Except for latex.org, which while it is a pr0n site, will helpfully redirect you to places to look for LaTeX information. I believe most Rubberist Association sites do the same.
A new supplement's about three quarters of the cost of a new PC title.
I picked up two new supplements today to feed my habit-$90 CDN in total, including the drop in exchange rate on one of them, and my frequent customer discount on both of them.
Add in the cost of munchies and a few other things, and it's about as expensive to play D&D these days as it is to play a MMORPG.
Why not use AbiWord? The Windows port is about as small as what you're looking for, and it has full compatibility with OOo with the import/output plugins(when the new document standard is implemented in OOo, I don't think even those wil be needed.)
Pick up issue 138 of Game Informer for screenshots of The Elder Scrolls:Oblivion running on an Xbox 2 or an Xbox 2 dev kit, I forget which.
Better than this, at least.
Why are Google/Moz being so quiet on this?
on
Google-branded Firefox?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
--DISCLAIMER: The following is only conjecture and opinion-- Because Google is asking something momentous of the Mozilla Organization. Something that might cause Mozilla to lose all of the good karma and favor they have built up with the Open Source community. What would this be? A license shift, or something akin to it. Think of this: 1)It's patently obvious that Google wants to work with Mozilla(or at least it is to me.) 2)However, the Mozilla applications are trilicensed(GPL/LGPL/MPL). 3)And under those licences, Google would have to release any changes they make to the Mozilla codebase to their own licence. 4)Google, in the past, has demonstrated a notable lack of willingness to open up their own applications and non-search engine APIs to developers. So what can we conclude from this? Google wants to build off Firefox, in an environment where they do not have to recontribute their changes back to the shared codebase. From that, we can gather that possibly Google has extended an offer to Mozilla: We'll give you whackloads of money-enough to keep you afloat for years-if you either change to a BSD-type licence or give us a snapshot of the Mozilla codetree that we can use for closed-source application building. This would be very tempting to Mozilla-they wouldn't need to worry about money so much, and could concentrate on browser building. However, it would definitely lose them brownie points amongst the Open Source community-and can they afford that? And if they turn Google down, will Google favor MS and Opera over them? Drop compatibility between Firefox and GMail? Think about this-it makes an awful lot of sense.
D20 SRD(RTF files) Information from the core rulebooks, Deities and Demigods, the Psionics Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook.
Crystal Keep D20 Compilations Compilations of rules content indexes from various products(about six months out of date-last update included the Player's Guide to Faerun)-these indexes are expanded far beyond the standard, often including all the needed information for those feats/spells/whatevers.
P2P Networking: A downloaded copy of Unearthed Arcana can be rendered legal by taking some variety of PDF/Image editor and blacking out the following: The cover, the Contributors/Playtesters/Credits page, the Githyanki/Githzerai, Slaad and Yuan-ti bloodlines(and any other references to those races in the book).
They are also insanely helpful for copying selections of text to relevant notes. I buy D&D books in hardcopy(and carry them with me.), and yet I keep a library of electronic copies for text searching(especially helpful when chasing down obscure Realmslore) and for copying to notes(helpful when using variants from books players don't have access to). Oh, and actually, in the heat of the game, the hardcopies are much better. Seriously. Now if Wizards would only ring-bind them...
Wizards/Paizo(the company now responsible for Dragon/Dungeon) generally do. IIRC, the last time anything like that was necessitated for D&D was March and the Unearthed Arcana variant checklist-and that was released in DRM-free PDF format.
they chose the part of their newest campaign setting that isn't anything like traditional D&D.
I wish they'd just spun Greyhawk around in its grave for D&D Online..another fucking for that CS isn't anything bad..
You're just proving the point of the article.
Open source doesn't mean that there will be less security advisories(in fact, there will likely be more, because more people are looking for them), but that those that do appear will be fixed quickly and in most cases, before they can be exploited.
For closed source stuff, it generally works the other way around-exploit and then patch.
When discussing this, keep in mind how many more eyes OSS can train on code, and how much faster those patches can be created.
well, except for that occasional problem with Firefox on Linux-that is very accessible through their amazingly simple and (dare I say it?)helpful, help pages. In short-no.
I don't mean the rules at all.
Rather, I was referring to the switch of the content in Realms sourcebooks(amongst other problems due to the almost-script k1dd13 group WotC is currently trying to appeal to) from usable content detailing the Realms to rules that lazy DMs can rip off(as they think their market share is people wanting to rip the Realms off for their homebrewed groups). In short, compare the 3e version of Lords of Darkness and Cloak and Dagger-which one's a better product? I could write an essay about this, but there's no point here.
(Even though it's a D&D setting, a properly done FR MMORPG would be much different from D&D Online.) The Realms is the most detailed, largest fantasy setting there is. It has an insane variety to it-games ranging from Chondathan caravan runs to Tuigan hunting excursions to searching for Netherese artifacts in Anauroch would all be possible. It lends itself equally to instanced events and random encounters. It would already have a large promised user base. User guilds are encouraged by the setting, and already have many existing parallels. It comes with an established rules system already in place. In short, it has endless possiblities as an MMORPG-if done properly, by a group paying attention to the 2e design philosophy and hopefully with a designer watching them carefully. There is a problem, however:
Due to the layout of Faerun, a team would either have to cover a huge area or create arbitrary barriers to movement.
Regarding tweaking the rules for PnP: Ah, but a large part of the rules in a CRPG is that they are transparent and understandable by the player-making everything more complex would pull away from that.
Regarding the lack of a DM: This is a problem computer games have, period. However, they have two things to resolve this: good game design(ie, giving you the key to that lock) and saved games. The first resolves inability issues(missed that clue, can't open that lock), and the second solves the overmatched battle problems, as the combat in question can be replayed.
Regarding lack of character options: Try 3e, which does allow for all of that.(Keep in mind, 3e is what we will be seeing for awhile-good luck getting WotC to licence the 2e rules for a computer game).
Regarding Wizards not sweeping the battleground: They do-at higher levels. Playing a mage in D&D is always a trade off of short term gain for long-term power.
Regarding shouts artificial: I'm sorry, but D&D is a game, not a simulation. It is tied to its PnP base, and that group always chooses simplicity over realism. If you want realism, go play Shadowrun. Also, again, play 3e, which addresses each of your concerns-don't think directly, think of the abstract concepts the game terms represent. Sniper with the guns? I have a phrase for you, it's Base Attack Bonus.
Regarding fun to play: This has jack all to do with the rules-you get varying experiences with PnP DMs. Also, if the game rules are just background, then why do they need to be so realistic? Also, one of the two games you cited is from D&D.
D&D is the id engine of RPGs-used like crazy, scalable, and more concerned with a good game then realism. If that doesn't appeal to you, go play Counterstrike and a rules-heavy pen and paper system.
In the face of Eberron, it seems like WotC will either go one of two routes with the FR(as the Forgotten Realms would be the only property in contest, as the rules are OGLed already):
1. Drop the FR as a Campaign Setting, and hand it over to a D20 publisher for game releases(see: Ravenloft, 3e, Dragonlance, 3e)
-or-
2. Drop the FR as a Campaign Setting, and hand it off to a community site for game releases(see: Dark Sun, 3e, Spelljammer, 3e)
No matter what happens, WotC won't drop the FR as a novel line-Drizzt is too much of a cash cow for them to do that.
No, D&D will not be at version 4.0-the FR side of things(which, through George Krashos and Rich Baker, is the most willing to tell us about releases to come), has projected 3.5 supplements up to the last 2005 release(Waterdeep, Fiend Lords/MaoF II/LoD II(not sure yet), Regional Supplement II(thought to be covering the Dalelands)). Ed's working on something for 2006, I believe.
Yes-you grow attached to them.
I can't remember how much I lost pulling Morte out of the Pillar of Skulls...Once you have your party, that's generally it-they're too much like real people to just spin away...
Slashdot Mirror
Except for latex.org, which while it is a pr0n site, will helpfully redirect you to places to look for LaTeX information. I believe most Rubberist Association sites do the same.
A new supplement's about three quarters of the cost of a new PC title. I picked up two new supplements today to feed my habit-$90 CDN in total, including the drop in exchange rate on one of them, and my frequent customer discount on both of them. Add in the cost of munchies and a few other things, and it's about as expensive to play D&D these days as it is to play a MMORPG.
Why not use AbiWord? The Windows port is about as small as what you're looking for, and it has full compatibility with OOo with the import/output plugins(when the new document standard is implemented in OOo, I don't think even those wil be needed.)
Pick up issue 138 of Game Informer for screenshots of The Elder Scrolls:Oblivion running on an Xbox 2 or an Xbox 2 dev kit, I forget which. Better than this, at least.
--DISCLAIMER: The following is only conjecture and opinion--
Because Google is asking something momentous of the Mozilla Organization.
Something that might cause Mozilla to lose all of the good karma and favor they have built up with the Open Source community.
What would this be?
A license shift, or something akin to it.
Think of this:
1)It's patently obvious that Google wants to work with Mozilla(or at least it is to me.)
2)However, the Mozilla applications are trilicensed(GPL/LGPL/MPL).
3)And under those licences, Google would have to release any changes they make to the Mozilla codebase to their own licence.
4)Google, in the past, has demonstrated a notable lack of willingness to open up their own applications and non-search engine APIs to developers.
So what can we conclude from this? Google wants to build off Firefox, in an environment where they do not have to recontribute their changes back to the shared codebase. From that, we can gather that possibly Google has extended an offer to Mozilla:
We'll give you whackloads of money-enough to keep you afloat for years-if you either change to a BSD-type licence or give us a snapshot of the Mozilla codetree that we can use for closed-source application building.
This would be very tempting to Mozilla-they wouldn't need to worry about money so much, and could concentrate on browser building. However, it would definitely lose them brownie points amongst the Open Source community-and can they afford that? And if they turn Google down, will Google favor MS and Opera over them? Drop compatibility between Firefox and GMail?
Think about this-it makes an awful lot of sense.
Legal 3e sources:
D20 SRD(RTF files) Information from the core rulebooks, Deities and Demigods, the Psionics Handbook, and the Epic Level Handbook. Crystal Keep D20 Compilations Compilations of rules content indexes from various products(about six months out of date-last update included the Player's Guide to Faerun)-these indexes are expanded far beyond the standard, often including all the needed information for those feats/spells/whatevers.
P2P Networking: A downloaded copy of Unearthed Arcana can be rendered legal by taking some variety of PDF/Image editor and blacking out the following: The cover, the Contributors/Playtesters/Credits page, the Githyanki/Githzerai, Slaad and Yuan-ti bloodlines(and any other references to those races in the book).
They are also insanely helpful for copying selections of text to relevant notes. I buy D&D books in hardcopy(and carry them with me.), and yet I keep a library of electronic copies for text searching(especially helpful when chasing down obscure Realmslore) and for copying to notes(helpful when using variants from books players don't have access to). Oh, and actually, in the heat of the game, the hardcopies are much better. Seriously. Now if Wizards would only ring-bind them...
Wizards/Paizo(the company now responsible for Dragon/Dungeon) generally do. IIRC, the last time anything like that was necessitated for D&D was March and the Unearthed Arcana variant checklist-and that was released in DRM-free PDF format.
RotK Extended Edition System Requirements: -A DVD Player -1 Day of Spare Time -$77.95 or such
they chose the part of their newest campaign setting that isn't anything like traditional D&D. I wish they'd just spun Greyhawk around in its grave for D&D Online..another fucking for that CS isn't anything bad..
Well, we can remember YetAnotherSetupTool pretty well...;)
You're just proving the point of the article. Open source doesn't mean that there will be less security advisories(in fact, there will likely be more, because more people are looking for them), but that those that do appear will be fixed quickly and in most cases, before they can be exploited. For closed source stuff, it generally works the other way around-exploit and then patch. When discussing this, keep in mind how many more eyes OSS can train on code, and how much faster those patches can be created.
we missed the Eugenics wars in 1992-1996.
well, except for that occasional problem with Firefox on Linux-that is very accessible through their amazingly simple and (dare I say it?)helpful, help pages. In short-no.
I think he means Firefox 0.9.3.
