As the others say, welcome.

As for swine: It's not so much whether they exist so much as whether there's a real need for a slur for dumbassery in gaming (or... not even so much "in gaming" as "on forums related to gaming"). As my preferred approach to dumbassery is to ignore it, I have no need for the concept. Others more apt to call one anothers' shit seem to find ample use for it, accurate or no.

As for 3.x: It's a perspective thing. I started in that edition. To you it might be scary change. To me it's a good start. I think most of us agree it ain't perfect. My pet gripe is high prep time.

Quote from: beejazzAs for 3.x: It's a perspective thing. I started in that edition. To you it might be scary change.

FWIW, I started with the basic boxed set, moved on to 1e, 2e, then 3e.

Every step of the way an improvement AFAIAC.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadFWIW, I started with the basic boxed set, moved on to 1e, 2e, then 3e.

Every step of the way an improvement AFAIAC.

I felt the same way initially with each new edition.  Each edition allowed me to do something I didn't like in previous editions or answered why I couldn't do something.  I played them and then yearned to go back to 1st ed. or the Rules Cyclopedia.  Familiarity and nostalgia are of course part of the reason but I think a lot of the quirky things I thought I hated about previous editions turned out to be not that big of a deal once I had been allowed to explore those options.  "I can be a dwarf magic-user!" turned into "uhhh dwarf magic-user" to "Who cares that dwarves can't be magic-users?".  

I own 3.5 and I'll play it if someones running a game with it.  I just don't have a lot of passion to run D&D with it myself.  Add in the irrational hatred of 2nd ed. because of disliking our character conversions from 1st, rules bloat, and now thinking it's a half assed compromise between 1st and 3rd, and you've wrapped up my feelings about D&D.

i agree with you gunslinger, with the exception of anything 2e, as i never played it.  at first it was neat to have so many options (3.x vs. 1st) but then after a while i felt smothered by feats/PrC's/supplements in general.  and to go back to your dwarf wizard example--initially i liked the freedom for every race to be every class.  but after a while, where's the individuality?  all the races then revert to humans in funny suits instead of having their niches.  

again, if people are having fun with it, more power to 'em.  but the "magic" of d&d is gone for me; i'm sure a fair bit of it is nostalgia as well.

Howdy mate. Don't mind the crap on the lawn.

Quote from: JimLotFPI hate WotC and d20. I think "dominance" is bad for any hobby, and I think concern for an industry harms a hobby.

Why hate them for being dominant? It's not like they're doing anything wrong. Their stuff appeals to a lot of people. If someone else produced something just as, or more, appealing, people would buy it. WotC is in business to make money, like anyone else (go to work tomorrow and either work for free, just for the love of what you do, or give some of your paycheck to a co-worker or work incompetently so as to "level the playing field"). Should they stop being competitive? That would hurt the hobby also, as mediocre (or worse) games rose to the fore to fill the gap. Hating a company because it's successful is pointless and, to be blunt, kinda dumb. Why not hate all the (apparently relatively incompetent) game companies out there which just can't seem to get it together enough to give WotC a real run for its money?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadFWIW, I started with the basic boxed set, moved on to 1e, 2e, then 3e.

Every step of the way an improvement AFAIAC.

Same here.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIf someone else produced something just as, or more, appealing, people would buy it.

Success has no relationship whatsoever with quality. Not in any sort of creative endeavor, anyway. Just no.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWotC is in business to make money, like anyone else

Just this month I turned down a paying writing gig with a newsstand mag. It was probably a one-article gig, but whether it was or not, I wasn't interested. It would have compromised me in numerous ways. "Like anyone else" indeed.

"Making money" is never a valid excuse for behavior that wouldn't be acceptable if it was done for free.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson(go to work tomorrow and either work for free, just for the love of what you do, or give some of your paycheck to a co-worker or work incompetently so as to "level the playing field")

I'm unemployed and have been for a long time. And I'll tell you what, I'm extremely fortunate that I have this freedom in the prime of my life. I'd better be - I'll be working til I die because of it. And at my last office job I turned down a promotion several times because I didn't need the aggravation of being responsible for other employees.

And when I do return to the working world, it'll be something I hate doing (and low-paying, I need a physical labor job because I sit in front of the computer enough as it is for personal activities), because I'd feel horrible doing something I liked for somebody else's profit.

I really have no interest in the rat race and I have no interest in anyone telling me how important or cool the quest for money is. So don't play these games with me.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonShould they stop being competitive? That would hurt the hobby also, as mediocre (or worse) games rose to the fore to fill the gap.

The hope would be that the gap would be filled by a few companies, none of which get big enough to be dominant forces on their own.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHating a company because it's successful is pointless and, to be blunt, kinda dumb.

Liking a company because it's successful is just as dumb.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhy not hate all the (apparently relatively incompetent) game companies out there which just can't seem to get it together enough to give WotC a real run for its money?

Do you base your music listening or movie watching habits on what's topping the charts this week?

It IS a bit disheartening to go into your FLGS and see little more than d20 and nWoD on the shelves, because that's all that sells -- and thus all that the FLGS can afford to stock.

Just sayin'.

Still, I caused 'em a buncha D6 special orders...

The game store as a concept is over with. The 90s are over. (Yeah I know there are a few game stores left, but let's face facts).

I'm trying to think back to the period in the 90s when my favorite games were all canceled and put of print. All my favorite comics were out of print. My favorite artists were either dead (Kirby) or had disappeared (Ditko). The Doors  had not produced an album in 20 years at that point. X had broken up. Devo had switched from analog to digital synths and started completely sucking.

Nothing was the way I remembered it or wanted it.

I somehow managed then not to feel resentful of what was going on, even if I didn't care for it.

Here's an interesting fact about me: I think Shadowrun is the worst game ever made. Have you ever heard me say that before? Nope. Because I don't even play Shadowrun, and even if other people enjoy it.. that still doesn't bug me. And I lived through a very memorable period when Shadowrun was the biggest thing going. Heck, I remember when Deadlands was the biggest game going. And I kinda hated that game too. But did I show up to talk about people playing Shadowrun or try to impugn other people who happened to love Shadowrun?

How did I avoid doing all of that stuff?

Quote from: JimLotFPSuccess has no relationship whatsoever with quality. Not in any sort of creative endeavor, anyway. Just no.

Really?

I could see the assertion that success does not directly correlate to quality or quality is only one factor in success.

No relationship? Bogus. That's just a vain platitude to salve the ego of those who don't happen to be fans of the most popular game.

QuoteLiking a company because it's successful is just as dumb.

Who here said "they're the biggest, so I am going to buy from them"? You're beating a strawman.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHere's an interesting fact about me: I think Shadowrun is the worst game ever made. Have you ever heard me say that before? Nope. Because I don't even play Shadowrun, and even if other people enjoy it.. that still doesn't bug me. And I lived through a very memorable period when Shadowrun was the biggest thing going. Heck, I remember when Deadlands was the biggest game going. And I kinda hated that game too. But did I show up to talk about people playing Shadowrun or try to impugn other people who happened to love Shadowrun?

How did I avoid doing all of that stuff?

Any serious discussion of personal taste has to include examples of what is liked and what isn't don't liked, or there is an incomplete overall picture.

Deadlands was the biggest thing going? Hell, I've never heard of anyone playing the damn thing. Isn't that the "weird west" game?

I remember Shadowrun, from the first edition. The dice pools confused me, and the entire concept of the Matrix confused the HELL out of me so I never used it in the games I ran. haha! A few years later when I was introduced to local BBSs, and then the internet, I had a "OH, this is what Shadowrun was talking about!" but I never went back to the game.

And you know, that Universal Brotherhood thing, I hate most game fiction, but the included story just gave me a billion mad ideas. It was awesome. Don't even remember if it was attached to a sourcebook or adventure or what, but the "reporters investigating this cult thing" story, rock on.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI could see the assertion that success does not directly correlate to quality or quality is only one factor in success.

No relationship? Bogus. That's just a vain platitude to salve the ego of those who don't happen to be fans of the most popular game.

OK, I'll grant that a handwritten scrawl photocopied and stapled in the corner isn't going to be a market seller. There are some quality concerns that go into success. Happy?

However, hardcovers and color artwork aren't "quality" issues to me, they are packaging issues that do nothing but jack up the price, and I think those are the main factors in success. I also think the company logo on the bottom of the back cover is more indicative of probable success than any of the writing inside the book. When WotC released the 3rd edition, the quality of the game had absolutely nothing to do with its success - nobody had played it yet when it started flying off the shelves. And I daresay no matter what the new game looked like, as long as it said Dungeons and Dragons on it and had dungeoncrawls and wizards and stuff and had a system that didn't fall flat on its face, it was going to be the market leader these past seven years.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWho here said "they're the biggest, so I am going to buy from them"? You're beating a strawman.

Not exactly. I've seen numerous "obviously they're the best or they wouldn't be the most-played game" comments, reading over the forums. Maybe they were all written by the same guy who just posts a lot and I just didn't catch that. And maybe "they're the best" doesn't exactly equal "I am going to buy from them," but it's close enough for the point I was making, and post #36 was implying that very thing.

Quote from: JimLotFPHowever, hardcovers and color artwork aren't "quality" issues to me, they are packaging issues that do nothing but jack up the price, and I think those are the main factors in success. I also think the company logo on the bottom of the back cover is more indicative of probable success than any of the writing inside the book. When WotC released the 3rd edition, the quality of the game had absolutely nothing to do with its success - nobody had played it yet when it started flying off the shelves. And I daresay no matter what the new game looked like, as long as it said Dungeons and Dragons on it and had dungeoncrawls and wizards and stuff and had a system that didn't fall flat on its face, it was going to be the market leader these past seven years.

Sure, lots of people started buying it initially. But where a game like D&D's bread & butter is continued sales of the core book. If the core books were poor in design, sales would have slacked off.

But you go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to salve your ego. I think you'll have better luck not being too concerned that your tastes do go the way of the majority of RPG fans and not trying to identify "what I prefer" as "quality".

QuoteAnd maybe "they're the best" doesn't exactly equal "I am going to buy from them," but it's close enough for the point I was making, and post #36 was implying that very thing.

Point me to the sentence that says this. Cause I'm not seeing this.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut you go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to salve your ego.

Shit, I never realized, I'm knocking the big company just to make myself feel better.

You win! I'll go buy all their stuff right now and start playing it to show how well-adjusted I want to be.

Quote from: JimLotFPShit, I never realized, I'm knocking the big company just to make myself feel better.

You win! I'll go buy all their stuff right now and start playing it to show how well-adjusted I want to be.

Um, dude, WTF?

I really don't care what you play. :rolleyes: