WotC News - Is this for real???

[Jolly Giant]

Just saw this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20061103a

"Complete Scoundrel" - are they messing with us, or are they going for the Lamest RPG Book Title Ever Award?

 

[Hairfoot]

"He's a gambler, card-player...scoundrel. You'd like him."

Beats 'Complete Thieving Bastard'.

 

[Andor]

You Sir are a complete scoundrel, a cad, and a bounder.



More seriously I note that there is no mention of such a book in the previews, which seems odd if it's off to printing. OTOH it's not April 1st.

 

[Klaus]

Just saw this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20061103a

"Complete Scoundrel" - are they messing with us, or are they going for the Lamest RPG Book Title Ever Award?

It's not lame, it's just in the wrong genre. Complete Scoundrel would be perfect for a Star Wars supplement.

 

[Jolly Giant]

it's not April 1st.

That's what's bothering me!

 

[BlueBlackRed]

"Complete Scoundrel" - are they messing with us, or are they going for the Lamest RPG Book Title Ever Award?

I think they're going for a Han Solo, good-guy rogue feel.

 

[delericho]

I quite like the title (well, as much as I like any of the "Complete X" titles). But I find myself wondering what "Complete Warrior 2" will be called.

Besides, who cares what the book's called? Surely what matters is the content?

 

[Huw]

What are the alternatives:

Complete rat?
Complete cad?
Complete git?
Complete blaggard?
Complete b*stard?
Complete *rsehole?

There aren't many words in English which convey the sense of sneaky at the same time as conveying the sense of cool. "Thief", "Vagabond", "Montebanc" and even "Maverick" might have been better, but they've got other conotations. "Scoundrel" is probably the most accurate description of the book's contents. It's better than "Adventurer" anyway.

 

[Ghendar]

"He's a gambler, card-player...scoundrel. You'd like him."

.

You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em.

 

[Ghendar]

Besides, who cares what the book's called? Surely what matters is the content?

Quite true.
However, not sure we need this particular content, imo.