Saw one that was a well written complaint that pretty much hit the nail on the head, the rest were praises, with one such praise saying that most of us "whiners" were in the minority, too bad he withheld his address or I would send him snail mail that would claim otherwise.
Oh well, boo all around. Paizo can't even accept the fact that they dropped the ball.
Let the masses have watered down Dark Sun if they really want it I guess.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
I wonder how many they held back, and what percentage of the scale mail was actually complaints. Somehow, I think the ratio was a bit different than they published.
Oh, I'm sure it is.
Judging by the complaints here, at en world, the DS mailing list and a few other places, I can't imagine us "whiners" being in the minority.
Sorry, just don't see it, nice try though Paizo. ;)
No more vanilla for you...
Anyway, I'm not pulling for the Dragon version as I agree with many of the complaints but I also agree with those who want to play a version that more fits their ideas. After all, I don't think anyone playing Dark Sun hasn't changed one thing or another, no matter what version you're using. I myself don't even like the 3e system so Athas.org and Dragon both have flaws that I can't overlook. If I took things to such heights as some of you do then I'd be telling you that you're playing watered down versions of Dark Sun because you're not using 2e which the game was designed for, and well, that would just make me rather foolish. Each system is different, 2e has the original Dark Sun, Athas.org has the 3e version that tries to bring back the old days (but it's still 3e), and Dragon has the d20 Dark Sun which allows you to play in that world without anything but a few magazines, the PHB, and the DMG.
What's wrong with all three of them being just as good to those who like them? Your version isn't as good to me, mine probably isn't as good to you, etc, etc. But they all use many of the same ideas and the world is the same, no matter what alternate universe you (or I) may feel that it comes from.
Originally posted by vader42xx
Not to start a war but I've seen several people (myself included) defend the Dragon version of Dark Sun. I've even seen a few who would rather play that. I don't pretend to know what the ratio is and I don't think anyone else has any real idea either. But I do think it is safe to say that it's probably a lot closer to being even than either "side" wants to admit.
Anyway, I'm not pulling for the Dragon version as I agree with many of the complaints but I also agree with those who want to play a version that more fits their ideas. After all, I don't think anyone playing Dark Sun hasn't changed one thing or another, no matter what version you're using. I myself don't even like the 3e system so Athas.org and Dragon both have flaws that I can't overlook. If I took things to such heights as some of you do then I'd be telling you that you're playing watered down versions of Dark Sun because you're not using 2e which the game was designed for, and well, that would just make me rather foolish. Each system is different, 2e has the original Dark Sun, Athas.org has the 3e version that tries to bring back the old days (but it's still 3e), and Dragon has the d20 Dark Sun which allows you to play in that world without anything but a few magazines, the PHB, and the DMG.
What's wrong with all three of them being just as good to those who like them? Your version isn't as good to me, mine probably isn't as good to you, etc, etc. But they all use many of the same ideas and the world is the same, no matter what alternate universe you (or I) may feel that it comes from.
What you are talking about is gamesystem mechanics. I have been intentionally avoiding arguements against the gamesystem mechanics. I've been arguing against the blatant disregard of the flavor/filler/descriptive/whatever text that Dark Sun has - the very stuff that is the basis of the Athas.org conversion, built from the materials from 2e. Paizo ignored this, decided to rewrite a TON of things, and then put it out there as if it's Dark Sun. Hense, my "Bizarro Dark Sun" term, or one of my friend's new terms "Dim Sun".
Second - please explain to me how 3e is not d20. And be specific. I'm quite curious about this, as 3e was where the Trademark "d20" was first designed by WotC. 3e is not 3.5e, but 3.5e is not all there is for the d20 System.
Third - Please explain to me how the Athas.org core document is not 3.5e. And once again, please be specific. This is quite curious to me, as the core rules document was updated to 3.5e months ago. I'm assuming that what you implied by the Athas.org document being "just 3e", and then later defining Paizo's as d20, as if it was the only one that was d20.
Although I don't like hairy dwarves, paladins, and many other obvious changes they made, I do value some of their changes. Because I was not totally into the old modules and Dark Sun books, I never really got into the whole storyline. Im glad that they made things easy by returning all the cities to having a Dragon King that could channel power to templars (ie, Azetuk having templars, etc).
There are a lot of things I like about Athas.org's conversions, also. I really like how they handled Clerics. Creating new feats seemed like a really cool change, making Clerics from even the same element drastically different from one another. I don't like how Templars were handled, however. Secular Authority should be reworked in my opinion; commanding slaves, etc, is a roleplaying thing, not a mechanical thing, and making it a limited amount of times per day seems silly.. Granting Templars bonuses to Diplomacy or Intimidate would be a better way, I would think.
Because of these problems I have with the Templar class, I plan on using Paizo's write up of Clerics, keeping things straight forward, and adding a 'Secular Authority' feat, which makes diplomacy and gather info/intimidate etc, class skills, for those Clerics that are templars.
I also like the additions that Athas.org makes to the Ranger and Rogue, as well as the Druid. The 4th level Druid ability, Resist Natures Lure, has no place on Athas -- it makes sense.
So, I think that both conversions have their good and bad points. Paizo, at least, has rekindled my thirst for Dark Sun. Coming here, lurking, reading posts.. You are all so bitter about it, and I don't entirely blame you. For all your work, you havent really received any recognition -- quite lame. But also, the bashing gets old.
Cheers
First of all, the flavor of Dark Sun is the same in every version from 2e to Dragon. The flavor is a harsh world that is more removed from LotR and that has remained constant. In each version some fluff items have changed, and that accounts for 2e all the way to Dragon as well. So if by "flavor" you mean the little quirks like some dwarves having cropped beards or some dwarves worshipping Sorcerer-Kings I have to disagree with you. That's just minor changes that don't affect the world that much at all (and in many cases some of those things are assumptions, not actual canon anyway). And, what's more, every version has them. Dragon just has ones you don't like. Why can't other people like them?
This one is where I goofed. By d20 and 3e I was talking about the same points that many others have made. So, as a reference, when I say d20 I mean right out of the box...when I say 3e I mean any and all options. The Dragon version allows you to play Athas without having to do many (if any) conversion rules. Heck, it even has rules for playing Athas without psionics so you don't even need that book. Do I like that? No, not in the least. But others might love it and that is up to them. Anyway, Dragon requires the articles, the PHB, and the DMG. Athas.org requires the PHB, the DMG, the XPH, and however many files come out from that site. Neither is bad mind you, one is just easier and quicker to get into. And not everybody has been playing around with Athas for half a dozen years or more.
This one is either me or you, or both. ;) I didn't say it wasn't 3.5...I said it wasn't d20...as defined above. So most of that is covered above. Simply put, Athas.org is for more die-hard fans who want to play with a 2e feel and Dragon is for those who are just discovering Athas and love what they see. Once more, what is wrong with both sides of the story? And what is the need to contantly insult those who play a different version?
Also, I have to ask why you didn't mention my statement about your version of Dark Sun (athas.org) being just as new and "wrong" to some people (those of us who stick with 2e, some just for the "real" Athas) as Dragon is to you? No version is bad, they're all just different.
Finally, let me just say that I understand some of you take this very personally because you feel as if the fine game designers who run athas.org have been in some way cheated. I just don't agree. Just because some people like something else better does not take anything away from the hard work the folks at Athas.org have done. I take my hat off to them, and if the Athas.org stuff is really "better" and not just "better for you" then the Dragon stuff will vanish to the sands of time without anyone insulting it to death.
Edit: I also have to add that I agree with Orbdrin Mizzrym on both of his last points. Athas.org still deserves all the credit they have earned for the work they have done, and are doing. Nobody says otherwise. And, the bashing does get old.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
I wonder how many they held back, and what percentage of the scale mail was actually complaints. Somehow, I think the ratio was a bit different than they published.
I'm fairly certain that what is being represented as the common response in scale mail is very slanted based on the editor's opinion.
I know that my e-mail/letter on #315 was never published and yet at a later time they said that they had pretty much recieved nothing but compliments on the issue.
Originally posted by vader42xx
You missed some of what I said xlorepdarkhelm and I wasn't clear in one or two areas myself, so let me try and fix both issues.
First of all, the flavor of Dark Sun is the same in every version from 2e to Dragon. The flavor is a harsh world that is more removed from LotR and that has remained constant. In each version some fluff items have changed, and that accounts for 2e all the way to Dragon as well. So if by "flavor" you mean the little quirks like some dwarves having cropped beards or some dwarves worshipping Sorcerer-Kings I have to disagree with you. That's just minor changes that don't affect the world that much at all (and in many cases some of those things are assumptions, not actual canon anyway). And, what's more, every version has them. Dragon just has ones you don't like. Why can't other people like them?
By flavor - I mean the very idea that anyone whould pretend to be an arcane spellcaster to avoid being killed which makes absolutely no sense on Athas. Dregoth no longer has his armies of Dray, but instead he has undead. The Cerulean Storm ceased to exist, Atzetul somehow became a Sorcerer-King, Druids who were once independent wanderers of the wilderness - for thousands of years decide they now need a hierarchy akin to that which Druids have in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. There's so MANY other problems, that it disgusts me. The thing that disgusts e the worst was that Paizo had the perfect chance to do something great, and really bring Dark Sun out, but instead, they dropped the ball. Even the author of the articles has stated on this very board how what was released was not what he intended.
This one is where I goofed. By d20 and 3e I was talking about the same points that many others have made. So, as a reference, when I say d20 I mean right out of the box...when I say 3e I mean any and all options. The Dragon version allows you to play Athas without having to do many (if any) conversion rules. Heck, it even has rules for playing Athas without psionics so you don't even need that book. Do I like that? No, not in the least. But others might love it and that is up to them. Anyway, Dragon requires the articles, the PHB, and the DMG. Athas.org requires the PHB, the DMG, the XPH, and however many files come out from that site. Neither is bad mind you, one is just easier and quicker to get into. And not everybody has been playing around with Athas for half a dozen years or more.
