As much as I liked Batman Begins, the whole back story seemed more than a little convoluted and winding. Of course, Batman's origin had never really been fully elaborated on in a film. In the end, it just made the Dark Knight better.
I've liked the Avenger series of films so far, but I'm worried that throwing the four together will be absolute crap.
And now I'm wondering how it came to this.
Also, just wanted everyone to know that I'm not an elitist, I just play one on the internet in order to watch inane and opinionated arguments play out in front of my very eyes.
So... in other words, you're trolling.
Damn it.
I regret that I must withdraw from this thread,with apologies to Cartigan and anyone else whom I may have insulted.
“A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday.”
Also, just wanted everyone to know that I'm not an elitist, I just play one on the internet in order to watch inane and opinionated arguments play out in front of my very eyes. I totally optimize the crazy crap out of my characters, and can't stand people who want to act at the table. If you want to act out your character join a LARP community.
Hmmm...why can't we just optimize and act at the same time? ^-^
Also, just wanted everyone to know that I'm not an elitist, I just play one on the internet in order to watch inane and opinionated arguments play out in front of my very eyes. I totally optimize the crazy crap out of my characters, and can't stand people who want to act at the table. If you want to act out your character join a LARP community.Hmmm...why can't we just optimize and act at the same time? ^-^
I optimize my acting while acting like an optimizer.
(I know I said I was done but I just had to)
Also, just wanted everyone to know that I'm not an elitist, I just play one on the internet in order to watch inane and opinionated arguments play out in front of my very eyes. I totally optimize the crazy crap out of my characters, and can't stand people who want to act at the table. If you want to act out your character join a LARP community.Hmmm...why can't we just optimize and act at the same time? ^-^I optimize my acting while acting like an optimizer.
(I know I said I was done but I just had to)
Nicely done!! I'd close with that one.
Nicely done!! I'd close with that one.Also, just wanted everyone to know that I'm not an elitist, I just play one on the internet in order to watch inane and opinionated arguments play out in front of my very eyes. I totally optimize the crazy crap out of my characters, and can't stand people who want to act at the table. If you want to act out your character join a LARP community.Hmmm...why can't we just optimize and act at the same time? ^-^I optimize my acting while acting like an optimizer.
(I know I said I was done but I just had to)
I would've,but I feel it is impolite to not respond to a compliment. Almost as impolite as chewing with my mouth open. Not quite as impolite as trolling. More impolite than not responding to an insult.
More impolite than not responding to an insult.
Really? I think not responding to an insult is an admirable display of self control. One I wish I were more capable of displaying.
More impolite than not responding to an insult.Really? I think not responding to an insult is an admirable display of self control. One I wish I were more capable of displaying.
Yeah looking back that was kind of unclear. REPHRASE: I feel that ignoring a compliment is impolite AS OPPOSED TO ignoring an insult. END REPHRASE. (the caps are just to stress the point of the rephrase,not trying to shout.)
Hmm. I watched as the entirety of the Melnibonean and Cthulhu myths were ripped from the game in 1st edition, not to mention Paladins becoming a sub-class of some new kid on the block called a 'Cavalier'.
I saw the entirety of devils and demons ripped screaming from the Monster Manuals in 2nd edition, and lots of previously legal multi-classes removed, and lots of now-legal multiclasses added.
Third edition completely destroyed the way demi-humans multi-classed, added huge amounts of rules that focused on the battle grid.
Setting wise, I saw Greyhawk replaced by some upstart world called 'Forgotten Realms'. I watched as Castle Ravenloft was retconned from one of the greatest adventures ever into a weird pocket dimension of dread. I played in games that incorporated science fiction tech into my fantasy world.
I don't think 4th edition has a stranglehold on massive changes to the game system.
link
Are you here to retire me, Evil Lincoln?
Hmm. I watched as the entirety of the Melnibonean and Cthulhu myths were ripped from the game in 1st edition
How can setting information be ripped from a set of rules?
The Chronicles are rich in Mythos, by the way.
not to mention Paladins becoming a sub-class of some new kid on the block called a 'Cavalier'.
A paladin is a paladin is a paladin. The guys defending all that is good and honourable.
Whether it's a base class, prestige class, sub-class, archetype, advanced class, paragon path, class-change, or whatever, it remains a paladin.
Ask a paladin (the character, not his player and yes, I know that this will be hard as they're all imaginary) whether he knows whether his class is a base class or a kit. You'll get blank stares.
The rules change. It's the story that has to remain the same.
I saw the entirety of devils and demons ripped screaming from the Monster Manuals in 2nd edition
That was just political crap, as some foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics accused D&D of being satanic.
And As far as I remember they kept them. They just did some sneaky renaming. Now suddenly, we have baatezu (read: devils) and tarar'ri (read: demons). They kept a low profile, but they didn't really go anywhere.
and lots of previously legal multi-classes removed, and lots of now-legal multiclasses added.
Third edition completely destroyed the way demi-humans multi-classed
3e opened the way. Envison your character. Find what works best and go with that.
It was a lot more straightforward than saying "elves are forbidden from becoming bards (but look at that shiny minstrel kit!)" and "dwarves can't be wizards (but look, we have gold dwarves that can!)"
Setting wise, I saw Greyhawk replaced by some upstart world called 'Forgotten Realms'.
What do you mean, "replaced"? Greyhawk remained Greyhawk. It did not go anywhere.
I don't think 4th edition has a stranglehold on massive changes to the game system.
You completely miss my point. You go on and on about rules changes. About new fictional worlds.
I specifically said that it has nothing to do with rules changes. It has to do with changes that affect the story. Like creatures being changed for no reason.
wotc4e apparently felt that the old stories should not work with the new rules. They felt that the old stories didn't fit the new rules.
They made extensive changes to the Forgotten Realms, for example. Why? To make it work with 4e, to adapt the story to the rules (instead of the other way around). To make it "Points of Light".
Beside the fact that the rules must serve the story, not the other way around, this was one of the things that made it clear to me that they're doing a new game. And a new game world to go along with it. They just wanted the extra profit the old names would generate, so they put old stickers on new product.
How can setting information be ripped from a set of rules?
Simple. My copy of Deities and Demigods didn't have them. My friend's copy did. The ability to use these in your D&D campaign was dependent on which printing you had.
A paladin is a paladin is a paladin. The guys defending all that is good and honourable.
Whether it's a base class, prestige class, sub-class, archetype, advanced class, paragon path, class-change, or whatever, it remains a paladin.
Ask a paladin (the character, not his player and yes, I know that this will be hard as they're all imaginary) whether he knows whether his class is a base class or a kit. You'll get blank stares.
The rules change. It's the story that has to remain the same.
Actually, the entire fluff of WHO paladins were were changed as well. They were attached to the horrible Social Standing/Social Class, and required to modify what armor and weapons they wore etc etc.
(Re: Devils and Demons)
I saw the entirety of devils and demons ripped screaming from the Monster Manuals in 2nd editionThat was just political crap, as some foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics accused D&D of being satanic.
And As far as I remember they kept them. They just did some sneaky renaming. Now suddenly, we have baatezu (read: devils) and tarar'ri (read: demons). They kept a low profile, but they didn't really go anywhere.
Political crap or not, they were completely gone for several instances of the Monster Manual. I fail to see an inherent difference between succubi and erinyes being retconned, and the ENTIRETY of Hell and the Abyss being ripped out of the game for a significant period of time. Except for the bit where one of them was orders of magnitude greater in effect.
Setting wise, I saw Greyhawk replaced by some upstart world called 'Forgotten Realms'.What do you mean, "replaced"? Greyhawk remained Greyhawk. It did not go...
I mean replaced, in that the support for Greyhawk completely dried up. Forgotten Realms was the golden child. The Greyhawk novels went from the entertaining drek of Gord the Rogue to not-so-entertaining drek. The campaign setting wasn't updated for 2nd edition. It was no longer supported in any meaningful way.
Points of Light isn't a new idea, by any means... Greyhawk was a Points of Light campaign world, they just didn't call it that.
