Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5197982" data-attributes="member: 2205">That completely fails to address my points, though.  Unearthed Arcana was a 3.5 book, not a 3e book. You're trying to build a case that the game discouraged houserules while ignoring the elephant in the room of the biggest book of optional houserules suggestions ever published as actually an official product.Headed up by the same designer who had the lead on the 3e to 3.5 transition, no less.Again; elephant in the room.  If you ignore that, it's a bit hard to take your assertions very seriously.No, not really.  That's not an example of me using some vague, nebulous "feeling" I have, and then basing my entire argument on that.  It's based on the OGL and the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana which really didn't have peers in any other edition of the game.  You can hardly make a claim that there was a significant shift to close the doors on houserules during the same era that more houserules were published--published! not just in some DM's binder--than at any time in history without looking like you really either don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some vested interest in spinning a story of the 3.5 era that isn't really true.Umm... wha?  I'm not insulted.  I'm just pointing out that your comment is another in the long litany of meaningless and insulting phrases that have been used to describe the game by a horde of folks who are emotionally invested in something else, can't quite put their fingers on what they don't like, so they make up vague aspersions like "video-gamey", "anime", "dungeonpunk" or, in your case, "too comic book."You don't even make a cursory effort to describe how D&D is like a comic book, it's just a dismissive and derogatory claim that you make.  And from my point of view, its a bizarre claim anyway; comic books are clearly the successors of the "pulp aesthetic" in our society, and D&D was more built on the pulps than anything else.  A D&D that resembled a comic book would seem to be a feature not a bug.And seriously; my emotional investment is bizarre to you?  Oddly enough, I feel the same way about you and your argument.  I have no emotional investment in the game.  Your emotionally driven and meaningfully vacuous slurs just get a virtual raised eyebrow.  There's no need to attempt further dismissiveness by falsely trying to link me to some kind of emotionalism.  All I'm asking for you to do is demonstrate an example or two of where your claims are coming from.Please.  That's a pretty sad back-pedal, really.  Nobody's getting angry.  I just want to see how in the world these claims could possibly be backed up.  I want to see how in the world houserules have been "closed off" by WotC when they've actually bent over backwards to facilitate them in ways that were completely unprecedented.  I want to know what in the world you mean by calling the game "comic bookish".  Especially while saying that what you want the game to be like is Conan, who very famously was a long-running comic book character.I wonder, too, what you mean by being an "industry writer" and how much your career as such has been facilitated by the OGL. Which, in case that was too subtle, would make your complaints in this regard particularly ironic.We all read the blog in the OP.  That offers absolutely no explanation for anything that you've said, really.  It certainly doesn't address any of the specific clarifications I've asked for from you.Rather, it appears as if you've done a drive by snark post or two and when asked (rather politely, so I don't know where your "angry" posts are coming from--just because I disagree with you and think that you're way off base doesn't mean that I'm in the least angry with what you're saying) to explain exactly what you mean by that, you fall back and say you can't or won't.  It certainly does give the impression that your initial assertions were... at best... poorly formulated to be so unable to withstand even a cursory bit of scrutiny.</blockquote>

Verification