Back at level 62, I got the quest to kill Arazzius the Cruel, a level 63 elite demon in Hellfire Penninsula (Outland). It’s a group quest, with the suggestion of three characters. I tried him solo at around level 65, and he kicked my butt. He killed my pet and I had to Feign Death to get away. I tried him a couple times, but never managed to take him below 75% health. So I gave up on him for a while.

I kept the quest, Cruel’s Intentions, with the intent to take him on again when I leveled up some more. I wanted to solo him. I tried again at level 67, but still I couldn’t beat him. He’s very tough, and deals out massive damage. My pet died twice, again, and I had to FD to escape both times.

After attaining level 70, I figured I’d give him another go. Surely I could take him down from seven levels above him. Damn! I still couldn’t beat him. I managed to get him down to half health, at least. But still, he killed my pet twice, and I had to FD to escape twice. He’s amazingly hard for a 63 elite. That’s just wrong.

Before entering Outland, I could defeat an elite one or two levels below me. They were very hard fights, and required all my attention and a potion, but they were beatable solo. But now, I can’t beat an elite seven levels below me?

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

I don’t want my August 31 post to get added to the “evidence” that people use to support an urban myth. Urban myths are fun and all, but I really don’t like misinformation spoken as fact.

Ironically, a few days before I made that post about the child with a peanut allergy in my son’s preschool class, I was contemplating a post about the peanut ban in schools myth. With the beginning of a new school year, people tend to talk about school—things they remember, things that are always the same, and things that have changed. Something I’ve heard as fact for a few years now, is that schools have banned peanuts to protect those students with peanut allergies.

Until this one class with my youngest son, I’ve never actually heard of a real instance of any kind of peanut allergy. I’ve heard the urban stories, but ironically, these stories are told by people with no kids or with no kids in school. A week or so ago, I heard this concept mentioned twice in a few days. One person, with no children, brought up the “fact” of how schools have changed and now peanuts are banned in many schools. The other person, with a child about to enter kindergarten at the same school my son is in first grade, asked whether there was a problem with sending peanuts to school in a child’s lunch.

I told both people that my son takes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to school every day (literally), and has for all five years he’s been in a school environment. I’ve never seen a rule against peanuts in any school information I’ve read. So, as far as I can tell, the whole peanut ban story is a myth.

My first son has been in some form of school for five years. From pre-school for just two days a week, to first grade five days a week, he’s been in two different schools. I’ve seen the rules for other schools and districts. I’ve also talked with parents with kids in other schools and districts.

Now, I could do some research on the subject, and tell you exactly what the percentage of children with this allergy is. I could also research many school districts and see if there actually are any schools that ban peanuts. But this is a blog, not an article—I’m doing this writing as a hobby, not as my job. So I’m just telling you what I’ve seen with my older child in school.

What I feared may happen with my anecdote about a peanut ban in a single small class in a private preschool, is that people will take the story and retell it as evidence that the peanut ban story in all or many schools is truth. I hope this post sets the record straight: one or two anecdotes, even truthful ones, does not support a broad concept. As a parent with a child in a “peanut banned” class, I do not believe peanuts are banned in many schools. (Note: this peanut ban is only for one class, not for the whole school.)

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

As probably anyone who would read this section of my site knows, the 4th edition of D&D has been announced for a May 2008 release. Third edition came out in 2000, and lasted 8 years, with one revision in that time. Second edition came out in 1989, and lasted 11 years, with several “alterations” in that time. First edition came out in 1977-79 (Player’s Handbook in ’77, Dungeon Master’s Guide in ’79), and lasted 10-12 years, with one “addition” in that time. [The original D&D game came out in 1974. See the side bar.]

It’s a sad thing that there’s some intra-edition hate on some D&D message boards. Unfortunately, this announcement means there’s going to be more in the future, as D&D3 players join some AD&D and BD&D players to bitch and moan about a new edition. But you know, the world grows and evolves, and if D&D is going to continue growing with the world, it must evolve, too. It always has, and that’s the only reason it is still the top table-top RPG.

A 14 year old in the 70s [original D&D] is very different from a 14 year old in the 80s [first edition] is very different from a 14 year old in the 90s [second edition] is very different from a 14 year old of the 00s [third edition], is very different than a 14 year old of the 10s will be [fourth edition].

Plus:
A 14 year old of the 80s is very different than a 34 year old of the 00s, and a 34 year old of the 70s is very different than a 14 year old of the 90s.

D&D of the 70s and 80s could not thrive in the environment of the 00s. There’s much more competition, not just from other table-top RPGs, but also from the many other gaming options — computer games especially. D&D of the 70s and 80s did not have to compete with 100 channels of TV, multi-player online computer games, and movies on demand. The world is evolving, so D&D (any hobby) has to evolve with the world or it will get left behind by the new generations; left to be played only by the old guard.

Plus, game mechanics evolve as well. Designers learn that players want to play a race and class instead of just a race as class. Classes can have different hit dice, weapons can do different damage, etc. They learn that no one really uses certain rules, and they make up new rules; the bad rules can be officially dropped, the new rules officially added to match how people want to and actually play.

D&D must evolve to keep up with who the players are, how they play the game, and how the game mechanics can be written to allow them to play as they want to play the game.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

We went to the zoo yesterday. We left early, got there just an hour after opening, and spent about 3 hours visiting Africa and 1 hour seeing North American critters. The zoo just isn’t very. . . well, seeing the animals on TV is much more exciting, to me.

At the zoo, the animals just stand around, or lay around, or sometimes don’t even show up. That’s kind of disappointing, especially after you’ve worked your way to the front of the viewing area past all the other visitors.

My boys love seeing the animals, and get very excited. “Daddy! Look at the turtle!” And that makes me happy. For them.

For myself, I’m hot, tired, and rather unimpressed. I’d love to see the animals doing their animal-action things — the elephants and rhinos charging, the giraffes eating leaves off the tall trees, the grizzly bears growling. But at the zoo, you only see all the stuff that ends up on the cutting room floor of Animal Planet. It’s the boring 23 hours, 59 minutes of the animals’ lives.

Heck. One of my favorite animals, the red wolf, we couldn’t even see in its habitat. It was sleeping out of sight. Sigh. I want to see a pack of wolves stalking a deer or something.

Lazy bugger animals. Entertain me! I’d rather see the animals in a circus. “Natural habitat,” be darned.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com