dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 9:29:53 GMT -5
Well, lets see what happens with the actual CG dungeons. But, if the Trolls incert crap, could be bad. The Trolls won't be "inserting" anything. Do you really think that Gary would stand for his IP to be spindled, folded, mutilated? Gary's pretty outspoken and, what's more, had veto over everything that went into the C&C rules. "Gay"? Axe, I seem to remember you writing that you had been to graduate school. Why are you still writing like you're in junior high? Surely you can think of better criticisms of C&C than calling it "gay." Nothing will be going into CZ that Gary doesn't want in there. That much is certain. If you don't like it, don't blame the Trolls. Who do you think is responsible for the content of Yggsburgh? Do you think Gary wrote just a little bit of it and then the Trolls fluffed it out? I can assure you that this is not the case. Why would the Trolls listen to "the fans" rather than listening to the market? That's just the thing -- it's not a public forum. It's a private forum -- privately owned and operated -- that is more or less open to the public. If you can't follow the rules on posting, then don't post there. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Axe Mental on Dec 5, 2005 10:44:36 GMT -5
dcas: "Why would the Trolls listen to "the fans" rather than listening to the market?" The fans are the market. I'm not talking about the 12 guys that hang out at C&C's forum, but rather the masses (the guys that hang out at enworld, DFs main pages, lurkers, etc. If the trolls (and you presumably) think lipstick wearing illusionist are cool, and that PBs artwork is the kewlest thing ever...great. No point in trying to change their (or your) mind. SKA, Mistere and others tried to influence the game design during its inception. Since you can't influence the Trolls, better to get people wanting "classic" artists (in the vien of Trampier), cool NPCs, small amounts of backstory etc. As for Gary going along with C&Cs rules (including the SIEGE) and its other 2E/3Eish leaning tendencies, I don't doubt it. Like I said above, he's not going to make waves. If the trolls had moved to get rid of the SIEGE engine, I doubt he'd have objected. Personally, I don't know if Gary's tastes have changed, nor do I care. All I care about is that CZ2 be put out without being botched. I'm sure everyone here agrees we'd like to see the module series published without the plot and design errors found in many 2E and 3E products, as well as those put out in the past by TLG. It's too late to effect the C&C game. It has its market (3E and 2E players). However, CZ2 and on, will heavily sell to oldschoolers (guys who played the game before 85). If none of the old schoolers speak up now to influence market opinion, then it gives the impression there is no portion of the market disinfranchised. For some reason, there's alot of distaste for C&Cs work online, alot of talk about how they hope they get it right with CZ2, but very little vocalization on public forums about it. dcas: "The Trolls won't be "inserting" anything. Do you really think that Gary would stand for his IP to be spindled, folded, mutilated? " I've heard just the opposite, that they did incert stuff in CZ1. No details though, its a rumor from some one who might know, I'll leave it at that. As long as CZ2 is not changed to appeal to the romance novelist segment of 2E and 3E players I don't care. If they screw it up, I'll be pissed, another lost opportunity. It probably won't mean lower sales for the Trolls. But, it'd be a shame. If Rob and Gary had their own publishing company and they put out Castle Greyhawk on thier own, and it was muddled up with 2E and 3E concepts, I'd be just as pissed. Dcas: "Gay"? Axe, I seem to remember you writing that you had been to graduate school. Why are you still writing like you're in junior high? " Don't be so gay dcas.
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 11:05:57 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the 12 guys that hang out at C&C's forum Nor am I. I'm talking about the hundreds of people who actually bought the books. Why should the Trolls listen to you or me or "the fans" rather than the people that have made their books successful? Btw, I don't even have the books, so I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "lipstick-wearing illusionists." Hmmm, I don't know whether you've read any C&C modules, but the ones I have seen are certainly not heavy on backstory. And yes, the NPCs are cool. Of course there are no details, because it's a false rumor. Someone must have bought the bartender small beer instead of honey mead. The Trolls edited Yggsburgh, that's all -- the only things that were "inserted" were stat blocks. There are some things that were changed because the editor misunderstood EGG's writing, but these aren't "insertions." (And you can be that Gary let TLG know how unhappy he was about the editing, too.) It's becoming pretty clear that you haven't bought anything for C&C and you haven't read either Yggsburgh or Dark Chateau. So why should the Trolls listen to what you have to say? You're not a customer and given your criticisms of TLG I don't see why they should even treat you like a potential customer.
