AlabasterKnight wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 11:07am:


Dude, you really try to belittle people who don't agree with you or want to listen to you.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 11:07am:


This has been discussed between you and I on another forum and I believe via PM here.  Since you forgot, let me remind you.

Jeff and Jack were never moderators on the group. When they asked if they could be made moderators or owners, I went ahead and made the co-owners of the group.  So there was never a point where they were mods and not co-owners.

As I mentioned before, Jeff and Jack were the only people related to V&V who ever asked to be involved in management of the mailing list, and Jeff had been participating in the list for many years.  Again, more than any other people who were related to V&V.

I have seen a few comments regarding people being unhappy about the status of Jeff and Jack on the mailing list.  Strangely enough, I don't recall seeing any that were sent by people actively involved in the mailing list, or that weren't being posted in response to a thread you posted in a forum.

There was one person who created an account to post to the group who was being insulting and calling Jeff Dee names.  Gee, I wonder why a moderator would have deleted that.  Maybe it is because the group doesn't approve of that.  I had to drop a heavy mod-hammer on the group early this year (or late last year) because some people were calling names and getting insulting.  Sorry, not appropriate to the list.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Sep 13^th, 2010 at 11:07am:


I kind of smirk when I read this, and I considered the ugliness you have been posting on this and other message boards, trying to twist things to a certain viewpoint (I'll call it 'spinning it' if it makes you feel better).

I've seen several people who have said they will not buy anything from FGU.  I'm sure there are people who will not buy from MHG.  As I have said, I plan to purchase from FGU or MHG.

This is all up to the courts, and until the decision is made there, that is exactly where it belongs.  You can say you wish none of this ever happened, but from what I have seen, you are the guy that keeps dragging the horse behind the cart and beating on it every once in a while.

You have said you were not an official spokesperson for FGU, but then you talk about having seen contracts and whatnot - having specifically read the contract with Dee and Herman, seeing their signatures plus the signatures of their parents since both were minors when the contract was signed.

Are you not able to let things rest until the courts decide?

Okay, not to turn this into a 3rd edition/3.5 edition/Pathfinder edition versus 4th edition fight, here is a clarification to John's question...
Back in 2000, after WOTC had purchased and owned D&D for a few years, Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition replaced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition. In an effort to bring gamers back into the fold of playing D&D, WOTC followed the copyleft theory that was made so popular with Linux... by releasing the core mechanics behind the game freely through the System Release Documents, or SRD. SRD 3.0 was the document set at that time. In addition, the OGL or Open Gaming License was created as a means of allowing 3rd party companies to make products that were directly compatible with new the D&D, much in the same nature that MHG has released their compat license with their release of V&V (note: I'm not citing this to get into a war of whether they have or do not have the right to do this, I'm just citing an example to explain the basics of the OGL to John). The concept was this... as long as you agreed to give up at least 5% of your own original work in an OGL product (though many products cited the game text as 100% OGL), you could freely use anything else that was deemed OGL in all other game compat products (you also had to cite reference at the end of the included OGL license in the back of your product). There was also the d20 license and logo which was a direct means of advertising that your product was fully compat. but it was not a need to have thing so we'll skip that discussion. The idea was instead of having an rpg market bloated with dozens and dozens of different systems that were often made purely because the designers really wanted to create products for D&D but couldn't, everyone could be working on a central theme. Granted, I'm not saying that D&D is and was the only game to play out there, fantasy included, I'm just citing the basic concept behind the whole release of 3rd edition.
Then, after a few years, WOTC announced that they had cleaned up a few things here and there and released D&D 3.5, which was more or less compat with 3.0, but had a few changes here and there. It was honestly a nightmare for us small design houses, especially as we were in the midst of major projects that were originally slated for 3.0, but most of us made the changes as needed and we went on about our business. I can say that the particular project that I was writing most of and leading up at that time was Dark Quest Games' Lost Prehistorica and the changes were pretty significant for us... particularly since the Beast monster type had been merged into Animal and dinosaurs were previously Beast types. I've got to admit that I was very much for this change, because I saw dinosaurs as animals myself and the prehistoric mammals were very tough to categorize over to Beasts from Animals, but the change resulted in a great number of modifications and stat changes never the less. I still remember sweating through the Word doc that was essentially the build table for the Lost Prehistorica book.
Then, a handful of years later, WOTC announced that they were creating a whole new D&D again, 4th edition, and this one was going to be radically different. And they were also going to re-think the manner of the open gaming issues.
The open gaming issues aside, I did not personally care for the game mechanics and dynamics of 4th edition... which, for the note of John, is the current edition of D&D to this day. It is a radical change that in many ways was a total departure for quite a few elements of D&D as we have always known... for better or for worse.
I myself, like many others, preferred the radical changes that 3.0/3.5 brought to the game... finally there were rules for craft and profession skills, the characters could actually be monstrous creatures if you wanted because monsters were built on a rule set that was similair in many ways to the ruleset of the characters. Simple npcs such as commoners, adepts, etc. were well defined. There were prestige classes that you could shift over into, etc. etc. It was a bit harder to initially learn D&D mind you, but it was really wide open. That is not to say that 4th edition isn't likewise, but it just feels so alien to me...
Many individuals, like me, became turned on to Paizo's radical move of discontinuing adventure support for the official D&D line and creating their own role playing game, Pathfinder, which was based on the System Release Document 3.5 rules, but tweaked about a bit for a few improvements. After all, there was nothing really to prevent you from not doing as such, and Pathfinder chose to do so. As far as fantasy goes, I play Pathfinder, not D&D.

But that is my own gaming preference, and does not reflect the gaming enjoyment and preferences of others.

In this I have to agree with the Multi-classing part of 3.0 and 3.5  At about 6th level you generally were ...cutting your own throat if you did not switch to something else as you had level after level of no real development in the character's abilities.

I have several high level characters that usually ended up with 2 core classes and 3 or more prestige classes.  not really in the spirit of what I felt should be a character's advancement.

But Pathfinder...revamped all the classes and now there is little reson to switch from your core class..at almost every level of advancement you get something interesting or neat for the core class at best there being a gap of only one level before something new or interesting is gained access to.

Yes.  I was skeptical about the feats... and such wonders of Game Designer rulings such as when one player from our group asked a game designer at one past GENCON ..why was one feat so much weaker than another feat with no other prerequisites the game designer said... Quote: "not all feats are created equal..."

What kind of Answer is that!?!?

We all called BS right off...

But I like what Pathfinder has done... they recognize that with so many feats out there does it really matter if you have a few extra?  Its not like you can EVER get them all...but they do allow you to be very special in your own way.  I can see they made a distinct attempt to level the feat power...so there were no glaringly weak feats compared to others. 

Our group really likes what they have done in their re-write of 3rd Edition and feel it has been significantly improved for ease of play in Pathfinder!

But each to his own...

So..GAME ON!

It is also why Pathfinder has, relatively speaking, few prestige classes at all.  And with the Advanced Players guide... it gives an entire chapter to alternate core class abilities give players and UNEQUALED ability to tailor their fighter, or wizard or what ever to be their own very specific type of character  if they want different core class abilities than presented in the main core rules.  If you just want to be a specific prestige-class it is for the prestige of being part of that small portion of very specific specialists and or political/religious faction with their own special abilities.

Ding!  Hehe... 'another Gaming Angel gets its wings...'

{[Curb Stomp!!!] Take that WotC!}

I know this is off topic, but I picked up a copy of the Pathfinder core rules today for half price (it was a used copy).  Very pretty book, which I knew already.  Now to dive into it.

A prestige class is a new character class that you have to meet requirements for as the character develops.  It typically focuses the character more in one direction at the expense of others.

For example, an arcane archer is a prestige class.  The character has to have a certain base attack bonus and be able to cast arcane spells to qualify.  As you progress in arcane archer, the character imbues non-magic arrows with magic.

I just wanted to state that no matter who owns V&V or who writes the rules up, my characters will always kick major ass. Someone should honestly write up a gaming system based on my kick ass characters.

That is all.

Paul wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 10:48pm:



They did. Its called T&T,  Tutus & Tapshoes.

dsumner wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28pm:


Hello everyone!

The group is missing these magazine articles:
01) Different World #34: DNAgents - by Jack Herman
02) Gateways #11, Nov. 1988: V&V stats for the Badger
03) Stardate Magazine, Vol. 3 Number 3: "Falling Damage in Villians and Vigilantes" by Michael R. Stotts.

Different Worlds #34 is expensive:
http://www.diffworlds.com/dw_25-36.htm

It's not here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_12?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Adifferent+wor...

Or here:
http://stores.ebay.com/LegacyMagazines/Other-/_i.html?_fsub=779594017&_sid=84814...

I think I'll have Gateways #11 en route soon.

And Stardate seems to have disappeared:
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Stardate_%28magazine%29

Stardate vol 3 iss 3 is not here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Astardate%2Cn%3...

Nor here:
http://books.shop.ebay.com/Magazine-Back-Issues-/280/i.html?_nkw=stardate&_catre...

And this is NOT the same Stardate (I asked):
http://stardate.org/

Anyone know anyone who might know someone who has any of these articles?

Thanks!

mw

Majestic wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:


Who dated this girl, that originally went out with this other guy who...

This is not really a huge announcement but for those who are interested, I dumped some of my old outtake maps on the yahoo V&V forum. Most are simply map images that I had originally planned to eventually use for something but never did... no notes attached.

dsumner wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2010 at 7:42pm:



Well do go ahead and add your own take on it! I'm always up for comments, compliments, criticism, and secret family recipes!

Majestic wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 10:50pm:



Thanks! They're really just what I said though... unfinished out takes. I have more of that kind of stuff I'll post later.
When projects ease up I may even purposefully make some newer outtakes.

The town... I remember that I had a scale but forgot what it was... give me a second and I'll blow it up and check.

Hey, does anyone have those last two articles that Dislpay Name is referring to...
*Gateways #11, Nov. 1988: V&V stats for the Badger
*Stardate Magazine, Vol. 3 Number 3: "Falling Damage in Villians and Vigilantes" by Michael R. Stotts.
?
If so, an upload to the VNVRPG Yahoo files would be stellar.

cool thanks D!

btw, very soon I am turning over moderating duties, don't know to whom yet, but as promised, it shouldn't be me.

Please see my announcement at the below link (on this site):

http://www.villainsandvigilantesforum.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1286596492