1st & 2nd Edition?
Jay
I am very interrested in getting into AD&D and I was just wondering what
the signifigant differences are between the 1st and 2nd editions? What
is also the difference between D&D and AD&D?
A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures to
represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
all being in your mind? Thank you and I appreciate it.
-Jay
Travis Hall
Jay (ja...@ibm.net) wrote:
: I am very interrested in getting into AD&D and I was just wondering what
: the signifigant differences are between the 1st and 2nd editions? What
: is also the difference between D&D and AD&D?
There are a few differences between the two editions of AD&D, but I think
only one of them is likely to be significant to you, as a new player. That
difference is, the 2nd Edition books are easier to find in the shops these
days. That'll happen when something is out of print for a decade or so.
(Lots of people will try to tell you there are big differences, but I
think it would be a while before you manage to spot any.)
: A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures to
: represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
: all being in your mind? Thank you and I appreciate it.
Umm, I'm not sure precisely what you are asking, but I'll give it a go
anyway. The DM makes it all up. However, he often finds it easier to put
what he makes on paper, thus often creating a map, and figures can help
him keep track of what he has described. Sometimes, he might even find a
real map, and convert it for his own purposes. I'm not sure how anything
can be "read from the DM", though, since the DM is a person. Did you mean,
"read from the DMG"? If so, you seem to have a much mistaken idea of what
the game is about. The rulebooks only provide a structure to simulate a
game world created by the Dungeon Master. The actual adventures are
provided by him. (He can buy pre-made settings and adventures to make his
life easier, though.)
--
Why is it that when I do finally get around to creating a .sig file, I
can't think of a single witty thing to say in it?
The Wraith
Jay
Ok, what I meant was is the game like a board game? Are there pieces
continuously on a map and you literally move your character every turn?
I was wondering because then if not, how do you figure out where
everyone is relative to a monster or what not. If a monster apears 10ft
away, does that mean to just imagine that it is or actually put a
playing piece representing the monster two boxes away?(5ft each)
I am just curious about the mechanics of the game. I hope I clarified my
question. Thanks.
-Jay
Travis Hall
Jay (ja...@ibm.net) wrote:
:
: Ok, what I meant was is the game like a board game? Are there pieces
: continuously on a map and you literally move your character every turn?
AD&D is not like a board game. In AD&D, each player creates a character,
and gives that character a personality (as well as a bunch of game stats).
It is then the players' task to decide what their characters are going to
do, and to an extent act out when will be done, when they become the
protagonists in an ongoing story. The details of that story are left to
the Dungeon Master (DM).
Some of the simplest stories involve having the characters fight their way
through a dungeon of some sort. In these cases, a DM might lay out a
number of gridded maps and figures representing the characters might be
moved around on the grids. However, most players quickly grow out of the
simple dungeon-bashing scenario, and look for more sophistication in their
games. At this point, the DM will often find himself conducting combat in
areas other than his preplanned dungeon, and will have to just describe
things, or such maps become largely irrelevant (does it matter just how
close you are to the mayor when making a speech to the townsfolk? Usually
not...)
: I was wondering because then if not, how do you figure out where
: everyone is relative to a monster or what not. If a monster apears 10ft
: away, does that mean to just imagine that it is or actually put a
: playing piece representing the monster two boxes away?(5ft each)
You can do it either way. All depends on how the DM cares to handle it.
DuaneVP
From: Jay <ja...@ibm.net>
>>I am very interrested in getting into AD&D and I was just wondering what
the signifigant differences are between the 1st and 2nd editions? What
is also the difference between D&D and AD&D?<<
As Wraith noted in his response anyone new to the game wouldn't notice
a difference between 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D. I'd suggest 2nd as it will
be what you see in the stores. 1st Edition is out of print but has many
devoted fans who despise 2nd Edition (while many fans of 2nd Edition can't
stand the older 1st Edition anymore).
The difference between AD&D and D&D (sometimes referred to on the net
as OD&D - Original Dungeons and Dragons) is much more noticeable. It's a
more simplified system in many ways but again is less available than 2nd
Edition AD&D, but more available than 1st Edition AD&D because it's been
supported even though there was a move to AD&D. Also, again, people tend
to have a strong like or dislike for it.
Go with 2nd Ed. AD&D and take a look at the other two later if you
have the chance but before you start investing too heavily in 2nd Edition
stuff.
>>A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures to
represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
all being in your mind?<<
All versions are playable with just paper, pencils, and dice. Figures
are optional (I've never played without them really). The DM either uses
published adventures or makes up his own. The adventures will usually
include maps of whatever is relevant whether it's a country, a city, a
dungeon or a single room. Along with that are descriptions of the
important places, creatures, people, and sometimes the events that should
take place in the adventure.
Play proceeds with the DM describing things to the players who will
ask questions of their own or state what their characters are doing. The
DM then gives more description or states the results of the characters
action.
It's a little more involved than this of course but that's the general
approach. New DM's usually begin by using published settings and
adventures and reading descriptions from them word for word. As they
begin to get comfortable with things they should begin to improvise their
own descriptions and learn to adapt to the changes that should result from
the influence of the Player Characters.
As you can tell from this description a lot of the game experience is
"in your mind" and depends a lot on the descriptive input the players get
from the DM. However, I've always thought that having figures helps in a
couple of respects. First, they make it easier to show which characters
and monsters are where. Though you can use simple graph paper for that
too, painted figures are more fun. Second, like a picture that's worth a
thousand words it's easier to show players what they are up against in
ADDITION to description, than to give a description alone.
Duane VanderPol
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas Watson, IBM Chairman, 1943
Christian K. Kielland
Take a look at the story 'The Assassins' on rgf.archives. It's based on
a series of roleplaying sessions. If you don't find any of the episodes
there, try the web page at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~goran/Archive.htm
it's pretty good.
--
Hierophant, Christian K. Kielland
O- http://www.ifi.uio.no/~christkk/index.html
"emacs are those rigs emus drive around in."
-a WebTV Subscriber on gnu.emacs.gnews
Daniel James Corwin
>> : A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures
>to
>> : represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
[sniped the Wraith's comment on mini's and how to play]
>Ok, what I meant was is the game like a board game? Are there pieces
>continuously on a map and you literally move your character every turn?