|
|
|
Post by skaguest on Dec 5, 2005 12:28:21 GMT -5
dcas---I too beleive EGG is not totally responsible for the C&C rules. EGG did not creeate the C&C rules and basically just went along with what the Trolls created. If I'm wrong on that feel free to correct me. I doubt EGG had anything to do with C&C's SIEGE resolution system or the other 3e aspects of the game.
I certainly hope EGG/Kuntz are the only writers who create CZ. I have read post by Gygaz concerning other writers contributing to 19 different sections of the Ygssburg setting. Certainly this backs up Axe Mental's critique of other writers inserting stuff.
A perfect ex. is steam engines designed by gnomes inYgss. This is so non-1e in feel one does not now where to begin. Ygss. has a Renaissance feel about it versus 1e's more medieval feel.
I think you may be missing Axe's point, which is speak up now if you wish to even have a possible influence on the CZ project. Axe's pointing out the non-1e artwork (in fact Peter Bradley's work is some of the worst I have ever seen. And yes, one can describe it as "gay" as a legitimate observation.) and 2e-ish game design of C&C products in general should are valid. Why not bring this to the attention of TLG?
Of course, it probably is too late for any input. I also, IMO, think TLG would ignore any input concerning this product. Dcas---you criticize Axe for being uninformed about C&C yet it is clear you have not even read the C&C PHB! Otherwise, you would know all about the Peter Bradley based illusionist (which I tried to stop when TLG fooled many old schoolers by asking for their in-out, which they had no intention of listening to.) This illusionist is a disguise wearing fop who haunts taverns. Ludicrous, IMO. This is not old school.
I hope for the best with CZ, and hope the material is pure Gygax and/or Kuntz.
Again, I am amazed at Gene's original warnings of Gygax hooking up with the Trolls and what this would mean.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 5, 2005 12:37:46 GMT -5
I think I know what he means. There's an illusionist who looks like Roger De Bris' personal secretary Carmen Ghia from the Producers: The illusionist is made to look tough with a cowboy hat but his face looks like somebody's mother-in-law with a beard. This must be a depiction of one of the owner's characters since a cowboy hat-wearing spellcaster is depicted on the cover of LOST CITY OF GAXMOOR. Which technically the "Gaxmoor cowboy" isn't as good as the "Carmen Ghia style" one but it doesn't convey that "style" at all. Now I'm not saying that "style" is negative but rather that it just sinks heroic fantasy. So I completely understand the urge to get that overwhelming style away from the now weakened voice of the game's creator but maybe calling it in certain blanket terms that has more to do with "feeling" than aesthetics is going to raise too many eyebrows. And maybe not the one's that are being aimed for. So dcas has a good point.
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 12:39:09 GMT -5
I too beleive EGG is not totally responsible for the C&C rules. Never claimed he was. He did not create the rules but he did have veto power over them. So anything that's in the C&C rules is there because he allowed it. I don't think SEIGE has anything to do with 3e, but you're probably right that EGG had nothing to do with it, except that he chose not to veto it. That's forthcoming material and is unrelated to the CZ Castle/Dungeons project. Only if one is misinformed about the Yggsburgh setting project. No kidding, the Renaissance feel is deliberate. It's what Gary wanted for the setting. Do you mean "gay" as in "homosexual," or "gay" as in the word that someone in junior high would use in place of "lame" or "stupid"? I'm not particularly fond of Peter's artwork, but it's not "homosexual" and I don't think it's lame or stupid. You can bring it to their attention all you want, I'm simply pointing out that the Trolls have no reason to listen to it. First, C&C has been very successful for them; second, calling something "gay" or "2e-ish" or "de-facto 3e" doesn't tell anyone anything. What makes Peter's artwork "gay"? Just saying that it is "gay" isn't constructive criticism, because it doesn't tell anyone anything about it. Yes, especially when that input is not constructive as I described above. No, I criticized Axe for being uninformed about Yggsburgh.
|
|
|
Post by Axe Mental on Dec 5, 2005 12:46:16 GMT -5
Whoops cross-posted.
