For me, it comes down to the emphasis on different challenges at different levels, which BECMI very clearly demarcated, as well as the feel of the planar setup. The more archetypal nature of the classes also gives me that BECMI vibe. I'm not trying to convert anyone, it's just how I feel. It's just wearing to constantly read how 4E isn't D&D, when to me it very clearly is, much more so than 3.x
The Drizzt hatred is spilling into other threads. Only the Sting love can stand up to it.
The Drizzt hatred is spilling into other threads. Only the Sting love can stand up to it.
Release the Sting Love!
"You could say I lost my faith in Salvatore and WotC
You could say I lost my belief in the holy Gygax church
You could say I lost my sense of versimilitude
You could say all of this and worse but
If I ever lose my faith in Drizzt
Then I'll end up bitter, old and pissed."
Only the Sting love can stand up to it.
Sting was big on ego, small on everything else. Personally, I was a big Police fan solely because of Stewart Copeland.
|
Only the Sting love can stand up to it.Sting was big on ego, small on everything else. Personally, I was a big Police fan solely because of Stewart Copeland.
I was one of the few who actually saw Holy Blood and Crescent Moon.
I was one of the few who wished Animal Logic would have made another album.Stewart's incredible percussion artistry is the backbone of the Police sound—simply amazing!
Kirth - since you were a big Police fan, you get a +1
I was one of the few who actually saw Holy Blood and Crescent Moon.
I was one of the few who wished Animal Logic would have made another album.
Stewart's incredible percussion artistry is the backbone of the Police sound—simply amazing!
Kirth - since you were a big Police fan, you get a +1
Missed HB&CM, but grooved on the soundtracks for Rumble Fish, Out of Bounds (partnership with Adam Ant, of all people!), et al.
I need to catch up on Oysterhead.Classic quote from Neil Peart of Rush:
Fan: "How does it feel to be the greatest rock drummer in the world?"
Peart: "Dunno. You'll have to ask Stewart Copeland."
|
|
I was one of the few who actually saw Holy Blood and Crescent Moon.
I was one of the few who wished Animal Logic would have made another album.
Stewart's incredible percussion artistry is the backbone of the Police sound—simply amazing!
Kirth - since you were a big Police fan, you get a +1Missed HB&CM, but grooved on the soundtracks for Rumble Fish, Out of Bounds (partnership with Adam Ant, of all people!), et al.
I need to catch up on Oysterhead.Classic quote from Neil Peart of Rush:
Fan: "How does it feel to be the greatest rock drummer in the world?"
Peart: "Dunno. You'll have to ask Stewart Copeland."
YES! So funny, so true.
"Don't drink, don't smoke ...what do ya do?
Subtle inuendos follow..."
Kirth, I wish we saw eye-to-eye on these other topics, but I'll settle for this one!
Young 'uns—if you haven't heard Stewart Copeland's percussion genious... get the to a record store! (er.... not sure what they call them these day.... itunes?)
Pax - THANK YOU for that article. That hit the nail squarely on the head as to what I could *feel* was missing (and I haven't gone past the pre-production 4E dross) from 4E and slipping away from 3.xE.
And I completely agree that Mr. Mearls must have been smoking something. Legolas, the ranger. Why not use the guy Tolkien actually CALLED a ranger as the archetypical Ranger?
Seems like an odd argument. The last time the Ranger felt anything like Tolkien's Aragorn was maybe 2nd edition and, come to think of it, I'd be pretty hard pressed to really relate the animal companion loving divine spell casters of 1st and 2nd with Tolkien's Ranger.
My feeling is Aragorn has never really served as much of a source of inspiration for the Ranger except possibly originally in the idea of having a fighter that works well in the woods. Not really surprising as Gygax was no Tolkein fan.
Gygax may have been no fan, but he didn't design the ranger either. That class debuted in the Strategic Review and was largely just translated over to 1e.
To me, the inspiration of the 1e ranger has always, clearly, been Aragorn from LotR. Excellent tracking abilities, moderately good stealth and perception (surprise benefits), use of odd scrying-type devices, restrictions on wealth and behavior.2e is where the inspiration moved away from Aragorn and to Drizzt - TSR's own in-house cash cow.
I wonder if the inspiration for the ranger wasn't more Bard from the Hobbit than Aragorn.
I wonder if the inspiration for the ranger wasn't more Bard from the Hobbit than Aragorn.
I doubt it. Bard was a noble leader and excellent archer. There's nothing about tracking, using oddball scrying devices, powers that might arguably be magic spells, operating in the wilderness, etc in his character. And, moreover, there's nothing in 1e rangers about archery. I saw a lot of players gravitate in that direction because it's a pretty natural choice for a hunter, but it's not built into the 1e ranger concept.
I doubt it. Bard was a noble leader and excellent archer. There's nothing about tracking, using oddball scrying devices, powers that might arguably be magic spells, operating in the wilderness, etc in his character. And, moreover, there's nothing in 1e rangers about archery. I saw a lot of players gravitate in that direction because it's a pretty natural choice for a hunter, but it's not built into the 1e ranger concept.
I wonder if the inspiration for the ranger wasn't more Bard from the Hobbit than Aragorn.
Perhaps not the original but latter versions. Let's not forget Bard had the ability to speak to the thrush (it was "biological" in that the people of his line had the ability, but still).
::Blows dust off of thread::
...so it wasn't the abyss that was staring back at me.
You're wasting your time Maikurion, the edition wars are still kicking up in the PRPG threads.
I don't know why people can't just take those threads for what they are: Some dude isn't happy, he finds PFRPG and is happy, so he posts his little testimonial because the whole thing is new to him. But no, everyone has to jump in and hash the whole thing over from both sides. Just say we're happy for you, welcome, and move on... to important things like rereading my old posts about verisimilitude and such. Honestly, I wish this thread had been retitled, "G N - what it is and possible manifestations and rejections of it" or something similar.
Because anytime somebody says something negative about something we, as nerds, hold dear, we feel the need to defend it. Even the titles of the threads (this one and the one I linked to) make it sound like something is wrong with 4e. It doesn't even matter if everybody has already decided which game they like (I like both), we feel the need to defend it. It's there even in PFRPG discussions where somebody says PFRPG doesn't fix enough issues in 3.5. Everybody jumps to defend. I do it, heck I was one of the first to defend 4e in the other link.
I have a lot tied up in the hobby I love, and when somebody says there is something wrong with it, I want to correct them. I try to stay out of the heated wars because I know I can't change minds. I will never convince Pax that he can do anything with 4e that he could do with 3.x, ever. So I don't discuss it with him. If he (or anybody else out there) wants to pop in and take a pot-shot at the game, it's really easy to get caught up in "well that's not the case". And then that of course snow balls into the arguments and then the wars...
It's tough whenever some new poster shows up and decides the best way to start a topic about their shiny new PRPG is to throw 4e under the bus. I don't know how to stop the wars. You can't rightly tell people not to express their opinions about games. But that might be the only true end to the edition wars.
I hear you. In some ways, it's probably easier for folks like me who generally don't go to sites that are 4e fans, so I don't feel the need to defend or correct as often. I think it would help if people admitted they had reasons beyond game mechanics to not go 4e. Then there'd be a certain honesty and clarity in the discussion. I mean, powers immediately turned me off, but how far am I willing to learn about powers in 4e to see if my initial reaction is accurate? At this point, and certainly points previous, probably not that far. Would it ever change? Perhaps, if I feel like I had something to gain from learning more about it. Would I ever give money to Wizards for 4e products? No, I don't think that would change for various reasons, but even if I suspect that powers are not versimilitudinous, and am wrong about that, I let go of needing to be right about that as giving me a right to say no to 4e. If I recognize my other reasons, then I don't have to hold on to that argument as a reason.
I think folks who liked both had to go through a purgatorial fire. If it's any consolation, I think that those who stuck with us are, for the great majority, the best folks. Not that my compliment makes it all worth while, but you've got it for what's its worth. When I feel the urge to defend these days, if I cannot master it, I try to be sure it's against some really 4anatical post and not against those who've passed through fire to stay here.
BTW, when anyone says "nerd," these days, I want them to say it like that guy in American Splendor. Also not easy.
Eh, it all comes down to "What are you gonna do?" Paizo still has the friendliest boards as long as it's not an edition war thread. And even then, people are usually really polite about offending other people. There's a good core of 4e fans that still hangs around here and can have solid discussions, and there is no better place for PRPG discussions.
Once 5E comes out, then we can all have something in common. I was just a little jaded that after soooooooo long, the moderators still have to come in and delete posts because people refuse to play nice when discussing a game. I would prefer to never play 1e again, but I would never say it's not D&D. Just not the version of D&D for me. I like battlemaps and tactical movement. I like roleplaying and have an in character reason for everything my character does. 4E works for me. PRPG works for me.
Since this is in the 3.x forum and who knows who may come along and take a peak:
Some Paizonians like 4e. You might not, but saying that something is epic fail because you don't like it isn't polite and will cause a fight. It doesn't matter if you put "IMHO" before you say the game is not real D&D. To somebody, to me, it is, and to say that it isn't will cause an edition war.
|
What I like about D&D is that you can go with setting/edition or you can decide that Every body is descended from the assorted lifeforms from the Starship - and it is only because of coding errors in the Colonization Clone Pods that Kobolds and Humans are different - the monsters being from the livestock/agricultural decks.
What I like about D&D is that you can go with setting/edition or you can decide that Every body is descended from the assorted lifeforms from the Starship - and it is only because of coding errors in the Colonization Clone Pods that Kobolds and Humans are different - the monsters being from the livestock/agricultural decks.
... and the Core AI on the ship went nuts (which is what caused the crash) and programmed its information into the subconscious of all subsequent intelligent clones to be recognized as the "deity(s)" of this newly-seeded world... and is simply waiting until the surface population is high enough before it can harvest the clones to provide the biological compounds necessary to achieve full optimal processing and resume space travel.
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
....
And if you get this reference, awesome high-five in your direction.
Old school: "I push, pull, twist and prod the protrusion on the wall. What happens?"
New school: "I roll a 25 on my check. What happens?"
Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a
Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
I had forgotten this post. Maybe I'll describe myself as a Gersian Cool School Gamer, from now on...
I hear you. In some ways, it's probably easier for folks like me who generally don't go to sites that are 4e fans, so I don't feel the need to defend or correct as often. I think it would help if people admitted they had reasons beyond game mechanics to not go 4e. Then there'd be a certain honesty and clarity in the discussion. I mean, powers immediately turned me off, but how far am I willing to learn about powers in 4e to see if my initial reaction is accurate? At this point, and certainly points previous, probably not that far. Would it ever change? Perhaps, if I feel like I had something to gain from learning more about it. Would I ever give money to Wizards for 4e products? No, I don't think that would change for various reasons, but even if I suspect that powers are not versimilitudinous, and am wrong about that, I let go of needing to be right about that as giving me a right to say no to 4e. If I recognize my other reasons, then I don't have to hold on to that argument as a reason.
I think folks who liked both had to go through a purgatorial fire. If it's any consolation, I think that those who stuck with us are, for the great majority, the best folks. Not that my compliment makes it all worth while, but you've got it for what's its worth. When I feel the urge to defend these days, if I cannot master it, I try to be sure it's against some really 4anatical post and not against those who've passed through fire to stay here.
BTW, when anyone says "nerd," these days, I want them to say it like that guy in American Splendor. Also not easy.
I am guilty of tossing the occasional log on the fire of the war from time to time. I'm still bitter about a lot of real-life stuff that happened when 4e came out. Not the game's fault, but bad stuff nonetheless, so my mind associates the two.
As counter-productive as it is though, people want to be heard. If we all just agreed that we just play the game we like and that's that, no further discussion, these boards would be a lot more quiet. We are quite the opinionated lot, and after all, if any of us didn't want our opinions heard, then why would we sign up and join a Message Board in the first place? The difference in editions, unfortunately, is a part of our hobby, and has been since DnD 2e came along, probably even earlier. People will always take sides, be it gaming, politics, whatever. Everyone is right, and wrong, at the same time.
I've tried to take the extra step, and deleted several of my recent posts in various threads shortly after posting them, or just cancel the post altogether. Some have been edition specific. After a few moments I look back at the post, and then I think about the thread itself and how much does this post really offer, and often times I realize I'm not adding anything positive, just furthering battles with someone else over an edition preference. So, for what it's worth, I've got my hands full just keeping my own posts in check. But, I am trying, at least.
I had forgotten this post. Maybe I'll describe myself as a Gersian Cool School Gamer, from now on...Old school: "I push, pull, twist and prod the protrusion on the wall. What happens?"
New school: "I roll a 25 on my check. What happens?"
Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a
Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
I find it strange that more people don't do the narrative after the roll and result. So it would go something like:
PlayerL "I roll a 25."
GM: "Nothing happens."
Player. "I push at the wall trying to find a loose section, without sucess."
I do that from time to time, to at least justify it in my mind as something that happened, not just a die roll. Usually, just a footnote, something like "Ok, I tried climbing up that rope but just couldn't get a grip on it and slid down."
I find it strange that more people don't do the narrative after the roll and result.
I assumed this was the norm, until I started talking to folks here.
I do that from time to time, to at least justify it in my mind as something that happened, not just a die roll. Usually, just a footnote, something like "Ok, I tried climbing up that rope but just couldn't get a grip on it and slid down."I find it strange that more people don't do the narrative after the roll and result. So it would go something like:
PlayerL "I roll a 25."
GM: "Nothing happens."
Player. "I push at the wall trying to find a loose section, without sucess."
I do it as the DM, out of habit... often in place of saying "fail" or "success", you'll get something more like "despite your efforts the lock simply won't catch" or "you can't seem to get a firm grip on the surface to the point of making any progress".
Well, it makes me feel better to hear more people say that they integrate rolls into the narrative.
Well, it makes me feel better to hear more people say that they integrate rolls into the narrative.
I suppose it does say something that the lack of such in our games is a sign that a player is sick/tired/not feeling well/having a very bad day.
I'd say so. It means role-playing is the norm.
|
|
Very interesting thread.
I started playing in 1978. I had just rediscovered D&D about a year or so before Dragon and Dungeon were canceled and 4E came out, so I hated it, knowing that I was doing so without entirely justifiable reasons. Many of the posts on this thread (I can't claim I read all 1,079 posts) are very helpful, both in enlightening me about 4E and also expressing what it is I loved about 1E and 3E.
Thanks for all the work and thought that's gone into this discussion.
|
|
What I like about D&D is that you can go with setting/edition or you can decide that Every body is descended from the assorted lifeforms from the Starship - and it is only because of coding errors in the Colonization Clone Pods that Kobolds and Humans are different - the monsters being from the livestock/agricultural decks.... and the Core AI on the ship went nuts (which is what caused the crash) and programmed its information into the subconscious of all subsequent intelligent clones to be recognized as the "deity(s)" of this newly-seeded world... and is simply waiting until the surface population is high enough before it can harvest the clones to provide the biological compounds necessary to achieve full optimal processing and resume space travel.
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
YOU SHALL BE AS GODS
....And if you get this reference, awesome high-five in your direction.
...I'd like for once to have someone translate the bible correctly. References by God to 'not tasting of the fruit of this tree' are about Adam having Sex with Eve (whose name in the original greek is translated as 'without')...not the theft of fruit from a fruit tree.
GOD (Outraged by what he is seeing): "What in the hell are you doing?"
ADAM (Munching on Gods Favourite Apricot while having sex with his sister): "Bite Me!"
And if you get this reference, awesome high-five in your direction....I'd like for once to have someone translate the bible correctly.
I have no idea what you're on about but no, that was not what I was referencing. Nowhere anywhere close at all.
(Also, the original language of Genesis is Hebrew, not Greek, in which Eve means "mother". But wrong thread for that.)
Try again. Hint: It's a video game.
|
|
And if you get this reference, awesome high-five in your direction....I'd like for once to have someone translate the bible correctly.I have no idea what you're on about but no, that was not what I was referencing. Nowhere anywhere close at all.
(Also, the original language of Genesis is Hebrew, not Greek, in which Eve means "mother". But wrong thread for that.)
Try again. Hint: It's a video game.
Its from a bible: the Snake says unto Adam and Eve eat of the fruit and you shall be as gods knowing good and evil...I dont play video games that often (I think the last I played was Dinocrisis).
It translated from Babylonian to Hebrew to Greek to Latin...lets get it right shall we.
the Eve bit when examined as greek symbols looks like the english word Sin (in Latin meaning 'without') but it translated odd - Its weird like that a lot of the Bible seems to have been misunderstood by the people who translated it because they didnt under stand how Latin and Greek were used to say one thing yet mean many different things based on the nature of the conversation.
Xenogears, if I remember correctly. Though, yellowdingo is correct in that the line originates in the bible.
Yeah, I knew it came from there originally, he just wasn't making much sense about it.
But yeah that's where I was copying the scenario from :) That's what I was referring to when I said "if you get the reference", not the individual quote.
Xenogears, if I remember correctly. Though, yellowdingo is correct in that the line originates in the bible.
The line "you shall be as gods/you shall be like God" does come from the Bible (Gen 3). Not sure there was anything else in there, as Orthos indicated.
Glad you found us, T. Austin. Rereading this thread last night, there really were some great posts and exchanges here. Also, Jonathan Jacobs' put up some nice links. I think Pax's OP was how I discovered Grognardia, which I've been reading ever since, and James M.-- whose products I occasionally pick up.
Yeah. I wasn't trying to get the thread sidetracked onto a religious discussion, I had just seen YD's post and couldn't resist the obvious branchoff if you've played the rather obscure Xenogears. And in turn was curious as to who else had possibly played a rather obscure game.
Thus I think we can declare this derail back on track....
|
|
Gygaxian Naturalism
THE KU
Gobelin (Goblin (Bugbear)), Kobolt (Kobold)
Convergance Event:(Gobelin = Kobolt) Gremlin
THE DHWERG
Hob(Elf), Albho (Sidhe, Fae, Banshee), Dwerg (Dwarf), Geant (Giant, Ogre), Twerg (Troll)
Convergance Event: (Parents: Hob = Goblin) Hobgoblin
THE EARTH ELEMENT
Gnom(Gnome)
---------------------------------------HOW TO USE THE ABOVE INFO-------------------------------------
- PRIMARY ANCESTOR
- Ancestor (evolutionary descendant)
- (Parent Species = Parent Species) Convergance Event Child
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
The original of Genesis was in Hebrew. Only later OT books were in Aramaic (like the Book of Daniel).
The original of Genesis was in Hebrew. Only later OT books were in Aramaic (like the Book of Daniel).Actually it was in Babylonian...
No, man, Bible Genesis is Hebrew. There are older Babylonian creation myths indeed, and some of them may have influenced the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2 (Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Epic of Creation), but they are definitely different works of literature...
No, man, Bible Genesis is Hebrew. There are older Babylonian creation myths indeed, and some of them may have influenced the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2 (Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Epic of Creation), but they are definitely different works of literature...
Yep. I know of no scholar in the guild today who thinks there is literary dependence. What you have are points of contact between mythological works that are part of the same broad family -- along with certain features that seem to be nigh universal among certain kinds of mythology.
|
|
No, man, Bible Genesis is Hebrew. There are older Babylonian creation myths indeed, and some of them may have influenced the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2 (Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Epic of Creation), but they are definitely different works of literature...The original of Genesis was in Hebrew. Only later OT books were in Aramaic (like the Book of Daniel).Actually it was in Babylonian...
At the Source of the Tigris and Euphrates...puts it Squarely in the Babylonian. Even the bit where God and the Angels brandishing bronze Weapons and Burning Torches to deport Adama und Eva from Paradiso is Babylonian.
Do i got to sacrifice you on my nifty Ziggurat? Those first Hebrews were Babylonian era Iraqis on the run from the law.
The stories may have Babylonian counterparts (or beginnings geographically), but Moses is accredited with the writing of Genesis... Genesis was written during his 40 years of wandering the desert. He wrote it (and his other books) in Hebrew...
"Although Moses has traditionally been considered the author of Genesis, modern scholars generally agree that the book is a composite of at least three different literary strands: J (10th century BC), E (9th century), and P (5th century)."
See H Bloom, Book of J (1990); G von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (1972); E A Speiser, ed., Genesis (1964); R Youngblood, ed., The Genesis Debate (1986), for example.
The stories may have Babylonian counterparts (or beginnings geographically), but Moses is accredited with the writing of Genesis... Genesis was written during his 40 years of wandering the desert. He wrote it (and his other books) in Hebrew..."Although Moses has traditionally been considered the author of Genesis, modern scholars generally agree that the book is a composite of at least three different literary strands: J (10th century BC), E (9th century), and P (5th century)."
See H Bloom, Book of J (1990); G von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (1972); E A Speiser, ed., Genesis (1964); R Youngblood, ed., The Genesis Debate (1986), for example.
All such sources, for the record, are supposed to be Hebrew sources. (JEPD, or the documentary hypothesis, is something that biblical scholars are pretty uncertain about right now. It's not as widely repudiated as it once was accepted, but it's in an odd limbo with no clear discipline-wide sense of what to do with it. Bloom's out of his depth, FWIW. I really like Friedman's take on the documentary hypothesis, but I'm not sure how widely his stuff is being accepted. I also recommend Robert Alter, if you're wanting to go in a more literary direction.)
|
|
The stories may have Babylonian counterparts (or beginnings geographically), but Moses is accredited with the writing of Genesis...
Genesis was written during his 40 years of wandering the desert. He wrote it (and his other books) in Hebrew...
What Sources did he use? Did he make it up for the Masses (God whispered it in his ears alone?), was it an Egyptian record of the origins on Man/first Pharoah taught to him by his Egyptian Teachers while raised in the palace? Is it an amalgum of memories and stories passed down amongst the 'Hebrew Slaves'? Those Stories would have had a past. That Past would likely be Babylonian in origin because that is supposed to be where these 'slaves' were taken.
If we want to get ugly about Genesis - then Catal Huyuk (7000BC-4000BC) sat as a community just down from the Source of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates on the Anatolian Plateau in Turkey.
This would pretty mych mean it is the Garden of Eden - as populated by God and assorted Angels. However Bronze Weapons dont exist there at any time in its active period. That Puts God's Sword Wielding Angels and food bowl in the Babylonian state further down the River...in Iraq.
|
What Sources did he use? Did he make it up for the Masses (God whispered it in his ears alone?)
I don't know the sources he may have used...
But I do know that if you believe in the divine, then Divine inspiration is an acceptable answer...
On the flip side, (as a general example, and not necessarily related directly to this particular discussion) I have seen and read some rather compelling evidence where history, through archeology has shown the Bible to be correct (or at the very least, plausible)...
As an example of the "at least plausible", see THIS...