| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 10 Oct 2008 : 16:09:21
I hope this goes okay here.
I keep hearing everyone here on the boards comparing Paizo to WoTc, and it seems the latter comes off poorly in the estimation of many fans. If we can keep it polite -- just why is that? Does Paizo pay more attention to the fanbase, do they simply have better writers, or do they have a new and fresh take on old material?
Of course, if anyone sees WoTC as the superior fantasy publisher, I'd like to hear the reasoning for that too.
Thanks all. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 08:59:02
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Just to get back on topic here.
One of the best things I like about Paizo and my subscription to the Pathfinder Adventures is that whole 'free pdf' deal. I think it's great that as soon as the book physically leaves the warehouse, I can download the PDF from the site and get a look at it before it hits my doorstep. This gives me a few days of 'skimming' time where I can go over the basics of the book before diving into it with both feet when it arrives.
This is actually quite important for me since I have to wait three weeks until the book arrives here. All the content is already available for me to skim through. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 06:49:38
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
the Realms will never die for me any more than Narnia or Middle Earth will. It will always have a place in my heart, both in the work I did for it and the friends I've made (fictional and in real life), regardless of its current status. But that's just my opinion.
the difference being that Middle Earth and Narnia are not shared worlds where the original creator lost control and allowed others to take it various directions. Your direction is great. the New direction has destroyed it
Ed didn't "lose control" of the setting. He voluntarily relinquished it. And at the time that he did so, there was a very good bunch of people there who did some great things with the setting. I think that just about everyone can agree on that, regardless of what they think about 4E.
And Ed has elaborated on this several times in his replies here at Candlekeep. They're recommended reading for any scribe curious about this particular aspect of Ed's relationship with WotC.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 06:47:09
Just to get back on topic here.
One of the best things I like about Paizo and my subscription to the Pathfinder Adventures is that whole 'free pdf' deal. I think it's great that as soon as the book physically leaves the warehouse, I can download the PDF from the site and get a look at it before it hits my doorstep. This gives me a few days of 'skimming' time where I can go over the basics of the book before diving into it with both feet when it arrives. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 06:08:54
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
the Realms will never die for me any more than Narnia or Middle Earth will. It will always have a place in my heart, both in the work I did for it and the friends I've made (fictional and in real life), regardless of its current status. But that's just my opinion.
the difference being that Middle Earth and Narnia are not shared worlds where the original creator lost control and allowed others to take it various directions. Your direction is great. the New direction has destroyed it
Ed didn't "lose control" of the setting. He voluntarily relinquished it. And at the time that he did so, there was a very good bunch of people there who did some great things with the setting. I think that just about everyone can agree on that, regardless of what they think about 4E. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 04:07:01
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
the difference being that Middle Earth and Narnia are not shared worlds where the original creator lost control and allowed others to take it various directions. Your direction is great. the New direction has destroyed it
-J.R.R. Tolkien died, and Christopher Tolkien wrote/finished The Children of Hurin. Just sayin'... |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 04:02:34
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Schend
the Realms will never die for me any more than Narnia or Middle Earth will. It will always have a place in my heart, both in the work I did for it and the friends I've made (fictional and in real life), regardless of its current status. But that's just my opinion.
the difference being that Middle Earth and Narnia are not shared worlds where the original creator lost control and allowed others to take it various directions. Your direction is great. the New direction has destroyed it |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 20 Nov 2008 : 01:49:34
Whatever. Have fun with 4$ Realmz Extreme! (tm) Bluenose.
Ed created the Realms, so if you're confident enough that his WotC staffer replacements will do a good enough job, enjoy your can of NewCoke (for the next few months anyway). |
| Bluenose |
Posted - 19 Nov 2008 : 16:31:11
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Soooooo... wherever Ed or Elaine will be, the Realms will be. And right now, Ed has contributed (read: *really* contributed, with his actual words staying as he wrote them) to the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, and Elaine, well... her six part novella will be hosted in the Pathfinder Journal section of upcoming Pathfinder Adventure Path adventures... so, yeah: you can't remain attached to a shared world or literary piece if the humans originally behind it are no more. It's dead real estate without Ed or Elaine steering it. It's just stones and buildings. It's dead. Dead.... dead.... dead!
Considering that neither Ed nor Elaine are steering Golarion, you could be considered somewhat hypocritical here. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 19 Nov 2008 : 15:07:08
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
It's dead real estate without Ed or Elaine steering it. It's just stones and buildings. It's dead. Dead.... dead.... dead!
I'm not sure if I should quote Michael Palin and John Cleese
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Shut up! You'll be stone cold in a minnit!"
or Billy Crystal here...