And, I may be dense, but I simply can't see how 4e doesn't let you tell the same kinds of stories you could tell in 1e, 2e, or 3e. Maybe if I understood that, I'd get it. But you can't tell me that I should gloss over the loss of entire pantheons of outsiders, and say that Erinyes and Succubi being changed broke the game for you.
Actually, it was supposedly an ancient Babylonian tablet from 2000BC. However, no source mentioning what the tablet was or where it came from aside from a book from the early 20th century, referencing it as an anecdote as well. Thus it never actually existed that far back.
If you want to argue the republic is a modern fake, go for it.
The newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them.
What do you mean?
I mean such things as these: --when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me?
Is that true? I said.
That is my belief, he replied.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.5.iv.html
Actually, it was supposedly an ancient Babylonian tablet from 2000BC. However, no source mentioning what the tablet was or where it came from aside from a book from the early 20th century, referencing it as an anecdote as well. Thus it never actually existed that far back.If you want to argue the republic is a modern fake, go for it.
The newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them.
What do you mean?
I mean such things as these: --when the young are to be silent before their elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing and making them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoes are to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me?Is that true? I said.
That is my belief, he replied.
Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens.http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.5.iv.html
While I agree with the sentiment you present with this point...
I believe Plato's civilization did indeed fall... Yes?if the point is that this is an argument made through out time... picking the one where the speaker was ultimately proven right is not the best tactic. no?
|
Just because you played AD&D back in high school doesn't make you the god of 3rd edition or Pathfinder some 30 years later. It just means you get to learn a new system like everyone else. You can save the waxing nostalgic for other gray haired gamers instead of using it to look down on people just joining the hobby either tabula rasa or from mmorpgs.
So you make assumptions about people that have played 30+ years, and we are the one making assumptions and looking down on people. I am tired of you vitriol and acidic commentary about people who basically do not agree with you. I have played 33+ years and do not even pretend to know the rules backwards and forwards. What 33+ years gives me is that I have experience playing and having seen all kinds of playstyles to know that one can not be easily put in to a "Playstyle".
There is individual people that use elitism when they game and it is not a particular group of people that play a particular playstyle that do. If anything Cartigan you show quite a bit of elitism yourself in how you group people together and then think that it is ok to do so and to stereotype people the way you seem to do quite a often.. often enough that it is rather presumptuous on your part to do so, especially when you talk about others doing it and in the same sentence do what you accuse them of doing.
Come, let's troll
Troll across the floor
Come, let's tro-oh-oh-oll
Troll across the floor
Now turn around, baby
Let's troll once more
Feel so good
Take me by my hand
I feel so goo-ooh-ooh-ood
Take me by my hand
And let's go trolling
In wonderland
Trollin', , trollin' aah-huh-uh
Rock and ro-uh-oh-oh-oh-oh-llin'
Trollin'
Well rock my so-oul
How I love to troll
There's my love
Trolling in the door
There's my lo-o-o-ove
Trolling in the door
Baby, let's go trolling
By the candy store
I believe Plato's civilization did indeed fall... Yes?
if the point is that this is an argument made through out time... picking the one where the speaker was ultimately proven right is not the best tactic. no?
Really? When?
I believe Plato's civilization did indeed fall... Yes?
if the point is that this is an argument made through out time... picking the one where the speaker was ultimately proven right is not the best tactic. no?Really? When?
Greece fell to Rome due to the complacency of its populace...
and then Rome fell under its own weight and hubris.
Angry stuff!! Grr!!Just because you played AD&D back in high school doesn't make you the god of 3rd edition or Pathfinder some 30 years later. It just means you get to learn a new system like everyone else. You can save the waxing nostalgic for other gray haired gamers instead of using it to look down on people just joining the hobby either tabula rasa or from mmorpgs.
I don't think he was saying that anyone who has played for a long time is a jerk. He was specifically saying that people who have (A) played a long time and (B) use that as a platform to look down upon others are being jerky.
There is no need to get crazy. If you are saying that there is no correct playstyle and that you use your experience to really only know that it's a game and it's meant to be fun (I think that is what you are saying but I'm not totally sure), then really you're not disagreeing with what Cartigan and others are arguing, though you may disagree with how he and they are arguing it.
