This is just bad!


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

From here.

Reynard the Innkeeper
Male Human Fighter 9 (Guardian Fighter)
Str 20, Con 16, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 11
Reynard, or Nard as most of his friends call him, was a successful adventurer before retiring to the life of an innkeeper in a quiet mountain town. Though he is famous for the orcish grog that he brews, he is finding that he makes a poor innkeeper. He is barely making ends meet and longs for the days of independence he experienced as an adventurer. The patrons at his inn have accustomed themselves to listening to his complaints as they sip his grog. Nard is quick to regale people about how things were done back in his day, when adventurers didn’t have much magic and made do with what little they had. He still keeps his armor, shield and longsword well oiled and displayed in a place of pride in his inn. He often keeps in shape by running drills and teaching the local militia a weapon trick or two. Everyone in the village though knows that he is just looking for any excuse to sell his inn and go wandering around the world again, killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Are your serious? They let someone write up a RPGA character nicknamed NARD?!?! This is just bad. Isn't this the exact kind of naming they suggest avoiding? Sheesh. This sort of ruins the idea of a cantankerous old innkeeper who longs for his younger days.

His friends must not like him. This begs for a werewolf and grab.

"WOLFMAN'S GOT NARD!"

Ugh!

/end disgust.

Dark Archive

*sighs*

4e is only going to get better from here!!

Sovereign Court

Am I missing something here?
Is Nard slang for something humorous?

Sovereign Court Contributor

A guy who makes orcish GROG named NARD who complains about how much better adventuring was in the old days...

This is simply in keeping with WotC's policy of kicking the customers they have lost in the groin one more time.

I suspect the bit about everyone knowing he'll sell his inn as soon as he can and go adventuring refers to the general attitude that is so common that everyone who has rejected 4E will convert eventually.

Pretty classy.

And of course, I tried to follow yuor link but WotC site is down again.

Sovereign Court Contributor

Callous Jack wrote:

Am I missing something here?

Is Nard slang for something humorous?

My previous post was started before yours came up. "Nard" is slang for Gonad, which is what I believe the original complaint was.

Pardon my tinfoil hat.

Sovereign Court

Rambling Scribe wrote:

My previous post was started before yours came up. "Nard" is slang for Gonad, which is what I believe the original complaint was.

Ah, never heard that one, thanks.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Rambling Scribe wrote:

A guy who makes orcish GROG named NARD who complains about how much better adventuring was in the old days...

This is simply in keeping with WotC's policy of kicking the customers they have lost in the groin one more time.

I suspect the bit about everyone knowing he'll sell his inn as soon as he can and go adventuring refers to the general attitude that is so common that everyone who has rejected 4E will convert eventually.

Pretty classy.

And of course, I tried to follow yuor link but WotC site is down again.

I think you're in the black.

Look at this section with the part bolded.

The patrons at his inn have accustomed themselves to listening to his complaints as they sip his grog. Nard is quick to regale people about how things were done back in his day, when adventurers didn’t have much magic and made do with what little they had.

If that's not a slap masquerading as a pathetic joke, I don't know what is.

Espeically the follow up about 'killing things and taking their stuff'


I thought it was funny.

Sovereign Court Contributor

As a person who plays both editions, I just mostly think it's unnecessary and unwise to continue to intentionally alienate people who still value WotC's old product line.


Are they though? I also play both editions, and I have never felt alienated. I know some people have, but I get the impression that at this stage anything will be given a negative gloss.


FabesMinis wrote:
I thought it was funny.

Grog ... nard ... funny.


Rambling Scribe wrote:
As a person who plays both editions, I just mostly think it's unnecessary and unwise to continue to intentionally alienate people who still value WotC's old product line.

And quite frankly, if WotC is (as some have suggested) more concerned with running a successful business, they shouldn't alienate *any* potential customers. Everyone turned away by purile slaps like this is a lost sale, plain and simple. Bad for business.

Sovereign Court

Rambling Scribe wrote:
As a person who plays both editions, I just mostly think it's unnecessary and unwise to continue to intentionally alienate people who still value WotC's old product line.

I agree, seems kinda childish.


If the entry had been better written perhaps I could have gotten over its childish thrust. As it is, there is enough of an unsavory pissing contest going on between fans of the different editions without corporations stepping in to get in on the action. Was this written by someone official or was it a contestant trying to get their character in the mix?

I know what you're all thinking... what would constitute a savory pissing contest?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Fables, why take the risk?

I mean injokes are good in writing. There's one in Giovanni clanbook that's funny, and it's always good to see things like 'shout-outs' to the fans. but why take something that is so easily designed to offend?

It would be like writing a module for OGL, that every 4th encounter, or 4th room was immature, silly, or otherwise a slam on 4.x. sure it's cute, but why offend?


I must just have a different sense of humour. Ah well, I'l leave it at that.

Conversely I find some humour threads on message boards baffling, so it must be something about me! :D

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Why do this? What take such a childish jab like this?

It only stokes the edition wars fires...and from an "official" source too. For shame. I am extremely happy with Paizo for cosistently taking the high road here.

If WotC wants to put out dredge like this - fine. It's a dumb joke and it isn't even kind of funny. They've only succeeded in producing a really poor work product.

bleh.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

FabesMinis wrote:

I must just have a different sense of humour. Ah well, I'l leave it at that.

Conversely I find some humour threads on message boards baffling, so it must be something about me! :D

A lot of jokes on the message boards are dumb (especially mine) but the message boards aren't edited, printed, distributed, and sold.


FabesMinis wrote:

I must just have a different sense of humour. Ah well, I'l leave it at that.

Conversely I find some humour threads on message boards baffling, so it must be something about me! :D

my point is that is was particularly silly. If I go somewhere to play a D&D game I do not want to end up with a character with a thinly veiled name like Sir Testiclese Ginormous the III.

If this was in the vein of Knights of the Dinner table or some other satire (OotS for example) it would be perfectly fine.


Now THAT is funny.


Tarren Dei wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:

I must just have a different sense of humour. Ah well, I'l leave it at that.

Conversely I find some humour threads on message boards baffling, so it must be something about me! :D

A lot of jokes on the message boards are dumb (especially mine) but the message boards aren't edited, printed, distributed, and sold.

It's not being printed, distributed and sold. It's an RPGA character, which doesn't make it wizards policy (just as character creation restrictions for the rpgs aren't those of the core rulebook).

The term grognard has been used for multiple games and multiple editions over the years. No, I don't personally find it funny but I also think anyone who's outraged at this is just looking for excuses to be so.

It's a joke, it's not a great one, so what?

And note, it came out of a poll. What the heck are people getting up in arms about, this is a nothing issue.


Eyebite wrote:


It only stokes the edition wars fires...and from an "official" source too. For shame. I am extremely happy with Paizo for consistently taking the high road here.

Really? I thought this dig in Shadow in the Sky would just be more fuel on the edition wars fire.

Saul Vancaskerkin is neither a theologian nor a planar expert and has no knowledge or interest in the finer distinctions of the Lower Planes. As a result, he doesn’t care that succubi are actually demons rather than devils and would be considered mortal enemies of the latter.

Personally, I found both of them (WotC's and Paizo's) funny.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

CPEvilref wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
FabesMinis wrote:

I must just have a different sense of humour. Ah well, I'l leave it at that.

Conversely I find some humour threads on message boards baffling, so it must be something about me! :D

A lot of jokes on the message boards are dumb (especially mine) but the message boards aren't edited, printed, distributed, and sold.

It's not being printed, distributed and sold. It's an RPGA character, which doesn't make it wizards policy (just as character creation restrictions for the rpgs aren't those of the core rulebook).

I didn't realize. Everytime I tried to open the link I got an error message. I'm neither amused nor offended by it.


Brian Carpenter wrote:


Really? I thought this dig in Shadow in the Sky would just be more fuel on the edition wars fire.

Saul Vancaskerkin is neither a theologian nor a planar expert and has no knowledge or interest in the finer distinctions of the Lower Planes. As a result, he doesn’t care that succubi are actually demons rather than devils and would be considered mortal enemies of the latter.

Personally, I found both of them (WotC's and Paizo's) funny.

Of course, James already mentioned this a few months back, and it was suppose to be something to remind players that most people in a given campagin don't have any idea about the planes or the difference between fiends, not a dig at 4th edition, per se.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Brian Carpenter wrote:


Personally, I found both of them (WotC's and Paizo's) funny.

Ah, haven't read "Shadow" yet, I was waiting for my print copy.

Well, eye for an eye then. I suppose that makes them about even.

On a related note - I think that most of the people who are "outraged" (not my term) by this are just sick of the "my edition is better than yours" arguments that have been littering the internet for the past several months.

Anything that smacks of this is bound to get an angry response.

Liberty's Edge

CPEvilref wrote:
It's not being printed, distributed and sold. It's an RPGA character, which doesn't make it wizards policy (just as character creation restrictions for the rpgs aren't those of the core rulebook).

Actually, as a character for the D&D championship, it is being printed and distributed (on the website), and sold (to players of the championship.

As the RPGA is part of WotC, that very much makes it WotC policy.

CPEvilref wrote:
The term grognard has been used for multiple games and multiple editions over the years. No, I don't personally find it funny but I also think anyone who's outraged at this is just looking for excuses to be so.

Yeah, and I named this (named, not wrote).

But I am one (at least people keep calling me one), so I can claim group member immunity to use the term.


Rambling Scribe wrote:

A guy who makes orcish GROG named NARD who complains about how much better adventuring was in the old days...

This is simply in keeping with WotC's policy of kicking the customers they have lost in the groin one more time.

I suspect the bit about everyone knowing he'll sell his inn as soon as he can and go adventuring refers to the general attitude that is so common that everyone who has rejected 4E will convert eventually.

Pretty classy.

Geez dude, talk about seeing things that aren't there. This is obviously a joke, not an attack. It's not like they describe the guy as an incompitent old man or an idiot drooling into his beer. Heck they make him sound compitent and always ready for action.

He's just the stereotype of the old gamer who longs to get back up on the horse and have fun like in the old days, and they slipped the term grognard into the description.

And selling his inn is some kind of metaphor for 4th edition? Are you kidding me? The stereotype has always been that old adventurers settle down and run an inn. Some of them are going to regret that descision, since running an inn is not nearly as much fun as adventuring used to be.

This is just an easter egg snuck into the adventure as a joke and reading some deep and evil significance into it is frankly silly.

Does Azigen have a point about it being the kind of name they discourage? Sure, it's obviously a joke name. The RPGA dislikes joke names, because if they're not extreamly clever you end up with a very silly nick name like this one, but they're not insulting you.

Sometimes a cake is just a cake.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I must admit, I thought it was pretty funny. I'm not sure how much I'd read into this as being some sort of official policy from WotC corporate brass to mock 3e players at any and every chance. How exactly would that work?

"We want you to write an adventure for us, but here's the thing, we want you to plant 3-5 insults directed at our prior fan base that refused to convert."

To the extent it's a dumb joke or a bad joke, I'd lay it at the feet of the author. I would expect he came up with it, the editor thought it was funny and not too distracting and it saw print. If you're going to interpret this as some sort of official WotC policy or complain about it infringing on suspension of disbelief, I'd suggest you also start a thread directed at the Paizo folks. They seem to have a personal vendetta against certain of their authors (like Nick Logue) and bury sly jokes about them in a number of Pathfinder products.

At worst, it's a bad joke, not some insidious insult or indicator of corporate policy.


Eyebite wrote:


On a related note - I think that most of the people who are "outraged" (not my term) by this are just sick of the "my edition is better than yours" arguments that have been littering the internet for the past several months.

Agreed. And in the spirit of good will among all D&D players, be they players of 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E or some strange homebrew conglomeration, here is a copy of the script I wrote for the D&D video contest held two or three years ago. I think it captures my personal feelings on it well enough. Hopefully, it will provide a laugh or two to some folks here.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:

<Snip>

At worst, it's a bad joke, not some insidious insult or indicator of corporate policy.

I'm not accusing WotC of policy of malice, simply bad taste and irritating me. I think the editor should be more, sensitive to jokes like this.

so I guess I agree with the lawyer.

As an example of a joke I found funny, look at the pitch for Greyhawk in Dragon a few years back. "What the Hells is a Baatzeu?" That's a cross edition joke I appriciated.


Brian Carpenter wrote:


Agreed. And in the spirit of good will among all D&D players, be they players of 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E or some strange homebrew conglomeration, here is a copy of the script I wrote for the D&D video contest held two or three years ago. I think it captures my personal feelings on it well enough. Hopefully, it will provide a laugh or two to some folks here.

Gaming humor's often anything but humorous but there were some subtle touches in there that made me grin, nice writing.

Sovereign Court Contributor

I just want to clarify that I am also not so much outraged as exasperated by this kind of thing.

Also, when I said "WotC's policy" I did not intend to seriously imply that they have a deliberate written policy of alienating grognards. I meant instead to suggest that they have presented a pattern of doing so and have not presented any indication that they regret doing so when called on it.

I simply see it as being about as constructive as when someone goes into a 4E discussion thread and makes snarky remarks about 4E for their own amusement. As someone said above, it's annoying when it's a random poster on a messageboard. Having such things come out in official material only serves to ratchet the whole conflict up a notch.


Rambling Scribe wrote:

A guy who makes orcish GROG named NARD who complains about how much better adventuring was in the old days...

This is simply in keeping with WotC's policy of kicking the customers they have lost in the groin one more time.

ROTFL!

*que Austin Powers*

"This is really good grog.......Nard! *quizzical grin*

I probably should be insulted, offended, irritated, or otherwise generally raging against WotC, but it's gone beyond all that now and turned into roaring comedy. More!!

Sovereign Court

Rambling Scribe wrote:

I just want to clarify that I am also not so much outraged as exasperated by this kind of thing.

Also, when I said "WotC's policy" I did not intend to seriously imply that they have a deliberate written policy of alienating grognards. I meant instead to suggest that they have presented a pattern of doing so and have not presented any indication that they regret doing so when called on it.

I simply see it as being about as constructive as when someone goes into a 4E discussion thread and makes snarky remarks about 4E for their own amusement. As someone said above, it's annoying when it's a random poster on a messageboard. Having such things come out in official material only serves to ratchet the whole conflict up a notch.

I agree with Rambling Scribe. This little jab may not be intended to be malicious, but you'd think they'd learn to be a little bit more tatctful after their horrid PR with everything related to 4E. This amounts to picking at old wounds, and really isn't the smartest thing to do, but doing something intelligently or professionally isn't WotC's style nowadays so it's really not surprising.

Dark Archive

Sebastian wrote:


To the extent it's a dumb joke or a bad joke, I'd lay it at the feet of the author. I would expect he came up with it, the editor thought it was funny and not too distracting and it saw print. If you're going to interpret this as some sort of official WotC policy or complain about it infringing on suspension of disbelief, I'd suggest you also start a thread directed at the Paizo folks. They seem to have a personal vendetta against certain of their authors (like Nick Logue) and bury sly jokes about them in a number of Pathfinder products.

At worst, it's a bad joke, not some insidious insult or indicator of corporate policy.

I didnt find it funny, whether it was a slap at 3.x or not. Kinda tired actually.

Author's feet sure, not much at Wotc's other than sloppy editing. But it'll just throw more gasoline on the fire of edition wars....

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Rambling Scribe wrote:

I just want to clarify that I am also not so much outraged as exasperated by this kind of thing.

Also, when I said "WotC's policy" I did not intend to seriously imply that they have a deliberate written policy of alienating grognards. I meant instead to suggest that they have presented a pattern of doing so and have not presented any indication that they regret doing so when called on it.

I simply see it as being about as constructive as when someone goes into a 4E discussion thread and makes snarky remarks about 4E for their own amusement. As someone said above, it's annoying when it's a random poster on a messageboard. Having such things come out in official material only serves to ratchet the whole conflict up a notch.

Sorry, didn't mean for that comment regarding policy to be directed at you, I missed your kick in the groin policy comment. I was responding in the more general sense to the typical attitude in these threads that WotC is actively making these comments with the intent to offend rather than, at least in this particular instance, it being just an author trying to make a joke.

I am not entirely deaf to being offended by WotC's poor publicity, but I think there's also a substantial element of looking to be offended at this joke. I have no doubt that some people's relationship with WotC (to the extent one can have a relationship with rather than a reaction to an entity with which one does not directly communicate and which does not acknowledge the individual relationship) is so frayed that this bad joke is just another cumulative offense, but I'm not sure there's a need for WotC to attempt to placate such people.

Anyway, I don't begrude anyone their offendedness, but I think it's a combination of bad taste and over-sensitivity and I have a hard time saying that this was some objectively intentional offensive act by WotC. YMMV.

Edit: Though I guess no one is saying it's an intentional act of malice, which is nice. I guess I'm just not sure I agree that WotC should be taking more care to walk on eggshells in discussions/jokes about 4e, but I also think this is a pretty subjective matter, so again, YMMV.


Sebastian wrote:


I am not entirely deaf to being offended by WotC's poor publicity, but I think there's also a substantial element of looking to be offended at this joke.

Anyway, I don't begrude anyone their offendedness, but I think it's a combination of bad taste and over-sensitivity ...

There is truth to this. There is an element of over-sensitivity and looking to take offense. While WotC has zero control over this oversensitivity et al., they do have control over the bad taste. In fact, they *pay* editors and PR people to have control over bad taste and to avoid flaring up the over-sensitivity. That is simple logic for any company watching a bottom line. If they release it in something official, they give it credence. Their corporate stance should be to avoid possible slights like this. That's where the 35-40 of your bucks per book are partially going.

Sovereign Court

Rambling Scribe wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:

Am I missing something here?

Is Nard slang for something humorous?
My previous post was started before yours came up. "Nard" is slang for Gonad, which is what I believe the original complaint was.

And, "nards" (plural) is really, the slang word (like saying "balls". Though, I don't see why you can't say nard if you're just talking about one.


Er, this may sound really bad, but I've seen the GROG_NARD joke before in 3E RPGA models (and this is when 4E was even being hinted at and 3.5 had just been released).

As another poster mentioned, the RPGA dislikes joke names but they have allowed GROGNARD in the past.

p.s., I don't even think WOTC looks over RPGA material directly. The relationship between the two is a lot like Hasbro and WOTC. People seem to believe that Hasbro is right up in their butt but that's not true.

You guys could simply ask Erik Mona about the relationship between the RPGA and WOTC to get a better sense of it.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Ixancoatl wrote:


There is truth to this. There is an element of over-sensitivity and looking to take offense. While WotC has zero control over this oversensitivity et al., they do have control over the bad taste. In fact, they *pay* editors and PR people to have control over bad taste and to avoid flaring up the over-sensitivity. That is simple logic for any company watching a bottom line. If they release it in something official, they give it credence. Their corporate stance should be to avoid possible slights like this. That's where the 35-40 of your bucks per book is partially going.

I'm not entirely sure that the people who are their potential customers and the people who are sensitive to these comments overlap all that much. I don't see why they should take pains to cater to those who are very sensitive about even the existence of their flagship product. It's also possible that this joke served their bottom line by letting those who did convert to 4e poke a little fun at those who didn't.

But, hey, there's the argument that these people might be customers of 4e if they are treated better, and jokes like this aren't helping. I can dig that. I'm not sure how much I'd treat this as an official thumb in the eye, particularly when there have been other, larger thumbs stabbed more forcefully into eyes. There's much to dislike in WotC's marketing, but this strikes me as more molehill than mountain.


Sebastian wrote:


I'm not entirely sure that the people who are their potential customers and the people who are sensitive to these comments overlap. I don't see why they should take pains to cater to those who are very sensitive about even the existence of their flagship product. It's also possible that this joke served their bottom line by letting those who did convert to 4e poke a little fun at those who didn't.

But, hey, there's the argument that these people might be customers of 4e if they are treated better, and jokes like this aren't helping. I can dig that. I'm not sure how much I'd treat this as an official thumb in the eye, particularly when there have been other, larger thumbs stabbed more forcefully into eyes. There's much to dislike in WotC's marketing, but this strikes me as more molehill than mountain.

Hey, all I'm sayin is WotC would serve themselves better and smell rosier if they avoided releasing things that could be taken offensively by potential clients and let the independent, non-affiliated customers make those jokes. I couldn't care if the jokes are made; I just think it's poor business accumen to release it in company docs rather than in their messageboards where they have less control over what posters/writers say. Corporate owned radio stations rein in DJs all the time when they risk image in even small ways. WotC should do the same.


Actually my objection to this is not based upon edition. Its based on the fact the this is very slapstick in the middle of a bunch of other characters. While I understand it is a poll, how many of you would actually want to play this guy compared to the other 4 characters that they selected?

Imagine if you will that this was one of the characters selected for the Penny Arcade podcast, I could see them making tons of jokes about it. And jokes are OK every now and then, but really? How many people will get to play with 'Nard at an Rpga event? How many times will his name distract from the organized game play? Is it that worth the humor the writer put into it? That's my point.


Azigen wrote:

how many of you would actually want to play this guy compared to the other 4 characters that they selected?

Apparently ..... 37.4% ;-)


Ixancoatl wrote:
Azigen wrote:

how many of you would actually want to play this guy compared to the other 4 characters that they selected?

Apparently ..... 37.4% ;-)

Thats only compared to the other defenders, not the overall party.

Though :) for the point


My real name is Nard.


Teiran wrote:
Rambling Scribe wrote:

A guy who makes orcish GROG named NARD who complains about how much better adventuring was in the old days...

This is simply in keeping with WotC's policy of kicking the customers they have lost in the groin one more time.

I suspect the bit about everyone knowing he'll sell his inn as soon as he can and go adventuring refers to the general attitude that is so common that everyone who has rejected 4E will convert eventually.

Pretty classy.

Geez dude, talk about seeing things that aren't there. This is obviously a joke, not an attack. It's not like they describe the guy as an incompitent old man or an idiot drooling into his beer. Heck they make him sound compitent and always ready for action.

He's just the stereotype of the old gamer who longs to get back up on the horse and have fun like in the old days, and they slipped the term grognard into the description.

And selling his inn is some kind of metaphor for 4th edition? Are you kidding me? The stereotype has always been that old adventurers settle down and run an inn. Some of them are going to regret that descision, since running an inn is not nearly as much fun as adventuring used to be.

This is just an easter egg snuck into the adventure as a joke and reading some deep and evil significance into it is frankly silly.

Does Azigen have a point about it being the kind of name they discourage? Sure, it's obviously a joke name. The RPGA dislikes joke names, because if they're not extreamly clever you end up with a very silly nick name like this one, but they're not insulting you.

Sometimes a cake is just a cake.

Uhh ... how about this bit;

'he is finding that he makes a poor innkeeper. He is barely making ends meet'

Following other 'in game' veiled jabs at rebel tpps (the Pathfinder class incident for example), I think there's an argument for this being a deliberate attack (however minor).

Either way, doesn't including it just scream 'bad decision' on the part of wotc given the present climate?

It does to me.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Rockheimr wrote:
'he is finding that he makes a poor innkeeper. He is barely making ends meet'

If he were a rich innkeeper rolling in dough, there wouldn't be much reason for him to adventure (or, if he did, the PC would rightfully expect him to have more money and equipment). It's not like they say "he finds that he is a poor innkeeper because he clings to outdated and overly complicated methods of accounting" or "he is too busy stuffing walnuts up his ass to be competent at much of anything, so his business is failing spectacularly." He's got a reason to adventure; reading more into it than that is making the extra effort to be offended.

Rockheimr wrote:

Following other 'in game' veiled jabs at rebel tpps (the Pathfinder class incident for example), I think there's an argument for this being a deliberate attack (however minor).

You mean the Pathfinder class and ability which existed prior to Paizo's announcement that they were not going to convert to 4e? Then again, WotC did buy that time machine from TSR. They probably looked into the future, saw that Paizo was not going to make Pathfinder a 4e product, and slipped in that joke before anyone knew what Paizo was planning (even the staff of Paizo!).

Damn sneaky bastards.

Liberty's Edge

Bleach wrote:

p.s., I don't even think WOTC looks over RPGA material directly. The relationship between the two is a lot like Hasbro and WOTC. People seem to believe that Hasbro is right up in their butt but that's not true.

You guys could simply ask Erik Mona about the relationship between the RPGA and WOTC to get a better sense of it.

Only if you assume that Chris Tulach is not being paid by WotC.

He is, so WotC does in fact have an employee who reviews RPGA material directly.
Further, you would also have to assume that the web guy who put the article up is not paid by WotC and does not look over the articles before he posts them. I quite assure you from very recent experience that he does.
So that is two people employed by WotC who review RPGA material that is posted on the website for reference and download.

Scarab Sages

For those who can get on the WotC site; do you think the art for Nard resembles Lucius, from Jeff Smith's Bone comic series?

Ex-Captain of the Royal Guard, leader of the militia, runs an inn (except I recall his inn is well-run, till he lets Phoney & Smiley at it), and willing to take up his arms against the Rat Creatures, The Hooded One, and The Lord of Locusts.

...and, Oh! What has he got in his (breast) pocketses?


Snorter wrote:

For those who can get on the WotC site; do you think the art for Nard resembles Lucius, from Jeff Smith's Bone comic series?

Ex-Captain of the Royal Guard, leader of the militia, runs an inn (except I recall his inn is well-run, till he lets Phoney & Smiley at it), and willing to take up his arms against the Rat Creatures, The Hooded One, and The Lord of Locusts.

...and, Oh! What has he got in his (breast) pocketses?

It is a canny resemblence

1 to 50 of 188 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / This is just bad! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.