Troll Lord Games

I have heard Serl go on about creating something new. Yet he works for a company that makes old school.

Yes Serl, I am baiting you to join in!

Yet when we look at the success...and failure of various games one tried and true identity continues to remain steadfast.

The success of companies like TLG and Necromancer games is due to old school gaming not new school mechanics or high jinks.

I prefer the concept of adding new elements to a classic game.

I also don't see anything "new" that is not quite frankly just a spin on something old.

Then there are products that try so hard to be new as to miss the mark with customers failing to identify with the game.

Legendary Adventures is a perfect example. I could not get past the screwy names for everything. I could never identify with a product created by someone I highly respected. No matter how much I admired GG, his latest creation never made it to my table.

Is is a perfectly good game? I'm sure there is nothing wrong with it. Yet it sold horribly and is supported like...well it wasnt.

In my opinion a masterpiece that no one enjoys is useless. if no one plays the game then the quality of the thing is a moot point. (Old school Rolemaster fan here) I had run Rolemaster for years but everyone was only interested in whatever the new version of D&D was at the time. So regardless of whether the game was a great piece of work or not it was a failure in the end.

I have heard this argument time and again and yet OGL and D20 stuff still outsells other more "original" works.

I think we left the original way back in the 70's with the little ragged eared booklets. Only then was ANY roleplaying game truly original. Anything that comes after is just another new version of the same.

I also do not buy the scam of simply placing new names on old icons.

An orc is an orc.

Give them party hats and a vegetarian diet and they are just lame orcs. No they are not a new race.

What brought me to C&C is because I was not getting that "Old School" feeling from the New, more complex and complete game systems".

Now I have come full circle back into this topic of old school vs something new and fresh.

Every time I hear about that I can't help but think about my shelves full of now defunct and discontinued role playing games that were new and fresh at one time.

Can anyone give me examples of something they would promote in a game as "New" or "fresh"?

Can anyone give me an example of an element in the game they consider "Classic" that should remain thru all incarnations of our beloved role playing games?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

I will be making something new with my own company. What the Trolls do, and what I do for them, has little to do with my preferences (aside from the writing) and more to do with what they consider viable marketable products -- since my company has no concern for it, since I do not seek to become a full time RPG writer / designer, I can do the things I want to do, how I want to do them. However, nothing is ever truly new -- there can only be new ways to use it, to present it, and to combine it. The process may be original, even if the content itself is not.

There are numerous "must-haves" like skeletons. Depending on the genre, naturally, there are more, or less. A fantasy game without a long sword is not much of a fantasy game. Familiarity is critical, but it should not be so familiar that there is nothing that makes it distinct -- if that is the case, call it a clone and don't write it since you have offered nothing not already available.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Ok, I was expecting a little more food for thought.

I was just baiting you, hoping for a more detailed reply.

I am just at a loss as to what folks consider fresh & new.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

For instance White Wolf had the Vampire/Werewolf thing that not only filled a niche, but provided a simplistic mechanic when everyone else seemed to be getting more complicated. As far as I know they still fill their perspective niche and are successful today.

That seemed "new".

Yet with the vast success of the OGL/d20 and all of it's resulting studios I don't want a reinvention of the wheel when the existing wheel rolls just fine.

So what sort of "new" would you suggest is needed?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Hello,

I have been reading on lots of boards about New School vs. Old School. I don't really get it.

I have been gaming since 80 or 81 (AD&D 1st edition pre UA was my start). I am not looking for the "old school vibe" now. I have played (DM'ed in fact) 4th edition and had fun. But I am not looking for new and shiny

All I want is a good solid simple system to run fun adventures. That is it.

That is why I love C&C. I didn't pitch it to my group as like AD&D but different. I described it as 3rd edition with out Skills and Feats. And when that didn't impress them, I told them they could make a character in about 15 minutes and it would be fun. They did, it was.

The Siege Engine itself is "new" enough for me to say the game is innovative.

Just give me good solid adventures in a Heroic Fantasy style, and a fun magazine to read monthly (well, more or less monthly). I am a happy customer.

No idea if this is remotely on topic, Sorry.

Wolfram

No this is EXACTLY on topic.

I think you summed up most gamers in general and shed light on the "Old School vs New School" debate.

The concept is a distraction in general and I am glad you have put it on the table.

Ok, here is a new question for you...

What would you consider would be something new and fresh you would add to the gaming community?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Body wash.
_________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."-Bucky Katt

"You can wordify anything if you just verb it."-again, Bucky Katt

Hey Joe,

There are few ways I can go about answering something like this. One way is simple enough but requires an analogy and for this I turn to video games.

Wolfenstein 3D is considered the 'grandfather' of the 3D Shooter genre. It really defined the genre. Doom followed and it was *the* new definition of the genre and set the standard. The same happened with Duke Nuke'm 3D and Quake. However, the only thing that really differentiates Wolfenstein 3D to Doom III... and the host of other games that have arisen during that time and since then are very little. Graphics is an obvious one... however, little innovations to how the game was played where just as significant. In Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, you had the capability to shoot straight and you could turn around to get a 360 degree firing arc. Now all shooters give you the ability to aim up or down and where ever else you need to shoot (or do something different).

The fact you can do this is an important innovation but aside from the fantastic look... what else do you really have... a few other small but considerable innovations.

Likewise, D&D is the grandfather of role playing games. The fact that other systems came after it taking different routes in terms of design and play like the first editions of Runemaster provided very important innovations. AD&D showed up which was done to provide a rules 'baseline' for tournament play and provide a clarifications for material that wasn't originally done. A 'proficiency' system was introduced and became integrated in the 2nd edition of the game. However, this was really nothing new back then if we consider other games that are primarily skill-based.

The innovations from 2nd to 3rd? Feats... a more detailed skill system... ascending AC (which in itself wasn't new, it just became 'mainstream' for D&D). Really, there are no big innovations in 4th Edition which I think is a reason why some people are less than impressed with the newer game.

The *BIGGEST* reason why d20/OGL material does so well is BECAUSE of the OGL. When this little gem was created and the SRD done to go with it, it gave anybody the capacity to put out their own stuff using it and access to pretty much the key components of the 'granddaddy' of all Role Playing games. Sort of a bit like how, after Quake III, a lot of games were using that engine to create their own games. What changed from game to game was the look, story, and feel. This is much the same with RPGs that are OGL based. That doesn't mean there isn't any innovations by companies that do so.

TLG's C&C is a perfect example when you consider the SIEGE mechanic and the system of Primes. It promotes a greater diversity between characters without the need of a skill system. This is an innovation. The rest of it -- not so much.

As for Vampire -- nothing about it is really all that original when you consider the Basic system as put out by Chaosium. This of course is the back drop to their Call of Cthulhu game which is also just as simple to play when comparing it to Vampire or Werewolf. Of course, all the material that does into it (such as the setting... the clans) is what gives it the flavor and style. It's a simple system which promotes a lot more story and role playing but that can be said of all simpler systems. Nothing stops C&C from being a game like this. It's true that the more you get wrapped up in the mechanics, the more you can lose yourself in them.

This is why I much prefer the d6 system for StarWars compared to that first d20 monstrosity that WOTC put out for StarWars. Saga is a better but still too rules heavy IMO.

Personally, I love a diverse variety of games and some of the fluff that goes with them because of the little innovations.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Wow... I killed the thread!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

moriarty777 wrote:
As for Vampire -- nothing about it is really all that original when you consider the Basic system as put out by Chaosium. This of course is the back drop to their Call of Cthulhu game which is also just as simple to play when comparing it to Vampire or Werewolf. Of course, all the material that does into it (such as the setting... the clans) is what gives it the flavor and style.

Brujah = Fighters

Tremere = Wizards

Venture = Not sure but kinda like weird Paladins maybe?

Gangrel = Rangers

Nosferatu = Rogues/Theives

Malkavians = May be the only original idea Rheinhagen had
Toreador = Bards

Now that shows the point about nothing really new, but the way it all came together was very very innovative and caught like a lightning storm.

Of course he did just rip off Anne Rice, who in turn ripped off Bram Stoker, who in turn used Eastern European folklore as his base.

Quote:
This is why I much prefer the d6 system for StarWars compared to that first d20 monstrosity that WOTC put out for StarWars. Saga is a better but still too rules heavy IMO.

Agreed 100%
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

moriarty777 wrote:
Wow... I killed the thread!

M

Yes, cause you failed to mention Q2/Q3 and especially Half-Life!!!

HL2 E3 is coming . . .

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

serleran wrote:
more to do with what they consider viable marketable products -- since my company has no concern for it, since I do not seek to become a full time RPG writer / designer, I can do the things I want to do, how I want to do them.

And that is what precisely will make it interesting. Looking forward to them.
_________________
Fantasy Roleplaying Supplements for Basic, Expert, and Advanced games, free for download or print-on-demand and available now! http://www.barrataria.com/

Nothing really ever changes to be honest. It's all about evolution - better ways of doing old things. I'm pretty sure that if we took a look at any innovation, at the basic level you can break it down to the same idea.

i.e.

iPod vs. Walkman = portable music
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

I think you've just given me an idea of my column "Kickin' it old school" for my magazine... hehehehe
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

Old School/New School "School?"

I have to admit that I don't think most people have the slightest idea what "old school" gaming is like or how to write it. I've been doing this stuff for over 30 years. Because I've been writing that long, my text generally gets classified as old school. Sitting back in my "looking back" chair I can tell you that I try hard to write "interesting" material that will appeal to the current role-playing populace. The ideas I generate now are new concepts and often haven't seen the light of day.

Let me give you an example. In the TAINTED LANDS box set I have many concepts on teaching the Castle Keeper how to make a horror game interesting. Almost none of those ideas saw the light of day in the '80s or '90s. Yet I'm already getting "old school" reviews. Sigh

Gary Gygax's Tomb ov Horrors is just as deadly and interesting now as it was in the '80s mainly because Gary was way ahead of his time. I played in his game for many decades and his original ideas are as good now as they were in the late '70s.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't consider myself an Old School designer and I don't believe there really is such a thing. In the strictest send of the definition if you were really an "old school" designer your adventures would mainly be filled with

1: Knock down the door.

2: Kill the monster

3: Take the big treasure

4: Knock down the next door

I say this because that was what the adventures were like in the early days, except for Gary's write up. I wrote a set of brief adventures for Wizards and their online area. They didn't used any of them because they thought the scenarios were too powerful and odd. I'm not surprised because their idea of a good time is finding an unusual gold coin in an out of the way tunnel of an old mine.

To each his own, I guess.

I just have what I hope are fresh ideas all the time.

James M. Ward

*chuckles* Always thought this 'schools' business was a load of elitist nonsense myself. I can't understand why folks just can't bring the pizza and Mt dew over and roll some dice and have some fun; this, preferably, sans the ideological camps revolving around such subjective sophistry as 'schools'.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* Always thought this 'schools' business was a load of elitist nonsense myself. I can't understand why folks just can't bring the pizza and Mt dew over and roll some dice and have some fun; this, preferably, sans the ideological camps revolving around such subjective sophistry as 'schools'.

You apparently don't realize we are in the Late Cretaceous Period of the Golden Age (otherwise known as the 10kt era) and are crossing into the Triassic Period of the Silver Age. This all real important stuff to know before you can actually have fun playing an RPG:)
_________________
Rusty

But it's so much harder to have fun playing the new styles of the D&D games IMO. Like many people have said over the years (and I'll use C&C as an example), it's just so much easier to play and CK a game of C&C. Without out all of the mechanics and hundred and hundreds of pages of bloat it seems easier to get to what the game actully is, which is a social interation storytelling game.

"Old School" games tend to make a minimalist approach to the game, and thus more easily accessible and quicker to the good times.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* Always thought this 'schools' business was a load of elitist nonsense myself. I can't understand why folks just can't bring the pizza and Mt dew over and roll some dice and have some fun; this, preferably, sans the ideological camps revolving around such subjective sophistry as 'schools'.

Heh - never liked Mountain Dew.... does that put me into a soda "school" lol ?

I too think Jim and Peter's words here are very appropriate.... the notion of something belonging to a straight binary "school" division is, ultimately, more about online community politics than it is gaming. If something is interesting and fun to play, it's interesting and fun to play regardless of when it was put out, what codified mechanics it adheres to, etc. And as to just what IS fun to play and interesting is going to be subjective individually as well....

I'm glad to see a plethora of products, games and supplements coming out from various online communities, but because it just means a lot more, and thus increases the chances that some of them will be good - "fresh ideas and useful" to me in my games. I love C&C, and port anything I like into it, like many do. I do think it's silly to try and say "this product isn't 'old school' enough, or that it's 'too much like old D&D' etc. The funny thing is how any one game or product can elicit BOTH responses at the same time - i.e. C&C.

The thing that bothers me most about "schools" as a term is that it's so binary and exclusionary - and too many people take the hobby and its products and treat them with religious ferver...

If "old school" meant kick down door, kill monster, get treasure and eschewed large arching plots and stories, then I was never "old school" even in the early 80's playing B/X. If being "new school" means wanting specific rules for every situation then I'm not "new school." But I like unified mechanics. Hee hee....

Can I be "Middle School?" - oh wait, that came with pimples and hormones.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Omote wrote:
But it's so much harder to have fun playing the new styles of the D&D games IMO.

I never found it so. And I've played Champions. Mechanics are irrelevant. Its the players that make a game.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
I never found it so. And I've played Champions. Mechanics are irrelevant. Its the players that make a game.

Playing Champions, eh... than you should KNOW what I'm talking about. There's never been a cringe worthy moment in any of those game where you dreaded having to look upa rule because Mr. Zappy called you out on something, etc., etc.?

Though, players/GMs do really make up all of the best parts of the game.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Omote wrote:
Playing Champions, eh... than you should KNOW what I'm talking about. There's never been a cringe worthy moment in any of those game where you dreaded having to look upa rule because Mr. Zappy called you out on something, etc., etc.?

Though, players/GMs do really make up all of the best parts of the game.

~O

Not really. If one rules interpretation doesn't work, ill just keep inventing others till one does.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Old school/new school is so subjective. Board games-Classic Avalon Hill is old school for the 1960's and 70's gamer, but it might be Axis and Allies, or (original)Space Hulk for another player. RPG's-one man's "Chainmail" or "Gamma World" is another man's old school 2nd edition Shadowrun, or WEG 1st edition Star Wars. On the topic of rules complexity between "old" and "new"...one shouldn't generalize. I've seen "some" 70's and 80's rpg's that are clunkier than some modern day counterparts. Others suffered from being too simplistic. Then again, "some" modern day games may out-clunk, or bog things down compared to some from the days of yesteryear. C&C does such a fine job(for fantasy) of being a bridge between the ogl-era and 1st and 2nd D&D that I don't care if it's old school, or new school. It's just plain good.

On another note, I agree that players make the game. Even some of the most simple systems(IMO-Savage Worlds and Castles and Crusades) can make for dull sessions of dice-rolling if the players aren't giving their all. That said, I've seen systems that are so damned clunky, or too meaty(for me at least) that make it harder to bring role-playing to the table. Although, I've seen players "bring it" to the table with some of those systems. So, it's not impossible.

Oh well. That's enough of my rambling. Not sure if I said anything all that important. James, I can't beleive Wizards turned their noses up at your offerings. I guess I'm biased.

James, I can't beleive Wizards turned their noses up at your offerings. I guess I'm biased.

That's very kind of you to say. I wasn't surprised they didn't like my material. When you don't give beans to bean counters, expect them to be unhappy.

James M. Ward

All good points.

One point we must remember is that it is NOT the designers that drive the "evolution" of gaming but rather the players (No offense).

James Ward's reference of 1-2-3-4 reminds me. When 3rd edition came out and I asked a friend what it was like he told me,

"They just took the stuff we were house ruling for years and made it official and gimped out the ranger and paladin ."

For every "new" thing I have seen published I can compare it to some existing houserule somewhere. I suspect that while designers were still kicking down doors that your player base was building rich character backgrounds, alternative ways of play and roleplaying entire sessions. I say this because I saw it myself. 3rd edition was a form of the industry catching up to the player base. Critical hits is just one example of this. IMHO

That is why I pose the question to the forum readers. Please help me make sense of this.

I tend to think that much of it is hogwash but let me interject my own call on "Old/New School".

I got back into gaming a couple years ago after a long hiatus. In a nutshell after TSR went 2nd edition and pushed out GG I became tired of D&D and struck out to find a superior system.

After playing Rolemaster for many years I went back to play 2nd edition just to have a player base.

After my hiatus for a few years I got into playing 3.5.

Here we were with new shiny books, all the minis I could not afford as a child, and a new battle mat.

My players spent more time counting squares than roleplaying. We spent time perusing a plethora of rules rather than juast making a judgement call...and inevitably having rules arguments. More rules=More rules arguments.

I felt like I was running some new form of chess...not a role playing game of the imagination.

So I began to look again. I did not look for the "perfect" system like I had when I played Rolemaster but rather just a system that brought back the nostalgia and feel of the original game.

That was when i found C&C. Trust me, I did not adopt the game because the rules were less complete than 3.5 nor did I buy it because I thought it was ground breaking.

I bought it because it instantly brought back those old nostalgic feelings.

AKA...It has an old school feel.

Surely this was a consious effort on the behalf of the Troll Lords. Whether they were shooting for Old School/Nostalgia/ or whatever you wish to call it the difference is simply semantics.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

James M. Ward wrote:
James, I can't beleive Wizards turned their noses up at your offerings. I guess I'm biased.

That's very kind of you to say. I wasn't surprised they didn't like my material. When you don't give beans to bean counters, expect them to be unhappy.

James M. Ward

_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I'm sorry Peter but mechanics are NOT irrelevant. At least not to half of the player base out here in the world. It is mechanics that the players that turn their nose at C&C refer to when i ask them why they don't like the game. 3.5 had "tight" mechanics while C&C seems more "loose". Yet I believe you can have both tight rules and light rules.

I agree it is the players that makes or breaks a game, but when I cannot get good players to play a certain game because they find the mechanics flawed, or the classes one dimesional it simply means one less good player at the table.

Some folks love how a machine works and enjoys the mechanics and others just want a nice ride. Some are power gamers and need the mechanics, others are method actors and find them bothersome. More power to them all!
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Joe wrote:
I'm sorry Peter but mechanics are NOT irrelevant. At least not to half of the player base out here in the world. It is mechanics that the players that turn their nose at C&C refer to when i ask them why they don't like the game. 3.5 had "tight" mechanics while C&C seems more "loose". Yet I believe you can have both tight rules and light rules.

I agree it is the players that makes or breaks a game, but when I cannot get good players to play a certain game because they find the mechanics flawed, or the classes one dimensional it simply means one less good player at the table.

Some folks love how a machine works and enjoys the mechanics and others just want a nice ride. Some are power gamers and need the mechanics, others are method actors and find them bothersome. More power to them all!

There are probably reasons why I don't game with 'half the player base in the world' then. Never could get along with folks who rely on rules too much.
But your players perceptions are not a flaw with the mechanics, that is a flaw with the perceptions of the players.

Good players can play any game, subjective perceptual flaws or not, and have a great time. Myself and some friends played our characters on a road trip once, and we did the entire game with the toss of a coin when needed, and talking out the characters as we went merrily down the road.

The mechanics were not relevant. We just invented, scavenged, cobbled together and down right winged it, or just didn't bother with mechanics, when needed.

The zen of gaming.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I think that game developers *are* a very significant factor at the advancement of game design though I'm sure that people running their own games do advance things as well.

The rules of a game is a framework. Whether it is complex or simple is a different matter. However, there seems to be a correlation with who wields more control in a game given a set of rules... is it the players (consider 4th edition) or is it the GM (consider 1st edition).

Players are important... so are rules... the trick is finding what is right for you.

The whole 'old school' thing will mean different things for different people. Most of the time, it is nothing more than a delusion (at worse) or a sense of nostalgia. If I just wanted to play an older game (for nostalgia's sake), why wouldn't I just pull out my older AD&D books instead? Given a choice, I'd stick with C&C -- not because it's in print vs AD&D which is not but rather because of the little differences and innovations that exist in it.

I do hear what you're saying though but really, if all it is is nostalgia why pick up a game that is newer and similar than one that you might already have the books for?

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Now this is just a matter of opinion, but here's what I think of when I think of "Old School" D&D...

1] Dungeons that have the most bizarre assortment of monsters living together in seemingly perfect harmony, with no food sources other than the occasional adventuring party.

2] Weak starting characters that get killed off by the truckload until you manage to get one to say 3rd or 4th level and have a better chance at survival.

3] Horrible art.

4] Byzantine rules addendum or add ons that are needed to model something that wasn't thought of in the original design philosophy.

5] Economies that are destroyed by the very concept of adventuring, but just like a prime-time tv show, everything will be back to normal next week.

6] Roleplayers being mocked or chided by the rollplayers.

As I said above these are my opinions, I am not stating fact.

James hit the nail right on the head with the "kick down the door" comment. It bores the living tears out of me when I have say in on games like that.

I was invited to a D&D game once in 95 or so that a buddy was running at his comic/rpg store in Vancouver. I made an elf, took the time to use the Tolkien lexicon in the Sillmarillion to select his name (Cirdan Linogal) and created an interesting personality and back story for him.

Showed up at the game, met the other players, we meet in a tavern and the introductions start. By the time the first four characters have introduced themselves (Thud the Barbarian, Felonious Nimblefingers the Gnome Thief and Slaughter Killrazor the fighter) I just looked up and said "Bob. Bob the elf."

The girl to my left who was next sheepishly slid her character sheet under her 2e phb and said "Um... Mary... Mary the Magic-User". First smoke break she and I were just astounded at what we had gotten ourselves into.

But I digress.

I don't agree with the Old School vs New School mentality or camps. But like Chris Rock said, everybody wants to be down with a gang.

I just finished reading a thread on DF where in the middle of the lamenting the new 4e Giant's module, someone bothered to post that he enjoyed 4e and the monsters could provide great inspiration for classic D&D use. That fool! The only two replies to him were one telling him he may be at the wrong website (despite him having over 200 posts) and the other accused him of drinking WotC Kool Aid.

I fully expected someone to post waving a shotgun and yelling "Git off ma lawn!"

I like Labyrinth Lord, I like C&C and I also like a lot of other games (Cyberpunk 1st & 2nd editions being top of the list) but what I don't like is when people decide that their way is the only way and the rest of us are stupid for not seeing that.

Sigh... gotta love the giant soap-box of intolerance we lovingly call the internet.
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=