D&DNext: Playtest Review

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

sake wrote:
shadzar wrote:crap
Oh goddammit, I 'm breaking the don't reply to shadzar rule again. Will you please shut up about that damn Buck Rogers game! Of all the the stupid shit that woman did to wreck TSR, you keep harping on one of the few reasonable things she ever did. Making a sci-fi rpg to attract to *other* half of nerd fandom made perfect sense. And since Star Wars would be too expensive to licence (not to mention there are pages and pages of essays on all the ways Lucas fucked over various licensees), and making a completely new setting would take too long and be riskier, using a proven franchise you already personally have the rights to in order to save money *and* pocket a little extra cash on the side is just good bloody business.
I was born in 1984 so I don't really catch the sci-fi nerd zeitgeist of the mid-80s/early-90s, but total I fail to see how or even why a Buck Rogers game would catch on. If you were talking about the 60s or even 70s, sure. But was Buck Rogers in any way, shape, or form cool or interesting during that time frame?

If TSR was so hot-to-trot on a sci-fi property and (understandably) Star Wars wasn't available, why didn't they pick something from, oh:

[*] Star Trek: TNG
[*] Babylon 5
[*] Battlestar Galactica
[*] Dune
[*] Doctor Who
[*] Macross
[*] Gundam Wing
[*] Or, hell, even World of Gor?

These licenses wouldn't be free, of course, but what exactly of Buck Rogers would make anyone think it'd make a good sci-fi property to make your TTRPG revolve around? The fanbase is teensy-weensy, nothing in the setting stands out, and the people who liked Buck Rogers enough for some crossover appeal aren't the kind of people who'd be interested in or even able to build a long-term demographic for your product.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
ETortoise
Master
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:12 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Post by ETortoise »

[quote="Lago Paranoia] TSR was so hot-to-trot on a sci-fi property and (understandably) Star Wars wasn't available, why didn't they pick something from, oh:

Star Trek: TNG
Babylon 5
Battlestar Galactica
Dune
Doctor Who
Macross
Gundam Wing
Or, hell, even World of Gor? [/quote]

The Buck Rogers game was published in 1988. FASA was publishing Star Trek games at that point and Palladium had Macross (or rather, Robotech). Babylon 5 and Gundam Wing didn't exist yet. Battlestar Galactica aired for two seasons (1978 and 1980), about the same as the Buck Rogers in the 25th Century show (1979-1981).

Dune Doctor Who, and Gor aren't really in the spaceship-combat wheelhouse.

What was the penetration of Mobile Suit Gundam in America in the late 80's?
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

Buck Rogers ran form 1979 to 1981... so in the mid 80's buck rogers was still fresh in our Nerdgasmic memories. Wilma Deering :)

Babylon 5 doesn't even air until 1994. Given that the Buck Rogers RPG started in 1984, Bab5 isn't even a twinkle, neither is Gundam Wing. Battlestar Galactica just wasn't that cool, and the license was hard to grab. Doctor Who isn't really a viable RPG setting in the 80's. What kind of characters do you make? Who gets to be the Doctor. If noone is the Doctor, then what the hell are you playing.
There is a Macross rpg in the 80's. Robotech/Macross is printed by Paladium. Star Frontier had come out in 1982... and had not done well.

I get it you were 4 years old when it came out, but you could have spent 10 seconds googling some of your ideas to realize over 1/2 of them weren't possible.
talozin
Knight-Baron
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:08 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by talozin »

Lago PARANOIA wrote: [*] Star Trek: TNG
[*] Babylon 5
[*] Battlestar Galactica
[*] Dune
[*] Doctor Who
[*] Macross
[*] Gundam Wing
[*] Or, hell, even World of Gor?
Star Trek had been licensed to FASA in the late '80s/early '90s -- I forget when that deal expired -- and would probably have been enormously expensive even if the license had been attainable.

B5 didn't even come out until '94, well after TSR was past its Buck Rodgers phase.

Battlestar Galactica hadn't had its revival yet, and was really no better or worse than Buck Rodgers in terms of "slightly cheesy sci-fi franchise with a brief TV run in the late '70s".

Dune had only a few years ago become a hugely expensive box-office bomb. Also, this was either before or shortly after Frank Herbert died, and Brian Herbert had not yet gotten the ability or willingness to decide that no licensing deal was too absurd to cash in on his father's legacy.

Doctor Who was also licensed to FASA at the time, and in any case this was the Colin Baker/Sylvester McCoy era when the original series was winding down.

Macross was already licensed to Palladium.

Gundam Wing didn't come out until '95.

I'm not defending TSR's decision to do a Buck Rogers game, but there weren't a lot of sci-fi properities with name recognition available when they decided they wanted to do a sci-fi game. It wound up being a miserable failure, but it was a miserable failure that probably cost them less than many other possibilities for miserable failure.
TheFlatline wrote:This is like arguing that blowjobs have to be terrible, pain-inflicting endeavors so that when you get a chick who *doesn't* draw blood everyone can high-five and feel good about it.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

It's important to remember that however important you thought Buck Rogers was, Lorraine Williams was herself the granddaughter of one of the guys who did the old Buck rogers comic. She personally probably thought Buck Rogers was a bigger deal than it was, because she grew up in a Buck Rogers household.

That being said, the reason Buck Rogers failed was that the games done for the line were crap. Let's be honest here: Buck Rogers is no stupider than Traveler or Gamma World. Had the systems presented for it been innovative and forward thinking, we'd have been having discussions about how to convert Buck Rogers into other science fiction universes. But they weren't. It's basically AD&D with percentile skills. You know, like Palladium. Or any other Fantasy Heartbreaker from the early eighties you cared to name. But in space.

-Username17
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

Wait, what? 4E is like TORG?!
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

That's an insult to TORG. TORG is an incredibly fun game, for what it is. And, at the time, it had a lot of innovation.

I'm stlll failing to remember how the mechanics from Buck Rogers were in any way different from Star Frontier and Gamma World.
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

fectin wrote:Wait, what? 4E is like TORG?!
Yes. Bill S worked with TORG and 4th, and BOTH have the premise "cinematic multi-genre role-playing game", or at least were designed to be that way.

read TORG once, so VERY unfamiliar as to how it turned out, but that is not the point.

Yeah LW owned Buck Rogers at the time Gary found out the Blumes had run TSR into $1.5 million into debt, and Gary asked Flint if he could set up a meeting with his granddaughter to try to gain her as an investment before the Blumes sold TSR to another company, like LW eventually did to WotC, and Adkinson did with WotC to HASBRO.

Buck Rogers is jsut a speck on the argument I was making though because how, as Frank reminds people, closely involved with sci-fi LW was being the granddaughter of the creator of the Buck Rogers IP (others contributed but Flint came up with the main concept, modern day man hurdled into the future and now has to live through it and figure out history and try to make it home). At the time Gary sought Lorraine, she already controlled the Dille Estate, including Buck Rogers.

So Bill's love for sci-fi and LW owning a big old sci-fi property, gave them a close relationship in terms of interests. Bill mostly worked on sci-fi style games (Alternity, TORG, Star Wars by WEG, etc), and showed little to no love for medieval fantasy, similar to LW's disdain for the customers of TSR (obviously because they werent worshiping sci-fi and her grandpa but a Tolkienesque genre), so Bill being gone is GOOD for D&D. removes one of the final remnants of LW, and removes someone from D&D that didnt even seen to like D&D, a medieval fantasy, sword and sorcery, game.


EDIT: Flint Dille, was a newspaper baron that bought the rights to Buck, and adapted it. so where i miswrote Dille created it, he just put it into syndication with help of a writer and artist to draw it. which makes LW an even bigger bitch like Disney of today, or anyplace that claims ownership of its authors works and gives the author no rights (which is what copyright was designed for to protect the creators rights for a short time, not forbid anyone from ever using some businesses property that they have the rights to DISTRIBUTE.)

this ENTIRE BUCK ROGERS thing was spawned from this (to remind people):

FrankT wrote:
CCarter wrote:So my disgust is pretty much beyond words but I suppose I should try.

