Cantousent

If I recall correctly, Sawyer didn't have nearly as much to do with VB until after Jefferson got the ax. I don't know either, but I'm wondering why Sawyer didn't just try to sign on at Obsidian in the first place. I suspect he did. My gut instinct is that he wanted to be part of the "Obsidian Entertainment experience" from before he left Interplay, but could not for some reason. He went to work at Midway, trying his hand at an action title. Finally, he managed to prevail upon someone at Obsidian or someone at Obsidian made an offer. Of course, this is all rampant speculation. Who the hell knows the whole truth. The bottom line is that Sawyer doesn't have horrible ideas about game design, and so it isn't necessarily a bad thing that he's at Obsidian. ...as long as he leaves his damned luck behind him at Midway. He's had Obsidian VIP or some such as his title for a long time. Now he's just an Obsidz "employee." I wish him the best, but he's simply going to have to bear speculation and scrutiny for the time being. After all, he's a somewhat controversial fellow in these parts and the board must have its pound of flesh.

Actually, the writing is rather mature considering the readers are, at least in theory, children ranging from 12-16. The themes can be surprisingly adult. Unlike many authors, let alone young adult authors, JKR is willing to kill some characters and make other characters suffer real hardship. One of the things I hate about the earlier books in the series is the child abuse inflicted upon Harry by his aunt and uncle. I'm not even a huge Harry Potter fan. Don't get me wrong, I'd proudly make the claim, but I'm not. On the other hand, I'm more of a fan by being forced to address some of these claims about her. Still, the dialogue does suck. I don't mind Hagrid having an accent, but does it have to be so... over the top? Dammit. At any rate, some folks hate the Harry Potter series because it's popular, the enemy of elites everywhere. Some folks hate it because they expected something more adult than the series was ever meant to be. Finally, some folks hate it because they honestly don't like the writing. Still, the dialogue does suck. I don't mind Hagrid having an accent, but does it have to be so... over the top? Dammit.

To comment on what Azarkon said, I think JKR has a talent for writing. What makes most folks dislike her is simply her success. Nothing brings out more ire than success. On the other hand, her writing is geared for the young adult audience, and so I can see why some folks just don't find her books all that interesting. To be honest, I don't read much young adult literature myself these days. My wife, partly because of her career, tends to enjoy young adult novels. The problem for me is that I don't read juvenile literature to find myself. That's not to say that I can't find insight in virtually any genre so much as it's not my goal. When I read Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series in Junior High School, I was defining my character. At this point, I've pretty much defined what I am, both good and bad. So, I read Harry Potter because it's fun and because it's something my wife and I can enjoy together. More to the point, however, is the effect the Harry Potter series has had on children. It's become cliched to cite youngsters engaging in and enjoying reading, but it remains true nonetheless. JKR has had a great influence on school age children. I suspect she's got a few twists in store, but I hope they all make sense in hindsight. Nothing without foreshadowing. I might not like this proposed outcome with Snape, but it is not unreasonable

Well, the good thing about Snape was that he wasn't really a "good" guy as such. He's genuinely meanspirited and nasty in every single book. He might be fighting on the good side, but it was still a mystery. I've thought all along that it would be easy for JKR to go either way on Snape, so I'm going to be keenly interested. My wife and I read these books to each other. I've been trying to get her to read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy with me, but no dice. She liked the Hobbit, but LoR is too dark for her tastes.

Yeah, I edited my post. I thought to myself that maybe I was judging you too harshly. I can sometimes be the post first and ask questions later sort of guy. Fascinating, if it's true.

Senior designer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Care to tell us how long this was in the works? :D hahahahahaha No, I'm not making fun of you. ...Well, you could see it that way, but that's not my intention.

If this is real, then I'm disappointed in you. What would possess you to put "snape killz dumbledor" in the title of your post. Bad form, Servant. Very bad form. I would suggest changing the title to include a spoiler warning. Just a suggestion, but this was particularly childish. I would have thought better of you. Perhaps you just weren't thinking about it. EDIT: Thanks, Servant. Sorry for being so harsh. Anyhow, I'm playing Dumbledor tomorrow night for the Henderson District Libraries Harry Potter party. I'm going to be quite sad if Snape really does end up being the bad guy. I was hoping he would find redemption. Oh well, Rowling's choice, I suppose.

It wasn't the combat that sucked. It was that you fought like hell against hordes of exciting enemies such as "English Soldier" and friends. I mean, it's bad enough that you had to slog through Western Europe, but if I'm getting my backside beat, I'd rather fall to a nobler enemy than "English Archer."

Although I disagree with your grim view, I think you did, indeed, write a poem.

I think of all message board posting as role playing, and so some of our responses here undoubtedly qualify.

You don't want live to see their last day Eldar, but I'll not drop any tear for them <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The United States is truly exceptional, but we live in an age that cannot accept greatness. We live in an age where nothing receives more contempt than success. Nothing earns more respect than failure; where soldiers fighting against terrorists are labeled terrorists themselves; and where folks who intentionally target civilians carry such lofty titles as "freedom fighters" and "patriots." You have lived your whole life under the so-called "oppression" of the United States, obviously buying into the whole idea that we've done everything wrong here in America. Fine. It's not only a free country here, but probably there as well. If I point out that the United States was, for decades, the guarantor of freedom, then I

No, Nightblade, that's quite alright. I didn't really intend to ridicule your beliefs anyhow.

Yeah, that would be Gamma World. It's filled with advanced technology. ...And it's quite wacky.

Just out of curiosity, how do you (you personally) practice to learn to truly accept death? Do you believe that by adopting some philosophical viewpoint you'll learn to transcend your fear of dying? N. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course folks use philosophical viewpoints to overcome the fear of death. You've just gotten mixed up as to the problem. The problem isn't that the philosophy caters to teenagers. The problem is that the end result appeals to teenagers. Teenagers who aren't serious about learning the truths inherent in the philosophy will undoubtedly fail to apply the philosophy properly to their lives. On the other hand, to those who adhere to the teachings of the philosophy, Bushido can provide a life changing experience. It can provide calm in the face of danger and death. It is a pathway to self assurance and discipline. Not everyone can achieve these lofty goals, that's true, but do you suggest that every person who strives to follow the path of Bushido should be ridiculed for the effort? If so, then Bushido gives double benefit to the student: once in the learning and once again in the hostile face of folks who cast doubt upon the very endeavor. I would say that you should tell us more of your personal philosophy, and I mean a sufficient amount to judge, and then face our ridicule. The thing is, I hope Walsingham wouldn't try to discourage you and I know that I wouldn't have the heart. There is nothing wrong with trying to apply philosophy to your real life. It is one of the reasons, for both good and ill, that people have been willing to risk, or even accept, death for a greater cause. I don't follow Bushido. I don't intend on getting in any fights if there's a reasonable way to avoid them. Hell, I took tae kwon do when I was stationed in Korea and I thought that it was a good experience, but most of my (many) fights occured before I even entered the service. Now? I'm just a wimp. I don't want to fight anyone and I would rather look for an exit than an opponent. Still, psyching yourself up for conflict and combat is an effective tool for combating fear. If someone can use Bushido towards such an end, good for them. EDIT: ah, I didn't see the pissing contest between you two until the previous page. Well, my point still stands, but it is applied more liberally now!

The mosquitos or the moderators?

I prefer Paranoia, where PC are built to die! Actually, Paranoia is another game I'd love to play, not all of the time, but because it's the funniest game I've ever played.

Folks have been trying to put the competition out of business for years, Jedi. I just don't think it will work. Microsoft occupies a special place, and there is no end of ire directed at Bill Gates. I know Microsoft. I use Microsoft products. WotC, sir, is no Microsoft. ...Or, if it is, it's a very poor, dumbed down Microsoft.

My favorite was when a halfling thief (played by a friend) pimped out a half-elf (played by my sister) to a bunch of orcs. The way the fellow was always dressed, the hobbit kind of made me think of a pimp anyhow. At any rate, I thought it was ridiculous, but I gave it a chance of working. The halfling managed to get the information, the half-elf managed to cast charm on the first human "customer," and the party managed to escape without a loss. Ahh, the days of beer, grill, and chips. A lot of beer that day.