"Mostly dead means a little alive...."
Perhaps we should go with Mark Twain:
"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Steven
PS: Remember that there's always different ways to look at any property; I'm sure there's many old fans of G.I. JOE who hated the 80's cartoon series, but it made the property viable again for Mattel. So it might be with the Realms. I loved the Realms from the first moment I saw it; the Realms will never die for me any more than Narnia or Middle Earth will. It will always have a place in my heart, both in the work I did for it and the friends I've made (fictional and in real life), regardless of its current status. But that's just my opinion.
Steven
www.steveneschend.com
Five worlds under construction at all times |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 18 Nov 2008 : 05:14:17
Well said Misery, well said. Home is in the heart, or like our Catholic priest said last Sunday (a young vibrant black man from central Africa - who *really* fought all his life, literally, to survive with his friends and family; a fighter/cleric if you want  - who just got appointed to our community here in Canada),
"We are the living temples of God. We are the Church. The stones and buildings, are just that, stones and buildings."
Soooooo... wherever Ed or Elaine will be, the Realms will be. And right now, Ed has contributed (read: *really* contributed, with his actual words staying as he wrote them) to the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, and Elaine, well... her six part novella will be hosted in the Pathfinder Journal section of upcoming Pathfinder Adventure Path adventures... so, yeah: you can't remain attached to a shared world or literary piece if the humans originally behind it are no more. It's dead real estate without Ed or Elaine steering it. It's just stones and buildings. It's dead. Dead.... dead.... dead! |
| Misery |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 08:40:09
To the main topic, just wanted to pretty much echo what everyone has already said. I mean, what kind of company actually ASKS the CUSTOMERS what THEY want? Its just strange to me. I mean, all the beta stuff is free for download. The Campaign Guide they put out was a general GUIDE and setting, with very little stats for anything other then some PRCs in the back. I like that kind of thing. I loved it about the 2e realms box set too. It really helped. 3e campaign guide for the realms was pretty good too, though why they felt the need to stat out some of the NPCs didn't make a huge amount of sense (Drizzt was very weak as was Artemis in build wise. Sissyfied)
Anyway, the point is I love the whole welcoming feel Paizo has going where as WotC says "Take this and like it."
Heck look at the forums.
Paizo - The creators and designers respond to you as well as take your input whether they can use it or not.
Wizards - A venting place. Yell, scream, fight, whatever. Doesn't matter cause they don't care. HAHAHAHAHAHA!! "Squeal my little piggies ... SQUEAL" Maybe the giant WotC hate isn't necessary but it feels accurate enough to me.
I do think that it would be cool for Ed and Elaine to move over to Paizo and Pathfinder at times. The realms, above anything is more than a PLACE, its a FEELING. Knowing you're home when you settle into the tavern and hang your cloak on high. Smoking your pipe and drinking an ale ... OH and also explaining the the Mrs. why you're wearing a bath towel around your neck like a cloak with a spoon in your hand while parading around on the couch fighting invisible goblins and shouting victories in your boxers.
... those are the realms I love ^__^ |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 06:15:57
Ho, good Knight! (oh, the puns...)
I have been lurking quite a bit at Paizo, although it's hard to follow the messageboards sometimes. And, right now, I'm leaving the development in their capable hands (along with the help of fellow scribes such as yourself). I really like what they've done so far and don't really have much input on the system as a whole.
As for the Realms, they are truly my home of choice and there's enough lore out there (both inside and outside the `keep) that I know I can create new campaigns without relying on Spellplagued designers and their creations.
Don't be a stranger around these parts! Remember, the Realms are truly a 'portal' to adventure, so even if you're in Golarion, 'ware the next doorway you step through or you might be finding yourself in familiar surroundings again! 
And with that, a Good Knight to you saer!
-Ashe Ravenheart
(trying his best to sound like a certain librarian from the great white north, but probably failing miserably) |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 17 Nov 2008 : 05:19:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Well, the rules differences wasn't a HUGE gap, but there was definitely a gap in some of the mechanics (small) and the 'feel' of how the rules work in the new setting.
As for Paizo catching D&D? I don't know. I think they would definitely try to get the Core rights to D&D, but the individual settings might go out to different companies. I'd love to see Margaret Weis get Dragonlance back at Sovereign Press and White Wolf has proven to be the most qualified at Ravenloft.
Lady Hooded, if you're out there... A question: If Hasbro did let WotC go, and they sold off the rights to the different settings, the Realms would simply revert back to Ed's ownership, correct? If so, I'm sure SKR Games or Malhovic Press would be more than willing to pick up the Realms, if not Paizo directly.
Hey Ashe, long time no see! been mostly over the Paizo messageboards lately, helping to hammer out the PRPG Beta version (it's so cool, listen to this: the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn, comes on the boards with, say, tweaks to the paladin class, and asks us, lowly customers, our opinions and suggestions, and he, throughout the whole back and forth, includes our playtest results, wording suggestions, etc. into the final version... it's quite liberating and good for the creative juices!)
I see you're still hoping for a good outcome for the Realms. Good for you. I hope they do revert to Ed someday (or Paizo: I'd settle for that). Let me know when they do. Until then, I'll have none of the poopy mess the Realmz have become.
[Retreat back to nice/warm/cozy Paizo boards... :P] |
| Pandora |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 08:15:34
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Its far more likely that Hasbro would shelve D&D for a few years while they try to figure out how to market it in the current age, rather than sell it off.
I dont think that would work, because - unlike GI Joe and Transformers - D&D is a GAME which requires interaction from the gamers and if you dont support that the brand would suffer because people would have to start developing their own worlds because of lacking support. When the production would restart it might be a lot more difficult to pick up these people as customers again. There are also - contrary to GI Joe and Transformers - other companies who could fill the vacuum with their own products, since they have the OGL (or whatever license applies) to produce new stuff. Convincing people away from other companies who have kept supporting them wouldnt be easy either IMO. And ...
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
So, they don't actually 'shelve' their products. They keep putting stuff out, but it may be crap they are putting out until it comes around again in popularity.
This sounds like a decent description of 4th edition ... 'crap'. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 04:51:16
True, KEJ, they could shelve D&D until they could figure out what to do with it. But I don't think they will. Even when GI Joe and Transformers were in the slumps, they were still producing toys and cartoons.
The Joe 3.75 toys were discontinued with the Marvel comic book in 1994, then followed by Sgt Slaughter in 1995 and GI Joe Extreme in 1996. By then they had started to produce the 12" toys again, then brought back the 3.75" line back in 2000 with new collections that have been updated with the Anniversary figures currently in the stores in anticipation of the movie next year.
Same with Transformers. Gen 1 shows were on TV until 1992, then Gen 2 went from 1993 to 1996. Then Beast Wars took over from 1996 until 2004, running concurrently with other shows that were still on the air as the movie came out last year.
So, they don't actually 'shelve' their products. They keep putting stuff out, but it may be crap they are putting out until it comes around again in popularity.
And, yes, she's Flint's sister. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 03:07:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Lorraine Williams (granddaughter of Buck Rogers creator John F. Dille) claims on the Buck Rogers website to have "... created the company TSR, makers of Dungeons & Dragons, the preeminent role playing game."
Hm . . . wouldn't that make her Flint Dille's sister? So there was a Transformers/G.I. Joe tie in even back then . . . she's like the Kevin Bacon of 80's Geek Pop Culture.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 15 Nov 2008 : 02:53:02
Here is the problem with hoping that D&D will fail, and as such, Hasbro will sell the brand to someone else.
Its made money in the past.
It has name recognition.
Its far more likely that Hasbro would shelve D&D for a few years while they try to figure out how to market it in the current age, rather than sell it off.
When G.I. Joe quit selling, they shelved it for a while, brought out a couple of unsuccessful product lines, then eventually hit on going Anime and Nostalgic/Collectible with it at the same time.
When Transformers quit selling, they shelved it, put out a few moderately successful versions of the product line, until they hit upon the current marketing scheme (Nostalgia/Younger Kids Line Based Off of Cartoon/Older Kids Line Based off of Movie).
They already know that D&D has tons of name recognition. They said so a few years ago when they tried to push D&D Online. They also said that D&D as a brand isn't something they see as automatically being a role playing game, but a certain brand with certain associated properties that can be used in various ways.
Meaning, if they ever figure out the "magic bullet" to make money with D&D without the effort that it takes to put out a pen and paper RPG, they probably will, and at best anyone waiting for a traditional D&D pen and paper RPG will likely have to wait a few more years down the line when the "nostalgia" line kicks in, if then.
This is what worries me about the current state of RPGs. D&D could easily get shelved and never reemerge in its present (or near present) form again. I can't get behind hoping that the line tanks, I can only hope that it survives long enough and successfully enough for a "new" direction to take the line back to something closer to what I was initially drawn to. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 20:36:48
Well, the rules differences wasn't a HUGE gap, but there was definitely a gap in some of the mechanics (small) and the 'feel' of how the rules work in the new setting.
As for Paizo catching D&D? I don't know. I think they would definitely try to get the Core rights to D&D, but the individual settings might go out to different companies. I'd love to see Margaret Weis get Dragonlance back at Sovereign Press and White Wolf has proven to be the most qualified at Ravenloft.
Lady Hooded, if you're out there... A question: If Hasbro did let WotC go, and they sold off the rights to the different settings, the Realms would simply revert back to Ed's ownership, correct? If so, I'm sure SKR Games or Malhovic Press would be more than willing to pick up the Realms, if not Paizo directly. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 20:12:17
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Each setting had it's own set of rules and they weren't very interchangeable with each other.
Maybe its me, but the differences in the rules didnt really seem that huge to me and certainly not big enough to prevent a mix of settings. The biggest "problem" I would see is a few general problems with the Spelljammer setting:
- In a ship-to-ship battle you most likely have only one surviving vessel, so if the PCs win they get to loot the loosers ship AND the Spelljamming Helm. This magic item is worth too much by far and after selling one they could hire superelite crews and have a bigger chance to do it again. Since these battles are a core piece of the setting and you cant only have Mind Flayers as opponents (who have their own breed of helm) it will be an economic problem.
- The speed of a Spelljammer enables you to do "planetary service" to anywhere on the planet in about a day. This is as campaignbreaking as Teleport can be if your players have been everywhere.
None of these problems really are the result of the rules not being interchangeable.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
So instead of there being a ton of books that the players should be interested in, they became focused on just one setting and ignored the others.
Well there are those who didnt really care what setting came out of TSR and who got them all. Apart from "obvious failures" like Birthright and Ravenloft (which I didnt really like the style of) I got about everything they published.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
But, this is all my opinion and everything could be very different. However, I also know that I'm pretty good at reading market signs as well as people. And I'm going to call it right now:
[OPINION]Hasbro will be dumping all WotC products by July 2009.[/OPINION]
Economics are not going to pick up overnight and we already have one major company (Topps) shedding a sub-company (WizKids) that produces for a niche market. Which is exactly what WotC and D&D are to Hasbro: a niche market. The games they produce (Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Risk, etc) and the toys they make (GI Joe, Transformers, etc) far outweigh the 'Gaming Industry' that D&D is the leader of. So, if sales drop off noticeably, they will be cut loose. I just hope the industry as a whole is ready to catch D&D when it falls.
"D&D falls" means Hasbro sells it to Paizo? 
Everyone may have a different date for this, but secretly I would hope it happens sooner rather than later, so the production of 4e nonsense can be stopped before too many kids are "ruined" and the Realms can be continued as it should be instead of being chopped off at a certain date and then restarting at a later date without sufficient explanations ever coming out for this. IMO one of the biggest mistakes of WotC is the categoric "we wont publish any more older lore", because this does leave too many questions unanswered about the transition period and what led up to it. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:46:10
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
Okay, what was wrong with their market strategy? I've been told it was because they promised that their stuff would always sell a certain percent, and if it didn't, they'd buy it all back.
It was noted in the article as what Bill Slavicsek called the 'many buckets' theory. TSR had published too many books in different settings that diluted D&D as a whole. Each setting had it's own set of rules and they weren't very interchangeable with each other. So instead of there being a ton of books that the players should be interested in, they became focused on just one setting and ignored the others.
This also resulted in some settings getting way more material than others. Sure, the Realms made out like a bandit because it's super-popular, but Spelljammer and others fell to the wayside because their 'niche' group wasn't as large.
Now, granted, 4E has declared each setting will get the same amount of attention. However, the attention is waaaaay to little in my opinion. And honestly, how many Realms articles are going to be on DDi in a few years when they have more settings to choose from? As it is, this is the 'Faerūn Year' at WotC, and there are more articles and lore being generated here at Candlekeep than I see being published on DDi. Which leads me to believe that there will be even less than that amount once they start 'Eberron Year' and then the other settings.
But, this is all my opinion and everything could be very different. However, I also know that I'm pretty good at reading market signs as well as people. And I'm going to call it right now:
[OPINION]Hasbro will be dumping all WotC products by July 2009.[/OPINION]
Economics are not going to pick up overnight and we already have one major company (Topps) shedding a sub-company (WizKids) that produces for a niche market. Which is exactly what WotC and D&D are to Hasbro: a niche market. The games they produce (Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Risk, etc) and the toys they make (GI Joe, Transformers, etc) far outweigh the 'Gaming Industry' that D&D is the leader of. So, if sales drop off noticeably, they will be cut loose. I just hope the industry as a whole is ready to catch D&D when it falls. |
| Steven Schend |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:42:49
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Plus probably for the same reasons they had the Comic Code for comics, America just has a lot of issues about things. :) I don't want to get into this because it'll be about politics, etc, but seriously, we do have issues. :)
The Comics Code was created as a way to protect comics from being persecuted. It laid out some of the same guidelines that TSR later followed. I've heard, though, that part of the point of the CCA wasn't self-protection -- it was Marvel and DC, who mostly did superhero stuff, banding together to squash EC Comics, which did mostly horror and crime comics (and MAD Magazine). MAD was the only EC title to survive the CCA.
