Personally, I think I will be completely Arcanis from now on, same detailed history as the realms, great RP opportunities and they have made the decision to stay 3.5e on the basis 4e is becoming too much like a tactical wargame!!!!
Anybody else want to join, check out livingarcanis.com.
Flicker
So is anybody looking at playing other realms when 4e is released, or staying with FR and running under 3.5 and just writing homeplay for themselves.
Personally, I think I will be completely Arcanis from now on, same detailed history as the realms, great RP opportunities and they have made the decision to stay 3.5e on the basis 4e is becoming too much like a tactical wargame!!!!
Anybody else want to join, check out livingarcanis.com.
Flicker
I'll going to stick with the Realms without all the nonsense of the Spell plaguee and stuff...rather I do this with 3.x or 4th edition rules depends on if the rules are a improvement and how easy is it to convert between editions things like characters, gods, races, etc.( neither of which I have seen any signs of it being so)
Classic realms here, probably using the Pathfinder rules. Easy!
-Here, here!!!:D
18DELTA;)
Rules, from what I've seen so far, seems more like a video game. They will also remain homebrew - a mix of rules that I like from all editions, so only stuff that I like from 4e/Pathfinder will be incorporated, like I did with Unearthed Arcana, Monte Cook's alternate stuff etc.
But after seeing the announcement at Paizo, and also hearing rumours about other popular settings remaining 3e, I think the new 'extended' 3e (3.6?) will be the thing to play in the coming years.
I'm 90% convinced right now that I will continue to play 3e with all of the 3rd party extensions, and will be 100% if Monte Cook decides to keep Arcana Unearthed/Evolved 3e (I steal quite a bit from there).
If Monte stays 3e, and I think he might, then so am I. :D
PS - I think Pathfinder is just the tip of the Iceberg... no wonder folks around here refuse to comment... they might be asking Paizo for a job next year.
What I see myself doing is borrowing from Pathfinder and maybe Monte Book of Experimental Might(which is 3.x with Monte's house rule effectively) and others that will follow Paizo's lead and maybe even some ideas from 4th edition(
) to fix 3.5 to my liking...along with some PrCs and feats of my own creation...And my Realms will still ignore the Spellplague etc. that won't change.
liked the artwork tough
looked through Pathfinder, pretty basic stuff, nothing new
liked the artwork tough
That's because it's an Alpha.
Also, I don't think they aim for new, but for better.
(am I really the only one out here who thought Skill points were a great idea?).
You aren't the only one who thinks that. The only moment when they are a pain in the arse is when characters get level drained.
You aren't the only one who thinks that. The only moment when they are a pain in the arse is when characters get level drained.
yeah it requires a extra sheet to keep track how you spend you skill points every level though the freedom to better define your character was worth that little bit of extra effort to deal in the rare case of perament level drain.(Tempory Negative levels was a overall minus to all skills after all)
My group though built a spreadsheet to handle that though so it was even less of a hassle then it might for groups who son't have that resouce.
So is anybody looking at playing other realms when 4e is released, or staying with FR and running under 3.5 and just writing homeplay for themselves.
I have been moving away from the Realms as written for some time now. that is the natural byproduct of allowing players to change the world and changing the world to challange their perspectives. I started playing in 1372 and have recently made it into 1382. I'm finding that inorder to craft adventures I am now looking more to my own old notes then I am to any Realms product.
After all, its only five years off, according to them. ;)
As for me, I'm waiting for the 4.5 (errata) edition that is inevitable sometime in 2010.
I'm warming up to the idea of only upgrading to odd numbered editions. That's right. Screw 6th Edition. I'll wait for 7th. :D
When I pick up D&D again, it won't be using 4e rules (probably a 3e/3.5 hybrid, with lots of finer rules points tossed out the window in favor of DM fiat).
As far as the Realms go, I don't care for the majority of 4e setting changes and/or flavor retcons, so it's more likely that I'll run games in past eras, or potentially drop the setting. Very disillusioned I'm sad to say, because I liked the setting a lot.
thats what most of us intend to do.
Also, since you mentioned using 'Hybrid Rules', you should check out the Pathfinder 3e extended Rules, the Beta edition of which are FREE from Paizo! :D
?I wonder how Gestalting in 4e is going to work....
-Gesundheit.
I'll probably be playing 4e and 3.5. Why limit oneself? Now that i'm up to date with the 100 year jump I'm finding myself liking it more and more, a breath of fresh air is needed for the Realms IMO. I wonder how Gestalting in 4e is going to work....
I figure it is called Paragon levels. This should be great with flavorful old PRCs that were cool for fluff but horrible when it came to mechanics. You would weaken yourself just for rp benefits and the Paragon concept will let you have flavor and allow you to whup some tail still.
