| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 09 Aug 2008 : 00:35:26
"The Faerûn-spanning organization known as the Harpers disbanded nearly a century ago".
(From the Luruar article posted on the Wizards site)
I am thoroughly disgusted that the 4E FR design team can write off something that makes the Realms unique in such a demeaning and insulting way to the gamers and Realms fans that have had the privilege*, fun and fellowship of experiencing the Realms (Ed's Realms) for the last 21 years of full-on published work (29 years counting Dragon magazine articles). I can only imagine how others feel by being let down by this appalling decision to totally abandon a true cornerstone of what makes the Realms so special and who have built upon the lore of the Harpers so eloquently in the last 21 years.
To abandon the Harpers in this way to appease the so called internet majority of D&D players who won't play in the Realms and buy Realms products because they believe that their PC's can't do anything meaningful because of the Harpers (and Chosen) is a complete betrayal of the loyal Realms fans of the last 21 years who have bought product after product after product. The Realms Haters won't buy the new Realms just because the Harpers are no more and I cannot believe that the 4E FR design team really believe they will either, despite their design brief that the new edition will encourage these people into the Realms. It won't happen and the 4E team know that, but they are desperate enough to spout the WoTC marketing line and keep their bosses happy.
I was going to buy the FRCG for completeness and tie in potentially interesting future events into my ongoing Realms campaign that has come of age this year (Happy 21st Birthday!), but not now after the design decision to callously abandon the Harpers in 4E for the reasons stated above, therefore taking away something special that makes the Realms a living, breathing unique place to enjoy D&D in. WoTC have finally managed to divorce me from their vision of what the Realms are about with a small sidebar and one simple sentence of thirteen fateful words. 4E will be the first edition of D&D and the Forgotten Realms that I will not buy and I feel very sad at this realisation.
I just despair about what is happening to the pre-eminent published Fantasy RPG campaign setting in the world. It is simply the finest and greatest RPG product available and it is being treated with disdain and contempt by its current licence holders.
Just my thoughts
Damian
*and I do consider it a privilege to have had the chance to experience Ed's campaign world through the published works of the last 21 years since I first bought the Old Grey Boxed Set.
I feel even more privileged to be able to talk to Ed and THO, as well as other FR designers (and fans) via Candlekeep and the FR Mailing List, because they (designers) are all fans of the setting as are we that buy the products they produce. They care about the setting and want long term publishing success for the Realms and more importantly lots of fun and laughter and great gaming for D&D players across the world.
I know that the Realms will continue and look forward to many more years of playing in the Realms as it should be and I will continue to realise how lucky I am to have a hobby that I have enjoyed for nearly 30 years and feel privileged to be able to speak to like-minded Realms fans from around the world. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 02:32:38
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I think Ed's way of immersing the player characters in a big world does much more to create great experiences for players than sad, retrograde, lonely sociopath egoplay.
I absolutely and totally agree.
When I get to play I tend to make characters that have definite goals. They live in a city or town that I know a bit about (like the character would, though it's an imperfect knowledge of course) and I can think about a character that has a family, a history and hopes and dreams.
I have, literally, dozens of ideas for various characters across the Realms. Merchants, artists, social butterflies, nobles, commoners, fishermen, priests, etc. I use the dungeons and dragons game system in order to have an established way to have these characters interact with this world that I know.
It seems to me, thus far, that 4th edition and 4th edition Forgotten Realms do less to support this gaming style than 3rd edition or late 2nd edition (when I was first introduced to the Realms). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 15 Aug 2008 : 01:14:46
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that.
Of course. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 22:41:21
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
And if this is one of the reasons why they're doing to the Realms what they're doing to the Realms, I fear for gaming's future. I really do. It's just.....stupid. 
Don't worry, there is still Paizo; and they have not sold out! |
| Faraer |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 22:29:07
Whether or not Wizards owes us anything, the legal custodians of precious things created by others have a certain moral obligation to take care of them. For myself, the Realms has been -- in terms of gross positives -- better treated than most worlds and better than I might have guessed 20 years ago. For Ed I feel differently.quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Now, of course, the Forgotten Realms is the opposite of this player-centralism.
I think Ed's way of immersing the player characters in a big world does much more to create great experiences for players than sad, retrograde, lonely sociopath egoplay.
I agree about the Shadowdale module and made much the same point in my semi-review on Eric Boyd's thread.
