User talk:QuietBrowser

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

You seem to have a lot of 2e stuff...[edit]

Mind helping me out with some Dark Sun info? I'm currently trying to compare the modern dragonborn with that setting's dray race, and add a section on them to that race's page. But I don't even know where to look. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Monstergirl stuff[edit]

Out of curiousity, are you familiar with the monstergirl stuff written by that one anon over at 8chan? I think you'd enjoy that. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, never heard of it. Have something of a love-hate relationship with 8chan's /monster/; bit too focused on the MGE canon for my tastes.--QuietBrowser (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about /monster/, this thread is on /tg/: https://8ch.net/tg/res/302713.html#310332 - Biggus Berrus (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Taking a look and... nah, not really to my tastes.--QuietBrowser (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Monster category everywhere[edit]

Out of curiousity, why are you adding the Monster category to every playable D&D race? We've got the Races category for that, and it's faster to add these tags by changing the templates when possible. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies; my original reasoning was that a lot of these creature are actually usually portrayed in a hostile or NPC role - Scro, for example, are normally expected to be enemy encounters like their Orc cousins - but... I may have gone overboard. I thought it would be helpful for covering these "usually seen as NPC" races, like satyrs, nagpas, lizardfolk, etc. I may have been in error...--QuietBrowser (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is more of an art than a science, but as a good rule of thumb I'd keep the List of D&D PC Races standby. If it appears on there it's a race, if not it's a monster. That's not to say this is flawless, since the Sphinx appears on there as well. But there's no harm done, the category just now has to be stripped out of all of those pages by hand again. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the days when the reverse was true were necessarily ideal either...[edit]

But you really are slagging on a lot of things I kind of like in the name of 4e apologism. I don't mind the 4e apologism in and of itself. I think the edition gets a bad rap. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I read debatable points like "most of the outsiders and planetouched in the game were worthless, uninspired grid-filling which is in and of itself always a bad thing anyway" or "44% of the classic alignments were worthless cruft that deserved to be sanded off and only nostalgia-blinded grognards angry about change should be bothered by this!" stated as fact in a lot of different articles.

Again, I think this is coming from a place of frustration with 4e's more-militant haters, and, again, I not only sympathize but empathize. It's just been going on for a while, and I feel like I ought to say something, as someone who is not a 4e hater. It kind of feels like an instinctive defense mechanism in the same way its critics are just instinctively lashing out against the new. --SpectralTime (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much not trying to bash pre-4e material as inherently bad or even to make 4e apologism, but the fact is that there ARE legitimate reasons why certain decisions were made to slaughter certain sacred cows, and most people don't acknowledge them. That's all I'm trying to do; point out WHY WoTC made those decisions and how badly the anti-4e crowd misinterpreted them and misrepresented them to drive people off the setting. And, well, frankly, a lot of 5e lore IS inferior to 4e lore (see: gnolls, gnomes). But what articles specifically are you talking about?--QuietBrowser (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
...Geez, real quick on the draw there, Spectral. And, again, no arguments from me about the 5e gnolls being a mistake that narrows and flattens the storytelling possibilities tied to the race. I guess, off the top of my head, speaking as someone who rather likes the nine alignment system, the entire Alignment segment of the 4e page just comes across as angry ranting, as do most of the articles you've written about Outsiders and planetouched. Both take as a given that the things 4e replaced were rotten to the core and had no redeeming values, and both state, explicitly or implicitly, that the only reason to be unhappy about their removal is that you hate change. But... guess I'm not sure what I hoped to accomplish with this. Sorry. Shutting up. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, hey, no need to beat yourself up. I'm not offended, I just want to legitimately understand which pages you think are problematic and why, so I can fix this. I know that /tg/ unironically calls itself a shithole, but I've taken pride in watching 1d4chan grow to actually be pretty informative about things that aren't just Warhammer 40K.
I need you to be more specific about the Outsider pages, but as for the Alignment segment of the D&D 4e page... I don't understand your problems with it? Alignment IS one of the oldest sources of D&D skub, and D&D does not, as a general rule, actually make heavy use of the Law vs. Chaos theme that Moorcock created. Plus, have you ever read any D&D forums or /tg/ prior to 4e? Trying to determine what distinguishes Neutral & Chaotic Good or Lawful & Neutral Evil is as old an argument as "what actually defines a person as being Lawful or Chaotic". And people have been suggesting D&D should dump the 9-grid of alignment for YEARS, long before 4e was a thing.--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess I see that as an argument for alignment-free play, not for sanding off 44% of the alignment system and expecting this to "fix" the problem. For one thing, I've seen far more arguments on the differences between Neutral and Chaotic Evil than I ever did Lawful and Neutral Evil. I think, and I think I can persuasively argue the point without appealing to nostalgia, that 4e's system is a "compromise" choice between keeping the alignment system and discarding it altogether that ultimately pleases neither side. Just wanted to consult with you before I stole your baby, you know?
As to the other thing... Well, the aasimar page is the obvious choice. I'll admit to being close to this one, since my first PC ever was an aasimar, and being told that his race was just silly, pointless gridfilling without any innate artistic merit that just tries to piggy back off a more popular idea kind of smarts like hell, to use the technical term. I get what you're trying to say, and, again, I don't necessarily disagree completely, but it comes across as pretty venomous and derogatory. Compare the actual planetouched article, which discusses several of the same basic ideas, even criticizes some of the same concepts, but just doesn't overall angry up the blood in the same way. --SpectralTime (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Go right ahead and tweak it. So long as you acknowledge that there were legitimate complaints about the classic 9-grid, and that what 4e was trying to do was to give alignment an easy-to-understand, solid definition that wouldn't leave players arguing if the definition of Lawful means either having an internal code of behavior or following all external codes (and don't bullshit me, I SAW that exact argument go on for at least half a dozen pages on Paizo's forums), I really don't care. As for the aasimar... wow, that's freaking ancient, I haven't touched that page in months. I never really meant for it to come off as venomous, but aasimar were kind of the forgotten sibling in comparison. Yeah, I know that genasi didn't even get a variable features table, but, still, tieflings were always the big hitters. The "problem with aasimar" sidebar from Worlds & Monsters is reprinted word for word on the Deva page, so... yeah, go right ahead and rewrite it, but I'd like if you could try and point out that the perceived "weakness" of aasimar as a race whose identity boiled down to "I'm super-duper goody-good!" was why the devas were invented. Heck, aasimar did actually sneak back into the game, via the Deva Heritage bloodline feat in Dragon Magazine #374's "Ecology of the Deva", which actually made aasimars more mechanically akin to their 2e fluff - now you had any base race, and a racial daily power that surrounded you in a protective aura of holy light.--QuietBrowser (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Come on now[edit]

I'm gonna give the ol' be excellent to each other thing a shake here. *BLAM* exists for a reason and is very fitting on the beastfolk page as it was applied. I'm aware that you created the page but really, you need to not let things get to you like that man. It's just a bit of fun and the content was not altered or deleted. I can see where you're coming from on the strikethroughs, especially on beastfolk v furry part, but they're part of the blamming. I'm all for collaborating on a rewrite so that only a bit of needs to be blammed, though. As it is, it's a teensy bit biased toward the furry side (hence the *BLAM* kek).

Bruh, that was actually pretty cool of you. Maybe I've been away from wiki too long but it puts a smile on my face to see someone resist the urge of revision wars and huge internet fights. Just remember in the future, 1d4chan is for all of /tg/, and the anons on /tg/ are a little bit of everybody. You might not like some jokes, I might not like some memes, but we're all stuck here forever. Keep it in mind when you make/edit articles in the future. There'll always be some imperialfags somewhere.

Continuing D&D MG[edit]

It seems like you haven't been around for a fat minute, and I've taken a distinct interest in the Monster Girls D&D setting. I would love to continue it for you if you don't mind. I know you drafted some crunch and fluff, but I don't know where it is, so I'm considering just tossing something together myself. Anyway, if at all possible, I'd love to have your blessing, but obviously I'll add to it anyway if you don't respond. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I've actually quite a bit of D&D-based and MG-based contributions to the wiki, but yeah, that old project of mine kind of fell by the wayside. I'd honestly forgotten all about it - been busy with my other settings, Quietus (really needs a better name; dungeonpunk pulp, basically Warmachine meets Eberron), Triskelion (quasi-Celtic/Faerie Tale fantasy based on the Feywild/Prime Material/Shadowfell trifecta) and Omnipolis (again, needs a better name; dungeonpunk city-planet inspired by Ravnica)... sorry, I'm getting off topic. If you'd like to continue that setting, please, be my guest - I might even join in on editing it with you if there's somebody actually working on it. You can find the old stuff I put together here: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Setting:Dungeons_%26_Monstergirls - best of luck!--QuietBrowser (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Alrighty, perfect :) I can't promise that I will start working on it immediately, but I certainly plan to. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)