I figure it is called Paragon levels. This should be great with flavorful old PRCs that were cool for fluff but horrible when it came to mechanics. You would weaken yourself just for rp benefits and the Paragon concept will let you have flavor and allow you to whup some tail still.
no...*sigh* I guess if you never got it you never will get it...oh well.
Not 3.6, or 3.75, or even 3AE or 3P...
I've always changed the rules to fit my style of play (as well we all should), and I probably have had just as many houserules as official ones.
So why should I have to make a choice now?
I'm looking at Pathfinder and Monte Cook's offerings, and I'll be buying the 4e PHB for sure. Then, if none of them are 'perfect' (and they won't be, because it is a very subjective thing), I'll just take bits and pieces and make what I want out of it - My own 3e 'Markerized' system.
Hence, 3M. :D
And like the tape company of the same name... it sticks with you. :P
Editions have never stopped me from using a good adventure, campaign, hook or whatever. Right now, I am DMing Night Below again, one of the good old AD&D campaigns, using 3,5E rules and northern Impiltur. There are tons of AD&D and 3,xE books on the Realms about, plus FR-unrelated but easily adaptable adventures and campaigns about. 30,000odd years of Realms history are there for you to explore too.
So unless there is something that really really REALLY looks oh-so-smashing great, I have no need to jump at anything 4Eish anytime soon.
Classic realms here, probably using the Pathfinder rules. Easy!
Ditto.
While I find 4e intriguing, it's not D&D and if I do use it, it will be with somehting that is not my campaign world and therefore will not contaminate it.
Pathfinder does add something new to the equation...I like somethings...dislike others...and really hate the skill system (am I really the only one out here who thought Skill points were a great idea?).
What I see myself doing is borrowing from Pathfinder and maybe Monte Book of Experimental Might(which is 3.x with Monte's house rule effectively) and others that will follow Paizo's lead and maybe even some ideas from 4th edition(
And my Realms will still ignore the Spellplague etc. that won't change.
Not a fan of Spellpoints myself. Far to easy for someone to make, say, concentration so high that they can ALWAYS cast on the defensive with no chance of failure. The skill point system is very easy to abuse. I like the SW:SAGA model for skills, which is what Paizo is implementing.
All in all, I like Pathfinder. Have a few problems, but hey, it IS an Alpha test
What is this "Pathfinder" that you speak of?
-From what I understand of it, it's basically a "3.75e" ruleset that is being published by Paizo, to compete with WotC's 4e ruleset.
What is this "Pathfinder" that you speak of?
http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8253&source=new
Lord Karsus already gave a good description.
-From what I understand of it, it's basically a "3.75e" ruleset that is being published by Paizo, to compete with WotC's 4e ruleset.
Apparently, there's a new setting for it too.
Currently I am in 1363 and the campaign should end in 1365.
After that I plan on running Age of Wyrms in the Shining South. Not sure what year I will have the setting begin, I think a few months before Tiamat kills Gilgamesh, as I plan on having part of the capaign take place in Unther. Clearly that would not be possible in 4E as it seems to be completely annihilated so no 4E for me.
Maybe when I have kids I will switch to a new edition.....
I do not anticipate doing much with 4e Realms based on what I've read so far but I will strive to have a look at the book with the least amount of prejudice. If I like it, I'll start a new game up.
I do anticipate picking up more 2nd edition Forgotten Realms books due to their rich detail.
While I find 4e intriguing, it's not D&D and if I do use it, it will be with somehting that is not my campaign world and therefore will not contaminate it.
I'll start a whole different world for 4e, to test it out. My son's started to run his own games, but he doesn't have a world yet - just a town, and a couple of local adveture 'hot spots'. He wants to go further and flesh out the surrounding country, so Maybe I'll give him a hand and he can run 4e with the new world.
That sounds like a fun father-son project. :D
Apparently, there's a new setting for it too.
The setting already exists (I believe), but it will become a fully-formed Campaign world when Pathfinder is released in its finished incarnation.
Their magazine is also called Pathfinder, and all of the adventures contained therein have always been part of a shared-world environment, and now they are simply taking the next step. Its now going to be a full-fledged sytem, rather then just a setting for their periodicals.
Paizo products evolve - they don't take a sledgehammer to stuff and start all over. ;)
-From what I understand of it, it's basically a "3.75e" ruleset that is being published by Paizo, to compete with WotC's 4e ruleset.
No. Actually, it is a "setting" that Paizo whipped up when they were stripped of the rights to publish the Dragon and the Dungeon. A setting that drives on "adventure path" style adventures and campaigns in a setting that is currently set up. They have decided to stay with 3,5E for the time being and will also go on and support 4E gamers, should they wish to participate. In addition, they are about to update 3,5E, changing it here and there with stuff many of us use already - like combining certain skills ("Stealth" = Hide & Move Silently) or handing out more stuff to certain - lacking classes. But this Rules Set is not yet included in the official Pathfinder set up right now, methinks.
You can download the Player's Guides from the Paizo website for free.
18D
You know, this just game me a great idea -
I'll start a whole different world for 4e, to test it out. My son's started to run his own games, but he doesn't have a world yet - just a town, and a couple of local adveture 'hot spots'. He wants to go further and flesh out the surrounding country, so Maybe I'll give him a hand and he can run 4e with the new world.
That sounds like a fun father-son project. :D
-Do you have the, and I forget the exact title of the book (2e), and I don't feel like running upstairs to get it, The Worldbuilder's Guidebook? I have it, and it's a pretty useful book to have. Basically, it gives some very helpful tips when developing an entire campaign setting.
-And, you might get a kick out of the author. ;)
No. Actually, it is a "setting" that Paizo whipped up when they were stripped of the rights to publish the Dragon and the Dungeon. A setting that drives on "adventure path" style adventures and campaigns in a setting that is currently set up. They have decided to stay with 3,5E for the time being and will also go on and support 4E gamers, should they wish to participate.
-Emphasis mine. What do you think "3.75" is?
I know how to build a world, and I even know how to make it make sense. ;)
The funny thing is, I don't think I ever got more then a few pages into that tome... now I know why.
Besides, AEG has a series of books that are PHENOMENAL DM's aids, and I have them all. You can pretty much 'roll up a planet' with them.
Yeah... I think helping my son design his world is the way to go - he's already started writing a book about it, and I'll let him use the new rules (with me), so we can't 'break anything' important.
That will give me a little more time to decide what rules I want to use with FR... 3e FR. ;)
I have the Worldbuilder's Guide, but I thought it was a waste of my time (I've already designed a few worlds of my own, for miniatures games and fiction, as well as for RPGing). I've even created three custom board games (the first one at ten years old).
-Really? I have it, and though I do not doubt my own campaign building skills, I find the book quite useful at times.
Besides, AEG has a series of books that are PHENOMENAL DM's aids, and I have them all. You can pretty much 'roll up a planet' with them.
-What is 'AEG', and what is the series you are allusing to?
Yeah... I think helping my son design his world is the way to go - he's already started writing a book about, and I'll let him use the new rules (with me), so we can't 'break anything' important.
-That is how my own setting began. I had specific locales, individuals and events established from online RPing. That led to me then write some short stories concerning varuous places, events and individuals. That, then, led me to simply "breathe life" into the setting by detailing it fully.
-What is 'AEG', and what is the series you are allusing to?
Alderac Entertainment
They're the people who bring us Rokugon, and also the very good 7th Sea Campaign setting. I have quite a few of their products - I really enjoyed their Book Secrets; I wouldn't use everything in it, but it was chock full of ideas to use in a setting, so I still felt it was more then worth the price.
Alderac Entertainment
They're the people who bring us Rokugon, and also the very good 7th Sea Campaign setting. I have quite a few of their products - I really enjoyed their Book Secrets; I wouldn't use everything in it, but it was chock full of ideas to use in a setting, so I still felt it was more then worth the price.
-Which ones, specifically, are you talking about? I am looking at what they have here- Good, Evil, Dragons, and so on- and nothing has jumped out at me as the 'Must Have for World Building'. Is it just the combination of all of them, once they are in your hands, that does it?
-Emphasis mine. What do you think "3.75" is?
An updated version of the 3,5E rules-set. It is not "Pathfinder" as such. For the latter is no rules set. At least not yet. It's like saying "Pathfinder" is "Forgotten Realms" when you actually talk about D&D 3,5E rules.
An updated version of the 3,5E rules-set. It is not "Pathfinder" as such. For the latter is no rules set. At least not yet.
-Case in point.
While I find 4e intriguing, it's not D&D and if I do use it, it will be with somehting that is not my campaign world and therefore will not contaminate it.
What about 4e isn't DnD? What exactly does that even mean? I'm a little confused, because if it's the rule-changes then....wouldn't that make everything but 1st edition, not DnD? I understand everyone being upset about the new stuff, I can sympathize whole-heartedly, but not to call it what it is seems........well just silly. It's sorta like if Trekkies were upset with Enterprise they would feel better by not saying that it's Star Trek (ok, a far-shot analogy, but you get the point). Yes, 4e is different. Yes, they mess with the timeline and ruin alot of people's campaigns and kill of lots of Gods, NPCs, etc., but it still is what it is.
Sorry, that might have come off as offensive. I don't mean it to. I'm just curious as to what constitutes as DnD is all. :D
I have the Worldbuilder's Guide, but I thought it was a waste of my time (I've already designed a few worlds of my own, for miniatures games and fiction, as well as for RPGing). I've even created three custom board games (the first one at ten years old).
I know how to build a world, and I even know how to make it make sense. ;)
The funny thing is, I don't think I ever got more then a few pages into that tome... now I know why.
Besides, AEG has a series of books that are PHENOMENAL DM's aids, and I have them all. You can pretty much 'roll up a planet' with them.
Yeah... I think helping my son design his world is the way to go - he's already started writing a book about it, and I'll let him use the new rules (with me), so we can't 'break anything' important.
That will give me a little more time to decide what rules I want to use with FR... 3e FR. ;)
But, that's not what they want you to do with 4e. Thats totally against POL. What your son has already is what they want. A village, some plot hooks, and go form there. I'm 100% serious here.
What about 4e isn't DnD? What exactly does that even mean? I'm a little confused, because if it's the rule-changes then....wouldn't that make everything but 1st edition, not DnD? I understand everyone being upset about the new stuff, I can sympathize whole-heartedly, but not to call it what it is seems........well just silly. It's sorta like if Trekkies were upset with Enterprise they would feel better by not saying that it's Star Trek (ok, a far-shot analogy, but you get the point). Yes, 4e is different. Yes, they mess with the timeline and ruin alot of people's campaigns and kill of lots of Gods, NPCs, etc., but it still is what it is.
Sorry, that might have come off as offensive. I don't mean it to. I'm just curious as to what constitutes as DnD is all. :D
In all honesty, 1st and 2nd Edition are D&D, for me. As I said, 4e does not feel like D&D to me. 3rd Ed is d20, not D&D. Similarities, to D&D, beyond the book titles, yes, but it's own game. 4e is even worse, with very few similarities. (And I know alot of Trekkers who do say Eneterprise wa snot Star Trek, because of the blatant contradictions of not only the Original series, but of all the other series)
-Which ones, specifically, are you talking about? I am looking at what they have here- Good, Evil, Dragons, and so on- and nothing has jumped out at me as the 'Must Have for World Building'. Is it just the combination of all of them, once they are in your hands, that does it?
Actually, I think its just the Cities book I'm thinking of. I remember a slew of charts and tables in there, for creating settlements of every size and type, with stuff about famland needed to support something that size, and types of gov't (both local and national). Those books are all very thorough about each of the subjects they deal with.
I'm not home ATM, but I plan on lookin at the WBGB again when I get back - maybe it was better then I remember - I barely even looked at it, I think.
In all honesty, 1st and 2nd Edition are D&D, for me. As I said, 4e does not feel like D&D to me. 3rd Ed is d20, not D&D. Similarities, to D&D, beyond the book titles, yes, but it's own game. 4e is even worse, with very few similarities. (And I know alot of Trekkers who do say Eneterprise wa snot Star Trek, because of the blatant contradictions of not only the Original series, but of all the other series)
Ok, so then i'm assuming that it's about the rules. I've not had the chance to play anything before 2nd and I have to say, i don't look back. 2e has LOTS of lore and awesome story plots, but I just don't like how the game runs. With THAC0, weapon speeds, 5! different saves, level caps, and loads of restrictions it's just too much work to be fun. True, 3e definitly made some things simpler, but a flaw of 3e is putting everything into a roll or has given it mechanics. Want to jump on a table (roll), wanna impress an NPC (roll), wanna crack a joke at the inn (roll). These things easily could've been left out so people could actually ROLE play, but i digress. The similarities between the flavor of DnD haven't changed all that much over the years. Barbarians are still considered tribal/wilderness warriors who favor Rage over training, Paladins are still holy/unholy knights for their respected causes, Wizards are still spell-slinging/bookworms who thirst for more arcane knowledge. Though the rules have changed (IMO for the better), the flavor has always lasted through the years. (BTW, my folks are big Trekkies but they sorta liked Enterprise in it's own way, sadly only lasting 4 seasons. They did mention how Klingons lost their ridges and why they looked the way they did in the original series though. Oops, digressing again.)
It's sorta like if Trekkies were upset with Enterprise they would feel better by not saying that it's Star Trek (ok, a far-shot analogy, but you get the point).
-They do do that, don't they? :P
I'll accept 2nd edition Star Trek, and even 3rd and 4th, but 5th edition changed too much.
Some people might have very strict limits. They might require that anything that isn't specifically about the Enterprise "NCC-1701", "no bloody A, B, C or D" isn't Star Trek. Other people might have very loose limits. For them, as long as it's about the United Federation of Planets in any way, any person living in the UFP, on any planet, anywhere -- then it's Star Trek for them.
Same with D&D. Some people have strict limits, some people have loose limits. But everybody has their limit *somewhere*, where they say, "this isn't Star Trek anymore" or "this isn't D&D anymore". Even if the most recent releases haven't brought them to that limit yet, that limit does exist *somewhere*, maybe 20 years in the future when Star Trek does a TV series about a group of happy ants fighting against a hive of grumpy bees, or when D&D does a 12e where there is no longer classes or races and everybody plays a prostitute. At some point, it may be close by or very far away, everybody has a limit where they say "this is no longer X".
And I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" place for the limit. Wherever anybody's personal limit is, no place is "right" or "wrong" for it.
3.5E had lost its luster for me some time ago, and while I liked MANY of the innovations presented in that rule set, I found with little modification, much was applicable to my old 1E books.
Low and behold, all those supplements are usable again... :D There is a wealth of 1E material still being produced out there as well, and my group of players have found it very refreshing not having to worry about feats, attacks of opportunity, trip attacks, sense motive, etc.
The important thing is we are telling stories and having fun, and regardless of edition, that's always what the game is about.
If 4e pushes past your limit, then fine, don't buy it. I won't.
The only thing that pisses me off is that any future CRPGs like NWN3 and BG3 will now pretty much have to be 4e, which annoys me. I'll never again have more D&D computer games in my life.
I believe it was all done in an effort to widen the appeal of the show, to make it more mainstream by making it less blatantly Star Trek (which does have certain preconceptions attached to it).
I know alot of info about it, even though I consider myself a Star Wars over being a Trekkie.
-Star Wars is better, anyway...
The only thing that pisses me off is that any future CRPGs like NWN3 and BG3 will now pretty much have to be 4e, which annoys me. I'll never again have more D&D computer games in my life.
I dunno, the game play between BG and Icewind Dale II was fairly similar and easy to convert to and it was between two editions. Maybe playing a DnD game that uses 4e rules in the future could integrate and simplify it, thus making the rules (and PnP game) easier to play and enjoy. Besides, I don't think 4e is going to deviate as much from the rules as 3/3.5e did from 2nd. There will still be feats, skills, BAB, Fort, Ref, Will saves, etc..they're not totally re-writing the whole darn system.
-Star Wars is better, anyway...
Story line-yes. Ground Troop tactics-yes. Equipment-tie (lightsabers pwn Borgs but warp drive seems better and more accurate than hyper-drive). Special Magical Abilities-yes. Space Ship tactics and design-no. 2 Borg cubes could systematically destroy the Emperial Fleet, in its entirety. Species 8472's 5 (or is it 6?) ships combined destroy planets, enough said. I like both for what they are but perfer Star Wars over Star Trek
I like both for what they are but perfer Star Wars over Star Trek
-I wasn't attempting to compare the two. I was making a blanket, general statement.
-I wasn't attempting to compare the two. I was making a blanket, general statement.
to which i'm agreeing with :D
to which i'm agreeing with :D
-Stop arguing, then!
:PI think everybody who is a very passionate fan of something has a limit *somewhere* where they cease to accept something that has changed an X amount.
Some people might have very strict limits. They might require that anything that isn't specifically about the Enterprise "NCC-1701", "no bloody A, B, C or D" isn't Star Trek. Other people might have very loose limits. For them, as long as it's about the United Federation of Planets in any way, any person living in the UFP, on any planet, anywhere -- then it's Star Trek for them.
Same with D&D. Some people have strict limits, some people have loose limits. But everybody has their limit *somewhere*, where they say, "this isn't Star Trek anymore" or "this isn't D&D anymore". Even if the most recent releases haven't brought them to that limit yet, that limit does exist *somewhere*, maybe 20 years in the future when Star Trek does a TV series about a group of happy ants fighting against a hive of grumpy bees, or when D&D does a 12e where there is no longer classes or races and everybody plays a prostitute. At some point, it may be close by or very far away, everybody has a limit where they say "this is no longer X".
And I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" place for the limit. Wherever anybody's personal limit is, no place is "right" or "wrong" for it.
Well, when I say ti isn;t D&D for me, it's not only about the rules. Yea, I consider 3rd ed more D20 than D&D, but, the same 'feeling' was still there. And my group never had a problemw itht he roll for everything, becasue we didn't. We utilized the social skills only for those members who prefferred it to RP, meaning, the ones in my group who wanted to play charismatic type but weren't the best role players in the group. Otherwise, the roll, was made, but modified based on one's RP. I'm tangenting though. What I meant to say was 1st and 2nd ed had a certain feel to it that I associated with D&D, where the campaigns talked about were more reminiscing of adventures, encounters, and incidents, almost ALWAYS involving RP in them. When 3rd Ed times are remembered, it usually involves more combat oriented situations. 4e focuses almost entirely on combat, even social interaction is called social combat, and I see the trend from 3e being carried farther away from what I consider D&D and more itno a tactical wargame (which is funny considering D&D came OUT of a tactical wargame originally)
Regarding Enterprise. If I recall correctly, it was a decision by the producers to drop the "Star Trek" from the series title and simply name it just "Enterprise." They also decided to go with a more contemporary sounding theme song with lyrics (a pre-existing song at that) rather than the traditional symphonic theme.
I believe it was all done in an effort to widen the appeal of the show, to make it more mainstream by making it less blatantly Star Trek (which does have certain preconceptions attached to it).
And sounds ALOT like the path WOTC is taking with 4e
And, I enjoyed Enterprise. As a fan, I have my complaints about continuity errors and such, but I still enjoyed it.
I dunno, the game play between BG and Icewind Dale II was fairly similar and easy to convert to and it was between two editions.
I think his/her point was that any new FR games created would likely use the post-Spellplague world (and of course, for some of us that's not a good thing).
ST:tOS = poignent stories written by world-class Sci-Fi authors dealing with timely social issues
You're right... absolutely NO comparison there. :P
I'd give you that William Shatner was a lousy actor, but that Anakin Skywalker was so terrible he's even got old Bill beat. ;)
And don't even get me started about the believability of alien species.
Jar Jar?
Star Wars = Mindless drivel written around special effects
-You've lost pretty much all credibility you had on this matter here.
-You've lost pretty much all credibility you had on this matter here.
In your opinion, LK. Gosh darn it, I was going to let it slide, several posts ago, but now ya darn made me put me 2 cps into the mix.
Star Wars is space opera, and Star Trek is Introspective Science Fiction.
If you are the "action/ adventure" type, then certainly you may prefer Star Wars over Star Trek... doesn't make it better.
In Star Wars there is nothing to ponder here, good and evil are clearly defined, there is nothing to get introspective on, Tie Fighters are there to be blown up. Storm Troopers are there to be blasted.
Yes, there is great drama and conflict between the characters set in the overall conflict of "Rebels versus the Empire", or "the fall of a great man to evil". This is a soap opera, with great special effects, set in a galaxy far, far away...
Star Trek is a completely different animal. Many of the stories revolve around the human condition, and what it is that makes us who we are as a species. It attempts to demonstrate that our differences makes up beautiful...
"Infinite beauty in infinite diversity".
"Is there no truth in beauty?", "The Offspring", "City on the Edge of Forever", "Charlie X", "Where no Man Has Gone Before", "A Taste of Armegeddon", etc all did this.
Start Trek isn't about space combat, that's why the movies... especially the last few, were so bad.
My personally feeling is that something that makes you look inward, and consider existence and its meaning has some value to it, and is pretty impressive for "Television". Star Trek ends and leaves you with ideas to ponder... Just like there is no crying in baseball, there is no pondering in Star Wars....
As good as it is, there is no mystery, no overall pondering of existance (and if you say "the force" LK, you loose all credibility :D ), nor is there any introspection to be gained from a Star Wars movie.
Neither is realistic. But honestly, if you want to talk about a GREAT sci fi series, than you have to look no further than Babylon 5. :P
Neither is realistic. But honestly, if you want to talk about a GREAT sci fi series, than you have to look no further than Babylon 5. :P
I'm partial to the new Battlestar Galactica series. If it was mainstream and not only on the sci-fi station, i think it would still do exceptionally well. Plus the space battles are pretty cool too as well as the camera angles, much like Saving Private Ryan.
That being said, this probably isn't the place for a Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate...
As far as sci-fi goes, I love The Twilight Zone.
Star Wars is a light-hearted romp, but thats about it - no depth what-so-ever. It is to Sci-Fi what the Princess Bride is to fantasy.
Its good for what it is.
Thats coming from a person who has has read hundreds of Sci-Fi novels, but has never read a single Star Wars one (nor wish to).
To be fair, I read a Star Trek novel only once, and it was awful.
As far as sci-fi goes, I love The Twilight Zone.
For its day, it was awsome.
Never liked B5 though... ST:TNG I loved though. Great series that one.
For its day, it was awsome.
Indeed.:D
I'm partial to the new Battlestar Galactica series. If it was mainstream and not only on the sci-fi station, i think it would still do exceptionally well. Plus the space battles are pretty cool too as well as the camera angles, much like Saving Private Ryan.
They tried bringing it to USA Network (also owned by NBC Universal). That channel, while still a cable channel and not one of the big leaguers like HBO, is more mainstream. BSG did not perform well on that network. It swiftly retreated back to Sci-Fi, remaining the big fish in a small pond.
In your opinion, LK. Gosh darn it, I was going to let it slide, several posts ago, but now ya darn made me put me 2 cps into the mix.
-Haven't we established by now that, nine times out of ten, my opinion is fact? :P
In Star Wars there is nothing to ponder here, good and evil are clearly defined, there is nothing to get introspective on...
-Only if you analyze things in their most basic forms, as presented. Do that, and the world was created in seven days...
As good as it is, there is no mystery, no overall pondering of existance (and if you say "the force" LK, you loose all credibility :D ), nor is there any introspection to be gained from a Star Wars movie.
-Tell me, how much do you actually know about Star Wars? What do you read?
Star Wars is a light-hearted romp, but thats about it - no depth what-so-ever...Thats coming from a person who has has read hundreds of Sci-Fi novels, but has never read a single Star Wars one (nor wish to).
-You've just admitted, then, that your opinions on this particular matter carries little actual fact to back them. I know nothing of, say, Babylon 5, other than seeing the commercials on TV every now and then- I don't even know if it's a movie, and television show, or what. That said, I've never judged it based on those commercials (I think there were some kinds of warp portals, space ships and soldiers with machine guns?)...
They tried bringing it to USA Network (also owned by NBC Universal). That channel, while still a cable channel and not one of the big leaguers like HBO, is more mainstream. BSG did not perform well on that network. It swiftly retreated back to Sci-Fi, remaining the big fish in a small pond.
Hmm, that saddens me. I guess Law and Order and Monk were just too much
. Not that I don't mind those shows, just think BSG is better and more entertaining to watch. As a side note to these television series, those of you who read George R. R. Martin's book A Game of Thrones is supposedly going to be put on the small screen by HBO, similar production to it's series Rome. Though I don't have HBO, it looks intriguing.
Whereas Star Wars brings tears of laughter to my eyes, and Star Trek brings tears of joy, Babylon 5 induces other bodily fluids to spew from my face. ;)
Oh, finally someone who shares my feelings about B5. The sad thing is, the damn show is so addictive that I watched it all.
Thats coming from a person who has has read hundreds of Sci-Fi novels, but has never read a single Star Wars one (nor wish to).
You should try the three books written by Timothy Zahn. They're pretty good.
I ask people their favorite episodes and they usually tell me the ones that have the most combat in them, that and a time travel episode.;) Deep Space Nine was my favorite though, after Hawk shaved his head and got his goatee back that is.:D If Enterprise had started with the whole Earth being attacked scenario it would have lasted longer I think. Many fans I knew stopped watching after 5 episodes. I was telling them how good it was in season 2 and they just could not believe me.
B5 was decent for it's overall story. I needed to know what happened even if I hated all of the human characters, as well as the Membauri with hair.:D
Star Wars is great. It is just tough to follow it after using such an epic stoyline and iconis characters. It is like Dragonlance to me, I like the stories but I don't feel like I can play in the world itself.
My predicition for the next Star Trek is a Spec Ops team with Jack Baur like missions and ships blowing up. Seriously. Perhaps a revival of that 31 group, ya know the NSA/CIA of Star Fleet. I forget the name.
I've loved Star Wars since it first came out. Staunchly believe the original movie was the best of the trilogy. The Prequels are utter crap, with only the third being any good at all.
I have beenn, and always shall be, a Trek fan. Except for Voyager. Couldn;t stand it. Found the characters drab and uninteresting. DS9, on the other hand, is my favorite, and only the Original series comes close.
Babylon 5. I got lots of friends who love this series and keep trying to get me to watch. I watched the pilot when it premiered and some of season 1. Was unimpressed.
The new Battlestar. I do not understand what people see in this series. It's down, depressing, and in my opinion, not as good as the original. And the girl who plays Starbuck is annoying and cannot act her way out of a paper bag. And the cylon blonde, while pretty, is not much better.
Other Sci-Fi shows I enjoy: Quantum Leap, Voyagers, Journeyman, Twilight Zone, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Original Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Eureka, Firefly, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Buck Rogers (guilty pleasure and season 1 only.)
I have beenn, and always shall be, a Trek fan. Except for Voyager. Couldn;t stand it. Found the characters drab and uninteresting. DS9, on the other hand, is my favorite, and only the Original series comes close.
Yea, Voyager got boring after they had many ways which to return to the Alpha Quadrant but didn't or couldn't at the very last second, it just became monotonous. DS9, on the other hand I really liked. When it got into the Dominion War, the episodes started to play off each other which is more interesting to me than each episode being individual from the others.
The new Battlestar. I do not understand what people see in this series. It's down, depressing, and in my opinion, not as good as the original. And the girl who plays Starbuck is annoying and cannot act her way out of a paper bag. And the cylon blonde, while pretty, is not much better.
The original just got strange when they got to earth, and during the last seasons started having supernatural uber powers. Acting aside, the newer series has some drama and plot twists that the original would've never conceived.
Anyways, getting back on topic!
I guess an alternative to FR 4e would be to........ play Star Wars RPG, Star Trek RPG, or create any of the above fictional universes to which ever rules set you desire.
The original just got strange when they got to earth, and during the last seasons started having supernatural uber powers. Acting aside, the newer series has some drama and plot twists that the original would've never conceived.
Whoah. I said I liked the original Battlestar Galactica, which lasted one season, not Galactica 1980, which was more of a crap fest than the new BSG.
Usually when you enjoy one, I found, you tend to dislike the other (inconsistencies and all that). I also said I hated the one ST novel I read, thus proving my point.
Star Wars novels are for people who want to know more about that setting - I don't want to. In fact, after the whole 'medichlorine' thing, I wish I new even less then I do.
