|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't even know what that means.
Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking?
BND and New 52 were garbage. As was the original Crisis and to a lesser degree only because it changed less Zero Hour and the Final Crisis. And apparently the switch from the Golden Age to the Silver Age heroes as well.In other words, every DC comic you've ever read was part of that garbage. And yet, there's some damn good stories in there. (Along with, per Sturgeon's Law, an awful lot of crap.) Marvel's a bit less problematic, since they haven't done multiple whole universe reboots, but they have rewritten the history of several of their major titles more than once. I don't think the X-Men have actually been rebooted, but their continuity is definitely tied in knots.
It's why I don't like reboots, but I can live with them. They're never going to do an actual complete reboot and really start from the beginning, because they're going to want to keep some characters who depend on others having been around. Because those characters are popular. People like them.
On the other hand, they can't actually keep track of decades of continuity and keep it in mind for ever future story, especially when parts of it are contradictory and other parts of it are those really silly and/or poorly done stories you mention.
Personally, I wish they'd just keep the basic continuity in mind, but not sweat details from long ago or feel bound by all the bad ideas. And just tell good stories in whatever the current continuity happens to be. Because that is possible.
Edit: I actually do think the New 52 is mostly garbage, despite some early interesting titles, but that's not due to the reboot, but to editorial policies that have driven away most of their best writers. Or at least the ones that I like.
I think that's what I said, though from a different angle.
And often they still can afford it, by taking out crippling loans or getting grants and scholarships.
Matthew Morris wrote:
They'll eventually reboot the Movie universe, for just that reason. They won't do the retiring hero thing, at least not often or long. It makes even less sense when the characters have really done so little. A couple movies. A few adventures. Not the kind of career that leads to someone else taking up the mantle. Only to pass it on again after a couple more movies.
I really wish they'd just accept it and recast. If they get good people and don't just descend to second rate talent, it could work.
Though this isn't directly related to your point, a good part of that difference in cost, at least for public colleges, was direct state support for the schools. That's been largely replaced with government subsidized tuitions, through grants and government backed loans.
Characters aging in real time is pretty much a bad idea. Comics come out in one month jumps, hence a lot of stories can't be told in "real time" with only 32 pages per month.
That's another issue. There's a lot of character development that's really hard to do with that few pages to cover a whole year. Especially when you're going to devote most of that space to fight scenes. :)Even if you cheat and have a 6 issue plotline take place over a couple days, then have 6 months of down time, it'll be hard. Relationship developments and similar things don't work well with that little screen time.
Forgive me, but judging by sales figures, I don't think you're typical, even of a new comics reader.
That said, everyone has their different tastes. As we can see by your experience, there are books out there for you, even without retiring the old heroes. (Well, Thor had to lose the hammer, but he's still around, certainly didn't retire from age.) If those newer titles actually do better and sales on the older titles drop enough, I'd expect older heroes to be dropped and replaced. In fact, we have seen that with many second string heroes. Though their sales eventually drop and the originals are often brought back.
What I don't think is a good idea is a blanket policy of retiring all heroes on a time schedule, regardless of their popularity.
I think reboots are really orthogonal to the real-time question. You could have reboots even if they decided to age in real-time. In fact, I'd expect it, since that would be the only way to bring back old heroes and I know they'd eventually do it. You could, in theory, have non-real time comics without reboots. Characters and teams can change to keep up with the times without actually changing the backstory. They've done it many times.
I also think you're wrong about the habits of new readers. I really doubt that new readers ignore the old characters. The ones that they were introduced to in cartoons and movies. The ones that still remain the best selling comics, often in multiple titles. Nor do all the old readers only read the classic heroes. Personally, most of what I'm reading is outside the Big Two, but I have been picking up the new Thor.
Technically yes, but the hospital still has costs associated with that care. Those costs are passed on to those patients who can pay. Including you.
Which raises the cost of doing business. Which costs are again passed on to customers. Like you.
Never mind. You're against public education at all. (Or maybe you think public elementary school is okay?)
Still, no point in discussing this with you.
Quark Blast wrote:
Most universities these days are much more administration heavy than they were in the past. Much higher percentage of the budget not going to faculty.
It means nothing of the sort.
Unless you make the assumption that learning everything taught in class = 100% on the test. Which is a natural assumption to make, but doesn't always hold.
I had a physics professor back in my college days and he did that. He explained to us that he could design tests to put the average anywhere he wanted to and liked to put the average around 50%, because that gave more room to differentiate between the good students, rather than everyone being clustered above 80.
Maybe the 56% means no one learned what was taught. Maybe they did learn what was taught, but didn't extrapolate beyond what was taught into things they could have figured out on their own.
