Louis Agresta's page

Beastman wrote:

Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...

Probably the fact that a lot of us wouldn't buy them. :)

I'm in a phase of life where I have very limited gaming time - I rely on Paizo for both storyline and numbers. If I need a 13th level, multi-classed, templated villain, I want to turn to page 37, not break out 14 books and a legal pad.

And so the total product idea was a dead-tree adventure and a tool to generate and print monster stat blocks from a few different systems as appropriate to the dead tree adventure you just bought.

Hey, maybe its not salable -- I'm sucktastic at selling -- but its certainly doable -- build such a beast I have and can.

EP Healy wrote:

I was toying with a Adobe last night and made a PDF where the GM clicks the system (OGL/True20/C&C) he's using and the proper stats pop up. It can be done, all in the same product.

Just the question who does it:

James Jacobs (Editor-in-Chief, Pathfinder), Yesterday, 06:39 PM wrote:

... we don't have the resources and manpower to dual stat, so that's a good reason not to do that too.

That spoke to printed dual-statting, like Crown of the Kobold King with 2 (or more) sets of stats.

That didn't speak to a PDF or online web engine.

Louis Agresta wrote:

Well how about an annual subscription to a web site PLUS the statless adventure. The website lets you plug in what adventure you bought, what system you're using, what level you play at, how many party members and then spits our a PDF with all the monsters for the adventure statted out for you?

This approach failed when Dire Kobold tried it with their Xenogeneric(TM) adventures.

Why did it fail? Things fail for lots of reasons. Marketing, for example. Attempts to climb Mt. Everest failed, but it got done. Someone elses failure should not necessarily dissaude us from our future success, simply provide lessons in what not to do. :^)

Dingos ate my post!

Short version: Lou, that would be ubercool, but probably really difficult to do. Each version would have to be hand-crafted.

Hmmm... the world would probably be better served if all my posts got eaten and I had to rewrite them in just a few lines.

As a semi-retired professional PM for app dev, I've run teams of programmers to write software far, far more complicated and far larger than that. It ain't so hard -- including a 4GL update interface so they don't need so much programming to expand such a tool -- it's just a question of money. Which in turn is a business decision. Trust me when I tell you its eminently doable.

Beastman wrote:

Hi @all

Back to topic...What keeps Paizo away from doing products where no stats are provided...

Say you have an encounter with a warband of orcs. Just state it in the product. If the plyers use 3.5 rules, they use the orc stats from 3.5's MM1. If they switch and play with 4.0 rules, the use the stats from 4.0's MM. I don't think, that monsters will be much different in strength between the version (Since the earliest editions of D&D orcs always were rather lame and Dragons were always powerful although their specific powers changed somehwat - there are some exceptions of course).

I would have no use for a product like this. Also, bear in mind that many monsters might significantly change in CR and abilities between editions. If you've read any of the old design and development articles about Oge Mades, you'll see what I mean. Harpies changed power level drastically between 2nd and 3rd edition. There are so many potential differences at a fundamental level that such an adventure might need to be entirely reworked.

And frankly, one of the coolest things about Dungeon adventures is all the neat monster/class/template combinations already statted up. I often plunder adventures just for stat blocks. I don't want to go through an adventure and have to make up all the stats, and fix all of the problems in the conversion. I'd be better off just writing my own thing.

Frankly, they are better off writing for one system or the other, Then if conversion is possible, those playing the unsupported system can do the conversion, but at least some people will not need to.

Well how about an annual subscription to a web site PLUS the statless adventure. The website lets you plug in what adventure you bought, what system you're using, what level you play at, how many party members and then spits our a PDF with all the monsters for the adventure statted out for you?

Robert N. Emerson wrote:

My three favorite (EDIT: Currently Published) campaign settings in alphabetical order; Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Pathfinder, and Ptolus

Similar for me just add in Iron Kingdoms. Though my Ptolus used Arcana Evolved player characters. So ptolus is in the AE world for me but in a diffrent section of the World. I was thinking of a straight Arcana game. Have they had any modules for AE that were good?

Plague of Dreams was a fun introductory module. 1st - 4th I believe. A little more suited to introducing folks to AU/AE, but still fun.

One thing that strikes me as a bit odd here... If WotC is actively playtesting 4E, they've got to have something they're sending out to playtesters. While it won't be final, polished, etc, does it really seem like that big of an effort to drop one in the mail to Paizo as a preview?

From a business perspective, Paizo would be under the same NDA as other playtesters, but it would at least be an opportunity to start understanding what's coming, even if some of the details change.

If/when the OGL for 4E wraps up, there will be tweaks about what can and can't be used, and how, but there has got to be something in the right general area available today, or the external playtesters are just spinning their wheels.

Damn straight. Send out the current playtest with an NDA -- how hard would that be?

Louis Agresta wrote:

Ken Marable wrote:

They are just plain busy, not malicious.

I think that's naive.

Here, in one hand we have explanation A. Erik Mona, who I believe to be knowledgeable about the situation and whose opinion on this matter I trust, says A is true. Clark Peterson, who I believe to be knowledgeable about the situation and whose opinion on this matter I trust, says A is true. Scott Rouse, who I KNOW is knowledgeable about the situation and whose opinion I am coming to trust (but admittedly is beholden to other masters) says "Sorry, yes A is true."

On the other hand, we have explanation B. No one who is actively involved and knowledgeable about the situation (NO ONE) says B is true. In fact, they state many times that B is not true. However, some people who are not actively involved in the situation and are fans posting on a messageboard believe B is true. They believe that Scott Rouse is lying to everyone and deliberately trying to screw over other companies, and they believe that Erik and Clark are naive enough to utterly fall for it because they like the folks over there.

Now, really, which sounds more reasonable?

Erik has worked his way up to publisher because he seems to know a thing or two about good business decisions. Clark is a lawyer by day and successful RPG publisher by night, and a pretty sharp fella as well. Therefore, since I have not talked to anyone involved and am just a fan posting on a messageboard, I assume Erik and Clark have enough intelligence and business sense to trust their opinions on this matter over conspiracy theories because "all corporations are evil."

Seriously, comparing explanation A and B side by side where everyone involved says A, and no one involved says B, you've got to really be stretching to assume Erik and Clark are that naive and blind. Yet I constantly keep seeing these "No, really, I'm sure WotC is doing this on purpose. Even if you say otherwise, you are just naive and fooled as well,...

Well, Ken, with all due respect, I have to say I found that a bit dismissive. Also -- and I'm willing to admit, entirely due to my failure to explain -- a misunderstanding of my point. Here's the place I found you dismissive: for all you know I'm a Hasbro exec or Warren Buffets mentor. I might be more knowledgable or experienced in business than you are willing to grant. Second, the argument from authority leaves me underwhelmed as it encourages passivity -- and I'm too anxious about the fate of my hobby to be passive.

Here's why: despite the proven integrity and proven acumen of all the persons you mentioned -- whom I respect immensely, even having met only a few of them -- my point is a "what if" point. What if, despite what the knowledgeable and experienced believe is going on, they are wrong?

This is really an emotional point. The company that killed my favorite magazines wants me to trust that they aren't killing my favorite game -- and to buy their new stuff.

When I see an action that puts my favorite publisher of my favorite game material in precarious position (for whatever reason), I'm entitled to some suspicion. More importantly, I'm entitled to some anxiety -- hell, some downright fear.

I believe that all the good, insightful people who say "don't worry" really mean it and aren't worried themselves. I eschew the paranoia that leads to the "but of course they have to say nice things" kind of irrefutable argument. But my business acumen and experience (which I'll say, since you made a point of qualifications, is extensive though in unrelated industries) tell me that despite the best intentions of those who care, they might be wrong.

This thought scares me, and being able to share and discuss that fear with a community of people who also care is a relief and something I value.

The fears, however, are not baseless. Otherwise I'd be crazy and not just worried.

Last and most imporantly, I never said nor do I believe that "Scott Rouse is lying to everyone and deliberately trying to screw over other companies, and they believe that Erik and Clark are naive enough to utterly fall for it because they like the folks over there." Nor, as the owner of a corporation, would I take the position that all corporations are evil. Ultimately, I didn't like having those words put in my mouth. So, no hard feelings or anything, but you see where I'm coming from now?

It is an awesome thing that WotC would share their rules with other developers and an integral to a thriving market to "share" the wealth.

Personally, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but I'm less impressed. They make more money on the core books than anything else. Core books are like an operating system. Opening up the core rules for others to create adventure and supplement products, just looks like giving operating system secrets to developers so they can make programs. Programs drive operating system sales. Similarly, Paizo adventures help drive core book sales, but making people want to continue playing the game. That's the theory, anyway. So its not so awesome, its just a business model.

As a consumer, its a business model I like a lot, because it means more options and choices for me. So, hip hip the OGL.

If we're not going to demonize, we shouldn't lionize either, neh? :^)

I feel like I need to point out that no one here begrudges Wizards a single thing. Honestly, the idea that they would share the rules with other companies before they are released is a huge deal, and one all third-party companies really appreciate.

Wizards has been cool with us, and we like to think we've been cool with them. For five years, at least, we have had a very up-front relationship. I hope that that remains to be the case going forward, and I have every reason to expect that this will be so.

Their timelines do not currently match up with ours. _I_ cannot get the things I need to get done done in a single day, and I am not managing the relaunch of one of the best-known entertainment brands in history. I don't blame them for not getting us this stuff by now, and I'm not mad at them.

I am facing a ticking clock, and I'm forced to consider multiple options on where we might go from here. One of those options is sticking with 3.5, and I felt it important to ask our audience how they feel on the matter.

I am not trying to stir up "anti-4e" sentiment or resentment toward Wizards of the Coast.

We wish them the best success with 4e. A strong 4e will lead to a much stronger RPG market, which is good for all publishers.

--Erik

I think we're all on board with you Eric. For myself, I think the sentiment you are picking up on is anxiety, plain and simple. We all love the game, and we all fear there is a higher corporate power that through lack of understanding will make moves that sink or hurt the hobby (and Paizo -- our favorite publisher in it!). That anxiety needs a voice to ease it, and the Paizo forums gives us a place to speak. So, thanks for that, too.

Louis Agresta wrote:

I think that's naive.

If the spectrum of possibilities for the delay were a line, with anti-3e as one extreme and totally giving WotC the benefit of the doubt is the other extreme, then the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Most likely example of the truth:

WotC is busy as heck and other companies are not a priority to their thought and, thus, slips their mind.

It's not malicious, or conspiratorial, it's just part of being busy and working under the gun of getting things lined up, play-tested, and published.

So, Paizo and others have done what they can within channels, by talking with WotC, and outside of channels, by polling their consumer-base with options, both of which could get them the materials they need, ASAP, or give them the options they need to go forward with their business.

If WotC was truly against OGL, then they wouldn't have 4e in an OGL, which last I hear, from a lot of people I trust, as well as from WotC, it is a part of it.

So while some may be naive, I think your simple sentence is a bit over reaching with it's own implications, too.

*chuckles*

Yes, I tend to throw a lot of text at things and I cannot believe that I could write that much in response to such a small sentence.

Robert N. Emerson
Grand Master Delver CuDraoi at Delver's Square
Magister of Glen Ravin
The Emerson Papers

Ex Ignorantia Ad Sapientiam; E Luce Ad Tenebras

I thought about a joke with a really small sentence to see if I could elicit a long response again *chuckles*, and you're right. That was a very brief response. Let me put my thought this way: there are tons of well meaning, game loving folk at WoTC who want a world of co-opetition. I believe that with you, whole heartedly, and I don't know half as many of them as others on these boards. That said, there are people at WoTC/Hasbro who are paid to make sure income is optimized. IF (and how should I know, I'm just speculating) the opinion about OGL's effect on the bottom line has changed, then I think its naive to believe that there are no long term plans to phase out OGL or to limit its ability to allow others to compete. This doesn't preclude tons of honest, hard-working, creative game loving folk at WoTC from wanting to back OGL and it doesn't preclude them from being simply too busy to meet deadlines to which they have committed. When strategizing I just don't think one should ignore the possibility that OGL is on the long-term chopping block. Now, since both the Economist and the entire RPG game industy no longer solicit my opinions, I'm really just talking out of school and jawing. :^)

Watcher wrote:

I hate that we're even having to have this conversation. Near as I can figure, the only rationale for not getting 4th edition material to third party publishers under a new OGL (by January) is that they want Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Eberron (or whatever in-house WOTC settings) to have no competition as available campaign settings when 4th edition comes out.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure it's because WotC is utterly up to their eyeballs with the edition change. It's a massive amount of work on it's own, and on top of that coming up with a legal agreement to allow other companies to use your stuff that you will be bound to for years to come... well, that can't be done overnight.

They are just plain busy, not malicious. Erik Mona and Clark Peterson - both people who have directly talked to those making these decisions - have clearly stated here and at EN World that they believe it's clearly a matter of WotC being swamped. It doesn't stop both from stating publicly that they need the rules ASAP (and really they need to get public pressure going to keep this issue nearer the top of Ultra-High-Priority material that ALL needs to be done a month or two ago). But I have never heard either of them, or anyone else in the industry, accusing anyone at WotC of trying to stifle competition by withholding the SRD and licenses.

Hopefully this public pressure and the realities are the print industry will finally push things through at WotC.

