I think trying to suggest that a world with mass transit systems is isolated and fits with points of light is trying too hard to make Eberron and PoL stick together.
But there is a big difference between POL in the DMG and POL mentioned in articles on WoTC website.
The main source of POL from the website seems to be an R&D article written nearly a year ago. This is where the the concept of POL mentions a lot of the ideas about travel being difficult, communication between cities being nearly non-existant, no real law and order, etc.
The DMG concept of POL is one part of an overall concept about assumptions that are made about the D&D world. The POL reference is along the lines of places existing that are safe and where the PC's can reasonably expect to be safe. All of the other points mentioned in the original article on POL are different parts under the 'assumptions about the D&D world'.
To say that they were talking about applying these assumptions to Eberron would not make sense, as the whole idea of a Campaign setting is to not have to make such assumptions. The comment was simply that Eberron, as is, subscribes to the POL model. I took this to mean that there exists, in Eberron, places where PCs can feel safe. Outside of thoseplaces, there exists dangerous areas. This is not to say that once you step outside the gates of Sharn, they can expect to be attacked right away. But the further they get from the POL, the less they can reasonably expect safety.
Take the Lightning Rail as an example. If the PCs are riding the rail a short distance, over a 'civilized' countryside, their expectation of safety would be high. If, however, they were riding the same rail to Sterngate, near the border to Dhargun, their expectation should be lower.
The POL concept as laid out in the DMG does not run contradictory to the way Eberron is (geographically, politically, socially). There are places in Khorvaire where people can reasonable expect to be safe, and there are places where they should be on their guard.
|
I take the point about the differences between the WotC article and the 4e books (which I own, but didn't really scan in detail). That does suggest that the PoL as a concept is so general as to be efffectively meaningless, or at least a total no-brainer - there are safe places you retreat to, and dangerous places you adventure in. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since I was never really wedded to the concept and found it restrictive in its first iteration online. And I agree that it isn't terribly incompatible with Eberron if we assume the Five Nations, or the mainly populated bits, are a big point of light - certainly there are plenty of very wild places on Khorvaire and beyond. That said, the vaguely default world in the 4e books is a bit more medieval "here be dragons" in feel and with much less of the trans-continental organisation that Eberron has, at least in part.
|
|
I think trying to suggest that a world with mass transit systems is isolated and fits with points of light is trying too hard to make Eberron and PoL stick together.
The US had a transcontinental rail road that ran right through hundreds of miles of nowhere. The presence of a train does not make the tracks civilized.
Off-topic, I know, but I'm suddenly curious. I've generally taken it for granted that PoL is just a semi-vague idea built into DnD for a very long time now, and as CWM says it is something I've always seen in DnD, even in the more "civilized" settings. But this made me start thinking of what settings I don't think would work with PoL ...
Does Dark Sun have any Points of Light? Is there anywhere safe you can truly go? Ravenloft? Any others that totally don't fit into PoL, assuming you base it on the more general premise as actually described in the DMG and not the old web article?
I take the point about the differences between the WotC article and the 4e books (which I own, but didn't really scan in detail). That does suggest that the PoL as a concept is so general as to be efffectively meaningless, or at least a total no-brainer - there are safe places you retreat to, and dangerous places you adventure in. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since I was never really wedded to the concept and found it restrictive in its first iteration online. And I agree that it isn't terribly incompatible with Eberron if we assume the Five Nations, or the mainly populated bits, are a big point of light - certainly there are plenty of very wild places on Khorvaire and beyond. That said, the vaguely default world in the 4e books is a bit more medieval "here be dragons" in feel and with much less of the trans-continental organisation that Eberron has, at least in part.
I agree. And even in the more 'civilized' areas of the 5 nations, there exists areas that I would say were not covered by the POL. The Talenta Plains, for anyone outside of the Halfling Tribes, would not really be a POL.
|
|
Off-topic, I know, but I'm suddenly curious. I've generally taken it for granted that PoL is just a semi-vague idea built into DnD for a very long time now, and as CWM says it is something I've always seen in DnD, even in the more "civilized" settings. But this made me start thinking of what settings I don't think would work with PoL ...
Does Dark Sun have any Points of Light? Is there anywhere safe you can truly go? Ravenloft? Any others that totally don't fit into PoL, assuming you base it on the more general premise as actually described in the DMG and not the old web article?