Ok.... let me get this straight - you mean D&D when you say d20, and you mean "all d20 System rules for every setting" when you say 3e? Your logic truly baffles me.
This one is either me or you, or both. ;) I didn't say it wasn't 3.5...I said it wasn't d20...as defined above. So most of that is covered above. Simply put, Athas.org is for more die-hard fans who want to play with a 2e feel and Dragon is for those who are just discovering Athas and love what they see. Once more, what is wrong with both sides of the story? And what is the need to contantly insult those who play a different version?
You've effectively redefined the term d20 to be what has been commonly referred to as D&D, and you've defined the term 3e as what has been commonly (by commonly, I mean pretty much anywhere on any forum WotC, or other publishers have) referred to as d20.
Also, I have to ask why you didn't mention my statement about your version of Dark Sun (athas.org) being just as new and "wrong" to some people (those of us who stick with 2e, some just for the "real" Athas) as Dragon is to you? No version is bad, they're all just different.
Umm... err..... Athas.org's version isn't my versin. It's the closest I've seen yet for a 3/3.5e version of Dark Sun, that keeps the feel of the world alive, draws from the 2e materials, and doesn't do insane things like using the Bards as presented in the PHB, or other "watered down" approaches. It's a shame, a real shame you feel that Paizo's is better, but I've been dealing with it more and more that some people are like that. The Paizo version divided the Dark Sun fanbase, which in and of itself, is yet another reason I detest it.
Finally, let me just say that I understand some of you take this very personally because you feel as if the fine game designers who run athas.org have been in some way cheated. I just don't agree. Just because some people like something else better does not take anything away from the hard work the folks at Athas.org have done. I take my hat off to them, and if the Athas.org stuff is really "better" and not just "better for you" then the Dragon stuff will vanish to the sands of time without anyone insulting it to death.
The "cheated" part was there was absolutely no mention of Athas.org in the article which would have been courtious. Instead, the way the Article is designed, it's as if Paizo is claiming that they have the only version - which is a bit underhanded. Just like their Mailbag trick was also cowardly.
Edit: I also have to add that I agree with Orbdrin Mizzrym on both of his last points. Athas.org still deserves all the credit they have earned for the work they have done, and are doing. Nobody says otherwise. And, the bashing does get old.
Yes, it does. And yet people keep wanting to drag it up for us. Nytcrawlr made a comment about the underhanded scale mail trick they pulled, and it's apparently set a couple others off on this idea that it's another bash on Paizo's system, which it isn't. It's a bash against the company itself for pulling an obvious dirty trick.
I don't know why they are required to advertise a product that is not their own. That's like telling Pepsi to advertise Coke since Coke had been around longer, I don't get your logic I'm afraid. But we won't agree on that topic and a flame war isn't what anybody wants so enough said for my part.
Ok, so yes, by flavor you mean all the little snippits of information that we all know contradict themselves anyway. To me flavor is something on a much larger scale. What you're talking about is "fluff" but I understand that the word makes little difference. So now that I know what we're talking about...I don't see that it makes all that much difference. They changed the timeline for Athas by 300 years. What says it has to be the same history as the Athas you know? It was simply rewritten. It's like all those "alternate history" novels, movies, etc. It's another person's take on Athas and another timeline that happens to be similar to the one you know. What's more, some people like it better, why is that bad?
Sorry my logic bothers you but let me explain. When someone released a d20 product you almost have to have the PHB and DMG to get all the little rules questions the book comes up with. Of course the d20 books reprint what is "needed" but it always comes up short. So, yes, the basic PHB and DMG are d20 because they set the standard for that system. When I say 3e I mean the PHB, the DMG and all the rules released for D&D only...not for Modern Fantasy, etc. Help somewhat?
Not from what I've seen but, again, that's not the point. I now know why you're bitter and you now know what the heck I'm talking about so I don't see the problem.
Excuse me, I've never said I liked the Dragon version better. In fact, I was very careful to not say I liked any version better because that's just not true. I don't like Athas.org or Dragon's version if you want to get right down to it. But that's not the rule set in either case. I don't like 3e so it makes it difficult for me to like any rules built for that system. Once more you totally missed what I was asking. Why is it that the "new" Dragon deserves so much insulting when the "new" (to those of us who play 2e) Athas.org does not? Just because you like it better? And Dragon has not devided the fan base. People like you have divided the fan base. Dragon gave another version so people have more choices. You make your choice and let others make the ones they wish without getting a bunch of flak for it. One more time, what's wrong with that?
And, finally, I didn't see this post as a comment about an underhanded trick. It was yet another post to bash Dragon and the work they have done. You don't like it fine. Other don't like athas.org...do they have the right to insult it time and again? And, again, I really don't think Dragon did anything wrong, underhanded, or even in the least bit unkind. They were given a project and they went with it. If anybody did anything "dirty" it was WotC. Now that I'll agree with. But all Dragon did was write up a product that they were given the rights to write. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by putting an ad for another product that will take readers away from the one they just put out? Makes no sense at all.
Anyway, I don't think there is much left to say here but if you feel the need, by all means, reply. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree. The only problem I have with this whole thing is that people who like Dragon's version come here to get help with it and they get stomped on. That's not what the boards are here for.
However, I don't think those articles were so bad. I think they probably wouldn't affect anyone already using the Athas.org rules, and they could bring new people or 2E fans back into DS.
I also think many of the rules were sufficient. I like Athas.org's, but the Dragon rules could be used instead. They are as good, or almost as good. I like the armor rules in Dragon better.
As for the terminology thing, Vader's being unclear. But to clarify one point, Athas.org doesn't require anything more to play than the Dragon stuff. Both require a rules set and world/monster info. Dragon and Dungeon are two issues with a minimal amount of this, and they won't be available forever. Athas.org has the space to fully expand DS and (really helpful) continually update its errata.
Originally posted by vader42xx
Ah, I see the problem, you really DO think Dragon magazine pulled cowardly and underhanded dirty tricks. Now I'm starting to get a sense of the reason for all this bitterness. I just happen to disagree.
I don't know why they are required to advertise a product that is not their own. That's like telling Pepsi to advertise Coke since Coke had been around longer, I don't get your logic I'm afraid. But we won't agree on that topic and a flame war isn't what anybody wants so enough said for my part.
Ok, so yes, by flavor you mean all the little snippits of information that we all know contradict themselves anyway. To me flavor is something on a much larger scale. What you're talking about is "fluff" but I understand that the word makes little difference. So now that I know what we're talking about...I don't see that it makes all that much difference. They changed the timeline for Athas by 300 years. What says it has to be the same history as the Athas you know? It was simply rewritten. It's like all those "alternate history" novels, movies, etc. It's another person's take on Athas and another timeline that happens to be similar to the one you know. What's more, some people like it better, why is that bad?
Hense my term "Bizarro Dark Sun" - it's somethng that on the surface may resemble Dark Sun somewhat, but it's rather different, it has a different history, and a different take on the world. But it's not the same thing. And umm.... flavor is the overall design above and beyond the gamesystem mechanics. What you coin as "fluff" is part of the flavor of the setting. That's akin to saying that the Bill of Rights for the US Constitution is "fluff" and by no means directly influences or is part of the US Constitution. And even with their 300 year timeline jump, which I have repeatedly said was one of the very useful and actually intelligent things they did, IT still throws so many kinks into the timeline that it's effectively a different world. You just admitted that very point, which is what I've been striving to keep clear. If it isn't the same Dark Sun, but something that loosely resembles it, then the term Bizarro Dark Sun very much fits in this situation.
Sorry my logic bothers you but let me explain. When someone released a d20 product you almost have to have the PHB and DMG to get all the little rules questions the book comes up with. Of course the d20 books reprint what is "needed" but it always comes up short. So, yes, the basic PHB and DMG are d20 because they set the standard for that system. When I say 3e I mean the PHB, the DMG and all the rules released for D&D only...not for Modern Fantasy, etc. Help somewhat?
I'm just baffled why you don't even bother to use terms that are commonly accepted, and basically had to come up with your own definitions for them. d20 System is any game that builds off of the sysem presented in the SRD (or MSRD) on WotC's site, and requires the use of the Player's Handbook in order to get one table from it (the experience & level related benefits one) - as well as any other game WotC releases that uses the same gamesystem mechanic: d20 Modern (the MSRD is based upon), Wheel of Time, Star Wars, etc. But, thee's also games released by AEG and other 3rd party companies that use the same syste, and follow the strictures & guidelines presented in the Trademark licensing for the logo "d20 System". It covers everything, and is rather well-defined by Wizards of the Coast. If you haven't seen it before, I'd suggst checking out their d20 site, and looking over the documentation there.
D&D is the game that WotC has released for their fantasy setting. It was 3e originally by them, because it's built from the ideals, mechanics, and campaign worlds present from the AD&D 2e game that TSR did, they simply dropped the word "Advanced" from it. D&D later got a revision to 3.5e, so calling all of WotC's "D&D" as 3e would be an invalid use of the term - as you are excluding 3.5e from the list, or are attempting to redefine a word to suit your purposes rather than to use what already has presented itself. D&D includes a variety of campaign settings that includes Dark Sun, despite the fact that technically, that campaign setting was developed with the apparent purpose of "justifying" the existence of many of the alternate rules from AD&D 2e. As such, Athas.org has had to (because of what WotC tells them to do) stick closer to the D&D core design than to the more broad-based, and loosely-structured "d20 System" license. So yes, Dark Sun is D&D. It also is d20. And the rules are updated for 3.5e.
Not from what I've seen but, again, that's not the point. I now know why you're bitter and you now know what the heck I'm talking about so I don't see the problem.
Even if you throw the rules of communication out the window at your earliest convienience.
Excuse me, I've never said I liked the Dragon version better. In fact, I was very careful to not say I liked any version better because that's just not true. I don't like Athas.org or Dragon's version if you want to get right down to it. But that's not the rule set in either case. I don't like 3e so it makes it difficult for me to like any rules built for that system. Once more you totally missed what I was asking. Why is it that the "new" Dragon deserves so much insulting when the "new" (to those of us who play 2e) Athas.org does not? Just because you like it better? And Dragon has not devided the fan base. People like you have divided the fan base. Dragon gave another version so people have more choices. You make your choice and let others make the ones they wish without getting a bunch of flak for it. One more time, what's wrong with that?
Well, Athas.org has been working on it for years. They have been taking ideas presented from the fans of the game, and integrating them into their rules, so as to appeal to more players, and keep the "feel" of the setting alive. Paizo had an author design it, who was a Dark Sun fan himself, and a rather impressive game designer himself, they didn't communicate with Athas.org (which is understandable, even if your comparison above is significantly flawed - WotC is in charge of the license for Dark Sun, and had to approve both Paizo and Athas.org's versions - they could have potentially helped bridge the communication between both, to help a more.... glove-like fit between the two, but I digress), then bought the article and all the rights to the article from the author. They further went and chopped up the original article, and took out many of the actual good ideas from it, and significantly watered it all down so that it "meshes" better with the rest of D&D. This watered-down Athas they designed was changed so much, that it became something completely different (once again, the term "Bizarro Dark Sun" fits).
And, finally, I didn't see this post as a comment about an underhanded trick. It was yet another post to bash Dragon and the work they have done. You don't like it fine. Other don't like athas.org...do they have the right to insult it time and again? And, again, I really don't think Dragon did anything wrong, underhanded, or even in the least bit unkind. They were given a project and they went with it. If anybody did anything "dirty" it was WotC. Now that I'll agree with. But all Dragon did was write up a product that they were given the rights to write. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot by putting an ad for another product that will take readers away from the one they just put out? Makes no sense at all.
Well, now let's see..... The article's author had already commented on this and revealed that it was not his original intended work - and that that's a fact of life in the world of magazine editing & publishing. I happen to know, personally, over 40 or more people, in RL, who - on their own accord, looked at the Dragon article and were blatantly disgusted by it. Here on these forums, the ratio between people who like the article and those who don't is close to 2:1 if not more - but those numbers are a bit skewed due to the number of Athas.org people on this forum. Other forums are of a similar bent throughout the web, if you were to check them. The comunity, which argubly is composed of the gamers who use the Campaign Setting in any version, generally dislikes the Paizo write-up - there are some like yourself who are indifferent, and a few who actually support it (who are, generally from what I've seen, people who never played Dark Sun before nor got into the setting much, assumed that the articles were the first and only conversion done to WotC's D&D (3/3.5e), or were relatively disgusted somewhat with the 2e mechanics, and thought it was a good idea what was done in the magazines. Others were those who sat there, dug through the article, and began to visualize how it worked, without having much of a frame of reference to build off of for their comparison (or even desiring one, in some cases), and thus "learned" to accept the changes and like the article. Those against the articles are generally the people who have read the novels, and tend to play Dark Sun games a lot. Many are those who enjoyed the Athas.org version, and even if it's not quite what the wanted, it's not too hard to adjust or adapt it to suit their needs. Some are, apparently like yourself, those who are determined to keep using the 2e setting, and actually dislike both, because they dislike the 3e/3.5e rules all together.
Now, I'm not saying that the numbers are stronger for those against than those for the magazine articles. I'm saying that it's sure as hell not the ratio of 1 against vs several for the article, as they allude to in their mailbag - without a proper representation of the two sides, that becomes underhanded. Plus, the article still has done more harm in that it has further divided the fans of the setting, than the good it did by drawing in new fans to it. That's rather backhanded, and helps the other settings (like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms) because the fans of Dark Sun (and Spelljammer, I might add, they got similar treatment) are divided, and many then turn more to the officially-published materials, rather than have to deal with the divisions between the other settings' people.
Anyway, I don't think there is much left to say here but if you feel the need, by all means, reply. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree. The only problem I have with this whole thing is that people who like Dragon's version come here to get help with it and they get stomped on. That's not what the boards are here for.
And I've already apologized - profusely, for my stomping on them. I've let some of my real-world problems affect how I respond to things here, and unfortunately, that's not been a very good thing. I've since been letting them slide, and go ahead with their comments/questions/whatever about the paizo write-up, and while yes, I will argue against it, I strive to point out flaws in the articles not in the people who like the articles lately. I also have just dropped the subject before. I'll agree to disagree. As it's impossible, apparently for us to see eye-to-eye, it's probably best. I personally didn't want to get into another arguement over the articles, and would like to believe that if they aren't so strongly discussed, maybe they will become forgotten. But, I do agree with Nytcrawlr about the underhanded and cowardly journalistic approaches that Paizo has seemed to develop, the Dark Sun conversion being only one of several reasons I simply won't give them any of my money.
