Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on May 06, 2024, 01:32:13 PMI checked Drive Thru RPG, and it's still featured on the front page.
I know that there is a lot of trash that won't sell more than 10 copies on that site but it's still an accomplishment either way.
Quote from: WERDNA on May 06, 2024, 01:09:10 AMPundit, unless you've fixed it there is an issue of remaining L&D text in the magical items:
"51-52 Hermit's Robes: Albion has a long
tradition of many saintly monks and holy
men and women who retired to live the lives
of hermits. These holy men's vestments
(usually plain wool or sack-cloth)..."
Anons on 4ch also pointed out capitalization is inconsistent in the demonic powers section.
Purtoks seem to missing their alignment.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that roll. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.
So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
Quote from: Brigman on May 06, 2024, 12:20:59 PMEDIT: Refreshed the page and I did see it as an add in the "Hottest Small Publishers" banner strip, with a little green "own" flag across the top left corner (because I already bought it).That's not an ad, just a ranking list. It's on there because people are buying it, not because money was spent for an ad. Which makes you wonder what the money spent on the ad actually bought.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 06:23:07 AMIf you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.
Quote from: SHARK on May 06, 2024, 06:49:37 PMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PMQuote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating[DMG p.86, my emphasis]
Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.
In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.
Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.
Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.
I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.
I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.
Greetings!
Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK