D&DNext: Playtest Review
Moderator: Moderators
-
RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
Except MMOs were from MUDs and similar BBS door games. Though D&D was ONE of the first published RPGs, (along with Glorantha and Tekumel), there were adventure/stroytelling games prior to that.
the diagram isnt trying to show influence D&D gave to other things, just where the D&D came from.
i guess i could throw in Braunstein above D&D+Chainmail because that is what Arneson previously played, and created Blackmoor for in 1971.
so imagine the missing portion at the top to be a bubble with (Adventure games + Storytelling games + Wargames) with arrows pointing to both D&D+Chainmail and MMOs+card+board games.
i just really want to know where exactly DDN is pulling from, rather than the claims from WotC for those other people looking at the playtest material. didnt want 4th left hanging without anything, and also didnt include Pathfinder as they arent important to find what parts of D&D 5th is pulling from. is there something else going into DDN that isnt listed in it?
does it show the correct BD&D as a source? does it show what they are trying to put into DDN?
the diagram isnt trying to show influence D&D gave to other things, just where the D&D came from.
i guess i could throw in Braunstein above D&D+Chainmail because that is what Arneson previously played, and created Blackmoor for in 1971.
so imagine the missing portion at the top to be a bubble with (Adventure games + Storytelling games + Wargames) with arrows pointing to both D&D+Chainmail and MMOs+card+board games.
i just really want to know where exactly DDN is pulling from, rather than the claims from WotC for those other people looking at the playtest material. didnt want 4th left hanging without anything, and also didnt include Pathfinder as they arent important to find what parts of D&D 5th is pulling from. is there something else going into DDN that isnt listed in it?
does it show the correct BD&D as a source? does it show what they are trying to put into DDN?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
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.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
From -> ToFrankTrollman wrote:I genuinely don't know what the arrows are supposed to mean.
-Username17
the diagram making thing i used online only offered arrows. Chainmail+ went to become BD&D and AD&D, and i am guessing ideas from it are going into DDN?
anyone that knows D&D should be able to understand the relationship of the bubbles and thus wasily figure out what the arrows mean. the only other quick and free online tool i could find was a family tree making thing that would not allow a single parent, and one that actually put things on a tree with branches but were too artsy to just show simple relations of the games. thus i just used a flowchart making website and used the simplest method.
OD&D becomes BD&D and AD&D
BD&D continues on to produce RC
AD&D continues on to become 3.x
4th took 3.x threw in some MMO+ to create a new "species"
so every arrow leading into DDN is what i am trying to figure out if they are correct.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
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.
I don't think you've got the early connections right. For a start, every edition directly influenced the ones after it, there's plenty of Basic and 1st edition stuff in 3e, as well as 2nd ed/PO stuff. 2nd was influenced by other games from the 80's, 3rd by other games from the 90's. OD&D by popular pastimes for nerds in the late 60's.
OK, 4th is really only connected to 3e and Basic, it dropped most of the Gygaxian flavour of AD&D or the world-building story stuff from 2nd ed, but that's because it relabelled everything to break the OGL, and the OGL is very AD&D-based.
Pathfinder's totally dragging more of 2nd ed into 3e, but it also borrows from 4e and Basic and other outside games.
And 5th? It's mostly still 3rd and 4th and Basic. There's nothing I could point to in it that speaks of AD&D or 2nd ed, maybe a little OD&D in that it's a mess just now.
OK, 4th is really only connected to 3e and Basic, it dropped most of the Gygaxian flavour of AD&D or the world-building story stuff from 2nd ed, but that's because it relabelled everything to break the OGL, and the OGL is very AD&D-based.
Pathfinder's totally dragging more of 2nd ed into 3e, but it also borrows from 4e and Basic and other outside games.
And 5th? It's mostly still 3rd and 4th and Basic. There's nothing I could point to in it that speaks of AD&D or 2nd ed, maybe a little OD&D in that it's a mess just now.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Yes, it would make sense to put those games on a timeline. Randomly scattering in other arrows is pointless.tussock wrote:I don't think you've got the early connections right. For a start, every edition directly influenced the ones after it, there's plenty of Basic and 1st edition stuff in 3e, as well as 2nd ed/PO stuff. 2nd was influenced by other games from the 80's, 3rd by other games from the 90's. OD&D by popular pastimes for nerds in the late 60's.
-
RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
-
CapnTthePirateG
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20121203
So glorious. So the rogue's craptasticness is secretly a test of D&D's character, fighters are super awesome and have no problems (and now we know our power level), wizards are getting more spell damage and scaling at-wills.
There are a few things I don't understand. Why is he so obsessed with nerfing the rogue? I don't see either of those options being better than sneak attack. Trading offense for defense in play is usually a terrible idea.
I look forward to ripping the shit out of the next packet.
So glorious. So the rogue's craptasticness is secretly a test of D&D's character, fighters are super awesome and have no problems (and now we know our power level), wizards are getting more spell damage and scaling at-wills.
There are a few things I don't understand. Why is he so obsessed with nerfing the rogue? I don't see either of those options being better than sneak attack. Trading offense for defense in play is usually a terrible idea.
I look forward to ripping the shit out of the next packet.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
Well, if the general feedback on the rogue was anything like the feedback I submitted (and it probably wasn't) he completely missed the point.
The rogue got 2 things: proficiency with thieves tools (which is an utterly bullshit way of doing role protection) and the ability to blow dice on skill checks that in no way impacted the rogues ability to do anything at all.*
But the rogue.. the rogue was shit. Aside from the skill garbage, and one or two alternate maneuvers, the rogue was designed as a bad fighter. Every number was equal or smaller, and most of the manuevers that could be mapped to the fighter maneuvers (like sneak attack to deadly strike) were explicitly inferior (except for iron will, which was denied to the fighter for no reason, other than I guess, so wizards could still make fighters their bitch). Because SA had conditions and the fighter one didn't. And fighters got more maneuvers, anyway.
Now, at this point I'm also a little confused, because Mearls seems to be confused as to what was in the last playtest package. The rogue had bonus dice, not static bonuses, and the dice progression was the same as the fighter's. So Mearls doesn't even seem to know what was in the playtest docs, which is naturally a fantastic place to interpret the results from.
The ability check thing makes my brain hurt. Can we say multiple ability dependency? Yes, and fuck bringing that back. Let us add some useless effects as well. The ogre will certainly be sore that it has to charge, because that is completely contrary to what ogres want to do!
And, wow, they want to make sneak attack even worse! Lower damage _and_ sacrificing advantage to use it? They already currently better deadly strike can be activated on a hit! Fighters don't have to gamble or sacrifice to do their extra damage: they just do it all the time, and they are apparently fine.
I stand by my recommendation from last round: the best thing that can be done for the rogue is just dropping the fucking class, let other classes be good with skills (and thieves tools) and fold what little is left into a dex based fighter. Or a tactics based fighter. Or warlord. Or whatever. Something that might have a chance of being functional, rather than at best forcing someone to be the shit class just the party can pick locks and deal with traps.
*Because the expertise dice mechanic was exactly backward: it refreshes at the end of your character turn, so _of course_ you will always use it all, every time. Because it immediately refills. You have to think about defensive uses (if you have any) during enemy attacks, and what that will leave you offensively next turn, but you will always and forever use all you have on your turn. with zero tactics or planning at all.
Which is fantastic, because it leads to very short player turns, but all sorts of hemming, hawwing and options paralysis during enemy turns, which happen more often. Great! Though that assumes at least one defensive ability, but given how few maneuvers anyone actually gets (and how narrow they are), that isn't a given. Great Fortitude is amazing if the DM throws a lot of poison or medusa/basilisk traps at you (because he's a dick and fuck you), but the monster list had a suspiciously small number of things that actually generated str/con saves. But shit like composed attack (offset disadvantage) and parry/protect (reduce damage) are actually a big deal.
The rogue got 2 things: proficiency with thieves tools (which is an utterly bullshit way of doing role protection) and the ability to blow dice on skill checks that in no way impacted the rogues ability to do anything at all.*
But the rogue.. the rogue was shit. Aside from the skill garbage, and one or two alternate maneuvers, the rogue was designed as a bad fighter. Every number was equal or smaller, and most of the manuevers that could be mapped to the fighter maneuvers (like sneak attack to deadly strike) were explicitly inferior (except for iron will, which was denied to the fighter for no reason, other than I guess, so wizards could still make fighters their bitch). Because SA had conditions and the fighter one didn't. And fighters got more maneuvers, anyway.
Now, at this point I'm also a little confused, because Mearls seems to be confused as to what was in the last playtest package. The rogue had bonus dice, not static bonuses, and the dice progression was the same as the fighter's. So Mearls doesn't even seem to know what was in the playtest docs, which is naturally a fantastic place to interpret the results from.
The ability check thing makes my brain hurt. Can we say multiple ability dependency? Yes, and fuck bringing that back. Let us add some useless effects as well. The ogre will certainly be sore that it has to charge, because that is completely contrary to what ogres want to do!
And, wow, they want to make sneak attack even worse! Lower damage _and_ sacrificing advantage to use it? They already currently better deadly strike can be activated on a hit! Fighters don't have to gamble or sacrifice to do their extra damage: they just do it all the time, and they are apparently fine.
I stand by my recommendation from last round: the best thing that can be done for the rogue is just dropping the fucking class, let other classes be good with skills (and thieves tools) and fold what little is left into a dex based fighter. Or a tactics based fighter. Or warlord. Or whatever. Something that might have a chance of being functional, rather than at best forcing someone to be the shit class just the party can pick locks and deal with traps.
*Because the expertise dice mechanic was exactly backward: it refreshes at the end of your character turn, so _of course_ you will always use it all, every time. Because it immediately refills. You have to think about defensive uses (if you have any) during enemy attacks, and what that will leave you offensively next turn, but you will always and forever use all you have on your turn. with zero tactics or planning at all.
Which is fantastic, because it leads to very short player turns, but all sorts of hemming, hawwing and options paralysis during enemy turns, which happen more often. Great! Though that assumes at least one defensive ability, but given how few maneuvers anyone actually gets (and how narrow they are), that isn't a given. Great Fortitude is amazing if the DM throws a lot of poison or medusa/basilisk traps at you (because he's a dick and fuck you), but the monster list had a suspiciously small number of things that actually generated str/con saves. But shit like composed attack (offset disadvantage) and parry/protect (reduce damage) are actually a big deal.
Last edited by Voss on Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
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.
He gets to add unnecessary complexity on every roll with no net gain (except for consistency with the 'expertise dice' system which is also unnecessarily complicated), add extra dice to the point where they cease to be noticeably random, obscure basic probabilities, probably mangle character progression with irregular jumps in dice sizes/numbers.
I also imagine this is part of some plan to try to make rogues desirable by giving everyone else a chance to slip on a banana skin and die when they roll lots of 1s on their bonus dice.
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.
He gets to add unnecessary complexity on every roll with no net gain (except for consistency with the 'expertise dice' system which is also unnecessarily complicated), add extra dice to the point where they cease to be noticeably random, obscure basic probabilities, probably mangle character progression with irregular jumps in dice sizes/numbers.
I also imagine this is part of some plan to try to make rogues desirable by giving everyone else a chance to slip on a banana skin and die when they roll lots of 1s on their bonus dice.
The rogue and the monk and the ranger (etc.) suffer from the same problem: if you play one, you're not supposed to want to be really good in combat, even though combat often forms 90% of the game. So the designers flail around trying to figure out what you can do in the other 10% of the game which makes up for having a small penis in the other 90%.CapnTthePirateG wrote:There are a few things I don't understand. Why is he so obsessed with nerfing the rogue?
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
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.
As for the expertise dice in specific, I think Mike Mearls can't do the math on rolling multiple dice and thinks no one else can either. That's the only way I can explain him apparently thinking that adding +1d6 or giving a reroll doesn't strain the RNG while adding +3 to a result does.
-Username17
As for the expertise dice in specific, I think Mike Mearls can't do the math on rolling multiple dice and thinks no one else can either. That's the only way I can explain him apparently thinking that adding +1d6 or giving a reroll doesn't strain the RNG while adding +3 to a result does.
-Username17
I suspect instead that it removes more autosuccesses (can still fail TN 4 rolls), but also makes rolling the static-bonus maximum more likely. It also enables even more unlikely edge cases to succeed (up to 26 here), which fits nicely with him wanting to make rolling dice more exciting.
I also doubt he's done the math though.
I also doubt he's done the math though.
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.
Well, he doesn't seem to have a problem with static bonuses elsewhere, however. Take the illusionist, with its stacking +2 to DCs (shoving them all the way up to 17 on a first level character, vs the vast majority of +0 to +2 for typical monster defenses.FrankTrollman wrote: As for the expertise dice in specific, I think Mike Mearls can't do the math on rolling multiple dice and thinks no one else can either. That's the only way I can explain him apparently thinking that adding +1d6 or giving a reroll doesn't strain the RNG while adding +3 to a result does.
-Username17
Its one of the reasons the stat contests for rogues idea is so dumb. Take fairly flat opposed rolls to 'do trickery', while the illusion just rolls in and assumes a 75% (or greater, as this does go up with level) chance to make the monster think it is trapped in a box. Or literally whatever.
yeah, when Lorraine Williams lackeys are finally excised from the company, only then can D&D come back to being D&D and be designed as a thing of itself, not wanting to be Buck Rodgers or some other popular, or "company owned" property. Monte is gone AGAIN after Bill, now all that is left to remove is Baker, and to throw out all their teachings. When Alternity is finally removed as the cancer it was to D&D from 90s onward, then the game will start going in A right direction again.FrankTrollman wrote: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.
(i am still trying to figure out how someone who wrote terrible modules and a terrible game because he FAILED to understand what gamers want, ever became head of D&D in ANY department!)
Last edited by shadzar on Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
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.
I suspect Mearls is trolling the D&D fanbase (every edition) + WotC.
That would explain his drivel.
That would explain his drivel.
Red_Rob wrote: I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Well, this is a man who has never in his whole life produced a finished RPG product. Somehow he has managed to turn his legacy of failures and disappointments into the top job at WotC, where he has been not making a D&D edition for a year and a half. 18 months have gone by and he has no product, and there's really no evidence that he is even making progress towards a product. Sooner or later he is going to be given a hard deadline, and then he'll have to mash whatever the fuck he has on hand into an unfinished draft and send it to the editors, but for now he seems more than content to simply drag this shit out as long as possible while getting paid a salary.Korwin wrote:I suspect Mearls is trolling the D&D fanbase (every edition) + WotC.
That would explain his drivel.
The only thing I don't get is how whoever has to report on WotC's successes and failures to corporate hasn't seen through this bullshit yet. There's no product. And no evidence of there ever being any product.
-Username17
Thats why I think he trolls WotC too, not only the fanbase.
...
Not really, but it would be an explanation, besides plain incompetence.
...
Not really, but it would be an explanation, besides plain incompetence.
Red_Rob wrote: I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Does Mike Mearls actually plan to keep working in industry after this? I mean, I know that in TTRPGs people keep falling upwards, but I'm wondering how the hell you could spin something like 'caused the D&D 5th Edition to collapse right after it was released due to laziness' into a career positive.
Also, Frank's right: why the hell doesn't anyone at Hasbro doesn't call Mike Mearls out? It's not like he's dicking around while resting on previous laurels. Fourth Edition D&D was the most miserable failure in D&D's history and there are literally no more books for it. The gap between 3rd and 4th Edition releases, let alone announcements, was a few months.
Mike Mears must give the best rimjobs in history. It's the only explanation.
Also, Frank's right: why the hell doesn't anyone at Hasbro doesn't call Mike Mearls out? It's not like he's dicking around while resting on previous laurels. Fourth Edition D&D was the most miserable failure in D&D's history and there are literally no more books for it. The gap between 3rd and 4th Edition releases, let alone announcements, was a few months.
Mike Mears must give the best rimjobs in history. It's the only explanation.
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.
Or D&D is the Island of Misfit Toys for WotC employees.
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.
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.shadzar wrote:crap
As Ï was reading this, I started laughing so loud, that I couldn't read on anymoreMearls wrote: The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter.(...)
The plan right now is to give rogues expertise dice equivalent to the fighter's progression.(...)