I've also tried to play both ST and SW video/comp games, and hated both. Yet, I despise B5 (they STOLE Checov!!!), and have a FULL FLEET of Babylon 5 miniatures, because I LOVED playing the miniatures game based on the series (and didn't know a thing about 'my race' - some guys with really weird hair).
The original Battlestar Galactica was great fun, until the last season where they rode around Earth on transformer-motorcycles (:yuck
. The new series has NOTHING to do with the old, besides the title and a few names. And just like 3FR and 4FR, I can take them as two seperate things and enjoy them for their own merits - there simply isn't enough in common for me to even compare them - like apples and oranges. ;) The only other Sci-Fi shows I remember from back then were Buck Rogers (an abomination), Space 1999 (which was really cool, but its main concept utterly ridiculous), and UFO - a very good British program that I enjoyed, about Government being aware of aliens and interacting with them in secret (and they had a super-cool flying sub).
There's Doctor Who... but thats in a class all by itself. I would love to hate it, but I just can't - I watch it whenever its on (its like heroine - bad for you, but you just can't stop).
As for newer shows - Farsacpe was off the Shiz, and Lex was cool because it was funny/gross, and didn't try to take itsef seriously. I have a love/hate relationship with Stargate - couldn't really get into the original because I hated the movie. However, I like Atlantis somewhat, so I watch both if I happen to catch them... usually after Ghosthunters.
Don't think its so much Hayden Christensens fault of acting so much as having a director who isn't that great with actors. Considering what he had to work with, he wasn't nearly as bad as he could have been...
My son thought the same as you... until he seen Awake recently and had to agree with me.
He said the guy played the same emotionless, bland, dry character in that. I wouldn't blame the director for bad acting - Yoda was quite good in that one, IIRC. :D
As for Yoda, that was Frank Oz, so you can't really go all that wrong there... well, you can, but not where Star Wars is concerned.
Star Wars novels are for people who want to know more about that setting - I don't want to. In fact, after the whole 'medichlorine' thing, I wish I new even less then I do.
-Like I said, your opinion on the matter, then, is akin to someone who has never actually opened a book set in the Forgotten Realms (to bring things on-topic, kinda), but says that the setting has too much information for it to be a viable campaign world, or any of the other various criticisms. Don't do that. :: Finger Wag ::
Did you wait on line for six hours when Star Wars came out back in 1977? I did... the line wrapped around the movie theatre THREE TIMES!
For me, Star Wars is just the first three movies, and thats it. You know... like how a lot of us feel about FR - only the first three editions count. ;)
And its not just Star Wars - like I said, I hate Star Trek novels as well. The reverse is also true - I thought Frank Herbert's Dune was an incredible series, but every time they make it into a movie it just sucks.
When a series is created on TV or in Movies, and then they write novels about it, I take everything that does NOT appear on screen as apocryphal.
-That's not the case, however, with Star Wars. Novels are as canon as the movies. They are oftentimes better than the movies, as well.
Did you wait on line for six hours when Star Wars came out back in 1977? I did... the line wrapped around the movie theatre THREE TIMES!
-If I was alive, I would have. But, I was not, so...I did wait on line for Episodes I, II and III, though. First or second in line for all three times. My Jedi Master was the first or second in line when I was not the first or second.
For me, Star Wars is just the first three movies, and thats it. You know... like how a lot of us feel about FR - only the first three editions count. ;)
And its not just Star Wars - like I said, I hate Star Trek novels as well. The reverse is also true - I though Frank Herbert's Dune was an incredible series, but every time they make it into a movie it just sucks.
-That's fine. It's your perogative. But, that's not what I am getting on top of you (not in the literal sense, of course) about. I am getting 'in your face' (I don't want to be on top of you) about the fact that you are 'condemning' and writing off things that you've never even read. If you don't want to read any Star Wars novels, that's your own decision, but don't write the entire thing off as "a light-hearted romp, but thats about it - no depth what-so-ever" when you've never delved into the setting before.
And yeah, a couple of million people is less then 1% of Five Billion. ;)
(<-- Exasperation)-And, no, majority does not rule, always.
Maybe Ill persuade my gaming group to try this out.
To get back on the topic - the artwork of Pathfinder is really great, as are the changes. They mention some kind of alpha release 2 with paladin, sorcere and couple more classes, anyone know when thats gonna be??
Maybe Ill persuade my gaming group to try this out.
Pathfinder is fun, but I don't see any difference between it and the usual 3.5 stuff. Is there supposed to be different mechanics?? My group just started the Pathfinder campaign and it's pretty cool. They're take on certain monsters is intriguing as is the setting itself.
As for Hayden Christensen's acting, I just saw the movie Jumper not too long ago. My wife and I really liked it, and I though he did a pretty good job of acting as well. Maybe because he wasn't a Jedi?