Grade inflation has nothing to do with grading on the curve or the relationship between the percent of answers you got right and the letter grade you finally get. That's far more likely to be tied to the difficulty of the test.
4 of the 5 original X-Men are still alive. Jean Grey died in the new X-Men, but she's died and come back more than once since. She's the only one that really count's, I'd say. I don't think anyone else died in the original X-Men run. They killed the Professor, but brought him back again and that was more the perennial question of how to get the mentor figure out of the way. Thunderbird was killed off soon after the new team got together, but that was the only point to his character anyway.
I can't actually think of any other X-Men who died in anything like the early days. It's a team book and obviously teams change. The change from the original X-Men to the new team was a big deal, but it wasn't a big risk - They were reviving a dead concept. The X-Men book had been a reprint title for something like 5 years.
Gwen Stacy's death was a big deal, though MJ had been introduced years earlier. Nor does it really compare with dropping a high selling masthead character.
I'm not really talking about the reboots - those generally preserve the major characters basically intact. Return them to their roots, slightly tweaked if anything. We're talking about the idea of having the characters age and pass the mantle on to their heirs.
You'll note that I followed the part you quoted with "They need to change with the times. As they've done before and will continue to do. That requires more different writing and different approaches to the characters than either replacements or reboots."
I'm not in favor of reboots, especially universe wide ones. I think they create more problems than they solve. They bother me, but I can cope with them.
OTOH, I'm glad I got to read Superman comics, Batman comics, and Spiderman comics. I'm glad they featured Kal-el, Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker. I don't think they've outlived their interest. I think they're still relevant to this generation. They change of course. They're icons. They change, but the core remains.
Risks in terms of adding new characters, some of whom became incredibly successful.Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.
Almost all of Marvel's well-known characters were introduced in the first few years of its entry to the superhero business.
Marvel isn't touching its sacred cows. What do you think it's doing now that's good on this front, that isn't just a short term "gimmick" storyline. Neither FalcCap or Lady Thor are likely to be anything more. Or anything less. That they're intentionally limited storylines doesn't make them bad.Some people have believed that all of the hero replacements in the past were permanent or at least intended to be so at the time. It's rarely been true. Wally West, Kyle Raynor, Ryan Choi, a few others on the DC side. None I can think of for Marvel. I'm not sure why, at this point, any of Marvel's would be permanent. (Miles in the Ultimates, but that's a little different since Parker still has his titles in the MU)
I don't think Marvel had more discipline in the early days. Characters didn't die and get replaced. In fact, they returned from the dead pretty frequently. Storylines were often little more than "What weird thing can happen this month?" DC's early days were too long ago for me to know much about them. Not at all impressed by what I've read of them. By the 70s, there was much silliness and little discipline. Think of the Superman of those days.
I fundamentally don't agree with this. Or that it was all that different before.
Stagnant for 3 decades? '85? Ever look at comics before then?You know what the big change around that time was? Comics started to take themselves seriously. Started to be for the adult fan. The collector. Started to listen to the diehard fans and the critics.
Stopped being written mostly for kids.
That's only going to work if you can force them to do it and stick to it somehow.
You're relying on a discipline that the two companies have never had. Or ever aimed for.
What you'd really get is a reboot in a couple years to bring the old characters back.
The comics characters who have been the mainstays of the genre for 50 (and in some cases 80) years, finally need to be replaced for this generation? Despite being still more popular than any previous attempts to make relevant heroes?
I don't think so.
They need to change with the times. As they've done before and will continue to do. That requires more different writing and different approaches to the characters than either replacements or reboots.
Mind you, new versions have worked with less popular, less iconic second string characters. Ones who were actually losing their popularity, not just following the general drop in comics popularity.
Well, other than that Ford was jerk and that I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for an individual business - just one that's necessary for survival of a democracy.
I think the competition from other forms of entertainment is what's hurting comic sales. I don't think ditching their still top characters is going to fix that.
If Superman and Captain America aren't relevant anymore, why have they just had blockbuster movies? Why are they still top selling comics?
N N 959 wrote:
Honestly, 99.5% of the time I'd just ignore it. Only if someone made a point of insisting that his character never needed to go, because the rules didn't say so, would it come up at all. At which point I'd laugh and tell him he still did, even if it wasn't covered in the rules. Only if he still persisted in arguing would it go any further.
Consequences for a player being an idiot.
Unless we bring in a lot more automation, there's an awful lot more menial labor to be done in this country than we have teenagers to do it for a couple of years each.
And even with that automation, there isn't enough high-end mentally stimulating work to keep everyone working.
Education is a good thing, but not everyone can have a job that actually uses four years of college. That's not how the job market is divided. That's why even the lower end jobs have to be enough to live on.
