Robert Hawkshaw's page

You mean James Coburn? He should really have been playing a dutchman anyways... At least you guys got mentioned, the hundred or so canucks who dug the tunnels got edited out :)

Alias had Jack Bristow, Arvin Sloan and Irina Derevko. So far, the only character getting near that is the Warden. Sam Neil hasn't delivered yet.

PS - alias was the bomb.

If you have access to a sailboat or a cottage, Swallows and Amazons by Arthur Ransom.

I always thought it pure comedy that people were specializing in a derro weapon. That's going to be some interesting background to justify the choice.

Naturally one can just reskin the damn thing though.

I think it's more that it is a weapon that derro like, not one they invented - an injection spear would be weird, but one of the gazillion european polearms, not so much.

Two notes.

1. The trip property has been errattaed out of the Fauchard.

When did that happen?

There are some more mini manufacturers listed here as well:
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3yhi?Miniature-Madness

Don't be afraid to get some sleep somewhere in there, it's not a sign of weakness.

Start the Alliance-Union stuff with Downbelow Station; after that you can (sort of) bounce around from whichever book to whichever, but I read DbS four or five books in and felt like I'd discovered the Rosetta Stone.

Glad to hear you enjoyed the Chanur series :)

Downbelow Station was good!

Republished - its POD now right ?

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.

Well they mentioned they played pathfinder as well as 3.5 when they were brainstorming the new edition. I think bringing Monte Cook back is also a signal.

Yeah, I meant in terms of the features of the game (as they're leaking out bit-by-bit). I'm sure they looked at PF - they'd be mad to put out a new RPG at the moment without looking at what the other 'major players' are doing. However, the comments they've made all seem to be focussed on bringing back into D&D those elements from AD&D and 2nd edition missing from 4E.

.
As I said, it's nothing more than an impression, but it seems to me that when they refer to 3.5 it's more along the lines of the similarities with 4E (ie the 'skill system' of 3.5/4E compared with previous editions, the focus on tactical, miniatures based combat as opposed to narrative, etcetera).

I don't know enough about Monte Cook to comment - as you made reference, he's clearly deeply associated with 3.5, so that may well be an indication that a similar 'developmental style' will be included. I don't know how attached he is to 3.5 mechanics/philosophy.

He was part of the 3.0 design team. TSR guy from 1992 onwards, did a lot with Planescape etc... His Ptolus setting book is based on the 3.0 homebrew playtest campaign -- I believe.

ciretose wrote:

To be clear, I don't think 4E was a money slump. I would bet they made a lot of money on it, as it sold really well early on and creating a new edition isn't like going to the moon. There is a cost, but it isn't astronomical.

The problem is that in getting a lot of money very quickly, they damaged the brand and lost market position, meaning it is going to be much, much harder for them to get people to buy this next iteration.

When 4E came out, many people bought it because Dungeons and Dragons was really the only game that fit that niche. That isn't true anymore, and so they aren't going to be able to take the "My way or the highway" approach unless they want to lose even more market share.

There is profitable short term and profitable long term. What I am saying is if they don't go back to what saved TSR and revived the golden goose, they are going to kill it.

I wonder if they are also considering ceding the TTRPG ground somewhat and broadening the brand. That appears to have been a big part of their focus over the last couple of years - the boardgames and Gamma World did very well (apparently). They've also recently settled the long-running Atari dispute and put out the facebook game (no idea how that's been doing).

.
My impression (nothing more than that) from the comments they've been making is that D&D:Next is targetting players of AD&D/2nd edition/4E - there hasnt seemed to be much discussion about what a 3.5/PF fan is going to enjoy from the new version.

Well they mentioned they played pathfinder as well as 3.5 when they were brainstorming the new edition. I think bringing Monte Cook back is also a signal.

I'm new to pathfinder and I'm trying to feel my way around the system. I have plenty of years of experience playing 1st and 2nd ed AD&D.

I decided to play a fighter to get to know the system and become familiar with the feats.

The party is going through the Jade Regent adventure path. Concept wise I wanted to play a soldier who over time becomes proficient at all aspects of warfare. Lurking on the boards for close to 6 months to a year now I repeatedly see that fighters are not overly effective or that you need to be a one or two trick pony. I don't want to start a pissing match but can a fighter be effective at mid to higher levels without dumping everything into damage output or specializing?

So far I've taken feats in:
Improved Initiative
Combat Reflexes
Endurance
Power Attack
Dodge

I'm considering
Unarmed Combat
Running
Lunge
the Whirlwind Attack chain (mobility)
Combat Patrol
and tripping feats

My thought is to be effective whether armed or not. With whatever weapon or armor is at hand or best available as time unfolds. Using skill points in areas of survival, knowledge engineering, knowledge history, linguistics and intimidate (think of the drill sgt in full metal jacket) to give the character the military flavor.

Has anyone played a generalist fighter that can play the reach and control the combat game or will I end up being disappointed later on?

Any insight would be helpful. I realize that this may just be a min/max vs role-play debate as well.

Fighters in Pathfinder get a metric ton of feats - there is plenty of room for you to be good at a lot of things and still be effective.

As was mentioned above, pick one weapon to focus/specialize/train in. From the looks of things a reach tripping weapon is what you are interested in? EWP into Fauchard (Reach, Trip, 1d10 and 18-20/x2) or use a Guisarm. Then start working your way up the combat patrol and improved trip feat lines and have fun. When you get higher level if you are using a fauchard then the improved critical feats are great as well. This gives you a strong base - with your chosen weapon in hand you are frightening. With a back up weapon you can still power attack etc...

Picking up iron will is a good idea too.

Some other interesting feats:
spear dancer

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/fury-s-fall-combat

Lisa can take into account Paizo's online sales, and the FLGS sales for both Paizo and WotC, but any assumptions on her part about WotC's online sales are just that...assumptions and speculations.

Given that it's really slowed down on print releases, yet still manages to be a very close second in the FLGS suggests to me that the online sales, which is where WotC has focused 4E for the past year or so, MIGHT be substantially more than Paizo's online sales. Might, or might not.

I believe they can get at WoTC's online sales through Amazon by way of Neilson Bookscan. Bookscan lets you track your sales, and the sales of rivals etc... I think there is a comment floating around to the effect that they have much better data on amazon and bookstore chains then they do the hobby channel. [edit]Found it: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2zpq&page=3?Pathfinder-is-Tied-for-1st-Cong rats-to-Paizo#118[/edit]

And a decent estimate of DDI subscriptions is available by way of that forum community account status thingy right?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-ski lls-ability-scores.html#post5798645

Transcript from the final seminar is up.

I'd like a less blurry shot before I pass judgment. Could be a cut out cover. Might not be able to alter the cover art to remove the tsr logo so they have to use the ugly beige bottom etc... Could have only licensed the rights from Trampier not bought the artwork out right?

Fuzzy picture of what the reprint covers will look like:

https://twitter.com/#!/chattydm/status/163314026477133824/photo/1/large

There should be a better one up later, they were trying to get the image into the chatroom and it didn't work.

A tidbit of news on Ed's new book from the DDXP seminar:

Next we have Elminster's Forgotten Realms. We basically went to Ed and said hey, why don't you take all your campaign notes, all the information you've been putting together for your FR campaign and lets compile it into a book. Show us the realms as you've developed it in your campaign setting and lets get that to everybody. It's our celebration of the forgotten realms and pulling back the curtain to show you what the designer of the campaign setting has done.

And in response to a question about whether or not it would be edition neutral:

To Gary: It focuses on his specific campaign, so his individual stories might mention mechanics from different editions, the stories and lore should apply to all editions.

I just read 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (Karl Marx) . A great book.

UNITED, WORKERS OF THE WORLD.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Yep, interesting chat today. And tomorrow's will be good too, as it will be about release schedule and all.

I liked the part from today where they said they plan on including all classes that have been in the first Player's Handbook from all the editions.

Where did you get that info? That would be about 14 classes in the 1st PHB. That would be great. No more waiting years to play a monk or assassin.

There are transcripts up in various places now: http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-as sassins-wizards.html

Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.

Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.

"Bruce: I feel we're brining Vancian magic back to the place it began, keeping the story intact and making it important to the story of the world."

Vancian's back baby!

I think you can just slap a nick name into the box and put a comment in - the comments appear to be moderated though.

http://p.twimg.com/AkG_tEyCQAEqAsT.jpg:small WoTC put up a little fluff part of a character sheet.

http://trollishdelver.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-we-learnt-from-first-d-next .html

THis blogger has a summary.

If you prefer twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/rolling20s also has the salient points.

http://t.co/rfhrrL4d

Wizards has a live chat of one of the seminars going.

Prepainted minis for summon nature's ally:

http://www.schleich-s.com/toys/wild_life/

Also handy if say, you want a war elephant! http://www.schleich-s.com/toys/new_heroes_fighter_elephant/ or a war rhino chariot http://www.schleich-s.com/toys/new_heroes_gladiator_with_battle_rhinoceros/

A bit pricy though and I am not sure about the scale. :)

New rule of three that talks a little about 4e and 5e. http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120124

Does the packaging have an ISO or DIN code on it? This could help tell you what sort of wood was used, how much was recycled and possibly where it came from.

