Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bran Blackbyrd" data-source="post: 262808" data-attributes="member: 1710">Re: Nothing wrong with the D&amp;D Vampire.The key word in all of that being personally. The fact is that different people want different things out of a vampire. Even some of the people not&nbsp; interested in a &quot;romantic&quot; vampire want a more detailed, more varied vamp. Hell, I like Anne Rice's vampires, but I'm not talking about romance, I'm talking about power. Out of all the existing vampire myths, I like their set of weaknesses and powers the best. Real romantic, huh? None of that garlic crap here.If somone wants to write a new set of vampire rules, that's cool. But why argue against it? That's right up there with the people that say WoTC shouldn't write book X because they personally won't use it. Forget the other thousands of customers. The only two arguments here are, I like it just fine, or I want more. Neither of those are wrong, but neither of them are right either. The people who are satisfied already have what they want, and it can't be taken away. So I say there's room for more. I just don't understand the people who have a problem with getting more.You're a century or so behind the times. Ever heard of the Penny Dreadfuls? How about Varney the Vampire? They're a bit older than the eighties. In fact, they came out in the 1840's. The vampire revival has more to do with tuberculosis than it ever had with AIDS.While&nbsp; there are plenty of links betwen vampire mythology and the fearful superstitious people afflicted with disease, there are just as many links with sensuality, and the sensual aspect of blood (don't ask me, I'm not on that wavelength). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />FYI: I've never used a vampire in D&amp;D, but then, that may be because D&amp;D's vampires never seemed very &quot;vampiric&quot; to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bran Blackbyrd, post: 262808, member: 1710"] [b]Re: Nothing wrong with the D&D Vampire.[/b] The key word in all of that being personally. The fact is that different people want different things out of a vampire. Even some of the people not interested in a "romantic" vampire want a more detailed, more varied vamp. Hell, I like Anne Rice's vampires, but I'm not talking about romance, I'm talking about power. Out of all the existing vampire myths, I like their set of weaknesses and powers the best. Real romantic, huh? None of that garlic crap here. If somone wants to write a new set of vampire rules, that's cool. But why argue against it? That's right up there with the people that say WoTC shouldn't write book X because they personally won't use it. Forget the other thousands of customers. The only two arguments here are, I like it just fine, or I want more. Neither of those are wrong, but neither of them are right either. The people who are satisfied already have what they want, and it can't be taken away. So I say there's room for more. I just don't understand the people who have a problem with getting more. You're a century or so behind the times. Ever heard of the Penny Dreadfuls? How about Varney the Vampire? They're a bit older than the eighties. In fact, they came out in the 1840's. The vampire revival has more to do with tuberculosis than it ever had with AIDS. While there are plenty of links betwen vampire mythology and the fearful superstitious people afflicted with disease, there are just as many links with sensuality, and the sensual aspect of blood (don't ask me, I'm not on that wavelength). :p FYI: I've never used a vampire in D&D, but then, that may be because D&D's vampires never seemed very "vampiric" to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification