"Planar Handbook" - completlely useless?

S'mon said:
Just an OT query related to Nisarg's rants re "Gen-X" - I tought this refers to the generation that's the children of the baby boomer (ca 1945-1965) generation, who came of age pre the Millenium, so born roughly between the late '60s through to around 1982; with the post-1982, grew up with the Internet generation being "gen Y". I think he classic Gen-X TV show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, written by a guy my age (I was born '72) with protagonists at the tail end of the same generation, and a big focus on conflict with the mores of the baby-boomer parent generation.
So I always say the 1990s grunge/punk thing & WoTC's dungeonpunk style as more Gen-Y than Gen-X, sure Kurt Cobain was technically Gen-X, but so the original punks were baby-boomers... is that right?

Since the term "Generation X" was popularized by Douglas Copeland in his book of the same title, and the general gist of his definition was that the Gen Xers were exactly the group of people for whom Grunge was the cultural definition of their generation (that and unemployability.. ie. the "mcjobs", and the "slacker" disaffectation with the societal responsibilities their ex-hippie parents had come to embrace), I would say you are wrong.
There are FAR more gen-Y people who like Buffy than there are gen-Ys who even know who Curt Cobain was (other than "a music guy who died").

Nisarg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thanks Nis - Buffy is designed to appeal to Gen-Yers of course, otherwise it'd miss half its target audience. I see what you mean re Grunge, though it seems alive & well in modern American 'punk' culture with that Skater Boi girl and all her chums...

When I were a lad punks had purple Mohicans and _liked_ it! :)

-S'mon, old fuddy-duddy.
 

Mystery Man said:
Keep in mind I don't want or need to be spoonfed anything but.... I want campaign seeds, encounter ideas, demographics, descriptive areas, ideas on power groups, secret organizations, and so much more that these new books just don't really provide.

Please forgive this blatant ad. But I think you might find some of my PDFs interesting.

I've written short PDFs of rumors (each rumor includes a failed gather information check result and a successful one . . . and a source for each, and follow up information) . . .

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3087

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2807


And several short PDFs of "items" that are designed to inspire adventures.

One of my favorites in the series is "A Dozen Documents and Papers." These can bring many, many adventure ideas to mind.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2792

And then there's the DM's Idea Pipeline. 5 times a week subscriber's are e-mailed something. Contacts, shops, rumors, treasures . . . all designed to slot into a fantasy campaign.

You can check the monthly collections of the Pipeline to get an idea of what's inside them.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=3057

I noticed long ago that WotC was supporting players more than DMs so I made the decision to write PDFs for the DM. This has likely hurt my sales on many PDFs but I enjoy writing materials for the DM. I like writing rumors and contacts.

And treasures.
 

Nisarg said:
This is a fairly absurd assertion you're making. The reason I accuse Planescape of being connected to the punk/grunge stylings of the nineties and not to vikings or celts is because Planescape was not written by vikings or celts; it was, however, written in the 90s.
What you're asserting would be like someone claiming that the fighting in Hong Kong martial arts films doesn't nescessarily have anything to do with Kung-fu, that it might just be a coincidence that its produced in the same place Kung fu is produced,
Except that it wasn't a book about grunge and punk. Clearly a Hong Kong martial arts movie is a Hong Kong martial arts movie. So now you're saying that a book about the planes and a floating, neutral city/crossroads was about grunge and punk. Interesting. But stupid.

Let's call a spade a spade here: PS was designed to reflect what its authors thought their public thought was "cool" in that time period. They weren't influenced by the celts or vikings; they were influenced by punk, certain british literary figures, and the heights of mid-90s fashions.
Either an assumption or an impressive display of mind-reading
You aren't fooling anyone by trying to claim that the writers/designers of PS were working in a vacuum.
When did I make such a claim. You love to make up facts, don't you?

But please, by all means, go back to your time machine and turn back the clock ten years to hide from all change..
You prefer what is essentially the planes, PRE-Planescape and I'm the one resisting change? Heh.

of course, to do that, you could just stick to the Planescape stuff that was printed back then, and let the rest of us actually enjoy living in the present, where we get to have a choice about how we want to play the Planes.
And when did I even suggest that that choice be taken away? Quote it. Oops, I never said anything of the sort. This strawman you've created is just wasting space.

Again, I repeat for those who are having trouble getting this concept: I have yet to see, anywhere, news reports of Wizards staff hunting down and shooting people who play the planes in the Planescape style. THERE IS NOTHIGN STOPPING YOU. Go wild. Just don't try to force-feed it down the rest of our throats by trapping the books in the Planescape mold.
Same strawman.
Try to realize that a one-shot Planescape book wouldn't preclude the existance of books like the Planar Handbook. That no one is suggesting doing away with regular, non-PS planar books, and that the strawman routine is getting tired.
Not only did I not suggest that non-PS planar books be done away with, at the moment I don't recall reading that anyone else had either. The way you're ranting you'd think that someone was going to go door to door taking back everyone's copies of the Planar Handbook. What are you so worried about, it's already been published?
 

S'mon said:
I see what you mean re Grunge, though it seems alive & well in modern American 'punk' culture with that Skater Boi girl and all her chums...
You keep using that word, "grunge". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Kurt Cobain is very, very, very far away from Avril Lavigne. Shoe-gazing grunge is very different from bouncy skate punk.

I don't have a dog in this fight; Nirvana were okay but hardly geniuses. But that's just simply wrong.
 

Bran Blackbyrd said:
People didn't start talking about generation X until I was half way through highschool. At the time the people whom they were referring to as Gen-X were my age. Most of the children of the baby boomers, people who were teens in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, didn't really ever get a nickname. Maybe they got lumped in with the punks, yuppies, etc from the "Me Generation".
Perhaps in your area, that may have been true. Generation-X was already an old term by that time, though. The first time I heard of Generation X was in 1979, in reference to the famous punk rock band that Billy Idol came from. Douglas Coupland claims that the title of his book came not from the band, but instead from a sociology book. I think he's full of malarkey, and trying to cover his tracks, frankly.

The problem with any 'generational' name is that there is a base concept of a generation, which really has no official span or length. For example: the famed "Baby Boomers", named for the post-WWII birth spurts that spawned them, is generally accepted as 1946-1965....because this was when the huge increase in births subsided. But early boomers and late boomers are from competely different generations culturally. Someone born in 1948 has very little in common with someone born in 1964.

Consequently, the media is always looking for a way to bundle folks together. The 1965-1975 'generation' was labeled the 'baby busters' by the media, to reflect the sudden drop in the birth rate. It stuck, but barely. Since then, they've been stumped. Generation-X has been given a variety of birth ranges to work from.

From the Generation-X FAQ:



  • [font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]Who exactly IS Gen-X?[/size][/font]This question is in [font=Arial,Helvetica]hot dispute[/font]. In the mid-1980's the Gen-Xer's had been labeled "Baby Busters", due to the low birthrates of the 1965-75 age bracket. Demographers noticed as early as 1966 that the "boom" was over, and began planning and budgeting downward for this massive change from the "boom" in births between 1946-1964. (These "Boomer" dates, by the way, have never been in doubt nor have they been doubted or tampered with by the media.) Today, however, many people lump those born in the years 1961-81 together. Why 1961? Despite being Doug Coupland's birthyear, it more likely began with theHowe & Strauss book "Generations", which used those years. The 1961-81 years are also being accepted and popularized by media like TIME magazine, which has used those years in a Gen-X cover story. The years 1965-79, 1964-82, 1960-1970, 1966-1977, and 1970-1983 have also been used in articles on Gen-X, but these all seem very arbitrary, and as you can tell, are all over the map, demographically."
In other words, it's just a label that no one can even agree on. Depending on who you ask, I'm a Baby-buster or a Gen-Xer. A kid born five years after I was would be hard pressed to understand why Pong was so amazing when it first debuted, or that color TV was an innovation to be boasted of ("The Brady Bunch! In COLOR!"). Hell, he might not even remember time before cable TV. :) But by the same token, he and I probably both enjoyed MegaMan or Donkey Kong, both owned an Atari, and so forth.

Go figure.
 
Last edited:

philreed said:
I noticed long ago that WotC was supporting players more than DMs so I made the decision to write PDFs for the DM. This has likely hurt my sales on many PDFs but I enjoy writing materials for the DM. I like writing rumors and contacts.

And treasures.
Thanks Phil, taking a look.
 

mhacdebhandia said:
You keep using that word, "grunge". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Kurt Cobain is very, very, very far away from Avril Lavigne. Shoe-gazing grunge is very different from bouncy skate punk.

I don't have a dog in this fight; Nirvana were okay but hardly geniuses. But that's just simply wrong.

I am an old fuddy duddy who never liked grunge, so what do I know, yup. Avril Lavigne - thanks, couldn't remember her name. :) I can see why Kurt & Avril are miles different, certainly the sound is different, OTOH to my uneducated gaze their dress & demeanour look similar and they're both angsty in a (to me similar) self-obsessed way that feels very different from the angst of Pink or Eminem. I see modern US 'punk' bands on TV now and then, and they remind me of '90s Grunge (and seem to have nothing in common w '70s Punk), but that's just my impression.
 

WizarDru said:
Someone born in 1948 has very little in common with someone born in 1964.

I guess they were both born in a period of relative optimism & economic expansion, before the oil shocks of the '70s? And they experienced Vietnam as a current event. My generation was born into the pessimistic era of the 1970s with its economic decay, international terrorism, post-Vietnam enui, Punk Rock etc, I think that was important. Times remained hard into & through the '80s, optimism only took hold again at the end of the '80s with the end of the Cold War. So I think Gen-Xers are the pessimistic generation who grew up in what was perceived as relatively hard times, with baby-boomers & gen-Yers not having the same experience.

Sorry for thread-hijack... :)
 


Remove ads

Top