And, for the record - as far as I'm concerne, if people don't like the Athas.org design, fune - and they are just as free to complain about it. However, my only request is that some sort of proof or evidence be used to back up their arguements, or else I [u]most assuridly[/u[ will tear their arguements to pieces and scatter them to the winds. I hopefully will restrain myself from a personal attack against the writer, but unfortuntely, human nature being what it is, this does happen from time to time.
One minor issue however, I don't feel that I threw any rules of communication out the window. I used the terms that I've seen and those that I know use. If I'm not "in the know" enough then I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean I was just tossing around random phrases. I'm using the ones all the players I know use. Sorry.
Again, I want no hard feelings. Xlorepdarkhelm, you've been nothing but helpful to me in any other post and I don't have any issues with the debate here, most especially since we've ended it in a civil way. Just my last two ceramic.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
What you are talking about is gamesystem mechanics. I have been intentionally avoiding arguements against the gamesystem mechanics. I've been arguing against the blatant disregard of the flavor/filler/descriptive/whatever text that Dark Sun has - the very stuff that is the basis of the Athas.org conversion, built from the materials from 2e. Paizo ignored this, decided to rewrite a TON of things, and then put it out there as if it's Dark Sun. Hense, my "Bizarro Dark Sun" term, or one of my friend's new terms "Dim Sun".
Same here, I think I griped about how watered down the HG was mechanically, but that's it.
Most of my arguments have been on the flavor, cause that is what matters most of all to me, mechanics can be changed.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
Yes, it does. And yet people keep wanting to drag it up for us. Nytcrawlr made a comment about the underhanded scale mail trick they pulled, and it's apparently set a couple others off on this idea that it's another bash on Paizo's system, which it isn't. It's a bash against the company itself for pulling an obvious dirty trick.
Agreed, I was not trying to spawn more bashing.
My apologies if that felt otherwise.
Perhaps it's just me but posts that turn into "name calling" for a certain rules set always seem to turn people off from even asking a question in the first place. And that's bad for everybody. Even those who do ask a question about the Dragon Dark Sun are often met with less than friendly answers.
It just seemed to me that the "barbs" were a bit thick and that Dragon was being kicked around for something that nobody here can prove. I'm just in the club of "let everybody enjoy the rules set they want and let's all enjoy the common interest."
Originally posted by vader42xx
No worries, but thanks for the comment.
Perhaps it's just me but posts that turn into "name calling" for a certain rules set always seem to turn people off from even asking a question in the first place. And that's bad for everybody. Even those who do ask a question about the Dragon Dark Sun are often met with less than friendly answers.
It just seemed to me that the "barbs" were a bit thick and that Dragon was being kicked around for something that nobody here can prove. I'm just in the club of "let everybody enjoy the rules set they want and let's all enjoy the common interest."
I know that personally I have no intention of discussing the Paizo Dark Sun here. Every post I've made or read on the topic rarely spawns anything but bitterness and attacks. Keeping that in mind, it's hard to claim this board is representative. I probably would talk about it, but don't really feel it's a good idea, all things given. I doubt I can be the only one.
Originally posted by Wasgo
I know that personally I have no intention of discussing the Paizo Dark Sun here. Every post I've made or read on the topic rarely spawns anything but bitterness and attacks. Keeping that in mind, it's hard to claim this board is representative. I probably would talk about it, but don't really feel it's a good idea, all things given. I doubt I can be the only one.
And I've made my apoligies to people for making those attacks. It wasn't you, heck - it wasn't Paizo. It's the rather screwed up position in my life right now I'm trying to deal with, and it unfortunately spilled over here. I am rather disgusted at the very weak flavor of the articles - which quite honestly, is pitiful. And it's the kind of things that they did in it which makes even the (still a good idea overall) 300 year jump rather pointless. The changes done are the kinds of things that rewrite Dark Sun so drastically, from several different points, that, as I've mentioned, makes it a completely different world - a Bizarro Dark Sun. I don't care what gamesystem you put it in - I've even toyed with the idea before with writing it into White Wolf's Storyteller system prior to the release of 3E D&D. Gamesystem mechanics come and go - but don't rewrite such a large amount of the flavor that the setting gets lost somewhere in the background. Sometimes, mechanics can possibly rewrite a part of the flavor or setting - usually if common sense is applied and it just works better for everything - like, for instance, the way every race can be any base class in 3e. This provides multitudes of options and possiblities, without really changing the flavor. But making Dwarves worship Sorcerer-Kings is a rather thinly-veiled and very weak attempt to pointlessly change Dark Sun.
However, enough about that - it's an old, dead arguement that needs to just fade away. Both sides are highly defensive on it at this point, and have been for a while. Maybe it's just best to drop it all together.
Originally posted by xlorepdarkhelm
However, enough about that - it's an old, dead arguement that needs to just fade away. Both sides are highly defensive on it at this point, and have been for a while. Maybe it's just best to drop it all together.
Ahmen.
They print one letter of disagreement, but this letter only mentions philosophical differences. There had to be letters that talked of the poor treatment of the flavor of Dark Sun, like dwarves worshipping dragon-kings and the inclusion of paladins.
In the editor's response to the first letters, he makes it seem like there are only a few of us "purists" out here in the wilderness who are grumbling and we should just be happy they even mentioned Dark Sun at all.
I have subscribed to Dragon since the early 80's and the material in the magazine has vastly deteriorated since Paizo took over, which is sad, and this poor treatment of Dark Sun, the dropping the ball so to speak, is the greatest example of it, especially when Dave Noonan comments that the Dark Sun material that was printed was not what he intended. I agree with xlorep in that it may have been better for them not to have printed anything and divide the DS community with what they did print. :sad:
Alemander
Originally posted by Alemander
The whole problem I have, besides the Dark Sun stuff they printed, is that Paizo printed letters that bash those who disagree with their treatment of Dark Sun, calling us "whiners", and gives them great praise at revitalizing Dark Sun, and yet we get slammed for commenting about those very letters.
They print one letter of disagreement, but this letter only mentions philosophical differences. There had to be letters that talked of the poor treatment of the flavor of Dark Sun, like dwarves worshipping dragon-kings and the inclusion of paladins.
In the editor's response to the first letters, he makes it seem like there are only a few of us "purists" out here in the wilderness who are grumbling and we should just be happy they even mentioned Dark Sun at all.
De'javu...
Originally posted by Nightdruid
De'javu...
;)
Originally posted by Alemander
I agree with xlorep in that it may have been better for them not to have printed anything and divide the DS community with what they did print. :sad:
Maybe. In a way, Paizo's versions of Dark Sun and Spelljammer have become each settings own equivalent of Dragonlance's 5th age (from a "purist" point of view).
Whatever the case, debating whether it should have been done or not is a moot point. It's done. Maybe it divided the fan base some, but I would venture a guess that there has already been some division.
Whatever the case, there are two variants out there and plenty of fan materials beyond, so use what works best for you.
I'VE NEVER FELT SO ALIVE!!!!!
Originally posted by Tembo-Pie
My subscription to Dragon and Dungeon just ran out ;)
I'VE NEVER FELT SO ALIVE!!!!!
Yet, not sure I'm renewing next year or not. If they wouldn't had been so shady on the letters to the editor thing, I would have let the DS thing go, but that's just too much for me.
Not like it produces all that much good stuff that I use in my campaigns that much anymore.
I haven't used anything from my magazines that I own already, so until I do, I'm not buying any more.
Makes sense to me!
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
From time to time I've used some feats and PrCs for other games and plan to use some for my DS games, so it's not a total loss for me, but still...
I gave up reading both mags about a year or two ago when I realized that there was nothing worth reading in either magazine. I still pick up the odd issue, but otherwise neither magazine has held my interest in a long, long time.
Originally posted by Nightdruid
I gave up reading both mags about a year or two ago when I realized that there was nothing worth reading in either magazine. I still pick up the odd issue, but otherwise neither magazine has held my interest in a long, long time.
Says something of the reader fanbase then I guess....
Easily amused comes to mind, heh.
Originally posted by NytCrawlr
Says something of the reader fanbase then I guess....
Easily amused comes to mind, heh.
Meh, I'm fairly easily amused. Its when I realized reading said mags was starting to be more of a chore rather than enjoyable is when I said "enough."
Originally posted by Nightdruid
Meh, I'm fairly easily amused. Its when I realized reading said mags was starting to be more of a chore rather than enjoyable is when I said "enough."
Same here, and basically quitting for the same reasons. Don't read it much and when I am hunting for something specific it's difficult to find.
Originally posted by Alemander
They print one letter of disagreement, but this letter only mentions philosophical differences. There had to be letters that talked of the poor treatment of the flavor of Dark Sun, like dwarves worshipping dragon-kings and the inclusion of paladins.
I don't mean to further the argument, and i haven't even read said magazines, but what's wrong with dwarves worshiping SM's? Aren't most of the SM's viewed as gods in their own cities? At least before half of them were killed?
Anyway, this argument is older than it seems. 1st edition DS "purists" against 2nd edition DS "renovators"; then 2nd edition against itself (if you want to talk about flavour inconsistencies take a closer look at most of 2nd ed. DS books); and then 2nd ed. DS "purists" against 3e "renovators... it gets old... my favourite? 1st edition of course... but i take what i want from each version, and our DS campaigns are probably different from eac other, as it should be. the athas.org team has done a great and commendable job, and i will take what i need from their work; and had i have access to the magazines, i would also take what i needed. the books and articles may help, but in the end it's up to you to determine the flavour of your own DS.
Thread #1: Dragon #319's take on DS 3.5
Thread #2: Dragon Magazine DARKSUN PHB
Thread #3: WTF ........Athas is destroyed!!!
And these are just the three biggest, most prominant ones I could find. There are multiple others. The first one is a very exhaustive thread.
Now, the magazines have split the fanbase even further - which was not helpful in any way. Many people try to take the best elements from Athas.org and from the magazines, however of those, the majority usually have more material from Athas.org than from the magazines. There's far more wrong than just dwarves worshiping SM's. I personally am rvolted by the magazine articles, and only have found..... maybe 5% of the material presented in them (if that) worthy of being used. A couple ideas, mainly, but none of their rules (however, once I get a copy of the defiler rules for me to review better, I might look into those.... Dunno yet, I'm rather partial to the ones from Athas.org which I think are excellent as is). I've been one of the loudest anti-mag people on the forums, but I'd rather like to see it simply fade away and be forgotten any more. IT's not worth arguing over it as much as I was, and well... my arguements were degrading the more and more I was going against it, and the longer the arguements were persisting - which was making my arguements seem weaker and weaker, with me resorting to many logical fallacies within them that I'd rather not have.
still don't understand what's wrong with dwarves worshiping SM's though...
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
I suppose you like dwelfs too?
No, he likes orclings!
I see no problem with the dwarves too. They were allowed to be templars in the original setting.
I see no problem with the dwarves too. They were allowed to be templars in the original setting.
@#$! Brother does have a point.....
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
So were elves. You don't see them running around worshipping the SKs 300 years later for no apparent reason.
Double @#$1. Brother has another point....
--Sysane, The Terror of Urik
IMO, the phrase in Wanderer's Chronicle "...there are no real gods in Athas..." is sort of a DM's only phrase. to everyday people in athas, there are gods or godlike beings (the elements, individual elements, the spirits of the land, individual spirits, and yes the SM's) which are worshipped in whatever manner they see fit. you can even have organized religion as is the case of the king of Draj. in fact, in this case, it's the religious organization that kept the religion alive even after their "god" died...
Originally posted by cosmikube
since i DON'T have the magazines could someone please explain what "SK-worshipping dwarves" means? i mean, considering that some SM's impose themselves as gods (the Oba, for example, or king Teck) is it so weird to have people worshipping them? or is it groups of dwarves whats described in the mags? and why is it so wrong?
IMO, the phrase in Wanderer's Chronicle "...there are no real gods in Athas..." is sort of a DM's only phrase. to everyday people in athas, there are gods or godlike beings (the elements, individual elements, the spirits of the land, individual spirits, and yes the SM's) which are worshipped in whatever manner they see fit. you can even have organized religion as is the case of the king of Draj. in fact, in this case, it's the religious organization that kept the religion alive even after their "god" died...
SK-worshiping Dwarves means that they basically stated the status-quo, the accepted norm, and the majority of the Dwarves (as many are in outside dwarven villages, this means many of those who are outside the Sorcerer-Kings' cities is that the Dwarves, as a people, worship Sorcerer-Kings. This is not correct. Individual Dwarves could, but you cannot use an extreme example of a small (comparitively) group of Dwarves as the basis for which you define all of them (or at least, a greater majority of them) do. Yes, Dwarves can be Templars. But there are only 2 Sorcerer-Kings who made themselves out to be gods - Lalai-Puy and Tectuktitulay. So not even the majority of Sorcerer-Kings have people worship them. And yet, the magazine makes the case that the Dwarves (as a race) worship Sorcerer-Kings. It doesn't mesh - sorry.
But by the very nature of the magazine business Paizo can only present a one-time (or limited time) presentation of a campaign setting. They cannot support what they published since they would lose the wide audience and focus on those who care about something unique (like the Dark Sun fans). What I mean by support is that they cannot run errata, revisions or have a FAQ to address questions. Something that Athas.org and WotC both do with what they put out.
IMO what Paizo (through Dragon and Dungeon) should be focusing on is things that appeal to the wider-audience. {Which they have stated is their primary goal}. And only publish drop-ins for specific campaign settings. Examples of drop-ins are prestige classes, class combos, specific 'new' classes, alternate mechanics (like their defiling system), etc. Things that can be taken and inserted into 'other' settings/campaigns but are not so intrinsically tied (or presented as that way) to a specific setting. They do have one primary exception - Forgotten Realms. That is because it is the widest used setting and unless I'm mistaken WotC wanted it that way. Greyhawk of course is the generic setting so generic rules always apply directly there.
Don't get me wrong I like a lot of what Paizo has done, including some of the Dark Sun material. One recent thing I really liked was the team pool concept which has a group of adventureres investing their skill points towards purchase of 'team' abilities that apply to the team beacuse of their familiarity with each other.