TSR's Code of Ethics WAS the Comics Code. It was pretty much used as the boiler-plate for how TSR toed the line in print.
Steven
who ought to know something about this |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:37:40
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
Okay, what was wrong with their market strategy? I've been told it was because they promised that their stuff would always sell a certain percent, and if it didn't, they'd buy it all back.
From what I understand, part of the problem was that they simply spread themselves too thin, trying to support multiple settings at once (more than a handful!) and break into other markets, like CCGs, all at the same time. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:36:11
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Plus probably for the same reasons they had the Comic Code for comics, America just has a lot of issues about things. :) I don't want to get into this because it'll be about politics, etc, but seriously, we do have issues. :)
The Comics Code was created as a way to protect comics from being persecuted. It laid out some of the same guidelines that TSR later followed. I've heard, though, that part of the point of the CCA wasn't self-protection -- it was Marvel and DC, who mostly did superhero stuff, banding together to squash EC Comics, which did mostly horror and crime comics (and MAD Magazine). MAD was the only EC title to survive the CCA.
DC had some heroes, but Marvel didn't start doing supers until after the CCA came into being. Before that they did westerns, monsters, and some war comics.
I was not aware of that. Still, in my mind, it doesn't remove the possibility that DC and Marvel were deliberately trying to squash a competitor. |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:29:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Plus probably for the same reasons they had the Comic Code for comics, America just has a lot of issues about things. :) I don't want to get into this because it'll be about politics, etc, but seriously, we do have issues. :)
The Comics Code was created as a way to protect comics from being persecuted. It laid out some of the same guidelines that TSR later followed. I've heard, though, that part of the point of the CCA wasn't self-protection -- it was Marvel and DC, who mostly did superhero stuff, banding together to squash EC Comics, which did mostly horror and crime comics (and MAD Magazine). MAD was the only EC title to survive the CCA.
DC had some heroes, but Marvel didn't start doing supers until after the CCA came into being. Before that they did westerns, monsters, and some war comics.
|
| Ardashir |
Posted - 14 Nov 2008 : 16:28:18
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I believe what you're referring is the Lorraine Williams era at TSR:
Lorraine Williams (granddaughter of Buck Rogers creator John F. Dille) claims on the Buck Rogers website to have "... created the company TSR, makers of Dungeons & Dragons, the preeminent role playing game." Even though she had (numerous times) stated that not only were the players of D&D her social inferiors, but that she was proud of never having played the game (cited).
She sounds like she was a real winner.
quote:
They didn't really go 'belly-up' because of Lorraine, but more because of their market strategy and the introduction of Magic: The Gathering.
Okay, what was wrong with their market strategy? I've been told it was because they promised that their stuff would always sell a certain percent, and if it didn't, they'd buy it all back. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 23:06:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Plus probably for the same reasons they had the Comic Code for comics, America just has a lot of issues about things. :) I don't want to get into this because it'll be about politics, etc, but seriously, we do have issues. :)
The Comics Code was created as a way to protect comics from being persecuted. It laid out some of the same guidelines that TSR later followed. I've heard, though, that part of the point of the CCA wasn't self-protection -- it was Marvel and DC, who mostly did superhero stuff, banding together to squash EC Comics, which did mostly horror and crime comics (and MAD Magazine). MAD was the only EC title to survive the CCA.
Well, that's only one interpretation. Two past EIC's of both Marvel and DC once collaborated on a full-length document that [sort of] explains the apparent evolution of the Comics Code through the comics/magazines medium in the US. It's archived at both the DC and Marvel websites. I'll try to find the link, since I only found it entirely by accident.
It's a fascinating read. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 22:58:21
*Wooly casts Find Topic*  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 21:54:10
quote:
Originally posted by arry
I like animals . . . . quite often dead, cooked and on my plate. And what's that got to do with the price of fish?
Actually, if there's a lot like you, it will raise the price of fish. |
| arry |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 21:45:40
I like animals . . . . quite often dead, cooked and on my plate. And what's that got to do with the price of fish? |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 17:18:16
Hmmm... Bruce likes animals too.
*ahem* Sorry, was going off on a tangent there... |
|
|
