Felonstream's page

Wow.

Dennis Wheatley sounds really interesting.

Thanks for the tip. Probably not right for Planet Stories, but I'm going to have to pick up some of those occult library books.

Wheatley was a writer I thought of suggesting, but he didn't seem exactly right for the series Paizo is producing. Besides which, most of his work is still actively in-print (on this side of the Atlantic, at least) so I don't know how copyright would work out. Many of his themes are grounded in real-world occultism (predominantly Satanism), which doesn't tie too well into the pulp fantasy genre.

Another possibility is to take the players completely out of their comfort zone by dropping them into a world with an entirely different social structure. A cruel, anarchic place where orcs, gnolls, or somesuch bad guys are the dominant species and all other humanoids are inferiors, minorities or outright slaves. For the standard PC races, even a wayside village could be as hostile as a low-level dungeon and securing weapons, supplies and provisions could well become more vital (and dangerous) than looting treasure.
Such a setting gives very definite campaign goals (firstly, survival and then guerilla warfare to carve out a safe haven for themselves and their fellow sufferers - perhaps using powerful artefacts liberated from local dungeons or the ruins of previous societies) and you could structure these goals towards the final end whilst allowing the players complete freedom in how they attain them.
Of course, it rather turns the usual concepts on their heads when adventurers have to hide their equipment and adopt an air of submissiveness before entering a tavern or town and they can only feel safe(ish) in carefully prepared dens in the wilderness, but that's all part of delivering a new and challenging experience to veterans with preconceptions of how D&D worlds 'ought' to work.
You could, of course, just get them all to play orcs or gnolls and drop them into a 'normal' world, for pretty much the same effect, but in this way, you let them remain the 'good guys' and benefit from a certain righteous zeal towards reformation.
Speaking of reformation, another idea would be to have them all members of a religion that is distinctly at odds with the main religion of the state in which they live. You (or, preferably, your players) can choose where good and evil lies and then the goal can be to advance their own interests against the current establishment in an entirely different way. This approach lends itself more to urban intrigue and still allows PCs to benefit from the local taverns and markets if they keep a low profile, whilst still placing them in an unremittingly hostile environment that will tax their skills in ways that they may never have encounterd before.
Finally, you could turn an old roleplaying cliche on its head. For example, the PCs are approached by a noble who tells them his lower-class lover has been consigned to a mental asylum by his family and wants them to rescue her. Unbeknownst to them, the noble is disturbed and delusional, but the name and description he gives (tallying with a milkmaid on his father's estate) coincidentally matches that of a real inmate who has been seriously abused by someone with the same name as the noble (and isn't going to react well to people trying to 'rescue' her and take her to someone of that name). If your players like planning elaborate operations, then they'll face all sorts of trouble getting into the place, forcibly removing the unwilling prisoner and being met by disbelief and scorn when they proudly present their 'damsel in distress' to their patron. With any luck, the runaway nobleman's family will intercede and pay them well for their silence, but they could equally decide to eliminate the PCs to save the family reputation. This can be done at almost any level and afterwards the players might well feel grateful for the opportunity to go back to beating up goblins and kobolds for a while.

Felonstream wrote:

If anyone is still watching this thread with any degree of interest, then might I suggest the works of William Hope Hodgson?

We're always watching this thread. :) Hodgson was somebody I looked into pretty early on, after I read an homage to "The Night Lands" which blew my socks off, but all the works I knew about was still in print and relatively easy to find. May have to take another look, though...

Thanks for replying James. As I said, I don't know exactly how the copyright issues go, particularly with internet availability going on, but I have had real difficulty getting hold of a printed Carnacki collection myself. The odd story turns up in anthologies, of course, but the modestly innocuous little paperback that I borrowed from the library fifteen years ago has taken on the mantle of a holy grail since then.

All the very best!

