View Profile: wingsandsword - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About wingsandsword

Basic Information

Date of Birth
September 7, 1978 (40)
About wingsandsword
Location:
Lexington, KY (USA)
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
PayPal Email:
joseph.m.osborne@gmail.com
Sex:
Male
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
JosephMOsborne
Facebook:
joseph.m.osborne
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Georgetown
State:
Kentucky
Country:
USA

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,633
Posts Per Day
0.46
Last Post
OOTS 1159: Worm's Eye View Tuesday, 19th March, 2019 11:38 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
9
General Information
Last Activity
Tuesday, 7th May, 2019 07:54 PM
Join Date
Monday, 8th September, 2003
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
My Game Details
Town:
Georgetown
State:
Kentucky
Country:
USA
No results to show...

Sunday, 23rd July, 2017


Tuesday, 21st January, 2014

  • 06:54 PM - innerdude mentioned wingsandsword in post The Great D&D Schism: The End of an age and the scattering of gamers
    To an extent, you're completely right, @wingsandsword. 3.x was fairly groundbreaking in its unification of the D&D fanbase, even from the beginning--considering how TSR knowingly fractured their own fanbase with "basic" D&D and "advanced" D&D. About a year ago I posted a thread describing, however, that "unification" itself is a bit of a fallacy, in that we've never really been united in our choice to play Dungeons and Dragons. There's been massive tensions and "drift" for D&D in actual play for a long, long time. People have wanted very different things from their RPG experience, but a lot of us stuck with D&D because it was popular enough that everyone at least had some experience with it, and if it wasn't exactly what we wanted from an RPG, it was close enough, and there was enough "traction" in the gaming community at large that we just went along with it. Getting groups / players to branch out was generally a difficult task, and required great amounts of effort from a GM to go out of his or her way to specifically recruit for it. ...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Wednesday, 20th March, 2019

  • 08:34 AM - pemerton quoted wingsandsword in post HERE IS SOME F**KING D&D: A Micro RPG In Four Pages
    the shortest actually published RPG I could think of was the 1st edition of Big Eyes, Small Mouth, which was a pretty short booklet (before later editions started adding in huge amounts of optional rules). . .in fairly large type, with some illustrations. . .that could also probably be condensed to a few pages.. Cthulhu Dark

Sunday, 17th March, 2019

  • 02:03 PM - trappedslider quoted wingsandsword in post Marvel Studios' Captain Marvel | Special Look
    If people were doing that with films before Episode I I'd like to hear about it, but I think TPM really hit at the time of the rise of the Internet, where people could discuss trailers online, and download them, and share info about which movies had which trailers attached. Before the net was really the net https://www.warnerbros.com/news/articles/2015/06/23/batman-26-years-later/ Regarding Keaton's casting as Wayne/Batman a teaser trailer was quickly released that was met with such positive fan reaction that people began buying tickets to movies just to watch the trailer.

Thursday, 7th March, 2019

  • 10:28 PM - jasper quoted wingsandsword in post Looking up heraldry, sources? Information?
    I'm still searching. Haven't been able to make it to the library yet. I did some fiddling with a heraldry creator program, to make a more legible version of the coat of arms rather than the photo (taking a picture of something small, at distance, in suboptimal lighting). 105246 Ok It is a combine arms and SCA does not do that and my skills are rusty. Right hand side. Gules (red) a chevron or (gold) 3 lions rampant or (gold) and I forget what the configuration is. Left hand side Don't remember what you call the bendy cover. But azure (blue) and sable (black) an Cross proper argent (silver)
  • 08:53 PM - Sadras quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    The very term "barbarian" comes from ancient Rome and their term for non-Roman peoples they considered unable to interact with them in a civilized fashion (which usually meant the Germanic peoples of central and western Europe). Just a quibble, the term originates from the Ancient Greeks for those who did not speak Greek and follow Greek customs. I haven't read the entire thread so I might have been ninja'd. :)

Wednesday, 6th March, 2019

  • 09:34 PM - Dannyalcatraz quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    You're trying to create something that will convey menace and threat to the audience, to be that dangerous, primitive and different-looking and strangely acting outsider/foreigner that has been an element of human culture since antiquity. If you make it too inhuman, you lose that metaphor, if you make it something that has no resemblance to humanity, that allusion is lost and it becomes just a generic monster race. So, how exactly was Tolkien, or any other author, supposed to convey the idea of a bestial, foreign, hostile, barbaric people that are recognizably similar to humans, yet alien, without being anything that could be construed as potentially offensive to any real-world race or ethnicity? The only alternative would be to make Orcs that were totally inhuman. I've seen it done, with orcs treated in some sources as having green skin and pig-like features with snouts, treating them as greenskinned anthropomorphic pigs/boars. . .but that tends to lose the more "realistic" aspects of fan...
  • 04:19 PM - pemerton quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    While yes, many of the classic fantasy and pulp authors reflected the casual racism of their eras, how exactly are you supposed to create a monstrous, villainous humanoid race that cannot in any way be seen as any kind of racial or ethnic metaphor? Unless you make them look utterly inhuman, you're working with the established palette of human skin tones, hair types, facial features, builds ect. You're trying to create something that will convey menace and threat to the audience, to be that dangerous, primitive and different-looking and strangely acting outsider/foreigner that has been an element of human culture since antiquity. <snip> So, how exactly was Tolkien, or any other author, supposed to convey the idea of a bestial, foreign, hostile, barbaric people that are recognizably similar to humans, yet alien, without being anything that could be construed as potentially offensive to any real-world race or ethnicity?Well, it's not a given that wanting to create a monstrous, villainous hu...
  • 03:57 PM - Doug McCrae quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups.These ideas have changed over time. We see, starting I think with Linnaeus in the 18th century, something new - the notion that the mentally and morally inferior other is that way, not because of climate or culture (as Aristotle believed), but because of their biological makeup. This is the same as the idea of race in D&D, particularly in early editions.
  • 01:45 PM - Hussar quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    The idea of a hostile, primitive, uncivilized outsider people just beyond the borders of your land, ready to do you harm. . .is pretty much as old as civilization itself. The very term "barbarian" comes from ancient Rome and their term for non-Roman peoples they considered unable to interact with them in a civilized fashion (which usually meant the Germanic peoples of central and western Europe). The same concept of "We're civilized and peaceful, but those people over there are hostile, brutal, uncivilized and barely even count as people" appears in the Old Testament, it appears in the histories of pretty much all the known ancient civilizations. Similar concepts appear everywhere from the Roman Empire to China and Japan, and everywhere in between. It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups. Orcs exist as a narrative device, a metaphor, a way of embodying that hostile, uncivilized, not-quite-human way that humans have of ...
  • 12:57 PM - pemerton quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    Except that "colonialist" is entirely a modern 20th/21st century pejorative referring to modern politics. If you can point to the ancient world and see the exact same mindset and attitudes there, that's pretty much conclusive proof that it isn't something whipped up within the last century or so.I don't think you can look at the ancient world and see the exact same "mindset and attitudes" as nineteenth century racism of the sort found in pulp and other modern fantasy writings. But even if you could, that wouldn't be any reason to suppose that those mindsets and attitudes, in the nineteenth century and since, aren't components of, and/or causes of, and/or ideological underpinnings of, colonialist ideas.
  • 12:29 PM - pemerton quoted wingsandsword in post Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
    The idea of a hostile, primitive, uncivilized outsider people just beyond the borders of your land, ready to do you harm. . .is pretty much as old as civilization itself. <snip> It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups.Supposing your first sentence to be true, that doesn't support your second sentence. Because rests on a xenophobic view of "outsiders" doesn't entail not part of a colonialist outlook. Orcs exist as a narrative device, a metaphor, a way of embodying that hostile, uncivilized, not-quite-human way that humans have of interpreting outsiders. <snip> "orc" is a great shorthand for it that sidesteps issues of human race/ethnicity/nationality and substitutes in a completely non-human one and lets players know "these are the bad guys, or at least ones everyone generally presumes to be bad guys".When orcs (as in JRRT) are dark-skinned, wield scimitars, and have "bandy" legs, they don't sidestep issues of human ...
  • 01:02 AM - (Psi)SeveredHead quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    I keep hearing that, but you know what. . .I never ran across such casual use of CLW wands in the 3e games I played in. It was always something people would bring up online (mostly here), but I didn't see it at the table in actual everyday gameplay. I always hear that as a complaint about 3e. . .but like many other "complaints" (elaborate powergaming "builds" ect.) about 3e, I never saw it in actual gameplay with actual players in a regular game. Maybe the groups I played with had a different mentality, but people weren't buying bulk CLW wands and insta-healing after every encounter. When they bought magic items from NPC's, they were buying new weapons and armor, and consumable items were usually healing potions and maybe some scrolls of utility spells that would be nice to have on hand but often weren't worth keeping a spell slot devoted to them constantly. I saw this all the time, and if I was in a group that didn't do this, I told them to do it. (Buy wands, craft wands... if I were the...

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 09:12 PM - Saelorn quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    I keep hearing that, but you know what. . .I never ran across such casual use of CLW wands in the 3e games I played in. It was always something people would bring up online (mostly here), but I didn't see it at the table in actual everyday gameplay.I didn't see it at all while I was playing 3.x, but I saw it immediately when I switched to a Pathfinder group. It had everything to do with the players, and the fact that one of the players in that group had already accepted the trick as fundamental to their way of playing. Once you know of the trick, it becomes hard to justify ignoring it, unless the GM does something to house rule it out. I can't convincingly role-play a character who is so incompetent as to not take advantage of something that beneficial when it is presented. I tried to house rule them out of existence when I ran Pathfinder, but the kinds of players who like that game tend to focus strongly on RAW, so it was politically untenable in the long run. Nowadays, I only run Gishes & Gobl...
  • 08:19 PM - Staffan quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    Yet it's utterly awful in modelling injuries. Get mauled to within an inch of your life? Rest for a while, you don't even need healing magic. . .just rest and camp and you get everything back (thanks to so many non-magical healing abilities) you can be back in action in no-time. In prior editions, if you were seriously wounded and didn't have magical healing available, it would take days (and in some cases weeks) of rest and non-magical treatment to get back in action, not just a good night's sleep. I blame 3e's wand of cure light wounds. Its existence and cheap price meant that you could expect to be at full hit points shortly after the end of every fight that didn't bring you to 0 hit points, which in turn made spell slots the primary means of attrition, and those recover with a night's rest. So we might as well recover the hit points as well. 4e actually made things a little more short-term attrition-based than 3e, because you didn't have nigh-infinite wands to deal with hp loss. Almost ever...