Dcas, sure I don't own Yggs. Why should I buy an inferior product. That doesn't mean I don't skim it at my gamestorte, read reviews, etc. get real. Do you have to own something and read everything in it to be able to comment on it?
As for making a destinction between fans and customers (I think thats what your doing) those are often one and the same. But remember, alot of those who purchase TLG products do on impulse or sight-unseen. They don't notice flaws until they get a chance to read and play (just as many of us did with 3E). I don't think you can say these same customers wouldn't be happier with something we would find more similar to 1E.
As I stated above, the market for C&C and Yggsburgh is more closely aligned with 2E and 3E players (looking for a simpler skill system). They hit that target. Castle Greyhawk, ruins and dungeon, on the other hand, will be nastalgic, thus WE will be a good chunk of the market (the guys who at least played OOP D&D) perhaps the majority. It makes since then to tell the Trolls what we want. If that doesn't work influence there customer base (at least those online). This isn't complicated. Personally I think C&C would have sold as well or perhaps better with less 2E/3Eish looking artwork, better editing, no skill system, etc. (basically what guys like Mistere, SKA, and others tried to get).
As for not understanding what gay art means, well, if you like Pete's work, you won't understand. Its style, forced odd poses, extreme features (check out his gnomes illustrations), etc. a feel completely void of classic sword and sorcery. Its very similar to the art in 3E and 2E products. BTW, I've seen some PB artwork of very masculine looking girls and feminized men (and creatues) as well...but I won't speculate on these.
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 15:49:35 GMT -5
Dcas, sure I don't own Yggs. Why should I buy an inferior product. That doesn't mean I don't skim it at my gamestorte, read reviews, etc. get real. Do you have to own something and read everything in it to be able to comment on it? No, but it sure helps to make your comments sound informed. No, I am making a distinction between you (that is, Axe, Ska, and Mister E) and customers. I take it for granted that many fans of old-school gaming are TLG customers, or at least potential customers. Ah, but who is "we"? How do you know that this is the market for C&C and Yggsburgh? I have my own criticisms of C&C but I don't presume that other old-school gamers as a group agree with me, even if I can find a few individuals who do. Who is the arbiter of old-school gaming? You? Scott? Ska? Come on. You call C&C a 2e/3e-like product, but then when a 1e player disagrees with you, you call him a 2e/3e aficionado. I suspect that the market for Yggsburgh already includes a lot of people who played OOP D&D. I am guessing that this market won't fall away when subsequent volumes are released. Sure, but telling the Trolls that artwork is "gay" isn't telling them what you want. It's just making mindless criticism. There is no skill system in C&C (unlike OAD&D ). Hmmm, didn't I just write that I wasn't particularly fond of it? But I still don't understand why the adjective "gay" applies. If I were going to use the word "gay" to apply to art, I would apply it to art that showed an unhealthy fascination with the human body (since many homosexual men have such a fascination). Of course, much classic "sword-and-sorcery" art might fall under that category. I own 2e and used to own the 3e PHB. It is nothing like the 2e/3e art.
|
|
|
Post by skaguest on Dec 5, 2005 16:48:58 GMT -5
dcas----Gene's picture hit the "gay" description right on the head. Not sure I can say it any better than Gene has shown you.
You really have not checked out the C&C PHB have you? No skill system? What do you call the 18/12 resolution system? It is a skill system put into place to attract 3e players, or as described by TLG people (Peter Bradley) "a brige between editions."
OADD had a skill system? Really, might want to let EGG in on your little discovery since he has many times written OADD is not a skills based game (outside of a few characters with skill resoultions: thief).
As I said earlier, I hope EGG/Kuntz do all of the work for CZ (of which, by the way, Ygssb. is a part of).
Interesting that EGG was going for a Renais. feel, I had not heard that. It will only detract form the old school feel of the game if this is correct, IMO.
I am not surprised that on a old school ediiton board poeple such as Axe and others might come to discuss problems with C&C and their hopes for CZ.
You seem to imply Axe has only criticized the art without offering explanations of old school vs gay-school. In fact he has gone to great lengths on other boards to do just that (of course you assumed he had not and failed to ask if he even had). Axe has presented PB with examples from various sites of old school artwork, from Franzetta to Erol Otus. He (andothers) have spelled out why the art is gay. And for denser individuals who cannot understand this I shall give an analogy: One sees an individual looking like Gene's post walking around town, speaking with a list, and almost breaking his neck checking out guys as they pass by. The bystander thinks: That guy's gay. Well, this exact same thing applies to Peter Bradley's artwork.
Axe even tried to answer your post spelling out why the work is "gay", the problem is you just didn't like his answer.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 5, 2005 17:29:08 GMT -5
Just because I suggested leaving them alone doesn't mean that there isn't a Wall of Goofballs spell ( of the type that turned 3e followed by "Living Greyhawk" into giant dog turds) well embedded and in place over at TLG. Remember the owners attacking me on my forum? Do you remember Gary and Rob tuning me out? Hello? Is this thing on? DON'T BOTHER!You're wasting your time. Now lets get back to dumping on those limeys at DF!
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 17:45:24 GMT -5
You really have not checked out the C&C PHB have you? No skill system? What do you call the 18/12 resolution system? A resolution system for class abilities. I never claimed it was a skill-based game. Nevertheless, there are secondary skills in the DMG and these were even used in the Conan modules, the character classes being inadequate to describe the barbarian. Who else would be doing the work? Just read what he has written about it. Read his posts on Yggsburgh and read his book Living Fantasy. So, Peter Bradley's artwork walks around town, talks with a lisp, and breaks its neck checking out guys? More seriously, I simply don't see how the adjective "gay" applies, except in the schoolboy sense (i.e., calling what you don't like "gay"). He explained why he didn't like it but he didn't explain why it is "gay." So I'm left to conclude that "gay" means that you, Axe, and/or Mister e don't like it. Well, that's fine, at least we have a working definition of the word going forward.
|
|
|
Post by skaguest on Dec 5, 2005 18:11:27 GMT -5
I shall try one last time.
Gay in terms of PB art means (IMO): effeminate males, weakling cherub-homo drawings with bulbous noses and red cheeks, masculine female figures, and as Gene stated an almost anti-heroic fantasy look. Axe also notes the forced poses and juvenile/childish style. Your continues: "but that does not define what gay means" I'm sure will be uttered again. that's why I took the time to spell it out for you.
dcas---take a look at Gene's picture again as I feel this will really help you get it.
12/18 is a skills system and is being used as such (as it was designed tobe to get 3e players). 1eDMG does not contain any skills system. Secondary skills were described in general terms only. No target numbers etc.
Have you played much OAD&D?
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 20:08:21 GMT -5
Oh, so 12/18 with no skills is a "skills system," but the secondary skills with its long list of possible skills isn't a "skills system" because there are no target numbers and whatnot. I see now.
|
|
|
Post by Skaguest on Dec 5, 2005 21:36:20 GMT -5
dcas---I ask again: Have you played much OAD&D?
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Post by dcas on Dec 5, 2005 21:58:30 GMT -5
dcas---I ask again: Have you played much OAD&D? I played it off and on from 1988 to 2001, with bouts of 2e, hybrid games, and HackMaster. I don't know what "much" is. I've played more than some and less than most, I suppose. Well, I guess that pictures of effeminate men and masculine ladies can be described as "gay," but Axe added them as an afterthought. As far as the others are concerned, I don't care for them either, but I'm not sure that the C&C art fits the bill at all. But then I'm not sure I care for the "heroic proportions" art of Frazetta and his ilk. I think pictures of men in loincloths are pretty "gay," and making them masculine only enhances their "gay"-ness as it were.
|
|