If anyone is still watching this thread with any degree of interest, then might I suggest the works of William Hope Hodgson? In particular,the stories that deal with Carnacki the Ghost-finder. A few of these (such as "The Whistling Room")are freely available on the internet (although perhaps shortened or edited, depending on where you look), but I don't know exactly how the copyright might work for republishing.
I suggest these stories because they seem tailor-made for use by D&D, Call of Cthulu and D20 Modern altogether, with but minimal adaption.
There is a sort of a Sherlock Holmes-y type of feel to the stories, but that's only because they're set in the 19th Century with a fairly know-it-all sort of protagonist. The themes behind the stories are golden, however:
Firstly, ghosts are dangerous - hugely so. Secondly, ghosts might be allied or related to horrible elder powers from a barely-understood spirit-world. Thirdly, those who must deal with ghosts or the unseen powers might, if they are fortunate enough, have knowledge of ancient rituals to exert control over the unliving. Finally, technological safeguards may just be available - such as the 'electric pentacle' composed of electric tube-lights - that might ward against the machinations of evil.
If these are available for re-printing, I'd highly recommend them for the job. They should inspire gamers and even if they do not, they ought to do a decent job of being genuinely scary in a clasically nasty sort of way...

Once, a long time ago, a 1st edition Ranger character of mine was exploring a dungeon and came upon a pillar of stone set with numerous red and blue gems. It suddenly became hugely important to me that my character get at least one gem of each colour. Why? Because I had recently finished reading the Mika trilogy (a series of Greyhawk Adventures books by Rose Estes - in case some of the younger folk haven't heard of them) and in these, the hero gets hold of a blue gem that hugely enhances his spell-casting ability. Later on, he combines it with a matching red gem, the two blend into one and he is pretty much granted total mastery of magic with very little effort or study.
Being young, foolish and easily-influenced, I naturally assumed that the red and blue gems on the pillar were exactly the same miraculous magic-granting stones that I had read about. I didn't stop to think that a pillar completely covered with near-miraculous and obviously priceless artifacts was an unlikely garnish to a third-level dungeon - it never even occurred to me that they might just be rubies and sapphires. As far as I was concerned, this was an opportunity for my Ranger to gain all the powers of an Archmage without the boring levelling-up process.
My character attempted to lever a red gem out with his dagger and was immediately hit in the face by a blast of poisonous gas. Forced to retreat from the area, he waited for the gas to disperse and then went back to try his luck with a blue gem. Once again, his ill-advised prying led to a faceful of poison gas and a hasty retreat. Obviously this was a puzzle. Sadly, the difficulty made me even more convinced that these were wonderful magical treasures.
I'm afraid that I attempted ingenuity in the form of a homemade gas-mask. I'll not bore you with all of the fine details, but the upshot was that my character, after a frenzied attempt to dig as many stones out of the pillar as possible (unsuccessful in every attempt, by the way), was left unconscious on the floor with an ineffective, but highly embarrasssing, urine-soaked cloth tied around his face.
Two other party members had to rush in and drag him out by the ankles, suffering undesirable gas effects themselves in the process.
To this day, the precise nature of those gems remains a mystery, but the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe that it was possibly a trap of some kind.

"zom-BEE" or "zom-B-eye?"

zom-BIH. Never give away a double-e when you don't have to. The necromancer may be playing scrabble after all....

