Lorraine Williams can rot in hell
Steven Charbonneau
"The capacity of Lorraine Williams to manage a game company is no longer in
question. With a debt load of perhaps $30 million dollars or more, and
facing bankruptcy soon, she sold out to Wizards of the Coast in 1997. That
is surely a step in the right direction for TSR. Gary believes. Williams
despised gamers, and she stated in his presence that they were not her
"social equals". She also claimed she was going to show the game industry
how business should be conducted."
--
Steven Charbonneau
Staffan Johansson
>
> I read this from http://www.gygax.com/gygaxfaq.html :
>
> "The capacity of Lorraine Williams to manage a game company is no longer in
> question. With a debt load of perhaps $30 million dollars or more, and
Note that this is Gygax' opinion of things. There are three sides to
every story - your side, their side and the truth.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
"There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of
course, to the bottom of the C."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
Alan Kellogg
<bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Steven Charbonneau wrote:
> >
> > I read this from http://www.gygax.com/gygaxfaq.html :
> >
> > "The capacity of Lorraine Williams to manage a game company is no longer in
> > question. With a debt load of perhaps $30 million dollars or more, and
>
> Note that this is Gygax' opinion of things. There are three sides to
> every story - your side, their side and the truth.
Right, TSR was a company in good financial health when Williams sold it to
Wizards of the Coast for a bargain basement price, just so a true gamer
would be running it.
And TSR had valid grounds for suing GDW and Mayfair Games over Dangerous
Journeys and Role Aids respectively.
Or is my sarcasm too subtle?
Alan
--
You can't be a figment of my imagination,
I would've done a better job. A Nonny Mouse
Kevin Chan
news:mythusmage-03...@dial-5-88.funtv.com...
> In article <38484832...@crosswinds.net>, Staffan Johansson
> <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>
> > Steven Charbonneau wrote:
> > >
> > > I read this from http://www.gygax.com/gygaxfaq.html :
> > >
> > > "The capacity of Lorraine Williams to manage a game company is no
longer in
> > > question. With a debt load of perhaps $30 million dollars or more, and
> >
> > Note that this is Gygax' opinion of things. There are three sides to
> > every story - your side, their side and the truth.
>
> Right, TSR was a company in good financial health when Williams sold it to
> Wizards of the Coast for a bargain basement price, just so a true gamer
> would be running it.
>
> And TSR had valid grounds for suing GDW and Mayfair Games over Dangerous
> Journeys and Role Aids respectively.
>
> Or is my sarcasm too subtle?
So now we have two sides and we'll never know the third side. The
elusive Mr Truth. :)
-Kef
Staffan Johansson
> > Wizards of the Coast for a bargain basement price, just so a true gamer
> > would be running it.
> >
> > And TSR had valid grounds for suing GDW and Mayfair Games over Dangerous
> > Journeys and Role Aids respectively.
> >
> > Or is my sarcasm too subtle?
I'm not saying everything was fine and dandy when WotC took over. I am
saying that Gary has reasons to dislike Lorraine Williams, and that his
version of things should not be taken as gospel. I wouldn't trust him
with giving a totally objective account of what happened during
Lorraine's "reign", just as I wouldn't trust Lorraine's side of the
story either.
Steven Charbonneau
> I do regret the loss of literacy in the 2nd edition. I think they're
trying
> to make it "more accessible", but at the same time, they've taken the
color
> out of it.
>
I thought spell organization suffered as well as the monster manual. I was
bummed the demons and devils were taken out (Did the Mothers against D & D
win or something? Old school Eldritch Wizardry & Book of Ebon Bindings
baby!!!!!). At least there was room for a f*!#king gun-toting hippopotamus.
I am excited about the 3rd Edition though. :-)
(And Lorraine Williams can still rot in hell !....).
Peter Seebach
Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>I'm not saying everything was fine and dandy when WotC took over. I am
>saying that Gary has reasons to dislike Lorraine Williams, and that his
>version of things should not be taken as gospel. I wouldn't trust him
>with giving a totally objective account of what happened during
>Lorraine's "reign", just as I wouldn't trust Lorraine's side of the
>story either.
Fair enough.
I do regret the loss of literacy in the 2nd edition. I think they're trying
to make it "more accessible", but at the same time, they've taken the color
out of it.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Christopher Adams
While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship, I fail to see
what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game, as opposed to their Second
Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri and baatezu.
--
Christopher Adams, who figures they're all Beings of Vilest Evil anyhow
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
"There can be only" ONE WAY
- Street sign, Highlander Lane, Melbourne
"You wash your mouth out with - Hank!"
- Hank Kingsley, "The Larry Sanders Show"
BlakGard
>
>While I can understand the indignation over such
>self-censorship, I fail to see what demons and devils
>honestly *add* to a game, as opposed to their Second
>Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri and baatezu.
Probably because the connotation derived from "demons and devils" is a lot more
extreme than "tanar'ri and baatezu." It is all in the reputation... and things
like tanar'ri and baatezu have none.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
dean_m...@hotmail.com
"Christopher Adams" <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> I was bummed the demons and devils were taken out
> While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship,
> I fail to see what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game,
> as opposed to their Second Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri
> and baatezu.
Demons and Devils are EVIL with a all-caps, bold, underlined in 96pt.
type. There is never a question of motives, etc. Good must have evil
to contrast and they were the ultimate in evil. Look at "Paladin in
Hell" from the 1st Ed. PH. If you've never played before, you still
know that a demon prince is to be feared, hated, dispised, and,
ultimately, destroyed. They bring the recognition from new players
because of out of game knowledge.
--
Well, after the mage fireballed the orcs, we just put up signs
and hauled loads of barbaque sauce out there...
You didn't think a bunch of orcs had that much gold, did you?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
CEO
Consider it a bit biased... Possibly
Gary did have his reasons for disliking Lorraine, and this personal
animosity may color his statements a bit, but the financial facts do back up
the claims of trouble and mismanagement on the part of Williams.
TSR became a "cash-cow" for the Williams Family and their other endeavors (a
well-known fact, albeit never documented that I know of) as they pulled
profits to fund other projects (a practice not uncommon in the corporate
world... after all, start-up capital for new efforts has to come from
somewhere), wholly intending to channel finances back to TSR. However many
of these projects failed or fumbled, and the money was never brought back to
the TSR division.
Add to that:
A) Internal TSR projects like the various "Buck Rogers" incarnations (as
well as the several rebirths of games such as Gamma World...which, IMHO,
would have worked fine, if they'd left the system alone... or at least be
consistent through the incarnations. Some of us are STILL waiting for the
end of the Cities of Man series) that failed miserably but were continued to
be marketed and supported long after they should have been abandoned for
more lucrative endeavors...
B) The many "bad or poorly-designed" main stream products mixed in with
the few gems, and...
C) The all-out and financially draining attacks on competing products and
"certain" ex-creators, such as Mayfair and GDW and the subsequent
acquisition and then irresponsible shelving of many of these fine works and
lines...
D) Lorraine Williams' well-documented disinterest in the RPG genre and
general dislike of the Gaming Community...
... and you have a recipe for disaster that was too full-blown to recover
from by the time that Williams & Company actually noticed it. It became well
evident that TSR had become "paper-rich & cash-poor." Suddenly, although
products were selling in record quantities, there was no money flowing to
the writers, artists, designers and printers, products were having to be
"slapped together" or put off all together and finally printers began to say
"no more" and held products until payment was received. And Lorraine
Williams finally did what any other corporate entity would... cut and run,
taking the first good offer that came up... in this case, WOTC's.
One thing I do have to point out is that, on a personal level, I really
don't think Lorraine is to blame. I don't think she set out to destroy TSR
or deliberately mismanage the biggest and most successful RPG company in the
world. In fact, her only personal crime was the general aloof disinterest
she took in the operations of TSR and the genre that it represented. This is
not a statement to absolve her of her attitude towards the gaming community,
just pointing out that the biggest error made was that she simply would not
let those that understood (or even showed a bit of interest in) the genre
run the operations of TSR. Had she, there would not have been the problems.
However, from a business POV, she (through her own personal inaction and the
actions of the corporate management she handed day-to-day operations over
to) did allow the TSR juggernaut to fall into disrepair and grind slowly to
a halt, responding to only outside problems that would, for lack of a better
phrase, "show a bad light on her." They would choose to deal with
public-pressure problems like the great "Devils and Demons Debate" but would
ignore requests, statements and demands of the actual customer base for the
products. They would pull very good writers and artists from project to
project on whim, ignoring their strengths in certain productions simply to
give "name power" to others, and then would lose these very same designers
simply because they wouldn't cut a check to them for six months of work.
Luckily for TSR, she did finally make a sound business decision concerning
the company and handed over the helm to WOTC. And, we all have to admit,
barring personal preferences, as a whole WOTC has done much to restore the
luster to the fading crown of TSR.
Now... here's to Hasbro to make the same wise decisions that we all wished
that Lorraine and company had:
A) Listen to the CUSTOMERS, since we pay the bills and consider US first.
The "Loony Toons" Campaign Box might sound like a good idea as far as the
marketing department is concerned... but we ain't gonna buy it... Capisce?
(Ok... maybe I'll get a module or two... but only if Wile E. Coyote is an
Avatar of Gond the Wonderbringer.)
B) Don't over-merchandize or corrupt the product lines of TSR (i.e.... if
it ain't broke... don't fix it). Do we really need the special edition
Pokemon/Forgotten Realms cross-over box set with the special limited edition
"Pikechu, Warrior of Waterdeep" Action Figure and "Khelban the Pokemon
Master" CCG card? (although... some really cool AD&D figures would be
nice... but nothing with spring-loaded/wind-up action or pre-posed figures,
if you please.)
C) Give TSR the support that the honored company deserves, in advertising
(always lacking on the part of TSR), and resources (pay these people...
they're worth it). And Please... by the Gods... if anyone at Hasbro has a
shard of a soul... NO MORE VIDEO/STARTER STARTER SETS OF D&D!!! I still have
nightmares about Wildspace. <grin>
D) Don't forget the "little guys." The local gaming store may not bring
in the money that B.Waldens.Com might, but these are the places your main
customer base hangs out for hours... not the mall. Keep the playing field
level for all. (face it... allowing things like the CD-ROM to be sold at
mass-market dealers for under half what the wholesale is to us poor gaming
store owners, or allowing "big names" to ignore street-dates is a bit much.)
'Nuff said.
Oh... and as to Lorraine "rotting in hell" as a punishment. That's a bit
severe, don't you think?
Now... making her edit Palladium Books products for a few years... there a
punishment to fit the crime. (Apologies to Kevin and the bunch... but Good
Gods, guys! Use spell-check occasionally!)
--
The CEO
"I don't want the world to see me, 'cause I don't think that they'd
understand...
When everything's made to be broken, I just want you to know who I am."
--
For all your gaming, fiction, and anime needs.. Check out
http://www.thedwarvenhammer.com
<Shameless Plug>
Staffan Johansson
>
> Doubt it... No.
> Consider it a bit biased... Possibly
That was basically my point as well.
Altssme
ground? Why did TSR need her daddy's money because the company coffers were
dry from on other "projects" ? (sniff)
There are many sides to a story, and most may never know, but others were there
....any coments Dave?
Barry Smith
Well said! All 4 points are very good, especially B... LOL!
PJS
>In article <38485510...@crosswinds.net>,
>Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>>I'm not saying everything was fine and dandy when WotC took over. I am
>>saying that Gary has reasons to dislike Lorraine Williams, and that his
>>version of things should not be taken as gospel. I wouldn't trust him
>>with giving a totally objective account of what happened during
>>Lorraine's "reign", just as I wouldn't trust Lorraine's side of the
>>story either.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>I do regret the loss of literacy in the 2nd edition. I think they're
trying
>to make it "more accessible", but at the same time, they've taken the color
>out of it.
There was no loss of literacy, only a loss of verbosity.
"Never put down to conspiracy what can easily
be explained by stupidity."
- the Bavarian Illuminati
Peter Seebach
They used less-apt words just to avoid big words, and in a few cases, used
words incorrectly. I don't think 1st edition had any uses of "comprise" to
mean "compose". ("To comprise" is "to be composed of". "comprised of" is
never grammatical, and it's a common error.)
Excessive wordiness is a flaw, but good writers can and do use the more
specific and flavorful words sometimes.
Michael Brown
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:uqe24.2150$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> Excessive wordiness is a flaw, but good writers can and do use the more
> specific and flavorful words sometimes.
However, Gygax is *not* a good writer, and added nothing to his work by
overindulging in obfuscatory arcanities. Game rules should be clear and
easy to reference; 1stEdition did not have these qualities.
-Michael
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <3848...@nexus.comcen.com.au>,
> "Christopher Adams" <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> > I was bummed the demons and devils were taken out
> > While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship,
> > I fail to see what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game,
> > as opposed to their Second Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri
> > and baatezu.
>
> Demons and Devils are EVIL with a all-caps, bold, underlined in 96pt.
> type. There is never a question of motives, etc. Good must have evil
> to contrast and they were the ultimate in evil. Look at "Paladin in
> Hell" from the 1st Ed. PH. If you've never played before, you still
> know that a demon prince is to be feared, hated, dispised, and,
> ultimately, destroyed. They bring the recognition from new players
> because of out of game knowledge.
I think this is why I liked the new names. The reason why most people
in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
Allister H.
Tuatha dé Danaan
<3849DD3C...@home.com>:
> I think this is why I liked the new names. The reason why most
> people
>in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
>creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
Of note: i was a player and we were pretty decent level.
We had faced lesser tanari (i think, or was it baatazu..see why i hate
the new names?? was abashi, and they were lesser devils, so you figure it
out).. and hadn't been phazed...hurt yeah, phazed, naw...
BUT my character ahd a phobia of her sister ('s why she ran away from
home when younger. She got surprised walking thru a castle by her sister
(we had just done them some a favours, and they thought they'd do me a
favour by reuiniting me with my sister)...
So, my character ran away, fast, thru the halls screaming in full terror
"IT'S A DEMON!!!!"...
..our brave, fearless party, facers of abashi, slayers of giants, bane of
bandits everywhere....
...dropped everything and ran
i mean, when i raced into a room, and slammed the door behind me and
panted "It's right behind me" the mage let off with a blind Teleport
(WITH error type) to get us out of there ASAP...
now try that effect screaming "BAATAZU!!" *snicker*
Floyd Shinn
"Tuatha dé Danaan" wrote:
>
> Of note: i was a player and we were pretty decent level.
> We had faced lesser tanari (i think, or was it baatazu..see why i hate
> the new names?? was abashi, and they were lesser devils, so you figure it
> out).. and hadn't been phazed...hurt yeah, phazed, naw...
>
> BUT my character ahd a phobia of her sister ('s why she ran away from
> home when younger. She got surprised walking thru a castle by her sister
> (we had just done them some a favours, and they thought they'd do me a
> favour by reuiniting me with my sister)...
>
> So, my character ran away, fast, thru the halls screaming in full terror
> "IT'S A DEMON!!!!"...
>
> ..our brave, fearless party, facers of abashi, slayers of giants, bane of
> bandits everywhere....
>
> ...dropped everything and ran
>
> i mean, when i raced into a room, and slammed the door behind me and
> panted "It's right behind me" the mage let off with a blind Teleport
> (WITH error type) to get us out of there ASAP...
>
> now try that effect screaming "BAATAZU!!" *snicker*
Bravo! Best argument in favor of Demons and Devils as names I've heard
yet.
Floyd
Allister Huggins
Actually, that proves my point. It's not the creature itself that
inspires fear in PCs (which it should) but the name. That shouldn't be.
The name shouldn't be the reason why you fear a creature.
