VedicDragon's page

Any idea when this will be restocked?

Dario,
Thank you again for your fantastic offerings in the d20 'verse and for giving a free download of conversion tips for PFRPG.

I have been using much of your mechanics and creating/converting vestiges to my Vedic-Indian setting. As such, we are 'upgrading' our game to PFRPG rules and I have found it a relief that your content is largely unchanged. The suggestions provided should definitely forestall any snags and provides me a metric to go by for converting the original Tome of Magic data as well.

I will be posting updates in my campaign thread, including the various vestiges employed and those that have been "re-fluffed" for a Vedic Fantasy background. Secrets and Villains of Pact Magic have become unexpectedly two of the most often resourced books used in my game, and due to certain flaws taken, a failed/botched binding check of a hugely powerful spirit has had dramatic effects on my settings' plotline.

Here is the Campaign Journal I am working off of, which will be updated shortly to encompass far more data

Thanks again for your quality work!

Second only to Pathfinder or Ptolus, Best RPG Purchase EVAH.

I was resistant to 3.5 altogether until a DM running a Ravenloft game allowed me to 'port in the "Gunmage" class and have me come from the Victorian Era Domain of Falknovia.

One of the most enjoyable characters I have played to-date, and technically the very 1st third-edition/3.5 Setting I bought for the purpose of the mechanics.

The fluff is excellent as is the story. I may wait for a while before purchasing the PDF, but knowing that it is of Type 1 (The original file from which the print edition is made) as opposed to a Book-scan is what I needed to know to justify the price. It is still high, but that is a quality guarantee right there. And in a market flooded with incorrect or just plain horrible book scans, that statement above works for me as a "Seal of Quality".

To date one of the most truly innovative RPG products I have seen.

Wow... did I scare everyone off? Feel free to post responses gang ... I won't bite, I swear!

A Further update on the Campaign.
Am losing one player and regaining another. It's a challenge considering the scenario of "Revolving Door Attendance" rears its ugly head anew, but there it is. I am choosing to see this as an opportunity as opposed to the intensely aggravating disservice to myself and the endeavor that it obviously is.

To whit, I am in the market for another player. So if you are in the White Plains, NY or Southwestern CT area (Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk) and have an interest in what you have read here, please please do not hesitate to contact me. I am in the market for a player who is not going to be a recurring problem or "Suddenly MIA" when it comes to a weekly commitment. Please contact me at the following thread:

A Separate Thread I have Made as to avoid clutter here

VedicDragon wrote:

Please see the attached link for background

I will be posting more separately here. Am looking for mature, motivated individuals in my local area who can respect time commitments and the fact that all participants are sacrificing EXTREMELY limited spare time for this endeavor.

There will be an interview and rigorous vetting process, as I/we are not looking to waste time with individuals that do not meet certain standards of mature appreciation and "common sense" for scheduling and contact.

Game runs on a weekly basis.

Please email me at Monsoon.Rush@yahoo.com if interested.

Anyone?? Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

I found the original request archived. Please forgive the breach of forum etiquette in reposting, but am going to clarify my needs as a fresh request.

I am in need of an experienced player who can make and keep a mature time commitment and is reasonably "together" so life issues do not suddenly sandbag their involvement.

East Asian studies or a background in Nonstereotypical Asian Cultures (aka skipping the Japanese "Spaghetti Samurai" chic for an actual depth-of-knowledge) would be recommended but is not required. A desire to learn, a basic rudimentary understanding of the region, a flexibility of mind and a rigidity of honoring one's commitments is what I am looking for.

I am hopefully expecting to hear from gainfully employed individuals whose "life issues" are not going to become my problems.

Please see the attached link for background

I will be posting more separately here. Am looking for mature, motivated individuals in my local area who can respect time commitments and the fact that all participants are sacrificing EXTREMELY limited spare time for this endeavor.

There will be an interview and rigorous vetting process, as I/we are not looking to waste time with individuals that do not meet certain standards of mature appreciation and "common sense" for scheduling and contact.

Game runs on a weekly basis.

Please email me at Monsoon.Rush@yahoo.com if interested.

I found the original request archived. Please forgive the breach of forum etiquette in reposting, but am going to clarify my needs as a fresh request.

I am in need of an experienced player who can make and keep a mature time commitment and is reasonably "together" so life issues do not suddenly sandbag their involvement.

East Asian studies or a background in Nonstereotypical Asian Cultures (aka skipping the Japanese "Spaghetti Samurai" chic for an actual depth-of-knowledge) would be recommended but is not required. A desire to learn, a basic rudimentary understanding of the region, a flexibility of mind and a rigidity of honoring one's commitments is what I am looking for.

Fair enough et al (since my last topical post). That definitely shines a multidimensional light of perspective on the rigorous design process.

This is definitely fodder for more discussion and brainstorming as opposed to debate. In the interest of continuing the hypothetical "What should they have?" that was posed by CourtFool, I propose the following question / scenario as a challenge:

If the stated goal of a popular RPG Publisher was to revise their rules / put out a new edition while maintaining and retaining their current market by not invalidating the previously purchased and epic in proportion back-catalog, how would you do it?

What are several possibilities on how to accomplish this with minimum of product devision and confusion?

One suggestion I recall off-the-bat is dual system printings. It truly DID work in l5r/L5R d20 and Dragonlance 25th anniversary chronicles, with 2nd Edition and SAGA rules.

VedicDragon wrote:

Ahh but I "came in" on 2E and bought at discount through resale most of my 3.5 library after skipping 3.0 ... damn you got me there. Hell I'm even guilty with Pathfinder ... waitaminute! *catches you in a logical fallacy of "tum quotum" directed at Paizo*

And what about all those simple, lawn loitering n00bs who are "coming in" on 4e? Why is your first gaming experience more valid than theirs?

I do not think Paizo would even mind me saying it. They have a great product and they know it. They found a consumer market and they are providing something that market obviously wants. Considering 4e is selling, I would argue WotC did the same thing.

*he says, tongue-in-cheek*

The board appropriate response is to punt me, but at least you were more creative. ;)

VedicDragon wrote:

Or, conversely, what we can do instead that would be more productive than "just ignore it" or "Don't bother getting upset"

Stop buying their re-imaged products.

If you bought 2e, you are guilty.

If you bought 3e, you are guilty.

If you bought 3.5, you are doubly guilty.

If you buy Pathfinder...oops. :)

Muaha! Got you, you cunning time-travelling helter skeltering eloquent malcontent poodle!!