I was going to type a great, long post about all my memories of Doctor Who from childhood to the present day, but mature reflection has revealed to me that it wouldn't be very interesting for anyone else to read. Edited highlights instead:
I grew up with Tom Baker. Really, he's the Doctor as far as I'm concerned (although I have some vague memories of Jon Pertwee from the time and excellent opinions of his performance in the re-runs I've seen). I know that I used to have a large Doctor Who action figure (Action Man/G.I. Joe size) modelled on Tom Baker. It came with a TARDIS that the figure could be placed in and it would disappear and reappear through a cunning mechanism inside. I really do hope that it's still knocking around at my parents' house somewhere, but my mother has a mania for throwing things away, so in all likelihood, it's landfill by now.
Peter Davidson worked fine for me and he was the Doctor that appeared in the first storylines that I fully understood (Tom Baker had the presence and authority, but I was of an age where I was either overawed by his persona or scared sh*tless by Davros, so whilst I respected him deeply, I never quite appreciated all of the subtlety he brought to the role). Davidson was good and the show was doing well in the viewing figures, but the next two Doctors just couldn't carry the can. Admittedly, there were some pretty flat storylines, but neither Colin Baker nor Sylvester McCoy quite 'worked'. A real shame, which resulted in the show's disappearance for some time.
I remember the hype for the Paul McGann resurrection of Doctor Who and I'm sure that he did a great job of it, but they put it on around new year (some year, any year) when I was discharging my duties to be hugely drunk in a party somewhere, so I never saw the episodes.
I did think that Chistopher Eccleston did a fantastic job of reviving the character, and David Tennant, if anything, is even better. Lots of emotional interaction alongside your space horrors. I would honestly have to say that, as much as I loved the old programmes, the new series with Eccleston and Tennant have really pushed the envelope and they're the ones that I am most likely to go out of my way to watch again.

I believe that Sidhe is properly pronounced SHEE in Gaelic, so that's what I go with.
Aasimar is an interesting one from an American English/British English viewpoint. If you start with a short vowel sound it comes out as Ass-i-mar, but a long vowel sound makes it Arse-i-mar. The poor fellows are going to be the butt of a few jokes either way.

It might be a good idea to wind this thread up now. The original poster only meant to say that regardless of how 4th ed. turns out, we will still have 3.0/3.5 to play with, if necessary. Which makes good sense. After all, we could all still be playing 1st edition if we wanted to (and I'm prepared to bet that a good few people on here still do). Unfortunately, the message got a little confused along the way.
Which is not to say that Krome et al. didn't make some good, pertinent points, because they did; we cannot yet be sure of exactly how 4th ed. will pan out or what it will mean to the numerous independent publishers who have so far made good use of the OGL. Speculation without further information is somewhat pointless, but I'd go along with the opinion that Erik Mona has probably got a better insight than the rest of us.
There haven't really been any truly contradictory viewpoints expressed on here yet, but a fight has ensued nonetheless. We don't really need to fall out at this point and start slinging mud (and pointed personal observations) at each other. As of now, we don't know enough to be either wildly excited or clinically depressed, so it really isn't worth falling out amongst ourselves on sheer speculation, optimistic or pessimistic as it may be.

I'm going to throw in some old Games Workshop offerings that always worked as two-player games for me. You'll probably have to go poking about on ebay for them, if you didn't catch them first time around, but they're good fun if you can get them:

1) The Fury of Dracula - absolutely superb for being immediately recognisable to anyone in its intentions and concepts. Will support four players, but brilliantly playable with two. Lovely board, excellent cards and counters. A real joy to play, with the 'hunters' having to plan desperate travels around 19th century Europe (with its obvious limitations - particularly in the East) and the Dracula player (in a very GM position), trying to keep his undead machinations secret from everyone. This is a fantastic game that I cannot recommend highly enough.

2) Chaos Marauders. This was a card-dealing game designed for the drunken and raucous. Each player had a sheet upon which battle lines could be drawn. The available troops were very much of the orcish disposition, as drawn by cards and complete battle-line v. non-complete battle-line combat. Trading, drawing, fighting and stealing tended to result in much player-based merriment. It was usually, and intentionally, a great big, violent mess. But happily self-contained fun for anyone owning the game, of course.

3) We can never overlook Space Hulk, and nor should we. This may well be one of the best immediate-action two-person games ever developed. A very simple, yet straightforward, games system that covers absolutely every point of conflict that the two players of the game are going to create between themselves. Space Hulk was always one of my favourite games because it could be set up very quickly, with immediately-variable boards, and played through quickly in a fashion that was generally taut and scary as hell for both players...

Let's throw something new into the mix...

How about duergar?

I started off with DWARE-gar myself, but I'm now given to understand that DEW-er-gar is correct. Anyone else have thoughts or opinions?

I don't like to think about how long I've been waiting for this. Didn't the original WH40K Rogue Trader come out in 1987? I remember eagerly awaiting that for Christmas and feeling utterly transported when it arrived (it was full of fantastic artwork, photos of painted miniatures in exciting dioramas and hobby projects for making alien scenery). It was absolutely f***ing brilliant! I wanted a deeper immersion experience even then.
It's rather sad that twenty years later, I'm still childishly excited at the prospect of finally 'getting involved' on an individual roleplaying level.
Strangely enough, whilst I think that Star Wars roleplay is a cool system and full of wonderful adventuring potential, WH40K roleplay resonates deeper. I had certainly seen all of the original Star Wars trilogy more than once when Rogue Trader first appeared and I'm still a big fan, so I find this difficult to explain. Perhaps, there's a certain age where child meets grown-up and the boundaries merge, or perhaps I'm more able to engage with the nightmarish disaster of 40K now that I'm 'grown-up' and cynical (read: working).
Whatever the reason, I'm going to end up buying this system, even if I never play it. It'll draw something of a line under a long-running unfulfilled desire.
Mind you, if I remember right, there were going to be three different 40K roleplaying games from Black Industries, each potentialy building on the others, but presenting different bases from which to adventure. The first, as advertised, is being a member of an Inquisitorial retinue (which ties in with the Inquisitor 'large miniature/roleplaying-ish' game from GW a few years ago). It should be good, and I can think of some good adventure hooks, but I wish I could remember what the other two were supposed to be about. I can't find the explanatory news post from Black Industries that I read a while ago, but I remember thinking that at least one of the follow-up games sounded even better.

I pronounce drow "disease vector."

The very next chance I get, I'm going to play a half-disease vector rogue. My character will break into butcher's shops, bakeries and taverns in the small hours of the morning and, instead of pilfering the strongbox, he'll push his grubby fingers into the food and snivel all over the preparation surfaces. A couple of days later, he'll be able to commit the most audacious crimes ever seen and no-one will be in a fit state to stop him. Even if anyone recovers sufficiently to catch him, they won't dare execute him in case his bloated, disease-ridden body explodes and fatally infects the whole town.

I know...all those drow, crammed together in those caves with no ventilation, and those Lolth clerics don't go around curing disease to be nice....it's a tuberculosis breeding factory.

And just think of all those fungal spores drifting around the Underdark. The average drow lung must be full of them. A cough or a sneeze at the wrong moment could leave you wishing for good, old-fashioned ergotism.

Unquestionably, it rhymes with Thiefling.

As for the latter, I invite you to all use the simple mnemonic, "The drow coughs as he plows the tough dough."

Well I just hope that he was wearing a face mask, or I certainly shan't be buying his bread.

I started typing my last several posts ago. I hate it when you go off to type a response, finally post it, and then find that everyone else has covered the issue and moved on....

The problem with 'sow' is that it could rhyme with 'now' (as in a female pig) or with 'go' (as in sowing seeds), so it's not particularly helpful as a pronunciation guide. Personally, I pronounce 'drow' to rhyme with 'now', cow' and 'bough'.
There's no real harm in people pronouncing various names (which are fictional after all) differently - plenty of real words get exactly the same treatment - just so long as your playing group knows what you mean. The only real danger of rhyming 'drow' with 'go' that I can think of is that it might be confused with a quick or slurred rendition of 'derro', but that's unlikely to happen if everyone is used to it (and they don't get as drunk as my group seem to routinely manage).
I agree totally about 'lich' rhyming with 'ditch' though.

After some minutes of sitting here loudly talking to myself, I've decided that I actually do say TEEF-ling rather than TEA-fling, but it's a very fine distinction. In either case, the 'f' is an unvoiced aspirant that pretty much bridges the syllables in normal speech.

Apparently I do have a strong accent, because there is a distinct difference between 'tiefling' and 'teethling' when I say them. I am sure that there would be less distinction if I came from the South-East of England rather than the North-East and perhaps this would be the case with American accents in general as well, so it probably isn't a bad rule-of-thumb.
The one thing that I am absolutely certain of though, is that it's a good job I'm not typing this at work - my colleagues would almost certainly have responded to my vocal experiments by calling security long ago.

I always went for TEA-fling myself. I believe the word is derived from German, in which the second vowel of an adjacent pair normally carries the weight of pronunciation.

Felonstream wrote:

It's hugely ironic that he should be so savagely opposed to suspension of disbelief considering the scenarios that he comes up with and the messages that he's trying to peddle.

I don't know, I think most kids who believe in Santa generally end up killing another child by the age of 8 and finding themselves next to Osama Bin Laden on the FBI's most wanted list. There's a few who transcend such abuse but not many. I should know...I was one of those Santa believers. Luckily, I got help. But I'm one of the lucky ones.

Yeah, you're right. I suppose that I was in denial - blanking out my memories of the yearly schoolyard bloodbaths as each generation of children discovered the awful truth. What a terrible price we pay for our unreasonable addiction to charming whimsy...

...and now I've read Chick's bizarre attack on Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Whoever said that he was attacking imagination in general hit the nail right on the head. What a bloody fruitcake!
It's hugely ironic that he should be so savagely opposed to suspension of disbelief considering the scenarios that he comes up with and the messages that he's trying to peddle.

Just looked through the MST3K script - pretty good. It also got me to notice something that I had overlooked when reading through Dark Dungeon originally. I had largely ignored the footnotes, having no interest in looking up the 'relevant' passages in the Bible and so I didn't notice the one that recommended burning the works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis as well as D&D manuals and rock music. Events in the movie industry over the last few years must have hit Chick pretty hard.

Of course, if you're opposed to anything that can be found in an occult bookstore, then you'll have to expect constant setbacks, as such trappings of Beelzebub as shelves, carpets and light fittings continue to proliferate.

It just gets better. All of the endorsements from brain-washed pre-teens who have been able to "Witness!" (or "Witless!")thanks to the unthinkingly dogmatic, racist cartoons of Mr. Chick cannot fail to fill any heart with eternal joy. Provided that the heart in question is extremely facile and mentally defective, of course.
Obviously, playing as much D&D as possible is one of the easiest ways to c*%* a snook at such ill-informed bigotry. Let's keep those d20s rolling....

I can't believe it censored me! What if I'd wanted to C*%* a rifle, or been concerned about the wellbeing of my male poultry (my c*%* is not attending to the hens as he should, perhaps he needs something more in his diet)? I should just have said "bite a thumb" instead....

It just gets better. All of the endorsements from brain-washed pre-teens who have been able to "Witness!" (or "Witless!")thanks to the unthinkingly dogmatic, racist cartoons of Mr. Chick cannot fail to fill any heart with eternal joy. Provided that the heart in question is extremely facile and mentally defective, of course.
Obviously, playing as much D&D as possible is one of the easiest ways to cock a snook at such ill-informed bigotry. Let's keep those d20s rolling....

With reference to the Chick cartoons, I love the way that he 'proves' the Bible is the only true scripture by quoting from...the Bible. Priceless circular reasoning that he expands to cover the evils of D&D, other religions etc. I suppose that we should feel honoured that we, as players of D&D are regarded as great a threat to the world as Jews, Muslims, foreigners in general and anyone who isn't in Jack Chick's church. In fact, we are exposed as greater exponents of evil, because we're all working up to a career of active devil-worship. Somehow or other. Mind you, I may be stopped from selling my soul directly to someone out of the Fiendish Codex, because I am from England and (according to Chick) Islam has already brought England to it's knees. I must say it's news to me, but then again, I understand that there is a small and modest mosque within a few miles of here, so doubtless I'm languishing under the shadow of the crescent without knowing it. Although I am drinking Scotch at the moment, so maybe not.
I would have laughed a good deal more at his ignorant, transparently unsubtle propaganda, were it not for the uncomfortable knowledge, in the back of my mind, that some people do actually believe this crap. And if you read through it all, it's a hell of a lot to believe. Chick and his Fundie friends apparently adhere to the very real belief that demons truly exist. Not only that, but said demons are forever lurking in the wings, just out of sight, ready to take over an innocent body or mind that is insufficiently defended. Moreover, they appear convinced that these demons will grant magical powers that actually work to anyone willing to stand in a pentagram in a dressing-gown (c.f. Debbie's successful 'mind bondage' spell in the 'Black Leaf' comic). How do these people sleep at night?
The vast and solid majority of D&D players are very aware that they are indulging in an exercise of fantasy and imagination - which is precisely why they play. The shiny-eyed, happy-clappy types appear to be convinced that it's all true. If either group is in danger of mental trauma and potential physical harm, I know which I'd place my money on.

