Hmm, I think I'm still going to ask Rich about that. Why single out LG and CE?
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
I don't think you're asking Rich anything, now that WotC took down the FR boards.
Once again. WotC did NOT take take the FR boards entirely, and Rich's Q&A thread is still there. You know this, because you posted in that very thread today to say goodbye.
You keep making it sound like everything regarding the FR was deleted. It was not, it was just consolidated into one forum. I am NOT saying that was a good idea, but I also believe in being accurate.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 20 May 2008 17:03:17
Hmm, I think I'm still going to ask Rich about that. Why single out LG and CE?
I'm not sure why WOTC did that, it makes even less sense to me.
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
I'm not sure why WOTC did that, it makes even less sense to me.
Indeed. I'm troubled because this new alignment system seems to agree with the (IMO faulty) notion that Law is generally "goodly", and Chaos is generally "wicked." I'd like to obtain some more information about the rationale behind keeping those two extreme alignments, but not the others.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
I'm not sure why WOTC did that, it makes even less sense to me.
Indeed. I'm troubled because this new alignment system seems to agree with the (IMO faulty) notion that Law is generally "goodly", and Chaos is generally "wicked." I'd like to obtain some more information about the rationale behind keeping those two extreme alignments, but not the others.
That does seem to be the general idea... I can't stand it, though. As I've stated more than once, I've long thought that the 9-alignment system was both an excellent setup and not at all difficult to use or understand.
quote:Originally posted by Kuje I'm not sure why WOTC did that, it makes even less sense to me.
Indeed. I'm troubled because this new alignment system seems to agree with the (IMO faulty) notion that Law is generally "goodly", and Chaos is generally "wicked." I'd like to obtain some more information about the rationale behind keeping those two extreme alignments, but not the others.
That does seem to be the general idea... I can't stand it, though. As I've stated more than once, I've long thought that the 9-alignment system was both an excellent setup and not at all difficult to use or understand.
Personally, I never had a problem with the 9 alignments, just with the implementation of them as prereqs, mainly for classes. Also, I have experimented a little with perceived alignment (which is reflected in how you view yourself) and actual alignment (which is reflected in your actions). I think that it allows for more dynamic role-playing.
One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
Well, if Law stands for good now... (and I'm gonna turn this into sarcasm now!) the laws that governed segregation must've been good...according to WotC's new alignment system...
I'm not sure why WOTC did that, it makes even less sense to me.
Indeed. I'm troubled because this new alignment system seems to agree with the (IMO faulty) notion that Law is generally "goodly", and Chaos is generally "wicked." I'd like to obtain some more information about the rationale behind keeping those two extreme alignments, but not the others.
I'm sure someone else will pipe up on this, but the simplistic law=good and chaos=evil have strong background in the Basic and Expert D&D boxed set from the early 1980s. The Chaos Curse title of the RAS Cleric Quintet novel harkens back to it.
WotC did NOT take take the FR boards entirely, and Rich's Q&A thread is still there. You know this, because you posted in that very thread today to say goodbye.
Check the posting times.*
I only found that the threads had been moved SEVEN minutes after posting the above - sorry.
I have multiple tabs open, so I browse several sites simultaneaously.
Once I found the thread, I posted Goodbye in it, as you yourself noted.
*Figuring out the time on this server is a pain-in-the-rump; since your in the same TZ as me, you need to -17 from the hours (being aware that 12 noon = 0, so -3 winds up 9 AM for us). I just had to figure all that out because you had me thinking I was going insane.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
I only found that the threads had been moved SEVEN minutes after posting the above - sorry.
OK, I didn't know that. *I'm* sorry, too.
Anyway, the question I asked Rich (I wanted his thoughts on the Archmage ED, and if he thought it was meant to be exclusive to one person) has been answered. I'm planning to ask him about the alignments.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 21 May 2008 00:24:59
I'm sure someone else will pipe up on this, but the simplistic law=good and chaos=evil have strong background in the Basic and Expert D&D boxed set from the early 1980s.
Right...but some old notions get cast aside for a reason.
The concept you mention probably should have stayed back in the 80s. Of course, that's just my take on things.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 21 May 2008 00:29:14
I'm sure someone else will pipe up on this, but the simplistic law=good and chaos=evil have strong background in the Basic and Expert D&D boxed set from the early 1980s.
Right...but some old notions get cast aside for a reason.
The concept you mention probably should have stayed back in the 80s. Of course, that's just my take on things.
Agreed. Evolution's generally a positive. The 80's did keep a lot of that decade's tripe, but maybe this leaked thru.
Mace, I figured as RAS' older he prolly had exposure to the red and blue boxes first and such exposure influenced his word later choice in title, although, in retrospect, it was probably based on alliteration.
And, yep, you're right about the rules set under which the novels began.
Agreed. Evolution's generally a positive. The 80's did keep a lot of that decade's tripe, but maybe this leaked thru.
Indeed.
quote:Mace, I figured as RAS' older he prolly had exposure to the red and blue boxes first and such exposure influenced his word later choice in title, although, in retrospect, it was probably based on alliteration.
From everything I've read, I believe RAS did actually play 1st edition D&D--in the forward to the CQ collector's edition, he mentioned that he originally wanted a monk to be the protagonist.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
Its very "Lovecraftian", so I suppose we know where that particular design concept stems from.
Well, the Law-Chaos thing is more early Moorcock, but that's beside the point. I don't care much whether they go back to the old version or not, I am more worried over how they will use the definitions.
Just want to say that while I am not a fan of the FR nuking to transition it to 4E, the ruleset for 4E looks like fun with Fort. Ref. and Will becoming more like AC. I will get to playtest with the quick play rules next Tuesday with some teachers (the science teacher will be DMing). Of course I will be using the wizard
A lot of people like the new 4E rules, including people who don't like what was done to the FR setting.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
A lot of people like the new 4E rules, including people who don't like what was done to the FR setting.
I don't like the new rules at all, myself. I don't find them to be a logical evolution of the game; I see them as an attempt to turn an MMO into a pen-and-paper game. And I especially dislike the fact that the RP seems to be on the way out of the original RPG.
A lot of people like the new 4E rules, including people who don't like what was done to the FR setting.
I don't like the new rules at all, myself. I don't find them to be a logical evolution of the game; I see them as an attempt to turn an MMO into a pen-and-paper game. And I especially dislike the fact that the RP seems to be on the way out of the original RPG.
So basically like a board game with a lot of rules.
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams." --Richard Greene (letter to Time)
[quote]Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin [brAnd I especially dislike the fact that the RP seems to be on the way out of the original RPG.
I'm curious - how do the rules inhibit RP? I ask because the 3.5ed rules didn't really seem to actively foster RP.
It's not that the new rules inhibit role-playing... Rather, the new rules seem to ignore role-playing altogether. Role-playing does not seem to be part of D&D Extreme.
It's like I posted about the disenchanting of items. It appears to be a WoW system, with just a laundry list of common components that, depending on the mix, can be easily mixed to make any number of magical items. In previous versions of D&D, magical item creation wasn't a science, it was an art -- you'd have to figure out how best to make a particular item, gather the components, do all the right spells, and then maybe it would work. And each mage could come up with a different way to make the same item, but for different items, you'd need an entirely different recipe and set of components. None of this "Oh, I'll take the residuum from disenchanting these things to make a new nifty item!"
And how about the nerfing of alignments, which was always originally a role-playing tool? Sure, people can still play the alignments as they wish, but cutting them down de-emphasizes them in the game -- and thus de-emphasizes role-playing.
I've seen all this stuff about how 4E is going to be so cool and all, but it's all been about combat, and spellcasting, and healing surges, and nifty powers... I've not seen jack about actual role-playing. It's all been about filling the right slots (controller? director? Nani?), and not having to worry about dying, and continuously battling thru dungeons with 6 hour rest periods giving a full recharge, and stuff like that. Almost everything I've seen about 4E has been lifted from WoW and other MMOs -- and MMOs and role-playing often have very, very little to do with each other.
It's part of why I call 4E D&D Extreme -- because it may have some common elements, but it's otherwise not like any version of D&D I've ever played. I don't consider it to even be the same game.
I'm not defending or knocking 4e, just making an observation. But for what it's worth...I've played and GMed many games over the years, D&D editions 1 through 3.5, Champions, Call of Cthulhu, and DC Heroes to name a few. And it seems to me that when a game is strong on roleplaying, it's because the players and GM want a game that's strong on roleplaying. The particular system has virtually nothing to do with it. Has your experience been different?
Not completely far off there Wooly.. particularly since social encounters have become akin to combat.
In either case, I like some of the stuff I have seen. I've spent most of the day going over the PHB and while I found some shocking new stuff (like rangers can only 2 weapon fight and multiclass is crap) I still haven't found anything that I can't just ignore and continue to do as we've always done as far as roleplaying goes (like social encounters.)
That said, reading the 4E PHB as a PDF has only reinforced my hate for reading D&D books digitally. :)
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act." The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy.
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
Posted - 20 May 2008 : 14:16:20
