's pretty much how I got over most of my preconceptions. I just treated 4th like an entirely new game. As I've mentioned, I like 4th. A lot. I can accept the new comsology as is for now. I'll just have to wait until they come out with a planes manual for 4th. Then I can truly gripe. :D
I've always wanted to run a placescape game, so maybe I'll just use the flavor of the campaign setting with the new 4th rules. I think it would turn out to be quite fun.
Gnomes are still in the MM if anyone wants them (usually people talk about them but don't actually want to play them). They work pretty well as-is.
Tiefling already existed for a long time in the Realms, all that's different is their look really. In my game I just said basically "Tieflings usually look almost human, with very faint features giving them away, but sometimes they manifest their heritage greatly (to the point where they look like in the new PHB)." That seemed to work fine for my players because they still look like they remembered.
Dragonborn is easy; new monsters pop up all the time, and players can use them to make characters. Back in the day people didn't really play drow and bugbears, but it happens now and nobody seems to mind really. Dragonborn are just more balanced to be played. Players don't like them, they don't have to use them.
Eladrin is just another name for Sun/Moon/Star Elves, who are differentiated mostly by culture. Handwave the mechanical changes with the magic of retcon. You may want to make their eyes "normal" in appearance too, my players commented they liked it the old way (where Eladrin aren't freaky aliens, but just elves). Elf applies mechanically to Wood and Wild elves.
I think the best way to explain Primordials is to treat them like other gods, because that's pretty much what they are. Sure they fight the "gods" but they aren't that different themselves. They hate the "new" gods the same way orcs hate elves, no further explanation is really needed I think.
For general changes: "You guys remember the Time of Troubles? Well, it's like that, but 20 times worse."
Surely your 2e friends accept that concept right?
As for playing? Nothing stops you from using any mix of past & present fluff you like. I could just as easily run 4e with original FR background, 1st ed AD&D with 4e background, or 4e/4e....
And I don't get why they'd be mad about the inclusion of dragonborn & tieflings at all. Afterall, D&D has always continuously added content.
Mad at the xclusion of gnomes? Don't tell me none of those players ever cracked open the Monster Manuals or Compendiums & asked the DM if they could play creature x.... Or that various creatures didn't become house standards. So now they'll find gnomes listed on page xxx of the MM. Big deal.
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
You don't. It's that simple. They don't like the game, simple as that, and it's something you're going to have to accept.
no seriously, you don't have to switch over. You survived 3ed without switching, so why do it now. wait at least until they have all the bugs out of 4ed.
It was a 1e game in 1994 (I was 16; they were mostly in their 30's - and they disallowed everything written from 1e Unearthed Arcana onwards; anything 2nd edition went straight to the trash for them) and they seemed to hate anything other than human fighters and their token human cleric healbot.
They ran the game in a strict military fashion, with one player dominating all the decisions and generally being an egomaniac (kind of like some Boy Scout leaders I have had the displeasure of camping under as a scout in the 80's). The DM encouraged this behavior and was an egomaniac himself.
Anyway, I played a neutral good half-elf fighter/mage, and they pretty much treated me like I was some kind of munchkin comic book 8-year old who was polluting their game, for trying to copy a spellbook we captured into my own spellbook (which I evidently could barely lift no matter what my STR was, and despite the fact that if it wasn't for my fireball they would have been toasted).
Not to mention the mumbles and shudders at my idea of casting speak with dead to interrogate the NPC guide their LAWFUL GOOD characters literally CRUCIFIED on our wagon for being a thief instead of a ranger. We got the info and eventually got the treasure... that nobody in the party could use, so we had to give it away for free to the NPC who hired us. I don't even remember if the DM gave us XP. He confiscated the character sheets after the session, so who knows what happened to it.
I was proficient in two-handed swords but they said my character couldn't even lift it (I said, no way, my strength is 14, I've played fighters with lower STR than that) and they said sorry, magical energies prevented wizards from using fighter weapons. I told them I was a multiclass fighter/mage and they just scoffed back into comic book munchkin-mode again. So I guess it's all relative.
Anyway, I hope your players aren't that ridiculous. My point here is that there are people out there who won't convert to any edition of the game because they're so closed minded. I myself have been a little guilty; I'm switching to Pathfinder until 4e gets more splats, because Pathfinder is more compatible with my character concepts thanks to backwards compatibility.
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
Well, the problem is explaining what the frak the Primordials ARE, and getting them to accept a whole freaking PLANE crashing into the place, though that does give an explanation...
Also, how Tieflings changed from half-demons to Demon-Pact people is sorta missing when I looked...
Also, HOW to actually put it into words is hard.
First, I assume you're actually in the position where it's your responsibility to explain the differences and changes. That means you're either the DM looking to run a 4E game or you're a player trying to sell the others on it specifically so that you can play a 4E game. If you're still happy playing/running whatever other version and the other players are resistant to changes it would be a mistake to PUSH them. Let them ASK questions that they want answers to and provide them as best you can. You shouldn't need to explain all the details and changes, just give them the general idea. In fact, unless you consider yourself something of a 4E expert a lot of your answers should be along the lines of, "Well I understand that it's this/that - but if you're going to blame me if I'm wrong then read it yourself."
Top that off with the fact that if they don't like Dragonborn they don't have to play them - that if they think something is missing from it then they have the FUN, CREATIVE opportunity to re-introduce it in whatever form that they want, and that it ultimately NEVER has mattered what the rules say - it's what the DM says that goes.
Most of all, if you don't know then just tell them you don't know! Unless you DO consider yourself an expert then you shouldn't be expected to have all the answers.
As for the changes in the planar structure - that's NOT your job, it's the DM's. If he wants to continue an ongoing campaign HE can come up with an explanation for the change. If it's an all-new campaign then he can say, "Forget how it was in the previous campaign. THIS is how it is NOW."
Frankly, if I were going to run a 4E campaign at this point (and it seems quite unlikely that any of my potential players will be at all interested) I'd have to sit down and write as much explanation-writing of how and why things are the way they are as I would have to write house rules for mechanics if I were to go back to a 1st Edition campaign - and none of that would be concerned with SELLING the system to the players. The fact that they agree to play 4E is their acceptance of needing/wanting to explore the system. The system will then have to sell itself (and somewhat by the DM, assuming the DM makes a good-faith effort at his job of coming to grips with it) - not be sold to them by you.
Are these players that have been inactive since second edition, and are considering coming back to the game, or are they active players who refused to change to 3rd edition?
If it is the second, my advice is not to really try. Tell them you are considering a 4th edition game, and invite them to come over and take a look, but if they wouldn't change to 3rd editiont then 4th edition would likely give them shivering fits.
If on the other hand they are inactive players who are are coming back to the game then the best way is to just give them a hands-on preview. Perhaps make some pre-generated characters, or maybe even use Keep on the Shadowfell, and invite them over for a one-shot so they can see how the game plays. People who play 4th do so because they find it fun over the board. People who hate it will hate it not matter what you tell them about the game. Your best chance to win them over is to show them.
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
Just remind them the company that makes D&D is owned by the company that makes My Little Pony.
Once the laughing has stopped, just tell them the truth.
This game called 4th edition has the D&D name, but is an entirely new game and nothing remotely like the D&D they know.
As far as being D&D is concerned, is sucks. It isn't even worth absorbing the moisture from a camels sack in the desert for the need of water.
For being a game that is NOT D&D, a new game all together, it isn't that bad if you like that kind of game.
So many will not accept it no matter how you explain it.
This game called 4th edition has the D&D name, but is an entirely new game and nothing remotely like the D&D they know.
Interesting. Myself, I think 4th Edition is much closer to D&D's roots than 3rd Edition, for example.
That being said find out which the group is most attached to, the realms circa the mid 1980’s or older edition of the rules. Maybe neither one is game breaker. You could run the realms in an earlier time period. Many groups run what if alternate versions of existing game worlds that change key parts of cannon history. Maybe your group would accept your take on the realms even if does not include each city being populated with epic heroes NPCs who desperately need the PCs to pick up their lunch orders.
Running a 4E one shot might be a good way to demo the new game for them. A lot of stuff that seems weird on paper flows well in game play. But most importantly if you can’t work it out, don’t fight the edition wars with your friends. Gamer friends are a precious resource to be conserved and protected at all costs (maybe not all but most costs).
Based around similar training styles for the genre. Two different melee, and 2 different casters.
Also, how Tieflings changed from half-demons to Demon-Pact people is sorta missing when I looked...
I don't think this has been confirmed yet. They may still be fiendish blooded (don't think they ever where half-demons). The book which I hope will answer this question is still a month away and that is the FRPG. ;)
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
-Draconic races already exist, as do Tieflings, so those two shouldn't cause any problems, and Gnomes can still be there if you want them to, only even more extreme "in the background", perhaps due to the changes to the Gnome Pantheon.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people?
-Moon/Sun/Star Elves.
How do I explain Primordials?
-Powerful extraplanar entities.
Mechanical:
Most of it was easy to explain away. I showed the character sheet to him, explained how things changed, such as thac0 and armour class(he was quite happy about this), how armour is grouped, that ability score modifiers are now a smooth progression, and that saves are boiled down to four static saves (AC, Fort, Reflex, and Will) that are used in combat.
He was quite happy with the tactical aspect and the use of miniatures(He also happened to have collected every set of mini's released, even though he hadn't played during that time.).
Along with that, he enjoyed that wizards, while having fewer spells total, are able to do more in combat, actually KNOW their cantrips and minor attack spells, and are able to be useful for more than two rounds in combat. That each class had a defined role and that the standard four (leader, defender, striker, and controller) had meaning was also satisfying to him.
Fluff:
Elves/Eladrin: I told him that all elves are Fey beings and came from the feywild. Drow are same as ever, being evil fey, Eladrin are the fey that came over but never severed the link to the Feywild, while Elves are fey that have severed that link almost entirely, becoming of this plane, this plane being an unnamed place that is similar to Greyhawk.
Dragonborn: Not much to say, but I pulled them as being a dying race that once held power as an empire before humans and are slowly dying out. They are related to dragons, kobolds and other dragonkin, but don't associate with them.
Tieflings: The result of matings with demons/devils from a long time ago, tieflings are creatures that are present, but not fully explained.
Gnomes: Similar to Eladrin, they're fey creatures that haven't fully severed the connection with the Feywild.
I don't think this will work with your players, but the people I've met so far have been pretty stoked over the new mechanics. I mention that certain classes are gone for now, but quickly follow it up with the changes to existing classes mechanics, and they seem to take it better. Add on that WotC is releasing free stuff for classes online, that the stuff that is in playtesting plays well and usually it's a done deal. If nothing else, show them combat. Fluff doesn't have to be static or current. Fluff is fluff, and how you colour it, raise it, write it or what ever, isn't determined by the core books. Most of it is vague enough to let the party write it up the way they remember it or want it.
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?!
Slowly, gradually, one by one.
OR keep it as is. No Dragonborn, no tiefling. It's YOUR campaign, not WotC's.
Also, does it say anywhere in the FR material that Tieflings aren't half-demons anymore? The PHB describes them differently, but as with other things you adapt the fluff to fit the setting.
Also, does it say anywhere in the FR material that Tieflings aren't half-demons anymore? The PHB describes them differently, but as with other things you adapt the fluff to fit the setting.
-The Tieflings that existed before 4e continue to exist, origins and all.
OR keep it as is. No Dragonborn, no tiefling. It's YOUR campaign, not WotC's.
Isn't returned Abeir a major part of the changes from 3.5e to 4th edition? If so and you're not going to include Abeir at all, then it might be an idea to buy the 3.5e ECS for the newer fluff, buy the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide for the crunch and run a 3.5e game fluff-wise while run a 4th edition game mechanics wise.
IMO the Spellplague was not needed to explain the fact the Vancian system is no longer used. Just ignore it.
Isn't returned Abeir a major part of the changes from 3.5e to 4th edition?
-Arguably the most major part, in competition with the timeline advancing.
18DELTA
-Yeah I keep thinking about a 4th Edition game setting 1357 DR using the old grey box. Manshoon as a 16th level wizard priceless! Semmon as a 12th level wizard. :D No Cyric or Shade enclave!
18DELTA
yeah. I'm a 1e purist
Okay, how do I explain the new setting changes of forgotten realms and all that to people who have been with DnD since 2nd Edition!
I mean, they are rather...angry about DragonBorn and Tieflings, along with the poofing of Gnomes.
How do I explain Eladrin to these people? How do I explain Primordials?
Heck, how do I justify the poofing of those funny, tinkering gnomes they remember from 1st ed, the guys with the giant wheel!
Why are you trying to justify those things to them? Give us some context.
If you're the DM and these are your players, you might be better off just staying in a 2E game.
Anyway, I hope your players aren't that ridiculous. My point here is that there are people out there who won't convert to any edition of the game because they're so closed minded.
No offense but I don't think you used a good argument to prove your point. One can dislike a game reasons other than being closeminded to the point of silliness, and mean-spirited to boot.
It's just a game, after all. Some people don't like the FR Realms just like they might not like a certain flavor of ice cream. Who cares?
Isn't returned Abeir a major part of the changes from 3.5e to 4th edition? If so and you're not going to include Abeir at all, then it might be an idea to buy the 3.5e ECS for the newer fluff, buy the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide for the crunch and run a 3.5e game fluff-wise while run a 4th edition game mechanics wise.
IMO the Spellplague was not needed to explain the fact the Vancian system is no longer used. Just ignore it.
Which is why I haven't jumped to 4e yet. Even if I do, I'm not going to advance my campaign's timeline to be in-sync with the new product's starting year.
If there is one thing I hate about 4e is the same thing as 2e, having a world-shattering event to explain the new edition rules change.
No offense but I don't think you used a good argument to prove your point. One can dislike a game reasons other than being closeminded to the point of silliness, and mean-spirited to boot.
It's just a game, after all. Some people don't like the FR Realms just like they might not like a certain flavor of ice cream. Who cares?
To add to your argument, we're not closed-minded. We don't want WotC to dictate how we should run our own Forgotten Realms games. I appreciate the new products with new content, but I will run it MY WAY, not WotC's nor Greenwood's.
If they don't like how we use their products, they shouldn't sell it in the first place.
To add to your argument, we're not closed-minded. We don't want WotC to dictate how we should run our own Forgotten Realms games. I appreciate the new products with new content, but I will run it MY WAY, not WotC's nor Greenwood's.
Seconded!
Which is why I haven't jumped to 4e yet. Even if I do, I'm not going to advance my campaign's timeline to be in-sync with the new product's starting year.
If there is one thing I hate about 4e is the same thing as 2e, having a world-shattering event to explain the new edition rules change.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I were playing 3.5e FR there's no way in heck I'd move switch to 4e.
To add to your argument, we're not closed-minded. We don't want WotC to dictate how we should run our own Forgotten Realms games. I appreciate the new products with new content, but I will run it MY WAY, not WotC's nor Greenwood's.
If they don't like how we use their products, they shouldn't sell it in the first place.
But it is bad to try new stuff? To give the 'newfangled things' a try and a chance?
Sure, if you don't like or don't want, it's your right and prerogative.
Yet... There is some closeness in that position. Purism. A certain rigidity on canon; only not toward the 'official' but a 'real and deserving' canon. (Like the Gygax-only guys.)
But it is bad to try new stuff? To give the 'newfangled things' a try and a chance?
No, but who's arguing that it is?
But it is bad to try new stuff? To give the 'newfangled things' a try and a chance?
It's not bad. I'm just not in-sync with WotC these days. When I decide I want new stuff in my campaign, then it should be my decision.
You think that because 4e is out (too early IMNSHO) and I happen to be a D&D fan, that I MUST have 4e? If you believe that, then you must think of me as a mindless drone only to serve WotC.
Yet... There is some closeness in that position. Purism. A certain rigidity on canon; only not toward the 'official' but a 'real and deserving' canon. (Like the Gygax-only guys.)
You say purism, I say preference. My FR have deviated far from Greenwood's version, but I keep it my own.
Do you want me to tell you how to run your FR game in a passive-aggressive manner?
If they don't like how we use their products, they shouldn't sell it in the first place.
Did they say that?
I know they didn't in the FR Campaign Guide. In fact, just the opposite.
4th edition is as removed from 3rd as 3rd was from 2nd. If they want to understand the changes made in 4th, they need to understand the problems in 3rd.
While I sure as the Nine Hells can understand the problems that exist between 2nd and 3rd edition... that does little to convince the 2e AD&D Loyalists, that they should jump on the 4e bandwagon.
First, there were way too many races in 3rd.
I must absolutely disagree with this assertion. One of the key points of Faerun has been the differences between races and especially subraces. An "elf" is not necessarily an "elf," nor should it ever be.
Especially with the elves. Eladrin/Elf/Drow solved this problem. Tell them to think of the Elf as a wood elf, the Eladrin as a high elf, and drow are just drow. All the other elf races and subraces were eliminated.
That, quite frankly, is lame. While I might be willing to accept the Eladrin as being the "High Elves," I would certainly disagree that the the Moon, Wood and Wild elves were merely assimilated. Faerun has far too long of a history to group them together.
Teiflings have been in the game since 2nd. All they did with 4th was make them a prime race, and they set their physical features to one thing, instead of being rolled randomly.
Regardless, they are an abomonation to the standard races. I would highly recommend prohibitting them, as well as "Dragonborn" from any routine games... as they are not real player races.
Dragonborn came about because of how many players from 3E liked the concept, and they wanted to create one that was balanced and fun.
Bah! They came about from idiots who wanted to have some nifty new super-human race. I have played Dragon Kin in several adventures... and regardless of what others say, they tend to be more of an annoyance than anything else. I see this as merely an appeasement to the MMO freaks out there.... and I'm a WoW player myself.
