Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385585I'm playing in a 4E Greyhawk game. Hahaha, suck it.

LOL Because you think I care what you play? Since when are you WotC*?
Oh, the irony!

* Besides of which, my remark was about Mordenkainen specifically, extended to what TDD called "Gary's home campaign". WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

Quote from: Benoist;385633WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

I just think it's crazy that people are so hateful.  The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385634I just think it's crazy that people are so hateful.  The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

It's your problem to always shoot for extremes and think that people talking about an idea that has been wrecked automatically are on the "HATE!!" end of the spectrum.

You need to get out more.

Quote from: Benoist;385635It's your problem to always shoot for extremes and think that people talking about an idea that has been wrecked automatically are on the "HATE!!" end of the spectrum.

You need to get out more.

Dude, are you sure it isn't you who needs to get out more? I find it hard to imagine anyone being as hateful and obsessed as you are, and you don't even play the game.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385637Dude, are you sure it isn't you who needs to get out more? I find it hard to imagine anyone being as hateful and obsessed as you are, and you don't even play the game.

Yes, I'm sure.

You know what hate is? Hate is beating up your wife and children because you hate yourself. Hate is to hurt yourself and build up anger to such a degree that you end up grabbing your shotgun to unload on your neighbours. Hate is about raping people because of whatever trauma you suffered in your past, and acting on it through violence, by inflicting pain and suffering onto others.

When we're discussing something on a forum like this, we might as well be around a bunch of pints in a pub. When people say "The Transformer movie SUCKED!!" it's not "hate". When people say "WotC wrecked Greyhawk", it's not "hate" either. Here's a shocker: people have opinions, and might express them vocally. Deal with it.

The fact that you're even conflating the two tells me you definitely need to get out more, Pete.

As for being obsessed, I'm not the one who talks about 4e ONLY on this board, and hasn't posted anything remotely constructive in weeks, if not months. You're no one to talk, mister.

Quote from: Benoist;385638When we're discussing something on a forum like this, we might as well be around a bunch of pints in a pub. When they say "The Transformer movie SUCKED!!" it's not "hate". When people say "WotC wrecked Greyhawk", it's not "hate" either. Here's a shocker: people have opinions, and might express them

Well opinions are one thing. For example, I don't like Shadowrun, and I think GURPS kinda sucks. Basic Roleplay-- Is it even a game? See, that's an opinion. It's not that involved, it's not something you have to dwell on very much. I don't even have to defend it. If someone says it's great or Koltar or whatever says Gurps is wonderful, I can kinda shrug and move on.

This has been going on a couple of years now.
Are you sure it isn't that you just hate yourself?

LOL As I said, the fact that you're conflating these things and consider them equal tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: Benoist;385638As for being obsessed, I'm not the one who talks about 4e ONLY on this board, and hasn't posted anything remotely constructive in weeks, if not months. You're no one to talk, mister.

I only talk about 4e..because that's really the only game that matters to me at this point. Plus, I feel like I have an obligation to correct the stupid (for example, that Essentials is really D&D 4.5-- that's just retarded).

Quote from: areola;385221No mention of Greyhawk as far as I know in 4e.

There's been plenty of mention of Greyhawk in 4E though in the guise that's been familiar in WotC core products since DMG 3.0 - basically, they reference iconic locales and adventure sites that people associate with Greyhawk (like, the Temple of Elemental Evil) and don't really care for the wider world these were/are part of. In a way, it's better now since nothing's changed except for WotC not pretending to cater to Greyhawk as a default campaign world and instead mentions iconic Greyhawk lore in its own right. A thing like Tenser's floating disc never made much sense in settings like Eberron or FR, but no one bats an eye these days if that sort of stuff is lifted out of its original context (i.e. original game world).

That aside, there's been a single 4E Greyhawk module, which is a revisit of T1 Village of Hommlet. I'd also argue that there is TONS of 4E Greyhawk content in "Open Grave". As is usually the case with 4E, they put a modern vision of what D&D ought to be and ought to accomplish first even when treading old grounds, so don't expect much faithful Greyhawk lore in anything these days. Like so much else, it's simply lifting names out of context to slam new content onto it. And that attitude towards Greyhawk, too, has nothing to do with 4E in specific but has been customary ever since the days of 3.0 and earlier:

Quote from: Erik Mona's blog on EnworldBack then [in 1999 or earlier], Wizards had an internal message board system that allowed its hundreds of employees to discuss matters of company policy, upcoming special events, who was out sick for the day, and other administrivia. One of these folders was for discussing the drafts of the Third Edition rules currently floating around for office playtests. I had just acquired such a draft copy, and I was certain I had a suggestion that would save everyone some grief. I sat down to compose a message with my suggestion, knowing that it would be my first real introduction to the D&D design staff and indeed many of the employees of Wizards of the Coast.

