| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 21:33:21
I am a little disappointed that the D&D online is Eberron (Actually I am not that disappointed it, is an online game I DON'T feel compelled to play now).
I looked through the Eberron book and it seemed real 1920's to me. Too anachronistic for my tastes. What do you all think about it? I have not developed much of an opinion about it because I have not REALLY looked through it, and I doubt I will buy it.
Does anyone here know about the setting? is it good to make D&D online Eberron, (an aparently UNCONVENTIONAL fantasy game)?
I am just wondering how much of a following Eberron could have with FR, Greyhawk, and Krynn so well established.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 15 Oct 2005 : 16:44:22
I agree with you. I never thought Eberron dumbed down anything - and I think the two campaign worlds compliment one another nicely. FR is high fantasy and Eberron is rationalized fantasy. I think they are both quite unique and D&Ders should be happy about all the source material that has come out for both.
C-Fb |
| Mr. Wilson |
Posted - 15 Oct 2005 : 09:01:37
I love FR, but the more I play in Eberron, the more I like it. I don't understand the hostility between the two camps. Both fill a niche in the DnD genre. Eberron is not dumbed down; on the contrary, I'd argue that it seeks to explain how a society would deal with magic in a much more realistic manner than has presented in past DnD settings.
To say it's the fast food of DnD is a great disservice to the emphasis it puts on intrigue and ROLEPLAY. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 02:27:56
Good point... and plus, with the pulp scene being rediscovered in the world of media right now, Eberron will catch an upswing of popularity, which is good for WotC overall.
C-Fb |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 15:52:22
I think its great to have Eberron around to take the pressure off Forgotten Realms. I'd much rather see elemental powered trains in Eberron than in Faerûn. With alternatives the designers should be able to highlight differences, rather that melding everything into one pot, and thus take better care of our beloved Forgotten Realms. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 15:24:28
Well - I think there will always be room for the High Fantasy that exists in the Realms. Eberron does have its niche and with the marketing machine behind it, it will change the landscape definitely.
However, I believe that the fans of fantasy-based role playing will always be drawn back to the Realms. There are great parallels from the Realms to the great literary works of our time. Plus, the Realms focuses much more on the "Wizards and Warriors" stereotypes. Lastly, the Realms has a much bigger fan base and support for its future endeavors.
I would love to see how the sales are doing for Eberron, but I doubt I could get my hands on that. I think I will go look up WOTC's 10K and see what information I can dig up.
C-Fb |
| David Lázaro |
Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 03:22:08
I believe that Eberron is also the setting that supports D&D as its own genre. Most of the technology presented in Eberron was already available before it: you had elemental-powered vessels described and hinted at in the Arms and Equipment Guide.
D&D was created after taking an amalgam of different fantasy elements and putting them together. It has continued evolving during the past thirty years. After all this time some people sit down and reflect on what would all that mean if following the logical consequences. One of those people was Keith Baker who created the concept of Eberron by uniting that with adventure and intrigue films and pulp action.
Monte Cook also followed those principles for his home-brew campaign and created Ptolus for his players. Ptolus is getting published next summer, if I'm not mistaken.
I think that settings like Eberron and Ptolus are a sign of the coming of age of D&D as its own fantasy genre proper. |
| Keravin |
Posted - 06 Sep 2005 : 13:57:12
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
Taking a look at the books they are publishing for ebberon (i.e., an entire books on maps), it sounds like they really are trying to make a setting that is solidily just 'hack-and-slash' with a lot less planning on the DM's part.
Can I just ask have you read the Eberron books?
Which book is the supposed entire book of maps? Explorer's Handbook perhaps which had a few maps in, but was mostly about expanding the world of Eberron past the single continent focus that FR/Dragonlance usually has.
Because the world does not have the benefit of the brilliant 2nd edition material you can find for FR there has been work on presenting the world of Eberron. It is not however spoon fed and the setting lends itself more to intrigue and swashbuckling than hack and slash. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 02 Sep 2005 : 06:08:00
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
...(and it's a plain, unsupportable misconception, since about ten novels featuring Elminster and the Seven Sisters, three of which are set hundreds of years in the past, can't reasonably be interpreted as always saving the day)...
There's the rub, see, because if all 'we' the sometimes reader and sometimes gamer are presented with are these ten novels, and 'we' happen to be between the ages of 12 and 15 or so...well then what's reasonable is almost always replaced with, "If this is all you give us, then what are we supposed to think?"