As well as working for others, some people don't like the idea of their characters being manipulated, or subject to unknown agendas and events, or they don't like the Realms' enculturated multiplicity of adventurers. These are all legitimate preferences, though certainly not superior ones.
I understand 'metaplot' to mean a long-running published plot/timeline, not PC-surrounding campaign events in general. Though I never knew why it was 'meta'.
The old World of Greyhawk ethos/playstyle is quite a bit different from both Ed's and those of recent D&D. |
| Varl |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 20:37:25
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
[quote]
I linked somewhere above (or maybe it was in another thread) to the Alustrial-is-dead-gloating thread on rpg.net, and it was perfectly clear that a lot of people have adopted the 4e mindset or already had it in that they see any powerful NPCs as insufferable competiton to the players. And some people who hate the Realms have done so unjustifiably because of a skewed view of these NPCs. [i]Because they couldn't adapt or didn't want to adapt to using a setting with metaplots properly.
If this is the case, and that the mindset is that they're fearful of NPC competition to the player's glory, you don't go and blow up a world with the things they're doing to the Realms to "fix" any perceived player paranoias of NPC glory-stealing. You talk to your DM!!! If the players are experiencing feelings of inadequacy because the DM is having NPCs solve their riddles or steal their adventuring thunder, they've got a bad DM.
And if this is one of the reasons why they're doing to the Realms what they're doing to the Realms, I fear for gaming's future. I really do. It's just.....stupid. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 19:40:22
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that.
To the scions of MMORPGs, 'choice' is an unaccustomed and feared thing.
Better, in a marketing sense, to eliminate any sense of it. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 19:32:57
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I guess a lot of people just don't like the idea of their characters working for someone (like a Harper) even though that is a staple of D&D and the way many adventures get started.
And. . . there's always the choice to have them not work for Harpers. Though I'm quite sure everyone here knows that. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:53:25
I guess a lot of people just don't like the idea of their characters working for someone (like a Harper) even though that is a staple of D&D and the way many adventures get started. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:48:17
Actually, with Greyhawk, the 2E books on the city itself (I think it was The City of Greyhawk boxed but I'm not 100% sure) had a plethora of metaplots. In fact it was probably the single most useful supplement that I've ever purchased. The range of NPCs, locals, guilds, laws, etc were just great.
But that's off topic. ;)
But, like I said, in the case of the Harpers, well, they're just about the perfect form of PC mentor (like that wizard in the Loudwater excerpt). They can be;
A source of adventures.
A source of information.
A source of aid.
A wonderful antagonist (remember, they're not about good per say, they're more about the fight against tyranny and LG can be tyrannical).
I mean damn, is there a single Harpers novel where the Harper in question didn't have to rally support from the local populous in order to deal with the antagonist? I can't think of any, but I haven't read them all. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 18:16:02
quote:
Originally posted by Glantir
This will give them an excuse to stop publishing Realms material so they can start a new campaign-setting under their complete control without the influence of Ed Greenwood.
They already have the power to create a whole new setting from scratch if they want to. |
| Ladejarl |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 16:15:27
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Additionally, I'm not sure its fair (or indeed accurate) to accuse WoTC of "active malice". I believe Napeoleon had a famous saying about that, or something.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidety.  |
| StarBog |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 16:12:36
quote:
Originally posted by ShadezofDis
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model.
Which, if true, would be one of my biggest problems with what they're doing to the Realms.
Historically the Harpers would investigate a potential problem, if they learned it was really a problem they would then try and gather the resources (ie. the PCs) to deal with the problem. Then they'd move to solve the problem (sending said PCs on an adventure).
How that makes the players second stage is absolutely beyond me.
Oh I concur, but the more I think about it, the more I definitely think this was the reason for doing so.
From what I've seen of 4e and the philosophy behind it, there is a definite zeitgeist in place favouring total player-centralism. Heck, I would also extend this to argue that the whole basis for going with the points-of-light model was to encourage this player-centralism. And here's the kicker, and yes, this is somewhat provocative - there's one other massively profitable field where a similar degree of player-centralism is rampant, nay, de rigeur: MMORPGs.
Now, of course, the Forgotten Realms is the opposite of this player-centralism. NPCs would take on other NPCs and solve their own problems. There was also a niche for the players, but the setting had an independent vibrancy to it.