>I was wondering because then if not, how do you figure out where
>everyone is relative to a monster or what not. If a monster apears 10ft
>away, does that mean to just imagine that it is or actually put a
>playing piece representing the monster two boxes away?(5ft each)
>I am just curious about the mechanics of the game. I hope I clarified my
>question. Thanks.
>
For the most part, the game isn't really like a board game.
While miniatures help, they are not needed. I DMed for years without
them. However, this requires the DM to be very good at describing the
setting. In large battles, things can get confusing quick (missile
ranges, who's by who, area of effects). That is why I started using
minis. I keep them and a vinyl map on the table, and anytime the players
or I are having trouble visuallizing, I use them map. Even if you don't
use specific mini rules (like Combat & Tactics) figures can do wonders to
help everyone picture the fight and recognize what is happening.
Basically, I would say get them, but only use them when needed (they can
slow down play at times). Of course, they are almost completely
unnecessary for non-combat parts of the adventure.
--
Dan Corwin
dc10...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu
Lee Dwayne Sudduth
On Mon, 26 May 1997 21:18:33 -0400, Jay <ja...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I am very interrested in getting into AD&D and I was just wondering what
>the signifigant differences are between the 1st and 2nd editions? What
>is also the difference between D&D and AD&D?
> A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures to
>represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
>all being in your mind? Thank you and I appreciate it.
>
>-Jay
Well Jay, there are many significant differences between 1st edition
(The Superior of the two, IMHO) and 2nd Edition AD&D. One difference
was a simplifying of the "To Hit" chart and replacing it with a THAC0
(read that as To Hit Armour Class 0). It has a built in method, based
on character class, that allows a player to quickly calculate their
THAC0, and all subsequent Hit numbers for other armour classes. It's
aimed at a younger crowd, so it's easier. There are other things that
were simplified, I'm just mentioning the ones that made those of us
who played the game for a long, long time extremely angry because it
required revamping of modules (for those rare times when we wanted to
use one of the latest versions published that looked really good) to
fit with the 1st edition rules we enjoy.
Another area that T$R irritated folx, was where they caved in to
pressure from X-Tian groups (Before you ask, I'm a Born Again Pagan,
and proud of it. I don't want your xtian mail, and any xtian messages
sent to me telling me I'm damned, etc will be remailed back to the
person who mailed it 25 times a day for a period of 7 days.) and
removed references to "demons, devils, assassins, etc. Basically, they
made the game easier to play (my group enjoyed the more complex rules)
and caved in to pressure from the right wingers in the hope of winning
a larger audience.
Which is better? Well..2nd Edition is more prevalent than 1st, so
unless you want to spend a large quantity of cash for 1st edition
books in relatively good shape, then play 2nd edition.
As to the difference between D&D and AD&D: D&D is even more simplified
than 2nd edition, although at one time, there were rules for higher
level characters than what existed in AD&D..
DrkKnght..
Virgins deflowered, maidens rescued, dragons slain. And, on alternate
Tuesday's and Thursday's we make popcorn..
Rob Sanders
>On Mon, 26 May 1997 21:18:33 -0400, Jay <ja...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>>I am very interrested in getting into AD&D and I was just wondering what
>>the signifigant differences are between the 1st and 2nd editions? What
>>is also the difference between D&D and AD&D?
>> A question in general of D&D(AD&D), do you use real maps and figures to
>>represent your characters? Or is it just read from the DM, therefore it
>>all being in your mind? Thank you and I appreciate it.
>>
>>-Jay
>
>
>Well Jay, there are many significant differences between 1st edition
>(The Superior of the two, IMHO) and 2nd Edition AD&D. One difference
>was a simplifying of the "To Hit" chart and replacing it with a THAC0
>(read that as To Hit Armour Class 0). It has a built in method, based
>on character class, that allows a player to quickly calculate their
>THAC0, and all subsequent Hit numbers for other armour classes. It's
>aimed at a younger crowd, so it's easier. There are other things that
>were simplified, I'm just mentioning the ones that made those of us
>who played the game for a long, long time extremely angry because it
>required revamping of modules (for those rare times when we wanted to
>use one of the latest versions published that looked really good) to
>fit with the 1st edition rules we enjoy.
I am *so* sorry that the addition of THAC0 ruined the game of AD&D for
you. How horrid, something that eliminates a full page of tables and
streamlines combat. How terrible, modifying the rules to reflect what
most of the gamers I knew were doing on their own anyway. And it's
not easier because it's aimed at a younger crowd (that point is
*highly* debatable as well), it's designed to make combat flow a
little faster. And just because THAC0 is included in the new modules
(it was in many 1st Ed modules too, BTW) doesn't mean that you can't
still look up the hit dice and AC on the tables just as well. Yep,
this was a mindless rant.
>Another area that T$R irritated folx, was where they caved in to
Give it up....anyone who still uses "T$R" is not to be taken
seriously.
>pressure from X-Tian groups (Before you ask, I'm a Born Again Pagan,
We weren't going to ask.
>and proud of it. I don't want your xtian mail, and any xtian messages
>sent to me telling me I'm damned, etc will be remailed back to the
>person who mailed it 25 times a day for a period of 7 days.) and
>removed references to "demons, devils, assassins, etc. Basically, they
>made the game easier to play (my group enjoyed the more complex rules)
>and caved in to pressure from the right wingers in the hope of winning
>a larger audience.
This is another rant, although you didn't need me to tell you that :)
Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could be
viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is there
that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it makes
you happy. I personally think that TSR is to be applauded for not
jumping on the "evil is cool" bandwagon. TSR and *D&D have taken
almost all of the heat from the media over imagined RPG-related
crimes, they were removing some of their critics' ammunition. No
biggie. My gripe was that demons and devils (by whatever name) should
have been released in the very first Monstrous Compendium, not bottled
up for however long it was.
>Which is better? Well..2nd Edition is more prevalent than 1st, so
>unless you want to spend a large quantity of cash for 1st edition
>books in relatively good shape, then play 2nd edition.
2nd Edition is what is being printed, and thus is more readily
available. If you have never played *D&D, you will never miss 1st
Edition. Neither edition is inherently superior to the other, as the
basic rules are 97% the same. Same combat system, same magic system,
same character generation. 1st Edition did have different flavor,
which is hard for me to define since it's been so long since my 1st Ed
campaign. With 2nd edition you have a vastly greater number of
optional rules to choose from, which can be good or bad.
I hope I've done a fair job of being objective here.
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
The Strategic Castle
I'm not going to quote al that, but
2nd Edition, for a new player, is probably the best bet, because,as
mentioned, it's available. Or will be, once TSR/WotC gets the
production back on line. I'm a 2nd Ed fan, but I've been playing since
'79. so I have used both. They are the same game, mostly. 2nd Ed is
cleaner in presentation, but they took out some of the optional stuff
that was in 1st Ed. To some extent this was so TSR could publish the
supplements on those ideas. This was either a blatant attempt to suck
in more money, or a smart way of providing more solid info on something
while not cluttering up the core rule nooks. I feel its about 50 %
each.
As for the demon/devil, etc. Yeah, I think TSR actually deserves some
credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
bit to the "Parent Brigade" Yes. But, THEY ARE A BUSINESS TRYING TO
MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!! Many people seem to forget this fact. There
is nothing wrong with running a business and making money. THey kept
making money after the change, which implies that the majority liked
it. Ergo, they did the right thing. From a business point of view.
The Bartender
Denakhan
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:41:19 GMT, robsa...@mindspring.com.antispam
(Rob Sanders) wrote:
Quick little blurb....THAC0 was created and used in 1st Edition AD&D.
DMG, 1979.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
Rob Sanders
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:22:53 GMT, pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:41:19 GMT, robsa...@mindspring.com.antispam
>(Rob Sanders) wrote:
>Quick little blurb....THAC0 was created and used in 1st Edition AD&D.
>DMG, 1979.
Yes, in the monster summaries in the back of the book. That's when we
started using it, after looking at those for the umpteenth time and
finally realizing "you know, with this we don't need all those
tables..." Doh! :)
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Hastur Hastur Hastur
>I'm not going to quote al that, but
>
>2nd Edition, for a new player, is probably the best bet, because,as
>mentioned, it's available. Or will be, once TSR/WotC gets the
>production back on line. I'm a 2nd Ed fan, but I've been playing since
>'79. so I have used both. They are the same game, mostly. 2nd Ed is
>cleaner in presentation, but they took out some of the optional stuff
>that was in 1st Ed. To some extent this was so TSR could publish the
>supplements on those ideas. This was either a blatant attempt to suck
>in more money, or a smart way of providing more solid info on something
>while not cluttering up the core rule nooks. I feel its about 50 %
>each.
>
>As for the demon/devil, etc. Yeah, I think TSR actually deserves some
>credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ravenloft, DarkSun, Planescape.
>bit to the "Parent Brigade" Yes. But, THEY ARE A BUSINESS TRYING TO
>MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!! Many people seem to forget this fact. There
>is nothing wrong with running a business and making money. THey kept
>making money after the change, which implies that the majority liked
>it. Ergo, they did the right thing. From a business point of view.
>
>
>The Bartender
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sig sponsered by the
Department of Redundancy Department
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.mauritson.com/tjohnson
(GURPS, INWO, Cartoons, etc)
Rob Sanders
>>
>>As for the demon/devil, etc. Yeah, I think TSR actually deserves some
>>credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ravenloft, DarkSun, Planescape.
In none of those campaigns are the PCs encouraged to be evil or dark
characters themselves. Ravenloft is Gothic horror, where the PCs are
trying (in vain) to escape the evil. Dark Sun is a tough, gritty
"survival of the fittest" world. And Planescape is not dark or light
-- it's good and evil and law and chaos and neutrality all coexisting
and conflicting.
IMO, when people are talking about dark games, it's Vampire, Werewolf,
etc. (and probably several that I know nothing about).
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
Jason Hatter
Hastur Hastur Hastur (has...@sna.com) wrote:
: >credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Ravenloft, DarkSun, Planescape.
None of which are angst-filled "I'm a monster but not a monster" type game
settings, such as the Vampire setting or (to a lesser setting) the
Werewolf settings from White Wolf.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
RPG stuff at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/rpg.html
featuring Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.html
Denakhan
>On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:54:29 -0700, The Strategic Castle
><pro...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to quote al that, but
>>
>>2nd Edition, for a new player, is probably the best bet, because,as
>>mentioned, it's available. Or will be, once TSR/WotC gets the
>>production back on line. I'm a 2nd Ed fan, but I've been playing since
>>'79. so I have used both. They are the same game, mostly. 2nd Ed is
>>cleaner in presentation, but they took out some of the optional stuff
>>that was in 1st Ed. To some extent this was so TSR could publish the
>>supplements on those ideas. This was either a blatant attempt to suck
>>in more money, or a smart way of providing more solid info on something
>>while not cluttering up the core rule nooks. I feel its about 50 %
>>each.
>>
>>As for the demon/devil, etc. Yeah, I think TSR actually deserves some
>>credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ravenloft, DarkSun, Planescape.
>
>>bit to the "Parent Brigade" Yes. But, THEY ARE A BUSINESS TRYING TO
>>MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!
HEHEHEH! Ironic, no? It seems that they didn't make a
profit...*gosh, I WONDER WHY?..." hint hint nudge nudge (with a
gigle thrown in for good mesure).
>Many people seem to forget this fact. There
>>is nothing wrong with running a business and making money.
They were making money befor this.....hmmm. I just *wonder*
what happened. That Gary guy, and that Frank Mentzer character,
Lawrence Schick too, they sure messed up! Oh, wait a minute, they
were gone befor this all happened....hummm.
> THey kept
>>making money after the change, which implies that the majority liked
>>it. Ergo, they did the right thing. From a business point of view.
For a while....untill all the 13 year old skater kids that
they were catoring to grew up and went off to college I guess....
>>
>>The Bartender
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Sig sponsered by the
> Department of Redundancy Department
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> http://www.mauritson.com/tjohnson
> (GURPS, INWO, Cartoons, etc)
Yes, I am bitter about the whole TSR thing. Yes, I still feel
betrayed by TSR. Yes, i still play 1st edition.
It used to be I could trust ANY TSR product implicitly, based solely
on the fact that it was a TSR product. The game and company had a
definite mould of "Games designed for gammers"; not "Games designed
for kids." Why didn't TSR keep producing stuff for 1st edition? And
Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
month, 2 would do just fine. If they would have kept all the old
writers and artists, and produced 1st, 2nd and Basic stuff, they would
have kept virtually ALL of there established client base. THAT is a
smart business decision (IMO). They didn't. They gambled on the quick
buck; figuring that there would always be a supply of 13 year olds
whose parents have too much money. I guess they lost.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
ISUPrez
>> Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could be
>> viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is there
>> that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it makes
>> you happy.