So, don't assume they are maliciously trying to stifle competition and get all pissed at them. If you are going to be pissed at them, at least pick any of the other legitimately true reasons. :) The underlying theme I am seeing in most of the blogs posts over at WotC (well, other than "Boy, does 3rd edition suck. I'm glad I've been playing 4e for years!") is that they are overwhelmed with too much work in too little time. That's all. No anti-3rd party conspiracy.

I think that's naive.

I figure that no matter how different the new rules are, it will still be possible to use the adventure path's story and just convert monsters etc. as needed...

Don't assume. For real.

Even if you stay with 3.5 I will convert them to 4th ed. Although that will take time, for me it will be time better spent than world building and adventure design. It should be even easier if WotC succeed in cutting down the prep time with 4th ed.

You're assuming things are convertible. WoTC's already publicly said "don't bother". No one, no matter how smart and dilligent, could convert apples into oranges.

Oh - I forgot to add. Unless they drastically change what I've already seen, I'm never switching to 4.0. Ever. I'll continue to buy all the 3.x material Paizo publishes, but if you guys switch to 4.x, I'll be cancelling my subscriptions (with tears in my eyes). 4.x material will be useless to me as I won't play it. Even if that means I never play D&D again. Or write for it, either.

I'll undoubtedly download the 4E SRD once it becomes available.

Assuming there is one.

Here's part of the issue that's probably worth discussing as its own post.

Here's a nightmare scenario: Let's say there is a 4.0 OGL. One reason for such a thing to exist (and we know one is coming, unless plans have changed since Gen Con) is that Wizards knows the largest potential threat to the success of 4.0 is their own game--3.5. I strongly suspect that there are powers at Wizards who view all OGL companies as competition instead of support, and who would prefer that all of us went away and stopped splitting the pie that they believe is their pie in the first place. But pulling the OGL from 4.0 would be a disaster, because a lot of customers have grown used to third-party support and the industry, such as it is, has come to rely on it too...

Wouldn't it be an even greater nightmare if they simply wrote the 4.0 OGL, retaining the right of revocation? Then they've got a Damocles sword over all your heads. Let you help convert their base to 4.0 then deprive you of the 4.0 OGL mid publishing cycle, attempting to rupture your finances.

Krome wrote:

Course I still think Paizo should just wait a bit (3.75 is fine) and buy DD& from Hasbro when they sell it in the next few years. Really. Just leverage yourselves to have the capital and be ready. D&D changed hands several times between 2E and 3E. I really think that hasbro is not going to be happy with 4E returns and will sell off D&D in a few years. Of all companies I want Paizo to be the ones to buy it.

No one ever thought TSR would sell to Wizards and no ever though Hasbro of all companies would buy Wizards. D&D WILL change hands again eventually. The question is, will Paizo have had the foresight to be ready to buy it?

I certainly hope so. (Lisa get the checkbook ready)

Checkbook heck, put up the option to invest to the gamers!

Here, here! Can you spell, Paizo's IPO?

Course I still think Paizo should just wait a bit (3.75 is fine) and buy DD& from Hasbro when they sell it in the next few years. Really. Just leverage yourselves to have the capital and be ready. D&D changed hands several times between 2E and 3E. I really think that hasbro is not going to be happy with 4E returns and will sell off D&D in a few years. Of all companies I want Paizo to be the ones to buy it.

Yes, I know this is a far off situation but one I think LIsa and Erik and others really need to sit down one day and have a real serious meeting over it. No one ever thought TSR would sell to Wizards and no ever though Hasbro of all companies would buy Wizards. D&D WILL change hands again eventually. The question is, will Paizo have had the foresight to be ready to buy it?

I certainly hope so. (Lisa get the checkbook ready)

YES! I will even donate to help fund a Paizo-buys-D&D warchest. Just tell me where to send the check.

I'm only started playing 3.5 DnD for this wonderful Pathfinder campaign / milleu.

I sound like a suck-a$$ a lot of the time, so here's the straight dope.

My money goes to the quality campaign setting materials first, rule books second. Paizo delivers what I want, so I run 3.5.

So yeah, if Paizo made a 3.75 game to support their Adventure Paths, I would buy that game, and I would use it to run Pathfinder campaigns.

That reminds me of Microsoft's (winning) strategy. Game system is the computer hardware, campaign material is the software. Microsoft's early genius was in recognizing that people buy machines in order to run software and not the other way around.

So, can Paizo replicate the strategy and get people to buy the game system that runs their campaign world, and not the other way around?

What edition of D&D do you currently expect to be playing at the end of 2008?

(Note: You may change your vote at any time!)

I go where Paizo goes, but given my druthers, it'd be some variant of 3e. 4e is gonna blow chunks.