FATHER: What the hell?! When... Why did you get your tongue pierced?!? DAUGHTER: Well - ya know - I wanted to show my individuality. ...And - ya know - all my friends were doing it!

Hell, Ender, I do enjoy other systems better than Dungeons and Dragons. ...But I enjoy having a group better than playing other systems. I also agree that it's the settings and not the rules. Even though they're all home brewed, all the campaigns, both the ones I've run over the years and the ones other folks have run, are DnD. Sure, we could change the rules, but familiarity is a strong advocate. As for the McDonalds thing: maybe McDonalds provides the best value for folks between price and food. Maybe their burgers aren't so bad for what I pay. I dunno. I don't tend to eat fast food, but I know that I'm reluctant to say that the vocal minority is any better than the cash spending majority. Still, I'd really like to get into a Call of Cthulu game in a big way. I don't know that I prefer the setting so much as I just don't ever get to play it and so I never get my Cthulu fix. That's why I'm jonesin' for the game that's alegedly coming out this year. At any rate, I don't hate d20. I just see it as fitting a particular niche in the RPG world. My only real area of disagreement with Jediphile regarded the dominance of d20. I'm positive there will be other systems from which to choose. d20 is convenient, but it is not and probably won't ever be the only choice. McDonalds is popular, but it has a long way to go before it has driven away all the competition. Anyhow, maybe I can get some more sleep. I enjoy reading the arguments when I come back.

Well, I was in bed already. Of course, having slept almost a full hour, I was awakened by some more suffering. Son of a two bit prostitute. Anyhow, we might have broad consensus that DnD isn't the best system, but it seems to enjoy quite a bit of comercial success. Why is that? If it is an inferior system, must we conclude that most players are simply foolish to prefer it? I'm sure there are a number of factors that contribute to the sales, and quality need not be the primary reason. Still, I enjoy Dungeons and Dragons, and I have some specific reasons why. I can get a group of people together for regular sessions. It is a familiar setting for most folks. The brandname has survived for a long time. It is easily accessible in every hobby shop and most book stores I visit. I can actually get a group of people to play Dungeons and Dragons regularly. I know the rules well enough that every session isn't an exercise in searching through the rulebooks. I have fond memories of more than two decades of playing the Dungeons and Dragons brand name. Folks in my gaming groups are happy to get together regularly for Dungeons and Dragons. It's fun. Why should I throw to the wayside a system just because some folks think classed based rulesets are less elegant?

You know, Ender, I like you despite the ridiculous "class based systems are for those inferior role-players" attitude. Class based systems are not inferior. A lot of folks like them because they provide a template. Maybe they have less experience in RPGs. Maybe they are impatient when it comes to character creation. Maybe they just like the same old DnD characters of old. At any rate, you act as if a skill based system is better, by definition, than a class based system. There is no such established fact. Skill based systems have much to commend them. Nevertheless, they aren't the pinnacle of RPG goodness. It's simply true that far too much depends on the group for the ruleset to be the determining factor. It is a factor. It is not the determining factor.

The Gamma World setting of 20+ years ago was far different from Fallout. Fallout is grittier and more despairing. Gamma World was a kind of release from the high fantasy of DnD without really making any sweeping changes to the genre. At least that's how I recall it.

I used to love gamma world. If Sawyer ever finishes the Fallout system, then I'll get it. At least I'm far more likely to buy it than Gauntlet.

I don't see why one system is "superior" to another in the first place. DnD is "superior" because I've invested money in the rulebooks and I can get other folks to play it. Gamma World was "superior" because it briefly allowed my fanatical friend to play a role playing game with me in Junior High School because it wasn't a fantasy RPG. Sure, we can assess the rulesets and compare them. That's perfectly legit. Still, when we compare the rules for the sole purpose of ridiculing one of the sets then it seems we're engaging in mental masturbation. Something that seems far more effective to me is to cite systems that get it right rather than concentrate on systems that get it wrong. ...Or maybe citing where systems can make simple improvements without radically remaking the system.