Jump to content

AEON IS BACK


Ayre el KaBeer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hate, with a passion a deepseeded loathing infact, d20!. It's a pitiful system and now it's gone and eaten my beutiful, wonderful, F*ing fantastic AEON! I feel wronged in everyway I can imagine! All I can say is that it better have storyteller conversions, or it's quits for me, my current books are fine and I'm happy to slug it out with them for many more years. ::angry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Ayre.

I can see that they're trying to promote and publicise the thing by giving it the D20 momentum - but I'm as one of the dedicated and loyal fans, I'm feeling pretty cold and left out here.

What I wish they'd do is publish the SETTING with a plug in of either A or B rules set - and put both A & B on the fricking web to download and print as part of your purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't be mad at AEON for long. One day I will pick the new stuff up and have a look, who knows I might actually buy them. But not right away.

Here's an email I just sent to Andrew Bates with his response.

On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 02:56 PM, Fred Salem wrote:

> Hi Andrew (or is that Mr. Bates?)

> I've been a huge fan of the Aeon continuum ever since I came across

> Trinty. I just read the swords and sorcery press release about the

> continuum's return as a d20 product and found myself alittle upset,

> rather than being overjoyed to see the best RPG being returned to

> print. Please tell me there will be a conversion chart or something

> similar for us old AEON foggies somewhere in those books. I know

> you'll be getting a ton of pleads to scrap d20, this isn't one of

> them, a chart is all I seek.

>

> Sincerely, Fred Salem.

Sorry, Fred, but there are no plans at this point to do a conversion

chart. I expect that there will be fans upset about our plans to

publish the games in a d20 format. I sympathize, but our intent is to

generate a larger market interest in the setting -- d20 is the most

effective way to do this. If these d20 versions do well, you can bet

that I'll lobby to produce new versions using the Storyteller rules.

Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just gonna (end up) using the srd.

By the way heres what I posted on RPGnet, it's not the anti d20 flame some would expect.

Ok, still not happy about all this but, I'm less mad than before. I've been thinking and as much as I hate to say it, I think Aberrant will convert quite well under d20 (Trinity and Adventure! imo will require more tweaking), there are (always have been) too many similarities in character creation between Abie and dnd. Let's face it it's the best part of Aberrant and DnD is making your pc and getting him/her ready for the world, from there (for me anyway) things change. In an Aberrant (A! & T aswell) game I'm more than content with my starting character (he is a super afterall), I usually don't think to much about advancing the characters dots, unless I stuffed up durring pc creation, but that's sorted quickly enough. With all my DnD characters I've found the same thing happens to me each and every time, I loose interest in the story (not always the DM's fault) and always worry more about advancing to the next level. So I think the reason I "hate" d20 (not it's fault) is that it makes me realise I'm a greedy little munchkin gamer, too busy looking towards the "What I will have" and forgetting about the "What I'm doing now", the system itself alittle bent here and there but overall is fine. Give me L5R 2ed rules over both ST & d20 though! :P

I have decided to buy (or at least look verry closely at) Trinity when it's re-released just to see the core book dolled up in the glory it deserved, the other 2 I'll wait and see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be ok & remember I said MIGHT.......

After all with M&M & BESM D20 the D20 system has been shown to be able to be reworked quite throughly & become fairly decent. Just because a game says D20 these days doesn't mean it isn't anything like D&D.

Now as far as Adventure goes so major tweaking has got to be done to pull that one off.

Just have to wait & see.

Now that was my nice rational side talking, My gut says it will suck frankly. However, if it has some decent stuff in it. I will just import it back to Storyteller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, this is a kick in the nuts.

But as for conversion tables, I'd been attempting to convert Alternity into Trinity (Cos the tech is cool)... it ain't very good, and I kind of quit and decided to use my own judgement. But I could try again when the new Aeon comes out... I ain't guaranteeing owt though... I might just decide to use my own judgement again, after all, I'm not one to stick to the rule books...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ops: You don't have to buy the 3.5 books. The 3.5 SRD has been and continues to be available online for free.

Everyone else.... what, exactly, is your problem?

We're getting new books. Yes, they may be the books we already have, but under a new system. So? It introduces our favorite setting to people who ordinarily wouldn't have given it a second glance. There are still a fair number of people who think of Trinity as "vampires in space," simply because it's Storyteller. With the move to d20, we get *more* fans. And I can't see anything wrong with that.

All the people working on the d20 versions are people we trusted enough to give us cool rules for the ST version. Andrew Bates is in charge of the thing, for crying out loud. James Kiley, who got his start at WW writing for Trinity, is developing Adventure d20. Mike Lee, who helped author Alien Encounter 1 and 2 (as well as Adventure!) is in charge of converting Aberrant and Trinity. These are all people who are as much fans of the game as we are, and they want to see it done *right*. Trust them.

So you don't like the d20 rules. Fine. But keep in mind that the more people buy these books, the more likely White Wolf will release future products, which may indeed have Storyteller rules. d20 is not evil. The fact that these are d20 doesn't mean you'll necessarily have 4th-level Terats. There are a *lot* of games out there which have done amazing jobs adapting the d20 core rules. Spycraft, for example. d20 doesn't *have* to have levels. It doesn't *need* the hit point system. Using the d20 system doesn't suddenly mean the Continuum games will become hack-and-slash dungeon crawls (although Bruce Baugh certainly pitched a cool idea to me about that once...).

Please stop rabidly saying how much it will suck just because it's d20. Give it a chance. This could end up being the best thing that happened to us.

Edit: Some people elsewhere have pointed out that we shouldn't be talking about what d20 will do to the Continuum, but what the Continuum will do to d20. Just think: Dramatic Editing rules for d20, usable in whichever game you like. New technlogy. A new psionics system. We win either way. (:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one think its a good thing for all the reasons Ian mentioned. I remember the first day I came across my copy of Aeon. It was in a little forgotten corner of my local RPG store. I was very skeptical when I saw the WW logo on it since I really did imagine WoD in space. The weird plastic cover with the sticker crookedly put over the "Aeon" logo also made me wonder if this was a pirated copy since I got it pretty cheap. I bought it and let it sleep on my shelves for a month or so before I actually read through it...pure bliss.. ::smile

I'm not surprised it didn't do too well. Not to be mean, but I blame WW marketing. Prior to Trinity WW = WoD . Its hard to make it stick that this is a different game and I think that effort wasn't satisfactorily made. Then again, I think advertising for RPG's in general must be quite a challenge, it being mostly word of mouth and all.

I won't by the d20 books but only because I'm still a poor student and don't see the point in buying material I already have under a new system. When they get to new material (say a year or two down the road if things go well) you may see me at the local store again... ::smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone else.... what, exactly, is your problem?

Umm... When you say 'everyone else' who are you refferring to? Even Ayre's said he's less angry about it now. I only mentioned a kick in the nuts because it's a switch from the system we are used to using, and for those fans who don't play D20 games, it's gonna be a new system to learn.

Anyone who has read the article will know it should bring more fans to the game.

We haven't been 'Rabidly saying how much it will suck because it's D20'. If you read the posts again, most of us have been trying to see the bright side.

Correct me if I'm wrong,

SnakeEyes

::smile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: Why is D20 popular at all? Is it just because its the basis for D&D? Surely the consensus of opinion is that in every _DECENT_ 'moded to d20' system out there, the rules have been shuffled sufficiently so that they bear only a passing resemblence to the D&D version. So what is d20 really? Surely if it is adapted enough to a system to make that system play well it stops being D20? Or does it? When does D20 stop being D20? I'm beginning to believe that it only does when you take out all the 20 siders.

D20 seems to be a marketing tactic that can either be implemented badly (by keeping the actual system) or well (by throwing it out the window and keeping the name). So... my new question is - if its just a marketing tactic, why didn't they start out with a better system in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

::blink Ooookaay... (good job I said 'most')

Knave, they came up with d20 in the 1970's. It's like asking why didn't they have better computers when they first brought out the Commodore 64's...

The reason why they didn't come up with a better system was because they had nothing to compare it to. Now they have comaprisons, they are able to adapt accordingly.

I agree that it isn't the best system in the world, but I have never seen anyone loathe it like that ::blink ...

Now I've forgotten what I was going to say... ::smiley4

Hmmm...

SnakeEyes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we're moving into Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' fifth stage of grieving. . .

1. DENIAL AND ISOLATION - "NO, NOT ME, IT CANNOT BE TRUE.":

,,
'It may be the same setting, but it's not my Aeonverse...' sort of thing?

2. ANGER - "WHY ME?":

I hate, with a passion a deepseeded loathing infact, d20!. It's a pitiful system and now it's gone and eaten my beutiful, wonderful, F*ing fantastic AEON! I feel wronged in everyway I can imagine!

3. BARGAINING - "YES ME ... BUT":

What I wish they'd do is publish the SETTING with a plug in of either A or B rules set - and put both A & B on the fricking web to download and print as part of your purchase.

4. DEPRESSION - "YES ME.":

ho-hum.

Feels like someone kicked my puppy.

5. ACCEPTANCE - "IT'S OKAY.":

This might be ok & remember I said MIGHT.......

::biggrin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry, Ayre. But I have to disagree. I dont see why they have to convert the system to a system that *already has an overpriced version of what they are making*. I can understand them wanting to find new ways to make this setting popular...but *yeesh* to taint it and convert it to a sellout system? I mean come on...thats an aberration of the series.

I just hope that they can figure out some way to get at least a convresion *chart* to help the purists (like me obviously) get the new source materials (if there is any...they may just reprint old materials).

*Sigh* mabey its just me...mabey im just too much a tight ass and too opposed to the D20 system (especially with the v3.5 BS they they put out now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knave, they came up with d20 in the 1970's. It's like asking why didn't they have better computers when they first brought out the Commodore 64's...

The reason why they didn't come up with a better system was because they had nothing to compare it to. Now they have comaprisons, they are able to adapt accordingly.

If they came up D20 in the 70s - why did they wait till D&D3rd edition (2000ish) to release it? Original D&D was based on Chainmail rules for miniatures wargaming - That's what came out in the 70s. So don't come with that pseudo factual bunk. ::sneaky2

As for the 'you can't have something good without going through an evolution theory' - try playing original Runequest. Evolution does bring up an interesting point though. Evolution is not about things getting better over time - it's about breeding. It's about the species that becomes better and better at procreating to ensure its future. If we apply this evolution model to role playing we see D20 taking up more and more of the market space. That doesn't mean that future generations of D20 games will be better (in general - some might well be in the specific case) what it means is that in the future more and more games will be D20 and there will need to be some sort of calamatous event for D20 to lose its grip... An event like say... oh a new version of D&D being released (with all due advertising pressure) under a D100 system say.

I agree that it isn't the best system in the world, but I have never seen anyone loathe it like that  ...

Most people I know and respect seem to loathe it. Personally I don't hate it - its just another pretty average (or maybe a little below that even) system. I loathe the fact that its crowding out a variety of actual good systems that don't deserve to fall by the wayside just because D20s backers have more money than non-D20s backers.

-Knave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

::unsure Yeah, ok, sorry, I got mixed up (again). Consider it the inexperience of youth. Mixed with a keyboard that has a mind of its own.

Knave, I apologise in advance.

But... Although Chainmail's original release was in 1969 and the fantasy supplement (the closest thing to DnD before the official release) was around 1971, by 1973, the 1e DnD had been released, which was closer to how we picture it now rather than chainmail ::tongue

And although your point about breeding is valid, the only reason the mutation breeds better is because the original species is dieing off because of the change in environment. So thus it is about things getting better over time.

P.S. There's no need to bite my head off, man. I think you're getting a little too worked up...

P.P.S. Don't kill me. Please. ::smiley4

N.B. If I ever get too much on your nerves, just tell me to shut up.

And on that note, so as not to wind Knave up further, I shall stop posting on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SnakeEyes, this isn't RPGnet you can say what you like, you just have to realise this news is upsetting to us AEON die hards that, in the press release, we're told this wasn't being made for us. We're not so vain as to think they'd make it for us, but it would have been nice if they at least gave us a thought, a simple conversion sheet would take up to 3 pages in these core books, I don't think our anger/disaproval is entirely misplaced. I just hope they do this well, I have faith in Bates and the rest to release something better than the usual d20 fare I've seen kicking around the FLGS'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SnakeEyes: You know, Knave isn't homocidal, just a little upset. ::wink Understandably.

Ian: The reason a bunch of us are upset (or some of us are, anyway) is that we were given the impression that we would have new material provided in ST, not d20. Admittedly, nobody actually came out and said so, but it seemed a natural assumption at the time. I don't blame the developers, and it doesn't really bother me that much, but there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SnakeEyes - apologies if you feel I took your head off - but allow me to retort.