The message went something like this:

"Hi! My name is Erik Mona. I’ve just been hired by the RPGA to edit Polyhedron and develop a new Living campaign for the World of Greyhawk. I was looking over the draft of the Player’s Handbook, and I noticed that in the cleric section St. Cuthbert is listed as the God of Retribution. In fact, Trithereon is Greyhawk’s god of retribution. St. Cuthbert is more known for honesty, wisdom, and zeal. Also, the chart lists Heironeous’s favored weapon as a longsword, but in fact it should be a battleaxe. I have an extensive collection of Greyhawk materials here at my desk and I’m more than happy to help out if anyone has any questions about this material as it applies to the core game."

That was it, in a nutshell. Simple. Helpful. Informative. My first formal contribution to the design of Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons. It didn’t take long for the message to make its way through the design department. Within minutes I heard Jonathan Tweet’s strained, angry voice roll over the cubicle wall:

“WHO THE HELL IS ERIK MONA?” he said, his tone dripping with disdain.

It turns out that the whole “use the Greyhawk pantheon” thing had been a huge internal fight tangentially related to the cancellation of Second Edition settings and somewhat forced on the game by management. The design team wanted to be able to change Greyhawk elements to better fit the concept of the game they were creating. You expect a paladin to use a longsword, so it doesn’t make sense to make his main weapon a non-intuitive choice like a battle axe. They only wanted so many gods. They needed a god of retribution and Trithereon was not invited to the party.

(bolded emphasis mine)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385644I only talk about 4e..because that's really the only game that matters to me at this point. Plus, I feel like I have an obligation to correct the stupid (for example, that Essentials is really D&D 4.5-- that's just retarded).

By using your own logic, I could tell you something to extent of: "you've been talking about 4e and hating on the haters for two years now. What's with the obsession exactly? Do you hate yourself?"

I mean. If you're not seeing how extreme that is, I don't know what to say.

Quote from: Windjammer;385646As is usually the case with 4E, they put a modern vision of what D&D ought to be and ought to accomplish first even when treading old grounds, so don't expect much faithful Greyhawk lore in anything these days. Like so much else, it's simply lifting names out of context to slam new content onto it. And that attitude towards Greyhawk, too, has nothing to do with 4E in specific but has been customary ever since the days of 3.0 and earlier.

Oh. Absolutely. It's not 4e specific, far from it.

Quote from: Benoist;385648By using your own logic, I could tell you something to extent of: "you've been talking about 4e and hating on the haters for two years now. What's with the obsession exactly? Do you hate yourself?"

I mean. If you're not seeing how extreme that is, I don't know what to say.

Well, I do hate the haters. I think guys like you obsess on every single move that goes on in the industry to the point that the industry is your hobby. Believe me, I'd be happy to talk about my campaign based on a riverboat casino, or the all-drow group, or the new setting I'm about to start. But I know it's futile to do that here. I do that elsewhere.

Here, people obsess about the wording in the catalog for companies they hate, advertising games they don't play, imagining scenarios that haven't happened. It's not by policy, it's by default.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385634The idea that it's been "wrecked" at all is ludicrous.

Reminds me of a friend. She and I went to see Shrek. After the movie, she said, "That was terrible!"

I asked, "Really? Was it really 'terrible'?"

She said, "Well, it wasn't good."

"You're right, it wasn't good. But there are really only two positions on the scale, good and terrible?"

And that's how she is. Things really either are good or terrible. There's no middle ground. No shades of gray. No continuum. Either it conforms to her expectations or it's terrible.

That's what some of the folks here remind me of - either it conforms to their expectations of D&D or Greyhawk or whatever or it's terrible.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;385633* Besides of which, my remark was about Mordenkainen specifically, extended to what TDD called "Gary's home campaign". WotC wants to wreck Greyhawk as a whole? Whatever. I don't care: it's been wrecked already.

Several of my Greyhawk grognard friends thought the Greyhawk Wars back in the early 1990's, was a complete desecration of the Greyhawk setting.  For these particular grognards, they do not consider the Greyhawk wars to be legitimate Greyhawk canon.  They also consider most of the Greyhawk modules released around the transition from 1E to 2E, to be a complete joke too.

In practice, the only Greyhawk stuff they really consider to be legitimate Greyhawk canon, is mainly stuff which was done with the direct oversight of Gary Gygax.  This roughly corresponds to pre-1984 TSR.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;385651Well, I do hate the haters. I think guys like you obsess on every single move that goes on in the industry to the point that the industry is your hobby. Believe me, I'd be happy to talk about my campaign based on a riverboat casino, or the all-drow group, or the new setting I'm about to start. But I know it's futile to do that here. I do that elsewhere.

Here, people obsess about the wording in the catalog for companies they hate, advertising games they don't play, imagining scenarios that haven't happened. It's not by policy, it's by default.

Right!

That's not like I'm reviewing stuff, talking about setting ideas, talking about other games, or about miniatures, or talk so much more about actual gaming around here.

Right now you're doing one thing, and one thing only on this forum: throw one-liners on people you perceive as "haters" and defend The Game Which Can Do No Wrong (i.e. the current edition of D&D, whatever that is). That's *it*.

Stop projecting. Focus on the beam in your eye first. You'll be happier for it.