Gnomes have not been removed from the game, they just simply aren't one of the primary races from the PHB. This is nothing new. Gnomes were always considered the forgotten race (even from 1st edition). There's very little flavor and text on gnomes, in any of the editions, especially compared to the other races.
Gnomes have a rather unique place in D&D, and especially so in the realms. They are not, nor should they ever have been considered anything but a "playable race." Gnomes are not enemies, necessarily, rather they are intelligent and rather nimble friends or foes. To relegate them to "monsterhood" is, above all else, a crime against Gnomemanity.
In 4th, the designers simply realized it, and removed them from the partial spot-light they were always in. There are plans to bring the gnome PC back, it'll just be in one of the campaign setting books.
Oh, sure... you explain that to my wife! She always plays a Gnome Illusionist... go ahead... take a chance... explain it to her.... I DARE YOU.
The best way to understand the flavor of the game is to read the Wizards Presents pre-release books. Those explain A LOT of the changes, and what the developers were thinking when they wrote up the new game.
Oh! You mean they were actually thinking? *COUGH* *COUGH* *GASP* *GASP*...... *rolls eyes* .... I doubt it.
Deities don't rule the Nine Hells or the Abyss, Tanar'ri and Baatezu do. Sure, you can have deities run their own realms within the lower planes, but to have them rule the lower planes? No no no.. That's just not right. Bad game developer! Bad!
Deities rule everything.... Some are over the Nine Hells, some are over the higher planes.... if you want to challenge them... Good Luck!!!!!!!!!
I've gamed with some people who have a very strict idea of what D&D is, and everything else is utter garbage polluting their games. Any deviation from the "true game" to them (which is typically 1978-1982 D&D) is met with violence.
It was a 1e game in 1994 (I was 16; they were mostly in their 30's - and they disallowed everything written from 1e Unearthed Arcana onwards; anything 2nd edition went straight to the trash for them) and they seemed to hate anything other than human fighters and their token human cleric healbot.
They ran the game in a strict military fashion, with one player dominating all the decisions and generally being an egomaniac (kind of like some Boy Scout leaders I have had the displeasure of camping under as a scout in the 80's). The DM encouraged this behavior and was an egomaniac himself.
Anyway, I played a neutral good half-elf fighter/mage, and they pretty much treated me like I was some kind of munchkin comic book 8-year old who was polluting their game, for trying to copy a spellbook we captured into my own spellbook (which I evidently could barely lift no matter what my STR was, and despite the fact that if it wasn't for my fireball they would have been toasted).
Not to mention the mumbles and shudders at my idea of casting speak with dead to interrogate the NPC guide their LAWFUL GOOD characters literally CRUCIFIED on our wagon for being a thief instead of a ranger. We got the info and eventually got the treasure... that nobody in the party could use, so we had to give it away for free to the NPC who hired us. I don't even remember if the DM gave us XP. He confiscated the character sheets after the session, so who knows what happened to it.
I was proficient in two-handed swords but they said my character couldn't even lift it (I said, no way, my strength is 14, I've played fighters with lower STR than that) and they said sorry, magical energies prevented wizards from using fighter weapons. I told them I was a multiclass fighter/mage and they just scoffed back into comic book munchkin-mode again. So I guess it's all relative.
Anyway, I hope your players aren't that ridiculous. My point here is that there are people out there who won't convert to any edition of the game because they're so closed minded. I myself have been a little guilty; I'm switching to Pathfinder until 4e gets more splats, because Pathfinder is more compatible with my character concepts thanks to backwards compatibility.
OMG I feel for you. I am 33 and only started gaming 10 years ago so I never got to meet anyone that crazy. 2E always turned me off when I was younger though and the people that I met that did play never wanted to paly FR because "My Homebrew is better", which I doubt it was. ;)
To the OP, good luck. Just have them know the primordials were on par with the gods and when they were sent to Abeir the gods on Toril lied to keep all of their existence a secret. The gods are jerks like that. :D
Game rules don't add roleplaying, the players and DMs do that. We are playing a KOTS game that has now degenerated into a zero RPing game. That is because I feel my group hates long premades (KOTS is too long for them it seems). We like things that are tailored to our PCs. My game that I will be rolling out next month will be a continuation of a previous campaign and tied into each Player. There will be alot more roleplaying involved plus I will give an average amount of XP for sessions that have no combat. So two 4E games and one is just a "game" and the other is more of a roleplaying game. Same group, different DMs. That is all.
Did they say that?
Nah, I doubt it. It's the 4e fans trying to convince me to upgrade and quick. Well, back off.