This is a bit of an intellectual copout of course, but even so it does prove the fact that WotC published a whole lot of words with the Chosen, etc. at the forefront.
Ack. Off topic. My bad.
Eberron? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 02 Sep 2005 : 02:21:16
quote:
So for once, I wish TSR never detailed the Chosen and left them to sourcebooks and how they were supposed to be protrayed.
I still disagree with TSR's foregrounding of Elminster in principle, and I regret the misconception that it contributed to (and it's a plain, unsupportable misconception, since about ten novels featuring Elminster and the Seven Sisters, three of which are set hundreds of years in the past, can't reasonably be interpreted as always saving the day), but I can't wish that those stories I've enjoyed so much didn't exist. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 02 Sep 2005 : 02:09:56
</off topic>
This is a rare day when we two agree on anything.
Good luck with the debate.
<on topic> |
| Kuje |
Posted - 02 Sep 2005 : 01:53:17
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Does it?
When the Realms first came out you had this mysterious guy named Elminster who occasionally gave abrasive advice and let fate do with your character whatever it willed, but otherwise stayed out of the way. This was how things were meant to be because Ed and company wanted it that way.
Yet as time wore on the conventional thinking changed. So we old-timers (I was there, after all) were presented with a near-decade of Elminster, his chosen brethren and the Gods of the Realms as the subject of much Realmslore. Elminster and the other semi-divine beings defeated all the evil of the Realms and were forever presented as saving the day. What’s more, they (TSR) even printed books filled with spells and powers that no character was ever meant to use, but these super NPCs could!
Now obviously things have changed with 3E, where we have Elminster all but begging for the aid of Heroes (see the FRCS), which El says the Realms desperately needs. Yet this ‘plea’ did little to change the conventionally shared opinion of the Realms which is –again rightly or wrongly– as a place of Too High Magic where El and Friends are the Justice League of Mystra and all Red Wizards and other evil doers are dolts to be dealt with by Them in good time. PC’s are meant to sit and watch Them in awe and that’s it.
Now to be clear I don’t hold this view of the Realms personally, but that doesn’t change the fact that you need not look far to find any number of gamers who’ve picked up on this stereotype and taken it for fact.
Gasp,
Yes, I agree for once. I'm having this debate right now over the WOTC and people are not realizing that the Chosen are no more important to the setting then any of the commoners and laborers.
So for once, I wish TSR never detailed the Chosen and left them to sourcebooks and how they were supposed to be protrayed. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 02 Sep 2005 : 01:41:25
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
The realms does place emphasis on PCs over the NPCs!
Does it?
When the Realms first came out you had this mysterious guy named Elminster who occasionally gave abrasive advice and let fate do with your character whatever it willed, but otherwise stayed out of the way. This was how things were meant to be because Ed and company wanted it that way.
Yet as time wore on the conventional thinking changed. So we old-timers (I was there, after all) were presented with a near-decade of Elminster, his chosen brethren and the Gods of the Realms as the subject of much Realmslore. Elminster and the other semi-divine beings defeated all the evil of the Realms and were forever presented as saving the day. What’s more, they (TSR) even printed books filled with spells and powers that no character was ever meant to use, but these super NPCs could!
Now obviously things have changed with 3E, where we have Elminster all but begging for the aid of Heroes (see the FRCS), which El says the Realms desperately needs. Yet this ‘plea’ did little to change the conventionally shared opinion of the Realms which is –again rightly or wrongly– as a place of Too High Magic where El and Friends are the Justice League of Mystra and all Red Wizards and other evil doers are dolts to be dealt with by Them in good time. PC’s are meant to sit and watch Them in awe and that’s it.
Now to be clear I don’t hold this view of the Realms personally, but that doesn’t change the fact that you need not look far to find any number of gamers who’ve picked up on this stereotype and taken it for fact.
I think it’s obvious that WotC knew there was this image problem for the Realms, so they went with a setting that goes well out of its way to not present its NPC’s as all powerful.
Did you know one of the Key Design Concepts of Eberron is that a really, really powerful NPC or character in that setting is someone who’s 10th level? Yup, 10th. You won’t find an ocean of 20th level Archmages or other super NPCs in Eberron either. They made it that way on purpose.
And the Gods, well they may or may not exist in Eberron. Nobody talks to them personally. Again, deliberate design decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
TAnd by no means does FR NOT emphasive DM pacing and style: on the contrary due to FR's wide range of different areas a DM can easily select a favored area or areas and use them to express his style and pace (a waterdeep style and pace is VERY different from an underdark style and pace). Whereas Ebberon is all one of the same big thing, and if you ask me has even less room for personalization by the GM.
The Realms doesn’t emphasize pacing, theme and style in the manner Eberron does. Sure a DM can do that in the Realms (I know, because I’ve done so), but the way these game elements are incorporated into Eberron is not the same as in the Realms, nor are these necessarily core tenants of the Realms.
The comment about Eberron being the ‘same big thing’ is simply wrong. Check out the campaign setting, and you’ll see.
Also, many have often pointed out on ‘Which do I use, Eberron or the Realms?’ threads that one of the key differences between Eberron and the Realms is that sooooo very much of Eberron is un-detailed and left open for DM’s to totally fill in wherever they want, whereas the same can’t be said for the Realms because for years and years we DM’s have been given mountains of lore to use.
Again, please understand that I’m trying to show why Eberron is different, which is not always the same thing as saying, “The Realms doesn’t do this.” Or “You can’t do this in the Realms.”
quote:
My argument about wasn't about their inaccuracy, in fact I was arguing that they were in a sense, TOO accurate.
Believe me, I can appreciate why a DM wouldn’t like an over-accurate map, for exactly the reasons you’ve stated.
Yet this does nothing to change the fact that (A) not all DM’s feel that way and (B) Eberron does have a quite detailed and believable history that makes it perfectly logical for there to be accurate maps both in the game world and in the game books.
The one point I do disagree on is whether or not there’s enough wiggle room: It’s obvious that there’s plenty of wiggle room.
Obviously you disagree, which is completely and totally fine. We can disagree without the world ending, after all.
quote:
FR is far more than Kingdoms have risen and fallen many times over...
Actually, that’s exactly what the Realms are. The layering of long extinct Kingdoms over each other is a core concept of the Realms.
quote:
Players aren't denied action in FR, in fact they receive as much action as the DM desires. It's just that in Ebberon, they receive no background.
Here’s another viewpoint to consider: Some players are tired of knowing “all there is” of the Realms, regardless of what their characters could or could not possibly know. With Eberron, so much of it is a mystery that it’s like when the Realms first came out; you’ve got this massive game world, you know (as a gamer) very little about it, it’s dangerous and filled with mystery and high adventure is the norm. People are drawn to that.
Again, this is not saying the Realms don’t do this or that it can’t. What I’m saying is that for some folks the Realms are just too familiar.
quote:
In what part of the FR campaign setting does it say that all of faerun was ruled by one kingdom?
I don’t know. That wasn’t what I was saying, so I’m not too sure what you’re getting at.
quote:
Ah, you see, you would have a good point if we were attacking ebberon for being different. Where in fact, as experienced DMs, we have all seen thing like ebberon before: plotless, hack+slash campaigns.
I think you just proved my point. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 29 Aug 2005 : 21:37:18
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
quote:
Instead you have one continent where a single great kingdom once ruled, that has since fractured (politically) into different nations and unruled regions. The setting 'starts' soon after this kingdom fell, so there's much knowledge and available lore (in the form of reasoanbly accurate maps) in the game world that PC's can draw from.
In what part of the FR campaign setting does it say that all of faerun was ruled by one kingdom?
I believe that's a description of Eberron (and incidentally, also the world, populated by mine and my brother's lego, playmobil, and other assorted toy-figures originally) in which I've been writing [awful] short stories since I was eight), not Faerûn. |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 29 Aug 2005 : 19:06:42
quote:
This is why Eberron was needed; where "was" means 'has themes the Realms does not, does not place (intentionally or otherwise) the emphasis on NPCs over players, pushes exciting and exotic adventures and locals as well as city based drama to the fore, emphasizes DM pacing and style, and is different than the Realms.'
The realms does place emphasis on PCs over the NPCs! Yes, there are powerful NPCs, but in no may are players simply watching a bunch of NPCs do everything for them in the Realms. And the realms DOES encrouage exiciting and exotic locals as well as city based drama. You would be very hard pressed to argue that the Realms doesn't had an infintate number os exciting and exotic places for adventurers, and as far as city based drama: its called waterdeep. And by no means does FR NOT emphasive DM pacing and style: on the contrary due to FR's wide range of different areas a DM can easily select a favored area or areas and use them to express his style and pace (a waterdeep style and pace is VERY different from an underdark style and pace). Whereas Ebberon is all one of the same big thing, and if you ask me has even less room for personalization by the GM.
quote:
As for Maps, the (current) Realms are no different than Eberron in that the maps presented to DMs are accurate (as they should be). What's different about Eberron is that its backstory doesn't follow the 'Kingdoms have risen and fallen many times over before the PCs ever get in on the action' model.
My arguement about wasn't about their inaccuracy, in fact I was argueing that they were in a sense, TOO accurate. The problem with the ebberon maps I've seen is that they've already got TOO much of a floor plan: thus leaving NO room for DM creativity. FR is far more than Kingdoms have risen and fallen many times over before the PCs get in on the action, however that aspect is part of it because, heaven forbid, FR has a history, whereas ebberon doesn't. Players aren'y denied action in FR, infact they recieve as much action as the DM desires. It's just that in Ebberon, they recieve no background.
quote:
Instead you have one continent where a single great kingdom once ruled, that has since fractured (politically) into different nations and unruled regions. The setting 'starts' soon after this kingdom fell, so there's much knowledge and available lore (in the form of reasoanbly accurate maps) in the game world that PC's can draw from.
In what part of the FR campaign setting does it say that all of faerun was ruled by one kingdom?
quote:
I don't know...if people want to dismiss something or just really don't like something, they'll find reasons to feel that way no matter what. It just doesn't seem fair to make generalized assessments about something without actually playin it.
Ah, you see, you would have a good point if we were attacking ebberon for being different. Where in fact, as experienced DMs, we have all seen thing like ebberon before: plotless, hack+slash campaigns.
|
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 29 Aug 2005 : 15:29:19
I agree - I don't think that WotC is pushing Eberron to be the core of the game. I think they are just on a marketing blitz. When you introduce something to the public, you have to show a lot of support for it. It's kind of why Atari was never able to make it in the video game console war with Jaguar. Great system - no support from the software companies. Same with Eberron - if they just wrote a couple books and did nothing else with it, it would dwindle away. But, since the put that much money behind developing it - they have to support it to at least make their money back. I don't think Greyhawk will ever not be the Core land - I think it is one of the simplest to understand and that is why it will continue to be so.
C-Fb |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 08:38:06
Well, as to the original question of what kind of following Eberron has: I really don't know.
Maybe someone ought to Woof! Charles Ryan (that's the guy, right?) on the WotC boards to see what he'd be willing to say on the subject.
I must say that I don't see Greyhawk as the Core setting, even though its gods are in the Core Rulebooks.
I don't think Eberron is being pushed as Core, though. I happen to think Eberron is just being pushed as a setting, to keep it going and growing. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 04:55:10
My problem is not so much how the book is set up. I think it breaks the original spirit of D&D. It is far too anachronistic. I blame no one for liking it.
The continent idea is fine. But if I want to go rob a train I am going to play BOOT HILL or DEAD LANDS, not Dungeons and Dragons. There were no Dragons in Casa blanca, and I don't think they had dungeons either.
Eberron seems like a merging of genres, which there is no problem with. It would be no worse than planescape or Dark Sun (I loved them BOTH by the way.)
My problem is that WOTC is slowly making this the CORE it seems. And Eberron may be Dungeons and Dragons.. but Dungeons and Dragons are far from being Eberron.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 03:30:05
It has been discontinued. The publishers have since released a "collector's set" which contains the entire series of published sourcebooks for the setting.
And I've noticed we're slightly swaying off-topic again... Let's try to keep focused on the scroll's subject matter fellow scribes  .
|
| warlockco |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 03:09:15
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
Now what I want to see is a Sci-Fi Campaign setting! One that has high technology, and Psionics. Personally, whenever I read the psionics handbook, I get the feeling of a Sci-Fi campaign, not a fantasy one. Imagine a setting where Dromites had their own planet? (likewise, the Illithid, the Thri-Keen, etc.) I know Planescape had something similar, but its still had a fantasy feel. There's been Star Wars, and its is cool, but its just star wars (I use the words 'just star wars' in the most unoffensive way possible). How about the very essence of Sci-Fi? I think that would have been much better than Ebberon.