Monday, 4th March, 2019

  • 09:31 PM - Tony Vargas quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    Well, I don't want to re-ignite the Edition Wars (which was the main reason I stopped posting at ENWorld regularly). . .but Nothing before the "but" matters. ;P suffice it to say that there are a LOT of players who strongly disagree with the idea that 4th edition is in any way even vaguely related to 3rd edition or any predecessor edition. It can be hard to see the relation, since 4e was so much more evolved. Like how did T-Rex evolve into hummingbirds? It didn't, the common ancestor was further back, a teeny warm-blooded saurian that diverged into many species of dinos and has living descendants in birds, as well. The commonalities are there, though. 3.0 divested itself of some of the worst needless complexity in AD&D, for instance -- some. Though 4e cut a lot deeper, it didn't just scrap it all and start from scratch -classes, levels, hps, AC, etc … - many a hoary D&Dism remained. 5e pasted much of it back, though, in some cases, only as a veneer. I can appreciate that 5e at lea...
  • 08:42 PM - MwaO quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    Yet it's utterly awful in modelling injuries. Get mauled to within an inch of your life? Rest for a while, you don't even need healing magic. . .just rest and camp and you get everything back (thanks to so many non-magical healing abilities) you can be back in action in no-time. In prior editions, if you were seriously wounded and didn't have magical healing available, it would take days (and in some cases weeks) of rest and non-magical treatment to get back in action, not just a good night's sleep. Every edition is horrible at modeling injuries. Get mauled within an inch of your life so you only have 1 hp? Well then, fight just as well as if you weren't hurt at all as long as you don't get hit. And you're dying and low-level and magically healing with a cure light wounds to full hp, but at high levels, it might not even heal a small scratch? All 4e does is represent the mechanical reality of hp in D&D as per Gygax. That it is mostly luck, skill, and magical or divine protections. All of wh...
  • 08:27 PM - Zardnaar quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    Well, I don't want to re-ignite the Edition Wars (which was the main reason I stopped posting at ENWorld regularly). . .but suffice it to say that there are a LOT of players who strongly disagree with the idea that 4th edition is in any way even vaguely related to 3rd edition or any predecessor edition. One reason it was so controversial, besides as you mentioned its marketing that actively alienated many players and told many players that they were playing D&D "wrong" and 4e would show them how to play it "right", was that it seemed custom designed to divorce D&D from its entire history both in terms of setting/lore "fluff" and game rules "crunch". Also, many players stick with 3.5 because they didn't just see 4e as being utterly alien to D&D (to the point that if the same game had been released by another company, under another name, nobody would have thought of it as being anything but an odd d20 fantasy variant). . .and they didn't go to 5e because they see it as stripped down, dumbed down, an...
  • 05:46 PM - MwaO quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    4e, in its quest for game balance and mechanical perfection, placed that over any semblance of realism. . .and the focus on perfectly balanced mechanics (that often ignored even a vague semblance of realism) is one of the things that drove complaints of it being like a "video game". . .that things players might accept in a video game RPG as just aspects of the medium wouldn't be accepted in a tabletop game because many players came to expect at least a little more nod towards simulation and realism in a tabletop RPG. 4e is extremely good at modeling realistic expertise. A 20th level Wizard can auto-succeed on Arcana checks that would be expected to be difficult for 1st level Wizard to succeed at doing. Or a 20th level Rogue disarming a trap that might end up with a poisoned 1st level Rogue. And you'll never end up with a scenario where an untrained incompetent beats out the supercompetent expert with any consistency. The only way to get realistic expertise as a default of the system is to tell...
  • 04:39 AM - GreyLord quoted wingsandsword in post Why do people still play older editions of D&D? Are they superior to the current one?
    Ultimately, people tend to stick with the editions they already play, and don't change to a later edition unless it offers something new that they see as being worth leaving the edition they already play, have books for, know the rules for ect. People left 1e for 2e because 2e incorporated a lot of various optional rules that had become popular into the core rules, and included support for taking all character classes up to at least 20th level (in 1e, some classes such as Monks and Assassins reached max level before 20). People left 2e for 3e because 3e provided a consistent, unified rule system and a LOT more flexibility than 1e or 2e in characters, monsters, ect. Well, I can't say why people left 3e for 4e, because I didn't and none of the people I gamed with did, they all rejected 4e en masse. Presumably it provided something to someone though. At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers wh...

Monday, 7th January, 2019

  • 04:08 AM - Maxperson quoted wingsandsword in post Magic items in AD&D, making them and getting them.
    . . .then you had to deal with the permanent loss of a point of Constitution for casting Permanency, meaning no Wizard wanted to lose Constitution permanently just to make a magic sword for his party member. Also, losing a point of Constitution, because of Permanency, to make expendable magic items like a Necklace of Missiles ect. meant nobody in their right mind would make those items. Yeah. And then I would read the background on some magic item in an official supplement and it would tell me that the great Sage Inventor McMagiccrafter spent his life making hundreds of items and this was one of them.

Wednesday, 2nd January, 2019

  • 11:56 PM - Saelorn quoted wingsandsword in post Magic items in AD&D, making them and getting them.
    Were those things more common, did I just play with particularly hardcore/tough DM's and gaming groups? What was everyone elses experience about magic item creation and obtaining in AD&D?My experience with AD&D was similar to yours. The benefit of acquiring a new magic item was rarely commensurate with the risk involved with the process, so it was hardly ever done. The only time I ever recall it coming up, it was a campaign built around the idea of going out to acquire the various components, on behalf of an NPC enchanter. I don't think that campaign lasted long enough for the item to get built, though.


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

wingsandsword's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites