|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 7:29AM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Where does this "fear" nonsense come from? And yes, I do want the game to stay within a certain genre. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 7:42AM
#122
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I want a My Little Pony version of D&D.
Shut up and take my money.
D&D Pony miniatures, D&D Pony Campaign Adventures, and even a D&D Pony DM Screen.
C'mon WOTC, I know you can smell the money.
wel it is also owned by hasbro.
but i think making seperate minatures would be a waste, instead make the grid bigger so you can just use the my lil ponies you bough your daugter for cristmas.
also GI-joe and transformers are owned by hasbro maybe they could be the campaign settings for 5th edition modern.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:06AM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
While I'm not a fan of MLP,I agree too. Bring out the D&D crossovers!
This would be enough to see me abandon the brand.
I completely understand. I was a Toyota fan for years. Camry. Avalon. Highlander. 4Runner. Even the good ol' Corolla. But then they made the Venza... The dreaded crossover. Half car and half SUV. A bastard attempt at making an offroad passenger sedan. I abandoned the brand completely. I was never going to buy a Venza. I had such an irrational and psychotic fear of crossovers that I could never drive a Toyota again. In fact, I hate Toyota so much that I now drag my key across any Toyota vehicles I see to punish people who still like them..
I completely understand your insane psychotic fear of crossovers. Not only would you never play a My Little Pony D&D game, you don't want any one else to enjoy it either and would actively work to prevent their happiness. Their disappointment gives you hideous glee. It makes total sense.
My cute little daughter would love a My Little Pony D&D game. But you couldn't stand it if she enjoyed playing a crossover because it would tarnish the purity of your game.
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:47AM
#124
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
Fatbeards don't live forever.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:16AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
Fatbeards don't live forever.
Hahahaha...yeah, my "cute little niece" digs The Tellytubbies, there should be a D&D Tellytubbies crossover!
...hahahahahaha!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:25AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
Fatbeards don't live forever.
Whether we "fatbeards" do or not, maintaining the atmospheric, mechanical, and artistic traditions of the game's origins is just as important - if not worlds moreso - than appealing to new trends in pop culture. If people want a different atmosphere, perhaps a MLP themed atmosphere, then MLP should come out with a roleplaying game of their own.
D&D will never be able to be all things to all people. If I want a mass battle game, I don't play Birthright - I go find a game built for it from day 1. No module will ever stack up to a gme designed for something out of the box. No crossover product will ever have the appeal of something built specifically for a certain IP. If I want Conan, I play the Conan rpg. If I want babylon 5, I play babylon 5. If I want eastern flavor, I play legend of five rings, even though it's incredibly "meh". If I want the old west, I play aces and eights. If I want the old west plus zombies, I play deadlands.
D&D in its next edition, for all its goals of mechanical modularity, needs to pick a thematic approach based on years of tradition and stick with it except in campaign settings that are at least vaguely similar to the core - The Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, Ravenloft, etc.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:33AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
Fatbeards don't live forever.
Whether we "fatbeards" do or not, maintaining the atmospheric, mechanical, and artistic traditions of the game's origins is just as important - if not worlds moreso - than appealing to new trends in pop culture. If people want a different atmosphere, perhaps a MLP themed atmosphere, then MLP should come out with a roleplaying game of their own.
D&D will never be able to be all things to all people. If I want a mass battle game, I don't play Birthright - I go find a game built for it from day 1. No module will ever stack up to a gme designed for something out of the box. No crossover product will ever have the appeal of something built specifically for a certain IP. If I want Conan, I play the Conan rpg. If I want babylon 5, I play babylon 5. If I want eastern flavor, I play legend of five rings, even though it's incredibly "meh". If I want the old west, I play aces and eights. If I want the old west plus zombies, I play deadlands.
D&D in its next edition, for all its goals of mechanical modularity, needs to pick a thematic approach based on years of tradition and stick with it except in campaign settings that are at least vaguely similar to the core - The Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, Ravenloft, etc.
Bingo.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:00PM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
Ha, what does your "cute little daughter" have to do with the integrity of D&D?
Fatbeards don't live forever.
Whether we "fatbeards" do or not, maintaining the atmospheric, mechanical, and artistic traditions of the game's origins is just as important - if not worlds moreso - than appealing to new trends in pop culture. If people want a different atmosphere, perhaps a MLP themed atmosphere, then MLP should come out with a roleplaying game of their own.
D&D will never be able to be all things to all people. If I want a mass battle game, I don't play Birthright - I go find a game built for it from day 1. No module will ever stack up to a gme designed for something out of the box. No crossover product will ever have the appeal of something built specifically for a certain IP. If I want Conan, I play the Conan rpg. If I want babylon 5, I play babylon 5. If I want eastern flavor, I play legend of five rings, even though it's incredibly "meh". If I want the old west, I play aces and eights. If I want the old west plus zombies, I play deadlands.
D&D in its next edition, for all its goals of mechanical modularity, needs to pick a thematic approach based on years of tradition and stick with it except in campaign settings that are at least vaguely similar to the core - The Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, Ravenloft, etc.
So you are OK with Greyhawk and Darksun and Ravenloft but not OK with Conan or Zombies in the Old West or a game about anthropomorphized unicorns and pegasus?
I am not sure I see a difference. A well-designed RPG with mechanical flexibility should be able to handle the three later scenarios as easily as the first three.
Many people play low magic or magic dead campaigns. Many people play non-human campaigns. Many people play with gunpowder. You seem to be drawing an artificial line where none need exist.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:05PM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
So you are OK with Greyhawk and Darksun and Ravenloft but not OK with Conan or Zombies in the Old West or a game about anthropomorphized unicorns and pegasus?
You've got to be kidding, what do talking pink/purple ponies have to do with Dark Sun?
...aside from the worst sort of avatar...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:06PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Grafts as core
A golem arm in EVERY GROUP!
Down with arm chopping oppressive DMs and their cheap wound rules!
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