For instance, if it came from British Columbia and was turned into pulp here, we generally consider our pulp to be sustainable and environmentally friendly (Of course we would, we sell it :) - YMMV).

Excess packaging is caused by externalities - if you could require companies to accept back their packaging and dispose of it, we'd have a lot less.

And just wrapped up Chanur's Legacy. That series was good enough that I think I'll move on to her Alliance-Union stuff.

The Kif Strike back and Chanur's Homecoming.

Hmm just read Chanur's Venture. I'm hoping the Kif Strike Back has more action.

Just read Pride of Chanur by Cherryh. Giving her another shot.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/children/bib/index.htm#pic

Is this bibliography missing anything important?

ciretose wrote:

Until I hear a change in brand strategy, who cares what they are working on?

An open public playtest isn't a change in brand strategy?

If you don't care what they are working on, why are you spending so much time in this forum? That certainly looks like a sign of not caring.

I do admit, I am curious what their 3PP license scheme will be. I'm certain it will be more open than the revised GSL. I doubtful it will be as open as the OGL. Still, I think they've adjusted their strategy to head in a positive direction for the brand.

Yeah the big focuse on blogs and what not is a positive sign. IIRC wotc was looking to hire a marketeer who was experienced with social networking type things a while back weren't they?

P

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Now a lot of this turns on your idea of what a benefit is (for me giving up a right or agreeing not to exercise a right is a benefit to the other party) and what your definition of material is. I'm not saying the contract is evil, or wotc is being underhanded - just that it does create a relationship that has material benefits for both sides. Many of the benefits for WoTC are contingent on there being litigation or a conflict, but they do exist.

An interesting perspective. I tend to see issues involving conflict as rising from breach of the limitations that the contract imposes, rather than a material benefit WotC derives directly from the contract (as opposed to use of WotC's IP, which is a material benefit that 3pps derive directly from the contract). But my formal study in contract law is limited, so I'll defer to you here.

It is mostly a perspective thing :)

But consider your statement about issues involving conflict around breach. WoTC gets some powerful remedies automatically - normally if you breach a contract you just pay damages. Under the license they can go for an injunction or specific performance. On top of that under the license the license can't attack the validity of the license.

One sensible way of looking at it is to say, it's wotc's property they get to set the rules.

Another sensible way of looking at it is these are deviations from some 'normal' way of doing business. The classic view of contracts is two parties locked in negotiations hammering out a deal that is advantageous to each one. Deviations from normal suggest some benefit. Now what normal means is up in the air - I've been talking about the default common law rules. If you were talking about normal between people with equal bargaining power you would probably see something different. I'd have to go check but the license agreement between WotC and Atari probably didn't contain some of these clauses.

Of course, Atari paid money so they should get a better license. But that sort of implies that the more restrictive clauses that you get if you don't pay money for a license are worth something to WoTC - if you follow my fuzzy thinking.

Anyways - Back to 5e. I hope that they make the playtest materials public after the 26th or the last day of the con.

This is a cool gesture.

I included the word "material" for a reason. The applicant receives a certain limited access to intellectual property owned by Wizards of the Coast. In return, they agree to certain limitations on how that property is used. That doesn't mean WotC receives anything. They don't. It's still a one-sided contract - only one party benefits materially.

It's like someone saying, "Here, you can have some M&Ms but only if you eat them within five minutes. And if you choose to derive your daily caloric intake solely or in substantial part from the free M&Ms I'm giving you, be aware that I can take them back at any point." Sure, there are caveats placed on the material benefit you derive from the contract, but the other party doesn't actually get anything out of the deal.

As for people who decided not to sign onto the GSL, they did so because they decided that they did not want to work within the prescribed limits. It's not that they weren't willing to pay the asking price - there wasn't any. They just didn't feel like their time and money would be well-invested in a project that was beholden to certain restrictions.

It's ridiculous in the extreme to...

To be pedantic you didn't say that WoTC got nothing material in exchange, you said WoTC got nothing :) Which is what triggered me. But I am prepared to argue that WoTC recieves a material benefit from the contract (although mostly contingent).

Yes - arguing that 3pps get absolutely nothing in return for the license is silly. If they got nothing in return (or if WoTC got nothing from the license) it would not be enforceable - no consideration, no contract (well WoTC might have some equitable estoppal type issues).

There is a lot going on in the contract that looks like it doesn't mean much but does actually drastically change the rights and remedies available to the 3pp in a way that is materially advantageous to WotC.

For example the only "one sided" argument that holds up (and I don't think this has been raised in this thread) is how the contract was drafted - only one party drafted it and there was no negotiation (this potentially makes it a contract of adhesion).

Under normal circumstances contracts of adhesion will trigger some common law doctrines that are very favourable to the licensee (3pp) and not favourable at all to WoTC. The big one being the contra preferentem doctrine and (for fansites giving away free to play stuff more than commercial folks) unconscionability. If you read through the GSL you will see that there are clauses set up to block the application of both of these doctrines. On their own not a big deal but giving up the right to argue about the meaning of say s. 9 (ownership) is pretty huge.

Another example is the choice of law and choice of venue clause - normally that is decided by examining where a contract is signed. A practical example of why this is a benefit is OSRIC - OSRIC is published by a british guy under the OGL. When WoTC sent him a C&D he told them to get stuffed and felt secure doing so because he could rely on british copyright law and civil procedure - there was no choice of law or venue clause in the OGL and by preparing he could avoid giving an american court jurisdiction.

Section 9 makes it impossible for a licensee to ever publish material for 4th edition outside of the GSL - and potentially ever publish anything D&D related outside of a license - this drastically changes the licensees rights. This is the type of clause that contra preferentem would normally mess with - instead the licensee has agreed to be bound by WoTC's interpretation of the contract and not to contest it.

Now a lot of this turns on your idea of what a benefit is (for me giving up a right or agreeing not to exercise a right is a benefit to the other party) and what your definition of material is. I'm not saying the contract is evil, or wotc is being underhanded - just that it does create a relationship that has material benefits for both sides. Many of the benefits for WoTC are contingent on there being litigation or a conflict, but they do exist.

Typing on my mobile, please forgive any typos.

MarkusTay wrote:

Of course it was, and I was the very first person to go on EVERY RPG site I could find, everywhere, and yell at the top of my lungs "Only an idiot would sign the GSL!!!"

The only thing that 'contract' was lacking was the demand to 'sign in blood'. Seriously - a more one-sided deal I haven't seen (not since the Native Americans sold Manhattan for a buncha beads).

I don't think you know what the term "one-sided" means. Unless you're implying that the GSL is one-sided in the sense that it gives 3pp a material benefit, and in return WotC gets nothing.

Ironically, then you'd be correct.

Now I know you like accuracy, so strictly speaking WoTC does get something in return, it is a license that grants rights but it also modifies and limits existing rights and creates some obligations.

9.1 Ownership for example is an interesting clause and probably has some fun interaction with fair use and a nifty expansive definition of intellectual property that looks like it gets around the issue of not being able to copyright game rules. Whether or not it is enforceable? *shrug*

Now what sort of dollar value you put on those sorts of things is up in the air, but the license isn't just a one way street. The licensee is signing away somethings and up for some others.

If it was a one way street you wouldn't have seen Clark Peterson and others being so leery about signing on - especially the first incarnation.

** spoiler omitted **

On time travel

Assuming WoTC have been behaving badly since 4E's launch - Was that bad for paizo? They seem to have done alright despite any weight throwing.

My point is that it's not a case of "you're with us or you're against us!" he asked why one would be "loyal" to WoTC - my answer is that the question is predicated on a false dichotomy. You can support both and everybody wins.

:) Yes but the goal at roll out was to limit the amount that publishers could support both.

ciretose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Because you can support both.

Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.

Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.

Isnt the latter what you think is the current state of play? That doesn't seem to have harmed paizo in the last few years.

I believe he's referring to the initial roll out of the GSL and the clownshoes way it kept changing on 3PPs - like the $5,000 fee to see the srd early that didn't happen etc...

Even Mr. Peterson referred to their conduct as "strong play". And WOTC is on the record that their goal was to stop people from publishing for 3.5 under the OGL (source).

ciretose wrote:

By consolidate the market I mean abandon the OGL and screw the 3PP who were working with them at the time (including Paizo).

By throwing their weight around, I mean putting out the GSL and threatening litigation of 3PP.

Both of which they did.

Ah, completely wrong end of the stick then, you have my apologies!

But again I am curious, what happened re "threatening litigation of 3PP"? I must admit I am ignorant of what may have happended there.

Yeah I hadn't heard much about litigation threats besides some C&Ds being sent to people making action cards.

The original 6.1 and 6.2 clauses of the GSL and the no publishing material until October instead of at GenCon were interesting choices.

6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.

6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL; and (b) this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement.

I've seen episode 1 and 2. They were fun to watch. Not as good as fringe yet though.

After seeing who'd be working on 5e FR, I decided to take another long, hard look at Golarion. I plan to be spending a lot of money very soon, and I want to make an educated choice.

Not that I found Golarion 'wanting' the first time I looked at it - quite the contrary. Its just that I already owned everything I needed in FR; I was heavily invested. This is no longer the case (except emotionally).

The pathfinder wiki is a helpful place to cruise around before spending any money. http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Wiki

Steve Geddes wrote:

Mandor wrote:

Steve Geddes - Your second case is missing one booster. Probably a common.

Cheers. It was an Orc Brute (5), I actually got 7 of them over all.

In chasing that up, I also noticed I'd made an error. I'm not sure in which case it was, but I misentered a zombie as a Giant Spider. My correct totals for the three cases were:

11 Zombie - 6
12 Giant Spider - 7

Presumably that was in Case two also if you're tabulating case-by-case, but there's no way to know now they've been amalgamated.

Thanks for collating, by the way - it's interesting to see the aggregates.

Orc Brute makes sense as you had 1 of those and 1 zombie in the case. The normal pattern is for a case to have 1 common with quantity of 1.

I'd like to make my spreadsheet available for people to download. I just need to figure out how to do so.

It might be possible to make it into a google document. https://docs.google.com/#home Sharing is easy from there (you can let people see, or see and edit etc..)

Back in 2002 we had some strong direction from our Supreme Court that it wasn't the place of courts or the revenue authority to substitute their judgment for that of a business person when determining whether or not an activity was a business.

The Duke of Westminister is alive and well up here for the most part. We have avoided the sham doctrine, substance over form and most business purpose tests.

Are you folks able to get an advanced ruling from the IRS about whether something is tax compliant? You can pay a fee here and get a binding interpretation from the revenue authority on how they will handle a given specific fact set.

I live in NH, so I'll check out the laws. I would hope that the Paizo hardcovers would count as well as adventure modules (and I buy way more of those than I can play). But this is good information as I'm afraid a tax person might not exactly understand what I'm doing like, "You write stuff for Pathfinder, you mean the car?"

If your tax person can't grasp freelance writing for pathfinder or D&D, they don't have much business being in tax.

I can't speak to the US issues but up north here, there is an analysis to go through that would make it pretty straight forward. Step one would be figuring out if you had a business, and step two would be characterizing your expenses and seeing how and when you could deduct them.

Anyways, if someone can keep a portion of the american version of that in their head, then the concept of freelance writing shouldn't tax them.

if they are really serious about some of the modular/customizable comments they have made, then some sort of database of rules combined with the ability to make a pdf / print on demand product will be key.

For example, I decide to dm a game, I log into my DDI account, build my rule set using their database, and download the pdf to my tablet. My players log into their DDI accounts, join my campaign and can also download my rules set and build their characters using the online character builder that matches my rules.

I can build and run any style of game I like (OD&D, 3.5, 4.0 or a hybrid), can make my houserules available to players easily, and WOTC gets my money every month through DDI regardless of the edition I like.

If that is tied to a VTT that works, and some sort of game finding system and content sharing - eg I can get adventures or adventure paths from 3PP on the VTT and have them toggle rules on and off, and I'm a customer for life.

How that works with adventures, I don't know. Likewise with the big money makers that core rulebooks represent.

@Yoda-Ate-My-Head,

I don't know the numbers, obviously -- and do not have a business background to boot.
However.

It seems the AP model is limited to begin with (exactly 6 volumes per campaign, every adventure HAS to fit a specific mold), but also it seems that by relying on Adventure Paths, Paizo can not take chances on new design & development ideas in their APs -- it's too risky to give even one volume to a new writer or new gaming concept.

Under a different model Paizo can have material from The Great Beyond and an adventure in Hell and alternate game systems/ subsystems (like Bloodstone, Birthright or Planescape) without making long term risks. A customer may not like one volume but that's only one volume -- as opposed to SIX volumes and half a year's products.

Finally, the current AP model will grow stale. We're already seeing it at our table playing Carrion Crown.

Sometimes the game needs a jump start. A fresh infusion of inspiration. The current model can't take a chance on it -- 6 volumes depend on it.

Doesn't the module line scratch that itch?

Well great. Vancouver was on my list of best places to live, and now I'm re-evaluating.

Needing target practice, Lord Fyre enters the thread looking for a goblin to shoot.

Shhhhh it's socialist tebow time / 2 minute hate on the steelers

Ian Mckellen does Richard III as well :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5-SUDrHMU

And there is a playboy / polanski version of Macbeth..