Quote from: TristramEvans;806917Ha! Yeah old Nagash had a reputation as being one of the worste minis GW ever released. I think he looked like one of those Mexican Dia de Muertos figures.

For some strange reason the Día de Muertos look endears it to me.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806917To be fair though, Oldhammer really focuses on pre-4th edition figures of 81 to 92, so that fellow wouldn't qualify.

Yeah, old Nagash is from an era where GW's sculpts/painting took an overall nose-dive... big chunky features and goofy poses... and lots of bright red paint.
There are plenty of their newer models I do like... but that new candyfloss Nagash is the size of a Barbie doll and still just too damn ridiculous.

Quote from: Simlasa;806883I'm certainly preferring the 'amateur' offerings these days... compared to the 'professional' ones.

As the great Smokey Robinson sang: I second that emotion.

I prefer amateur as well. It's not about being hipsterish, it's about the creativity and openness.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806945I prefer amateur as well. It's not about being hipsterish, it's about the creativity and openness.

I like when someone pursues his vision without having it sent to committee. Even if I think his vision needs corrective lenses.

I don't miss Grognardia. Some of his stuff was interesting, but there was too much Talmudic discourse. Too much trying to discern meaning through a word here or there, that Appendix N stuff, and "well he didn't list book X, but we know he read it, and here we can see the influence -" and "when he said X, he really meant Y, except in this other case where he meant Z." It got tedious.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806983Too much trying to discern meaning through a word here or there, that Appendix N stuff, and "well he didn't list book X, but we know he read it, and here we can see the influence -" and "when he said X, he really meant Y, except in this other case where he meant Z." It got tedious.

That sorta shit is everywhere though... even right here in River City. The gold in the ashes there was stuff he'd mention along the way that I'd never heard of.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;806918For some strange reason the Día de Muertos look endears it to me.

I see what you did there...

Quote from: Simlasa;806888Larry Elmore have made very competent images I have no interest in looking at.

Your dead to me;)

Quote from: Ronin;806994Your dead to me;)

Sorry, I have no dead to give you.

Mentzer Red Box was my first D&D. Elmore is D&D to me and I love it. But obviously your mileage may very:)

As to the actual topic. Grog had some interesting stuff on occasion. But do I miss it? No.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806983I don't miss Grognardia. Some of his stuff was interesting, but there was too much Talmudic discourse. Too much trying to discern meaning through a word here or there, that Appendix N stuff, and "well he didn't list book X, but we know he read it, and here we can see the influence -" and "when he said X, he really meant Y, except in this other case where he meant Z." It got tedious.

Personally I could not give a squirt of piss what books Gary Gygax read and thought were good. I tried reading a Fafhrd book once. Maybe it was the worst one but it was incredibly dull.

I read a few posts here and there, but not enough to miss anything. Lot of other people on the forums offered a lot more insight when it came to stuff that actually mattered to my games. Blogs are way overrated, in my opinion.

I miss the early blog, but by the end it was clearly out of gas. What I actually like was how it changed me. It was a blog that actually made me pause and think. I didn't agree with all of James' ideas, and found his reading of D&D a bit on the narrow side, but there was merit to that approach. Mostly, what I liked, was that he approached GG's writing as serious, and something to be respected. He looked at the old game and said "what were they thinking", and extrapolated. It lead to not only good blog material, but also gave one a certain viewpoint.

Picking up old RPGs, I've noted since reading Grognardia that I tend to read a lot more into what the author of the book was intending with rules. I've tended to think more about why certain rules were written a certain way. I'll still throw away rules I don't like, change the game to match my style, but I respect the actual works more now than I did.

But the fall of Grognardia was a sad, sad affair. I think if his blog had still been churning out good posts as the Dwimmermount problem grew it might have gone differently. I still hit the blog once in a while, going back to post one, and read for an afternoon, and enjoy myself.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806983I don't miss Grognardia. Some of his stuff was interesting, but there was too much Talmudic discourse. Too much trying to discern meaning through a word here or there, that Appendix N stuff, and "well he didn't list book X, but we know he read it, and here we can see the influence -" and "when he said X, he really meant Y, except in this other case where he meant Z." It got tedious.

I love that kind of stuff though. It gives you insight into the context surrounding the entire thing that just a naked reading of the rules won't.