I actually think (though others may disagree) that your initial premise is correct, and it is simply an articulation of the safe village or town with dungeons around it (as a very crude paraphrase). The suggestion of "points" of light sounds like that the civilised bits are very small compared with the uncivilised bits, which nudges adventures down certain avenues if laid out setting-wide. I think that the suggestion that "some places are dangerous, and others aren't" on the other hand is not useful - it is the most basic reason for adventure, but tells you little useful about how it happens. Dark Sun has cities and places which are safe-ish, so would count as points, I guess.
Eberron absolutely uses the Points of Light model. It has five points of light, in fact. And there's some doubt about Karrnath.
Best answer yet.
While there’s some nitpicking as to how “Points of Light” is strictly defined in the Player’s Handbook, I’m certainly willing to see all of Breland as a single point of light surrounded by Droam, Darguun and the Mournlands (and Zilargo… “I’m a monster. RAR!”).
To be honest, I think Eberron could do with some Points of Lighting. Too much of the world seemed defined to me and it didn’t leave much room for customization or discovery.
And while I’m at it, I’m not too unhappy with a plan to alter the cosmology. For all its uniqueness, the Eberron planes never looked at all interesting to me. Unfortunately, the orrery model was the coolest part of it. While I support any effort to make the Eberron planes more exciting, I’m going to miss the orbiting aspect.
I think trying to suggest that a world with mass transit systems is isolated and fits with points of light is trying too hard to make Eberron and PoL stick together.
Your comments have gotten me thinking a bit about mass transit and points of light, and I wanted to know what you thoughts on this are.
I think that how well the points of light concept fits with a world that includes mass transit and long distance communitcation depends on one factor: How advanced those lines of travel or communication are.
Take the real world example of the American railroad.
In the begining, this was a very limited forms of mass transit. The expense of riding the rails prevented most people from ever getting on them. While it was possible to could cross the country in a train quite quickly, the expense prevented it from becoming a truely mass form of transit.
People who traveled West to seek their fortune were often unable to return home if that fortune did not manifest itself. Even mail took quite a while to get anywhere. It was worth the expense to ship cargo, but it did not really make the world more civilizes, and thus less dark, by doing so.
That kind of situation does create a points of light setting, since while there are communication lines and few safe ways to travel, ribbons of light between points if you will, there are significant uncharted sections of the world that are dark and dangerous.
Now, as the technology advances, the points of light in the frontier will grow brighter, to extend the metaphor, and the lines connecting them grow stronger too. Eventually, there's too much light in the setting, and you no longer have any dark places.
That's when a setting ceases to be points of light because of mass transit and communications, but their very existance does not invalidate the PoL concept. It heralds the death of them in a setting certainly, but you can have both for a while.
WotC have become enforcers for the Tyranny of Equality. From WotC's standpoint all settings must be playable by all age groups, all races, powers, etc. must be made equal or else. If WotC ran the Louvre picasso, Monet and the other freat artists would be repainted to resemble Family Guy so the majority of people could understand the painting without having to think. Selling to the lowest common denominator works with games like Monopoly, risk and such but not for for games that requires imaginenation.Huh? So making a product that is accessible to a larger market is a bad thing?
For the quality of the product? yeah, it often can be.
mage the ascention would have sucked if it have been brought down to a lowest common denomiator game. Artesia: adventures in the known world, just wouldn't work as a child friendly game or setting(after all, an adult attitude towards nudity and sex are very important elements of the setting)
|
|
For the quality of the product? yeah, it often can be.
mage the ascention would have sucked if it have been brought down to a lowest common denomiator game. Artesia: adventures in the known world, just wouldn't work as a child friendly game or setting(after all, an adult attitude towards nudity and sex are very important elements of the setting)
You are talking about a niche market. WotC has never catered to that narow a slice of the game market. D&D has always tried to have a broad appeal.
|
In clothing stores there are childrens, teen an adult sections and each section is divided into casual, work and dress sub-sections. What is wrong with wanting a game desigined for adults and a simplfied version of the game desigined for kids.WotC have become enforcers for the Tyranny of Equality. From WotC's standpoint all settings must be playable by all age groups, all races, powers, etc. must be made equal or else. If WotC ran the Louvre picasso, Monet and the other freat artists would be repainted to resemble Family Guy so the majority of people could understand the painting without having to think. Selling to the lowest common denominator works with games like Monopoly, risk and such but not for for games that requires imaginenation.Huh? So making a product that is accessible to a larger market is a bad thing?
|
|
I never said that I hate 4.0 or will never play it, I'm DMing a 4.0 game for my group, it just appers IMHO that the characters just don't have much to differentiate themselves yet.balanced power levels for characters is a good thing but all characters having the same feel of play is wrong.Well, fortunately for you that is not how 4e plays.
You are talking about a niche market. WotC has never catered to that narow a slice of the game market. D&D has always tried to have a broad appeal.For the quality of the product? yeah, it often can be.
mage the ascention would have sucked if it have been brought down to a lowest common denomiator game. Artesia: adventures in the known world, just wouldn't work as a child friendly game or setting(after all, an adult attitude towards nudity and sex are very important elements of the setting)
Your entirely right, and their products and settings suffer for it.
|
|
Your comments have gotten me thinking a bit about mass transit and points of light, and I wanted to know what you thoughts on this are.
I think that how well the points of light concept fits with a world that includes mass transit and long distance communitcation depends on one factor: How advanced those lines of travel or communication are.
Take the real world example of the American railroad.
In the begining, this was a very limited forms of mass transit. The expense of riding the rails prevented most people from ever getting on them. While it was possible to could cross the country in a train quite quickly, the expense prevented it from becoming a truely mass form of transit.
People who traveled West to seek their fortune were often unable to return home if that fortune did not manifest itself. Even mail took quite a while to get anywhere. It was worth the expense to ship cargo, but it did not really make the world more civilizes, and thus less dark, by doing so.
That kind of situation does create a points of light setting, since while there are communication lines and few safe ways to travel, ribbons of light between points if you will, there are significant uncharted sections of the world that are dark and dangerous.
Now, as the technology advances, the points of light in the frontier will grow brighter, to extend the metaphor, and the lines connecting them grow stronger too. Eventually, there's too much light in the setting, and you no longer have any dark places.
That's when a setting ceases to be points of light because of mass transit and communications, but their very existance does not invalidate the PoL concept. It heralds the death of them in a setting certainly, but you can have both for a while.
I think that is fair enough. The lightning rail is hideously expensive and so "mass" transit is not very likely. And there are many wild bits in Eberron - in one of my PBPs my players are currently in a part of Breland so rural it is effectively wilderness. The lightning rail is also a pretty new invention, coming (if I recall correctly) at the end of the Kingdom of Galifar before the war. So while it might herald the onrush of civilisation, it probably hasn't got far enough yet, especially in the context of the massive disruption of the Last War.
In some ways, the points of light "model" has probably got too much emphasis, and is probably confusing. Is it about "points of light" - tiny refuges, far apart, in an otherwise hostile environment - or "areas of light" - civilised areas with some less civilised ones next to it? The first is fairly specific, the second is so general as to be descriptive of virtually any setting you care to mention. I sense from the conversations here that WotC is stepping back from the former and moving more towards the latter, which is fine by me.
|
|
You are talking about a niche market. WotC has never catered to that narow a slice of the game market. D&D has always tried to have a broad appeal.Your entirely right, and their products and settings suffer for it.
Based on sales their products hardly suffer - you just don't like them. There is a big difference between a bad product and one you do not like.
|
|
I never said that I hate 4.0 or will never play it, I'm DMing a 4.0 game for my group, it just appers IMHO that the characters just don't have much to differentiate themselves yet.
I saw differentiation in PCs the very first game I ran. The fighter dropped and the warlock tried to fill the gap in the line until the cleric could get the fighter back up. The warlock is no defender and she found herself in big trouble. She dropped just as the fighter got back into the fight. Then there was a trap that only the rogue could disable. The wizard was the only one that could take care of a group on minions as quickly as he did. All of the characters found their strengths and limitations in just a few sessions. As the levels go up the differentiation sharpens more and more.
|
|
In clothing stores there are childrens, teen an adult sections and each section is divided into casual, work and dress sub-sections. What is wrong with wanting a game desigined for adults and a simplfied version of the game desigined for kids.
4e is designed for adults - a broad cross section of adults. D&D has always had a focused demographic. There were products that skewed slightly younger than the main audience (every "basic" set) but the core audience has never changed. The best way for WotC to efficiently serve the target audience is to make products that will maintain their broad appeal. That approach makes sense. That leaves room for the small publishers to fill the niches that WotC skips over.
I saw differentiation in PCs the very first game I ran. The fighter dropped and the warlock tried to fill the gap in the line until the cleric could get the fighter back up. The warlock is no defender and she found herself in big trouble.
I'm going to side with Uber on this one, because I think he was talking about each class individually. Of course a Warlock is different from a fighter, but how many different kinds of fighters can you make?
I'm running a 4e game as well and I just don't think the first Player's Handbook comes with enough character options to create more than two different types of each class. This will undoubtedly be solved as more books are published, but right now all you're looking at is "do I want my ranger to cut or shoot?"
Of course a Warlock is different from a fighter, but how many different kinds of fighters can you make?
I'm running a 4e game as well and I just don't think the first Player's Handbook comes with enough character options to create more than two different types of each class. This will undoubtedly be solved as more books are published, but right now all you're looking at is "do I want my ranger to cut or shoot?"
This is a fair critism of all new games I'm afraid. It's the sad truth of edition changes and new games, the first few books never have enough options because of space.
I think that this will be more quickly solved in 4th edition then in previous editions because of how much flexibility exists in the new powers system.
If you want to make a new style of ranger, all you have to do is introduce a new At-Will power to form the base of the style, and a new encounter or daily power for each level that builds upon that theme to support that type of ranger through out the levels.
They're already doing so with the Warlock and the new Dark Pact. Each new style won't take up much space, a few pages at most, and would give a enterily new style of Ranger, Warlock, or Fighter.
And since each new style can be mixed with the existing styles, the options for characters within a single class will grow very quickly.
Based on sales their products hardly suffer - you just don't like them. There is a big difference between a bad product and one you do not like.You are talking about a niche market. WotC has never catered to that narow a slice of the game market. D&D has always tried to have a broad appeal.Your entirely right, and their products and settings suffer for it.
Sales is hardly the only measure of the quality of a product.
After all, mc donalds sells more burgers than any one else in the would, but that doesn't mean their burgers are better than hand made burgers, with angus steak mince, corriander and red onion.
Popularity does not always equate to quality. And just because you like something, does not mean it is good.
Based on sales their products hardly suffer - you just don't like them. There is a big difference between a bad product and one you do not like.You are talking about a niche market. WotC has never catered to that narow a slice of the game market. D&D has always tried to have a broad appeal.Your entirely right, and their products and settings suffer for it.
Sales is hardly the only measure of the quality of a product.
After all, mc donalds sells more burgers than any one else in the would, but that doesn't mean their burgers are better than hand made burgers, with angus steak mince, corriander and red onion.
Damn you Zombie! Must you bring beef into this? Now it's off the the grocery store... ;)
In clothing stores there are childrens, teen an adult sections and each section is divided into casual, work and dress sub-sections. What is wrong with wanting a game desigined for adults and a simplfied version of the game desigined for kids.4e is designed for adults - a broad cross section of adults. D&D has always had a focused demographic. There were products that skewed slightly younger than the main audience (every "basic" set) but the core audience has never changed. The best way for WotC to efficiently serve the target audience is to make products that will maintain their broad appeal. That approach makes sense. That leaves room for the small publishers to fill the niches that WotC skips over.
Broad appeal, destroys all appeal.
|
|
After all, mc donalds sells more burgers than any one else in the would, but that doesn't mean their burgers are better than hand made burgers, with angus steak mince, corriander and red onion.
Popularity does not always equate to quality. And just because you like something, does not mean it is good.
If Big Macs sucked they would not sell as many as they do. Are there better burgers/games out there? Yep. Do they appeal to as broad an audience? Nope. Just because there are better burgers/games does not mean that the people at McDs and WotC make bad products.
|
|
Broad appeal, destroys all appeal.In clothing stores there are childrens, teen an adult sections and each section is divided into casual, work and dress sub-sections. What is wrong with wanting a game desigined for adults and a simplfied version of the game desigined for kids.4e is designed for adults - a broad cross section of adults. D&D has always had a focused demographic. There were products that skewed slightly younger than the main audience (every "basic" set) but the core audience has never changed. The best way for WotC to efficiently serve the target audience is to make products that will maintain their broad appeal. That approach makes sense. That leaves room for the small publishers to fill the niches that WotC skips over.
What? That makes no sense. All appeal for you maybe but the sales numbers show that 4e appeals to plenty of gamers.
4e is designed for adults - a broad cross section of adults. D&D has always had a focused demographic. There were products that skewed slightly younger than the main audience (every "basic" set) but the core audience has never changed. The best way for WotC to efficiently serve the target audience is to make products that will maintain their broad appeal. That approach makes sense. That leaves room for the small publishers to fill the niches that WotC skips over.
I think different editions are more or less accessible for newbies. I found 3.x to be very difficult in this regard. There was a ton of options and everything effected everything else. I even went out of my way to designef a 'newbie friendly class' (its presumably still in the archives in the 3.5 forum) that was as interesting as I could make it and not have to many 'moving parts'. However despite my efforts in this area I had limited success in bringing players in with 3.5 when compared to 2nd Ed. 3.5 Was, however, great for getting people to pick up the dice again. Maybe that was what was needed at that time in the industry. A game to bring lapsed veterans back into the fold. I don't, however, believe thats whats best for the industry currently.
I think 4E has taken some very significant steps to make the game run better out of the box and to make it easier jump right into. While there have been some sacrifices compared to older editions (especially 3.5) in order to achieve this I think that the designers have mostly done a bang up job of balancing giving veteran players enough to keep them interested and yet make the game play easy to start as well as fast and exciting in order to facilitate bringing in new blood. I'm not at all sure they have always done as well as they could, or should, have at presenting this aspect of 4E - the PHB could have been more friendly to newbies for sure, but at least the underlying mechanics are user friendly - if you have an experienced DM to hold your hand in the beginning.
In fact, IMO, when we see elements in the game that harken to Warcraft I think the design goals were never to make WoW the TTRPG but, usually, to look at whatever the hell it is that WoW did right to garner such a massive and dominating market position. Accessibility was a big factor there I suspect. It was so easy to get into WOW and yet so rewarding once your were there. It was a good idea to consider what aspect of that design paradigm could be applied to a TTRPG and making the game easier to get into and less likely to break from the get go were good design goals.
There is a place in the RPG industry for games with lots of complexity and a real need to know the rules to play the game properly but that place should never be held by Dungeons and Dragons. Dungeons and Dragons is the flag ship of the entire RPG industry. It needs to be designed so that its accessible - it still needs to be a good RPG as well of course. If it sucks then there will be no new converts but the designers of the game should be doing everything in their power to have both a great and easy to play game. If some things have to be sacrificed to facilitate this - thats a worth while price to pay. Sure their choices in sacrifices were not always perfect. Some things that got cut maybe did not need to be but, in general, I feel they did a good job with their design choices.
This has some chance of bringing in the bodies and increasing the size of the hobby as a whole - and that floats everyone in the industries boat. If WotC were to, by some miracle, bring in 20% more players to the hobby WotC would obvously be very very happy - but that also means that there are 20% more players out there that might decide that they are getting tired of the 'no sex or anything else really edgy' rule for Wizards products and move on to PfRPG, or that they have grown bored with the streamlined play of 4E and want to move on to something with a lot more heft - like GURPS.
There is also the matter of ex-WoWers, along with true new blood this is a great market to aim at. You can't make a TTRPG be a computer based game - You can steal some good ideas, sure - but, ultimatly, they are different media. There are tons of people that get into WoW love the fantasy and have a great time until, one day, they figure out that the WoW never actually ends and its not a very good platform for socializing. People get into guilds and do all sorts of thing to add to the socializing aspect of the game but, in reality, WoW is not really a particularly social experience. Face to Face P&P RPGs are, whatever else they me be, fundamentally social experiences. Adopt a lapsed WoWer ought to be one of our rallying cries. There are probably 10,000s out there that would adore having their fantasy served to them in the company of new friends.
Any way, back to my original point, which was that there is in fact a difference between how accessible each edition of D&D is and, in general, more accessible is a positive goal to strive for - if not for all RPGs then at least for Dungeons and Dragons. I think that those that are going with 4E should strive to round up some (slightly older) rug rats and get them into the game.
Whew - good thing I copied this to the clip board! Stupid time out error.
I saw differentiation in PCs the very first game I ran. The fighter dropped and the warlock tried to fill the gap in the line until the cleric could get the fighter back up. The warlock is no defender and she found herself in big trouble.I'm going to side with Uber on this one, because I think he was talking about each class individually. Of course a Warlock is different from a fighter, but how many different kinds of fighters can you make?
I'm running a 4e game as well and I just don't think the first Player's Handbook comes with enough character options to create more than two different types of each class. This will undoubtedly be solved as more books are published, but right now all you're looking at is "do I want my ranger to cut or shoot?"
I'd go with 3 for most, though maybe not all of the classes (I've not played them all but I have a suspicion that some feel a lot more diverse then others).
For one I don't really think this is much of an issue. Even if you can only play each of the classes two or three ways thats a friggen lot of different classes to play. There are a lot more options when we consider race, paragon paths and epic destinies as well.
In any case WotC is desperate to sell us more class options then we will ever have a chance to play. 5E will be out before we ever get to play a significant portion of every build that interests us - and thats assuming that you reject half the builds that are, or will be, offered as not being of interest.
|
|
Right on the money, sould have made my point clearer.I saw differentiation in PCs the very first game I ran. The fighter dropped and the warlock tried to fill the gap in the line until the cleric could get the fighter back up. The warlock is no defender and she found herself in big trouble.I'm going to side with Uber on this one, because I think he was talking about each class individually. Of course a Warlock is different from a fighter, but how many different kinds of fighters can you make?
I'm running a 4e game as well and I just don't think the first Player's Handbook comes with enough character options to create more than two different types of each class. This will undoubtedly be solved as more books are published, but right now all you're looking at is "do I want my ranger to cut or shoot?"
|
|
Broad appeal, destroys all appeal.What? That makes no sense.
I really have to side with CWM on this (gasp) and will counter with a homily of my own ...
"Niche market designs render niche market profits" Regardless of the rampaging opinions of WotC business, one fact is undeniable: No profits, no D&D. Period.
Broad appeal, destroys all appeal.What? That makes no sense.
I really have to side with CWM on this (gasp) and will counter with a homily of my own ...
"Niche market designs render niche market profits" Regardless of the rampaging opinions of WotC business, one fact is undeniable: No profits, no D&D. Period.
Oh i have no doubt that it is the right move for wizards of the coast. Just as what mc dondalds does what is best for them.
However, that does not make their products good, it just makes them populare.
Tracy emin and the other YBA's where the leading artist of the 1990's , however that doesn't mean their work was popular with joe public.
Well... Tracey Emin's work is a pile of crap... so are we saying that because someone is up themselves we should approach game design similarly. Screw that. I'm an adult, I want to play D&D - 4E gives me the most fun for the least amount of prep time. I already work a bloody complicated job, and the last thing I want to do is do more 'work'.
Well... Tracey Emin's work is a pile of crap... so are we saying that because someone is up themselves we should approach game design similarly. Screw that. I'm an adult, I want to play D&D - 4E gives me the most fun for the least amount of prep time. I already work a bloody complicated job, and the last thing I want to do is do more 'work'.
Yep fun, quick prep time, balance...all good things about 4e, all reasons i like it.
But is still pretty hollow, it still doesn't handle complex social gaming very well, its skill systems i still shit.
It is the big mac of roleplaying games.
That said, a reasonable, grown up setting for it, would go a long way to making it a little bit more than a boardgame with a skill system. I want to like the game, but dumbing down Eberron is just going to alienate its fans..
And i doubt you have seen more than perhapes two or three peices of tracy emins work. A lot of her quilting work is great, ofcause, only her controvercial conceptual work gets huge amounts of attention, so thats probably what you know.
|
|
However, that does not make their products good, it just makes them populare.
I understand what you are trying to say but it misses a very key point that drives me crazy as well - there is no accounting for taste.
I was a big "I hate D&D" guy for 20 years. I played all manner of RPGs but D&D remained bland and boring FRPG white bread. I could not fathom why people still played the game. Then I had a realization when I got back into D&D with 3e - people actually love this game. That is the measure of "quality". To you and me Big Macs may seem like bland boring burgers that are the result of one too many focus group market trials, but that does not negate the fact that people love the darn things.
I am a huge fan of art toys. When my co-workers see my Frank Kozik Smorkin Labbits they just don't get it. they look at Card Boy with his little rain cloud dangling over his head and they scratch theirs.
Their idea of a cool toy is the latest McFarlane baseball hero. I can't blame them and I can't really say that their toys suck. They love them just as much as I love mine. And, for better or worse, Todd McFarlane's worst action figures have sold more units then the combined sales for every toy ever designed by Frank Kozik.
That is just the way it is.
|
|
Tracy Emins is modern artist, crap was what she was probally aming for.And i doubt you have seen more than perhapes two or three peices of tracy emins work. A lot of her quilting work is great, ofcause, only her controvercial conceptual work gets huge amounts of attention, so thats probably what you know.So only some of her stuff is crap, then?