Now to get that Feckless Doctor Lucky, since I got his "little dog" .... *rubs hands together evilly whilst slicing the rope that holds a chandelier which knocks over a dining cart which flings a knife which skewers you in a sufficiently epic Rube Goldberg-esque fashion with the biting acerbic slash of cruel, fickle logic*

Oh, I understand the frustration of marketting. I've drawn the ire of the local powers that be by being critical of some of their marketting.

Still, what I am getting from you is that you don't view the current edition as really "D&D". That it doesn't have the same cows (though some of those weren't even heifers in earlier editions) or feel or whatever.

1.) World of Darkness
2.) Traveller

And to a lesser extant ...

3.) Forgotten Realms (specifically) - Just how many times can you blow up this world and screw things up worse than before??
4.) Legend of the Five Rings (who's bidding for the Throne now? Which clan is the treasonous b@st@rds this week?)
5.) Exalted - Hearth stones ARE important. Hearth stones are irrelevent. Here's 1000% MORE Content that is INFINITELY more important than what the focus of the game was previously. Good look smoothly incorporating it into any ongoing chronicles.

The POINT is the PHILOSOPHY on why we as a market tolerate this, and if we don't how we can encourage more sensitivity from the companies we pay for goods and services. Or, conversely, what we can do instead that would be more productive than "just ignore it" or "Don't bother getting upset"

Please don't be offended that I ignore your list. It's not that it isn't topical, but I fear it once again focusses on the minutiae of -one- specific example. I would rather debate why should a product be redesigned according to the (naturally, not an insult) shallow perspective of those WHO'VE NEVER PICKED IT UP AND READ IT BEFORE. And how counterintuitively backwards a thought process / paradigm that is for R&D.

Pax Veritas wrote:

VedicDragon wrote:

If you are going to generate a re-invention of fantasy gaming which is almost a breed apart from your previous version, perhaps your should retitle it and allow your product to continue.

Well said.

Totally on board with this idea. You know if they simply reprinted 1e/2e I would buy a copy of every book, heck they could remove the risk of loss and allow a third party to reprint the old edition recieving a per sold book fee back, sort of how microsoft did with IBM all those years ago. They don't sell the rights to this third party they sell the right to print X copies to them.

WHY do they (generic RPG companies with new editions, Wizards, White Wolf, FASA, AEG for L5R) not -seize- upon this as a revenue stream I do not understand ... it's so simple!

I might suggest if the way you decide to defend your choice of system is to attack another system, you are falling into the trap many have said that WotC has done when discussing older editions. You are acting exactly the same way. Pooping on others for not seeing things your way. Now I know that some people feel it is ok for them to do it because either (a) it is payback for how they feel they were treated or (b) their goals are more noble, WotC being an BBEC (big bad evil corporation) only cares about money while the other people care about being "true" to the "game".

Thank you both. *sighs in relief*

Really, people (and companies) should be promoting what is great about their system, and not continuously rag on other systems. Of course there are going to be comparisons made, that is only reasonable, but in the end of the day, if you have said more about why the other system sucks than you have about why your system rocks, I feel you've failed in the discussion.

Back to marketing, let's face facts, name recognition is invaluable. For most people, they know the name D&D. And for younger folks, that is the game they are going to grab first. Merely because that is something they have heard about.

Removed a post.

If you have a problem with a poster's assertion, then discuss the assertion. But,

AT NO TIME SHOULD YOU ATTACK THE POSTER, YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE POSTER'S ABILITY TO FRAME AN ARGUMENT, OR FINISH A POST WITH THE PHRASE "READ IT FAST, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HERE LONG."

This thread is on its last leg, folks. Cool it.

Would that be acceptable? I would like to think the ideal I was shooting for and the nature of the topic should -not- have caused the spiral of decay that has unfairly and surreptitiously engulfed my attempts at a "Meeting of Viewpoints" on the Topic.

In a perfect world, that would be unnecessary, because we wouldn't break out our 'best behavior' just for Moderators, but treat all of our fellow posters with a modicum of respect.
And, yanno, not call each other haters or fanboys.
Also, there would be naptime and chocolate milk for everyone!

VedicDragon wrote:

The Subscription based model…

I think they are trying to ease into it with DDI.

VedicDragon wrote:

Make a TRULY IMMERSIVE MMORPG to Pen and Paper fusion…

I seem to recall they were trying. What is the status of the virtual table top anyway? Did they completely scrap it?

VedicDragon wrote:

Acquire Ral Partha…

(laughing) You are honestly suggesting they go after licenses you personally like? They were tender footing around it because…
1. Going hole hog is a huge risk.
2. What about all the fans they would alienate by creating a tactical war game out of their role playing? People already complain (loudly) with what they did do.

VedicDragon wrote:

Acquire some of the 3rd party publishers

And become even more big and bloated? Has that strategy endeared people to Microsoft? We could argue over the profitability. I can hear the fans screaming, "Why are they putting out another Freeport supplement? I want Greyhawk! Tools!"

VedicDragon wrote:

Dragonlance Movie Trilogy

O.k. Now I know you are not taking me seriously.

VedicDragon wrote:

Incremental Dungeons

Huh?

Incrementally expanding dungeons. Make the "Expedition To" Series more like "Return to Keep on the Borderlands / White Plume Mountain / Tomb of Horrors" with actual plot based on "returning" to classic locations years later. Hence, as I said "Incremental Dungeons".

War-based "Campaigns"

Forgotten Realms made the $$ back in the day and now because it is MARKETTED. Comics, Novels, Video Games, etc.

But the consumer has proven that a profitable strategy. I remember just as much anger over 3.5, yet, it still managed to sell. Of course they want to burn through gamer dollars! What company last long by not trying to get money from its customers?

The implication is to build systems like software with release patches. Imagine if Windows charged for -every- -single- incremental updated. That would be ludicrous. Now we come to the next fallacy of the implied (and marketted) software metaphor. When Windows publishes Windows Mobile, they don't broadcast it as the next Windows OS.

If you are going to generate a re-invention of fantasy gaming which is almost a breed apart from your previous version, perhaps your should retitle it and allow your product to continue.

I am in NO WAY saying TSR's methods were better, but perhaps a -properly- implemented and distinct implementation of the D&D and AD&D brands?

What should have WotC done? ... What should they have done?

2.) D&D Online .... Scrap it. Or fuse it with Neverwinter nights and RPGA. Make a TRULY IMMERSIVE MMORPG to Pen and Paper fusion. Expend your efforts on doing that well, rather than shoehorning Blizzards' and other MMO companies' methodologies into the core game. Different Expansions for different settings, the possibilities are NUMEROUS.

