|
But Hubbard didn't die in them, did he?The Mission Earth series....
Are you saying "written by L. Ron" or "published under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died in ten long volumes"?Wait--L. Ron Hubbard died in ten long volumes? Which ones were those?
...Er, no.
He died while writing them.
There is some semantic ambiguity in the OP's sentence. In context, it is clear that what he actually meant was "published in ten long volumes under his name after being 'discovered' in his safe after he died"--that is, "ten long volumes" were allegedly discovered in his safe after he died. As written, however, "in ten long volumes" can also be taken (for allegedly humorous effect; YMMV) as describing the manner in which he died.
Gotta disagree with the D&D movie having top-notch talent. The roster's B-grade, with a few anchors. Many from the top part of the B grade for that time, but still there. Marlon Wayans in particular may be from a family of comedians, but count the number of decent movies any of them have made.
Compare with "The Lord of Rings." A bunch of top notch anchors (McKellen, Lee, Blanchett), a veteran character actor (Rhys-Davies), a former child star (Wood), and a bunch of people no one had really seen on the international stage before that. It certainly made the careers for Mortenson and Bloom, and it was I think the first Americans had seen of Sean Bean.
As for Wayans.... Yeah, well, I think this was a casting problem, but I'm certain the hope was that he might transcend that like his fellow Living Color castmate did, Jim Carrey.
Of course now I'm imagining what would have happened if Jim Carrey played the evil wizard instead of Jeremy Irons....
It certainly made the careers for Mortenson and Bloom, and it was I think the first Americans had seen of Sean Bean.
Except for such unknown films as Ronin, Patriot Games, Goldeneye...
Corrected on Sean Bean. As I said, "I think" and I hadn't seen any of those three movies.
But part of the point was also that the D&D movie cast was not a group of complete unknowns either.
If you wanted a good D&D movie, I think the reasonable choice would be to get Alfonso Cuaron interested, as he's rebooting The Haunted Mansion, and obviously knows fantasy what with Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Prisoner of Azkabhan.
Every time that Jeremy Irons is in a movie that's not great, the angels weep. :-(
Every time that Jeremy Irons is in a movie that's not great, the angels weep. :-(
There must be rivers and rivers of angel tears because his crap to good movie ratio is pretty high. Last good thing I saw him in was Appaloosa.
Every time that Jeremy Irons is in a movie that's not great, the angels weep. :-(There must be rivers and rivers of angel tears because his crap to good movie ratio is pretty high. Last good thing I saw him in was Appaloosa.
I hope the angels stop by and pick me up on the way to your house...
How inspiring can be a book about rolling d20's and spells that deal 1d6 damage per caster level? And the name... horrible, Dungeons? really? A Clash (of Titans i.e.) promises action and testosterone, but Dungeons suggest claustrophobia, at best. At least there were Dragons.
Well, the two (nominal) sequels have secondary titles: "Wrath of the Dragon God" and "The Book of Vile Darkness" respectively. Nothing wrong with that as a naming convention.
The rolling of d20s and the doing of 1d6 damage is mechanics behind the curtain that the characters should not be aware of, and even the spell names would be more grandiose than the shorthand names in the book.
Remember, Tolkien had the great swords known as Glamdring and Orcrist, at least in the original elven. The goblins nicknamed them "Biter" and "Beater."
One would expect that a proper Vancian wizard would say, "I shall cast the Mage Mordenkainen's Spell of Unerring Levin Bolts or as we called it as apprentices back at the academy 'Magic Missile.'" One expect that he does not run around yelling "Magic Missile!" in battle anymore than the rogue screams "Backstab!" while backstabbing someone. Ahem. "Sneak Attack!"
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
While I agree on the whole, Mortensen at least had appeared as a major character in G.I. Jane, as well as in smaller roles in The Witness, Crimson Tide, Daylight and A Perfect Murder, before appearing in LoTR. Not a name perhaps, but definitely someone the industry knew of before LoTR.
And Sean Astin had headlined more than one film before LotR. I'd put him in the B-grade for sure, though.
And LotR is an apt comparison. I think casting few big names served them exceptionally well in that case.
One would expect that a proper Vancian wizard would say, "I shall cast the Mage Mordenkainen's Spell of Unerring Levin Bolts or as we called it as apprentices back at the academy 'Magic Missile.'" One expect that he does not run around yelling "Magic Missile!" in battle anymore than the rogue screams "Backstab!" while backstabbing someone. Ahem. "Sneak Attack!"
So, no "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Sleep!" ??
And LotR is an apt comparison. I think casting few big names served them exceptionally well in that case.
I don't think it was the casting of big names. What Peter Jackson did, and pitched to the studio, was going after excellent but relatively inexpensive talent. And let's face it, there are some fantastic actors who don't command the gobs and gobs of cash that the likes of Tom Cruise get.
Just come off it. as it's been pointing out, you're condemming something I haven't done. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to game based fantasy fiction which is by most objective accounts the subset of fantasy writing that's prone to weak writing and some of the worst of the fantasy subset above and below the average.
Exactly how does one objectively review something like this, pray tell?
One would expect that a proper Vancian wizard would say, "I shall cast the Mage Mordenkainen's Spell of Unerring Levin Bolts or as we called it as apprentices back at the academy 'Magic Missile.'" One expect that he does not run around yelling "Magic Missile!" in battle anymore than the rogue screams "Backstab!" while backstabbing someone. Ahem. "Sneak Attack!"So, no "Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Sleep!" ??
Unless it is an animated Order of the Stick movie (or Knights of the Dinner Table), I hope not.
Stefan
Just come off it. as it's been pointing out, you're condemming something I haven't done. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to game based fantasy fiction which is by most objective accounts the subset of fantasy writing that's prone to weak writing and some of the worst of the fantasy subset above and below the average.
Game based fiction DOES tend to be crap because it suffers from much of the forced writing you see in fan fiction, only in this case game system based stories lurch around always wearing the albatross of the game system they come from around them. This is very clear of the Magic the Gathering novels and even the first Dragonlance novels by THE AUTHOR'S OWN ADMISSION suffered from this. Making this observation HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with a commentary of the SF/Fantasy genre as a whole.
The problem with writing stories based on game systems is that it's the cart before the horse syndrome. Game systems and gaming statistics aren't stories about characters... they're the reverse, they are the skeletons of stories stripped down to mechanics. And a writer who writes a game based story, or film or novel who isn't ready to say "To hell with the game system it's in my way!" is going to put out sub par work because the system is ALWAYS in the way of telling a good story.
Maybe you're taking this personally because you see yourself as a persecuted author, even if you've never been published. If so, then you need to learn to step back and take discussions in the context and perspective that they exist in. Because I only have limited sympathy for persecution complexes and I won't hold my speech hostage to them.
My point, since you're missing it, is that the attack you're using against roleplaying game tie-in fiction now is the same attack used against science fiction in 1958 (when Ted Sturgeon defended against it) and against novel writing in general in 1817 (when Jane Austen defended against it).
The attacks on novels have generally stopped, but the attacks on genre fiction are ongoing and continuous, and the attacks on gaming fiction and all other tie-in fiction are especially popular.
I believe that I already mentioned that I'm published, but in any case I am, with credits in game writing, gaming fiction, media tie-in fiction, original fiction, literary criticism, and even formal poetry in high-brow literary publications. I hadn't mentioned it more because I believe that arguments should rely on their own strengths rather than past laurels. I'll also note that I'm not the only published author posting in this topic, nor the only one here who writes gaming fiction in addition to original fiction.
I agree that sometimes the game mechanics can get in the way of a good story but it might surprise you to learn that sometimes the mechanics are changed or expanded to accommodate the story and make it canon rather than the other way around. For example, I did a selkie story for the first Changeling anthology, and since the pookas in the main book didn't fit the selkies in folklore or the way I wanted to depict them in the story, I talked with the editors and also wrote up the rules for selkies then included in one of the Changeling supplements.
And yes, I've read bad game fiction, as well as less than successful game fiction, and game fiction I simply didn't care for as literature but I realized that other readers might.
That Weis and Hickman made missteps in their first game fiction and acknowledged them is hardly remarkable. The first works in any artform in its infancy are going to be less polished than those that come later, generally speaking.
But if you look to Sturgeon's quote about looking to the worst examples of a genre as an excuse to attack the whole, you should see what I mean about tarring everything with the same brush.
I figured this was the appropriate thread for this...this pleases me. :D
I just came across this on RPGGeek.com... check out number 5.
These basically show random fan ratings, with a few votes being capable of pushing a game up high, like 31 votes getting The Dresden Files listed at 2. So, it does not prove much, besides that there are some fans who like certain games....
Stefan
** spoiler omitted **
;-) This was quite ridiculous. I have played a LARP wizard for years, incidentally. That kind of *ahem* roleplay would have caused me to ignore that wizard completely, this was RPing on the level of "The Gamers". I would raise my staff, point it at the target and spout some pseudo-latin nonsense, and would tell the target what spell hit him after that. Thanks for posting that.
Stefan
I figured this was the appropriate thread for this...this pleases me. :D
I just came across this on RPGGeek.com... check out number 5.
These basically show random fan ratings, with a few votes being capable of pushing a game up high, like 31 votes getting The Dresden Files listed at 2. So, it does not prove much, besides that there are some fans who like certain games....
Stefan
If F.A.T.A.L. isn't on the list (didn't check), and 10 people rated it 10 out of 10, that'd bump it to the top of the list.
Just sayin'.
|
You know guys, the mere fact that "Paizo outsells WotC" and "Should Paizo buy D&D when WotC rolls over" are being discussed means that Pathfinder hit it higher than anybody expected. Somebody from the WotC board is crying in a small room right now. Or throwing darts at photos of Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey.
You know guys, the mere fact that "Paizo outsells WotC" and "Should Paizo buy D&D when WotC rolls over" are being discussed means that Pathfinder hit it higher than anybody expected. Somebody from the WotC board is crying in a small room right now. Or throwing darts at photos of Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey.
I'm not sure about that, we're hardly an objective bunch of observers here.
It might be interesting to find out how Pathfinder is discussed on the Wizards forums though.
|
|
You know guys, the mere fact that "Paizo outsells WotC" and "Should Paizo buy D&D when WotC rolls over" are being discussed means that Pathfinder hit it higher than anybody expected. Somebody from the WotC board is crying in a small room right now. Or throwing darts at photos of Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey.I'm not sure about that, we're hardly an objective bunch of observers here.
It might be interesting to find out how Pathfinder is discussed on the Wizards forums though.
It isn't. Since It's Not D&D*, it falls outside the topic of WotC boards. On the rare occasion it pops out in a discussion, it is immediately savaged by 4rries who accuse Paizo of fragmenting the community and Refusing To Follow The Illustrious Industry Leader.
* YMMV.
You are forgetting that WOTC is now a property of HASBRO and they are the ones who own the brand D&D.
WOTC takes their marching orders from them.
Hasbro is a toy and board game company and uses that microscope to view WOTC.
If sale of Miniatures drops, then HASBRO sees it as a failed line of toys and will "encourage" dropping it.
Right now, HASBRO's business model is to upgrade all of its products to the 21st century. They are spreading MONOPOLY out into a huge amount of media including online multiplayer and phone Apps.
D&D is an old style pen & paper game. The present drive will be to treat it more like a MMORPG. Hasbro thinking says "Why have a DM screen when you can have a DM screen phone app?"
"Why drive to your friends house when you can play co-op online against a computer DM or have your DM run things with an official D&D program that you pay a subcription fee each month to use?"
Of course this includes the MMORPG "pay to play" model AKA D&D Insider.
For Hasbro, MMORPG's are the newest, hottest money maker and it is all about money anyway.
If any other game or brand becomes too competitive, then expect Hasbro to buy them out (just like they did with Avalon Hill and WOTC).
If you want to know where D&D and WOTC are going, then look up the Hasbro business strategy (posted on a lot of money magazine sites) and you can get a good idea.
Just come off it. as it's been pointing out, you're condemming something I haven't done. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to game based fantasy fiction which is by most objective accounts the subset of fantasy writing that's prone to weak writing and some of the worst of the fantasy subset above and below the average.Exactly how does one objectively review something like this, pray tell?
You can't. As you know perfectly well, having asked the question. ;)
I don't even have any quibble with the substance of LazarX's argument (namely, that game mechanics can get in the way of storytelling, and that the storytelling can suffer as a result), and I don't think KAM does either. I'm inclined to agree that there are a lot of limitations to tie-in work that don't apply so much to original fiction, and which make it harder to turn out a good tie-in story.
For example: I don't know if this is still the case, but once upon a time (according to my secondhand sources, i.e., this could all just be made up) the standard turnaround time for a TSR tie-in was about six months from signing the contract to delivery of the manuscript. That's a deadline I personally could maybe make if I got lucky and everything was firing on all cylinders and the story never backed itself into an unexpected corner, but which more probably would cause my head to explode around month 4, resulting in a less-than-satisfactory ending (and also a mess on my walls).
There are writers who can turn out a perfectly good book in six months, reliable as clockwork. The subset of those who can do it, and are willing to work in someone else's IP, and understand the mechanics/canon of the setting well enough to write them in interesting fashion or at least not overtly break enough stuff to make the fans scream, is not limitless.
So I'm not going to argue that writing tie-in fiction, and doing it well, doesn't present its own set of unique challenges. In many respects it's harder than writing original fiction. (In other respects it's easier: for one, if I have a question about Golarion's background history, I can look at the wiki or the campaign setting and have the information condensed and neatly organized at my fingertips, instead of having to flip through 500 wince-inducing pages of stuff I wrote. Oh god the flashbacks the flashbacks...)
Pretty much the only thing I am going to argue with is the notion that tie-in works are "objectively" anything relative to any other SF/F work. There's no objectivity in art. There's a consensus opinion, sure, but that just means there are a lot of people who share the same subjective view.
Which is a real long post to say "dude don't cite to an imaginary objective standard to support your argument, especially when you don't need it," but hey. I get paid by the word, baby.
(I don't really. If I did I'd have a lot more jewelry.)
|
You know guys, the mere fact that "Paizo outsells WotC" and "Should Paizo buy D&D when WotC rolls over" are being discussed means that Pathfinder hit it higher than anybody expected. Somebody from the WotC board is crying in a small room right now. Or throwing darts at photos of Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey.I'm not sure about that, we're hardly an objective bunch of observers here.
It might be interesting to find out how Pathfinder is discussed on the Wizards forums though.
It isn't. Since It's Not D&D*, it falls outside the topic of WotC boards. On the rare occasion it pops out in a discussion, it is immediately savaged by 4rries who accuse Paizo of fragmenting the community and Refusing To Follow The Illustrious Industry Leader.
* YMMV.
PF and 3.5 are condemned and hated by many in the DnD 4e community. Most believe in the whole "The Caster always has the perfect spell memorized" argument and yell down, en masse, any who like and or defend the edition.
It isn't. Since It's Not D&D*, it falls outside the topic of WotC boards. On the rare occasion it pops out in a discussion, it is immediately savaged by 4rries who accuse Paizo of fragmenting the community and Refusing To Follow The Illustrious Industry Leader.
* YMMV.
I think there is a strong point here Gorbacz. I remember the Origins the year 3.0 shipped a million copy first print run. Damn near every booth people were pumping their upcoming d20 (new game, version of their existing game, what have you) products and admiting fully that run number shaped their decision. Deadlands d20 huh, ohh a L5R d20 you say.
That was when the industry, by and large, willingly entered into a hegemonic arrangement not seen since, what, the early 80's. Not that WW, Palladium, or FASA were going to unseat #1 even in the mid 90's Flash forward to today and the big 2 sellers relationship to that hegemonic consolidation is largely analogous to the Catholic/ eastern Orthodox split.
"Fragmenting the community" is a hyperbolic attack to be sure, but to be practical a measure of "killing ones idols/ predecessors" is how academia often sees development and innovation. This industry/hobby needs to re-enter a cycle of that in order to better adapt/grow for the new market.
Why aren't we seeing smart phone/ e-reader apps that not only allow for ease of access to the printed materials but to facilitate face time video chat games dice rolls included, a step beyond PbP or even the Skype facilitated games I have participated in? I understand the issue of multiple formats creating a real concern of backing the wrong horse technologically speaking (RIFT"S game for the N'Gage comes to mind) and would buy that as the reason why.
[1]Right now, HASBRO's business model is to upgrade all of its products to the 21st century. They are spreading MONOPOLY out into a huge amount of media including online multiplayer and phone Apps.
[2] D&D is an old style pen & paper game. The present drive will be to treat it more like a MMORPG. Hasbro thinking says "Why have a DM screen when you can have a DM screen phone app?"
