Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rogue Shadows 02-22-07, 04:40 PM	Just noticed this, that there seems to be a larger call for historical accuracy amongst Oriental Adventures campaigns or campaigners then there is amongst those who favor the more traditional European one. Standard D&D is no closer to actual Europe then OA in any edition was to actual Asia (or Japan specifically). More to the point, your typical D&D player knows more about Europe then he does of Asia and so is more likely to point out discrepencies...but the percentage of people who do so is markedly less. Why is this? I'm not complaining or anything. I'm honestly curious.
heretic888 02-22-07, 05:10 PM	The simple answer is there's not. What many of the posters on the OA forum argue for is what has been termed cultural authenticity. This has little or nothing to do with historical accuracy. This can be summed up succinctly as a reasonable degree of faithfulness to the ethos and mythos of the culture(s) in question. The problem is that what many gamers think are "Oriental" adventures or "Asian" roleplaying is actually just regular D&D with some funny-sounding names and exotic gear tacked on. The "bushido" code in the Rokugan setting, for example, pretty much assumes Western individualist values (i.e., x acton is always "honorable" and y action is always "dishonorable"). It is not "Oriental" at all (which would assume more collectivist or contextualist values). Just because you call it a samurai instead of a fighter and katana instead of a bastard sword doesn't mean you're being faithful to Asian mythos. It just means you learned a few Japanese words. Laterz.
Bullshido 02-22-07, 05:56 PM	Because people who have even limited knowledge of asian cultures think that this makes them better than other westerners. And they feel the need to 'educate' us on the matter. They also sometimes fall into the trap of 'Orientalism'(Read Edward Said's book on the subject for more information). They also seem to take pride in having knowledge that others do not seem to have. Their constant need to correct and refine other people's opinions is, in my view, just an attempt to control and obsure this secret knowledge.
heretic888 02-22-07, 06:27 PM	Because people who have even limited knowledge of asian cultures think that this makes them better than other westerners. And they feel the need to 'educate' us on the matter. They also sometimes fall into the trap of 'Orientalism'(Read Edward Said's book on the subject for more information). They also seem to take pride in having knowledge that others do not seem to have. Their constant need to correct and refine other people's opinions is, in my view, just an attempt to control and obsure this secret knowledge. And you base this conclusion on the, what, four or five days you have been a member of these forums?? Please. Spare us, troll.
Azzy 02-22-07, 06:31 PM	Because people who have even limited knowledge of asian cultures think that this makes them better than other westerners. And they feel the need to 'educate' us on the matter. They also sometimes fall into the trap of 'Orientalism'(Read Edward Said's book on the subject for more information). They also seem to take pride in having knowledge that others do not seem to have. Their constant need to correct and refine other people's opinions is, in my view, just an attempt to control and obsure this secret knowledge. Will you stop trolling? And if it was "secret knowledge" as you claim, why, then, do we seek to freely unload it whenever possible. And, BTW, trying to correct popular and common misconceptions in order to spread fact and/or cultural authenticity doesn't just stop with Asian cultures--some of us do the same with other cultures that we've studied, too. So go troll elsewhere.
Bullshido 02-22-07, 06:35 PM	Will you stop trolling? And if it was "secret knowledge" as you claim, why, then, do we seek to freely unload it whenever possible. And, BTW, trying to correct popular and common misconceptions in order to spread fact and/or cultural authenticity doesn't just stop with Asian cultures--some of us do the same with other cultures that we've studied, too. So go troll elsewhere. For the last time, I am not a troll. I was just responding to his question.
heretic888 02-22-07, 06:44 PM	For the last time, I am not a troll. I was just responding to his question. The problem is your "response" was a judgmental psychoanalysis on people that you have yet to have a meaningful conversation with. You have yet to participate in one of these supposed "historical accuracy" debates that purportedly take place on this forum, but still fill you have gleaned enough psychological data about the posters herein to make some kind of informed judgment about the basis of our beliefs and action. This is, of course, in keeping with your particular brand of trolling, as evidenced by the recent discussions revolving around the martial arts. Your emerging pattern, it seems, is to personally attack everybody that disagrees with you or does something you disapprove of. Before it was "well, you just want to believe that" and now its "well, you guys think you're better than everybody else". Go ahead, keep it up. I don't expect you to be around these parts very long.
Bullshido 02-22-07, 06:46 PM	The problem is your "response" was a judgmental psychoanalysis on people that you have yet to have a meaningful conversation with. You have yet to participate in one of these supposed "historical accuracy" debates that purportedly take place on this forum, but still fill you have gleaned enough psychological data about the posters herein to make some kind of informed judgment about the basis of our beliefs and action. This is, of course, in keeping with your particular brand of trolling, as evidenced by the recent discussions revolving around the martial arts. Your emerging pattern, it seems, is to personally attack everybody that disagrees with you or does something you disapprove of. Before it was "well, you just want to believe that" and now its "well, you guys think you're better than everybody else". Go ahead, keep it up. I don't expect you to be around these parts very long. Sorry to offend you, but that was my honest reaction to many of the posts I have seen on this board in my short time here. I would just like to point out, in my defense, that I was the target of many personal attacks on another thread here, simply because people disagreed with me.
heretic888 02-22-07, 07:17 PM	Sorry to offend you, but that was my honest reaction to many of the posts I have seen on this board in my short time here. Your so-called "honest reaction" is exactly the kind of keyboard psychoanalyzing that I have criticized others for in the past. In all honesty, such arguments are so inane that it borders on sheer absurdity. You and others like you are presuming to be so well-informed as to the knowledge, background, motivations, goals, and desires of practically dozens of people you have never met, to the point that you feel qualified to give some kind of diagnosis as to the origin of our mental states. This is, of course, completely ridiculous. And it is, as I said before, just an attempt to use indirect personal attacks to disarm the arguments of those that disagree with you. I would just like to point out, in my defense, that I was the target of many personal attacks on another thread here, simply because people disagreed with me. I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you are referring to, but you have become a target because of your conduct on these boards. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bullshido 02-22-07, 07:19 PM	Your so-called "honest reaction" is exactly the kind of keyboard psychoanalyzing that I have criticized others for in the past. In all honesty, such arguments are so inane that it borders on sheer absurdity. You and others like you are presuming to be so well-informed as to the knowledge, background, motivations, goals, and desires of practically dozens of people you have never met, to the point that you feel qualified to give some kind of diagnosis as to the origin of our mental states. This is, of course, completely ridiculous. And it is, as I said before, just an attempt to use indirect personal attacks to disarm the arguments of those that disagree with you. I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you are referring to, but you have become a target because of your conduct on these boards. Nothing more, nothing less. Seriously nothing wrong with making assumptions about people and then expressing them. There is always the possibility I am wrong. But I should never feel paralytic about my opinions because of this. I think I have become a target because I was saying things that make people here uncomfortable. I was in effect exposing bullshido and people did not like it.
Lord Gwydion 02-22-07, 10:43 PM	I, like most of the regulars here on the OA boards, value knowledge of history and of Asian cultures. And I do have a habit of correcting people who have their history wrong (compared to what I've studied--and I never claim to be 100% right about everything I've studied). I don't expect people to play historically accurate games, however. I don't want that, and I'm sure the vast majority don't either. If they did, the d20 General/Historical forum would be a lot more lively place. I think it's valuable to know the history and cultures of any setting you wish to emulate, especially if you're deviating from that history/culture. You need to know it to be able to change it yet still keep the right feel in the campaign. That's what we mean by cultural authenticity. Let's take a non-OA example, why don't we? It's not something limited to OA only. So let's say a DM wants to run a Viking campaign. What do they do? They go through the PHB, probably Frostburn, and whatever other books they have/want to use, and decide what fits the feel and what doesn't. How do they do this? By knowing the history and culture of Dark Ages and Middle Ages Scandinavia, Iceland, Russia, and the British Isles. It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% accurate. Allow armors that weren't there. Allow Half-Orcs even though there's nothing like them in Scandinavian myth. But keep the feeling of the Viking Age by having adventures that involve sea voyages for trade or plunder, exploring and settling new territory, and things like that.
Hochiu 02-23-07, 12:23 AM	Its because the book is titled Oriental Adventures. You don't see the Dungeons and Dragons material (Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual) being called something like Occidental Adventures or European Adventures. Its because the book uses a real world concept as part of its most immediate identification marker that causes people to specifically want a greater emphasis on cultural authenticity. There are just as many people who want to do a greater cultural flavor in Traditional D&D, as the core setting is mostly based off of Northern/Northwestern European myths and histories. They're just not as vocal about it for whatever reason.
Bullshido 02-23-07, 04:04 PM	I, like most of the regulars here on the OA boards, value knowledge of history and of Asian cultures. And I do have a habit of correcting people who have their history wrong (compared to what I've studied--and I never claim to be 100% right about everything I've studied). I don't expect people to play historically accurate games, however. I don't want that, and I'm sure the vast majority don't either. If they did, the d20 General/Historical forum would be a lot more lively place. I think it's valuable to know the history and cultures of any setting you wish to emulate, especially if you're deviating from that history/culture. You need to know it to be able to change it yet still keep the right feel in the campaign. That's what we mean by cultural authenticity. Let's take a non-OA example, why don't we? It's not something limited to OA only. So let's say a DM wants to run a Viking campaign. What do they do? They go through the PHB, probably Frostburn, and whatever other books they have/want to use, and decide what fits the feel and what doesn't. How do they do this? By knowing the history and culture of Dark Ages and Middle Ages Scandinavia, Iceland, Russia, and the British Isles. It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% accurate. Allow armors that weren't there. Allow Half-Orcs even though there's nothing like them in Scandinavian myth. But keep the feeling of the Viking Age by having adventures that involve sea voyages for trade or plunder, exploring and settling new territory, and things like that. I think the OP was referring to the way that people who are really into to asian culture tend to behave. My experience is very similar. They tend to correct people very often and are inflexible in their view of what Asian countries are like. Some are well informed and just rude, others have very little information and act like they know everything. Having dated a large number of women from japan and thailand myself, I have found most of their generalizations to be very untrue.
madmonk 02-23-07, 06:17 PM	Having dated a large number of women from japan and thailand myself... Who cares? I have spoken many times with my Japanese teachers, so that suddenly makes me wise in the ways of the orient... yeah right. And you show disrespect to both the English languaje and both aforementioned cultures by not using caps... and by saying that you have "dated" a large "number" of Japs/Thais. Dude, you really play D&D? Oriental Adventures? if yes, then less stick with rules, suggestions, campaign experiences, and the like.
Bullshido 02-23-07, 07:03 PM	And you show disrespect to both the English languaje and both aforementioned cultures by not using caps... and by saying that you have "dated" a large "number" of Japs/Thais. . This is an example of the sort of pickiness I was talking about. i neglect caps all the time.
Lord Gwydion 02-23-07, 08:11 PM	This is an example of the sort of pickiness I was talking about. i neglect caps all the time. That's just the internet, not the OA boards specifically. :rolleyes:
madmonk 02-23-07, 09:11 PM	Haha, I can't believe you took me for serious! Man, of course that was a sarcasm. A "prickiness" to show you what does it feel to see a completely strange commentary in a board that is not supposed to have one like it. This is not a linguistics board, is a game board :s But I suppose you are going to tell those other guys, that laugh like mad at us, what I told you... So, in short, go and find a bridge to live under.
Bullshido 02-23-07, 09:25 PM	So, in short, go and find a bridge to live under. Ah, back to calling me a troll. Not a troll. Never was troll. Never will be a troll. Just expressing my opinion.
madmonk 02-23-07, 09:35 PM	Ah, back to calling me a troll. Not a troll. Never was troll. Never will be a troll. Just expressing my opinion. Ok then, I will ask you, what do you think about historical accuracy in games? What do you consider are the best things about using historical accuracy? and what about using a bit of this and that? (as the Chinese do, there is almost never a fictional setting, it's always ancient China, always, even if it includes fantasy).
Bullshido 02-23-07, 10:08 PM	Ok then, I will ask you, what do you think about historical accuracy in games? What do you consider are the best things about using historical accuracy? and what about using a bit of this and that? (as the Chinese do, there is almost never a fictional setting, it's always ancient China, always, even if it includes fantasy). I think historical accuracy is not very useful in a D&D game. My experiences with Asian campaigns where the DM has been striving for historical accuracy have been bad. Typically they expect the players to know too much about Asian Cultures and History. Most players just want to draw ideas from Kung Fu movies and stereotypes. They do not want to earn a masters degree in Chinese or Japanese history. They also do not want to learn the basics of another language. The same goes for any setting that is modeled after a real life culture. When I play in an Arabian setting I want a mish-mash of Arabian Nights, The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad (the old movie), Bad accents, Lawrence of Arabia and every middle eastern stereotype out there. I am there to have fun. I am not there to learn about Middle Eastern culture. If I want to learn about Middle East history I will read Ibn Khaldun and A History of the Arab Peoples. Personally I find it obnoxious when gamers get insistent about asian culture. Typically they don;t know what they are talking about or are making generalizations based on what they learned in a single survey course. Which brings me back to my own experience with Asian women. While it does not make me an expert. I have known enough asian people to be wary of what many gamers have told me about women from that part of the world. The same goes for weapons or knowledge of fuedal Japan. If I want to know about any of these things I will contact an expert on Japanese history or the like. So to answer your question, I do not strive at all for historical accuracy in my games. I model everything after what players have seen, and come to expect, from movies or comics. That is why they are usually at the table. I think historical accuracy is a bad thing, and detracts from good storytelling. Don't get me wrong, I love history (thats what I studied in college) i just dont think it has much of a place at the gaming table.
madmonk 02-23-07, 10:47 PM	You see? that was better. Ok, I agree with some of your points, however... there are quite many experts on that here in the boards, and remember that many gamers are younger and don't have acces to material about the culture. So they come here and ask the guys here. For example, I run a fantasy campaign with fantasy elements, and my orient is based on a mish-mash of oriental cultures, with a few here and there that are not oriental. For example, while there is an emperor, shoguns and mandarins, there is also a monastery that speciallizes in non magical transportation of goods... by running! that is taken from aztec runners that used to bring fresh fish each morning from Veracruz to Teotihuacan, which is FAR! If you want to change your reputation, wether it is deserved or not, you have to understand that most people don't care about only real world stuff, there are plenty of places to talk about that. For example, your thread about ki and dim mak, its not important for a gamer's game to believe or not, what is important is to know if it exist in his games or not. Dim mak and ki are very real in my games. Now, HOW do you handle ki in your games is a great topic for a board like this. An there, you could share your knowledge about legends of ki masters, whether you believe in them or not, only using them for inspiration. After reading your last post, I can SEE that you are no troll, but please, try to understand the kind of topics we want to discuss and not rant about. Finally, I would recommend you to not post in only this forum, is not as lively as the psionic boards for example, so if you want to talk about non-game related stuff, try the character boards (not the optimization, the other one, I forgot the name), or simply another forum. My two coppers, of course.
heretic888 02-23-07, 10:55 PM	There is a certain degree of bemused irony that a poster ranting about the non-existance of "chi" and "dim mak" then proceeds to complain about "historical accuracy". Kettle? Pot? Black?
ted_the_mindflayer 02-24-07, 12:03 PM	There is a certain degree of bemused irony that a poster ranting about the non-existance of "chi" and "dim mak" then proceeds to complain about "historical accuracy". Kettle? Pot? Black? Heretic usually your opinons are sound and just but Bullshido is 100% in is statments. You seem to think he is personally attacking you he is not. Furthermore saying "Kettle? Pot? Black?" is trolling in of itself as well is saying because he has a low start date his opinon is invaldated. This is the frist time people have questioned the extent of some posters obtusivness with asian history vs Samurai showdown. My point is if you want to play Rokugan with western busido with a kick ass attitude and all of the game want the same do it. If your gaming group does't like that style you can play a more culturally accurate game. Bullshido has his gaming style as do you both are correct if all parties agree.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-24-07, 12:28 PM	And you base this conclusion on the, what, four or five days you have been a member of these forums?? Please. Spare us, troll. He's not a troll, he's making a valid point. This is one of the most hostile forums on the WotC boards for exactly the reasons Bullshido listed. He might have based his assumption on a few days. I've been here since the OA board was created. You guys are kumquatting hostile when someone posts something that disagrees with your (collective "your", not you specifically) opinions.
madmonk 02-24-07, 12:36 PM	He's not a troll, he's making a valid point. This is one of the most hostile forums on the WotC boards for exactly the reasons Bullshido listed. He might have based his assumption on a few days. I've been here since the OA board was created. You guys are kumquatting hostile when someone posts something that disagrees with your (collective "your", not you specifically) opinions. Sometimes, but anyway... Some of the posts bullshido has made were off-topic, and have been closed by WizO's, so it is not that hi is really a troll, but he didn't get the theme of the board. As simply as that. But his last post really was better, and that in my mind is evidence that he is not a troll. But others can disagree.