3.) Acquire Ral Partha, Reaper and other Miniatures Producers. Encourage a Miniatures Game with Mass Tactical rules if you are going to encroach on Games Workshop's territory. Don't tender-foot around it, DO it.

4.) Acquire some of the 3rd party publishers. If you've got the $$$, RAKE in the more profitable entities while maintaining their autonomy. If you're going to push a product, you have to -invest- in it.

5.) Dragonlance Movie Trilogy. Live Action. Make it happen, and for the love of all that's holy do it right. In a Similar vein, a NEW D&D Cartoon. Make it a quality, Emmy-level show, like the 2003 Masters of the Universe Relaunch.

6.) Incremental Dungeons ... it worked for Rappun Athuk and Undermountain. Focus on storied, multidimensional, massive dungeons with shifting conditions. It is what made Castly Greyhawk/Zagyg and Undermountain such hot-sellers. Perhaps a subscription based model here?

7.) War-based "Campaigns". Backtrack through the histories of these settings and market your mini's and tactical combat system with adventures or "campaigns" and blister packs that will encourage players and dm's to recreate these conflict. Perhaps make an RPGA event/league out of it which publishes "previously hidden lore and insights" gained from playing through these for subscribers.

8.) Reopen your stores with correct management and proper analysis of the market demographics in each area. Focus on your core products as opposed to diversifying so bad and selling -any-damn-thing- in them. Keep the atmosphere of providing a "Cheers" style gaming haven that supports the hobby as a whole and host RPGA-licensed games out of it, as you intended to implement back in '01 before the Hasbro acquisition which flooded these venues with boardgames. Keep your wireless LAN in the back as this draws in consumers.

As a former employee who quit when that happened, I have actually written my own thesis (and seen some college thesis submissions) on all the things that were done wrong at that time. Not with hindsight, but -as-they-happened-.

I would welcome being proven wrong on this topic for the first time in the Seven Years since when it came to all the predictions I made then ...

I'm no Nostradamus, but damn this stuff was soooooo transparent to see coming down the pipeline if you know what to look for.

They did not pull Ravenloft, Dragonlance or Dungeon and Dragon magazines to make the books - though they do make the books. They pulled all their properties so that they could use them to provide content for their DDI subscription model. Since the vast majority of 4E players are subscribers it may well be that it turns out to be a very profitable business decision. Almost certainly more profitable then just continuing to...

Consider: A Print to PDF function and a Filesharing Client could make the DDI Content pirateable with -whimsical- ease.

Profitability is an extremely dicey thing to financial project when you have no control basis for the market you -would- have versus the market you -dont-. For instance, it can be argued that the Creation of DDI has in and of itself created an alternate revenue stream by freeing Paizo Writing staff and focus up from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine (much lament that they're not!) to publishing Pathfinder Adventure Paths (much to my glee!). To whit, they have created their own competitive sub-market with these decisions, and to build a financial model on the matter would involve far FAR too many variables, leaving it in the realm of conjecture ... but one can detect or surmise trends on the median of where the profitability of this would fall ...

So long as we understand each other, we're cool.

I was asking a single poster (who was flagged) to cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric, not moderating the entire thread and accusing (J'accuse!!) everyone in it of doing the same.

I'd love for this thread to really be a "philosophical discussion of certain market etc" and not devolve into a "WotC ate my birthday cake!" thread. Again.

So let me get this straight:

I moderate these boards. I'm asking you guys to cool it. And your response is to tell me "not to read the thread?" Am I understanding you correctly?

2.) You were telling someone else to cool it, not me. This was in regards to the WotC bashing, which IMHO this discussion has grown far above and beyond, and was after a LONG string of various parties misrepresenting or hijacking the nature of this discussion into that direction when I (the original poster) made it very clear that is not the case, and was told for my trouble that that's what -ALL- this discussion has been about.

3.) I then follow this up by a suggestion to reread who said what and what's being said. I then retract with a "nevermind, I will follow my own advice" which was, if we don't want this to be a discussion about -THAT- to not react to people who seek to malign it AS -that- kind of edition wars nonsense.

4.) The Generalization "You guys" is pretty inaccurate. I made a mistake by prejudging what you had to say as a random onlooker engaging from a certain perspective. But you preceed that sir, with the assumption that we are all or even most of us engaged in said activity.

5.) Now if all this opens me up to censure or leaves you feeling offended, again I apologize, but moderator or no, I think my reaction (if admittedly heated) once taken in context makes a little more sense and is more reasonable than the summation you seem to be taking from it.

I would agree those moves were missteps.
Let me be clear. I am not fan of WotC. I did not like 3.5. I do not like 4e. I just do not see them as evil.
Now, back to your question. I see both moves with the simple goal of trying to make money.

... D&D has not been the innovator since OD&D. It has only adapted what others have proven to be successful. WotC does not hate you. They do not even know you. They are just trying to make money. You want to tell them they are going about it wrong, don't buy their stuff. There is no need for animosity. When they see everyone is buying Pathfinder, they will change their tune.

Case point, MAKE a Ravenloft 4E version if you are going to reacquire the license. Don't just pull the license and squat on it. Here's an example of a choice I would still find revulsive, but would be intelligent and profitable. and for the love of god, hire competent writers who have a storied understanding of said setting if you're going to do it that way.

Old Edition Downloads - ... I think they could access and use the material from all that and turn a profit. It's not like the existence of those third party vendors would prevent say, a Dragon-compendium style update to statistics from making money. Like I said, short sighted and poorly chosen.

I don't mind them being greedy. I mind them being STUPIDLY consumerist and flipping into a 2-5 year life cycle and various other aspects of their paradigm that will burn through gamer dollars with redundant or unnecessary revisions and built in obsolence.

No, they are not evil. Just -ALL- about the quick buck, as opposed to the long term investment and growth of the brand. I would like to see responsible and sensible handling thereof.

That being said, I -will- continue to support and -carefully- purchase certain products they produce, based on the individual writing on an independent basis. Yes, corporations and especially the individuals that make them up, can make mistakes. No one is immune to that. And as such, there has to be a caveat provided for growth and evolution, should the corporate entities (or the individuals who run them) show and inclination towards such.

Fanboy? Heh. Not really. I did tell you. It's not about anything like an unhealthy obsession. It's merely the fact that to get something out of your roleplaying that isn't as easily served filling in tax forms, you need to engage in it, let the fate of your character matter to you. If you never thought of that side of the investment, you have my sympathies.

When a company sells me a set of rules, my buying those shows that I believe the company will keep putting out good stuff. Paizo has consistently done so, ever since that first day in Sandpoint. Jumping on that train was easy, given what I had seen of their previous stuff such as the Shackled city, and how they made Dragon and Dungeon flower in their care. They keep an active contact with their customers here, they care what we think, and above all, they make products that show they enjoy the game, sharing in my investment. By gamers, for gamers is the standard, you know?[/QUOTE}

....

I believe this may be a difference between american and european thinking. Americans are generally much more forgiving of companies who treat them badly, at least that's the image I have gotten.

Regarding USA vs Foreign Consumer markets .. That may be true of your local market, but that's a rather broad generalization. Like any other nation that "we americans" (I'm a second generation immigrant from India myself) tend to homogenize and thus are mocked for our provinciality, "American Culture" and the mores tied to it varies from region to region, and differ as vastly and profoundly as, say, provinces of Spain, or Italy or China.

Please don't mistake me, I am sure that's not what you meant, just clarifying that many of us here -do- give a strong and profound kick to the hindquarters of companies that mistreat or belittle their consumer base as such.

I think it is more the niche' market and nature of these specific -hobby-based industries, and the fact that a massive giant in the form of Hasbro has claimed these properties, that leads to the current trend. Rather than catering to their consumer base, as many do when they are flexible and agile, as Paizo is, this scenario is one of a massive corporate entity with little interest simply because a degree of scale, in whether their existing market for said recently acquired product, is happy or not, when presented with the prospect of new markets and expanding that market.

It's rather typical in scenarios such as this, which nevertheless makes it no less tragic.

"WotC owes me!" What do they owe you? They gave you 3.5 which you love. It seems to me, that is the end of their contract with you. They put out new material. If it meets with your expectations, you buy it. Another contract. If they do not, you make no bargain with them. You go and spend your entire allowance at Paizo.

Neither was removal and revocation of license to resell soft-copies of older editions products from various legal and licensed third party vendors, for what was a single act of illegal piracy of a 4E book that was performed by one of their own employees. Essentially punishing the previous editions' enthusiasts and vendors that cater to them for the actions of an employee with regards to their -newest- edition (the PHB II IIRC). I had a link to the post on this matter where it was discussed on these 'boards, but this discussion alone has blasted it past my "recent posts" feed.

What are your thoughts on the matter, given those two manuevers. Not from the perspective of one who feels their owed, but literally wide-sweeping gestures that are ineffective for the stated goals, and only succeed in alienating those who would not be previously, and further inciting resentment in others?

I addendum, the PFRPG Hardcover is GORGEOUS! I have been told I can kill a man with it, but didn't quite believe it until I held its firm, pristine binding for myself.

Yes.... It WILL BE GLORIOUS!!! *Worf Voice*

VedicDragon wrote:

We really have less nerd rage than WoW??? Really?

Yes.
WAY less. ... further examples, etc etc etc

Having been on both sides of the divide, I can see why either one (Customer Service Rep dealing with Insane, Gibbering Rage, or the Customer driven to that point for whatever reasons) makes rational, reasonable and sane people want to grab a glock and bust a clip into somebody.

I am glad that you've had less of those experiences as a Paizo rep. There are things in life that pull invisible strands, (not to get too philosophical here) and sometimes it helps to look from the outside to see those strands being tugged, as the various players go about their ordained roles, and see the play for what it is.

:-)

But yes, High road and all that! W00t!

*gives all paizo employees and customers virtual cookies*

Many thanks! I have confirmation of delivery. AS usual, you guys rawk!

*digs up his Chronomancer Supplement from 2nd Edition Archives to Assist, complete with the Web-Enhancement 'Chronomancy in the Multiverse'*

*Back to the Future Fanfare plays*

Sissyl wrote:

So, to answer another person wanting the "edition wars to be over" ...

Hi there. I want the edition wars to be over, too. So cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric. I appreciate that you feel slighted, maligned, and "left behind" but the sentiment probably doesn't need to be aired again and again and again. Let's move on, shall we?

If you see a forum posting where you're -obviously- not going to like the trend (or not, if that's clearly all you felt worthy of contribution in spite of NUMEROUS posts that expand beyond that) perhaps you'd care to offer constructive commentary after -carefully- reading what else has been written? In Context? Or refrain from commenting haphazardly (which is certainly your right, as it is hers to ignore you completely and continue a pointed if potentially controversial perspective which many of us happen to agree with)

*sighs* Nevermind. That's simply too much to ask, apparently. I will follow my own advice now.

Jeremy, not just the new converts are offended. Some of us bitter old grognards still have an axe to grind with this, especially with the pulling of all virtual sales of the older products.

What do you propose? Surely we as the consumers don't have to just "roll over and take it". I mean beyond the obvious and repetitive discussed solutions of "make your own", "run your games quietly in the background" and "support the indies". I am talking about a concerted push from consumers to redirect the market trends away from this cancerous and frankly baffling business model.

And of course, beyond praying that Paizo NEVER resorts to similar tactics...

See, now THIS is more of what I am talking about!!! This is what I was looking for! (Not a Game of HERO, though that would be cool too)

Thank you. I believe I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, VedicDragon.

I would like to take this opportunity to say, "Welcome to the party." You are about 20 years late. D&D completely ignored narrative style in the early days. There was no semblance of balance at all. Now, I realize that was not your preferred style, so I could see how you may have missed it. 3.5 gave it a little nod, but still largely ignored it.

Yes, yes. Lots of groups put in all sorts of narrative into their game. However, it was not really built into the model of kill things, take their stuff, level up.

Yes, yes. Lots of groups put in all sorts of narrative into their game. However, it was not really built into the model of kill things, take their stuff, level up.

And here it is, again, in 3.5 to 4th. White Wolf did the same in the Transition to New WoD, and I spit on anyone who parrots to me the trite old "You can write it in, if you really want to" because they obviously have no comprehension of how much time and effort and investment has been wasted, nor the slightest bit of comprehension in what that injection of auld into new entails, nor the problems therein.

Yes, by all means, alot of that were groups, but if you actually READ ALL the extensive literature as I did, they REALLY did leap to a high level of "Simulationist" play (though they used a different term for maintaining that balance. It was called "good DM'ing" )

It seems to me that WotC was only following the market. In every D&D game I ever played in (yes, I realize that is my own personal experience, I have nothing else to base my opinion on), it was very gamist. As far as the evil corporate entity trying to get you to buy product after product, I have some very bad news for you. 1e did it, 2e did it, 3.5 did it. Microsoft does it. MMORPGs figured out a way to completely skip even producing a product and simply make you just keep paying them to play the game you already bought.

It was not -drastically undone- in similar fashion, just explored in different continents and underneath-the-crust (Hollow Earth IIRC). Granted TSR may not be the best example, but they went belly-up for diversifying too much at one time. I feel in the form of systems, the D&D line is doing the same.

While there ARE indeed lots of excellent games with smaller purchasing investment, for a company who claims to be the industry-leaders and flagship of the genre, I would think behaving like spoiled children with a license would NOT be a formula for success.

I have been angry about these things for 15 years, myself. So I guess that gives me "grognard" status too (at least to the latest batch of kids picking up the game).

And yes a Game of HERO would be delightful. Just Let me bring my graphing calculator. :P

wonderful satire on this comedy of errors

Does that make me Governor Arnold??

VedicDragon, it sounds like I and everyone else on this thread have been responding to what you wrote in your OP, rather than what you meant to write in your OP. When you quote a long passage that contains...your goal will inevitably get lost.

But, for the record, the long part of your previous post written in "caveman English" was over-the-top, rude, and insulting.

As for "I and everyone else on this thread". I count about 4 people at least who've followed what I am getting at, at least partially, from -both- camps of the 4E/3.5 divide, not that THAT statistic has -ANYTHING- to do with what I am talking about really, save for the inferences that -others- keep wanting to place that it does.

With regards to my original post, let's see that again WITHOUT the quotation from the article. I guarantee you that what -I- personally wrote, is devoid of 4E bashing and VERY CLEAR on intent. The content of the Article quotation is debatable, but I refuse to be hobbled by an implied context of a quotation when I deliberately say "let's discuss this in a civil fashion with no edition bashing of the greater ramifications ...".

That being said, thank you for at least recognizing where I -wish- to go with this, if I have not made that abundantly clear. If I have not conveyed this enough, as I have said before, that is -MY- fault and I apologize for not being clearer somehow.

Original Post follows ...

This is NOT a bash 4th edition or 3.5 / PFRPG or any other system post.
This is a place for musing the potential philosophical and sociological ramifications of certain trends and business practices on the Gamer subculture.

So please, let's keep it civil and intellectual. Nonsequitors, hyperbole and "______ is stupid/sux etc" is NOT welcome here in any form, no matter WHICH edition you prefer.

Now to business:
I recently happened by a blogpost that captivated my interest as it did and does far better what I have wanted to for a while. I have reposted its contents here for the perusal of all.

mxyzplk wrote:

Why Complain About 4e? Stop the Edition Wars!
A partial Repost of the article

Here is the Link to the Blog where I reposted this from.
So what do you all think? I found it definite food for thought about deeper ramifications on our genre and subculture and the impact these things have on the market as a whole ...

The original post is an extended quote entitled, "Why complain about 4e?" and opened with ...

Perhaps the issue you are having with this thread is a disagreement about what constitutes "edition wars."

Please do not think I am advocating people should just try to shout one another down. However, it seems to me you are trying to silence dissent at the same time as claiming you are being silenced. You implied support for the article and many people view it as yet another attack. You do not want to bash 4e, but you wish to point out its flaws. Many people do not perceive the flaws you do. In fact, they seem them as features. Perhaps they are a little frustrated at trying to explain how they are features when the same tired arguments are used again and again.

Am I correct in understanding you do not like 4e and want more people to play 3.5/Pathfinder?

VedicDragon wrote:

Indeed. I see flaws in 3.5 edition too. I was one of those 2nd Edition holdouts who had to deal with this once before, and sought both sympathetic views and to engage the contrary viewpoint in the hopes of encouraging change, if not in WotC directly in at least a spreading of and encouragement of this philosophy of gaming, the "espirit de corp" if you will, of my "subniche" within the genre. I also like to get the other side's perspective, if both contentious groups can agree to be rational.

This seems to support my above conclusion. Fair enough. I, of all people, am going to defend your right to your opinion. I am also going to defend the right of other's opinion. Even the ones who think your opinion is wrong and offer reasons why they feel thus.

Some people are not born with a silver tongue and may have difficulty expressing themselves beyond "STFU grognard!" They feel the way they do about their system of...

I view BOTH Editions 3.5 and 4E as extremely flawed from a fluff angle. I was a 2nd edition holdout and think it was CRIMINAL the amounts of rich heritage on the cutting room floor. So the argument that I favor 3.5 over 4 is rather moot when given that perspective. I could care less, because I have seen this all before; twice or thrice over if you count 3.0->3.5 or 1st -> 2nd (and lemme tell you THOSE guys have reason to be bitter with how TSR grossly mishandled that "conversion" or "bridging" of products ... but at least it was a fair effort).

I eventually adopted 3.5 as it was the easiest with modification to convey my ideas and campaigns to the widest market. As much as I may not have liked the system, I DID and DO approve of the revolutions that the OGL have had on the RPG market and cross polination and germination of some truly amazing and thoroughly enriched, uniquely flavorful settings. So I "upgraded", vowing to bring what was left out of 3.5 back into the game in the manner of lore, fluff and stylistic play (a balance of "Simulationism" and "Strategy").

Then 4E came out, and to my mindset, not only compounded the grossly foolish errors and disrespect to previous customer base as the 2nd to 3E jump did, but COMPOUNDED on it even further in vastly extravagant sweeping gestures. Now, again, the system is one thing. I can even swallow that. But the marketting and PR, and shall we say their "paradigm" that has been adopted is what REALLY got me actively vocal.

I am above SYSTEMS at this point. I am a grown man who has taken higher level math, and coached underpriveledged and learning disabled kids in a variety of topics. I can design my own systems and what is conveyed.

What this debate (to me, the original poster) has always, always been about and should never have deviated from (though everyone has a right to say whatever the hell they like) is about the RPG Methodology/Paradigm behind it, and how the shifting perspectives of a Capricious corporation that happens to hold the license for the "Flagship" of the hobby creates and engenders a drastically different evironment of play, and shapes and moulds new generations of gamers, and to my mind, robs them of the most glorious elements of play.

It's not about Simulationism versus Gamism versus Strategy / Tactical.
As the Gygax Interview I posted above implies, and as is referenced in 2nd Editon DMG (not a direct quote, but it's there) and 3.5 DMG II, it's about the -balance- between these styles of play. Obviously everyone is going to cater to their own groups and their own preferences. But when the Flagship fails to present a balanced perspective on this, as it clearly CLEARLY has (IMHO, and herein lies the debate where people feel I am bashing 4E when it has NOTHING ... NOTHING to do with system and everything to do with the instructional texts, less than subtle undertones and marketting and publication paradigm behind it) is this leads to EXTINCTION of one of the styles.

I am not all for the "Storytelling" method or "Simulationist" approach over "Gamist". Heck, there comes a time to roll some dice, and that better happen often or things get stale or downright Oratory. I am arguing for BALANCE amongst these elements, and when the paradigm shifts as dramatically as it has, there can be -no- balance as the entire perspective of the other side (of which I straddle the fence on) is thrown entirely to the wolves "Here ya go Johnny, sink or swim".

Now don't get me wrong, I do love and support PFRPG but it was never the purpose of this thread, to my mind, to forward one system or approach over another.

My feelings (which I can understand the confusion as I have withheld actual elaboration on these points to generate a less hostile and more open environment ... which I have been clearly mislabelled as anyways) are as follows:

1.) I am less a fan of 4th Edition System than I am of 3.5, I am less a fan of 3.5 than I am of PFRPG, I am less a fan of PFRPG than I am of Exalted. I am less a fan of Exalted than I am of Rifts/Palladium. And So on. and So On. Each has their merits and flaws, but having seen the Hasbro scam of "Built in Obsolescence" twice over right now, I am FAR FAR FAR beyond caring about systems. My beef with Wotc/Hasbro is philosophical and business-practices oriented. They need to stop shafting their previous markets when catering to new ones. Those of you who are fans of 4E, just wait and see what I am talking about when 4.5 or 5 comes out in the next two years. They are already talking about it. Enjoy blowing your $$$ to have everything be reprinted with less page count and content, and have vast swaths of your investment be rendered instantly obsolete.

2.) The Paradigm of marketting .. Imagine of Apple did a Proverbial "Screw Off" and changed the ports on all their computer and ipods, rendering all previous investments and purchases (including apps and music/videos) obsolete? It existed and it was called Rhapsody. It did not do well, hence why they owe their extremely limited survival to an iphone app to stream music now, something that has been implemented repeatedly and better. But I digress. The point is that the Paradigm here is "Screw our previous customers' investments. We're hiring a new team and we're going to turn everything on its head". Followed by five years later "Screw that mess, we're REALLY gonna shake it up this time". Followed by two years later "To heck with that we're REALLY gonna shake it up this time".

3.) Playing without a DM. Nuff Said. Now amidst a circle of experienced dungeon masters, and with some provisos, this could be really cool. But with the "Dumb everything down to a 4th grade level of comprehension" paradigm which seems to be governing all the writing, critical details like that which could have created a very artful style ... instead of a bunch of people sitting in a circle, taking turns ... killing monsters on a sheet. This is just one example of the -paradigm- which is "Story takes back seat to the game" as opposed to the balance of "Story and Game as a fusion of artful method of shared recreation". And hey, if the "Gameist" approach, for lack of a better term appeals to you, that's cool.

4.) You can be gamist in previous editions and simulationist in 4E. The systems may or may not encourage this, which is a separate debate point I have yet to entirely make up my mind about. My beef here is the NATURE of the publications and the flavor text / statement of purpose, which without explanation and expansion -kills- simulationism in that it does not teach the former, as opposed to gameism which comes naturally by following-the-instructions-as-now-written.

If you favor a balance of the two, this leads to a lot of extra work for experienced DM's. Ok Fine, training players goes with the job description. However, it also basically sterilizes the genre or makes it much MUCH more difficult on the whole for simulationist gaming to prosper or even progress. It has ramifications, whether one can realize that or not. It can be seen throughout the progression of years and has become Worse ... and Worse. ... and WORSE. NOT that I favor "Storytelling" or "Simulationism" over that.

As stated before, that is BORING.

There NEEDS to be a balance between the two.

5.) Final point - I am not reacting to you or others because I feel specifically targetted. I am reacting to the fact that I am being told the purpose of the the thread is a bout X (In this case, Simulationism OVER Gamism, which is wrong, or 4E SYSTEM Sucks, also wrong) when it is and always has been striving for Y (The Effects of the New Paradigm on the Market at Large, the Subtler Side Effects of 4E's marketting direction on the Genre as a whole, and debating the merits and flaws of Simulationist and Gamist theories versus Strategy Tactical, and the balance of all three).

Now that I have clarified, I am going to drive a Busload of Irately Rabid, Flamethower wielding Platypi into the next person that tells me I was trying to Or this thread is about or I-hate-it-when-you-3.5-Grognards do ... when I have already repeated my statement or purpose several times.

P.S. Removed due to offense given, despite the attempt at diffusing tension with tongue-in-cheek jocularity, Caveman-insurance-commercial style.
*falls over, twitching insensibly in frothing rage of frustration*

VedicDragon wrote:

Umm who demanded an apology?

Well this is the most blatantly obviously one:

Sissyl wrote:

The only thing I feel is a real shame is that I wasn't very nice to the 2nd edition conservatives during the previous split. As for the current spat, it's much worse, with the company producing the stuff we use actually starting to bash their own previous products...The split isn't going to heal, the bridge isn't going to be built, until and unless the company in question makes a formal apology and does what it can to set things right, especially regarding the Forgotten Realms. At that point, I will be quite happy to join in the cumbaias. I still won't start playing 4th edition, though.

Of course others have also talked about how offended they were, how WotC have insulted them and how they will not ever buy from such a company again, etc.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Agreed. The wotci marketing used the term "sucks" and depicted a red dragon s#@@ting on someone providing feedback. They categorized those who disagreed as trolls. And, not everyone was taking the route of "4e sucks", some were pointing out the elements of 30+ years of tradition or game history e.g. vancian magic that were not brought forward. The marketing tendency was to insult the customer base... something I had only heard that the wotci did in previous years, but it never hit home until they treated me, formerly a loyal consumer, that way. And since, I won't buy things from them.

Of course, it is easy to overlook these kinds of statement, especially if one is like-minded.

VedicDragon wrote:

If so Bravo, I will not be your catspaw in that, and productive activity on this front -will- continue, here or elsewhere.

I do find it interesting that you immediately thought the post was targetted at you. I had no intention of pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just a theme I was seeing, but, well, you demanded I give some...

And no, I didn't take it personally -per se- with a target at me. I am just so utterly tired of having a productive turn, only to have a counterpoint which hijacks this discussion back into the realm of "Edition Wars".

I don't think from your citations that there is a 'Demand' for a 'mea culpa' so much as feelings of resentment from an alienated previously loyal consumer base which Wizards'/Hasbro has deliberately slighted insofar as even bashing previous playstyles and systems that are (through corporate technicalities) their own intellectual property. On the other hand, there -HAVE- Been companies that do exactly that when the consumer base is vocal enough or revenues suffer. I don't think those who feel slighted should be bashed for that as unrealistic or childish, even if it is long odds.

It's the Gaming equivalent of *hypothetically* Shatner telling Star Trek Fans to "Get a Life" and then getting upset at not getting casted as a cameo in the new Rebooted Franchise. (Not that this happened immediately within each other, just posing a hypothetical metaphor).

That being said, I will happily start a new thread which is repurposed more to my actual goal, now that obviously most of the productive debate to be had (at least here) has been spent.

"I demand an apology!" is a pretty silly statement. Why do you deserve an apology? Were you an internet troll who spouted meaningless inane garbage and the caricature of such a creature getting pooped on offended you? Sorry, in that case you don’t deserve an apology; you deserved to get pooped on. You don’t feel like that caricature represented you and your actions, then what are you offended by and thus why should they apologize for something that was not directed at you, just because you are too soft skinned?

Maybe you are upset that they implied that the rules you play under were too convoluted and the math was too hard for you? Ok, but don’t then turn around and hold up another company that has done the same thing as a shining example.

Sorry, demanding that people come to your house and bend over and kiss your rear when you have admitted that even if they did that you still wouldn’t purchase their products is silly in the extreme. Stop wasting your time trying to change companies you are not interested in. Follow enlightened self interest. If a company makes products that you want, purchase them. If a company does not, don’t. If enough people follow your interest then more of those products will be made.

If there isn't a company making the products you want, then you have to suck it up and admit you are too small of a market to matter. You can then make your own products or you can accept change and go with the desires of a larger market. Heck if there was a [print] company still making 3.5 products, I'd take a good look at them and if they met my needs/wants then I'd purchase from them. But I don't demand that any company start making 3.5 material just because it is what I want.

Did your post contribute a single logical or productive point to the debate? Or are you in fact the Troll you are hypothesizing about?

As for "Demanding" anything. No one here seems to be demanding squat. It's a philosophical debate. Now, if you -are- responding to someone, please cite your evidence and what prompted this rant. Otherwise, kindly refrain from the utterly extraneous chatter that has NOTHING to do with what's actually being discussed here, which has evolved FAR FAR beyond petty squabbling or whining over editions, as many of you detractors mislabel anything resembling a productive discussion that so much as WHISPERS a comparison between play styles and a correlation in edtion rules and marketting ideologies.

And "Suck it Up" generally elicits a "get stuffed" response. Unless of course that was your goal, to distract and aggravate. If so Bravo, I will not be your catspaw in that, and productive activity on this front -will- continue, here or elsewhere.

I think this is long overdue for a thread Reboot. I will be posting a revised and expanded synopsis and clarification before the end of October. At that point I will request this be retitled to "Vedic Fantasy Gaming and other Genre Resources". The title of the new setting's Thread will be "Rajahs & Rakshasa - a Indo-Arabic Fantasy Setting"

As an additional note: Devashard is getting it's own movie!

Good stuff!
Here's the Official Site
Read more about the "World of Bhumi here

Let me state that Devashard is its own Intellectual Property and aside from common cultural and inspirational roots has little else to do with my Vedic Fantasy Setting.

Must ... Resist

((BUY IT NOW))

Must ... Wait .. and Budget ... Better

((BUY IT NOW))

Must Not ... Submit... my Will

((DO IT, CRETIN))

Y-y-yes, Dark L-l-lord!

Still waiting on this one ... please provide the tracking number.

And thanks again Cos! As usual I appreciate your timely and considerate responses!

It is quite possible I am missing your point, VedicDragon. The quoted text seemed exceedingly one sided to me. And that is coming from someone who is no fan of 4e. I was certainly not trying to single anyone in particular out.

As for missing my point ... perhaps. I was more seeking like minded commiseration, not for any specific "Storm the Gates of WotC" effort or anysuch etc ... but perhaps the consolidation of resources of like mind to a particular end in perhaps maybe writing a treatise of Simulationist Gaming ... a Manifesto, if you will? And overall I simply enjoy engaging in pointed debate and encouraging discussion so that these things can at least be viewed multidimensionally, as opposed to the extremely generic "Cabin A versus B" methodology that these "Wars" (Be they OS Wars, Console Wars, Edition Wars or Religious Wars) usually degenerate into.

It seemed the majority of the posts were in agreement with the quoted text. No matter how eloquently it may have been put, not matter how politely it may have been worded and no matter how much the quoted author claims this is not just another bash on 4e it still is a rationalizing on why one should continue to point out the flaws of the system in hopes of making a difference.

I want to make a difference too. I want to see an end to class based systems. On this very board, it has been questioned why I even post here if I do not play D&D/Pathfinder. If you can not understand where I would see the irony in that, I honestly do not know what to say.

You can spin it how ever you want ...

If you were making another point, VedicDragon, I apologize. Please elaborate. Also, if my opinion offends you, I apologize. It is not meant as an attack.

I -do- however thank you for your polite rationality and care in responding diplomatically. It's more than most can bother to afford.

Back to topic... sadly, there's no escaping the "old is new again" gamist trend in today's mainstream games so, from where I see it, simulationist players have two choices: either GM themselves, house ruling these games to fit their style while hoping to charm at least another player/GM into indoctrination in order for simulationism to survive (perhaps even thrive with some luck), or come to terms with the facts and move away to greener pastures, either fading into obscurity or perhaps making other games thrive. Europe has plenty of roleplaying games people hasn't heard about, and even Anima, as Charlie Foxtrot of a system as it is, is fairly good at simulationism (or at least better than 4E and PF, that's for sure).

On a separate note (if you like I will create a related topic and link, or you could provide one) How IS Anima? It has been highly recommended to me.

VedicDragon wrote:

*squeals as Sebastian updates his enemies list*

Poor Jack's Spleen, what did he do to deserve being on that list?

That being said, I will enjoy and relish it, like a badge of honor!!!

"Make Ready your d20's! For Tonight ... we Game ... At PAIZO!!!"
*roar of clashing pencils, letter openners and rumbling of die rolls*

"If you should find yourself wandering through grassy fields dodging strange creatures. ... rest easy! For you are in the FeyWild, and you are already DEAD!"

Trying to stay outside of the edition items and focus on the marketing aspect of the transition and its after-effect -

What company comes out with Product B, New and Improved! then says our Product A sucked? Anyone who stays with Product A will not be serviced, etc. That type of hard sell pushes the consumer base into 2 divided camps. Take the 2nd base, that is not being served, and remove their access to outside support and historical items and it gets worse. The edition just becomes the poster child for anger at off base marketing.