Quark Blast wrote:
a) I don't think "average" is the point where you're not mentally capable of anything beyond flipping burgers. So it's still a vast swath.
b) It's not entirely clear that the enormous amounts given to charitable education causes actually result in "top flight" educations. Top flight education doesn't tend to look a lot like either charter schools or public school. Look where the elites send their kids.
c) Most importantly, what I think you're missing is the strict correlation between poverty and low education. One interpretation is that poor people are dumb and tend to have dumb kids, so there's no point in wasting much education on them. You're coming perilously close to this. There's a lot of evidence that actually being poor not only means you're likely exposed to less education, but that it actually makes it harder to learn. The extra stresses that come with poverty make learning harder, regardless of your basic intelligence or what kind of school you're in.
Somebody's got to flip the burgers. Or do all the other menial tasks.
We need to make that not a horrible life. I mean, it's a horrible mind-numbing job no matter what. We don't have to compound that by also making people doing it live in poverty.
N N 959 wrote:
If the player persists in saying, "I never pee because the rules don't say I have too", I might eventually apply penalties. More likely I'd just tell the player to stop being an idiot and stop playing with him if he persisted.
Or have his bladder rupture.
Abraham spalding wrote:
That's pretty tenuous, but I'll accept it. More like, my backstory gives me a reason to be in the game in the first place. A far cry from his relatives being threatened or one of his childhood rivals turning out to be a recurring villain.
Frodo, certainly. Also all kind of coming back in the scouring of the Shire.
Still, links to backstory aren't really required for roleplaying. Neither necessary, nor sufficient. Roleplaying is required for roleplaying.
Actually in the Star Wars game, I'd be more upset over the GM railroading me into being a Jedi. I wanted to play a fighter pilot.Unless of course, we'd actually talked that over out of game and agreed I'd be going that direction.
I disagree that back story having no effect on the plot of the game is anything like playing a board-game. For me, it's the in-game decisions that make that difference. For those it doesn't have to matter whether I've got a mysterious past or not. Bilbo's family history never played any role in the plot of the Hobbit. Conan's Cimmerian childhood friends and enemies never came back to haunt him (in the Howard stories at least). Their backstories influenced their characters and thus their actions, but not outside events.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I gave up trying to follow superhero continuity.
I just didn't give up superhero comics. Look for good writers who can tell good stories within the constraints of the genre. Roll with the continuity weirdness.
And by the way, Professor X first died way back in X-Men 42 in 1968. Later retconned to have faked it and let the Mimic die in his place - though I think he's been back too.
Depending on how you look at it, they haven't been able to create interesting new content since near the beginning. There have certainly been interesting new stories, though that's obviously a matter of opinion. In terms of major new breakout characters, how many has Marvel had since the 60s? Wolverine is about the only one and that was 70s. DC's mainstays date to the 30s.
Sure, it would be great if they could reliably turn out new characters that hit those heights, but they can't. And there's no reason to think that getting rid of the mainstays would change that.
You basically can't use a Musket (or other two-handed firearm) without being a Musket Master. Without Fast Musket you can't get reload times down below a move action, which means never more than 1 shot per round.If you're not going to commit to that, you might as well be a Pistolero, since it's better for one-handed firearms than the standard gunslinger.
There really isn't an effective way to switch between the two gun styles, so it really does makes sense to pick. I don't think the base gunslinger really gets used much.
You could try them both in a scenario and use your free 1st level rebuild to switch.
Matthew Downie wrote:
That's fair. They tell stories and return to roughly the same iconic character with minor variations. Seems to work.
Quark Blast wrote:
If you're poor, you face an awful lot of challenges just getting the basic education needed to be accepted to college in the first place. Best predictor of education attainment is wealth/poverty level.
Matthew Morris wrote:
They might come into their own, but I'd rather they did it as Dick did - in their own right, rather than in someone else's costume. I'd rather see Nightwing than Dickbats, other than in fairly short runs to show how he handles it and contrast with Bruce.
The problem with the big characters is that the status quo is popular. If the status quo stopped being popular, if people really did stop liking Peter Parker as Spiderman, Kal-El as Superman or Bruce Wayne as Batman and stopped buying those books, then the status quo would change. As long as they remain the popular characters, that's not going to happen - not as more than temporary storylines.
Which is fine by me.
There will always be nerdrage. I wonder what the sales numbers looked like?
But yeah, the number of fans who don't realize obviously temporary changes are intended to be temporary always astounds me. It's one thing if it fools the kids who are reading, but serious long term fans getting taken in?
Which isn't to say the alternate universes where the heroes are retired and replaced can't also be fun, as long as they stay as alternates.
Quark Blast wrote:
Except that our current plan is largely based not on "intelligence", but on wealth/poverty.Both on cost of college education and on quality of pre-college education.
thejeff your arguing that they don't get rid of big name heroes... I get that, but if superman is retired and a grown up superboy takes the name and uniform then who would really care? It would still sell under the superman title. Are you really suggesting that the ONLY superman fans will buy is the original Kal-El? And if so then how irritated will those fans be when they reboot him and wipe out every story they ever loved reading in one shot?
Not very, judging by past history. It's happened to Superman on a major scale at least 3 times now. (Silver Age, Crisis, New 52) Oh, there'll be nerdrage. There's always nerdrage, but he's stayed a mainstay the whole time.
I think people would care if Superman retires (or dies) and a grown up Superboy takes over. At least on a permanent basis. Superman is an icon and part of that is the whole orphan rocketed to earth from a dying planet thing. Just like part of Batman's iconic stature is the parent's murdered thing.
And then some editor or writer would reboot the thing anyway because they wanted to work with the "real" Superman.
Mind you, I don't think reboots are the answer. I don't think they're really needed and I don't think they really work, other than as a publicity stunt.
You're still assuming that Peter Parker needs new life breathed into him. Peter's doing just fine. You might not like him, but he's quite popular. Why are you so insistent that any fix to sales problems with other characters involve major changes to Peter Parker?
In general, I'm saying that keeping characters fresh isn't the root of the problems with either major comics universe. That their most heavily used and thus least "fresh" characters remain the most popular is evidence of that. New fresh faces tend to sell tiny fractions of the old popular ones.
Therefore any attempt to fix their problems by making things fresh, isn't going to work.
I don't understand your argument. Are you saying they need to get rid of their top sellers so that people might pay attention to their other characters?
If the big stars are selling well and the second string isn't, seems to me the problem is with the other characters. Change them up, not the ones that are selling.
Matthew Morris wrote:
I could be wrong, but I really don't think that's the direction Marvel's going. I think they're planning to merge all the universes, not keep publishing titles in multiple different ones.
It doesn't look like your plan would need a reboot at all or any real in universe justification other than some shuffling of team members and which titles get published.
The big names have had multiple title for decades. If there was some effect that caused characters who got multiple titles to become less popular, it would have taken effect long ago. They get multiple titles because they sell those titles. They make lots of crossover appearances in other titles because the sales of less known comics go up when they appear and some of those buyers stick around.
I get that you don't care for these characters anymore. They're not generally my favorites either. But people keep buying them. They keep being top sellers. It might be that our opinions don't represent the majority of the comic buying public. Or of potential new readers.
Retiring the big stars of your franchise because some of your long term readers think they're played out is just a horribly bad business idea.
But Spiderman, Superman, and Batman are still among the best sellers. They hold down multiple titles each. They're profitable movie franchises. These are the popular heroes that everyone knows and that actually sell comics. Why drastically change them?
You may be bored with them. I may even be bored with them. That doesn't mean they have a problem.
Or they could just try telling good stories with the existing characters and adding new ones as they go. Change in emphasis as needed without explicit reboots. Don't try to drive sales with giant cross-over events.
I suspect their business woes have far more to do with both actual story quality and competition from other media than with whether the characters have been rebooted or retconned or anything else.
More focus on a onramp for new, young readers might help, though I think they're doing better with this than they were when I was really following them back in the 80s/90s.
Maybe I'm looking at this too simply and the real problem is that their most popular characters have become too complicated and need to be gotten rid of or completely redone.
Freehold DM wrote:
Yeah, but there were still 3 or 4 actual Spider-man books. So nobody was losing the real Spider-man.
I agreed earlier that crippling Peter was one of the few ways you could get him to retire without betraying his characterization. Even then, I think you'd really have to tie him down. :)
Except for the bit where they reload to capacity, which throws the whole thing out of whack.
Basically, advanced firearms are an optional addition. There's some ambiguity here. Make it work however you want.
The debate here is whether the type (and whatever powers and vulnerabilities come with it) count as the bit of info for making the DC.The asking questions part is a distraction. It's one, fairly common, way of defining "useful bit of info". Generally pushed, I suspect, by players who know the monsters well and have been burned by GMs who didn't give out the info they really wanted.
I think thejeff is just repeating what I am saying back at me, lol
Except I disagree with you.
By the time you reach 15th level each character in a 4 person party could have found around 480000gp worth of stuff. Twice WBL. Not 960000gp, which would be 4X. Since they will have missed some and used some up and sold some for half price and kept some, this should put their actual wealth at that point around 240K.
What I think you're saying is that they put in 4x as much, so that if you found it all you'd have 960K, which you'd sell to get 480K, but since you'll only find half of it and sell it all you'll be on track. Is that right?