I never quite understood the reasoning of the "right-wing religious
groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones being
vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game in
which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go figure ...
:-) :-) :-)
>> I personally think that TSR is to be applauded for not jumping on the
"evil is >> cool" bandwagon.
There were several games that had filled that niche, so there wasn't
really any point in emphasizing that possibility of the game rules.
ISUPrez
Timothy W. Johnson
Denakhan <pm...@klondike.com> wrote in article
<33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:34:30 GMT, has...@sna.com (Hastur Hastur
> Hastur) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:54:29 -0700, The Strategic Castle
> ><pro...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >>Yes. But, THEY ARE A BUSINESS TRYING TO
> >>MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> HEHEHEH! Ironic, no? It seems that they didn't make a
> profit...*gosh, I WONDER WHY?..." hint hint nudge nudge (with a
> gigle thrown in for good mesure).
A company stayed in business for almost a quarter of a century and didn't
make a profit? Someone needs to rethink their kneejerk comments.
> >Many people seem to forget this fact. There
> >>is nothing wrong with running a business and making money.
>
> They were making money befor this.....hmmm. I just *wonder*
> what happened. That Gary guy, and that Frank Mentzer character,
> Lawrence Schick too, they sure messed up! Oh, wait a minute, they
> were gone befor this all happened....hummm.
Huh?!? I suppose TSR was a multi-billion dollar a month business under the
expert leadership of a couple of game designers with no business
experience.
> > THey kept
> >>making money after the change, which implies that the majority liked
> >>it. Ergo, they did the right thing. From a business point of view.
>
> For a while....untill all the 13 year old skater kids that
> they were catoring to grew up and went off to college I guess....
Hmmmm... I thought only 13-year-olds used lame things like "Denakhan the
Arch-Mage" for an internet pseudonym because they think it sounds cool. I
guess they didn't all grow up, after all.
> >>The Bartender
> Yes, I am bitter about the whole TSR thing.
Really? I couldn't tell.
> Yes, I still feel
> betrayed by TSR.
Sounds like a personal problem.
> Yes, i still play 1st edition.
Sounds like another personal problem.
> It used to be I could trust ANY TSR product implicitly, based solely
> on the fact that it was a TSR product. The game and company had a
> definite mould of "Games designed for gammers"; not "Games designed
> for kids."
Oh, yeah. That "Dungeon!" game was _definitely_ not designed for kids.
And the hack-slash-blood-gore style of Gary Gygax' expert design ability
wasn't a juvenile fantasy, either.
> Why didn't TSR keep producing stuff for 1st edition? And
> Basic for that matter?
I think I can take a wild stab at the answer to this one: They weren't
making any money? Duh!!!
> As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> month, 2 would do just fine.
Then only buy 2. Duh, again!!!
> If they would have kept all the old
> writers and artists, and produced 1st, 2nd and Basic stuff, they would
> have kept virtually ALL of there established client base. THAT is a
> smart business decision (IMO).
A smart business decision is helping you to relive your childhood memories?
I suppose companies should continue making bell-bottom-hip-hugger jeans
and pong games to make you happy, too.
> They didn't. They gambled on the quick
> buck; figuring that there would always be a supply of 13 year olds
> whose parents have too much money.
There are even more of those now than there were back then. Now, however,
they all spend their money on CCGs. It's not a fault of TSR. Look at the
whole industry. Game Designers' Workshop and Mayfair Games (two staples of
the RPG industry) have completely disappeared from the face of the earth.
Every other company producing RPGs and associated products have suffered
losses. You expect us to believe that Gary Gygax could have saved them
all? Puh-leeze.
> I guess they lost.
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
I think the losers here are people like you that can't handle change.
Didn't your therapist go over this in your last session?
Grow up, deal with it, and stop blaming your personal problems on people
you've never met.
You claim to still play 1st edition. Then what the hell is your problem?
Whether WotC bought TSR makes no difference. They still weren't producing
any 1st edition product. Why do people who haven't bought a TSR product in
10 years keep coming into the newsgroup and bitching about what happened?
Now, take that joint out of your mouth, set your Budweiser on the counter,
and step outside. It's the '90's. We're about to enter into a new
millennium; maybe you'd like to join the rest of us.
As Sean says, good gaming,
Tim
Mr. Tines
###
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in <33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> month, 2 would do just fine.
With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
offered choice?
> They gambled on the quick
> buck; figuring that there would always be a supply of 13 year olds
> whose parents have too much money. I guess they lost.
The gamble that was lost was on the fiction lines. And there, given the
quality of the fiction, I concur with your point.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
12135e2fc6f064b07796bcf1d0be13299f25c13ade05c4fec29ffcabe017
c385c87ada23022d236e2469a2f011dd5c8f11592012fe3f94a9cd73871b
barbara haddad
> >> Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could be
> >> viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is there
> >> that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it makes
> >> you happy.
>
> I never quite understood the reasoning of the "right-wing religious
> groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones being
> vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game in
> which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go figure ...
> :-) :-) :-)
Having come from that sort of background (& having had to explain the
game these last 2+ decades to the mundane parents of some of my players),
the only conclusion I have reached in the religious folks vs rpgs is that
the fundies have a humor-echtomy when they pick up their religion. If
someone HAS a sense of humor, then you can usually get them to accept
that using imagination doesn't threaten the world -- if they do not have
a sense of humor, anything that sparks brain cells is seen as the enemy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from barbara haddad -> (bha...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
Denakhan
On 18 Jun 1997 21:39 +0100, "Mr. Tines" <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>###
>
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in <33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
> pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
>
>> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
>> month, 2 would do just fine.
>
>With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
>will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
>offered choice?
I Think this boils down to 'Quality, not Quantity'. If you
were paid to write modules, and you have to produce 1 module every 2
months, you can put a lot of good, solid work into it. You can
actually PLAY-TEST it. Now I come in (as The Boss), and tell you that
you need to produce 2 every *month*.
My point being that just because I give you a choice, doesn't
mean that you actuallyt have one..
"Tonights menu:
Cream of Cabbage with Yams and Liver
Broild cow tongue smothered in puraed monkey brains.
Deep fried aspaerigus with dog gibblet gravey; served
with a lightly toasted plate of tripe.
or a thick, sirloin steak, baked potato w/ sour
cream.
So, Sir, whats your choice?"
ThresholdMURPE
In article <06181997...@windsong.demon.co.uk>, "Mr. Tines" <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in <33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
> pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
>
>> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
>> month, 2 would do just fine.
>
>With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
>will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
>offered choice?
There are many problems. First, when there is a glut of supplements in
distribution (most of which suck in a big way) it is EXTREMELY hard to find
the "diamond in the rough" amongst all the chaff. Second, when T$R is cranking
out as many products as it can, as fast as it can, quality in ALL products
suffers. Third, you are bound to occasionally buy one of the "lemons" and when
you do you are going to be EXTREMELY pissed off at the shoddy product you've
ended up with.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter/mage/thief/cleric/psion/bard/alchemist/shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
http://www.athens.net/~aristotle/threshold (WWW Incomplete! Beware!)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
telnet://mud.chelmsford.com -or- telnet mud.chelmsford.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rob Sanders
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:34:25 GMT, pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote:
>On 18 Jun 1997 21:39 +0100, "Mr. Tines" <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
>>will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
>>offered choice?
>
> I Think this boils down to 'Quality, not Quantity'. If you
>were paid to write modules, and you have to produce 1 module every 2
>months, you can put a lot of good, solid work into it. You can
>actually PLAY-TEST it. Now I come in (as The Boss), and tell you that
>you need to produce 2 every *month*.
> My point being that just because I give you a choice, doesn't
>mean that you actuallyt have one..
> "Tonights menu:
> Cream of Cabbage with Yams and Liver
> Broild cow tongue smothered in puraed monkey brains.
> Deep fried aspaerigus with dog gibblet gravey; served
>with a lightly toasted plate of tripe.
> or a thick, sirloin steak, baked potato w/ sour
>cream.
> So, Sir, whats your choice?"
But what you're forgetting is that your cream of cabbage may be
someone else's sirloin - or the other person might be a vegetarian :)
-----------
Shine on,
Rob
stephenJ
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> There are many problems. First, when there is a glut of supplements in
> distribution (most of which suck in a big way) it is EXTREMELY hard to find
> the "diamond in the rough" amongst all the chaff. Second, when T$R is cranking
> out as many products as it can, as fast as it can, quality in ALL products
> suffers. Third, you are bound to occasionally buy one of the "lemons" and when
> you do you are going to be EXTREMELY pissed off at the shoddy product you've
> ended up with.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
TSR clearly can't get it right. They go from cranking out a plethora of
products, to making none at all...
>
*******************
Was the order to slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
altar of the ancient Roman crypt beneath the Cathedral, or whether the
Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven had spoken the Three Words?
Bob Baldwin
ThresholdMURPE wrote:
>
> In article <06181997...@windsong.demon.co.uk>, "Mr. Tines" <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in <33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
> > pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
> >
> >> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> >> month, 2 would do just fine.
> >
> >will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
> >offered choice?
>
> distribution (most of which suck in a big way) it is EXTREMELY hard to find
> the "diamond in the rough" amongst all the chaff. Second, when T$R is cranking
> out as many products as it can, as fast as it can, quality in ALL products
> suffers. Third, you are bound to occasionally buy one of the "lemons" and when
> you do you are going to be EXTREMELY pissed off at the shoddy product you've
> ended up with.
>
Actually, IMO the problem with the number of supplements was more
malevolent than this. I honestly believe that a marketing decision was
made to the effect of "thinning" out the material in each supplement
rather than put as much material in each one as possible. Why produce
one or two supoplements when you can spread out the material to three or
four? And by using cheap paper covers and glue bindings you not only
increase the profit margin per unit sold, you reduce the useful life of
the product and limit the secondary (used) market.
It's no conincidence, IMO, that I have an original 1st ed PHB & DMG
whaich are almost tweny years old and still holding together. I'm
already on my third copy each on 2nd.ed, and I carry them together,
under the same conditions and use level. Some of those CHB volumes
started falling apart at the binding in less than a year.
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"4 out of 5 victims of UCE recommend new .spam.kill.";
check out the free sample in my _return to_ line.
Mr. Tines
###
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:34:25 GMT, in <33a87c70...@news.klondike.com>
pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
> On 18 Jun 1997 21:39 +0100, "Mr. Tines" <ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >###
> >
> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in
<33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
> > pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
> >
> >> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> >> month, 2 would do just fine.
> >
> >With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
> >will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
> >offered choice?
>
> I Think this boils down to 'Quality, not Quantity'. If you
> were paid to write modules, and you have to produce 1 module every 2
> months, you can put a lot of good, solid work into it. You can
> actually PLAY-TEST it. Now I come in (as The Boss), and tell you that
> you need to produce 2 every *month*.
> My point being that just because I give you a choice, doesn't
> mean that you actuallyt have one..
> "Tonights menu:
> Cream of Cabbage with Yams and Liver
> Broild cow tongue smothered in puraed monkey brains.
> Deep fried aspaerigus with dog gibblet gravey; served
> with a lightly toasted plate of tripe.
> or a thick, sirloin steak, baked potato w/ sour
> cream.
> So, Sir, whats your choice?"
Better that than just being offered
Cream of Cabbage with Yams and Liver,
take it or leave it
like when Dragonlance was the only new stuff on offer.
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
9a7c7b33e8201a1e5756241ea33e0169738ac45ddf3ccd1b1eb94a5c7973
2826d26606b09162407e7ac3c648490c8336a8e6d5fbbddf519a39896bd2
The Strategic Castle
Rob Sanders wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:34:30 GMT, has...@sna.com (Hastur Hastur
> Hastur) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>credit for not jumping on the "Dark Game" bandwagon. Did they cave in a
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Ravenloft, DarkSun, Planescape.
>
> characters themselves. Ravenloft is Gothic horror, where the PCs are
> trying (in vain) to escape the evil. Dark Sun is a tough, gritty
> "survival of the fittest" world. And Planescape is not dark or light
> -- it's good and evil and law and chaos and neutrality all coexisting
> and conflicting.
>
Exactly, In all of these campaign worlds, the PC's are encouraged to be
the good guys, at least in all the materials published by TSR. Vampire
and Shadowrun have the PC's playing "evil" characters, at least by most
definitions. Sahdowrun PC's may be cool, but they do routinely break
most laws, making most of them Chaotic or Neutral Evil by AD&D
standards.
The Bartender
The Strategic Castle
> >>bit to the "Parent Brigade" Yes. But, THEY ARE A BUSINESS TRYING TO
> >>MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> HEHEHEH! Ironic, no? It seems that they didn't make a
> profit...*gosh, I WONDER WHY?..." hint hint nudge nudge (with a
> gigle thrown in for good mesure).
>
Actually, the part where the were/are losing money is the novel line,
mostly. They sunk to much money into novels written by authors who were
mostly unkown or at least, not as well known, and hoped these books
would sell as well as the stories by the "big guys" (Salvatore,
Hickman, etc.) The gaming side was still doing well, as a rule.
> >Many people seem to forget this fact. There
> >>is nothing wrong with running a business and making money.
>
> They were making money befor this.....hmmm. I just *wonder*
> what happened. That Gary guy, and that Frank Mentzer character,
> Lawrence Schick too, they sure messed up! Oh, wait a minute, they
> were gone befor this all happened....hummm.
One of the primary reasons why EGG and others were pushed out was
because some of the things they were doing WER'NT making money. TSR was
at it's most solvent after the reorginazation, keeping in mind that it
has never been truly stable, ala blue chip companies and the like.
>
> > THey kept
> >>making money after the change, which implies that the majority liked
> >>it. Ergo, they did the right thing. From a business point of view.
>
> For a while....untill all the 13 year old skater kids that
> they were catoring to grew up and went off to college I guess....
>
> >>
> >>The Bartender
>
> Yes, I am bitter about the whole TSR thing. Yes, I still feel
> betrayed by TSR. Yes, i still play 1st edition.
> It used to be I could trust ANY TSR product implicitly, based solely
> on the fact that it was a TSR product. The game and company had a
> definite mould of "Games designed for gammers"; not "Games designed
> for kids." Why didn't TSR keep producing stuff for 1st edition? And
> Basic for that matter?
Because it didn't make economic sense. Division of resources is one way
companies go down the tubes. Ask GM.
> As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> month, 2 would do just fine. If they would have kept all the old
> writers and artists, and produced 1st, 2nd and Basic stuff, they would
> have kept virtually ALL of there established client base. THAT is a
> smart business decision (IMO). They didn't. They gambled on the quick
> buck; figuring that there would always be a supply of 13 year olds
> whose parents have too much money. I guess they lost.
>
> Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
The Bartender
The Strategic Castle
barbara haddad wrote:
>
> > >> Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could be
> > >> viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is there
> > >> that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it makes
> > >> you happy.
> >
> > I never quite understood the reasoning of the "right-wing religious
> > groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones being
> > vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game in
> > which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go figure ...
> > :-) :-) :-)
>
> Having come from that sort of background (& having had to explain the
> game these last 2+ decades to the mundane parents of some of my players),
> the only conclusion I have reached in the religious folks vs rpgs is that
> the fundies have a humor-echtomy when they pick up their religion. If
> someone HAS a sense of humor, then you can usually get them to accept
> that using imagination doesn't threaten the world -- if they do not have
> a sense of humor, anything that sparks brain cells is seen as the enemy
Well, some of the religous groups opposed the Demons/Devils because they
were portrayed in the early games as kinda cool, in a round about way.
Also, they were naturally edgy about the subject matter. I am a
religous person, though no where near as radical or conservative as the
groups that normally oppose RPG's and such. I will not insult anyone
for their choice of religons or faith therein, although I may attempt to
argue points of merit and such. I apply that to aethists, pagans,
Catholics and all the others, and have found that it makes it a lot
easier to get along.
The Bartender
Mr. Tines
###
On Thu, 19 Jun 97 11:41:04 GMT, in <33a91...@news.athens.net>
thre...@athens.net (ThresholdMURPE) wrote.....
> In article <06181997...@windsong.demon.co.uk>, "Mr. Tines"
<ti...@windsong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:43:25 GMT, in
<33a71dfa...@news.klondike.com>
> > pm...@klondike.com (Denakhan) wrote.....
> >
> >> Basic for that matter? As gamers we don't need 8 supplements per
> >> month, 2 would do just fine.
> >
> >With 8 supplements per month on offer, it's more likely that 2 of them
> >will be to your taste. What's wrong, I want to know, about being
> >offered choice?
>
> There are many problems. First, when there is a glut of supplements in
> distribution (most of which suck in a big way) it is EXTREMELY hard to
find
> the "diamond in the rough" amongst all the chaff. Second, when T$R is
cranking
> out as many products as it can, as fast as it can, quality in ALL
products
> suffers. Third, you are bound to occasionally buy one of the "lemons" and
when
> you do you are going to be EXTREMELY pissed off at the shoddy product
you've
> ended up with.
That's odd. Over the last few years, when the TSR product line for the
coming year has been posted here, I've printed it off, and ticked off
the things that look worth investigating (usually about 1 a month, maybe
2, maybe none). When the products actually arrive in the store,
I read the cover copy (and not just for the ones I've had my eye on),
and if it's book that's not shrinkwrapped, flip through it. Checking
if the author is one who's produced good stuff in the past (or if he's
one who wrote one of the lemons in your collection) never hurts.
This winnowing seems good enough to get at the acceptable stuff, and
it's hardly brain-straining or time consuming.
As for the occasional lemon, well, it happens (I reckon to pick
up maybe 1 module in 4, and find maybe 1 in 3 of those useable;
which is a better rate than it was 10-15 years ago).
Finding you've picked up a lemon is nothing worth raising
the blood pressure over; just chalk it up to experience, and note
the author's name for later use. And if you're canny, you
can try making lemonade!
-- PGP fingerprint: BC 01 55 27 B4 93 7C 9B 3C 54 D1 B7 24 8C 08 BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a0847069c10bcfbca89}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {4a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0} (encrypted mail perferred)
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< PGP key at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk (or mr_tines at geocities.com)
### end pegwit v8 signed text
b3022a051337bb9248d218a8f8c5ee5288e77f8488d072ccc8c23b7385cd
b0967629e03c7915c95182b53573c068ffda4fdaca31179158f05edc0e81
stephenJ
Bob Baldwin wrote:
>
> Actually, IMO the problem with the number of supplements was more
> malevolent than this. I honestly believe that a marketing decision was
> made to the effect of "thinning" out the material in each supplement
> rather than put as much material in each one as possible. Why produce
> one or two supoplements when you can spread out the material
That had to be the case with those ripoff plastic "kits" that came out a
couple of years ago. I bought the Thieves' Kit for a friend and when we
opened it up, it was mostly air and empty space....
Adam Cerling
Two messages back:
> > I never quite understood the reasoning of the "right-wing religious
> > groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones
> being
> > vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game
> in
> > which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go
> figure ...
> > :-) :-) :-)
If you believe demons and devils actually exist, as the groups in
question do, you often prefer to err on the side of caution when matters
concerning such beings crop up. Attracting the attention of such beings
is dangerous in unimaginable ways, and therefore profoundly frightening
to a parent who cares for the eternal well-being of his or her child's
soul. Suppose the words "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice," were
shown time after time to summon an evil spirit. Would you then want
your children playing a game whose main villain not only had the name
Beetlejuice, but also resembled traditional depictions of Michael Keaton
(Aaah!)? I hope not!
Even though the game depicts these forces being vanquished, the real
thing, these folks believe, is out there--and vanquishing those isn't so
easy.
One message back:
> Having come from that sort of background (& having had to explain
> the
> game these last 2+ decades to the mundane parents of some of my
> players),
> the only conclusion I have reached in the religious folks vs rpgs is
> that
> the fundies have a humor-echtomy when they pick up their religion.
___ ___
O O
_____
= / | \ =
= \___/ =
PPPPPPPPPBBBBBBBBBLTT!!!
A friendly neighborhood Fundie (and 8th-level demon-slaying specialty
priest)
abc
Mad Hatter
barbara haddad wrote:
>
> > >> Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could
> be
> > >> viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is
> there
> > >> that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it
> makes
> > >> you happy.
> >
> > groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones
> being
> > vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game
> in
> > which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go
> figure ...
> > :-) :-) :-)
>
anywhere NEAR demons and devils, including in a make believe.
Besides, AD&D has a wierd REP for promoting Satanism, demon-worshipping,
suicide, and jaywalking.
> Having come from that sort of background (& having had to explain
> the game these last 2+ decades to the mundane parents of some of my
> players), the only conclusion I have reached in the religious folks vs rpgs is
> that the fundies have a humor-echtomy when they pick up their religion. If
> someone HAS a sense of humor, then you can usually get them to accept
> that using imagination doesn't threaten the world -- if they do not
> have a sense of humor, anything that sparks brain cells is seen as the
> enemy
>
Yes, it is amazing, that religious fanatics often delegate the
responsibility of thought to their religious leaders, thus any use of
thought, freedom, inviduality, and the like are concidered wrong!
For example, during the last elections, I heard a few religious people
(orthodox) who complained that their Rabbis didn't tell them who to vote
for.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have a virgin to sacrifice...
;-)
--
I haven't lost my mind - It's backed up on tape somewhere...
Mad Hatter
The Strategic Castle wrote:
> Exactly, In all of these campaign worlds, the PC's are encouraged to
> be the good guys, at least in all the materials published by TSR.
> Vampire and Shadowrun have the PC's playing "evil" characters, at least by
> most definitions. Sahdowrun PC's may be cool, but they do routinely break
> most laws, making most of them Chaotic or Neutral Evil by AD&D
> standards.
>
> The Bartender
But it is a refreshing change, from the gallant, heroic goody goody two
shoes, right?
ThresholdMURPE
In article <33AB4072...@rit.edu>, Adam Cerling <abc...@rit.edu> wrote:
>If you believe demons and devils actually exist, as the groups in
>question do, you often prefer to err on the side of caution when matters
>concerning such beings crop up. Attracting the attention of such beings
>is dangerous in unimaginable ways, and therefore profoundly frightening
>to a parent who cares for the eternal well-being of his or her child's
>soul.
This is the worst argument yet. CERTAINLY any company should NEVER kowtow to
the wishes of groups that think if kids say names like "Beelzebub" or "Azazel"
the beings might actually show up in real life. Anyone that believes that
should be considered a wacko, and no rational company should make any
decisions in an attempt to coddle such people.
Godwin Olivier
barbara haddad wrote:
>
> > >> Renaming "demons" and "devils" to "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" could be
> > >> viewed as caving in to right-wing religious groups, but what is there
> > >> that prevents you from using those words in your campaign if it makes
> > >> you happy.
> >
> > I never quite understood the reasoning of the "right-wing religious
> > groups" on that one. Usually, the demons and devils were the ones being
> > vanquished, so what was the beef? I figured they'd *applaud* a game in
> > which the Powers of Darkness were usually getting squashed. Go figure ...
> > :-) :-) :-)
>
> game these last 2+ decades to the mundane parents of some of my players),
> the only conclusion I have reached in the religious folks vs rpgs is that
> the fundies have a humor-echtomy when they pick up their religion. If
> someone HAS a sense of humor, then you can usually get them to accept
> that using imagination doesn't threaten the world -- if they do not have
> a sense of humor, anything that sparks brain cells is seen as the enemy
I personally find the terms "demon" and "devil" somewhat offensive,
particularly "devil" but only because it has too close a tie, I think, to the
christian culture. AD&D is not christianity.. Christianity is a culture, again
I use that word because it developed over time, and people made things up.. the
bible can be read into 1000 different ways, and Catholicism is just one way.
Do you really think that demons and devils are a reality? No, they were made
up. If you believe in religion, let's say, like I do (I am protestant), and
we will for a moment only take for a given that demons are real and that they
exist in hell, you don't know that they're in some hierarchy, or that they have
red skin and carry pitchforks, I don't care what the bible says exactly, if it
says that at all (I don't read that much). It could all be symbolism.
Planescape itself is a world made up by game designers, using snippets
of cultures and ideas and revelations, as well as some other metaphysical
theories. It's fun to see what twisted things they come up with. That is AD&D
reality, and I like it just fine. Using names like tanar'ri and baatezu is
fine by me, I actually like it -- that way, it's not like they're on the same
team as "Demons and Devils" seem to be. Do you know what I mean?
I am conservative, so I guess you could call me "right wing." Then
again, I had a blast with Doom II and Quake, I never thought they were really
tasteless. I find Marilyn Manson tastless and then some. I love Metallica, i
think they're right wing too tho.. hmm..
I think right wing fundamentalists, or all fundamentalists in general,
miss the boat. Ever heard the expression "There is no division between bllack
and white, just gray"? Whatever God told Man six thousand or six million years
ago has kinda fuzzed over, and let's not ignore the fact that in China no one
believed in Jesus for a thousand years after he died. Are we to chalk those
people up to the damned? Come on, Christianity doesn't make sense -- a God of
love lets people die and be eternally damned.. Sounds like racism to me. I
don't believe in "God works in mysterious ways" THAT much.
Whew, what a Rant.
Godwin
J. McGuire
Adam Cerling wrote:
>
> If you believe demons and devils actually exist, as the groups in
> question do, you often prefer to err on the side of caution when matters
> concerning such beings crop up. Attracting the attention of such beings
> is dangerous in unimaginable ways, and therefore profoundly frightening
> to a parent who cares for the eternal well-being of his or her child's
> soul.
Let me get this straight. We play games about imaginary monsters and
magic. They believe it's all really true. Now *which* of us has the
problem with reality, again?
-- Jean
Wintertree Software | Remember to remove the spambot-blocker
http://www.io.com/~wtsoft | from my address before replying via email
THE BIG NEWS: Wintertree now takes credit cards! Plus, we just moved to
New Hampshire and redecorated the website! -- stop by for the details.
Lee Dwayne Sudduth
>
>Exactly, In all of these campaign worlds, the PC's are encouraged to be
>the good guys, at least in all the materials published by TSR. Vampire
>and Shadowrun have the PC's playing "evil" characters, at least by most
>definitions. Sahdowrun PC's may be cool, but they do routinely break
>most laws, making most of them Chaotic or Neutral Evil by AD&D
>standards.
>
>The Bartender
Hm..point of order here...William Wallace broke English law, yet he is
regraded as a hero (along with Robert The Bruce) by the Scottish
people. The Knights Templars (Jacque DeMolay, Guy of Auvergne, Hugh de
Peralde, and Godfrey de Gonville to name the core members accused and
sentenced) broke the law by refusing to give up treasures obtained
while conquering the "Godless Pagans" of the Middle East in the name
of religion. They are now regarded as heros and people to look up to.
Check with a local DeMolay chapter if you don't believe me. The
individual known as Jesus Christ was executed (essentially) for the
crime of treason during the reign of Herod (Although, it was the
Judiast Church that caused this. Today, he is regarded as a Martyr and
a hero. "Good" and "Evil" have no clear definitions. To my people,
George Armstrong Custer was Evil. To many others, he is Good.
History has a way of deciding who is "Good" and who is "Evil", and
history is always written from the point of view of the winners, not
the losers.
How would we think of Hitler, if Germany had won WWII??
Just my two cents worth..
DrkKnght
Virgins deflowered, maidens rescued, dragons slain. And, on alternate
Tuesday's and Thursday's we make popcorn..
stephenJ
Lee Dwayne Sudduth wrote:
To my people,
George Armstrong Custer was Evil. To many others, he is Good.
>
Damn good point! It also kind of makes TSR's ethics-code look silly....
Peter White
stephenJ wrote:
>
> Lee Dwayne Sudduth wrote:
>
> > To my people,
> > George Armstrong Custer was Evil. To many others, he is Good.
> >
>
> Damn good point! It also kind of makes TSR's ethics-code look > silly....
Keep in mind that propaganda is an ancient tool of warfare. Example:
Rome habitually sent out ambassadors with absurd demands before a
conflict just for the propaganda value. "Fellow citizens! Against our
sincere entreaties for peace, Carthage has thrust war upon us!" My
point is that historians are often _used_ to add a moral dimension to a
struggle when the facts are either neutral or even troubling. IMHO,
Col. Custer would be rated Neutral with Evil tendencies.
A more interesting example would be Lancelot, certainly LG, but he may
well have killed LG knights of the round table when rescuing Guinevere.
An ugly historical example is the Vietnam war: both sides were Good,
Neutral, and Evil; both claims to be Good fighting Evil. Taking the
propaganda seriously is completely unenlightening.
--Peter
p-w...@accesscom.com
Night Owl
--
Peter,
also keep in mind that the winner gets to write the book ("history") of
what happened. If two sides are angry enough to fight, it's certain that
both will have their (good) reasons. Who is *really* right??
That's what makes the extreme alignments so much fun to play.
Dan Furman (The Night Owl)
Sir Launcelot, the brave.
Sir Galahad, the pure.
And Sir Robin, The not quite so brave as Sir Launcelot
More Holy Grail
Peter Mee
Good call Jean!
Peter Mee - a.k.a. Freak Show
E-Mail:me...@newi.ac.uk
_freak...@geocities.com
WWW: http://io.newi.ac.uk/meep/index.htm
Mike (Leszek Karlik)
>> In none of those campaigns are the PCs encouraged to be evil or dark
>> characters themselves. Ravenloft is Gothic horror, where the PCs are
>> trying (in vain) to escape the evil. Dark Sun is a tough, gritty
>> "survival of the fittest" world. And Planescape is not dark or light
>> -- it's good and evil and law and chaos and neutrality all coexisting
>> and conflicting.
>Exactly, In all of these campaign worlds, the PC's are encouraged to be
>the good guys, at least in all the materials published by TSR. Vampire
>and Shadowrun have the PC's playing "evil" characters, at least by most
>definitions. Sahdowrun PC's may be cool, but they do routinely break
>most laws, making most of them Chaotic or Neutral Evil by AD&D
>standards.
Shadowrun PCs are rather Neutral. True, they do kill, but they're
fighting the Ulitmate Evil (TM) - Corporations (esp. those that fight
Aztechnology, which really is the Ultimate Evil). It's a war.
Of course, there are exceptions, like one character that has an almost
homicidal hatred for metahumans, but they get killed quickly
themselves.
Shadowrunners are professionals, not maniacal berserkers. Also, most
teams I play in use Narcoject, for the mere PR reasons... :P
I think that with the Shadowrun, it's like with the "Heat". De Niro is
a criminal, and he does kill, but we see also that he's a normal
human..
--
Mike (Leszek Karlik) - tr...@polbox.com; http://www.polbox.com/t/trrkt
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, GRD(Sith) {IWATS-IIC} (Emperor's Hammer)
Star Wars junkie and Amber fan.