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
wait, Mearls admitted the stuff he creates is crap?
have you EVER read Alternity? it is wannabe D&D set in the Buck Rogers style universe. it is NEITHER of those however. Had it used BR because LW owned it, it might have had a better chance, and might not of sucked as hard as you just did on Dille.
in case you didnt notice, my post was related to Alternity, not BR. you must have some sort of lust for Buck Rogers that cannot be sated in the presence of a 7th Star Wars movie, the continuing Star Trek movies, and dismal attempt to reboot BSG.
Sorry, but so long as LW controls it, it is highly doubtful that ANYONE will want anything to do with a new rendition of Buck, birdboy,Twiggy, and the Professor.
Let alone his story was done so many times like in Planet of the Apes, which has a larger cult following.
i have no problem with Buck and the comics, or the crappy little 70s series. My problem is with LW and her lackeys still infecting D&D, of those i always viewed the biggest to be those involved with Alternity.
Alternity...was worse than 4th edition. a spinoff of spelljammer, which was already D&D in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!
lets break down some facts:
1982: Sci-Fi RPG named Alternity published by Wayde Minami
1984: LW hired at TSR during $1.5 million company debt
1985: LW gains controlling shares of TSR, Gygax out
1986: Bill goes to WEG
1987: WEG gets SW RPG and Bill works on it (editor/developer)
1989: Spelljammer
1990: TORG* released
1994: the other shit-stain anti-medieval fantasy setting for D&D Planescape released (note Monte Cook involvement greatly in this)
1997: WotC buys TSR
1998: TSR publishes Alternity (a sci-fi RPG)
Bill is a copycat designer, whose love for sci-fi led him to LW's bussom and her teaching during TSR, and is thankfully excised from gaming history with his removal from WotC.
she had Buck, and he no longer had Star Wars...
what was a sci-fi nut that showed little to no inkling towards medieval fantasy EVER in a position to direct or develop D&D?
*TORG: cinematic multi-genre role-playing game (sound anything like 4th edition to anyone?)
now the only lackey of the 3 remaining is Baker.
ok when you get off Dille's pickle, let me know. done?sake wrote: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.shadzar wrote:crap
have you EVER read Alternity? it is wannabe D&D set in the Buck Rogers style universe. it is NEITHER of those however. Had it used BR because LW owned it, it might have had a better chance, and might not of sucked as hard as you just did on Dille.
in case you didnt notice, my post was related to Alternity, not BR. you must have some sort of lust for Buck Rogers that cannot be sated in the presence of a 7th Star Wars movie, the continuing Star Trek movies, and dismal attempt to reboot BSG.
Sorry, but so long as LW controls it, it is highly doubtful that ANYONE will want anything to do with a new rendition of Buck, birdboy,Twiggy, and the Professor.
Let alone his story was done so many times like in Planet of the Apes, which has a larger cult following.
i have no problem with Buck and the comics, or the crappy little 70s series. My problem is with LW and her lackeys still infecting D&D, of those i always viewed the biggest to be those involved with Alternity.
Alternity...was worse than 4th edition. a spinoff of spelljammer, which was already D&D in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!
lets break down some facts:
1982: Sci-Fi RPG named Alternity published by Wayde Minami
1984: LW hired at TSR during $1.5 million company debt
1985: LW gains controlling shares of TSR, Gygax out
1986: Bill goes to WEG
1987: WEG gets SW RPG and Bill works on it (editor/developer)
1989: Spelljammer
1990: TORG* released
1994: the other shit-stain anti-medieval fantasy setting for D&D Planescape released (note Monte Cook involvement greatly in this)
1997: WotC buys TSR
1998: TSR publishes Alternity (a sci-fi RPG)
Bill is a copycat designer, whose love for sci-fi led him to LW's bussom and her teaching during TSR, and is thankfully excised from gaming history with his removal from WotC.
she had Buck, and he no longer had Star Wars...
what was a sci-fi nut that showed little to no inkling towards medieval fantasy EVER in a position to direct or develop D&D?
*TORG: cinematic multi-genre role-playing game (sound anything like 4th edition to anyone?)
now the only lackey of the 3 remaining is Baker.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
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.