With stuff like this it falls to the consumer to recreate the bridges. I think some gamers have. But they have to want to do so.

If the animosity could be put aside...

I've even seen rumors of a "compilation project" from one particularly wounded group of consumers who've decided to recompile and republish the lost material into a coherent "Compendium", while doing some edits therein. Interesting stuff, but I will not repost it here due to 'board policy and piracy issues...

With regards to "Camp A" and "B", aside from saying "You enjoy your flavor and we'll enjoy ours" How would you recommend/hypothesize bridging this gap?

CourtFool - Ummm ... if you read half of what I or the other posters have written, you'd not be oversimplifying thus. if I have mistaken your response and this was less pointed and more a generic philosophizing of "these styles of debates as they degenerate" then please ignore the following rebuttal. At least til the Gygaxian quote/article, which I thought was kinda cool.

I have no desire to "Bash" 4E and I will refer you to my 1st Post with the statement of intent. The purpose here is to generate design theory and discussion and have people think about the "potentially controversial" topic in a constructive fashion. As usual, there will be some who can handle that, and others who will degenerate it into some heated vitriolic mudslinging. They exist on BOTH sides of the arguement. Case point by admin's need to delete some of the more heated exchanges which you can now no longer see.
I would like to think this discussion is and has long since evolved beyond "______ system is bad because of X, Y, Z"

However It is foolish to presume that one CAN Discuss the merits and flaws of Gamist versus Simulationist theory and the relevant systems' impacts on thus without inciting a diatribe on why each party feels that there's is the "One true D&D" and all others are Heathens bastardizing the art.

I will admit to some feeling of this, until first with 2nd --> 3rd and now with 3.5 --> 4th finding "my style" the minority from the MMO generation flooding the market. Which is well and good, save that now, in the most INNOCUOUS fashion, I try to seek a philosophical debate about the merits and flaws thereof, and invite those of like and unlike mind equally to present their Logical and Verbose arguements. And for a couple of dissenters and protestors, I am being accused of a "thinly veiled attempt to bash 4E".

I contest that. I contest it strongly, given how much effort and carefully worded temperance I have used to avoid -exactly- that sort of half-hazard impression.

To keep this moving forwards and in the realm of productivity, insofar as the Simulationist versus Gamist arguements, and the quoting of the 'Late Great Gygax aka Zagyg, please see the following. Granted, it's an attempt to plug an MMO conversion of a diversionary RPG product "Legendary Adventures" but it does provide certain insights into the man's views on the topic. (Parsed to keep the quotes quotes, I hate that I can't have it all be small when it's over one paragraph!)

Here's the full interview

Harvey: RPG's often split people into several camps, sometimes polarized between those players more interested in interactive storytelling and those players more interested in killing monsters and collecting treasure. There're also people who play for the interesting tactical challenges, seeing the game as an extended board game. Then, of course, there are those of us who enjoy all three. Have you had the chance to play the LA Online RPG yet? (Is it stable enough yet?) How do you see the game environment shaping up? How heavily does it cater to each of the player types described above?

Gary: Insightful, that question, and allow me comment on it a bit before answering.I do not, and I stress NOT, believe that the RPG is "storytelling" in the way that is usually presented. If there is a story to be told, it comes from the interaction of all participants, not merely the Game Master--who should not a "Storyteller" but a narrator and co-player! The players are not acting out roles designed for them by the GM, they are acting in character to create the story, and that tale is told as the game unfolds, and as directed by their actions, with random factors that even the GM can't predict possibly altering the course of things. Storytelling is what novelists, screenwriters, and playwrights do. It has little or no connection to the RPG, which differs in all aspects from the entertainment forms such authors create for.

As false to the game form as the pre-scripted "story," is play that has little more in it than seek and destroy missions, vacuous effort where the participants fight and kill some monster so as to gain more power and thus be able to look for yet more potent opponents in a spiral that leads nowhere save eventual boredom. So pure hack and slash play is anathema to me too.

Tactical, and strategic, play is a fine addition to the RPG, and if it is in-character, something I see as desirable, In this category fall such things as exploration, economics, politics, and even intrigue. The LA RPG was designed to accommodate any and all styles and play approaches, and hopefully so presented as to encourage an amalgam of all the elements of the game form. That encourages varied adventures, different challenges from time to time, and well-rounded characters (and players) that find the game has long-term interest for them. In short, I agree with you in that all aspects of the RPG should be presented and played..

I am a lunatic-level bibliophile. As such, I end up rotating through several series' at once (especially while jonesing err ... awaiting the next installment).

The Iron Elves Series, by Chris Evans, Currently on book #2 "The Light of Burning Shadows"

The Vampire Earth Series, by E.E. Knight "Fall with Honor"

The Kushiel's Legacy Series, by Jacqueline Carey just finished the second trilogy (Book #3 Kushiel's Mercy) and beginning the next volume "Namah's Kiss"

The Soldier Son Trilogy by Robin Hobbm, starting Book #3 "Renegade's Magic"

The Aspect-Emperor trilogy by R. Scott Bakker, recently finished the first book, The Judging Eye, and jonesing -hardcore- for the next one.

Saga of the Noble Dead, by Barb and J.C. Hendee; I started "Child of a Dead God" recently.

The Black Jewels Series by Anne Bishop; Starting "The Shadow Queen" (Book 7 technically) next.

And of course, Like EVERYONE it seems, in the genre, am awaiting the latest book in the following two serieses:

The Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin ; having finished "A Feast for Crows" when it first printed I've been hungrily awaiting the next installment.

And Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time Series- Been current as each book comes out.

Actually we've officially canceled the product so it won't in fact ever see print.

.... Your order has not been canceled automatically due to that faint glimmer of hope we're holding onto that it may become feasible to print (Downer is awesome!), but you'll find that you cannot even find the product listed on our site anymore.

If you would like, I can cancel the order for you.

And yes, Downer rocks the Hizzy.

Thanks again!

*Laughs and cries at the same time*

I am heartbroken that there will not be a volume 2 ... but LOVE the responses gang.

SIGN ME UP to be in that A-Team van for "Actions yet to be disclosed ..."

Pax, et al..

Got a little worried there when "reading the 'feed". Thank you for bringing this back (despite temptation to engage) to the philosophical discussion I was aiming for. I do appreciate it.

I have responses of my own forthcoming that I hope will add to this discussion, but can't atm. But I felt the thank you and restatement of purpose shouldn't wait.