Where is he getting this shit from? Someone should tell Mearls that
Alternity captured 4% of RPG market share back in the 90s, up against brilliantly engineered (not) games like 2nd Edition and Amazing Engine, and then died the horrible death it deserved. He should have enough dumpsters to rummage through with 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E without using that one.
The head author of Alternity (Bill Slavicsek) was mysteriously still working at WotC with some sort of fancy title and writing their Ampersand columns until June of last year. So it's to be understood that there are still probably a pile of Alternity-style ideas sitting on the desk. Especially since Mike Mearls got Bill Slavicsek's desk and presumably all the Alternity notes that were sitting on it.
So i am guessing Mearls using a mechanic similar to something found in Alternity is what starter it all due to some sort of "expertise mechanic" that resembles "expertise dice" in DDN. THEN Frank reminding that Mearls took over Bill's job, and with NDAs and contract agreements, it means Bill's gaming notes ALL belonged to WotC/HASBRO, so Mearls could be using them to carry on forward with 5th. because as well ALL know, Mearls couldnt design a game, let alone lead other in designing one.

which is probably the REAL reason behind the public playtest. not to emulate pathfinder and gain popularity by mimicry, or to appease the gaming public; but simply because Mearls has no idea how to design a game, and showed with 4th how little he understands about D&D (read L&L articles, as well Wrecan's blog about said articles about the lead designers of 4th). So Mearls is grasping at straws just to keep his job, because WotC will be the LAST job he ever gets in game design, unless he returns to.. well whatever the hell he was doing before being hired by WotC in 2005.
Last edited by shadzar on Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
User avatar
codeGlaze
Duke
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:38 pm

Post by codeGlaze »

Wow, he goes on some really long, convoluted tears.
Korwin
Duke
Posts: 2055
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:49 am
Location: Linz / Austria

Post by Korwin »

Lago PARANOIA wrote: [*] Or, hell, even World of Gor?
What?
Are you talking about John Normans Gor?

Science Fiction?
I did like the german translation of his books (where ~half of the text was edited out), but I would'nt call it science fiction. (not even Space Fantasy like Star Wars).
User avatar
Ted the Flayer
Knight-Baron
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:24 pm

Post by Ted the Flayer »

Don't they already have a Gor RPG, except they called it FATAL for some reason?

I don't know anything about Buck Rogers other than the name makes me think of fried chicken for some reason. I would say that Flash Gordon would have made a more awesome sci-fi RPG for no other reason than the movie was fucking AWESOME.
Prak Anima wrote:Um, Frank, I believe you're missing the fact that the game is glorified spank material/foreplay.
Frank Trollman wrote:I don't think that is any excuse for a game to have bad mechanics.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

Flash Gordon actually stole from Buck Rogers... really massively.
Flash Gordon was basically a giant 1940's rip off of a ton of pulp fiction era stuff. Buck Rogers being the main one.

Kang the Conqueror... is a direct inspiration for Ming the Merciless.
Buck Rogers has basically Mongols in Space.
User avatar
shadzar
Prince
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

Post by shadzar »

sabs wrote:Buck Rogers has basically Mongols in Space.
*cough*klingons*cough*
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

sabs wrote:Flash Gordon actually stole from Buck Rogers... really massively.
Flash Gordon was basically a giant 1940's rip off of a ton of pulp fiction era stuff. Buck Rogers being the main one.

Kang the Conqueror... is a direct inspiration for Ming the Merciless.
Buck Rogers has basically Mongols in Space.
A lot of this is wrong. For instance, Flash Gordon was first published in the '30s. And Ming the Merciless is a Fu Manchu rip-off; claiming him as a Kang rip-off has severe before/after problems. And the Airlords of Han are not in space.

While I don't doubt that Buck was an inspiration for Flash, I think it's a bit much to call Flash a rip-off.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

*cough* 1928 *cough*
User avatar
angelfromanotherpin
Overlord
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by angelfromanotherpin »

Did you have a point to go with that? Lots of things came before Flash Gordon. You have to work harder to show rip-off than 'came before.' Is Flash Gordon also a rip-off of the Skylark of Space?

You got zero facts correct in your criticism. For fuck's sake, you said Ming the Merciless was a riff off of a character that wouldn't be invented until 30 years later. You will have to step up your game if anyone is going to take you seriously.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Kang the Conqueror is actually a character from Marvel Comics in the 60s. The villain of Buck Rogers you are thinking of is Killer Kane. But Killer Kane didn't come out until the Buck Rogers movie in 1939 - five years after the presentation of Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon. He looked like this:

Image

In the 1928 edition, Buck Rogers is a World War I guy who fights air pirate gangs known as The Han (people with a more modern sensitivity to early 20th century racism will note that Han just means "Chinese People"). There really aren't comparisons to be made to Flash Gordon until later. The whole "Emperor Draco" thing doesn't happen until 1979, and is an obvious ripoff of Flash Gordon.

You have a pretty good point that Dale and Zarkov are direct rips of Wilma and Huer from Buck Rogers. And of course Flash Gordon himself is a ripoff of John Carter of Mars, just as Buck Rogers is. But the whole Ming the Merciless thing is Flash Gordon first and Buck Rogers second.

-Username17
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

Killer Kane shows up in the comic strip in 1930. But yeah, I was confusing Killer Kane with Emperor Draco.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Mask_De_H wrote:Or D&D is the Island of Misfit Toys for WotC employees.
It totally is. WotC still makes fuck-tons of money through Magic (both the cards and video-game tie-ins). D&D is such a non-concern that they don't even talk about it to investors & stockholders.


At the same time, the playtest pretty much exists to fill the giant hole in the production schedule. They have some trivial products with the D&D label (mostly map packages and shit), next year they are seriously reprinting the Slave lords modules and S-series modules from first edition. So they are desperately trying to keep the D&D brand in the consumer consciousness by waving the playtest around really hard.
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

Ted the Flayer wrote:Don't they already have a Gor RPG, except they called it FATAL for some reason?
That strikes me as an insult to Gor. I'm not even kidding. Gor is, as near as I can tell, some really kinky, really bad planetary romance with sex slaves. Okay, whatever, it's porn, some people are into that, and no one's looking for Shakespeare in masturbation material. That's not nearly as bad as FATAL's rape fetishism, misogyny, toilet humor, pretension, and catastrophically terrible gameplay all put together.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

Chamomile wrote:
Ted the Flayer wrote:Don't they already have a Gor RPG, except they called it FATAL for some reason?
That strikes me as an insult to Gor. I'm not even kidding. Gor is, as near as I can tell, some really kinky, really bad planetary romance with sex slaves. Okay, whatever, it's porn, some people are into that, and no one's looking for Shakespeare in masturbation material. That's not nearly as bad as FATAL's rape fetishism, misogyny, toilet humor, pretension, and catastrophically terrible gameplay all put together.
Don't forget the racism.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
MisterDee
Knight-Baron
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 pm

Post by MisterDee »

I'd really like inside access to Hasbro/WotC communications at this point. I'm beginning to think that Hasbro has decided that D&D is not in their "get extra funding for development" folder anymore.

It would explain a lot: the reprinting of classic material and 3.5 core books all scream of a we-need-revenue-now desperation move, plus getting all the D&D properties, irrespective of editions, in modern pdf format for sale in a digital store would probably appeal to Hasbro's long-term plan for a no-more-development-for-a-few-years product.

It would also explain the ridiculously low development speed of Next: if funding has been cut off, there's no money for a large dev team.

Finally, it'd explain why Mearls is still there: if he's developping Next on a used shoestring, his degree of Epic Fail is slightly more explainable and tolerable. More to the point, WotC can't risk firing him because they won't find anybody willing to take over for him in those conditions.

And of course, that scenario would be an obvious explanation for why Cook jumped ship.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Shoestring is a pretty relative thing, though. You can develop an RPG with a dozen people and standard office equipment, and all of that should have been in the original budget. You'll need art and printing assets later on, but there are a couple ways of doing that, and none of it really impacts the development budget.

As far as I can tell, they still have a healthy number of (or more likely, too many) people wandering around theoretically doing shit for the development of the game, and unless Mike actively pissed people off and Hasbro game back and gutted the project budget, there really shouldn't be any unnecessary shortfall. Game designer salaries aren't exactly on the high side in the first place, so the costs honesty shouldn't be that much, at least not compared to the kind of money Hasbro actually plays with on a daily basis.

D&D is honestly a bragging rights/ nerd-cred product, and as long as Magic keeps the WotC division in the black (and spare) and the backlash against D&D isn't too strong, Hasbro is going to let them keep the fancy hat. But as soon as they decide that the 'King of RPGs' isn't worth shit anymore because Hasbro has run it into the ground, it will be kicked to the curb and either shelved (to keep it out of the hands of potential competitors, or until they think they can pull a revival) or sold on the block. If the latter happens, I'd put pretty good odds on a computer games publisher snapping it up, just because they've got more money than the rpg publishers do.

That said, 4th was a debacle, hands down. Hasbro likely won't tolerate that again.
Last edited by Voss on Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Juton
Duke
Posts: 1415
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:08 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Juton »

MisterDee wrote:It would explain a lot: the reprinting of classic material and 3.5 core books all scream of a we-need-revenue-now desperation move, plus getting all the D&D properties, irrespective of editions, in modern pdf format for sale in a digital store would probably appeal to Hasbro's long-term plan for a no-more-development-for-a-few-years product.
This is probably a big part of it. I think another big part of this is that WotC wanted to see how popular the older versions still are, so they can tailor 5e to suit their market. This may be considered a better metric because the only people who can vote are paying customers.
Voss wrote:D&D is honestly a bragging rights/ nerd-cred product, and as long as Magic keeps the WotC division in the black (and spare) and the backlash against D&D isn't too strong, Hasbro is going to let them keep the fancy hat. But as soon as they decide that the 'King of RPGs' isn't worth shit anymore because Hasbro has run it into the ground, it will be kicked to the curb and either shelved (to keep it out of the hands of potential competitors, or until they think they can pull a revival) or sold on the block. If the latter happens, I'd put pretty good odds on a computer games publisher snapping it up, just because they've got more money than the rpg publishers do.
I was honestly surprised to learn that Hasbro has owned WotC since 1999, meaning that 3.0/3.5/4.0/4.5 was done under them. I don't think you can blame them for how 4e turned out, the fault has to lie with WotC. Interesting question though, does WotC drive all its talented developers away or does it horde them for M:tG development?
Oh thank God, finally a thread about how Fighters in D&D suck. This was a long time coming. - Schwarzkopf
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

MisterDee wrote:I'd really like inside access to Hasbro/WotC communications at this point. I'm beginning to think that Hasbro has decided that D&D is not in their "get extra funding for development" folder anymore.

It would explain a lot: the reprinting of classic material and 3.5 core books all scream of a we-need-revenue-now desperation move, plus getting all the D&D properties, irrespective of editions, in modern pdf format for sale in a digital store would probably appeal to Hasbro's long-term plan for a no-more-development-for-a-few-years product.

It would also explain the ridiculously low development speed of Next: if funding has been cut off, there's no money for a large dev team.

Finally, it'd explain why Mearls is still there: if he's developping Next on a used shoestring, his degree of Epic Fail is slightly more explainable and tolerable. More to the point, WotC can't risk firing him because they won't find anybody willing to take over for him in those conditions.
My guess: Selling old editions shows how much people like the old editions (as Juton suggests); remember the great "everything will be modular!" idea? It also provides some cashflow to tide them over until the release of 5E.

I think the development cycle was originally planned to be slow because their initial idea was fairly ambitious. But now that they've clearly decided on their basic structure and they're just twiddling around with details, it's kind of pointless.
Mister Dee wrote:And of course, that scenario would be an obvious explanation for why Cook jumped ship.
The impression I got was that Monte had a big idea for how he wanted 5E to go but once he saw that nobody else was interested, he gave up.
Post Reply