[3]"Why drive to your friends house when you can play co-op online against a computer DM or have your DM run things with an official D&D program that you pay a subcription fee each month to use?"[4]Of course this includes the MMORPG "pay to play" model AKA D&D Insider.
1. I'm sorry which "Apps " are these I just checked the iOS App store WEEBLES (wobble but they don't fall down) is the only Hasbro App and maybe 10 boardgames of theirs digitized by Electronic Arts .
2. The DDI is being rebuilt in Silverlight. This makes a poor choice if Hasbro is pushing iPhone or even Android Apps.
3. Again if Hasbro was serious about pushing D&D purely online they would have gotten some serious developers and have the virtual table online already, not hanging it's illusory butt out a window.
4. This is partly right, only subscription models have been around a long time. It isn't an MMO it's more like the New York Times online (although quality is suspect).
My contention is WotC is making a mistake by NOT pushing for a mobile presence, especial in a walled garden like iOS. With good marketing and a good intro twitch product (say D&D Minis virtual through Game Center) they could start pulling in some non-P&P games.
While browsing through Amazon, I noticed the following sales rankings (organized by year, and selecting products that are more or less equivalent in terms of "coreness", if that is even a word):
2008
-Player's Handbook 1 (4e): #4.858
-Monster Manual 1 (4e): #20.181
-Dungeon Master's Guide 1 (4e): #31.452
-Core Rulebook Gift Set (4e): #10.995
-Dungeon Master's Screen (4e): #5.415.324 (probably ran out of stock very early. Such a low ranking is odd)
2009
-Player's Handbook 2 (4e): #4.061
-Monster Manual 2 (4e): #14.163
-Pathfinder Core Rulebook (Pathfinder): #2.976
-Bestiary 1 (Pathfinder): #5.445
-GM's Screen (Pathfinder): #12.685
2010
-Player's Handbook 3 (4e): #10.097
-Dungeon Master's Guide 2 (4e): #10.052
-Monster Manual 3 (4e): #22.643
-Rules Compendium (4e Essentials): #6.285
-Dungeon Master's Kit (4e Essentials): #31.702
-Monster's Vault (4e Essentials): #6.220
-Advanced Player's Handbook (Pathfinder): #3.628
-Advanced Gamemastery Guide (Pathfinder): #15.938
2011
-Deluxe Dungeon Master's Screen (4e): #56.739
-Bestiary 2 (Pathfinder): #1.890
The books left out (Pathfinder Chronicles, the 4e Powers, etc) all rank #30.000 or well bellow (most of them sub-50.000), plus were harder to contrast with each other, so I left them out
Now, while Amazon's sale rankings are certainly not an accurate measure of the market (as it leaves out direct sales at stores, pdf's and the like), it does give an interesting perspective when we perform internal comparisons. After all, I believe it would be a safe assuption to say that Amazon is equally attractive to both 4e and Pathfinder buyers, and thus should represent a relatively similar share of each one's market.
Under that consideration, we can see an interesting trend: 4e sales are larger in nominal terms, while Pathfinder's are larger in real term. In other words, 4e sells more books in total, while Pathfinder sells more books per line. Assuming similar pricing and cost structures (both games seem to be quite close in terms of quality and content, so I believe it is a reasonable assumption), Paizo would be getting a better return over investment with each Pathfinder book than Wizards with each 4e book.
Now, Paizo being a smaller and newer company certainly means that, from an outsider investor's perspective, it would be reasonable to expect better returns (since, ceteris paribus, Paizo would be a riskier option compared to Wizards), in order to compensate said risk. This makes it difficult to say which line, 4e or Pathfinder, is a better investment without factual numbers, but it leads to very interesting observations nonetheless.
While I agree on the whole, Mortensen at least had appeared as a major character in G.I. Jane, as well as in smaller roles in The Witness, Crimson Tide, Daylight and A Perfect Murder, before appearing in LoTR. Not a name perhaps, but definitely someone the industry knew of before LoTR.And Sean Astin had headlined more than one film before LotR. I'd put him in the B-grade for sure, though.
THERE'S NOTHING B-GRADE ABOUT "ENCINO MAN", SIR.
Some people just have no taste. ;D
While I agree on the whole, Mortensen at least had appeared as a major character in G.I. Jane, as well as in smaller roles in The Witness, Crimson Tide, Daylight and A Perfect Murder, before appearing in LoTR. Not a name perhaps, but definitely someone the industry knew of before LoTR.And Sean Astin had headlined more than one film before LotR. I'd put him in the B-grade for sure, though.THERE'S NOTHING B-GRADE ABOUT "ENCINO MAN", SIR.
Some people just have no taste. ;D
Umm The Goonies?
As to Mortensen: He wins the best Devil in any film award for The Prophesy. also hew was tracking up the charts with things like A Perfect Murder before LOTR.
/Chester Copperpot
One expect that he does not run around yelling "Magic Missile!" in battle anymore than the rogue screams "Backstab!" while backstabbing someone. Ahem. "Sneak Attack!"
I always yell out sneak attack when approaching someone from behind or a flanking position. It is only right to warn people, though the pizza guy usually catches me flat-footed.
Not to put too strongly of a point on it, but many 4e fans dislike 3e after playing it for years and after gaining those years of experience, while many 3e fans that hate 4e haven't actually read the books or played the game.
Then there's the master race of people like me who enjoy both.
Also 4rries? Really? This ain't 4chan, man. Come on.
Just come off it. as it's been pointing out, you're condemming something I haven't done. I am referring SPECIFICALLY to game based fantasy fiction which is by most objective accounts the subset of fantasy writing that's prone to weak writing and some of the worst of the fantasy subset above and below the average.Exactly how does one objectively review something like this, pray tell?You can't. As you know perfectly well, having asked the question. ;)
I don't even have any quibble with the substance of LazarX's argument (namely, that game mechanics can get in the way of storytelling, and that the storytelling can suffer as a result), and I don't think KAM does either. I'm inclined to agree that there are a lot of limitations to tie-in work that don't apply so much to original fiction, and which make it harder to turn out a good tie-in story.
True, but tie-in authors aren't the first writers who've had to deal with this. Remember the scene in Nicholas Nicholby where the theater company manager is going "Oh, and we have a water pump that actually pumps water! Make sure to include one in your play!" Add to that the requirements to have a role for a fat guy who likes playing fools, a handsome guy who can deliver a good soliloquy, and a couple of guys who can do a good swordfight.
Sometimes this can happen late in the game too. I remember a friends short story that got adapted for a movie and late on the rock star who was slated to play the hero dropped out and so was replaced with a wrestler who was getting into acting so there were some extraneous wrestling scenes pasted into the plot for fan service for the wrestling fans.
|
|
Not to put too strongly of a point on it, but many 4e fans dislike 3e after playing it for years and after gaining those years of experience, while many 3e fans that hate 4e haven't actually read the books or played the game.
Then there's the master race of people like me who enjoy both.
Also 4rries? Really? This ain't 4chan, man. Come on.
Somebody who refers to himself as "master race" shouldn't really complain about semantics of the others :)
|
|
Not to put too strongly of a point on it, but many 4e fans dislike 3e after playing it for years and after gaining those years of experience, while many 3e fans that hate 4e haven't actually read the books or played the game.
Then there's the master race of people like me who enjoy both.
Also 4rries? Really? This ain't 4chan, man. Come on.
My whole group played and read the 4e books and all, except me (as I am one of the master race ;p), vary between indifference to hate for the edition. I tend to think that most people have tried it and don't like it. How much they tried is variable but they have looked through the books and have attempted a session or two.
I was a long time inhabitant on the 4e boards and found most people there gave little respect to anyone that liked/defended PF/3e. Many there were as closed minded about 3e as you say people are about 4.
|
|
At least you can admit it. I think the worst is when they do this number: "oh. Did I say that? well....I'll just....uuuuh,,, disappear and pretend like the thread doesn't exist any more....yeah. It's virtually the same as being right..."Yeah, I think I had a large number of "insightful" comments that were completely wrong. I'm pretty sure at some point I stated:
4e would be awesome and succeed.
No one would be able to successfully use the OGL to create a successor to 3e.
Even if someone did, it would still have the same problems with backwards compatibility as 4e.
No one would ever hire Mark Moreland for any job. Ever.*
Online tabletop would be the Best. Thing. Ever.
We should all support 4e because if D&D failed, so failed the hobby.I'm sure there's other stuff, said with great specificity and gusto.
I think I'm going to predict Paizo's abrupt and titanic failure this year - that would practically guarantee them continued success.
Hmmm...crow...
But tastey crow. Never been so happy to be wrong.
*Okay, I may not have said that, but I'd have laughed at the idea of someone on the messageboards doing so much great work tracking Golarion, writing Society adventures, and dominating PaizoCon trivia contests that they'd be hired by Paizo. I'm still jaw-droppingly impressed.
See, you and I were both making predictions about 4e back then. Only yours were about the industry, and mine were that I would be an edition whore and buy their books. My predictions were remarkably accurate.
Somebody who refers to himself as "master race" shouldn't really complain about semantics of the others :)Not to put too strongly of a point on it, but many 4e fans dislike 3e after playing it for years and after gaining those years of experience, while many 3e fans that hate 4e haven't actually read the books or played the game.
Then there's the master race of people like me who enjoy both.
Also 4rries? Really? This ain't 4chan, man. Come on.
LOL!
Kinda off-topic:
One of the great things about PnP RPGs is that it gives you freedom to create all kind of imaginative stuff.
Yet published adventures and campaing settings are extremely important, contradictory?Not at all.
If you're a novelist, one of the BEST ways to find inspiration and learn how to write novels better is to read novels written by other novelists. Why should that method of learning and being inspired work any different for designing campaign settings or adventures?
I know this is from several pages back, but I wanted to comment on it. I'm in the process of doing just what James is describing with a new campaign I am running.
For years I ran homebrewed adventures in Ravenloft and a few in Greyhawk. I rarely ever touched a module. I was never against them, I just really suck at using them(always missing story parts, forgetting what page this and that is on, etc.). I always stuck to the CS books for info, but the adventures would evolve and change as the players played them.
Well, my most recent Ravenloft campaign pretty much evaporated in a mix of tired, rehashed story arcs, terrible session scheduling, and a wicked bad case of writer's block. I decided to finally give the Pathfinder rules and setting a go, and run the Red Hand of Doom adventure. I've come to a slump in my own DM'ing skills, and I need a refresher course in being a DM and running a dynamic adventure.
tl; dr
I'm in a major DM slump, and I need to see how other DM's run and write, and see what I can improve upon.
You know guys, the mere fact that "Paizo outsells WotC" and "Should Paizo buy D&D when WotC rolls over" are being discussed means that Pathfinder hit it higher than anybody expected. Somebody from the WotC board is crying in a small room right now. Or throwing darts at photos of Peter Adkinson and Ryan Dancey.I'm not sure about that, we're hardly an objective bunch of observers here.
It might be interesting to find out how Pathfinder is discussed on the Wizards forums though.
It isn't. Since It's Not D&D*, it falls outside the topic of WotC boards. On the rare occasion it pops out in a discussion, it is immediately savaged by 4rries who accuse Paizo of fragmenting the community and Refusing To Follow The Illustrious Industry Leader.
* YMMV.
Well, that pretty much sums it up from my experience too. You might find a random smattering of PF mentioned in the Previous Editions boards, but they say the same thing.
*spoilered rant*
I don't really post there anymore(I'm Jandrem there too if you're looking). There's one poster in particular who trolls the Previous Edition boards who turns every single topic and thread into "3e druids are teh haxorz, everything else is gimp. Jus play Druidz onry. Anything you can do in 3e you can do in 4e. Just play 4e." The topic could be about peanut butter sandwiches and he'd show up to turn it into that. He's like the 4e police and that forum is his jurisdiction. It's like, dude, this is the PREVIOUS editions forum, let us rant, damn you!
Like "The Most Excellent Prismatic Spray" ? :)
The rolling of d20s and the doing of 1d6 damage is mechanics behind the curtain that the characters should not be aware of, and even the spell names would be more grandiose than the shorthand names in the book.
Exactly. Vance's original is more Vancian, by definition.
|
|
LOL!Somebody who refers to himself as "master race" shouldn't really complain about semantics of the others :)Not to put too strongly of a point on it, but many 4e fans dislike 3e after playing it for years and after gaining those years of experience, while many 3e fans that hate 4e haven't actually read the books or played the game.
Then there's the master race of people like me who enjoy both.
Also 4rries? Really? This ain't 4chan, man. Come on.
When I first read 4rries, I was thinking Furries. Not sure who I'm insulting more with that comment. ;-)
I don't use it, because I don't compare people to furries. Not even 4E players.
Furries have sex.... ;)