Hochiu 02-24-07, 12:48 PM	http://www.northlandz.com/pix/derail.jpg
Bullshido 02-24-07, 03:25 PM	Sometimes, but anyway... Some of the posts bullshido has made were off-topic, and have been closed by WizO's, so it is not that hi is really a troll, but he didn't get the theme of the board. As simply as that. But his last post really was better, and that in my mind is evidence that he is not a troll. But others can disagree. Honestly I did not understand the limits of these boards. That is why I re-opened the Ki and Aliveness thread in the Rec Room. I realize that is a more appropriate place for those topics. But from my short time on this board, and my long time gaming, I think the issue of historical accuracy (and the attitudes some people have about it) is very related to the game and should be discussed. I also think it is appropriate to question the expertise of strangers on a web site. I am sure there may be a few people here who have PhDs in Asian History, but my guess is that most of the people who make claims about asian history or culture on this thread have the same limited experiences that most of us have.
spyone 02-24-07, 06:58 PM	Just noticed this, that there seems to be a larger call for historical accuracy amongst Oriental Adventures campaigns or campaigners then there is amongst those who favor the more traditional European one. Standard D&D is no closer to actual Europe then OA in any edition was to actual Asia (or Japan specifically). More to the point, your typical D&D player knows more about Europe then he does of Asia and so is more likely to point out discrepencies...but the percentage of people who do so is markedly less. Why is this? I'm not complaining or anything. I'm honestly curious. I basicly agree with heretic888 that the issue isn't historical accuracy, it's cultural accuracy. The fact is, "Standard D&D" is closer to actual europe than a lot of what appears in OA is to anything that ever existed in Asia. Granted, standard D&D is very different from real historical Europe, but the basic method for constructing a D&D world is: take medeval europe, or the medeval europe of modern myth, add non-human races and plentiful magic. Paladins are based off the knightly orders of the Catholic church. Druids are based on christian-era myths about what the Celts were like. And clerics are based off the various warrior-priests of Catholic legend, many of whom were Sainted. And the races of D&D were not just selected at random, or for "coolness". At least, not until it had been cooking for several decades. :) Dwarves come up again and again in medeval legends. Dwarves are mentioned in Beowulf. The Elves of D&D are the elves of Germanic legend, I'm told. Less malevolent than those of Nordic legend, but not small like gnomes as the ones of English legend were. AFAIK halflings and Orcs just came from Tolken, but at least that's a major work from the culture involved. And I suppose there is also a presumption of falsehood. That is, it is fairly well known that Japan cut itself off from the rest of the world until after the US Civil War, and China was geographicly and culturally isolated from Europe until basicly the same period, so folks know that Japan and China are very different from "the West" and so doubt the ability of a Westerner to accurately portray their culture, even when filtered through myth. This, I think, is the source of that dissatisfied feeling when told to just use the stats for a given european weapon and use the asian name for it: if Asia is so exoticly different, why should their weapons be mechanically the same? (The answer to that is, of course, that the rules system is too granular to reflect the differences, just as it doesn't reflect the differences between the dozens of european blade styles that all get lumped into "long sword". But, an appretiation for the real differences in world view that exist, and the differences in mythology, produce an expectation that there will need to be some real changes to the mechanics to make a "Western" game fit an "Oriental" setting. The best example I have for this came from watching Record of Lodoss War. Now, I was watching a dubbed translation, so some information was lost, but since the show is basicly about a D&D adventuring party, I should have a good handle on what I'm watching. One of the things my brother and our frineds and I did while watching was play "guess that character class". And it was easy: the characters were iconic. Except, ... Except that when it came time to cast spells, we all agreed that the Magic Users sounded more like Clerics. They were not personally commanding powerful forces, they were asking spirits for help. Nothing like Gandalf's "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!", more like "Spirits of the Earth, do not let him pass this place!" Well, a few years on I learn a little more about Japan, and it confirms much of what I had thought: they don't seem to have a concept to match the western wizard, and really their idea of magic is married to religion. Thus, if I were creating a Japanese setting for the D&D rules, I'd probably make all the spellcasters use Divine magic, and offer different spell lists depending on whether the caster is Buddhist, Taoist, or Shinto. But I only half understand these things. I recognize that I could be WAY wrong, since I hardly know anything about Japan. And what I know about China largely amounts to "it's not like Japan". And that Mulan was apparently not total BS, and actually did a fair job of reflecting Chinese myth. (What's wrong with Disney these days? It used to be, if there was anyone you could count on to totally mangle a culture in their attempts to sell it to the american public, ... :) ) So, while Rokugan has a number of interesting things going for it as a campaign world, the fact that it represents neither China nor Japan, and that it does not feature any of the "traditional" nonhumans of those cultures, but instead features at least one that apparently was just "made up", .... well, it rankles for some people. Oddlly enough, when I decided that I wanted to do an asian setting to complement the "europe" of my campaign world, I thought a lot about what I wanted to put over there, and as I started thinking "Something like China and Japan fused together", I found myself drawn to Rokugan more and more. It's not exactly what I want, but it's closer than the real Japan is to what I want, and apparently closer than real China too.
Sudnji_cas 02-24-07, 07:56 PM	I will drop the troll-hunt stuff now, seeing that you are not a bridge-dweller. Now i can't make any fire and acid puns
Ranger REG 02-24-07, 08:36 PM	So, while Rokugan has a number of interesting things going for it as a campaign world, the fact that it represents neither China nor Japan, and that it does not feature any of the "traditional" nonhumans of those cultures, but instead features at least one that apparently was just "made up", .... well, it rankles for some people. Oddlly enough, when I decided that I wanted to do an asian setting to complement the "europe" of my campaign world, I thought a lot about what I wanted to put over there, and as I started thinking "Something like China and Japan fused together", I found myself drawn to Rokugan more and more. It's not exactly what I want, but it's closer than the real Japan is to what I want, and apparently closer than real China too. :uh-huh: Why should you make an asian setting more accomodating to the "europe" of your campaign world? Shouldn't your "europe" accomodate the asian setting? -- ain't gonna accomodate to Westerners. :noway:
Azzy 02-24-07, 09:35 PM	Well, a few years on I learn a little more about Japan, and it confirms much of what I had thought: they don't seem to have a concept to match the western wizard, and really their idea of magic is married to religion. I'd like to point out (and, look Bullshido--I'm nitpicking on a wholely non-Asian front--I told you it had nothing to do with Asian topics) that in the Western world--until modern times--the concept of magic is always married to religion (be it Judeo-Christian or of some pagan derivation). Even "made-up" (as opposed to traditional) magical arts like Dee's Enochian magic is based on the Judeo-Christan concepts. This is why D&D's "arcane magic" (even in previous editions when the arcane/divine thing was merely inferred) has always rubbed me the wrong way--it feels completely alien to any culture I've ever studied.
Azzy 02-24-07, 09:43 PM	:uh-huh: Why should you make an asian setting more accomodating to the "europe" of your campaign world? Shouldn't your "europe" accomodate the asian setting? -- ain't gonna accomodate to Westerners. :noway: I say find a middle ground. East, West, North, South--let everybody accommodate the illithid. With their brains. Served fresh.
heretic888 02-24-07, 10:34 PM	He's not a troll, he's making a valid point. This is one of the most hostile forums on the WotC boards for exactly the reasons Bullshido listed. He might have based his assumption on a few days. I've been here since the OA board was created. You guys are kumquatting hostile when someone posts something that disagrees with your (collective "your", not you specifically) opinions. I can't comment upon the activities of this forum before I became an active member, as I was not around then. I can comment on what I have seen since becoming a regular here, however. To put it succinctly, this perception of hostility is due almost entirely to non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos and telling us all what, say, the samurai were "really" like and what Asian history "really" is. A newcomer trots by, makes some assertion about Asian culture, and when corrected on it gets all uppity about how "rude" everyone is being and how "hung up" we are on Asian history. I seem to recall the last of such discussions involving the existence of "Korean ninja". One poster just couldn't cope with the fact that they didn't exist and, after harping on the topic for several pages, then turns around and accuses me of being a historical purist. Yeah, right. I challenge you to find a single thread within the past two years where a regular here brings up the subject of historical acurracy. This debate is always, without exception, begun by a know-it-all newcomer. I know it, you know it, we know it. I suppose some of you must think us regulars a real bunch of morons or have some kind of memory disorder. We know what's been going on in this place the past few years and we know who starts these train wrecks. It ain't me and it ain't Lord Gwydion and it ain't narakugami and it ain't Hochiu and it ain't Ranger REG. Don't **** on my head and tell me its raining....
Bullshido 02-24-07, 10:41 PM	I can't comment upon the activities of this forum before I became an active member, as I was not around then. I can comment on what I have seen since becoming a regular here, however. To put it succinctly, this perception of hostility is due almost entirely to non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos and telling us all what, say, the samurai were "really" like and what Asian history "really" is. A newcomer trots by, makes some assertion about Asian culture, and when corrected on it gets all uppity about how "rude" everyone is being and how "hung up" we are on Asian history. I seem to recall the last of such discussions involving the existence of "Korean ninja". One poster just couldn't cope with the fact that they didn't exist and, after harping on the topic for several pages, then turns around and accuses me of being a historical purist. Yeah, right. I challenge you to find a single thread within the past two years where a regular here brings up the subject of historical acurracy. This debate is always, without exception, begun by a know-it-all newcomer. I know it, you know it, we know it. I suppose some of you must think us regulars a real bunch of morons or have some kind of memory disorder. We know what's been going on in this place the past few years and we know who starts these train wrecks. It ain't me and it ain't Lord Gwydion and it ain't narakugami and it ain't Hochiu and it ain't Ranger REG. Don't **** on my head and tell me its raining.... It may often be the newcomers who make claims about asian history that set everyone off, but what people are being critical of is the tone of your responses when you disagree with someone's interpretation of the history. I don't know any of you from Adam, so I am not eager to get my facts about Asian culture from this forum.
heretic888 02-24-07, 10:48 PM	It may often be the newcomers who make claims about asian history that set everyone off, but what people are being critical of is the tone of your responses when you disagree with someone's interpretation of the history. The problem is that things like "tone" are completely subjective, unfalsifiable, and undemonstrable. You might as well be talking about my "aura" or something like that. This is the real crux of the issue here. Nobody can actually point to things that anybody has said or any concrete examples of forum history here. Its all bunch of self-validating "feelings" and "tones" and other subjective non-sequiters. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the guy getting claimed about.
Bullshido 02-24-07, 10:51 PM	This is the real crux of the issue here. Nobody can actually point to things that anybody has said or any concrete examples of forum history here. Its all bunch of self-validating "feelings" and "tones" and other subjective non-sequiters. . It is possible to read tone from text. For instance hostility is a very common tone on this thread. But, if people are going to correct others on the history of asian culture, they should at least site their sources so we know where they are getting their information from.
heretic888 02-24-07, 11:04 PM	It is possible to read tone from text. Yes, but that still involves appealing to the text itself --- not to a set of self-validating, unfalsifiable "intuitions" and "feelings". If we don't appeal to the text, who is to say your unfalsifiable intuition of "tone" is better than my unfalsifiable intuition of "tone?? It becomes nothing more than a round robbin of just-so and I-believe statements, full of fury and signifying nothing. And, at the end of the day, that is the only "evidence" in support of positions like Count Arioch's. Color me unimpressed. But, if people are going to correct others on the history of asian culture, they should at least site their sources so we know where they are getting their information from. I can't speak for anybody else, but I try to cite my sources whenever possible. Laterz.
Azzy 02-24-07, 11:54 PM	full of fury and signifying nothing. Okay, MacBeth.... ;)
Lord Gwydion 02-25-07, 12:33 AM	I don't know any of you from Adam, so I am not eager to get my facts about Asian culture from this forum. Not to sound snide or elitist, but none of us regulars know you from Adam either. So why should we be eager to get facts about the non-existence of ki from you? :confused: What you are saying here is that it takes time to get to know someone, and build up respect for what they have to say. Once that respect is there, then it's easier to take people at their word. The regulars here (those pointed out by Heretic888 and a few others like Azzy and MadMonk) and semi-regulars have been around here long enough that we know who's studied what, who likes what influences in their games, etc. Since we have that respect for each other, we tend to take each other at our word, rather than having to write bibliographies for every post. When asked to site our sources, though, we usually do. And at least as far as me personally, I try not to "correct" people's fantasy ideas with history. If they present something as being historical when it isn't, I'll likely chime in and say that I think that is not historical, but that's just because I'm a teacher. I try not to say people can't use non-historical ideas in games, I just want them to know that said idea, while fine to use in a fantasy game, is ahistorical. Problems arise when people who post those ideas interpret what I say as "that idea sucks" when I mean it as "that's fine, but just so you know..."
Ranger REG 02-25-07, 01:10 AM	I say find a middle ground. East, West, North, South--let everybody accommodate the illithid. With their brains. Served fresh. Sighs. :uh-huh: You and your fetish for groping tentacles. Mh-mh-mh. :nonono:
spyone 02-25-07, 10:04 AM	:uh-huh: Why should you make an asian setting more accomodating to the "europe" of your campaign world? Shouldn't your "europe" accomodate the asian setting? -- ain't gonna accomodate to Westerners. :noway: I said "compliment", not "accomodate". Those are, like, two different words, you know? :) You can check dictionary.com if you doubt me. :) What I meant was, my campaign world already contains a location and cultures that crudely mimic europe, and when I was looking at the map I realized there really ought to be something over in the "asia" area, too. If for no other reason, to serve as the point-of-origin for caravans on the silk road. :)
spyone 02-25-07, 10:30 AM	Heretic, I agree that "tone" can be subjective. But, as an example, your second post here (this thread) was to be dismissive of everything Bullshido said, then call him a troll. Do you still wonder why there's a reputation for hostility? And I suspect that if you are honest with yourself, you were responding not to the facts and opinions in his post, but to the perception that it was meant with hostility; you were reacting to its "tone". Yet you later complain about the very thing he was complaining about: underinformed know-it-alls who can't stand to be corrected. And I'm apparently not alone in thinking that most of your posts in this thread have seemed hostile, as if you bristled at the very suggestion that you have ever been hostile to anybody. Don't **** on my head and tell me it's my fault for percieving what is happening as me getting wet.
spyone 02-25-07, 10:51 AM	Because people who have even limited knowledge of asian cultures think that this makes them better than other westerners. And they feel the need to 'educate' us on the matter. Actually, I think this is a fault with geeks of all flavors, and due to the overlap between geeks and gamers, there are a lot of gamers with it. Basicly, you studied up on a facet of history that really interested you, and then you become attached to the notion that you are the local "expert". I am reminded, in particular, of the What's New with Phil and Dixe cartoon that came in the Book of Erotic Fantasy. As part of the setup, it shows the typical gamer geek pontificating to his group each week, be it about what weapons the Romans used, or when certain weapons of the 17 and 1800s were introduced, and even picking apart the realism of Monopoly. :) And since European History is sort of taught in public schools, to be the local "expert" you have to pick some small bit to be the expert on. Like Holland, or Charlemagne. But with asia being comparatively unknown, you don't have to know much to become the local expert. So some guy who's seen half the episodes of Naruto has decided he's the local expert on China. The problem comes when being the expert becomes more important to him than people having fun. In fact, this doesn't just happen to "geeks". Most kids go through this phase, too. The familiar scene of one kid who knows the rules to the game dictating to the other kids how they are "supposed" to play. They dig the power. But this has to be balanced with a realization that if the other kids are having fun (and they aren't playing with anyone who expects them to be playing with the rules as written), then they aren't hurting anyone by playing "wrong", and you should probably leave them alone. That there is a difference between offering to help and demanding to be made dictator. That said, my general experience with people who actually are, in some way, expert on some aspect of asian history or culture, is that they do come in to be helpful, not dictatorial. They tend to embrace the idea of, "What you've proposed isn't really historically acurate. If being historically accurate is somethign that's important to you, I would be glad to help. But, assuming you don't care about that, here's some more neat ideas that aren't historically accurate." So, in conclusion, I guess my answer to the original post is that knowledge of asia is more limited than knowledge of europe, making it easier for some ill-informed dude to decide they are "the expert" and try to set up dictatorial control. But it happens everywhere.
Hochiu 02-25-07, 12:56 PM	The history taught in high schools is one thing: A travesty.
Bullshido 02-25-07, 01:39 PM	The history taught in high schools is one thing: A travesty. How so? I think the Highschool history courses in my state are ok. I guess it depends what your expectations are.
madmonk 02-25-07, 02:11 PM	Somebody stops the train :s Seriously this thread is becoming more and more strange...
Sudnji_cas 02-25-07, 02:21 PM	Yeah it doesn't make sense anymore.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-25-07, 02:58 PM	:uh-huh: Why should you make an asian setting more accomodating to the "europe" of your campaign world? Shouldn't your "europe" accomodate the asian setting? -- ain't gonna accomodate to Westerners. :noway: Why does anything have to accomadate anything else?
Azzy 02-25-07, 04:02 PM	Sighs. :uh-huh: You and your fetish for groping tentacles. Mh-mh-mh. :nonono: Blame Japan (Canada needs a break, anyway), not me. :D
Azzy 02-25-07, 04:09 PM	How so? I think the Highschool history courses in my state are ok. I guess it depends what your expectations are. I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida the history books are riddled with inaccuracies, and half-truths that could only be written by those with only a partial understanding of the past, etc.. That's why my gifted history/social studies teachers used college-level books to teach the class instead to the books normally proscribed by the school. Aside from a handful of decent teachers, on the whole I learned more on my own from voracious reading than I did at school in any subject past math and grammar. Go Florida education system!!!! No, I'm not bitter. :D
Bullshido 02-25-07, 04:15 PM	I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida the history books are riddled with inaccuracies, and half-truths that could only be written by those with only a partial understanding of the past, etc.. That's why my gifted history/social studies teachers used college-level books to teach the class instead to the books normally proscribed by the school. Aside from a handful of decent teachers, on the whole I learned more on my own from voracious reading than I did at school in any subject past math and grammar. Go Florida education system!!!! No, I'm not bitter. :D I studied history in College and I think the aim of college level history and high school history is different. In College you encounter more radical interpretations of the past (which I dont think is appropriate for the highschool level). In Highschool you are just getting the most basic and least controversial reading of the past. Sometimes at the college level you encounter the opposite extreme (where interpretations sometimes are too radical and not checked by a rigorous use of research). What half-truths and inaccuracies have you encountered?
Azzy 02-25-07, 04:45 PM	I studied history in College and I think the aim of college level history and high school history is different. In College you encounter more radical interpretations of the past (which I dont think is appropriate for the highschool level). In Highschool you are just getting the most basic and least controversial reading of the past. Sometimes at the college level you encounter the opposite extreme (where interpretations sometimes are too radical and not checked by a rigorous use of research). What half-truths and inaccuracies have you encountered? It's been well over a decade, so I couldn't give you exact examples. But a lot of it was simple errors or questionable choices of details concerning the Ancient and Classical civilizations (topics that I was delving into independently at the time--cos I loves me some of that shiznazz)--so I don't think that any of the issues you bought up (concerning controversy, conservative versus radical interpretation, and what not) are applicable--just lack of quality, fact-checking and presentation. And, believe me--I readily understand that high school level history is supposed to be a vast abridgment, but when they roll out the details, they should at least ensure that those details are accurate and relevant for a basic understanding of the topic.
Bullshido 02-25-07, 04:58 PM	It's been well over a decade, so I couldn't give you exact examples. But a lot of it was simple errors or questionable choices of details concerning the Ancient and Classical civilizations (topics that I was delving into independently at the time--cos I loves me some of that shiznazz)--so I don't think that any of the issues you bought up (concerning controversy, conservative versus radical interpretation, and what not) are applicable--just lack of quality, fact-checking and presentation. And, believe me--I readily understand that high school level history is supposed to be a vast abridgment, but when they roll out the details, they should at least ensure that those details are accurate and relevant for a basic understanding of the topic. I am sure there are more errors in Highschool text books, but it is most likely a result of things being out of date. I have heard that the process for developing and selecting books for that level is also a little flawed (though I dont know much about it). Depending on what sources you went to for your information it is possible that the highschool books were correct and yours were flawed. Anything put out by a University Press is usually reliable. And Oxford histories are really great if you want to know what the consensus of historians.
GEEKAZOID 02-25-07, 06:40 PM	Its because the book is titled Oriental Adventures... Its because the book uses a real world concept as part of its most immediate identification marker that causes people to specifically want a greater emphasis on cultural authenticity.Now THAT is a well stated answer, logical, to the point and no condescension. This makes you wonder if there is another name the setting should be known by. But I can't think of any generalized term which one who wasn't familiar with the game could know that would instantly indicate a culture based on oriental themes and excluded western themes. Any suggestions?
Hochiu 02-25-07, 07:09 PM	I'd like to point out, in context, that Rokugan , Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, et. al don't have nearly as many problems with people trying to present it in an authentic manner. It could be because people understand they're fantastic settings and not necessarily derivative from real world culture (although its generally implied that they are heavily influenced by some romanticised and expanded theme from our world). One of the ways I can see to alleviate the problems with people wanting stricter accuracy would be to present seperate instances of campaign settings based around themes. Rokugan is heavily Japanese inspired, regardless of the accuracy present in its pages. Granted, its only ONE person's (groups) idea of a fantastic Japanese-dominated culture, but as I said, you don't see people really arguing about historical authenticity. A second thing I can think of would be creating a book with all crunch and no fluff, just sheer mechanics and suggestions on how you could use them in an Asian inspired world, leaving it up to the GMs to do the research necessary to portray the world as reslitically as they wanted. The book could offer different variants of classes in order to fulfill the roles required. Example: the samurai (or bushi, if you desperately wanted samurai to be a status in society) class could be presented as the one from the current OA book, but another class could be presented as well for an alternate application, as well as notes on how to either retrofit current classes to get the kind of feel you want. The problem with Oriental Adventures is that its really Rokugan-lite with a few extra non-japanese classes and monsters thrown in despite the fact they're not in Rokugan proper, presented by Wizards of the Coast. Its not "Oriental Adventures" anymore than Greyhawk is the Historical Presentation of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlegmane or whatever. Im a historian, as well as an anthropologist. I'm trained to be historically minded and culturally adept and I do try to insert a number of my teachings into my worlds in order for them to make more sense to me. However, its very near to impossible to get a bunch of people to sit down and try to figure out what should be represented as historically sound in a fantasy game and I don't think there's a major need for it a lot of the time. I don't try to do it becuase I'll drive myself insane as I'm an inherent perfectionist. You also have to realize that the OA forum is a fairly small, isolated community and we only have a few dozen active members. Which means we clash a lot more than other forums and boards on other subjects.
Bullshido 02-25-07, 07:21 PM	I make no attempts at historical or cultural accuracy in my games. The reason is that is not what my players want. When I have tried to make things more accurate, the players have not liked it. I suppose if you have a group that is really into asian culture, it might work well, but if your group is like mine then they probably just want to play a game that is chock full of 'Orientalism'. In my asian setting I drew form martial arts movies and old stereotypes to create the cultures.
GEEKAZOID 02-25-07, 08:11 PM	The problem with Oriental Adventures is that its really Rokugan-lite with a few extra non-japanese classes and monsters thrown in despite the fact they're not in Rokugan proper, presented by Wizards of the Coast. Its not "Oriental Adventures" anymore than Greyhawk is the Historical Presentation of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlegmane or whatever. I see. So it seems that a solution to the problem as you see it is to publish a book titled Oriental Adventures that has a new setting all-inclusive enough to earn the generalization of Oriental. I would buy this in a heartbeat.
Hochiu 02-25-07, 11:34 PM	Like I said, basically, a fluff-less book, just a core rulebook of a similar level to how the 3.0/3.5 Players Handbook was presented. It may have used what was developed through the Greyhawk suppliments as a base, but it's fairly non-specific and gives an independent DM to use it in a variety of settings, both homebrew and published. To me, the whole feel of the OA book kind of doesn't do that. Its "this is what we want you to use the OA material with and not really expand on the OTHER stuff." Its a major reason why I'm pushing for the OA SRD. The SRD they remove any and all fluff from the crunch, even going so far as to rename spells by removing names attributed to a campaign world. Once we have an OA SRD, I think you'll see a greater proliferation of Asian-inspired settings advocating a myriad of culturally based, as well as culturally-neutral settings.
Ranger REG 02-26-07, 02:27 AM	To me, the whole feel of the OA book kind of doesn't do that. Its "this is what we want you to use the OA material with and not really expand on the OTHER stuff." Its a major reason why I'm pushing for the OA SRD. The SRD they remove any and all fluff from the crunch, even going so far as to rename spells by removing names attributed to a campaign world. Once we have an OA SRD, I think you'll see a greater proliferation of Asian-inspired settings advocating a myriad of culturally based, as well as culturally-neutral settings. Isn't that a bit contradictory? On one hand, you say the OA book doesn't cut it. Yet on the other hand, you want those material released as SRD. Why be so dependent on those specific material (assuming they become OGC)? In fact, I don't understand why there aren't more publishers making oriental-flavored games using just the SRD? Because what? The SRD feels too Eurocentric? Isn't that like saying Linux is too Swedish (correct me if I'm wrong on the creator's origin/nationality)? They're game data.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-26-07, 07:36 AM	To put it succinctly, this perception of hostility is due almost entirely to non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos <snip> Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly. That is exactly the attitude I am talking about. If someone comes in and has a differing opinion of asian culture, people on this board get all hostile. It's not "someone came in who didn't have my history background so I helped him", it's "non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos" It seems to me that attitude is what the issue is, not the newcomers.
heretic888 02-26-07, 08:02 AM	Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly. That is exactly the attitude I am talking about. If someone comes in and has a differing opinion of asian culture, people on this board get all hostile. It's not "someone came in who didn't have my history background so I helped him", it's "non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos" so you flame them. That particular attitude is PART OF THE PROBLEM, heretic. Once again, I am going to reiterate that some of you must think we're either morons or have some kind of memory disorder. Or perhaps you just like to talk out your posterior to reinforce some fantasy world you have erected within your own minds. Either way, it doesn't matter much. Sorry, kids, this has absolutely nothing to do with having "a differing opinion of [A]sian culture" --- which in itself is an intellectually dishonest Strawman Argment because the regulars here are in no way, shape, or form unanimous on the subject of "[A]sian culture" --- but it does have to do with newcomers getting indignant and self-righteous because their omniscient ego has been promptly burst. And I notice, of course, that nobody has stepped up to plate to the challenge I issued on the first page of this thread. Where is a single thread where a regular here begins shoving "historical accuracy" down someone's throat?? Where is a single concrete example of anything that has been accused of here? I know some of you are proficient at making vague accusations without a shred of evidence to support them but, once again, we all know where the Burden of Proof lies here. Of course, I know no such evidence is going to be forthcoming because, contrary to apparent popular opinion, my memory is working just fine. I know what has actually transpired here over the past few years and it doesn't conform to the fantasy world that Count Arioch and others have erected. Please, spare me.
Bullshido 02-26-07, 09:04 AM	Again, Heretic your postings are only supporting Antioch's claims. Are you reading what you type? I can feel the hostility.
heretic888 02-26-07, 09:36 AM	Again, Heretic your postings are only supporting Antioch's claims. Are you reading what you type? I can feel the hostility. Hostility?? Yeah, probably. But, to be fair, I'm one of the guys being accused of something I never did (specifically, shoving "historical accuracy" down others' throats). The real crux of the issue here is that there is a certain segment of the online population here that can't stand being wrong and perceives all corrections of their positions as a personal slight. Like I said before, its all about certain people wearing ego on their sleeves. Trust me, that's exactly going on here. I recall the last time something like this happened. Someone asked if there were any Korean "ninja", which I replied with a casual "nope". When asked for proof of my assertion, I simply pointed out one cannot prove a negative and that the proof is in the lack of evidence for their existence. I was then accused of being "arrogant" and imposing "historical accuracy". This is a common script around these parts. We occasionally get half-cocked fanboys and pseudo-"experts" that are so convinced they know something, but really need to get their own ducks in a row. If you want some easily accessible evidence for this trend, look at the current Japanese sword thread with the new poster adamantly convinced the katana is the bestest sword ever made. This is, unfortunately, typical when it comes to Asian subject matter. As for me, I couldn't give two flips about any "historical accuracy" in your own games. I've been saying for at least two years now, play however you want. Its your game. I occassionally post links to articles from people like Turnbull or Friday to spark discussions, but I make no ultimatums in those threads. They are simply resources for people to use at their own discretion. In reality, the real culprits of this supposed "call for historical accuracy" are the fanboys and wannabe experts that don't even know what it is in the first place. Laterz.
Bullshido 02-26-07, 10:30 AM	I have no problem with you providing information to people. However, I think (if this thread is any indication) that your selection of words is what gets people angry. Calling people "pseudo-experts" and "fanboys" is going to rub some the wrong way. I was not here for Korean Ninja posting, but perhaps it is your approach to correcting people. I took a look at the Japanese sword thread. Your advice seemed sound to me. But (I didn't look at every single post by the OP so I could be missing something) I think part of the issue is that there is an automatic need to correct someone on historical grounds. From the OP it looked like he was just making stats for a cool asian setting based on films and comics. No need to turn it into a historical debate on the quality of the katana. To be fair, there seemed to be a troll on the thread promoting the superiority of asian weapons.
ted_the_mindflayer 02-26-07, 12:50 PM	Ok having reviewed many threads where debate insues in this OA board i find a common thread. (not unlike the various CSIs with there tasty, tasty brains) I think everyone comes to conflict when real world (or history) disrupts the fantasy of D&D. It is true that Heretic doesn't shove history down throats (hard to do that over a computer anyhow) also others are guilty for making me go through his various "If Ki is real prove it!" despite the fact that on this forum, it is real, you can use it to draw a weapon quickly and drop hard foes, you can use it to go into a trance to increase your combat prowless. Indeed you can do all of these things and quite easily you don't have to study for years mearly kill a few dozen foes. If you don't agree with the reality i just stated then sit back and consider why you are posting in a D&D forum. That being said I personally find Shonibi no bushi not as cool as ninja and that applies to related powers and feats. I would also like to say that Samurai is a noble caste not a Bushi but a Knight is social caste not a fighter and no one seems to complain about the knight class as much. I would much rather debate Lions honor vs Cranes honor who is better because while childish both sides would expand discusion about Rokugan as a whole. In closing I think everyone has focused on the Oriental part of the game on these boards rather then the Adventures part. I consider any historical refrence in a question about D&D to be atleast off topic.
Hochiu 02-26-07, 03:01 PM	Isn't that a bit contradictory? On one hand, you say the OA book doesn't cut it. Yet on the other hand, you want those material released as SRD. Why be so dependent on those specific material (assuming they become OGC)? In fact, I don't understand why there aren't more publishers making oriental-flavored games using just the SRD? Because what? The SRD feels too Eurocentric? Isn't that like saying Linux is too Swedish (correct me if I'm wrong on the creator's origin/nationality)? They're game data. The reason why the OA book doesn't cut it to me is because they highlight the Rokugan campaign setting in it over any other feeling of "orientalness", and flipping through the book I know a lot of people that I've talked to felt like they were too constrained at how it was too Rokugan-centric. The mechanics aren't in question, for me, its how they're presented and in what context they're put in. I think that if they remove the Rokugan-fluff, and just put down the crunch like they do when any other OGC product is released to the SRD (as I said, renaming spells, removing or replacing campaign-specific terms and abilities, etc) makes it a lot easier to look at the material without any form of previous bias when concerning campaign-setting material. To me, the SRD is the base mechanics able to be used without extra license, that's why I want the OA material released to it, and gives a bunch of third party producers/homebrewers an easily archived and well documented resource to use without having to try to track down a book that's no longer in production, is becoming increasingly rare, and has no license for any of its material. Hope that clears it up.
Hochiu 02-26-07, 04:11 PM	I have no problem with you providing information to people. However, I think (if this thread is any indication) that your selection of words is what gets people angry. Calling people "pseudo-experts" and "fanboys" is going to rub some the wrong way. I was not here for Korean Ninja posting, but perhaps it is your approach to correcting people. I took a look at the Japanese sword thread. Your advice seemed sound to me. But (I didn't look at every single post by the OP so I could be missing something) I think part of the issue is that there is an automatic need to correct someone on historical grounds. From the OP it looked like he was just making stats for a cool asian setting based on films and comics. No need to turn it into a historical debate on the quality of the katana. To be fair, there seemed to be a troll on the thread promoting the superiority of asian weapons. I'm going to make a secondary post after mine, just because it'll help keep my two points apart. The reason, and I'll attest to this, that there is enough hostility on the OA boards is because of the history we've had with people coming here and acting as if they knew it all or whatever. I'll be honest, a lot of the people are just honestly mistaken and more people come to these forums and leave knowing something that they never knew before. We're not necessarily out to educate posters, but it gives some of us a fairly good feeling to help out. Now, there are some people that just don't know what the hell they're talking about and refuse to take any other form of information that disproves what they believe in. You get people that are fanatics, know-it-alls, I'm-better-than-yous, and a whole host of other types that end up being fairly antagonistic to people who may know more/different sources than they do. Honestly, and I'll be serious here, when I first started posting here, Heretic really ticked me off. I had the same impression of him, thinking that he was condescending to posters or had this kind of holier-than-thou attitude in regards to specific materials. But hanging around here and listening to his posts actually had me change my mind about him and I find that he and I are more often on the same page now. Is he hostile in his posts? Probabily a little more than necessary, but its more of a defense mechanism than actual hostility. Between the katana threads (thankfully, Equipment & Combat gets the greater portion of them), the "Asia-is-better-than-anything" threads, Samurai/Fighter Suck/Rule Over each Other threads, any kind of thread that denotes a geisha as a form of mystical assassin, and a million other threads I cannot begin to remember right now we've had to deal with a rash of stupidity. Does anyone remember the thread where the guy was convinced that Iaijutsu Focus was broken because he made a build using 5+ Katanas strapped around him and he thought he could keep taking a five foot step and using quickdraw/IF to attack? So yes, we've had "fanboys" and "psuedo-historians" come here. We used to have an enormous wave of anime-fans that came here, thinking that because Anime is "Asian" they had a right to post their questions or ideas here, despite the fact that they had their own d20 forum available to them. He may have had a problem with you since your posts looked specifically like a troll, whether that was the case or not. Honestly, I thought the same thing, that it was just like any other time that a troll comes here to specifically stir up trouble, cause a ruckus and then get some immature laugh out of it. I highly doubt its against you as a person at any rate, and Im sure it will change in the future.
spyone 02-26-07, 05:59 PM	I don't want to come off as the "precision police" or something, but one of the things that causes misunderstandings is when someone says two different things to represent what he's thinking and thinks he's said the same thing twice. And I notice, of course, that nobody has stepped up to plate to the challenge I issued on the first page of this thread. Where is a single thread where a regular here begins shoving "historical accuracy" down someone's throat?? Where is a single concrete example of anything that has been accused of here? That isn't what you said the first time. What you said, on the second page of the thread was:I challenge you to find a single thread within the past two years where a regular here brings up the subject of historical acurracy. This debate is always, without exception, begun by a know-it-all newcomer. I know it, you know it, we know it. So, when you said it the first time, what we had to find was a thread where the subject was "brought up" by a "regular". Which, of course, is a suckers game, since if a regular has anything to say on the subject it is probably because somebody else brought it up. This new one is a challenge that sounds more doable: All I have to do is find a thread in the past 2 years where one or more regulars reacted to a new poster with hostility. Heck, I've got that in the last week (see the locked Martial Arts thread). But, let's keep to the spirit of the challenge, and say that the topic of the hostility has to be historical accuracy or the lack thereof. Anybody know how many pages down that Korean Ninjas thread would be? It seems like a good place to start the search. Okay, anybody know if they've posted the archived threads yet: I forgot that the boards now only go back about 6 months, so that any thread that hasn't been posted to in 180 days is gone.
Ranger REG 02-27-07, 02:39 AM	The reason why the OA book doesn't cut it to me is because they highlight the Rokugan campaign setting in it over any other feeling of "orientalness", and flipping through the book I know a lot of people that I've talked to felt like they were too constrained at how it was too Rokugan-centric. The mechanics aren't in question, for me, its how they're presented and in what context they're put in. I think that if they remove the Rokugan-fluff, and just put down the crunch like they do when any other OGC product is released to the SRD (as I said, renaming spells, removing or replacing campaign-specific terms and abilities, etc) makes it a lot easier to look at the material without any form of previous bias when concerning campaign-setting material. To me, the SRD is the base mechanics able to be used without extra license, that's why I want the OA material released to it, and gives a bunch of third party producers/homebrewers an easily archived and well documented resource to use without having to try to track down a book that's no longer in production, is becoming increasingly rare, and has no license for any of its material. Hope that clears it up. Meh. Anyone who knows me here recalled I absolutely hated the OA samurai and I make every effort to mention that. But that was before Complete Warrior. Now, I can tolerate OA just as long I can filter the Rokugan elements out. Some of them, like the Mirumoto Niten Master are in need of serious tweaks (one should not have a class feature to help only shugenja), but if I can tolerate, so can you.
kintire 02-27-07, 06:39 AM	Bullshido I have no problem with you providing information to people. However, I think (if this thread is any indication) that your selection of words is what gets people angry. As something of a casual outsider, I have to say that this is a bit self referential. Your first post in this thread was not exactly a model of tact and diplomacy, and its a little unrealisitc to be surprised at the hostile response.
Rogue Shadows 02-27-07, 10:59 AM	Semi-regular here as well, and Bullshido, while not neccesarily on the ball, is certainly at least facing the right direction. Remember the Geisha base class that was made a little while ago? The author in the very opening of the thread stated that it was a fantasy class designed for the already culturally-inaccurate Rokugan and not meant to be a perfect representation of actual Geisha... ...but the thread became a three-page long rant between me and maybe two or three others verses some other folk whose names I cannot recall. It was so bad that the OP didn't even comment after the 1st page. Whoever the other side was kept on calling for the thread to be all but deleted due to innacuracy, even though accuracy was never the goal to begin with. I actually still feel bad about hijacking that thread along with everyone else. I was defending the Geisha - point of fact I actually used it in my setting - but that doesn't excuse what I did. In any event, this forum is, if not hostile, then at least not friendly to outsider comments. Or has acquired a reputation for such, anyway.
spyone 02-28-07, 12:50 PM	Remember the Geisha base class that was made a little while ago? Do you recall the thread title? Would it have had a post in the last 180 days? I'd like to read it, for several reasons.
Azzy 02-28-07, 09:49 PM	Do you recall the thread title? Would it have had a post in the last 180 days? I'd like to read it, for several reasons. I did a fairly thorough search and the only thing I came up with was the Geisha PrC (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=718863). There were several geisha threads that I can remember. The one RS mentions, I think, was very performer/arcane caster... which made me ask the question, "Why not just use the bard class?" Then again, I'm not a fan of the ninja, knight or samurai base classes, either.
The Ubbergeek 02-28-07, 10:56 PM	Why it attracts controversies about historical factuality? Because the question of race.... Simply so. There is a group who fears whitewashing, another nationalistic revisionism.
Azzy 02-28-07, 11:33 PM	Why it attracts controversies about historical factuality? Because the question of race.... Simply so. There is a group who fears whitewashing, another nationalistic revisionism. To use the racism or revisionism card concerning the historical accuracy/cultural authenticity topics on this little message board is tantamount to comparing someone to Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), so let's sidestep that and let's just call the cigar a cigar. It has more to do with the grievously misinformed trying to proclaim knowledge that they don't actually have over everyone, and a backlash against them those who've actually read up on the subject a bit. Consider that the biggest things that get bandied around here are 1) katana aren't uber-weapons, 2) geisha aren't prostitutes, 3) ninja aren't magic, 4) bushido was codified well after the fact, 5) it's kensei, dammit, etc. There's really nothing that falls into the category whitewashing/revisionism--just people who watch bad Hollywood movies and interpret what they see as fact versus those that care enough about the subject to dig a little deeper and try to dispel the popular misconceptions. And it's not even that we feel that the misinformed are badguys.... No, just the ones that try to argue that they're correct even when presented with some real sources. Honestly, I think that there are some people who get their jollies by starting katana "debates."
HamHam 03-01-07, 02:53 AM	geisha aren't prostitutes Riiiiiiiight.
Sudnji_cas 03-01-07, 03:25 AM	No, really they aren't look it up at the wikipedia. Ah wikipedia, the problem-solver.
Azzy 03-01-07, 04:39 AM	Riiiiiiiight. Case in point.
HamHam 03-01-07, 04:39 AM	No, really they aren't look it up at the wikipedia. Ah wikipedia, the problem-solver. Yeah, I'm not about to take Wikipedia's word on something like this. Here's a more reasonable position, based on how these sorts of things usually work: There was probably a wide spectrum of people practicing these sorts of things, and the actual conditions and expectations involved probably represented a varied continuum between obvious prostitution and the the "geisha aren't prostitutes" side. Furthermore, I would bet the term itself would be applied to different parts of this continuum depending on the location, time period, and for that matter who was using it and to whom they were using it to.
HamHam 03-01-07, 04:42 AM	Case in point. What you're trying to say is like saying "Escorts aren't prostitutes." The dividing line is, to put it simply, fuzzy.
Sudnji_cas 03-01-07, 04:44 AM	Whatever just don't start a thread about it. It's the last thing we need.
Azzy 03-01-07, 04:50 AM	Yeah, I'm not about to take Wikipedia's word on something like this. And here's how that works.... Don't. If you doubt Wikipedia's veracity on the subject, scroll down to reference section and go read the sources it cites as references. It's that easy. What you're trying to say is like saying "Escorts aren't prostitutes." The dividing line is, to put it simply, fuzzy. Um, sure. If that's the sort of game you want to play, we can also argue the sentence "Police enforce the law." But, the simple point is that it's not part of an "art person's" (geisha) job description to sleep with those she entertains, while it is part of a police officer's job description to enforce the law.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 06:57 AM	And here's how that works.... Don't. If you doubt Wikipedia's veracity on the subject, scroll down to reference section and go read the sources it cites as references. It's that easy. Um, sure. If that's the sort of game you want to play, we can also argue the sentence "Police enforce the law." But, the simple point is that it's not part of an "art person's" (geisha) job description to sleep with those she entertains, while it is part of a police officer's job description to enforce the law. I know very little about geisha, but it is my understanding that in the past they would occassionally perform sexual favors-that they no longer do this. If this is the case I suppose you could extend the term prostitute to the historical geisha.
Hochiu 03-01-07, 08:03 AM	Historically, they offered their services in order to allow a member of the samurai class to unwind and actually be human for an amount of time, typically by being present to listen and converse with the samurai. I'm sure that a handful of them did offer themselves out in a sexual way for extra money or whatever else they could get, but it was not the overwhelming majority by any means. And books are no less likely to contain bad information than Wikipedia. Just because its in print doesn't mean that the material in it is right by any means. Look at the author on the samurai that's universally detested as being wholly misinformed and promoting the wrong image of the warrior-class? What was his name? Stephen Hayes? I, for the life of me, cannot remember this early in the morning. I'm just pointing out that Wikipedia is better than most because it self-regulates a strong sense of neutrality within the articles and you literally have dozens (if not hundreds) of people that police the pages in order to make sure that those laws of neutrality are enforced. If you see a page with a neutrality-disputed tag or if there's a page with no sources cited, then don't use it for anything scholarly and do independent research. This is unlike authors, where there's one point of view presented in the book, one is man doing the research towards his goal and idea of promoting the material that he thinks you should know. Editors don't care about the content, particularly about historical subjects. They'll just tell him to add more in X and cut out parts in Y to make the book fit better when in print. Or was it assumed that printed material on history was unbiased? Regardless, corroboration of the material, any material, is necessary for accurate scholarly writings when the truth is known. And as a historian I've found that Wikipedia starts off as a good launching pad (most of the time), to get the base idea down and then leaving it up to you to expand on the research. Regards.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 08:08 AM	It is Stephen Hayes. But he is a martial arts guy, not a scholar. I have found that people in the martial arts are generally a bad source for historical information (largely because there is so much bad info floating around in that community).
HamHam 03-01-07, 08:31 AM	And here's how that works.... Don't. If you doubt Wikipedia's veracity on the subject, scroll down to reference section and go read the sources it cites as references. It's that easy. They weren't particularly impressive. Um, sure. If that's the sort of game you want to play, we can also argue the sentence "Police enforce the law." But, the simple point is that it's not part of an "art person's" (geisha) job description to sleep with those she entertains, while it is part of a police officer's job description to enforce the law. What? I don't really see what analogy you're trying to draw there. And saying "it's not part of [a geisha's] job description" is I think disengenious. You can certainly say that modern geisha's are that way. You could even go so far as to say that it's been that way for say the last century or so. But the farther back you go the less likely you are to easily get the whole picture. You can't deny that there were prostitutes and brothels and all that in medieval/aincent Japan. And there were geishas. The exact relationship between the two is obviously going to be complex, muddy, and filled with various shades of gray. That's just how things always are. I'm just pointing out that Wikipedia is better than most because it self-regulates a strong sense of neutrality within the articles and you literally have dozens (if not hundreds) of people that police the pages in order to make sure that those laws of neutrality are enforced. If you see a page with a neutrality-disputed tag or if there's a page with no sources cited, then don't use it for anything scholarly and do independent research. Actually, that's exactly the problem. Wikipedia, by it's nature, will tend to fall into group-think and the commonly held opinion. While this doesn't matter that often, is even a boon some of the time, it is none the less true that, most of the time, the articles will at best be the result of laymen and not real experts actually qualified to provide an indepth study. Then again this is true of all encylopedias.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 08:34 AM	They weren't particularly impressive. What? I don't really see what analogy you're trying to draw there. And saying "it's not part of [a geisha's] job description" is I think disengenious. You can certainly say that modern geisha's are that way. You could even go so far as to say that it's been that way for say the last century or so. But the farther back you go the less likely you are to easily get the whole picture. You can't deny that there were prostitutes and brothels and all that in medieval/aincent Japan. And there were geishas. The exact relationship between the two is obviously going to be complex, muddy, and filled with various shades of gray. That's just how things always are. Actually, that's exactly the problem. Wikipedia, by it's nature, will tend to fall into group-think and the commonly held opinion. While this doesn't matter that often, is even a boon some of the time, it is none the less true that, most of the time, the articles will at best be the result of laymen and not real experts actually qualified to provide an indepth study. Then again this is true of all encylopedias. Except that real encyclopedias are subject to peer review by qualified experts.
Zumarai 03-01-07, 09:00 AM	Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly. That is exactly the attitude I am talking about. If someone comes in and has a differing opinion of asian culture, people on this board get all hostile. It's not "someone came in who didn't have my history background so I helped him", it's "non-regulars coming here with their fantastically engorged egos" It seems to me that attitude is what the issue is, not the newcomers. I agree 100%. Not just this thread, but also many in the OA forum quickly degenerate into hostility, and it's usually from the so-called "regulars". Now, I'm not naming names, but you know who you are. Join date means squat if you're an ass.
Azzy 03-01-07, 01:14 PM	They weren't particularly impressive. The sources themselves or that there were few of them? What? I don't really see what analogy you're trying to draw there. And saying "it's not part of [a geisha's] job description" is I think disengenious. You can certainly say that modern geisha's are that way. You could even go so far as to say that it's been that way for say the last century or so. But the farther back you go the less likely you are to easily get the whole picture. Actually, I find that your argument is disingenuous because it relies on the fallacy that "if subgroup A1 of group A did X, then the entirety of group A should be known as doing X." What I'm saying is that even if a subgroup of geisha may have had sex with one or some of their clients (and this did happen), and that a theoretical subgroup of that subgroup may even have charged those clients money for those sexual favors, it does not mean--by any stretch of logic--that the profession of geisha was a profession of prostitution. You can't deny that there were prostitutes and brothels and all that in medieval/aincent Japan. Nope I can't, and never did deny this. And there were geishas. Right, we've got two truths so far. The exact relationship between the two is obviously going to be complex, muddy, and filled with various shades of gray. That's just how things always are. Or not quite as complex, muddy or whatnot as you choose to make out. They were separate professions. Did some cross the line? I'm sure. Did some geisha moonlight selling sex to increase their cash flow? Hey, greed isn't a modern invention. But--but does that equal to geisha being prostitutes? No. That's one stroke that's broader than the side of a barn (to mix my metaphors). Actually, that's exactly the problem. Wikipedia, by it's nature, will tend to fall into group-think and the commonly held opinion. While this doesn't matter that often, is even a boon some of the time, it is none the less true that, most of the time, the articles will at best be the result of laymen and not real experts actually qualified to provide an indepth study. Then again this is true of all encylopedias. Wikipedia is by no means perfect, but no single source of information is. Wikipedia does, at least, require sources to be cited so it does serve as a decent jump-off point for internet discussion. If there were any peer-reviewed encyclopedias on the net that were accessible to everyone and free of charge, you'd see people directing to those instead--but we make do with the tools that are actually available.
Azzy 03-01-07, 01:19 PM	I know very little about geisha, but it is my understanding that in the past they would occassionally perform sexual favors-that they no longer do this. If this is the case I suppose you could extend the term prostitute to the historical geisha. But that's stretching the term beyond its meaning. We can also say that soldiers are assassins and/or murders if we extend those terms, too. ;) The profession of geisha /= the profession of prostitution. Not even if some geisha were skanks, sluts or hos.
Hochiu 03-01-07, 01:40 PM	It is Stephen Hayes. But he is a martial arts guy, not a scholar. I have found that people in the martial arts are generally a bad source for historical information (largely because there is so much bad info floating around in that community). It doesn't stop him from writing books filled completely with misinformation and thus confusing people to the idea that he may actually be a historian or not. And unfortunately, people do. Actually, that's exactly the problem. Wikipedia, by it's nature, will tend to fall into group-think and the commonly held opinion. While this doesn't matter that often, is even a boon some of the time, it is none the less true that, most of the time, the articles will at best be the result of laymen and not real experts actually qualified to provide an indepth study. Then again this is true of all encylopedias. You have statistics to prove that Wikipedia articles are "most of the time" the writings of laymen and "not real experts"? You would be surprised at the number of the professors at my university that browse Wikipedia and make corrections in their particular field and/or are in contact with numerous colleagues in other locations that do update the Wiki articles. Wikipedia is not the best, but no encyclopedia is. There's a reason why they teach you early on to not use (or limit the use of) encyclopedic articles in any serious paper you write, be it for the term paper in high school I had to go through or any paper for university. Encyclopedias are there to give brief, but concise, information on a subject and stimulate you/help you to find greater sources on that material that go more in depth. And for most D&D settings, the use of Wikipedia as a source of information to include is NOT a bad thing, because its very rare one'll want anything other than the generally accepted information. I find Wikipedia more useful because of its capacity to be updated at any time, unlike printings of other conventional encyclopedias which can take years for a new edition with revised (or "better") information to come out. Cheers.
Sudnji_cas 03-01-07, 02:02 PM	Whatever just don't start a thread about it. It's the last thing we need. What part of this you don't understand!!!!!! Lets all ******* agree to disagree and shut up!!!! Man, I can't believe this, are you ******* retarded.:rant:
Kid SixXx 03-01-07, 02:03 PM	Why is this? I suppose it is the proliferation of the acceptance of game lore as fact that is disturbing. The place to look up the proper facts concerning these topics is a library or perhaps scholarly discussions online. You shouldn't pick up a copy of OA & think that makes you an authority on samurai culture, but I am continually shocked and dismayed by how often that happens.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 02:45 PM	But that's stretching the term beyond its meaning. We can also say that soldiers are assassins and/or murders if we extend those terms, too. ;) The profession of geisha /= the profession of prostitution. Not even if some geisha were skanks, sluts or hos. I agree, but I can still see where some might use the term. Like I said, Japanese History is not my area at all, but I am told that in the past geisha were known to occassionally perform sexual favors. To me this sounds alot like modern day massage therapists. Most dont perform sexual favors. Some do. But people sometimes refer to masseurs as prostitutes. I think this is an understandable use of the word.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 02:51 PM	It doesn't stop him from writing books filled completely with misinformation and thus confusing people to the idea that he may actually be a historian or not. And unfortunately, people do. . I was not disputing your claim, i was just verifying that it is Stephan Hayes. I see him martial arts magazines hosting seminars all the time. My point was there are alot of people in the martial arts community who put out unreliable history.
Azzy 03-01-07, 03:04 PM	I agree, but I can still see where some might use the term. Like I said, Japanese History is not my area at all, but I am told that in the past geisha were known to occassionally perform sexual favors. To me this sounds alot like modern day massage therapists. Most dont perform sexual favors. Some do. But people sometimes refer to masseurs as prostitutes. I think this is an understandable use of the word. That (the bolded text) is where I disagree. This is not a dig against you, but I think that when people do that sort of thing, it is an unnecessary mangling of the respective word, and is misrepresentative of the respective professions.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 03:22 PM	That (the bolded text) is where I disagree. This is not a dig against you, but I think that when people do that sort of thing, it is an unnecessary mangling of the respective word, and is misrepresentative of the respective professions. I guess my attitude is that people extend the menaing of words all the time, and that over time this is how languages are shaped. I think terms that refer to sex are usually very flexible in this way. Especially since there is not word to describe a profession that contains some members who give sexual favors in exchange for money.
HamHam 03-01-07, 03:51 PM	The sources themselves or that there were few of them? Both. What sources there were were focused more or less entirely on the modern side of things, none of them were remotely a historical study of the subject. Actually, I find that your argument is disingenuous because it relies on the fallacy that "if subgroup A1 of group A did X, then the entirety of group A should be known as doing X." What I'm saying is that even if a subgroup of geisha may have had sex with one or some of their clients (and this did happen), and that a theoretical subgroup of that subgroup may even have charged those clients money for those sexual favors, it does not mean--by any stretch of logic--that the profession of geisha was a profession of prostitution. Or not quite as complex, muddy or whatnot as you choose to make out. They were separate professions. Did some cross the line? I'm sure. Did some geisha moonlight selling sex to increase their cash flow? Hey, greed isn't a modern invention. But--but does that equal to geisha being prostitutes? No. That's one stroke that's broader than the side of a barn (to mix my metaphors). I didn't say geisha's were prostitutes. I said that they're not not prostitutes. The actual relationship between the two terms is indeterminate. Some random quotes, with links: These strict rules in fact allowed the geisha to flourish as artists and entertainers. Though more simply dressed than the courtesans, they became regarded as fashion leaders. But many aspects of the lifestyle itself were less glamorous. Young girls were sold into the geisha life by their families until the mid-20th century and were often subject to the ritual of 'mizu-age,' whereby their virginity was sold to the highest bidder. Such practices were eradicated after World War II and the geisha profession went into a steady decline. (http://www.japan-zone.com/culture/geisha.shtml) The confusion as to whether Geisha are prostitutes or not seems to have stemmed both from the close proximity Geisha had to courtesans in the Edo era and the fact that they did technically originate from the red light districts. (http://www.immortalgeisha.com/faq_geisha.php) The geisha's arts were developed in the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) in Japan, but geisha as such didn't really flourish until the Meiji era (1868-1910's). Geisha were originally men called in to entertain in the "flower and willow world" (karyukai), also called the "water world" or the "floating world," which contained prostitutes, entertainers and their patrons. Soon all geisha were women, however, and while they were prohibited from competing with the prostitutes, there is evidence that they did. Geisha and prostitutes separated their activities after the geisha became more popular and were called to entertain at other teahouses and outside the walled confines of the flower and willow world. Geisha came to occupy the top levels of the water world, and were the leaders in defining chic fashion and the arts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (http://www.geocities.com/yihyongbuayee/geisha.html) So yeah, from that I think one can at least say that geisha have something to do with prositution, and the closer to 1600 you place your measuring stick the more direct that link will be. You have statistics to prove that Wikipedia articles are "most of the time" the writings of laymen and "not real experts"? There was a study done. Iirc, the profesors and the like that they polled had wikipedia-contributers as a really small minority. Then again they also found it roughly as accurate as, iirc, Britanica.
Rogue Shadows 03-01-07, 04:56 PM	Hmm. Well, it's nice to know that even though I feel back about hijacking a geisha thread, a few here don't mind when they hijack a thread on a completely different subject to talk about something that is completely unrelated to the thread's topic. Totally, completely, 100%. I usually try to maintain at least a vague connection at least.
Sudnji_cas 03-01-07, 05:46 PM	No one can resist the post response button.
LuckyDragon 03-01-07, 06:10 PM	Geisha were once high class prostitutes in Japan. They serviced men from the Samurai class. However they were also expected to have other skills to entertain their clients with (singing, poetry, dance etc). In modern times however, they have become more about preserving old Japanese culture and entertaining wealthy clients in non-sexual ways.
Bullshido 03-01-07, 06:23 PM	Geisha were once high class prostitutes in Japan. They serviced men from the Samurai class. However they were also expected to have other skills to entertain their clients with (singing, poetry, dance etc). In modern times however, they have become more about preserving old Japanese culture and entertaining wealthy clients in non-sexual ways. Did you get all of your information by watching Shogun?
heretic888 03-01-07, 06:52 PM	Did you get all of your information by watching Shogun? Careful, Bullshido. You don't want to be guilty of what you've been accusing everybody else of. ;)
Bullshido 03-01-07, 06:54 PM	Careful, Bullshido. You don't want to be guilty of what you've been accusing everybody else of. ;) Thank you. I didn't even realize I was doing it.
LuckyDragon 03-01-07, 06:56 PM	Did you get all of your information by watching Shogun? Shogun is not as bad a source as you might think.
Azzy 03-01-07, 07:42 PM	Both. What sources there were were focused more or less entirely on the modern side of things, none of them were remotely a historical study of the subject. I’m curious as to why you then cite sources that cite at least one source cited in the Wikipedia article. I didn't say geisha's were prostitutes. I said that they're not not prostitutes. If you want me to take your argument seriously, don’t engage in childish double-talk. The actual relationship between the two terms is indeterminate. How is it indeterminate when each link you provided discusses the relationship, and draws a conclusion? were often subject to the ritual of 'mizu-age,' whereby their virginity was sold to the highest bidder. Q: Talk to me about the mizuage ceremony. What is it, and why is there so much confusion about it? A: This again goes back to the separation between the pleasure quarter and the entertainment quarter. Mizuage is really a coming-of-age ceremony, and apparently there was some selling of the virginity that went on in association with that ritual ceremony in the pleasure district a long time ago. However, that has never been true for the geisha. For the geisha, it was simply when they were becoming a young woman, similar to a sweet 16 in the West, and it was symbolized by the change in hairstyle, into a more womanly, grown-up hairstyle. And also certain subtle changes in the ensembles. There are a lot of rites of passage, but for some reason this one has been really latched on by people, and maybe it’s because of this misunderstanding. Also, it is true that as with many of the rituals and rites of passage, once one has become a maiko [geisha-in-training], or a geiko, it’s very expensive, because every time you go through an entire change of kimono, for example, or of hairstyle and you need different hair ornaments, these are expensive things. For me, I was the successor to the house, the atotori, so there was no question that the money was there to provide this. But if someone is coming from the outside and training, as basically someone who is there under contract, it is expensive, and sometimes they do ask their patrons to help pay for the cost involved in making the transition. Q: But their virginity isn’t offered in exchange for that help? A: That is never on the table. There is one other potential source of confusion, and that is with the word "mizuage" itself. In the Gion, the geisha district, and in many areas of the entertainment industry, "mizuage" is also a term that directly means "gross earnings," because it’s an old fishing term; as you may know, Japan was dependent on fishing for one of its main economic bases for many years. "Mizuage" means "to take out of the water." It stood for the catch. "What was your catch?" — "How much money did you make from the water?" So when I refer to mizuage, I’m actually referring to my earnings, rather than the ceremony itself. Full interview here (http://72.166.46.24//boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm). The confusion as to whether Geisha are prostitutes or not seems to have stemmed both from the close proximity Geisha had to courtesans in the Edo era and the fact that they did technically originate from the red light districts. Shall we get that in full: Are Maiko and Geisha prostitutes? Most certainly not! A Maiko and Geisha's profession is based on preserving the traditional arts such as dance, singing and music and entertaining in a non-sexual manner. The confusion as to whether Geisha are prostitutes or not seems to have stemmed both from the close proximity Geisha had to courtesans in the Edo era and the fact that they did technically originate from the red light districts. The main culprit though appears to be from post World War II occupation by U.S. service men. Many U.S. service came home from Japan with wild and raunchy stories of "Gee-sha Girls" whom, for most of the part where not in fact real Geisha, but rather, ordinary Japanese women or prostitutes masquerading or calling themselves "Geisha", largely because it was easiest for the service men to understand. Of course, the large majority of service men did not know the difference, and despite the survival of the Geisha districts after the enforcement of the prostitution laws in 1957 and the subsequent closure of the red light districts, the misconception has haunted the flower and willow world ever since. The geisha's arts were developed in the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) in Japan, but geisha as such didn't really flourish until the Meiji era (1868-1910's). Geisha were originally men called in to entertain in the "flower and willow world" (karyukai), also called the "water world" or the "floating world," which contained prostitutes, entertainers and their patrons. Soon all geisha were women, however, and while they were prohibited from competing with the prostitutes, there is evidence that they did. Geisha and prostitutes separated their activities after the geisha became more popular and were called to entertain at other teahouses and outside the walled confines of the flower and willow world. Geisha came to occupy the top levels of the water world, and were the leaders in defining chic fashion and the arts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Let’s have more, shall we? With the coming of the Taisho and Showa periods (1920s to '30s), Western material culture and ideology was imported into Japan. The geisha at first tried to modernize along with the rest of society, but soon realized that they would lose everything that made them special and become just another type of jokyu (bar hostesses and café girls) if they did. This period was one of confusion for the geisha, and with the coming of World War 2, the geisha establishment was even disbanded for some years. After the war, the geisha returned to their old neighborhoods, but not in the same numbers as they had had before. Increasing competition with the Westernized jokyu led to the geisha forfeiting their place as the queens of the fashionable world and instead became the preservers of the traditional arts and entertainments. The situation was complicated by the fact that "The geisha were dismayed at the number of prostitutes who called themselves "geisha girls" for the benefit of the American troops, and the G.I.'s of course, were unaware of such nuances." (Crihfield, page 100) This confusion of true geisha with prostitutes had long-lasting repercussions, as will be discussed later. Nowadays the true geisha numbers have dwindled even further and there is some doubt as to how much longer the geisha can maintain their unique way of life. So yeah, from that I think one can at least say that geisha have something to do with prositution, Sure, much in the same way that we can assert that gambling and alcohol have something to do with prostitution–occasionally traveled in the same circles and was occasionally directly linked. And this has what to do with dispelling the myth that geisha are prostitutes (which was the original assertion)? and the closer to 1600 you place your measuring stick the more direct that link will be. Or rather, the closer to 1600 you place your measuring stick the more likely the geisha will be male. :P
Azzy 03-01-07, 07:43 PM	Geisha were once high class prostitutes in Japan. They serviced men from the Samurai class. However they were also expected to have other skills to entertain their clients with (singing, poetry, dance etc). In modern times however, they have become more about preserving old Japanese culture and entertaining wealthy clients in non-sexual ways. One more, case in point. Thank you. I didn't even realize I was doing it. Yeah, that's how we started. Doncha know? :)
Hochiu 03-01-07, 08:26 PM	Hmm. Well, it's nice to know that even though I feel back about hijacking a geisha thread, a few here don't mind when they hijack a thread on a completely different subject to talk about something that is completely unrelated to the thread's topic. Totally, completely, 100%. I usually try to maintain at least a vague connection at least. In a sense, talking about Wikipedia's validity as a resource has connections for people who want to include a level of historical accuracy in their games. It wouldn't be very accurate if we used Wikipedia with it being (completely) wrong. :D And of course, realising that it can help point you in the right direction.
GEEKAZOID 03-01-07, 09:19 PM	I actually still feel bad about hijacking that thread along with everyone else.And the song goes..."Oops I did it again...."
HamHam 03-01-07, 09:42 PM	I’m curious as to why you then cite sources that cite at least one source cited in the Wikipedia article. There didn't seem much of anything better. If you want me to take your argument seriously, don’t engage in childish double-talk. It's not double talk, it's taking a precisely ambigious position. How is it indeterminate when each link you provided discusses the relationship, and draws a conclusion? Becuase they each come to different conclusions. Full interview here (http://72.166.46.24//boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm). And so we have two sources disputing the matter. I see no reason to take one's word over the other. Therefore, it's inconclusive, and thus, indeterminate. Sure, much in the same way that we can assert that gambling and alcohol have something to do with prostitution–occasionally traveled in the same circles and was occasionally directly linked. And this has what to do with dispelling the myth that geisha are prostitutes (which was the original assertion)? Because the facts are not so clear as to easily say if it is or is not a myth. Or rather, the closer to 1600 you place your measuring stick the more likely the geisha will be male. :P That too.
GEEKAZOID 03-01-07, 09:55 PM	After some thinking I may have come to understand a bit of the problem. People defend their passion. True appreciation for a subject will lead a person to deeper understandings than a casual aficionado would hope to have. When these passer-by fans are witnessed perpetuating common misconceptions, a true believer feels compelled to smite down the ignorance and reeducate the heathens! Unfortunately their zealousness sometimes pushes right past the ignorance and reeducating and the smiting goes straight to the heathen!
Azzy 03-01-07, 10:56 PM	There didn't seem much of anything better. Then don't complain about Wiki's sources if you're not going to cite clearly superior sources. It's not double talk, it's taking a precisely ambigious position. Um, you're arguing just to argue, aren't you? Becuase they each come to different conclusions. They all state that geisha are not prostitutes. And so we have two sources disputing the matter. I see no reason to take one's word over the other. Therefore, it's inconclusive, and thus, indeterminate. The source you cite doesn't cite it's own sources. The source I cited is a retired geisha. Because the facts are not so clear as to easily say if it is or is not a myth. Considering that every source thus far has said that geisha aren't prostitutes.... Meh.
HamHam 03-01-07, 11:11 PM	Then don't complain about Wiki's sources if you're not going to cite clearly superior sources. I'm complaining because there are no better sources. There is a serious lack of any citations to actual primary sources or serious scholastic refrences, including what comes up with various Google searches. Um, you're arguing just to argue, aren't you? No, I'm saying that lacking definitive information it is best to take a broad view that encompases all possibilities. They all state that geisha are not prostitutes. No. One of them said they aren't. One said that prostitution was involved in the past. And one said that they may or may not have competed with prostitutes in the past. The source you cite doesn't cite it's own sources. The source I cited is a retired geisha. Which actually makes her objectivity questionable. Considering that every source thus far has said that geisha aren't prostitutes.... Meh. No they haven't. ------------------------- If I really wanted to answer this definitively, I would go looking for an actual academic source on the subject. Like some one with a degree in Asian history, for example. But that's more effort than I think it's worth, so I'm fine with just saying "I don't really know, so it could really be either way."
angryman 03-01-07, 11:44 PM	You obviously haven't seen the older threads arguing about the difference between a greatsword, a claymore, a zweihander and so on. Or whether full plate is field plate, Maxamillian plate or jousting plate. Or basing paladin codes off chivalry, but from which century, culture etc. Or statting a gladius differently to a shortsword... Believe me, it's not just Asian cultures. D&D players are all geeks, therefore we nitpick every tiny little detail. I don't mean that as a bad thing, mind you.
Lord Gwydion 03-02-07, 01:41 AM	But that's more effort than I think it's worth, so I'm fine with just saying "I don't really know, so it could really be either way." First off, if that's what you want to believe, and you have no further need to find out about the subject, then I have no problem with you believing there is no answer. However, it's a very different thing to try arguing from the standpoint of "I don't know the answer, so there must be no answer."
spyone 03-04-07, 12:26 PM	Did you get all of your information by watching Shogun? Actually, though Shogun has some significant flaws, I think this is one they got right. :) That is, I doubt the guy you were replying to got that info from Shogun, since I think a viewing of Shogun would lead to the opposite conclusion.
Masterbullshido 03-07-07, 10:57 AM	When I went to Japan the Geisha I spent time with were giving sexual services in exchange for money.
Darth Sephiroth 03-07-07, 04:26 PM	Actually, though Shogun has some significant flaws, I think this is one they got right. :) That is, I doubt the guy you were replying to got that info from Shogun, since I think a viewing of Shogun would lead to the opposite conclusion. Never seen Shogun, liked the novel though
Lord Gwydion 03-07-07, 06:37 PM	When I went to Japan the Geisha I spent time with were giving sexual services in exchange for money. And they were likely not real geisha, rather just prostitutes in kimono and face paint. :rolleyes:
Ranger REG 03-07-07, 08:05 PM	When I went to Japan the Geisha I spent time with were giving sexual services in exchange for money. No, that's your run-of-the-mill prostitute. Even a typical Japanese town in the early period would have a "red light" district to go for gambling and sexual favors. Geisha is a different breed altogether.
Ikyotojin 03-08-07, 06:50 PM	When I went to Japan the Geisha I spent time with were giving sexual services in exchange for money. Next time I go I want your travel agent! The week I spent in Kyoto was great for eye candy, but *pfft* on anything more. ;) Where did you get to? I went to Kyoto specifically for the museums.
The Ubbergeek 03-10-07, 01:11 PM	All I know myself is that the tradition is slowly fading... A lot of men don't want to hire such costly and 'outdated' arts workers, and many of those geisha-would be turns on being simple hostesses. Some prostituting themselves on the sideline.
angryman 03-11-07, 05:03 AM	For example, if you're paying less than $500 for an evening in Gion, it's likely either a maeko or a random girl in a kimono.
GEEKAZOID 03-12-07, 10:26 PM	Just noticed this, that there seems to be a larger call for historical accuracy amongst Oriental Adventures campaigns or campaigners then there is amongst those who favor the more traditional European one. Standard D&D is no closer to actual Europe then OA in any edition was to actual Asia (or Japan specifically). More to the point, your typical D&D player knows more about Europe then he does of Asia and so is more likely to point out discrepencies...but the percentage of people who do so is markedly less. Why is this? I'm not complaining or anything. I'm honestly curious.Anyone care to comment?
Lord Gwydion 03-12-07, 11:11 PM	Well, to address the issue of "standard" pseudo-European (plus a little Middle East) D&D being accepted as ahistorical, while OA D&D is held to more of a historical set of benchmarks, I think we need to look at the media that inspire us. Most classic Sword and Sorcery and High Fantasy literature, such as Robert E. Howard and J.R.R. Tolkein, created worlds that were thinly disguised fantasy versions of a mythic pre-history of the real world. In the mythic history of the Hyborean Age, or of Middle-Earth, things will eventually change to reflect the real world we live in. And the action primarily takes place in what will someday be Europe. So the cultures present are vaguely European, and as R.E. Howard purposefully did, he made it a mismatch of cultures from different eras (I believe the quote from him was "I was always looking for new and interesting barbarians to use in my stories.") More modern fantasy has tried to build actual fantastic worlds that were not, and never will become, the real world. However, the fact that European culture/history is more prominent in English speaking countries means that again many of the cultures within those purely fantasy worlds resembled Europe to some extent. So look at what we have as influences for Asian inspired fantasy. A lot of Wuxia fiction follows a similar line of thought as Howard and Tolkein and other Western fantasy writers. The action takes place in a "China that never was." But then there's plenty of Wuxia fiction that takes place in historical China as well (and, at least from my experience, at a greater percentage than the use of historical Europe for Western fantasy works). Also, aside from movies, a lot of the Eastern fantasy is inaccessible to Western audiences, because it's never translated, or if it is, it is hardly marketed outside the English speaking areas of East Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc). History, though, is more plentiful. So while someone in America (for example, not exclusively) designing a pseudo-European fantasy world has access to lots of fantasy works that are European-inspired, as well as works of history, the same DM designing an Asian-inspired world has less actual Asian fantasy to work with, but lots of history.
Hochiu 03-12-07, 11:35 PM	In summary: It's largely due to the familiarity that most people have with a Euro-centric setting due to cultural and social memory based off of being raised in a predominantly European inspired/historical culture. Most people who make D&D settings are taught general Western Civilization/European history in school and have a firm foundation of that cultural history. To many, Asian-inspired games and material are exotic and outside standard cirriculums taught in most schools; its only the already interested/focused individual that knows about it and can translate it into a setting with any ease. People who feel the need to do independent research want to do it right and don't want to bastardise the material - hence more of a historical emphasis. It's also as was previously mentioned: there is more Asian history out there than Asian-inspired fantasy, so there's no true foundation in the Western World for any campaign setting to be built in the standard way. I also think that its because to a lot of Westerners/non-Asiatic speaking people the words used to describe classes, monsters, ideas, are all fairly concentrated into one main idea basd off of limited knowledge. The word "Ninja" causes the standard person to think of an individual in a black uniform fighting with a straight blade, throwing shuriken and smoke bombs. Some people may think of them as being able to fly, disappear into the shadows, or possessing other supernatural abilities; others may take a more realistic path. But the "Ninja" is a tightly focused idea of what a class is, unlike the "rogue" or "ranger" which could be fairly openly interpreted. Do you want a ranger like Aragorn or do you want a ranger like Chase and the other Border Wardens from Sword of Truth? Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, if people want to press historical accuracy, then that's well and good. But don't press it on me and my game. "Real" paladins didn't lay on hands, cast spells, or this that and the other. If you're professing a historic game, then go all the way and don't try to focus on just Asian material and being a history-overlord. Back it up by changing your Euro-games too, if you play them. And if someone claims that legend and lore provide a basis for the fantastic and ahistorical elements in Euro-centric games, then I'll claim that there are JUST as many fantastic stories about classes represented in the Eastern Realms, making it just as likely and as appropriate for someone to incorporate a reasonably (not foolish) thought up class or idea concept into their OA game. What I don't like is people making completely erronous statements that have NO basis WHAT-SO-EVER in fact, and I'll do my best to correct them. Or rip them apart for being foolish. Either one works. There's a difference between being a history-snob (I'm one of them) to being just plain wrong.
Roxlimn 03-13-07, 04:45 PM	More fundamentally, people round these parts emphasize historical and cultural authenticity because they're not Asians. Asians who play D&D have little to no problems just getting up and going with the system. Even if you had to modify the system a little bit to create little bits of equipment and stuff that isn't represented, most of the PHB is more or less good to go for an Asian styled adventure. "Oriental" is what a Westerner thinks Asia is, which is not the same as what an Asian thinks Asia is. If just modify little parts of the PHB and call it "Asian" or "Oriental," your players will be disappointed because what they want is an exotic experience. In other words, it HAS to be different. It doesn't really matter how culturally authentic your game is. If it's different enough and no one knows better, it's an "Asian" or "Oriental" adventure. Some people enjoy cultural authenticity for its own sake and believe that they do other people a service by making their knowledge known. Combined with a requirement for the exotic, this is what leads to the clashes about "historical accuracy." If you played with an Asian who was portraying his own Asian-inspired fantasy with minimal rule changes or additions, would it feel different? Assuredly so, but rarely in the ways that I find in OA or even on these boards. For instance, social mores and skills were often quite important to well-entrenched institutions and nations regardless of where they happen to be. An Empire like Rokugan ought to be no more skill-focused than something like, say, Galifar or Halruaa. So why do we find more emphasis on skill roles in Rokugan than in other D&D settings which also feature large Empires? I think the reason is because such an emphasis is different and that makes it exotic, and thus "Oriental."
Lord Gwydion 03-13-07, 07:50 PM	More fundamentally, people round these parts emphasize historical and cultural authenticity because they're not Asians. Asians who play D&D have little to no problems just getting up and going with the system. Even if you had to modify the system a little bit to create little bits of equipment and stuff that isn't represented, most of the PHB is more or less good to go for an Asian styled adventure. "Oriental" is what a Westerner thinks Asia is, which is not the same as what an Asian thinks Asia is. If just modify little parts of the PHB and call it "Asian" or "Oriental," your players will be disappointed because what they want is an exotic experience. In other words, it HAS to be different. It doesn't really matter how culturally authentic your game is. If it's different enough and no one knows better, it's an "Asian" or "Oriental" adventure. Some people enjoy cultural authenticity for its own sake and believe that they do other people a service by making their knowledge known. Combined with a requirement for the exotic, this is what leads to the clashes about "historical accuracy." If you played with an Asian who was portraying his own Asian-inspired fantasy with minimal rule changes or additions, would it feel different? Assuredly so, but rarely in the ways that I find in OA or even on these boards. For instance, social mores and skills were often quite important to well-entrenched institutions and nations regardless of where they happen to be. An Empire like Rokugan ought to be no more skill-focused than something like, say, Galifar or Halruaa. So why do we find more emphasis on skill roles in Rokugan than in other D&D settings which also feature large Empires? I think the reason is because such an emphasis is different and that makes it exotic, and thus "Oriental." This is a very good point. In the original OA, and in the current one, most of the standard D&D classes can be used. In the original, they usually were not used IMX, because slightly modified versions were presented (such as the Bushi being identical to the Fighter except with the addition of scrounging skills, and the only difference between Magic-Users/Wizards and Wu Jen, really, is the Oriental themed spell list of the Wu Jen...). It's not so much that the core rules can't be used as is, it's that players want something "different" than their normal D&D experience.
angryman 03-13-07, 08:46 PM	And then there's the faintly ludicrous addition of the monk class to the standard D&D settings, which I've never understood. It just doesn't make sense, unless you have an Asian setting or explain your way around it.
Ranger REG 03-14-07, 04:26 AM	And then there's the faintly ludicrous addition of the monk class to the standard D&D settings, which I've never understood. It just doesn't make sense, unless you have an Asian setting or explain your way around it. I have no problem with the monk class. I played it in 1e (and later in 1e OA), missed it in 2e (rejected the Player's Option version), now I welcome it in 3e. And even though the barbarian class didn't appear in 1e PHB, I'm glad it returned in 3e PHB.
angryman 03-14-07, 08:47 AM	I have no problem with the monk class. I played it in 1e (and later in 1e OA), missed it in 2e (rejected the Player's Option version), now I welcome it in 3e. And even though the barbarian class didn't appear in 1e PHB, I'm glad it returned in 3e PHB. It's appropriate in regards to D&D lore, just not a western European medieval setting, which regular D&D is otherwise based around.
Roxlimn 03-14-07, 08:59 AM	The monk itself is a ludicrous class, being derived more from a Western pop culture icon of the mid70s than anything derived from real Asian legends and mythology. It bears but superficial resemblance to anything like, say, a Shaolin Monk.
heretic888 03-14-07, 02:55 PM	The monk itself is a ludicrous class, being derived more from a Western pop culture icon of the mid70s than anything derived from real Asian legends and mythology. It bears but superficial resemblance to anything like, say, a Shaolin Monk. One could say the exact same thing about the CW Samurai and CV Ninja. :D
The_Shaman 03-14-07, 05:14 PM	Yeah, but they were introduced in the complete series afaik (ok, the ninja appeared in Dragon a bit before). The monk has been in D&D since AD&D. I mean... that's before skills/nonweapon proficiencies came in the play :) I guess kung fu was more popular in the 1970's than "flashy" ninjutsu. Mind you, the same book had the assassin as a rogue variant, so maybe there were ninjas - it's just that it was before they started saving the world :) .
heretic888 03-14-07, 05:37 PM	Yeah, but they were introduced in the complete series afaik (ok, the ninja appeared in Dragon a bit before). That doesn't change the fact that they're flavorfully cheesy and mechanically lame. :D I guess kung fu was more popular in the 1970's than "flashy" ninjutsu. Mind you, the same book had the assassin as a rogue variant, so maybe there were ninjas - it's just that it was before they started saving the world :) . Speaking of which.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9-Wv73eP74 I know I'm gonna see it. :P
The_Shaman 03-14-07, 05:47 PM	Mmm, not quite. The AD&D monk started slow as heck, but once s/he got a bit more xp things started looking very good.
heretic888 03-14-07, 07:15 PM	Mmm, not quite. The AD&D monk started slow as heck, but once s/he got a bit more xp things started looking very good. Actually, I was talking about the CW Samurai and CV Ninja....
Ranger REG 03-15-07, 02:22 AM	It's appropriate in regards to D&D lore, just not a western European medieval setting, which regular D&D is otherwise based around. That doesn't mean Gygax is wrong. Sue him for loving Kung Fu. :monk:
angryman 03-15-07, 04:35 AM	That doesn't mean Gygax is wrong. Sue him for loving Kung Fu. :monk: Everyone knows Gygax designed modules and classes by having his pet monkey throw darts at a dartboard. Thus, THACO, negative AC, monks, non-weapon proficiencies (we call them skills) and his crazy random...everything.
Ranger REG 03-15-07, 04:40 AM	Everyone knows Gygax designed modules and classes by having his pet monkey throw darts at a dartboard. Thus, THACO, negative AC, monks, non-weapon proficiencies (we call them skills) and his crazy random...everything. Ah, but Gygax left TSR before the THAC0 fiasco (not to mention the devil/demon political correctness disaster). :smirk:
Azzy 03-15-07, 04:56 AM	Everyone knows Gygax designed modules and classes by having his pet monkey throw darts at a dartboard. Thus, THACO, negative AC, monks, non-weapon proficiencies (we call them skills) and his crazy random...everything. Yeah, because everybody knows how many roleplaying games there were before D&D to serve as a basis for solid game design. :rolleyes:
angryman 03-15-07, 08:47 AM	Yeah, because everybody knows how many roleplaying games there were before D&D to serve as a basis for solid game design. :rolleyes: Inventing something new doesn't give you licence to be totally arbitrary about its inception.
Rogue Shadows 03-15-07, 02:42 PM	D&D was hardly the first roleplaying game...in fact, it was based off of Chainmail...D&D was just, y'know, the best roleplaying game. Hence why it's still around and Chainmail isn't. Inventing something new doesn't give you licence to be totally arbitrary about its inception. But it doesn't not give to a licence, either. Perhaps Gygax thought, "Well...I could go for cultural accuracy...or I could make it really cool. Or I could try to find a middle ground, though that would be damn near to impossible. Hmm. I wonder which sells best..."
Azzy 03-15-07, 05:20 PM	D&D was hardly the first roleplaying game...in fact, it was based off of Chainmail...D&D was just, y'know, the best roleplaying game. Hence why it's still around and Chainmail isn't. Except Chainmail wasn't an RPG. Chainmail was a medieval tactical war game played with miniatures, and featured some optional fantasy rules tacked on. Which takes me to.... Inventing something new doesn't give you licence to be totally arbitrary about its inception. D&D began life as a bunch of ad hoc house rules that were tacked on (at different times) to an existing miniatures game (Chainmail) which, itself, had fantasy rules tacked onto it. These house rules came not just from Gary Gygax, but also Dave Arneson (and the various players in both gaming groups). So the RPG Dungeons & Dragons evolved from a miniatures game (which, at the time, were almost universally clunky and overly complicated) in piecemeal fashion into something that it was never intended to be. Perhaps Gygax thought, "Well...I could go for cultural accuracy...or I could make it really cool. Or I could try to find a middle ground, though that would be damn near to impossible. Hmm. I wonder which sells best..." Actually, it evolved to meet Dave Arneson's, Gary's and their players expectations and was only marketed after the fact.
Ranger REG 03-15-07, 09:52 PM	Perhaps Gygax thought, "Well...I could go for cultural accuracy...or I could make it really cool. Or I could try to find a middle ground, though that would be damn near to impossible. Hmm. I wonder which sells best..." If you can't do OA proper, don't do it at all. Stick with what you know (Eurocentric games).
The Ubbergeek 03-16-07, 11:10 AM	If you can't do OA proper, don't do it at all. Stick with what you know (Eurocentric games). But then, what is more important? Cultural accuracy or fun? The most important thing is that, as long as it's not versing into racist stereotypes, it's ok.
Hochiu 03-16-07, 08:10 PM	But then, what is more important? Cultural accuracy or fun? The most important thing is that, as long as it's not versing into racist stereotypes, it's ok. Actually, you dont have the authority to tell someone their game isn't okay just because it has racist stereotypes. I'm not saying that to pick a fight, either, by the way. If someone has fun pulling racist stereotypes into their games, that's fine by me. Just don't talk to me about it, you know? The problem is, when they come HERE and post their racist and/or uneducated ideas and thoughts about something, is when it doesn't become "OK". Just some thoughts.
Ranger REG 03-17-07, 12:25 AM	But then, what is more important? Cultural accuracy or fun? The most important thing is that, as long as it's not versing into racist stereotypes, it's ok. Then why can't paladin smite with one specific fighting technique? Why aren't his class features geared toward sword-n-board? Just because a samurai carries two sword, doesn't mean he will always draw both and fight with them. Yet someone who designed that CW class think it is.
angryman 03-17-07, 02:06 AM	Then why can't paladin smite with one specific fighting technique? Why aren't his class features geared toward sword-n-board? Just because a samurai carries two sword, doesn't mean he will always draw both and fight with them. Yet someone who designed that CW class think it is. I don't use the CW samurai. I use the "Legends of the Samurai" D20 book, it's much better and doesn't have crazy nitoryu-wielding samurai everywhere, although of course you can choose that if you wish. In fact, I far prefer that book over any other published D20 book on Japan.
Ranger REG 03-17-07, 07:59 PM	I don't use the CW samurai. I use the "Legends of the Samurai" D20 book, it's much better and doesn't have crazy nitoryu-wielding samurai everywhere, although of course you can choose that if you wish. In fact, I far prefer that book over any other published D20 book on Japan. I've heard mixed review about it. Don't know which side won. If I get around to it, I'll buy it. For now, I have my Sengoku.
ted_the_mindflayer 03-18-07, 07:01 PM	Hmmm I think my enjoyment of the OA stems more from Rokugan then Japan, Korea and China combined. Thus i believe many people may be asking the right questions to the wrong people. Example: Even though i like Dragon Ball Z I do not care for other animes so if anyone wants to rant aganist DBZ for not staying true to most other anime formulas (or Japan culture) I would argue that i don't care for its roots and just like the show itself. Understand? lol There IS a method to my madness but you lose 1d6 sanity if you figure it out :coolcthul :thumbsup:
Ranger REG 03-19-07, 02:40 AM	Hmmm I think my enjoyment of the OA stems more from Rokugan then Japan, Korea and China combined. Thus i believe many people may be asking the right questions to the wrong people. If I'm going to play Rokugan, I might as well play it in the original ruleset: Legend of the Five Rings RPG. :bored: But I prefer to play in Kara-Tur, which like Faerun have a variety of cultures.
Hochiu 03-19-07, 01:53 PM	I find myself unable to work in any true published campaign setting. I have to make my own or otherwise play in custom ones...just because anyone I play under has gotten to the point where they feel constrained with keeping the campaign setting pure. So we play clones or homebrews. I've never played in a CS, and I've never DMed a CS. I wonder what it's like. :3
Darth Sephiroth 03-19-07, 02:08 PM	I find myself unable to work in any true published campaign setting. I have to make my own or otherwise play in custom ones...just because anyone I play under has gotten to the point where they feel constrained with keeping the campaign setting pure. So we play clones or homebrews. I've never played in a CS, and I've never DMed a CS. I wonder what it's like. :3 I have a hard time running games in published settings as well. I prefer settings with a lot of things that is rather easy to understand and use as a setting if I want the players to create characters from there. That way I don't have to worry that much about their characters actually fitting in. Then there are settings wher I've gone into a LOT of detail because I want to drop the unprepared players into it like my Avantiar setting where I marooned the party on the island. But either way, the world grows with play as I work out the past of the world and the mythology out to make it a living world. Some people I know can run excellent campaigns in some of the published settings, I just have trouble keeping things straight, especially when the players know more than I do.
Hochiu 03-20-07, 12:11 AM	Exactly. I wouldn't dare run a FR setting when my players know the world more intimately than I do. I hate when they say, "That can't happen, because it's been done/not possible/dumb due to the world."
angryman 03-20-07, 04:10 AM	Exactly. I wouldn't dare run a FR setting when my players know the world more intimately than I do. I hate when they say, "That can't happen, because it's been done/not possible/dumb due to the world." I told my players that if I ever run FR, that all CR20+ NPCs have mysteriously vanished and no, this isn't a plot element. It's such a powergamers world, and I'd rather run and play in a homebrew.
Rogue Shadows 03-20-07, 10:17 AM	When I run FR...and have to deal with pesky powergamers... Me: So you see Drizzt approaching... Player 1: quickened twinned maximized fireball! Me: What? Player 1: I'm killing Drizzt and taking his stuff! Me: ...he's a plot element. Player 2: Uh, guy...you shouldn't try and...mess with his plot... Player 1: I don't care if he's a plot element! I want his stuff! Me ...okay. Fireball hits. Drizzt dissipates. Player 1: Haha! He disintigrated! Me: I said DISSIPATES. He was an illusion. Now make a reflex save. Player 1: What? Uh...20! Hahaha! Me: Too low. Sophitia from Soul Calibur appears, shouts out "Repent," and stabs you in the balls. You keel over and die. Player 1: What?! Me: Wrath of the DM. 20th-level Conjuration that only the DM can cast.
The Ubbergeek 03-20-07, 11:12 AM	I told my players that if I ever run FR, that all CR20+ NPCs have mysteriously vanished and no, this isn't a plot element. It's such a powergamers world, and I'd rather run and play in a homebrew. And again, the false stereotypes run again. It is NOT a powergamer world. Do you really think all those Elminster and Drizzt of FR are there to help the player? Do you really think player should have a collection of magical trinklets that would make the Joker blemish with envy? NO! It's only powergaming, like, in ANY campaign (and Eberron have way more common magic, note), the DM don't know his stuff. Seriously, by saying that, you shown the typical ignorance about FR, who is perfectly playable as it is, barely more high fantasy than GH. :mad:
Hochiu 03-20-07, 01:55 PM	And again, the false stereotypes run again. It is NOT a powergamer world. Do you really think all those Elminster and Drizzt of FR are there to help the player? Do you really think player should have a collection of magical trinklets that would make the Joker blemish with envy? NO! It's only powergaming, like, in ANY campaign (and Eberron have way more common magic, note), the DM don't know his stuff. Seriously, by saying that, you shown the typical ignorance about FR, who is perfectly playable as it is, barely more high fantasy than GH. :mad: I wouldn't have used the term powergaming, but in Forgotten Realms specifically, there is an annoying proliferation of very high level (and epic level) NPCs that are running around throughout the realms. And honestly, seeing the number of mid teens through level 30 characters that FR has, I feel somewhat intimidated and well..worthless. I couldn't do anything in FR. If I wanted to invade Shadowdale with an army, I'd have to deal with CRAZY ELIMINISTER, and there's no fun having a god-like NPC show up and cast a fireball to kill my army and then finish me of without a second thought. The high magic of Faerun is tossed carlessly into a quasi-medieval setting that doesn't mesh well, and makes no sense. At least in Eberron they specifically designed the setting to have a good deal of incorporation between magic, technology, and campaign setting. No, one can powergame everywhere and in any world, that's without a fact. And I agree with the statement that the DM has a lot of the control that enables it to happen. But I don't know. Faerun seems too crowded with too many impressive, high profile people that it just turns me off.
Ranger REG 03-20-07, 05:52 PM	Exactly. I wouldn't dare run a FR setting when my players know the world more intimately than I do. I hate when they say, "That can't happen, because it's been done/not possible/dumb due to the world." Heh. Anybody says that while I'm the DM gets a whupping. :evillaugh
Ranger REG 03-20-07, 06:00 PM	At least in Eberron they specifically designed the setting to have a good deal of incorporation between magic, technology, and campaign setting. Give it time. In ten years, it will have volumes of new spells and magic thrown into that world, and it'll be like FR now. Question is, is Eberron too fragile to handle that much magic? BTW, can we get back on-track? I only mention FR because of my beloved Kara-Tur.
angryman 03-20-07, 08:33 PM	The Ubbergeek And again, the false stereotypes run again. It is NOT a powergamer world. It's not a false stereotype, it's a testable fact. Do you really think all those Elminster and Drizzt of FR are there to help the player? Do you really think player should have a collection of magical trinklets that would make the Joker blemish with envy? NO! I don't say this often, but you're just wrong. Why is it that FR races are just a little more optimum than regular races (Sun Elf, Gold Dwarf), that their PrCs are more powerful (Incanatrix, Cheater of Mystra, many others), lots of FR spells are just plain cheesy, items also (Ironguard? I think that's the one) and that you have to be over 15th level to even be noticed? Actually, that's not true. Most small cities have level 20 or epic characters, whose achievements and potential to affect the world outdo yours, so even 15th level characters aren't that important. It's not just a powergamer world it's THE powergamer world. It's only powergaming, like, in ANY campaign (and Eberron have way more common magic, note), the DM don't know his stuff. Rubbish. Available options in FR are just "better" in terms of optimisation. Eberron has magic worked into the game, but it's lots of low level effects (ie, lights, trains etc) for flavour, whereas in Forgotten Realms, you have an almost obscene level of power. Seriously, by saying that, you shown the typical ignorance about FR, who is perfectly playable as it is, barely more high fantasy than GH. Disagreeing with you isn't ignorance. Of course, you KNOW how much I've played and DMed D&D and Forgotten Realms, so your judgement is unbiased and fair...oh wait, no it isn't. FR is a powergamer's wet dream. And uber is spelt with one 'b'. :)
Hochiu 03-20-07, 10:24 PM	Give it time. In ten years, it will have volumes of new spells and magic thrown into that world, and it'll be like FR now. Question is, is Eberron too fragile to handle that much magic? BTW, can we get back on-track? I only mention FR because of my beloved Kara-Tur. It could be noted that a desire for historical authenticity in OA is derived from some anti-Faerunian development whereby players react to the sheer idiocy represented in Forgotten Realms (and by proxy, KT due to its inclusion in the FR universe. I never said it was a fair theory.) and seek to form their own paradigms of thought by incorporating a greater idea of historical precident. Of course, I could be TOATALLY BSING :rolleyes: .
Ranger REG 03-20-07, 10:59 PM	Of course, I could be TOATALLY BSING :rolleyes: . Of course you are. :evillaugh If you don't like the way the paladin is portrayed in D&D, then start a campaign to change it. My campaigning is based on the fact that the CW samurai is RIDICULOUS and UNACCEPTABLE. Don't call it that.
The Ubbergeek 03-21-07, 12:49 AM	It could be noted that a desire for historical authenticity in OA is derived from some anti-Faerunian development whereby players react to the sheer idiocy represented in Forgotten Realms (and by proxy, KT due to its inclusion in the FR universe. I never said it was a fair theory.) and seek to form their own paradigms of thought by incorporating a greater idea of historical precident. Of course, I could be TOATALLY BSING :rolleyes: . And again, the anti-FR rothé dung run again in the thread. :rolleyes: How about hitting on Eberron and Greyhawk for a change?
angryman 03-21-07, 02:00 AM	And again, the anti-FR rothé dung run again in the thread. :rolleyes: How about hitting on Eberron and Greyhawk for a change? Forgotten Realms is a powergamer's world. Greyhawk is not so bad, and Eberron is new(ish). However, both of them are getting more "powered up" with each new supplement. Power creep can apply to campaign settings as much as classes or spells.
Ranger REG 03-21-07, 04:55 AM	Forgotten Realms is a powergamer's world. Hey, it's high-magic. It's just that D&D 3e is getting high-magic, too, upping the baseline level of Greyhawk's magic. Even the new Eberron setting is on the same plateau as FR (Toril doesn't have action points and warforged). And we're getting side-tracked again.
Hochiu 03-21-07, 08:27 PM	And again, the anti-FR rothé dung run again in the thread. :rolleyes: How about hitting on Eberron and Greyhawk for a change? Because Greyhawk is too dead to attract my attention, and Eberron doesn't have nearly the extensive population of FanTards that FR has. I insult FR to see them get their pants in a knot. If you notice, though, I don't post on the FR forum for that reason - I can't stand the Realms, and have no inclination to want to. Now, totter off and derail another thread after someone makes a comment in context about campaign worlds using your precious FR as an example before I get snippy. Cheers. :tiphat:
angryman 03-21-07, 09:06 PM	Hey, it's high-magic. It's just that D&D 3e is getting high-magic, too, upping the baseline level of Greyhawk's magic. Even the new Eberron setting is on the same plateau as FR (Toril doesn't have action points and warforged). And we're getting side-tracked again. Yeah, it's all ramping up. But yeah, that's off topic.
Ranger REG 03-21-07, 09:15 PM	I insult FR to see them get their pants in a knot. If you notice, though, I don't post on the FR forum for that reason - I can't stand the Realms, and have no inclination to want to. Still not a good idea to post that in OA forum. We may demand you commit seppuku (Faerun fans would just lock your entire head in iron and throw you in the dungeon ... but you still live ... in the dungeon). Ooh! Can I be your kaishaku (the guy who chop off your head)? Can I? Can I? :w00t:
ted_the_mindflayer 03-22-07, 07:01 AM	............ Ooh! Can I be your kaishaku (the guy who chop off your head)? Can I? Can I? :w00t: :ayyyy!: LOL it seems likely, considering your avatar!
Zumarai 03-22-07, 07:36 AM	Now, totter off and derail another thread after someone makes a comment in context about campaign worlds using your precious FR as an example before I get snippy. Oh no, he's going to get snippy – run!
Hochiu 03-22-07, 07:53 AM	XD Damned straight. And yes, Reg. If ever I need to commit seppuku.
aotrscommander 03-22-07, 08:18 AM	My campaigning is based on the fact that the CW samurai is RIDICULOUS and UNACCEPTABLE. Don't call it that. The CW samurai is not an insult to merely OA gamers, is it an insult to D&D players as a whole. From a flavour standpoint, even I, with my knowledge of ancient Japan limited to what fractional amounts I've read in history and what I've 'learned' from anime and CRGPs know it's not very accurate (if at all). From a mechanical standpoint, it is out-done by the Fighter! Heck, the Healer is better, at least it's useful for something! Personally, I always do homebrew worlds anyway - pretty much always have. Most of them tend to be Eurocentric, since that is the area I am most familiar with and know most history about. I try and tie a reasonably amount of historical parallels into my games as it better approximate versimilude for me. My lastest would, though, is the first one where I've really tried starting by designing the cultures rather than slapping them on top of names on the map. (The main culture this time is actually basically Roman). I have not added an oriental culture to the list, though (but there actually is one, far to - ironically - the east of the main campaign area). Mainly it is because I don't know much about Oriental cultures (on a bad day, I used to struggle between differentiating between Chinese and Japanese culture!) I could of course learn - and when I eventually get to detailing that bit of the world I will do so - but that would require quite a large expendature of time which at the moment I don't have. (I did leave in Monk and Ninja Classes though, because they do Cool Things; I shifted Ninja to my 'Arabic' culture though, as it seemed to fit!) But why, you ask (well, the OP did anyway), bother with historical paralellels in the first place? Simply because if you want to make cultures have a different flavour, it's a great deal of effort to do that by sheer dint of creativity when you can more easily swipe bits from history. The reason, I suspect, (as has been mentioned before) that you get more call for historical accuracy here is that D&D is that I imagine most people who want to play in an Oriental campaing want it to feel different to a 'standard' 'Medieval' style game. Historical paralellels (and/or accuracy) are the bet way to achieve that. (Of course, D&D's 'standard' 'Medieval' setting is as much historically accurate as I am a Vampire! It tends to be more of a sort of mix between medieval ideals and modern western culture.)
Zumarai 03-22-07, 08:21 AM	(I shifted Ninja to my 'Arabic' culture though, as it seemed to fit!) Holy Slayer?
aotrscommander 03-22-07, 09:09 AM	Holy Slayer? More just the thought that a guy with a steriotypical ninja face-mask wieilding a scimitar materialising out of the desert sands would be really cool, to be brutally honest! (There is a certain passing similarily of gear between middle-eastern and oriental cultures in that neither were especially big on heavy armour like the westerners - in the former case of course, it's because it is not usually such a good idea to wear full plate in the desert...Not that the crusaders seemed to get that!) Though to be fair, I haven't got as far as detailing the 'Arabic' culture yet. It's still in the more conceptual stage that the ones that are based on an actual nation rather than a general area. At the minute my concept of the 'Arabic' culture is very Arabian Nights. I'll probably pick somebody like the Persians as the basis, ultimately. (I'm still doing the fraggin' Romans, actually! I thought, knowing as I do, quite a lot about the Romans, it would be easy, but no, they had to go and be really complicated! On the other hand, after dealing with the stratified Roman culture, the rest should be relatively easy1!) 1Says the Lich with undue optimisim.
Zumarai 03-22-07, 09:25 AM	Though to be fair, I haven't got as far as detailing the 'Arabic' culture yet. It's still in the more conceptual stage that the ones that are based on an actual nation rather than a general area. At the minute my concept of the 'Arabic' culture is very Arabian Nights. I'll probably pick somebody like the Persians as the basis, ultimately. You should check out the 2nd edition D&D Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures campaign setting - one of the coolest and most elegant of all settings, IMO.
aotrscommander 03-22-07, 10:24 AM	You should check out the 2nd edition D&D Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures campaign setting - one of the coolest and most elegant of all settings, IMO. I might well do that when I come to it; I can almost certainly get it on PDF from pazio or somewhere for virtually nothing.
Zumarai 03-22-07, 10:43 AM	I might well do that when I come to it; I can almost certainly get it on PDF from pazio or somewhere for virtually nothing. If you cruise up to London anytime soon, you can take a gander at my copy.
aotrscommander 03-22-07, 11:36 AM	If you cruise up to London anytime soon, you can take a gander at my copy. You offer is much appreciated, but the possibility is vanishingly remote at the moment. (I hate to think what else could go wrong this year so badly that'd end up travelling to London to fix it!)
Ranger REG 03-23-07, 01:09 AM	You should check out the 2nd edition D&D Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures campaign setting - one of the coolest and most elegant of all settings, IMO. Sadly, being the most elegant does not equate to being hot-selling. Unless this is one of TSR's two-year pet projects. I know Birthright was one of their pet projects that got a one-year extension. Personally, I don't like the "pet project" concept, but at least they would planned out how many products to make within a time period (main product plus several supplements).
Zumarai 03-23-07, 06:43 AM	Personally, I don't like the "pet project" concept, but at least they would planned out how many products to make within a time period (main product plus several supplements). I would rather a good quality short run "pet project", than a crap quality "ongoing project". See; I think they should quit with Eberron while they're ahead, and maybe bring out another campaign setting. Then bring out some products to support it over the course of a year or two, and then move onto the next setting. I find when they bring out too many products for a campaign setting it dilutes its mystery/panache. …Planescape…
Ranger REG 03-23-07, 08:35 AM	See; I think they should quit with Eberron while they're ahead, and maybe bring out another campaign setting. Then bring out some products to support it over the course of a year or two, and then move onto the next setting. Unfortunately, many Eberron fans would disagree with you. (Trust me, I wish their fanbase is as small as Rokugan d20 fanbase today.) :devil: Had this been done to Forgotten Realms, I would have disagreed, protested, and boycotted new products.
Zumarai 03-23-07, 08:46 AM	Unfortunately, many Eberron fans would disagree with you. (Trust me, I wish their fanbase is as small as Rokugan d20 fanbase today.) :devil: Had this been done to Forgotten Realms, I would have disagreed, protested, and boycotted new products. Picket signs…don't punish me…with brutality… I like Eberron (it's okay - only have and will have first book), but I feel it's starting to lose its lustre/freshness. I have every 1st/2nd edition FR product (my poor bookshelves), and now that I think about it, I think the setting would have a better feel/maintained more mystery/excitement if they had pulled in the reins a little bit. I would like a Sourcebook just on the Yehimal range, though, and all it entails (Tabot/Khazari/Ra-Khati etc).
Hochiu 03-24-07, 03:24 AM	Then you'd get to the point where they'd be constantly retiring settings after a handful of years of a run, not really allowing it to pick up a large fanbase. Wizards is interested in producing cash first, the enjoyment of the players is a secondary objective. Firstly, it would deny a large fanbase - repeated customers are what drive production lines. Why would you want to get really into a campaign setting when you KNOW that there wont be any new material produced a year or two down the road? The cost of R&D for a new campaign setting (not to mention finding an author for it) would be a lot more than it is for an ongoing setting. Secondly, you would have such a proliferation of campaign settings, that it would leave very little to the imagination for the next one. Think of those thoughts like "Oh, ugh, they've already done this idea to death in [insert campaign setting here]! How boring!", or "Well, this idea has been done to death in Forgotten Realms and now that they put it into Eberron it's just as bad, I don't want to see it anymore". Now apply those thoughts to entire campaign settings. Ideas would get stale and campaign worlds/settings would start to run together. Thirdly, it would eventually become fairly standardised and cookie-cutter. One core book followed by X, Y, and Z suppliment books would set a precedent that would be in place for sake of use by other campaign settings, leaving each book to be fairly standard and in the same format, depending on the time allotted to the campaign setting. I don't think that Wizards should focus on onlt four roleplaying campaign settings (Core, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, d20 system), personally, and I agree that they should be more focused on providing quality and not quantity, but they arent. I'm not a CEO at Wizards and I'm not a shareholder (other than my investment in actual material, which counts for nothing), so the decision on what Wizards produces in what product line is not impacted by me in the slightest. I only buy the core material, and even then, I've been clean for two years. I fully understand Wizard's decision to produce multiple suppliments every month (milking the cash cow for all its worth), even if I don't agree with it.
Ranger REG 03-24-07, 04:57 AM	I only buy the core material, and even then, I've been clean for two years. I fully understand Wizard's decision to produce multiple suppliments every month (milking the cash cow for all its worth), even if I don't agree with it. One shouldn't expect WotC to put out every book that you desire. We're fickle gamers. I recognize there is indeed a fanbase for Eberron, thanks in part to their aggressive marketing plan. It is reminisence of Forgotten Realms marketing during the 2e Era by TSR. Just because I'm not interested in Eberron doesn't mean I oppose WotC doing it. (But I do enjoy irking them. :evillaugh ) AFAIK, they're releasing supplements at a rate less than TSR's output.
Spinal_Tap 03-26-07, 07:59 AM	AFAIK, they're releasing supplements at a rate less than TSR's output. But they're definitely heading towards Complete Gnome Cooks Handbook territory…
Ranger REG 03-26-07, 09:26 PM	But they're definitely heading towards Complete Gnome Cooks Handbook territory… Considering that they recently released Complete Mage after Complete Arcane, and Complete Scoundrel after Complete Adventurer, I can't argue. :nonono: But having gone through the 2e Era, I'm a lot more selective in my purchase, even if it means I miss things like Eberron (not a big deal).
Pet_Sounds 03-27-07, 04:02 AM	But having gone through the 2e Era, I'm a lot more selective in my purchase Same here.
ArisenFromTheDead 03-27-07, 01:47 PM	There is nothing wrong with Eberron nor is there anything wrong with it's fanbase. Quit insinuating that there is please.
Hochiu 03-27-07, 07:32 PM	Sure there is. Just like there's something wrong with everything: Overzealous Fans.
Rogue Shadows 03-28-07, 10:30 AM	I actually like Eberron, a lot. It reminds me of Final Fantasy IX, and Indiana Jones. That can't be bad.