There is Dragonstar, but I have heard it will be discontinued. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 00:51:56
I guess I just have to disagree.
Although a hardcore DL fan would say otherwise, DL pretty much is 'the same' as the Realms. Eberron OTOH is not.
This is why Eberron was needed; where "was" means 'has themes the Realms does not, does not place (intentionally or otherwise) the emphasis on NPCs over players, pushes exciting and exotic adventures and locals as well as city based drama to the fore, emphasizes DM pacing and style, and is different than the Realms.'
As for Maps, the (current) Realms are no different than Eberron in that the maps presented to DMs are accurate (as they should be). What's different about Eberron is that its backstory doesn't follow the 'Kingdoms have risen and fallen many times over before the PCs ever get in on the action' model.
Instead you have one continent where a single great kingdom once ruled, that has since fractured (politically) into different nations and unruled regions. The setting 'starts' soon after this kingdom fell, so there's much knowledge and available lore (in the form of reasoanbly accurate maps) in the game world that PC's can draw from.
Beyond that, you have three very distinct and unique continents of nearly equal size that are all of them mysteries, with maps hard to come by.
Thus, we as DMs are presented with the option to have both kinds of play styles in our games. We can go with what the PC's "know", or go with whole continents that they don't.
I don't know...if people want to dismiss something or just really don't like something, they'll find reasons to feel that way no matter what. It just doesn't seem fair to make generalized assessments about something without actually playin it. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 00:15:28
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
Taking a look at the books they are publishing for ebberon (i.e., an entire books on maps), it sounds like they really are trying to make a setting that is solidily just 'hack-and-slash' with a lot less planning on the DM's part. Mind you, I make maps for FR, and Personally I'd love to map all of Cormyr (I'm saying Cormyr, when I really mean a good portion of the realms, but Cormyr sounds less impossibly ambitious). But I certainly would never say "This is a GENUINE map" or make maps that existed as a pre-cooked DM's meal. Maps are there for effect, and shouldn't be there for supplimenting a DM's floor-plan for his adventure.
Map making is what D&D is all about. And I agree with your sentiments.. Eberron was not needed. I flipped through it recently and I do not see how it is Dungeons and Dragons. It works for the people that are used to their only ideas coming from movies. I have flipped through it and now I can say there is very little merit in it. All I know is that LOCALLY for me according to the local game stores Eberron is not popular. People will BUY it but they are not playing it. This is all locally mind you.
I will probably get dragonshard because it is a video RPG not because it is D&D.
I would love to see a sci fi setting. Liek ALTERNITY. I like that ALOT. And I liked Star Frontiers actually. I thought Alternity and StarDrive was a great concept. I have my suspicions though that it was a 'test drive' for d20.
Star Wars i LOVE... But I STILL do not consider it science fiction. It is far closer to fantasy than sci fi. It is just fantasy set in a Futuristic environment.
|
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 21:58:09
Taking a look at the books they are publishing for ebberon (i.e., an entire books on maps), it sounds like they really are trying to make a setting that is solidily just 'hack-and-slash' with a lot less planning on the DM's part. Mind you, I make maps for FR, and Personally I'd love to map all of Cormyr (I'm saying Cormyr, when I really mean a good portion of the realms, but Cormyr sounds less impossibly ambitious). But I certainly would never say "This is a GENUINE map" or make maps that existed as a pre-cooked DM's meal. Maps are there for effect, and shouldn't be there for supplimenting a DM's floor-plan for his adventure. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 21:29:27
Although I wasn't a big fan of the SETTINGS they offered, d20 modern was okay. I say that only to preface this, have you checked out d20 Future? It would be pretty easy to still use D&D characters and monsters in the setting, even though when I looked at it I noticed throwbacks to both Star Frontiers and Star*Drive.
In Spelljammer at one point in time, one of the products conjectured on a illithid home world, where the surface of the planet was stalked by multiple Tarrasque. Heck, I like that better than the whole "lets have a plane of aberrations, even though that would make them outsiders, but hey."
But again, having not actually played in the setting, I am TRYING to refrain from taking any shots. Still don't want it to become the default setting though. |
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 21:22:28
Right, so back on how Ebberon is a fast-food fantasy campaign.
I'm for trying new ideas and all, but something just hit me today. Ravenloft offers something new because its gothic horror (Mask of the Red death, its gothic earth counter part, is different in itself to). Oriental adventurers is obviously something very abstract, it being based off of asian culture. Greyhawk, well it was the original setting, and works well for your good old, straight forward Dnd.
I was thinking, we have Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms: why on earth would we need another fantasy campaign setting? Albiet, between Dragonlance and FR we get two different types of fantasy. But I think we have enough between the two. FR is a HUGE setting (and I have no concept of how large DL is) that covers a lot of aspects, and I would think that whatever FR doesn't cover about fantasy, DL does. Is there a point to ebberon, other than its a mesh pot of battles, guns, and dragons?
Now what I want to see is a Sci-Fi Campaign setting! One that has high technology, and Psionics. Personally, whenever I read the psionics handbook, I get the feeling of a Sci-Fi campaign, not a fantasy one. Imagine a setting where Dromites had their own planet? (likewise, the Illithid, the Thri-Keen, etc.) I know Planescape had something similar, but its still had a fantasy feel. There's been Star Wars, and its is cool, but its just star wars (I use the words 'just star wars' in the most unoffensive way possible). How about the very essence of Sci-Fi? I think that would have been much better than Ebberon. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 05:38:05
Okay fellow scribes, enough with the off-topic chatter  .
Let's try on get back on topic...
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 05:33:31
ROSE ESTEES!!!!
I loved THOSE. I first learned of Water Weird from there.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 04:55:53
At the risk of further derailing this thread . . . everyone else in my class was reading "approved" books off our reading list like Tex and the Outsiders, since they were short. I was reading Dracula, Frankenstein, The Hobbit (the rest of the LOTR books weren't on our "classics" list . . . go figure), The Chronicles of Narnia, The Once and Future King, Ivanhoe, Dune, A Canticle for Leibowitz, Brave New World, The Metamorphosis, and Doctor Zhivago. And in betwen all of those I was reading the old Rose Estes Greyhawk novels, the original Moonshaes trilogy, and RAS original Icewind Dale Trilogy. How much feaking time did I used to have? Good lord on top of all of that we played every friday night and all day long on saturday . . .
and in conclusion, that's why Eberron shouldn't be the default setting (maybe if I end this way no one will gank me for being off topic . . . ) |
| warlockco |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 04:47:20
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Cromwell I TEACH you guys in High School... and your evaluation is exactly what every teacher says.
When I was in schoolI was reading all the time. Now the video games (Which I personally love) are taking away from that. Everything about the imagination is being handed to you guys, and you don't really have to develop your imagination because all the images will be made for you. This above all else is what bothers me about marketing. It Dumbs the PEOPLE down.
Back in High School just before the 1st quarter was up, I had to finally bring the Head Librarian to my Western Civ Teacher to get about two dozen books back for the Library. I was constantly reading, even during lectures, but back then I used to be able to multi-task quite well too (listen to a lecture and retain it without having to write notes, while reading a book that was completely unrelated to the lecture). |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Aug 2005 : 03:00:09
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Luther Cromwell
quote:
Hey, we`re not ALL like that. (so sayeth a 17-year old bibliophile who chews through almost half a dozen books in the week)
Yes, not everyone is like that. But I find that most are. And I'm not the youngest here, sweet. For a while I was feeling kind of young...thank you.
BTW, I'm sorry if I'm very opinionated on this type of thing, its just that I think I need to get into university more than I know. I need to leave this world of popularilty and vanity, and enter a world where you can shape who you want to be. Pardon my getting carried away.
Cromwell I TEACH you guys in High School... and your evaluation is exactly what every teacher says.
When I was in schoolI was reading all the time. Now the video games (Which I personally love) are taking away from that. Everything about the imagination is being handed to you guys, and you don't really have to develop your imagination because all the images will be made for you. This above all else is what bothers me about marketing. It Dumbs the PEOPLE down.
|
| Sir Luther Cromwell |
Posted - 25 Aug 2005 : 19:34:28
quote:
Hey, we`re not ALL like that. (so sayeth a 17-year old bibliophile who chews through almost half a dozen books in the week)
Yes, not everyone is like that. But I find that most are. And I'm not the youngest here, sweet. For a while I was feeling kind of young...thank you.
BTW, I'm sorry if I'm very opinionated on this type of thing, its just that I think I need to get into university more than I know. I need to leave this world of popularilty and vanity, and enter a world where you can shape who you want to be. Pardon my getting carried away.
|
|
|