Um...it uses Mozilla's profile. Seriously. The default profile for NS is in ~/mozilla/profiles/. No import is needed, as it's just there.
I don't mean the rules at all. Rather, I was referring to the switch of the content in Realms sourcebooks(amongst other problems due to the almost-script k1dd13 group WotC is currently trying to appeal to) from usable content detailing the Realms to rules that lazy DMs can rip off(as they think their market share is people wanting to rip the Realms off for their homebrewed groups). In short, compare the 3e version of Lords of Darkness and Cloak and Dagger-which one's a better product? I could write an essay about this, but there's no point here.
coughs when checking for Flash. Then it told me I should let it run ActiveX code. In short, avoid if CommonSense>1.
Unless it's American McGee or Todd McFarlane's versions.
(Even though it's a D&D setting, a properly done FR MMORPG would be much different from D&D Online.)
The Realms is the most detailed, largest fantasy setting there is. It has an insane variety to it-games ranging from Chondathan caravan runs to Tuigan hunting excursions to searching for Netherese artifacts in Anauroch would all be possible. It lends itself equally to instanced events and random encounters. It would already have a large promised user base. User guilds are encouraged by the setting, and already have many existing parallels. It comes with an established rules system already in place. In short, it has endless possiblities as an MMORPG-if done properly, by a group paying attention to the 2e design philosophy and hopefully with a designer watching them carefully. There is a problem, however:
Due to the layout of Faerun, a team would either have to cover a huge area or create arbitrary barriers to movement.
Regarding tweaking the rules for PnP: Ah, but a large part of the rules in a CRPG is that they are transparent and understandable by the player-making everything more complex would pull away from that.
Regarding the lack of a DM: This is a problem computer games have, period. However, they have two things to resolve this: good game design(ie, giving you the key to that lock) and saved games. The first resolves inability issues(missed that clue, can't open that lock), and the second solves the overmatched battle problems, as the combat in question can be replayed.
Regarding lack of character options: Try 3e, which does allow for all of that.(Keep in mind, 3e is what we will be seeing for awhile-good luck getting WotC to licence the 2e rules for a computer game).
Regarding Wizards not sweeping the battleground: They do-at higher levels. Playing a mage in D&D is always a trade off of short term gain for long-term power.
Regarding shouts artificial: I'm sorry, but D&D is a game, not a simulation. It is tied to its PnP base, and that group always chooses simplicity over realism. If you want realism, go play Shadowrun. Also, again, play 3e, which addresses each of your concerns-don't think directly, think of the abstract concepts the game terms represent. Sniper with the guns? I have a phrase for you, it's Base Attack Bonus.
Regarding fun to play: This has jack all to do with the rules-you get varying experiences with PnP DMs. Also, if the game rules are just background, then why do they need to be so realistic? Also, one of the two games you cited is from D&D.
D&D is the id engine of RPGs-used like crazy, scalable, and more concerned with a good game then realism. If that doesn't appeal to you, go play Counterstrike and a rules-heavy pen and paper system.
In the face of Eberron, it seems like WotC will either go one of two routes with the FR(as the Forgotten Realms would be the only property in contest, as the rules are OGLed already):
1. Drop the FR as a Campaign Setting, and hand it over to a D20 publisher for game releases(see: Ravenloft, 3e, Dragonlance, 3e)
-or-
2. Drop the FR as a Campaign Setting, and hand it off to a community site for game releases(see: Dark Sun, 3e, Spelljammer, 3e)
No matter what happens, WotC won't drop the FR as a novel line-Drizzt is too much of a cash cow for them to do that.
No, D&D will not be at version 4.0-the FR side of things(which, through George Krashos and Rich Baker, is the most willing to tell us about releases to come), has projected 3.5 supplements up to the last 2005 release(Waterdeep, Fiend Lords/MaoF II/LoD II(not sure yet), Regional Supplement II(thought to be covering the Dalelands)). Ed's working on something for 2006, I believe.
(The one I'm typing on right now, that is) Awoke to my grandfather kicking the hell out of it. Working fine.
Yes-you grow attached to them. I can't remember how much I lost pulling Morte out of the Pillar of Skulls...Once you have your party, that's generally it-they're too much like real people to just spin away...