I believe Plato's civilization did indeed fall... Yes?
if the point is that this is an argument made through out time... picking the one where the speaker was ultimately proven right is not the best tactic. no?Really? When?
Greece fell to Rome due to the complacency of its populace...
and then Rome fell under its own weight and hubris.
And greek civilization continued, under new management. Even that was.. what.. 210 years after the republic was written?
EVERY generation considers the generation after it privileged indolent and lazy.
I believe Plato's civilization did indeed fall... Yes?
if the point is that this is an argument made through out time... picking the one where the speaker was ultimately proven right is not the best tactic. no?Really? When?
Greece fell to Rome due to the complacency of its populace...
and then Rome fell under its own weight and hubris.And greek civilization continued, under new management. Even that was.. what.. 210 years after the republic was written?
EVERY generation considers the generation after it privileged indolent and lazy.
I concede the point.
|
|
I keep seeing people claiming this, but have never actually seen any statistics to back it up. How true is it? Got any data?Seriously, there are vastly less people playing the hobby than there were in the 80's. Anyone supporting the hobby is good. It means better and more diverse products for everyone.
Demigorgon,
I actually think that you are very incorrect in your figures. I think that yes there are less people playing D&D then there was in the 80's BUT I think that there are MORE people playing RPG's in general, including MMORPG's. But yes I do agree that anyone supporting the hobby is a good thing... but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.
Simple. My copy of Deities and Demigods didn't have them. My friend's copy did. The ability to use these in your D&D campaign was dependent on which printing you had.
Wow. You never got the idea that you could use them even if they weren't in your book? All they did was erase the information. They didn't have a MM entry "Great Old One: This is a oversized, old giant". Or "In the year of the Slithering Snake, all Great Old Ones vanished from the Multiverse and could never come back"
Political crap or not, they were completely gone for several instances of the Monster Manual.
Again, they didn't have an entry: "Devil: This is an elemental creature that has a horned head" or anything like that.
They didn't give you the information, but you could still use them, the same as they always were. They weren't changing them, basically saying that the old versions aren't "right" any more.
I mean replaced, in that the support for Greyhawk completely dried up.
What does that have to do with anything? The stories never changed. Greyhawk was still Greyhawk. They didn't crash another planet into Oerth or anything.
Points of Light isn't a new idea, by any means... Greyhawk was a Points of Light campaign world, they just didn't call it that.
And that's the point. It was just one way a setting could be. The way the 4e propaganda sounded, 4e HAD to be Points of Light. With capitals and all. The Realms were wrecked to make them more Points of Light. They didn't just stop doing Realms stuff. They tore up the setting and changed it to fit the new rules.
I wouldn't let the MMORPG players count, not when we're talking about our hobby, which is pen and paper RPGs. It's just too different a medium.
I'm not saying it's completely different in all aspects, or that it's bad, but we're talking about PnP RPGs and how less people play them, and the WoW crowd doesn't count towards that total.
but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.
I honestly wonder how "bad" this was. It seems that D&D got a huge upsurge in popularity due to it being this dark horrible thing that the media and associated busybodies clamored about how you shouldn't be able to have.
<snip>
Ok, So all the changes I've seen can just be ignored or retconned by tha players, but the changes you saw can't?
What stops you from statting up an Erinyes or saying a Succubus is still a demon?
Maybe I'm confused. You said that 4e was not D&D becuase of fluff changes made. I pointed out that 4e doesn't have a stranglehold on sweeping fluff changes. You tell me I should have ignored those fluff changes and just kept playing with those things, or change things back to the old way.
You say Greyhawk didn't change, but that is untrue. The material that came out for Greyhawk after Gygax got ousted DID change Greyhawk, assuming you used it. They decided to just stop supporting it very quickly though.
And now you're saying that 4e propaganda says the 4e campaign HAD to be points of light... and yet, my 4e campaign that I started as soon as the ruleset came out *wasn't* points of light. Nothing stops you from continuing to play with the Realms as they were in earlier editions. If you don't like things, change them. That has always been my position.
For the record, we kept Cthulhu Mythos creatures in our game. We did not have our Paladin become a sub-class of Cavalier with all the fluffy baggage that entailed. We still played with Demons and Devils in 2nd edition. Etc etc...
What we didn't do during any and all of these changes was claim that we were being forced to play one way vs another, or that the new edition 'wasn't D&D'.
My first serious campaign was a huge series of dungeon crawls, based around Hommlet, with multiple forays into the Temple of Elemental Evil. We had occasional asides, to White Plume Mountain, to Castle Ravenloft, to Dungeonland. This type of campaign can be emulated perfectly in the 4e ruleset. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, if 4e 'isn't D&D', then 1e can't be D&D either.
In fact, I'm unsure exactly what 'style' of D&D can be played in non-4e D&D that *can't* be played in 4e. If the argument is completely '4e isn't D&D because they broke the realms and changed a couple monsters', then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.I honestly wonder how "bad" this was. It seems that D&D got a huge upsurge in popularity due to it being this dark horrible thing that the media and associated busybodies clamored about how you shouldn't be able to have.
It made D&D the game equivalent of rock music! Be cool! Piss off your parents!
Well, not quite, but it could have. I blame an insufficient amount of cheezecake and beefcake in the art.
|
|
but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.I honestly wonder how "bad" this was. It seems that D&D got a huge upsurge in popularity due to it being this dark horrible thing that the media and associated busybodies clamored about how you shouldn't be able to have.
Having played and loved through this time (the 80's) it was fairly bad. The stigma that was associated with the name of D&D in general was almost enough to not really want to play. My parents almost had a conniption when they found out I was playing a "satanic" game and forbade me to play ever again. So I had to sneak around them... and actually got a weekly group in my church going of all places WITH the youth pastor as a player too hehe.
Having played and loved through this time (the 80's) it was fairly bad. The stigma that was associated with the name of D&D in general was almost enough to not really want to play. My parents almost had a conniption when they found out I was playing a "satanic" game and forbade me to play ever again. So I had to sneak around them... and actually got a weekly group in my church going of all places WITH the youth pastor as a player too hehe.but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.I honestly wonder how "bad" this was. It seems that D&D got a huge upsurge in popularity due to it being this dark horrible thing that the media and associated busybodies clamored about how you shouldn't be able to have.
Early '80s? Almost all of my D&D group's meetings were at my church back then, and the majority of the group belonged to the church. Heh.
Maybe it was because my father was in the military and I moved around a lot. I had heard of the 'evils' of D&D, but just never saw much of it. I also dabbled in a lot of other games. Gamma World, James Bond, DC Heroes
'83-'84 Ca. I do not remember the city, Our Lady of Perpetual Heart Catholic School
Six months in '85 Hawley, Tx.
'85-'86 Guantanamo Bay Cuba (yes, that Guantanamo)
'87-'88 Novato, Ca.
Demigorgon,
I actually think that you are very incorrect in your figures. I think that yes there are less people playing D&D then there was in the 80's BUT I think that there are MORE people playing RPG's in general, including MMORPG's. But yes I do agree that anyone supporting the hobby is a good thing... but I would rather not get the a bad name associated with it like there was in the 80's having been through that dark time in Role Playing.
As Kae Yoss pointed out you can't really count MMORPGs in with RPGs in this particular discussion. That said, my figures come from people who work at Paizo. Even though sales figures are 10% of what they once were, I do not think that their are 10% of the players there were in the 80's. But the facts seem to show that there are less pen and paper RPG players than there were in the 80's.
I'm not saying the hobby is doomed, or dying, or that in twenty years people won't be playing D&D. Personally I think the hobby has just dropped off from the gargantuan numbers it had in the 80's. It seems to have leveled off, and their are people who can still make a living making RPGs- which is really all that matters.
And to my original point: All us groganrds shouldn't frick on the new guys, we should be happy there are new guys.
The first RPG I owned was Traveler in the seventies. I started playing DnD fall of seventy nine.
'79? NEWB! :)
'85-'86 Guantanamo Bay Cuba (yes, that Guantanamo)
That explains a lot.