Although Chainmail's original release was in 1969 and the fantasy supplement (the closest thing to DnD before the official release) was around 1971, by 1973, the 1e DnD had been released, which was closer to how we picture it now rather than chainmail

This is what I meant - basic D&D based on Chainmail came out in the 70s. Not counting class concepts, the only things in the system that stuck around between this (Basic D&D) and D20 is the concept of Armour Class (not how its calculated), HP (and how its calculated - mostly) and the 6 stats. If anything the intervening systems AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed have been even more removed from D20 than the original.

ezekiel

Admittedly, nobody actually came out and said so, but it seemed a natural assumption at the time. I don't blame the developers, and it doesn't really bother me that much, but there it is

I'm not so sure about this. I suspect that most of us had made our peace with the fact that the line was dead. I think the problem is basically with change. Fans of a classic movie hate to see remakes - especially when its by a director they can't stand with stars they detest. Course, in our case we rather like the director, and we think the stars are excellent - we just suspect that the script is highly dodgey. Why do we feel this way? Possibly because we don't want the original associated with the nock-off. And possibly because we feel that yes, maybe a sequel by the original scriptwriter would have been a better idea, or even possibly just leaving the original's memory intact.

I just see d20 as this story that is eating away at every other story. It's TV in the Neverending story for crying out loud. ::tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, with the new stuff being D20 & all, we'll never get the official explanations of how systems like 'damage & armour adds' or 'Attunement' are actually supposed to work. Naturally, we'll all really smart kiddies round here, & figure these things out in ways that fit our games, but it'd be nice to have known what the game authors were actually getting at, instead of having to second guess them all the time. That's the sort of thing usually cleared up in a (good) second edition - it's just a pity this isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayre- Thanx, I know about the die hard thing (I've only played on other systems for sometimes less than two sessions myself), that's what I had forgotten to say in my earlier post...

Knave- Since you put it that way, I see. Call it the inexperience and cockyness of youth... and no need to apologise.

Quantum Promise- Ayre posted this earlier, but it was rather hard to notice-

Click for the 3.5 SRD

(for some reason my computer refuses to load the link now... I hate my PC... and my ventless DSL modem)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand where you guys are coming from. Most times something is better then nothing. But I cant agree. I would rather people like us make new material and stay true to the line then the to sell out and in turn overprice it.

This decision wasemt made becasue they were thinking "Hey...we have a bunch of fans that love this series...lets make some new material for them and to get some new people we can make parallel materials in d20 format." That, I would be *more* ok with.

Instead...we are forced to take a "Well...our fans will do whatever the hell we want...and there is another d20 super hero RPG out there going for $40 a pops with a fraction of the pages needed...lets make it d20 so we can make some of the money up we are going to lose becuase of the WoD ending".

Not very settleing IMHO. I dought we will see the quality we are hoping to see in these expansions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually play in two D20 games on a regular basis (one D&D 3rd and one D&D 3.5), and I have a great time at both games, but I have mixed feelings about AEON D20. D20 is not a perfect system, but it is a radical improvement over AD&D 1st and 2nd, and I do think within certain limitations you can do a lot of different things with it. Like any rule system, it's only as good as the people who play it.

I do, however, feel slightly betrayed and let down - I was so excited about the inital announcement, and now...

I just like Storyteller better. I think it's a role-playing game that has combat in it, whereas D20 is a combat system with role-playing built around it. I'll be honest, I've given thought to applying certain elements of the D20 movement system into my next Aberrant game, becuase I feel that Storyteller isn't great in the combat area, but for creating living breathing characters, the only system that beats Storyteller (at least that I've played) is Ars Magica, which shares kindred roots with Storyteller anyway.

I'll have to wait and see how things turn out; it would be nice to see lots of AEON games being played at GenCon, but just like the difference between Legend of the Five Rings and D&D Oriental Adventures, something essential seems to get lost in the translation ::dontgetit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont, unfortunately, think that this will go good, although my thoughts are with Mr Bates and I know that he is trying his best.

However, from what I have heard there is going to be a tabletop zepplin game. Guess what I am going to buy if/when it comes out :-)...

Lestat DeGaul shall rule the skyes!!!

::biggrin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...