Looking back now though, its now obvious that the whole "NPCs as competition to the players" meme was something that had been planned for a while now - take for example, the Shadowdale module, where all the NPCs that normally live in Shadowdale were mysteriously elsewhere and as a result, the module itself suffered from being clunky (IMHO) due to having to work around the absence of the NPCs in question (and before Stephen Schend jumps in at this point, I don't include the fate of Khelben in my hypothesis - his fate is explempary from both a dramatic and storyline point of view, was poignant and dramatic, and was just what was needed)
I linked somewhere above (or maybe it was in another thread) to the Alustrial-is-dead-gloating thread on rpg.net, and it was perfectly clear that a lot of people have adopted the 4e mindset or already had it in that they see any powerful NPCs as insufferable competiton to the players. And some people who hate the Realms have done so unjustifiably because of a skewed view of these NPCs. Because they couldn't adapt or didn't want to adapt to using a setting with metaplots properly.
I guess my problem with this is that there are plenty of other settings for this sort of player-centered philosopy - Greyhawk is the prime example - and as a result, the one setting where metaplot and vibrancy were foundational to the realm has now been screwed up to fit it into the player-centric straightjacket. And the loss of the Harpers are a side effect of this.
|
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 15:51:06
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model.
Which, if true, would be one of my biggest problems with what they're doing to the Realms.
Historically the Harpers would investigate a potential problem, if they learned it was really a problem they would then try and gather the resources (ie. the PCs) to deal with the problem. Then they'd move to solve the problem (sending said PCs on an adventure).
How that makes the players second stage is absolutely beyond me.
Further, there are places in the Realms where the Harpers are loath to tread. Zhentil Keep (yes, I know about the brothel, however I find it hard to believe that they were active in any sense but providing a somewhat safe house and a slight information gathering service), Thay, The Vilhon Reach, Calimshan, etc.
It was a non-problem that was "solved" in a way that I find poorly thought out and poorly presented. Ed popped out a better scenario, likely off the top of his head, likely in about 5 minutes, than that which was presented in the excerpt. Which, presumably, was worked on for more than 5 minutes (though that'd shock me, given the quality and lack of depth) and passed through several people's hands.
And that's probably what gets my goat the most.
Like the Halrauaa blowing up. Which I can only assume was done because. . . well . . . I guess because it was "nifty" or to provide a magical wasteland (another?) or. . . well, really I can't imagine why they'd want to wipe the slate with a country that had a bit of detail to replace it with a total unknown. I mean, I guess you can throw in pieces of core into it, which may be the idea, but damn it's annoying. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:40:26
quote:
Originally posted by Glantir
Just a little thing about 'questioning their motives'. Yesterday a friend of mine suggested that WotC are making 4e Realms as bad as they are because they want them to sell badly.
I doubt that's true.
Mainly because not many people wish for their own unemployment.
Additionally, I'm not sure its fair (or indeed accurate) to accuse WoTC of "active malice". I believe Napeoleon had a famous saying about that, or something.
On reflection, I think what has happened with 4e is that WoTC have decided to end the "exceptionalism" of the Realms and shoehorn it back into Core where WOTC sees the most profits.
And I will bet five Waterdhavian gold dragons with everyone on the board that something along the lines of this will be said at Gencon by someone speaking in an offiical capability.
Simple as that (probably).
And to get back to the topic title - I would suggest that the reason for the downgrading (as it were) of the Harpers, is that they are now seen as unacceptable competition to the PCs in the new player-centric DnD model. |
| arry |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:31:38
No Sanishiver, WotC doesn't owe us anything. The converse is also true, I don't owe WotC anything; which is why I won't give them anything. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 09:23:44
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
I beg your pardon, the 3e FRCS is recognised by most people as one of the best RPG supplements of all time. It has hidden vistas (brush up on your meta-Tolkien if you don't know what that means) in abundance.
Not that I have any urge at all to brush up on anything Tolkien.
Again it seems like I am not in tune with "most people". Of the three versions of the Campaign Setting I think that is the weakest one. Except for the trade map I have found little use for it and it kept me away from Realms products for a couple of years.
|
| Glantir |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 08:45:27
Just a little thing about 'questioning their motives'. Yesterday a friend of mine suggested that WotC are making 4e Realms as bad as they are because they want them to sell badly.
This will give them an excuse to stop publishing Realms material so they can start a new campaign-setting under their complete control without the influence of Ed Greenwood.
If that sounds paranoid, ask yourself if it sounds paranoid enough  . |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 07:58:17
quote:
Originally posted by MerrikCale
But you would think as a decent portion of their fan base, they would care about us just a little
But this is such a loaded statement.
Just seems to me like there's more traction in questioning what they're doing (well, what they did, given that the FRCG is just around the corner) as opposed to questioning their motives. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:43:34
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
[1) WotC doesn’t owe us anything.
But you would think as a decent portion of their fan base, they would care about us just a little
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
2) WotC didn’t “ostracize” all the fans. There are several of us moving right along to 4E.
all, no. many, absolutely. most, probably |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:19:18
TO ALL:
I agree with much of the sentiment here (not that you all need validation from me, of course you don't). Really, I don't like a lot of what WotC is doing. The comments that were made earlier in the thread about WotC piling on more Dragonborn out of Abeir when we already had the whole Children of Bahamut thing going are spot on.
Why the hell over-write a good setup?
If I can make it to the Realms Seminar at Gen Con this year, I'd like to rake Chris Perkins over the coals about this (and a few other things, too).
It's just that there's a difference between using reasoning (StarBog's clarification of his comments is a good example of this, even though I disagree with most of what he wrote) and posting blatant hyperbole (MarkusTay). That's what I'm trying to get at.
|
| Glantir |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 19:07:17
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on. 
 Wow, that is one of the best things I have read so far.
Why didn't they tell that Lord Manshoon earlier  |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 19:02:42
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on.
Wow, that is one of the best things I have read so far. |
| Varl |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 18:56:19
I really don't know what to say about the changes the Realms will (have?) undergo in the following months. I fell in love with the Realms very early on in the 80s, and some of the articles produced then were for the love of the world. You could feel it in the words as you read them, and often, literally see the event or locale in your mind's eye.
With apologies to all the 3e FR fans here, I think the beginning of the end for hearty lore one could insert into any campaign started in 2000. Once the mechanics of the new D&D system began to seep into how one perceived Realms lore and content, it went from being lore and content you couldn't wait for players to experience to lore that gave the players characters experience, so to speak. It took the heart out of the content and replaced with with cold, lifeless, undead-like mechanics that were used to explain the how more often than the why or the what.
When I hear about the deific changes, what's being done to the Harpers, the rationales for why there has to be a Spellplague, I feel clammy and cold like my skin rubbing up again cold steel on a bitterly cold 33 degree rainy day. Shivers aplenty.
It's not something I'm interested in using in my Realms. None of it. Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 15:25:06
Sanishiver, I'm a bit worried that I came across as a bit too harsh in my response to you. It wasn't my intention. If you're happy with the new 4e FRCS, then excellent. Make sure you have a good time gaming with it.
But understand its definitely NOT my cup of tea, and I have (for me), extremely good reasons for thinking as I do. |
| Amarel Derakanor |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 14:03:06
I cannot agree more with you, StarBog. And I hope you can understand what we mean here, Sanishiver. There is actually reasoning behind our opinions about the k3wl-r34lms, not some fixed idea of anti-WotC hatred. Some people may become offended by such statements, you know.
I certainly don't agree with you, but I highly respect your right to speak(write) your mind. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 10:29:52
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Let's let people feel what they want to feel about it.
There's a difference between being legitimately ticked off and actually, deliberately trying to stay upset.
I understand we’re dealing with opinions, but take the "it's just a generic fantasy setting now" statements for example. Those are an excuse because you have to pretend lore that still exists actually doesn’t.
As author of the "it's just a generic fantasy setting now" statement I feel I must reply to your assertion about the lore. What do we mean by lore? Up until now, in the Forgotten Realms, there has always been the feeling that it is a complete live and breathing world, where people (and monsters) plot, travel, kill, eat, drink, play, fall in love, and do the thousands of things that sentient creatures do. In the standard canonical pre-4e setting, the players are part of this, they are one thread amongst many contributing to the destiny of Toril. The players can alter the world, but they do so in conjunction with, in storyline terms, the existing content. The sheer vibrancy of what Ed has created and what others up to now have nutured was emphatically brought home to me recently by THO explaining wonderfully what happened to the last person to utter the oath "By Tymora's Tremendous Tits".
However, in 4e, this has all turned round on its head. The 4e FRCS and the excepts we have seen so far have ditched this depth to conform with the new WOTC mantra of "the players must NOT be overshadowed, ever, for whatever reason". So out goes anything that doesn't conform to this new mantra. Now, the Shattered Realms is nothing more than Greyhawk-lite, where only the players ever do something.
Despite the best efforts of folks like BRJ, the quality of the new stuff is (warning, incoming opinion here) not worthy of the Realms. It lacks depth and vibrancy. It lacks anchors into the Realms lore. Take for example, the Loudwater except. My best-friends DnD-playing 11-year old daughter could do a better job of characterisation than was done with the Elf Noblewoman. Fine you say, Ed and others can create vibrancy. Maybe they can. But they are straightjacketed by WOTC's new demands. And they have to also work within the constraints provided by the retconning of the mythology to make it 4e compatible. I mean, Shadow Toril? Spellplague? Randomly merging deities? Deities and NPCs suddenly acting as if they've all had full-frontal lobotamies. Wtf?????
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
“Lack of depth” from the excerpts.....so what? They’re as full of information as a lot of what you’d find in the original grey books or the 3E FRCS.
WOTC has said that they're no longer going to support the Realms in the way they were. 3 books and thats it.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
In fact the FR Campaign Guide isn’t supposed to be meaty and full of deep, immersive lore. Just like the 3E FRCS wasn’t.
I beg your pardon, the 3e FRCS is recognised by most people as one of the best RPG supplements of all time. It has hidden vistas (brush up on your meta-Tolkien if you don't know what that means) in abundance.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
If you have a sense of entitlement about the Realms....great, support it. Find ways to make it work. Knit the lore-gaps together.
Its hard to repair something that's been smashed into pieces beyond repair.
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
Just remember two things:
1) WotC doesn’t owe us anything.
2) WotC didn’t “ostracize” all the fans.
Indeed they didn't. But ask yourself this: why has the reaction here from the fans been wholly negative? Why can the impression I get from the authors who post here about the new Shattered Realms be summed up in two words: "Gritted Teeth"?
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
There are several of us moving right along to 4E
Good. I hope you enjoy it. Really I do.
But do stop giving off the "how dare you not move to 4e and accept WOTC's word as law!" vibes that you're currently emanating. (to be fair it seems to be something inherent in many 4e boosters - so its maybe not your fault).
|
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 09:37:59
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Let's let people feel what they want to feel about it.
There's a difference between being legitimately ticked off and actually, deliberately trying to stay upset.
I understand we’re dealing with opinions, but take the "it's just a generic fantasy setting now" statements for example. Those are an excuse because you have to pretend lore that still exists actually doesn’t.
“Lack of depth” from the excerpts.....so what? They’re as full of information as a lot of what you’d find in the original grey books or the 3E FRCS.
In fact the FR Campaign Guide isn’t supposed to be meaty and full of deep, immersive lore. Just like the 3E FRCS wasn’t.
If you have a sense of entitlement about the Realms....great, support it. Find ways to make it work. Knit the lore-gaps together.
Just remember two things:
1) WotC doesn’t owe us anything.
2) WotC didn’t “ostracize” all the fans. There are several of us moving right along to 4E. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 05:02:49
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
I actually would not be surprised if the sales of the FRCG are not good. They have released enough info before hand (and a little has been leaked) that the number of fans lost may very well exceed the number of new players gained. It really is up in the air, and only time will tell. (If the figures that SKR gave us for the Silver Marches are still relevant, at least WotC will know by mid-to-late November.)
yet... I would still bet that there will be an announcement that the first print run is sold out, they need to do a second printing, and it outsold the 3e FRCS. I just have that feeling.....
Judging by the fact that swathes of people over on rpg.net are now celebrating* the fact that the new Shattered Realms doesn't contain anything any more that distinguishes it from any other generic player-centred semi-low fantasy setting, I suspect unfortunately that sales will be good.
Never mind the fact that it will be mostly be 12 year olds who buy it and then discard it unplayed and uncared-for when they don't find any hot-lesbian-NightElf-Warforged-cyb0r in it.
The Forgotten Realms is a grown-up and intelligent setting. The Shattered Realms is anything but.
*http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=409007
yep.. enworld has a thread in which it is the same "wheee! they blew it up!" mentality. Anyone who disagrees is thrown to the wolves by about the same six or seven posters who hate the realms. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 00:35:14
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
[I read the first post, then decided not to waste my time.
Some of it is really quite funny, worth 10 mins of idle time IMHO just to read them venting their spleens with no clue about what they are talking about
Damian
Probably, but unfortunately I'm just not in the mood for it right now. Not feeling to great--reading CK makes me feel better, reading the BS spewed by people who hate the FR setting wouldn't. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 00:28:47
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
[I read the first post, then decided not to waste my time.
Some of it is really quite funny, worth 10 mins of idle time IMHO just to read them venting their spleens with no clue about what they are talking about
Damian
|
|
|
