Actually I got two firm legs to stand on and obviously you don't get that the joke is on you.
What joke? If there's a joke on me, where are you making it?
And I'm sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on. You have a valid opinion, but the way you are going about stating it is, well, hilariously awful.
I didn't make a mistake in my analysis because Tim Burton is known for several things, not just his Beetlejuice humour.
That's right. He's also known for Alice in Wonderland (Which you were complaining OotA had too much of, and then said Burton should have written it). He's also known for Edward Scissorhands. Or Big Fish. Or Nightmare Before Christmas. Or Sweeney Todd. I've seen his films.
Dark Whimsy is pretty much the heart of it. Not horror.
OotA, as currently presented, is more Dark Whimsy. Not horror.
You can see why mentioning his name was kind of a silly move on your part.
If you didn't notice, I specifically added "splash" of Tim Burton for a reason which you and a few others obviously didn't get.
Well, to me, "a splash of Burton" would be a "dark game with a touch of the whimsical". Which is exactly what you're complaining about OotA having.
How're those legs treating you? Still standing?
Tim Burton is also known for is darkness, eerie scenery, and just plain weirdness.
Don't forget Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter.
Those are the parts of Burton that would I was referring too. You are coming off as a desperate defender of Wizards of the Coast who is just trying to discredit my opinion.
"Desperate Defender"? Nah, not really. I'm coming off as someone who sees Bollocks and has fun pointing it out and laughing.
For what it's worth, as several others (including the head moderator of this site!) have mentioned, you are coming off as someone who hates everything wotc does. Which begs the question - why are you even commenting? And, as asked of you earlier, what would you like to see them do? Instead of pointing out how awful and "appalling" wotc's actions are, maybe you could say what you'd like to see them do? Constructive Criticism and all that?
You have your opinion and I have mine. This comes off as very commercial and they obviously think that weirdness and dark needs to be humourous.
Commercial? Oh dear lord. A company releases a book and wants to make money. Shame on them. They are not trying to hit a market of "Corpsetaker". They're trying to hit a market of "thousands of individual fans". And good for them.
Also, are you familiar with "Grimdark"? It's just annoyingly dark and depressing. They have a niche market, and wotc knows not to target it anymore. They tend to just draw laughter from fans older than, say, sixteen.
I like to watch Beetlejuice on the screen, not play that kind of game in D&D. I would rather just play Changling.
Then PLAY Changeling. Don't go into a thread saying "man, Wotc are appalling because their games aren't like Changeling!"
I don't want the story to make me laugh with goofy NPC's with horrible names. That's why I can't make it through a Salvatore book.
The goofy names are why you can't make it through the book? Not exactly the first reason I'd pick to avoid his work. But hey, to each their own.
And, as we've pointed out time and time again, "Goofy Names" are a big part of D&D's history. The game is just trying to have a bit of fun. If you don't like this small, small part of the game, you can change it and move right along.
Instead, you call wotc "appalling" and go on a rant as if they're the destroyers of all that's good in society. And then make an argument that is so inherently flawed and skewed that people are left shaking their heads in wonder.
As I've said before - your opinion is absolutely valid. But the way you go about is ass-backwards, and makes even the people that want to agree with you hesitate. If I didn't know any better, and if this weren't something as silly as a D&D forum, I'd accuse you of being a professional strawman.