Allister H.
Andy Baker
Peter Seebach wrote:
> In article <944336108.24478.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >There was no loss of literacy, only a loss of verbosity.
>
> They used less-apt words just to avoid big words, and in a few cases, used
> words incorrectly. I don't think 1st edition had any uses of "comprise" to
> mean "compose". ("To comprise" is "to be composed of". "comprised of" is
> never grammatical, and it's a common error.)
>
> Excessive wordiness is a flaw, but good writers can and do use the more
> specific and flavorful words sometimes.
>
Yeah! And I couldn't find the word "milieu" (or "milieux") anywhere in 2nd
Edition. I feel cheated- that's cutting at least a good 30 or 40 words out
right there...
Zimri
news:384ABC64...@home.com...
That was needlessly simplistic. "The name" isn't the reason; it's the
baggage the name brings with it to the player. And doubly to the
player's character, growing up as he does in a mediaeval society.
> The name shouldn't be the reason why you fear a creature.
Who said fear had to be rational? Try screaming "RAT!!" in a church.
(Then run.)
Besides, once 2nd Edition moved into Planescape, the Planescape line
cheerfully used the good old names and descriptions behind the cover.
And not so far behind the cover either; "Hellbound", anyone?
(and abishai are devils / baatezu)
--
-- Zimri
***********
"You are an idiot!!
It's lord not lard, you idiot!!
It's HE-MAN not CHI-MAN, you dumbass!!
Your grammar and spelling is horrible!! Is it a sin to talk properly?
Or are you just as big a fucking idiot as I think you are?
I'm only fourteen years old but I am extremely angered by your
narrowmindedness!! "
-- a fan of the "game of Satan"
(http://www.co.jyu.fi/~np/rpg/DnD/lovegame.html)
Dave Brohman
>
> dean_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3848...@nexus.comcen.com.au>,
> > "Christopher Adams" <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> > > I was bummed the demons and devils were taken out
> > > While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship,
> > > I fail to see what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game,
> > > as opposed to their Second Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri
> > > and baatezu.
> >
> > Demons and Devils are EVIL with a all-caps, bold, underlined in 96pt.
> > type. There is never a question of motives, etc. Good must have evil
> > to contrast and they were the ultimate in evil. Look at "Paladin in
> > Hell" from the 1st Ed. PH. If you've never played before, you still
> > know that a demon prince is to be feared, hated, dispised, and,
> > ultimately, destroyed. They bring the recognition from new players
> > because of out of game knowledge.
>
> in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
> creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
I don't know, names are very important, but I never felt that the
power of demons & devils in 1st ed had anything to do with the names.
After all, how often do people run screaming "Eeek! A type IV!".
Personaly, I toss all this Tanar'ri and Baatezu rubbish and just call
them demons & devils. Its the simplest house rule I use.
--
I think all players should adhere to the following rule,
"Unless this questionable rules call by the GM will kill
my character outright, I will shut up and just let the
story roll."
- Christain Walker in REC.GAMES.FRP.DND
Sir Richard
sub-races were nothing more than reprints of names already in existence in
1st Edition. If you look at the monster statistics listed in the back of
the old 1st Ed. DMG, you'll find that nearly every one of the sub-race names
was at one time the name of an individual demon or devil of that particular
type.
Regards,
--
Richard L. Price
aka Sir Richard
Make the Journey to Sir Richard's AD&D Repository
http://www.hit.net/~quest
Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3849DD3C...@home.com...
> dean_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <3848...@nexus.comcen.com.au>,
> > "Christopher Adams" <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> > > I was bummed the demons and devils were taken out
> > > While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship,
> > > I fail to see what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game,
> > > as opposed to their Second Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri
> > > and baatezu.
> >
> > Demons and Devils are EVIL with a all-caps, bold, underlined in 96pt.
> > type. There is never a question of motives, etc. Good must have evil
> > to contrast and they were the ultimate in evil. Look at "Paladin in
> > Hell" from the 1st Ed. PH. If you've never played before, you still
> > know that a demon prince is to be feared, hated, dispised, and,
> > ultimately, destroyed. They bring the recognition from new players
> > because of out of game knowledge.
>
> I think this is why I liked the new names. The reason why most people
> in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
> creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
>
> Allister H.
James Robinson
<zim...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> Allister Huggins <alhu...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:384ABC64...@home.com...
[snip characters calmly dealing with "Baatezu" and running from "Devil"]
> > Actually, that proves my point. It's not the creature itself that
> > inspires fear in PCs (which it should) but the name. That shouldn't
> be.
>
> That was needlessly simplistic. "The name" isn't the reason; it's the
> baggage the name brings with it to the player.
Which has nothing to do with the creature itself, which is the point.
The *character* should run screaming from what would inspire fear in
the *character*, not the player. If the most lethal lich in the world
is called Hello Kitty, well, then, the characters should squirm
whenever that name's mentioned, regardless of what it means to the
player. Similarly, if a race of hippy peacenik halflings are called
Devils, the characters shouldn't even blink at the word.
> And doubly to the
> player's character, growing up as he does in a mediaeval society.
Medieval societies, by and large, used elf, dwarf, gnome, kobold, and
bugbear interchangeably. The character is in a *fantasy* world. If in
that world "baatezu" refers to some supernatural horror, the characters
had better react appropriately.
> > The name shouldn't be the reason why you fear a creature.
>
> Who said fear had to be rational? Try screaming "RAT!!" in a church.
> (Then run.)
That's not the name, that's the creature they're scared of. Rabies
is bad. In a world where the name "Rat" referred to a French poodle
the church would not be cleared, and the person would have a lot of
people staring at him for screaming in a church.
> Besides, once 2nd Edition moved into Planescape, the Planescape line
> cheerfully used the good old names and descriptions behind the cover.
> And not so far behind the cover either; "Hellbound", anyone?
2nd Edition always left open the possibility that Primes called
Baatezu and Tanar'ri by other names. In a nation that feared and hated
Elves they could well be called "Elf-lords."
--
James
Peter Seebach
Allister Huggins <alhu...@REMOVESPAMhome.com> wrote:
> Actually, that proves my point. It's not the creature itself that
>inspires fear in PCs (which it should) but the name. That shouldn't be.
Of COURSE it should!
Reputation matters. Demons are *entitled* to one hell of a reputation[*];
thus, that's the right name to use, because it has the right connotations.
Could you run a game where "goblins" were a kind of tall, pale-skinned,
good-aligned humanoid? Sure. But it would be *STUPID*.
We don't actually speak Common, we speak English. Even if the creatures
are "really" called Baatezu in the world you play in, you should use the
English word which is the closest to having the same meaning, whenever one
is available.
-s
[*] pun mostly intended.
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:uqe24.2150$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
>> Excessive wordiness is a flaw, but good writers can and do use the more
>> specific and flavorful words sometimes.
>
> However, Gygax is *not* a good writer, and added nothing to his work by
>overindulging in obfuscatory arcanities. Game rules should be clear and
>easy to reference; 1stEdition did not have these qualities.
Bah.
(To borrow a line). :-)
Game rules should be written in a manner which facilitates *reading*
them, not just using them as a reference. Dumbing down ^H^H^H^H
"making the rules more accessible" is *not* necessarily a good thing.
The DMG1 had *style*, something almost entirely eliminated from
PHB2/DMG2.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Peter Seebach
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>Game rules should be written in a manner which facilitates *reading*
>them, not just using them as a reference. Dumbing down ^H^H^H^H
>"making the rules more accessible" is *not* necessarily a good thing.
Exactly. One of the reasons I loved 1st edition so much is that I spent a
year with only the three basic books, and my own materials, and I was able
to have a great deal of fun reading the books, getting ideas, and writing
things up. I came out of it with a handful of character classes, a few dozen
spells, and perhaps a hundred and fifty neat magic items to use. To this day,
my players never know what they'll get... ;-)
By contrast, 2nd edition is *HORRIBLE* in this regard.
>The DMG1 had *style*, something almost entirely eliminated from
>PHB2/DMG2.
It also had something approximating consistency.
Rath is rolled up with SDCIWC of 8/14/13/13/7/6. Later, he has an 18/80
strength. Just *within the stats section*:
* Under "maximum number of spells per level", Delsenora is a mage.
(She is also a mage throughout the combat examples.)
* In the example for constitution changes, it is alleged that
If Delsenora's Constitution increased from 16 to 17, she would
gain 1 hit point for every level she had, up to tenth level.
Really? I don't think so; she's not a fighter. (Indeed, she
*can't* be, if she'd get a bonus for 10th level; no class which
gains hit die bonuses for tenth level gets a bigger bonus from a 17
con than a 16 con.)
By contrast, the 1st edition examples were each self-contained, and they
invented new names. They were also much more flavorful.
The 1st edition DMG had *pages* of material on things you need to know. The
examples of how different kinds of lairs might respond to an attack, or a
following attack days later. The example dungeon which had players quoting
Shakespeare. It was a *delight* to read.
If it seemed inaccessible, all I can suggest is that you need to read more.
;)
-s
Tuatha dé Danaan
<051219991506328002%amo...@avalon.net>:
>[snip characters calmly dealing with "Baatezu" and running from "Devil"]
Hooray! for it was long and repeated oft and rather spammy to taste..
>> That was needlessly simplistic. "The name" isn't the reason; it's the
>> baggage the name brings with it to the player.
> Which has nothing to do with the creature itself, which is the point.
>The *character* should run screaming from what would inspire fear in
>the *character*, not the player.
true, but there is crossover baggage. Since we are NOT our characters, we
can't truly view as them, and so some cross-over exists..after all, who on
the list (this is rhetorical) has been underground in caves, and i mean
DEEP as in way under earth (like the caves in Belgium where you can
canoe)??
now how many of us LIVE in there? so can we truly empathize with a dwarf?
how many have danced in the twilight of spring barefoot on the grass??
so some tolerence for cross-over is to be expected, etc. And can be *used*
as well...the word 'Demon' strike a primal chord in most Western
civilization decendents, and has so many connotations along with it...
it's be a pity to not use them...
also, true Shakespear said that thing about a rose, etc, but if names
didn't mean anything, the whole 'politically correct' movement would fall
on it's face, since "Native" or "Indian", "Retarded" or "Challenged"..they
are just names...the described thing hasn't changes.
you are right..it's just a name, and the name shouldn't be the crucial
detail. But the name does make it easier for the player to relate, and
thus can enrich the gaming session
>If the most lethal lich in the world
>is called Hello Kitty, well, then, the characters should squirm
actually, something called "Hello Kitty" makes the party squirm anyways..
kinda like when one party i DM'd found out the evil fiend in charge of
corruption of human was a lavender-coloured reptilian creature who fouces
in on the youths of the urban areas...
> Medieval societies, by and large, used elf, dwarf, gnome, kobold, and
>bugbear interchangeably. The character is in a *fantasy* world.
not really...depends on area...some had a really good mythology set up
which, while inconsistant, wasn't that 'truly' interchangable.
or am i referencing too old??...i'm more refering to 'dark ages' pre-800
by 1200 it probably would have been so corrupted that it's be true..
but the old Celt and Norse legends were pretty straight forward...
>> > The name shouldn't be the reason why you fear a creature.
>> Who said fear had to be rational? Try screaming "RAT!!" in a church.
actually, fear is far from rational, since it's an emotion, and whenever
have they been rational??
i know a lot of people afraid of sharks (self-included) and that paranoia
extends to swimming in lakes especially when something bumps against you..
and well, freshwater sharks in lakes in Northern Ontario...*grin* yeah,
right..
(mind you, rationally we'd still be paranoid, just thinking Muskie, not
shark)
> That's not the name, that's the creature they're scared of
or the concept, true.
But my point is it's easy to generate fear in a player and have the
contagion spread to the character, with a name that is associated deeply
with the fear, then to try and have some abstract word generate fear for
some imaginary creature.
>Baatezu and Tanar'ri by other names. In a nation that feared and hated
>Elves they could well be called "Elf-lords."
or...*sharp intake breath*......KENDER!!!
*grin*
Tuatha dé Danaan
>call 'em demons and devils... for that matter, normal folk outside of
>clerics, mages, and other knowledgeable folk are going to use the terms
actually you just tripped thought in my head...regionalisms..and the fun
with them...
an ignorant peasant might refer to something by an 'associated fear' rather
then by a technical name...
after all, in Baldur's Gate, the miners are afraid of the devils (or was it
demons?? ;p) down below....
..i went in expecting abashi or at least lemures, worrying about how i'll
be shaped to face a pit fiend at the end (i've this thing against them, go
fig?? ;p )....so with great trepidation i went further in, the words
'devils' coursing thru my mind...
...only to find out they refered to kobolds!
annoying lil prics in the tight confines, and with set traps, and flaming
arrows....
..but to the miners, the terror evoked got associated with 'demons'...
so you can have fun with a party by having lil baddies being called bigger
baddies names...
or have big baddies have some local name ...
"oh that's just the killjarmanskie...they usually out this time of
night"....
..as the party encounters a group of Loup Garoux...
could be fun *grin*
sasha
news:u$v04K1P$GA.314@cpmsnbbsa02...
> However, Gygax is *not* a good writer, and added nothing to his work
by
> overindulging in obfuscatory arcanities. Game rules should be clear and
> easy to reference; 1stEdition did not have these qualities.
However, Gygax presented his background in bibliographies, and his enriching
of the English language is a positive thing. I don't see why rulebooks
should always stoop to the lowest common denominator. Second edition is
faceless and without personality; it is a game, and it stops at that, but
Gygax makes thing easier to comprehend with material that second edition
would classify as redundant. However, it is SECOND edition that lacks a
certain edge. And the funny thing is that they are bringing back all the 1e
creatures in those stupid, over-priced annual compendiums. Gimme a break...
sasha
> If it seemed inaccessible, all I can suggest is that you need to read
more.
Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
"Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
Gygax) too "wordy"....
Peter Seebach
sasha <sasha...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
>Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
>"Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
>Gygax) too "wordy"....
Anyone who thinks Gygax is "wordy" is encouraged to read some Fritz Lieber
some time. Now, for a good experiment:
How many people that prefer the 2nd edition style also prefer, say, the
writing in the TSR-branded novels to Fritz Lieber?
How many of you are willing to admit it in public? ;-)
(Only really started reading Lieber when I discovered that someone had
reprinted just about all of the Lankhmar stories, but loving every minute
of it. Is it "wordy"? Oh, my, yes. I'd guess 50% or more of the words in
many of these stories don't advance the plot in any way, they just give you
background. But, because of this, the stories *live*.)
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
<snip>
>How many people that prefer the 2nd edition style also prefer, say, the
>writing in the TSR-branded novels to Fritz Lieber?
>
>How many of you are willing to admit it in public? ;-)
>
>(Only really started reading Lieber when I discovered that someone had
>reprinted just about all of the Lankhmar stories, but loving every minute
>of it. Is it "wordy"? Oh, my, yes. I'd guess 50% or more of the words in
>many of these stories don't advance the plot in any way, they just give you
>background. But, because of this, the stories *live*.)
If you have not already done so, be sure to read more than Lieber's
"sword&sorcery" stuff. "The Wanderer", "Conjure Wife", "Gather
Darkness" and Our Lady of Darkness" come to mind at the moment.
dean_m...@hotmail.com
alhu...@REMOVESPAMhome.com wrote:
> Floyd Shinn wrote:
> >
> > >
> Actually, that proves my point. It's not the creature itself
that
> inspires fear in PCs (which it should) but the name. That shouldn't
be.
>
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. The name should inspire
fear because of what it stands for. If the players/characters know
what a creature is capable of doing they will associate the name with
the power. The name "lich" inspires fear in most players. "goblin"
doesn't. If the characters get trashed by goblins every time they
meet, the name will eventually inspire fear. The new names have no
meaning to players, therefore the characters do not act suitably
afraid. The old names carry meaning to the players, therefore the
characters react as you would expect.
This is just my opinion, however, and if you disagree, go ahead and use
the new names in your campaign. Rule #1-there are no rules, just
guidelines...
--
Well, after the mage fireballed the orcs, we just put up signs
and hauled loads of barbaque sauce out there...
You didn't think a bunch of orcs had that much gold, did you?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dean_m...@hotmail.com
Christopher Adams
> say, the writing in the TSR-branded novels to Fritz Lieber?
I've never read Lieber, but I must say that most of the writing in TSR-branded
novels is fairly crap. The books are fun, but they're not involving. The
exceptions, though, are amazingly good, such as the Dragonlance Chronicles and
Legends series.
Most of the Dragonlance books are well-written, actually, although it's less to
do with writing style - even Weis and Hickman are fairly simplistic - than it is
to do with good plots, involving characters, and the like.
Eh. Changed the point entirely, haven't I? :)
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
"There can be only" ONE WAY
- Street sign, Highlander Lane, Melbourne
"You wash your mouth out with - Hank!"
- Hank Kingsley, "The Larry Sanders Show"
sasha
news:384b...@nexus.comcen.com.au...
> > How many people that prefer the 2nd edition style also prefer,
> > say, the writing in the TSR-branded novels to Fritz Lieber?
>
> I've never read Lieber, but I must say that most of the writing in
TSR-branded
> novels is fairly crap. The books are fun, but they're not involving. The
> exceptions, though, are amazingly good, such as the Dragonlance Chronicles
and
> Legends series.
Lieber is not a TSR-branded writer. He basically fits into the same catagory
as H.P. Lovecraft and Michael Moorcock in a weird way--Moorcock and
Lovecraft were removed from Legends and Lore, Lieber was not. In this same
way, Gygax adapts LIEBER to D&D, not the other way round, which makes it
cool. A TRUE TSR branded writer is Jeff Grubb. I like everything he writes
(article and rulebook wise), but I cannot stand his fiction (Azure Bonds was
two star, the rest of that series sucked ass, especially Finder's Bane).
Peter Seebach
Christopher Adams <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
>I've never read Lieber, but I must say that most of the writing in TSR-branded
>novels is fairly crap.
Yes. I was truly amazed by the derivative format used to add colorful
language to the amateurish books, which was that every noun and every verb
had a gratuitous modifier.
But they didn't know enough adverbs and adjectives to make this work. :)
>The books are fun, but they're not involving. The
>exceptions, though, are amazingly good, such as the Dragonlance Chronicles and
>Legends series.
Haven't read 'em.
>Most of the Dragonlance books are well-written, actually, although it's less to
>do with writing style - even Weis and Hickman are fairly simplistic - than it
>is to do with good plots, involving characters, and the like.
That's another way writing can be good. Unfortunately, 2nd edition has
neither.
Peter Seebach
Alan Kellogg <mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
>You want wordy? Try Jack Vance or Clark Ashton Smith. Do they get verbose.
>And they're good at it.:)
Come to think of it, it's pretty suspicious that Gygax based a magic system
on Vance, and uses big words when writing, isn't it...
Anyway, I still keep my 1st edition DMG, because, frankly, it's the only
decent source for a lot of DM info that somehow got dropped in 2nd edition.
Stuff like advice on how inhabitants of various kinds of lairs respond to
attacks, discussion of ecologies, things like this.
Alan Kellogg
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <qUG24.110638$V4.12...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> sasha <sasha...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
> >Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
> >"Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
> >Gygax) too "wordy"....
>
> Anyone who thinks Gygax is "wordy" is encouraged to read some Fritz Lieber
> some time. Now, for a good experiment:
>
> How many people that prefer the 2nd edition style also prefer, say, the
> writing in the TSR-branded novels to Fritz Lieber?
>
> How many of you are willing to admit it in public? ;-)
>
> (Only really started reading Lieber when I discovered that someone had
> reprinted just about all of the Lankhmar stories, but loving every minute
> of it. Is it "wordy"? Oh, my, yes. I'd guess 50% or more of the words in
> many of these stories don't advance the plot in any way, they just give you
> background. But, because of this, the stories *live*.)
>
> -s
You want wordy? Try Jack Vance or Clark Ashton Smith. Do they get verbose.
And they're good at it.:)
OTOH, you have William Morris (The Well at the World's End), who tries
being verbose, but has absolutely no talent for it. Where Vance soars
through the language, Morris plods. Has a talent for making fairy tales
mundane.
Alan
--
You can't be a figment of my imagination,
I would've done a better job. A Nonny Mouse
Bryan J. Maloney
> Christopher Adams <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> % While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship, I
fail to see
> % what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game, as opposed to their Second
> % Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri and baatezu.
>
> Not much, other than the fact that the words "tanar'ri" and "baatezu" don't
> exactly trip off the tongue. But it took a while even for those to make
> their way back into the game...
The words are pronounced "slurpies" and "poofies".
--
Whatever the reasons, which are no doubt complex, the
American public seem to believe that science is socially
and economically valuable, whereas the majority of the
British public seem to believe that scientists only take a
break from torturing animals to plot ever more devious ways
of undermining the great British way of life.
-----Dr. Jordan Raff
Patrick M. Berry
> Probably because the connotation derived from "demons and devils" is a lot more
> extreme than "tanar'ri and baatezu." It is all in the reputation... and things
> like tanar'ri and baatezu have none.
Perhaps they have none where you live. Where I come from, they are regarded
as snappy dressers who never leave tips. Then again, there are a lot of
chemicals in the water where I come from.
---
Pat Berry
(no relation to Dave Barry)
Bryan J. Maloney
<aaw...@SPAMLESSa-o.com> wrote:
> A) Internal TSR projects like the various "Buck Rogers" incarnations (as
...
> end of the Cities of Man series) that failed miserably but were continued to
> be marketed and supported long after they should have been abandoned for
> more lucrative endeavors...
Note that the Dille Trust owns the Buck Rogers intellectual property.
There was something other than business driving that decision.
> products. They would pull very good writers and artists from project to
> project on whim, ignoring their strengths in certain productions simply to
> give "name power" to others, and then would lose these very same designers
> simply because they wouldn't cut a check to them for six months of work.
It was truly astonishing watching the rate "art editor" turnover they had
during those years...
> D) Don't forget the "little guys." The local gaming store may not bring
> in the money that B.Waldens.Com might, but these are the places your main
> customer base hangs out for hours... not the mall. Keep the playing field
> level for all. (face it... allowing things like the CD-ROM to be sold at
> mass-market dealers for under half what the wholesale is to us poor gaming
> store owners, or allowing "big names" to ignore street-dates is a bit much.)
That was a decision made at WoTC, before Hasbro acquired them.
Bryan J. Maloney
<sasha...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
> news:EoD24.2310$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> > If it seemed inaccessible, all I can suggest is that you need to read
> more.
>
> Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
> "Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
> Gygax) too "wordy"....
Actually, I find Gygax to be in desperate need of a fearless editor with
an enormous red-pencil budget. Given that my light reading includes Ernst
Frömm...
Bryan J. Maloney
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
> news:uqe24.2150$Sz5.2...@ptah.visi.com...
> > Excessive wordiness is a flaw, but good writers can and do use the more
> > specific and flavorful words sometimes.
>
> However, Gygax is *not* a good writer, and added nothing to his work by
> overindulging in obfuscatory arcanities. Game rules should be clear and
> easy to reference; 1stEdition did not have these qualities.
Are you prognosticating that EGG was less than perspicacious in his
auteuritical selectivity vis-a-vis verbiage?
Alan Kellogg
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> In article <qUG24.110638$V4.12...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>, "sasha"
> <sasha...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
>
> > Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
> > news:EoD24.2310$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com...
> >
> > > If it seemed inaccessible, all I can suggest is that you need to read
> > more.
> >
> > Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
> > "Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
> > Gygax) too "wordy"....
>
> Actually, I find Gygax to be in desperate need of a fearless editor with
> an enormous red-pencil budget. Given that my light reading includes Ernst
> Frömm...
One of these days the association of people who have edited Gygax are
going to trademark the phrase, Epic Gygaxianisms. He does go on at (great)
length, he will change subjects three times in one sentence, and he does
use words last uttered back in the 5th millennium B. C. with the full
expectation that folks will know the word.
In other words, he does need an editor.
Preferably two or three, with a small tribe of proofreaders.
I know Gary. I like Gary. But he is no Jack Vance.
OTOH, he's no William Morris, for which we can thank the muses.
Michael Brown
Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
> attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
selection of names.
-Michael
The Viper
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote
> Are you prognosticating that EGG was less than perspicacious in his
> auteuritical selectivity vis-a-vis verbiage?
Yea, he sucked.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
--
The Viper
P.S You don't think my address is actually COLDmail, do you?
Blueman
<ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
>While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship, I fail to see
>what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game, as opposed to their Second
>Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri and baatezu.
Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
Spock: "Captain......Baatezu cruiser decloaking off our starboard
side..."
Kirk: "Red Alert....Sheilds Up ....Call the Tana'ri ambassador to the
bridge, I want to know more about this ...Blood War..."
--- Blueman
Blueman
<alhu...@home.com> wrote:
> I think this is why I liked the new names. The reason why most people
>in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
>creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
No...it was because they were big, bad creatures.
Even a lowly type one demon was something to run from for all but
higher level characters.
In 1st ed...no one yawned when someone said.."The Sorceror has summon
up a Demon from the Abyss."
Demons and Devils were the ultimate "bad guys" they were pure EVIL not
some misunderstood creature that could be rehabilitated. The commited
evil for its own sake...which made them scary. They had the power to
back it up....which made them terrifying.
--- Blueman
Blueman
Kellogg) wrote:
>In article <YfH24.2377$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net
>(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>
>You want wordy? Try Jack Vance or Clark Ashton Smith. Do they get verbose.
>And they're good at it.:)
>
Or even ...H.P. Lovecraft
--- Blueman
Christopher Adams
Did anyone say he was?
David Klassen
>
> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> > attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
>
> selection of names.
>
> -Michael
Actually, I've had my peasents refer to all sorts of threats as
'demons' or 'devils'; everything from that roving band of goblins
to the true Devils and Demons.
--
David R. Klassen
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028
Bryan J. Maloney
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> > Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
> > attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
>
> And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
> selection of names.
Actually, they're not. Technically speaking, there are many demons but
only one Devil.
--
"NASA": From the Attic Greek for "oopsie".
Stephen Jaros
>
> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> > Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
> > attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
>
> And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
> selection of names.
>
That's only true if you know they are synonyms. If you don't-and lots of
people probably don't- the familiarity of the words make them far more
appealing than those contorted 2nd edition nonesuch names.
Stephen Jaros
>
> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> > Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
> > attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
>
> And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
> selection of names.
>
BTW Mike, what the hell's going on down there at the JPL? Can't those
guys do anything right these days? This morning i saw some NASA
bureaucrat saying that last night the project team "played its last
ace". But i guess it was more like a deuce. Well, a deuce can make a
winning hand, if you have three or four of them. Is there any hope left
for the mission?
Gebhard Blucher
<Oba#S0GQ$GA.301@cpmsnbbsa02>...
> And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as
useless a
> selection of names.
They're not synonyms the way TSR uses them. You can use that
argument. Half the monsters in D&D came about because EGG thumbed
through that well-worn thesaurus of his.
GB
Larry Mead
: Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
: news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
:> Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
:> attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
: And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
: selection of names.
: -Michael
Check with the religous folk: at least in Christianity, there is but one
singular devil (a fallen angel) but there are many demons.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Peter Seebach
Gebhard Blucher <blu...@usa.net> wrote:
>They're not synonyms the way TSR uses them. You can use that
>argument. Half the monsters in D&D came about because EGG thumbed
>through that well-worn thesaurus of his.
They're not synonyms anyway; the words have different contexts and
connotations. In particular, in literature, demons are more likely to
be sheerly destructive, and the devil is the one you can deal with...
CE, LE. Makes sense.
I honestly don't think he uses a thesaurus that much; I think he just talks
that way. He probably reads *way* too much. (And I'm in a great position to
recognize this affliction.)
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Steven Charbonneau
> only one Devil.
Acually????
How very Christian of you!!
Thomas Fleming
>Actually, I've had my peasents refer to all sorts of threats as
>'demons' or 'devils'; everything from that roving band of goblins
>to the true Devils and Demons.
That has always been my take on it. I always thought that "demon"
and "devil" were better suited as general terms, rather than as
the name of a specific race. A "demon" is just a big, scary, evil
thing which is typically not understood completely by the person
using the term. It seemed reasonable that the races known in
1E ought to have a proper name.
-Tom Fleming
Stephen Jaros
ed...@best.NOSPAM.com wrote:
> Stephen Jaros <lse...@svdltd.com> wrote:
> % That's only true if you know they are synonyms. If you don't-and lots of
> % people probably don't- the familiarity of the words make them far more
> % appealing than those contorted 2nd edition nonesuch names.
>
> Not to mention the fun but possibly contralinguistic distinction between
> Daemons and Demons... and WTF did the word "Demodand" come from?
Who the hell knows? I doubt there was much thought given to those
permutations...
Jim Walters
:> Actually, they're not. Technically speaking, there are many demons but
:> only one Devil.
: Acually????
: How very Christian of you!!
Or perhaps he is simply someone who understands the Christian tradition
from which the names originate. I'm not a Hindu, but I might correct
someone by saying something like "Actually, Shiva is the destroyer and
Vishnu is the preserver, not the other way around."
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Jim Walters
: On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:36:15 -0800, mythu...@funtv.com (Alan
: Kellogg) wrote:
Lovecraft isn't wordy, so much as obscure. He is definitely of the "never
say dark when you can say tenebreous" school of writing.
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> >> Actually, they're not. Technically speaking, there are many
> >> demons but only one Devil.
> >
> > Acually????
> >
> > How very Christian of you!!
>
>
> *You,* sir, need to spend more time on the newsgroup before you open your mouth.
Just out of curiosity. Are we to begin a quick flurry of
netiquette posts? Because if so, I could pick a couple of
nits with *your* post, sir.
Maybe next time, if you have a response to an obviously new
reader, you might consider something more constructive than
'sit back and shut up'. Perhaps simply 'Well, um, yes, it
is. Bryan's well-known for it.' and adding that he'll notice
it over and over as he becomes more familiar would suffice.
Deykin ap Gwion
David Klassen
devils, but the more scholarly PC's would know better (I'm in
the 'hate those new names camp' myself).
--
Deykin ap Gwion
< my perhaps hasty response snipped >
> Point taken. I, myself, am still smarting from long-ago encounters with Da
> Maloney :)
I believe I've seen Our Dear Maloney posting in
soc.history.medieval and rec.org.sca as well. I've seen the
type of encounters you mean =) He is a bit, erm, staunch
once the topic comes up, isn't he?
> I kinda wanted to head that off for our friend by mentioning it first. :)
Well thought, and I apologize for the inadvertent vitriol
that may have dribbled into my reply.
Deykin
Alan Kellogg
> Stephen Jaros <lse...@svdltd.com> wrote:
> % That's only true if you know they are synonyms. If you don't-and lots of
> % people probably don't- the familiarity of the words make them far more
> % appealing than those contorted 2nd edition nonesuch names.
>
> Not to mention the fun but possibly contralinguistic distinction between
> Daemons and Demons... and WTF did the word "Demodand" come from?
"Demodand" comes from Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories, being a
human/demon hybrid. The demodand as monster first appeared in Dave
Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire, adapted by Hargrave from the Vance stories.
Andy Baker
Jim Walters wrote:
> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> : On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:36:15 -0800, mythu...@funtv.com (Alan
> : Kellogg) wrote:
>
> :>In article <YfH24.2377$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net
> :>(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>
> :>
> :>You want wordy? Try Jack Vance or Clark Ashton Smith. Do they get verbose.
> :>And they're good at it.:)
> :>
> : Or even ...H.P. Lovecraft
>
> Lovecraft isn't wordy, so much as obscure. He is definitely of the "never
> say dark when you can say tenebreous" school of writing.
>
Speaking of which, what does "Cyclopean" mean anyway? Lovecraft uses it to
describe ancient cities all the time- I can infer its meaning to be something
pertaining to ancient or twisted, but I'm never really sure
John W. Mangrum
>
> Speaking of which, what does "Cyclopean" mean anyway?
Huge and monolithic, i.e., something a cyclops would build.
John W. Mangrum
Gebhard Blucher
<384d876e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> Not to mention the fun but possibly contralinguistic distinction
between
> Daemons and Demons... and WTF did the word "Demodand" come from?
>
I think demodands were in Jack Vance's Dying Earth.
GB
Christopher Adams
>> demons but only one Devil.
>
> Acually????
>
> How very Christian of you!!
Well, um, yes, it is. Bryan's well-known for it.
*You,* sir, need to spend more time on the newsgroup before you open your mouth.
--
Christopher Adams
>>'demons' or 'devils'; everything from that roving band of goblins
>>to the true Devils and Demons.
>
>
> That has always been my take on it. I always thought that
> "demon" and "devil" were better suited as general terms, rather
> than as the name of a specific race. A "demon" is just a big,
> scary, evil thing which is typically not understood completely
> by the person using the term. It seemed reasonable that the
> races known in 1E ought to have a proper name.
I agree. Have the PCs refer to the baatezu as devils and the tanar'ri as demons,
have peasants less sophisticated and knowledgeable when it comes to the nasty
monsters out there call anything vaguely ugly and threatening a demon or a
devil, but give the damn things a real name. Baatezu and tanar'ri are good
names.
Christopher Adams
> netiquette posts? Because if so, I could pick a couple of
> nits with *your* post, sir.
Point taken. I, myself, am still smarting from long-ago encounters with Da
Maloney :)
I kinda wanted to head that off for our friend by mentioning it first. :)
--
Gebhard Blucher
Christopher Adams <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote in article
<384d...@nexus.comcen.com.au>...
[snips]
> but give the damn things a real name. Baatezu and tanar'ri are good
> names.
I disagree. It's like calling... elves, giants, dwarves, ogres, etc.
some goofy made-up name.
GB
Peter Seebach
Gebhard Blucher <blu...@usa.net> wrote:
>I disagree. It's like calling... elves, giants, dwarves, ogres, etc.
>some goofy made-up name.
So, for instance, if someone were to start inventing names like "duergar",
or "drow", or "fomorians". ;-)
(Sorry, had to step in with that.)
sasha
news:Q1m34.3135$Sz5.4...@ptah.visi.com...
> So, for instance, if someone were to start inventing names like "duergar",
> or "drow", or "fomorians". ;-)
or "tarrasques"
Bryan J. Maloney
<ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
> proper, ancient, educated words which the creatures themselves use - baatezu,
> tanar'ri, illithids - and there are the fearful words your everyday person
Pronounced, of course, slurpie, poofie, illithids.
Bryan J. Maloney
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <01bf413b$7297f360$aacb70ce@blucher>,
> Gebhard Blucher <blu...@usa.net> wrote:
> >I disagree. It's like calling... elves, giants, dwarves, ogres, etc.
> >some goofy made-up name.
>
> So, for instance, if someone were to start inventing names like "duergar",
> or "drow", or "fomorians". ;-)
Actually, those aren't invented--they exist in extant mythology. Slurpies
and Poofies doesn't.
Aardy R. DeVarque
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:EoD24.2310$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com...
>
>> If it seemed inaccessible, all I can suggest is that you need to read
>more.
>
>Here here!!!! Bravo my good man, you took the words right out of my mouth.
>"Foo"s these days don't read enough books, and thus find good writing (i.e.
>Gygax) too "wordy"....
Hrmph. Have you (plural; inclusive of both the "1st ed. is too wordy" and
"2nd ed is too dumbed down" camps) ever sat a PH1 and a PH2 down next to
each other and compared the two, paragraph for paragraph? An amazingly
large part of the PH2 was copied verbatim or nearly so from the PH1. (And
the contrary is also true--an amazingly large part of the PH1 was copied
into the PH2.) And I'm not just talking about the spell lists.
I'll freely admit that the basic "feel" of each book is very different (due
in part to the pictures, the parts that *aren't* the same, the fonts and
page layouts), but the actual verbiage used is quite often the same.
--
"Annal nathrach
Uthvas bethud
Dochyel tenvay" --_Excalibur_
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
rgfd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html
RPG page: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/rpg/index.html
Aardy R. DeVarque
Baatezu and Tanar'ri, they are included in the Glossary section of the FAQ
for your handy reference.)
David Klassen <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote:
>Michael Brown wrote:
>>
>> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:384c7450...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
>> > Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
>> > attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
The same goes for "Tarrasque", "Ixitxachitl", "Kender", "Acererak", and
"Iggwilv" but DMs around the world have apparently figured out ways to
[usually] instill immediate fear into their players at the sound of *those*
names...
>> And "demon" and "devil" are synonyms, making them just as useless a
>> selection of names.
>
>Actually, I've had my peasents refer to all sorts of threats as
>'demons' or 'devils'; everything from that roving band of goblins
>to the true Devils and Demons.
Which is exactly as it should be. Even Baldur's Gate includes peasants
referring to kobolds in the mines as "demons". Sages & the like would
probably try to use the names the beasties use for themselves--or at least
as far as Primes understand such things--and as anyone in the occult will
tell you, the knowledge of "true" names can be a powerful thing...
Also, regionalisms and "scholarly" vs. "vernacular" terms for the same
things can be interesting to play with. For example:
* The people in the country in the north-central European country which
borders on Poland, France, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, etc. are variously
known as Germans, Alemanni, and Deutsch, among other things. They call each
other Deutsch, but that doesn't stop the French from calling them Alemanni
(and worse things...)
* Tanar'ri, Demons, or "Oh, %$#&!"--which is more likely to be used by a
scholarly/sagely mage who specializes in the occult, by a low-born peasant,
or by a grizzled adventurer?
* For those that've actually put the critter in an adventure, is the
memory-stealing organism called "Obliviax" or "Memory Moss"?
* Werewolves, Shapeshifters, Loup-Garou, Lycanthropes...
* For Spelljammer fans, Would you rather face Nilbog & Scro or Goblins &
Orcs...
* Are there DMs who use the following terms interchangably, all of which
have been known to cause PCs to advance to the rear: Ixitxachitl vs. Devil
Rays, Sahuagin vs. Sea Devils, Illithids vs. Mind Devils^H^H^H^H Devil
Flayers^H^H^H^H Mind Flayers
Hrm. The names in that last point seem to follow a vaguely familiar
pattern...
--
"Citius, altius, fortius"
(Faster, higher, stronger)
--Olympic motto
Steven Charbonneau
> *You,* sir, need to spend more time on the newsgroup before you open your
mouth.
>
you look at who
posted the original thread you've trolled on from your Ausie domain for the
last week.
Steven Charbonneau
As if all other religious interpretations would be folly.
And what does all of this have to do with Lorraine Williams, unless we
would be discussing what specific demons and devils would be with
her whilst she was rotting in hell?
Alan Kellogg
<sasha...@hotmail.spam> wrote:
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
> news:Q1m34.3135$Sz5.4...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> > So, for instance, if someone were to start inventing names like "duergar",
> > or "drow", or "fomorians". ;-)
>
> or "tarrasques"
All taken from myth and legend.
Robin Lim
<ed...@best.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:384d876e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>
> Not to mention the fun but possibly contralinguistic distinction between
> Daemons and Demons... and WTF did the word "Demodand" come from?
Jack Vance, specifically, the Dying Earth novels. Well worth reading :)
rob
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Actually, those aren't invented--they exist in extant mythology. Slurpies
>and Poofies doesn't.
I'd never seen Drow outside of AD&D. Shows how much I know.
On the other hand, I believe everyone is allowed to use "Flumph" (name, image,
and description) freely, because TSR doesn't *want* it.
Peter Seebach
Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>Hrmph. Have you (plural; inclusive of both the "1st ed. is too wordy" and
>"2nd ed is too dumbed down" camps) ever sat a PH1 and a PH2 down next to
>each other and compared the two, paragraph for paragraph?
No, but it's an interesting point.
>An amazingly
>large part of the PH2 was copied verbatim or nearly so from the PH1. (And
>the contrary is also true--an amazingly large part of the PH1 was copied
>into the PH2.) And I'm not just talking about the spell lists.
Actually, I think the spell lists are where some of the edits are most
irritating to me. The flavor text was better in the old ones.
However, compare the old and new DMG's - that's where it's most visible.
Honestly, about 50% of the material I used to use is simply *gone*.
Bryan J. Maloney
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-08129...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Actually, those aren't invented--they exist in extant mythology. Slurpies
> >and Poofies doesn't.
>
> I'd never seen Drow outside of AD&D. Shows how much I know.
Orkney and Shetland dialect for "troll", also found as "trow".
Jim Walters
: Jim Walters wrote:
:> Blueman <blue...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
:> : On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:36:15 -0800, mythu...@funtv.com (Alan
:> : Kellogg) wrote:
:>
:> :>In article <YfH24.2377$Sz5.3...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net
:> :>(Peter Seebach) wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :>You want wordy? Try Jack Vance or Clark Ashton Smith. Do they get verbose.
:> :>And they're good at it.:)
:> :>
:> : Or even ...H.P. Lovecraft
:>
:> Lovecraft isn't wordy, so much as obscure. He is definitely of the "never
:> say dark when you can say tenebreous" school of writing.
:>
: Speaking of which, what does "Cyclopean" mean anyway? Lovecraft uses it to
: describe ancient cities all the time- I can infer its meaning to be something
: pertaining to ancient or twisted, but I'm never really sure
It means "really big".
Andy Baker
Christopher Adams wrote:
> >> but give the damn things a real name. Baatezu and tanar'ri are good
> >> names.
> >
> > I disagree. It's like calling... elves, giants, dwarves, ogres, etc.
> > some goofy made-up name.
>
> No, it's like calling mind flayers illithids. There are words which are the
> proper, ancient, educated words which the creatures themselves use - baatezu,
> tanar'ri, illithids - and there are the fearful words your everyday person uses
> in their ignorance - devil, demon, mind flayer.
Yeah! And actually, in my world, the demihuman and humanoid races -do- have
technical names, which they use among themselves, just like several ethnic groups
of humans in my setting. The Meloke-hai are a group of jungle elves, the Simbani
are a group of nomadic savannah-dwelling human herdsmen... "elf" and "human" are
all-encompassing names that cover each group, and are words used by people who
either don't know any better or don't differentiate them from others of their type.
It's no different than saying "German" or "Japanese" to describe a group of people
from the same area in the real world, really. Most races just have a word in their
own language that means "our people," at least in the games I run.
Patrick M. Berry
> Are you prognosticating that EGG was less than perspicacious in his
> auteuritical selectivity vis-a-vis verbiage?
How can one *prognosticate* about events that occurred decades ago?
Patrick M. Berry
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:09:15 +1100, "Christopher Adams"
> <ad...@syd.comcen.com.au> wrote:
>
> >While I can understand the indignation over such self-censorship, I fail to see
> >what demons and devils honestly *add* to a game, as opposed to their Second
> >Edition "replacements" of tanar'ri and baatezu.
>
> Because Tana'ri and Baatezu sound more like somthing that should be
> attacking the Starship Enterprise not a group of fantasy adventurers.
That's only because the meaning of the words is not widely understood.
"Tanar'ri" actually means "tastes great," and "baatezu" means "less
filling."
LARE
Very, very well. ;-)
LARE
--
Campaign Journals, House Rules, PO:S&P conversions for NWPs, Characters, Fig Pics, Recipes, Places, Myths...
In short, lots of stuff. (over 600 html pages & growing)
Well organized & easy to navigate.
http://www.nb.net/~casper/Larry/dnd/
wro...@my-deja.com
Daoine...@SoftHome.net (Tuatha dé Danaan) wrote:
> alhu...@REMOVESPAMhome.com (Allister Huggins) wrote in
> <3849DD3C...@home.com>:
>
> > I think this is why I liked the new names. The reason why most
> > people
> >in 1st ed feared Demons & Devils" wasn't because they were big bad
> >creatures, but because they were named Demons & Devils.
>
> Of note: i was a player and we were pretty decent level.
> We had faced lesser tanari (i think, or was it baatazu..see why i hate
> the new names?? was abashi, and they were lesser devils, so you
figure it
> out).. and hadn't been phazed...hurt yeah, phazed, naw...
>
> BUT my character ahd a phobia of her sister ('s why she ran away from
> home when younger. She got surprised walking thru a castle by her
sister
> (we had just done them some a favours, and they thought they'd do me a
> favour by reuiniting me with my sister)...
>
> So, my character ran away, fast, thru the halls screaming in full
terror
> "IT'S A DEMON!!!!"...
>
> ..our brave, fearless party, facers of abashi, slayers of giants,
bane of
> bandits everywhere....
>
> ...dropped everything and ran
>
> i mean, when i raced into a room, and slammed the door behind me and
> panted "It's right behind me" the mage let off with a blind Teleport
> (WITH error type) to get us out of there ASAP...
>
> now try that effect screaming "BAATAZU!!" *snicker*
>
> In my campaign, we use the new and old terms alternately. I was a bit
annoyed when I found out that the new terms were introduced to placate
people who neither play AD&D nor seem to realize that it is a game and
I as a player have as much chance of using "real magic" (which seems
like an oxymoron) as some of the game's critics have of walking across
Lake Michigan in August.
But seriously, I think the old terms have more emotional weight. Also,
I am curious on how some of these new terms came to be. They seem
linguistically awkward. (Okay, I am not Tolkien, but a name ought to
come from somewhere better than random letters drawn from a hat.)
William Ronald.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christopher Adams
> soc.history.medieval and rec.org.sca as well.
Hahahaaa . . . I was reading those until recently, myself. I first ran into him
in alt.religion.apologetics, though :)
> I've seen the type of encounters you mean =)
> He is a bit, erm, staunch once the topic comes
> up, isn't he.
This is what you *could* say, yes.
Christopher Adams
>> names.
>
> I disagree. It's like calling... elves, giants, dwarves, ogres, etc.
> some goofy made-up name.
No, it's like calling mind flayers illithids. There are words which are the
proper, ancient, educated words which the creatures themselves use - baatezu,
tanar'ri, illithids - and there are the fearful words your everyday person uses
in their ignorance - devil, demon, mind flayer.
--
Peter Seebach
Patrick M. Berry <ber...@aur.alcatel.com> wrote:
>That's only because the meaning of the words is not widely understood.
>"Tanar'ri" actually means "tastes great," and "baatezu" means "less
>filling."
No *wonder* you never see them together!
Jason Hatter
(Patrick M. Berry) proclaimed
<82m2c5$i57$2...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>:
>In article <bjm10-06129...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
>bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>
>> Are you prognosticating that EGG was less than perspicacious in
>> his auteuritical selectivity vis-a-vis verbiage?
>
>How can one *prognosticate* about events that occurred decades
>ago?
Tis called "20/20 hindsight"
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.