I agree with a lot of what felonstream is saying; I feel like if you want to jack with the fluff, there's so much fluff that has room for expansion. Why mess with the golden stuff? There's 666 layers of the Abyss. There's new demons created every day. The yugoloths have been on the back burner forever. Etc...etc... there's room there, I'm sure of it. [/QUOTE

Too right there is. There's as much room as you (the player or DM) are prepared to make. what goes into, or stays out of, your world should always be your choice, not that of a designer 'simplifying' things. People reading this are probably wise enough in the ways of D&D to sort things out for themselves, but new players may be in danger of losing a great deal of background and heritage to the cause of 'logic'.
I thought that the erinyes and the succubus were distinct enough in character and intention, similarities notwithstanding, to fulfil separate roles in any campaign (like orcs and hobgoblins - the dice rolls involved may be similar, but the disorganised rabble v. the disciplined army thematics can result in very different problem-solving appoaches to encounters). It seems to me that we're taking a 'heads' monster and a 'tails' monster and making them into one 'coin' monster, just because you can, 'holistically', see both from the edge.

Damn it! Once again, I spent a long time typing a post that got lost and deleted when I somehow got logged off the site. This is becoming very annoying, when I can otherwise stay logged in for weeks on end.
I'm a little too demoralised at all the wasted effort to mess about going through all the points and arguments again, but the main thrust was as follows:
It is my opinion that a new edition of the rules should concentrate on improving the 'crunch' to a level wherein play is enhanced in terms of ease, speed and intuitiveness for all involved.
Messing about with 'fluff' is dangerous. 'Fluff' has been built up over the years by many of the finest minds in the business and it is what actually defines D&D from other games. After all, the basic premise of "assume a fantasy persona and act it out in a fantasy world" pretty much applies to all RPGs - it is the 'fluff' that makes D&D the game that it is.
I've never much used the Planes myself, but I like the fact that they are all there for me as and when I should happen to need them. I like the fact that there are so many different types of dragons waiting for me to use them as I see fit. I like the idea that there are any number of low-level sword-fodder humanoids just waitng to give low-to-intermediate level PCs challenges that may only differ in flavour and description, if not game mechanics. Keep goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs and gnolls. Keep ten types of true dragon (and throw in all the gem, shadow, gloom and whatnot variations you like), keep the Great Wheel and more Planes than can be used at once.
Hang onto it all with the jealous fury of the drowning, because it's much better to discard half of what's available, or severely limit the usage of certain things, than to have only half of it available and be severely limited by lack of choice before you start. Retain as many options as possible, even if you can't use them all at once, or even don't like some of them (someone probably will, somewhere in the world, and the brand is stronger for catering to all tastes).
If 4e concentrates on making the game quicker and easier to play, then I'm all for it. If it wants to cut down and simplify the background, then those parts can go and play in the traffic.

Actually, if anyone's interested in Dog Soldiers, there are a few videos on YouTube that should give you a reasonable taste. Someone does appear to have set some clips to country music for some reason or another, but I'm sure that they thought they were doing the right thing and you won't actually hold it against the film itself.

It's not that I have anything against country music, you understand, it's just that it isn't really appropriate in this instance....

Felonstream wrote:

The film even manages to include a swordfight and a very enjoyable unarmed combat v. werewolf sequence. I would highly recommend it, if you can get hold of it at a reasonable price.

If it has CGI fights and/or sped-up film, I'll skip it (I'm boycotting both of them this year), but otherwise it sounds great! Can you advise me?

I can honestly promise you that CGI and sped-up film do not feature in this film in any way. They make excellent use of a limited budget by keeping the need for special effects down to a minimum (werewolves only - and not overly-sophisticated at that) and relying on the reasonably ordinary human interplay to keep the narrative rolling along.

I was looking though this thread and trying to remember the scariest movie moments that I'd ever seen when drunken_nomad's post of 8th August reminded me that nothing has ever been as scary as the British Public Information films from the 1970s. Honestly, these are generally as nasty a collection of horrors as you could ever encounter (and they're all available on YouTube too). drunken_nomad's links to the "Apaches" film should start you off very well. There was obviously a great deal of effort put in to making a smoothly-flowing plot with believable children's play and discourse (which makes it all the more horrific), but by the end of it, you'll be asking yourself "Why didn't anyone keep those kids away from that f*****g farm? And why didn't they learn from experience?". The most horrible thing about it though, is at the very end, where it gives a list (heartbreakingly, with names and ages) of all the children who died in farm accidents whilst the film was being made.
They used to show us these at school. We would all be gathered together into a big room or hall and a television would be wheeled in, whereupon (through the magic of Betamax) all of us 5-6 year olds would be reduced to a state of absolute terror. I particularly remember one film called "Robbie", in which a boy got both of his feet cut off by a train. There weren't even any railway lines near where I lived, but I was still terrified of going outside after watching that.
The very worst example though, was an absolutely appalling film called "The Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water". This used to be shown in the commercial breaks of children's television programmes on a Saturday morning (so you'd watch your favourite show, sit through the adverts for toys and games, suddenly be scared s**tless and have your childhood ruined from that point on). To be fair, I haven't yet been killed by farm machinery, drowned in grain or slurry, dismembered by trains or motor vehicles, or asphyxiated in a lonely quarry, so perhaps these films did their job, but they can still evoke nightmares in people of my generation today ("The Spirit of Dark and Lonely Water" recently came near the top in a UK poll of the scariest television moments ever). To be honest, he'd make a superb D&D villain, if you were running a fairly dark campaign, but I'm not sure that I could handle it myself, even after a quarter-century or so.

I just spent ages typing out a post for this and then something happened that wiped it completely. I was not best pleased, but I'll cut straight to the meat of what I was trying to say and recommend a film called Dog Soldiers. This was a fairly low-budget British film of 2002 and I don't know how widely it was distributed (although Fox did the distribution, so you may be able to find details on their website) and it did get very good reviews, so it shouldn't be entirely out of the public domain. Low budget and predictably shaky special effects aside (although it is presented in a way that keeps special effects to the bare minimum), this is an entertaining werewolf movie, containing a lot of action (and violence), character exposition, suspense and a generous helping of dark humour (not as much as Shaun of the Dead, but it does have more of a dangerous, potential TPK, 'pressure-cooker environment' feel to it).
Basically, it's about a small party (very D&D) of British soldiers on exercise in the Scottish Highlands. They stumble across the sole survivor of a special forces unit that has been, literally, torn apart and find themselves the prey in a nightmarish hunt. Only with the opportune assistance of a local woman do they find a defensible position in an old farmhouse, but things are never as they seem and the curse of lycanthropy does not rest easy. The film even manages to include a swordfight and a very enjoyable unarmed combat v. werewolf sequence. I would highly recommend it, if you can get hold of it at a reasonable price.

I happened onto this stream by dipping into the messageboards at random and it's amazing how quickly it developed from a (somewhat rabid and irrational) anti-WOTC rant, into a back-and-forth argument on the relative merits of Palladium products and then onwards into a campaign for the proper usage of spelling and grammar on internet messageboards, before finally embracing a message of love and tolerance for all despite the occasional spelling mistake.
It really is quite a beautiful example of how fine and worthy results can be drawn from the least promising beginnings if people will just work together.

Damn it, once you start, you can't stop.
I was reading back through other people's postings on this stream and the thing that struck me most was that (even on a thread largely dedicated to the demise of "Dungeon" and "Dragon" magazines), many innocent players of D&D have been accused of being Satanists.
If there is anything in the world of roleplaying that upsets and angers me, it is this particular piece of mindless (and witless) prejudice.
I am consistently dismayed by the number of complaints that arise every time that a 'demon' or 'devil' appears on the cover of a D&D sourcebook or magazine. The fact that demons and devils regularly appear in devotional artwork by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and suchlike does not seem to have any bearing. If anyone actually wishes to see devils and demons in the 'proper' Christian tradition, then they should look at the later works of Hieronymous Bosch - these are much more violent and nauseating than anything that you will ever see on the cover of a D&D magazine.
The fact that most D&D PCs combat demons is equally left unexplored - but what do the so-called Christian Soldiers purport to do?

I realise that I might undermine my argument, in the USA, at least, by confessing to being an atheist, although I do not think that it is anything to be ashamed of, but I wish to deal with my fellow gamers from a position of honesty - I do not believe in God, but I do not believe in the Devil either - and I most certainly do not believe that any one of you is doing anything wrong by playing D&D or reading D&D books. If you are labouring under such oppression then you have my sympathy, and my support. There should never be any harm in make-believe.

I'm going to be honest and say that the news hit me hard. I've been involved in roleplaying games for a good twenty years or more and "Dungeon" and "Dragon" have been constants throughout that time. I only committed to D&D wholesale and bought the 3.5 edition rules 4 years ago (I think), but in that time, I must say that the magazines have been fantastic. One of the first things that occurred to me when I actually started buying D&D products was "Hey, I can buy Dragon now and actually understand all the stats." I have every copy of each magazine since that time and neither has ever disappointed me. I have never been a subscriber, because I live in England and the vagaries of exchange rates have never made it a consistently better option then buying from my local gamestore - which needs the support anyway - but I have been a loyal reader of both magazines for long enough to recognise the quality that Paizo put in. If any action is required from loyal fans, then the very first thing should be a hearty round of applause for Erik Mona and his team - they really made my experience of "Dungeon" and "Dragon" something to relish, and I'm sure that they did exactly the same for countless other readers. I will always have fond memories of both magazines and I am well aware that I am, rather without intending it, involved in the end of an era. I shall look forward to every single issue of each magazine that I receive hereafter and I am absolutely sure that the final issues will be mindblowingly superb in terms of content and artwork - sometimes the end of an era, however regrettable, is as much to be cherished as the era itself.
I shall not be boycotting Wizards of the Coast products, largely because WotC saved D&D when TSR accidentally over-reached itself and there are people working there who have been involved in the game for donkey's years. WotC also have the ability to resurrect the magazines in the future, if they so wish - it wouldn't be the first time that a publication had been hauled back from obscurity, after all, if market conditions desired it.
Let's be honest - we could all still be playing from the red box/black box/first edition AD&D/Second edition, or whatever without expecting any more support. The game is so grounded in the imagination of the players that you can wing it with no rules at all, yet we hang in there, following all the latest developments because they inspire our imagination and enhance the game that we play. WotC are currently our best source for this (although I will recommend Mongoose Publishing to anyone who hasn't tried it yet - the Slayer's Guides are brilliant) and we know that official, quality D&D (rather than D20)sourcebooks aren't going to come from anywhere else. You can take that pretty much anyway you want - and it's entirely up to you - but I would advocate an approach where we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The core game has to be supported, because the brand has to remain strong. It was the strength of the D&D brand that persuaded WotC to take it on, when it could quite easily have died with TSR. As superb as the many D20 Open Licence products that exist are, we still need to be aware of the importance of the core D&D brand and uphold it whenever we can.
I have talked at some length now and please feel free to call me a windbag or fool if you wish, but let's not forget that whilst circumstances may change, and times may move on, we have one of the world's most iconic and influential brands in OUR keeping, and if we stick to it, we may see many more developments yet.