You may have an opportunity like Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes to make a variant Player's Handbook. A text would allow you to fix or clarify some of the issues with 3.5 that have arisen and to provide Varisa to a wider audience...

I'd buy that.

Koriatsar wrote:

Should make this into a poll...

It kinda already is.

My thoughts:
Paizo Pathfinder RPG based on the 3.5 OGL rules = Win.

There's somewhat of an inevitability for 4th edition - being a publisher of game material, y'all are in the position of not being able to ignore it. The viability of a publisher sticking solely with an edition of the rules that are invalidated by the publisher of those rules by the release of a new rules edition doesn't sound good, and would make any sane businessperson nervous. I don't see 3.5 OGL lasting more than a year after the release of 4E (from a business POV; as a player/GM, it will last a lot longer).

You can't please everybody all the time, and no matter which edition you go with you're going to make somebody unhappy. The best plan would be to provide back & forwards conversions no matter the edition you're publishing in. Sadly, this is probably more manpower that Paizo has to spare, but it is an ideal solution.

Oh, and Paizo 4 Life for me too.

I've got a different take on this. If 4e stinks, and its arrival further fragments an already fragmented market perhaps the thought should be: how can Paizo turn this into an opportunity? Fixing 4e with supplements? 3.75? Getting aggressive and creating such an amazing outlet for freelancers that everyone is too busy to work for WoTC? Some other move that lets Davey take out Goliath? Bottom line I'm not ready to just assume that 4e means WoTC automatically wins and retains its 50% market share.

Here's my straight up answer.

From a financial and realistic standpoint, I am considering holding off on future APs after RotRL, not because of 4E, but because I'm already drowning in stuff to run. This isn't to say I'm not interested, I'm just thinking of slowing down. For example, I plan to start the STAP in late 2008 or early 2009.

My group wants to stick with 3.5. I will buy 4E, because i hope to write for some of the companies that will switch.

If you produced a Pathfinder game that was an upgrade of 3.5, I would be MUCH more likely to by the associated advenures, and rules, and run them immediately.

And if opportunities became available to be part of the creation of that product, I would be extremely interested in being involved.

Dude - you're assuming 4e leaves you anything to write. The little I've gathered in all my 4e sleuthing (such as it is), makes 4e sound like a computer game. Bleh.

Koldoon wrote:

Louis Agresta wrote:

Mike McArtor wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Are the rest of us getting some love? Rejection emails also being sent today?

Check your inbox.

I have received neither acceptance nor rejection; so I'm guessing its rejection, and it will just take a while.

Lou -

Email is not always the instantaneous medium we think of it as... it could take an hour or more to get to you either way. Good luck man.

- Ashavan

You're a sweet man, Ashavan. Thanks for the pick me up.

Ok, I'm out. Good luck to the winners!

Louis Agresta wrote:

Mike McArtor wrote:

Mothman wrote:

Are the rest of us getting some love? Rejection emails also being sent today?

Check your inbox.

I have received neither acceptance nor rejection; so I'm guessing its rejection, and it will just take a while.

Lou -

Email is not always the instantaneous medium we think of it as... it could take an hour or more to get to you either way. Good luck man.

- Ashavan

You're a sweet man, Ashavan. Thanks for the pick me up.

Mothman wrote:

Are the rest of us getting some love? Rejection emails also being sent today?

Check your inbox.

I have received neither acceptance nor rejection; so I'm guessing its rejection, and it will just take a while.

Truth is, most people sent me their bribes in the form of checks. But I couldn't cash any but Craig's because the rest all had my name spelled wrong.

I think I sent mine to the wrong person entirely. Who are you again?

No, he's just so darn good-looking and clever.

And have you seen him in a utility kilt?

Just Kidding

They will get sent out in the morning.

Jason

PS: James.. now that is how you do cruel. I am the king.

Wow! What a sucktastically cruel thing to say, oh king. I'm not sure if I'm mad at you or just mad that you actually got me with that. Remind me to always, always accuse you of being the werewolf next GenCon! :^)

I win!!!!!!!!!!

Sweeeeeeeeet!

I'm so glad to hear Daryl "Kibbles" Wade, pool shark

But is it a laser shark? ;)

And the winner of the first annual Paizo Open Call is...

DUDE - you totally caught me. Nice.

Lou, I hoped you thought less of me.

Oh no, Daigle. You have me completely fooled. Don't worry.

You guys goofing around, or do you actually know your numbers somehow?

Damn. I'm an addict, or maybe a rat. Refresh refresh refresh refresh.

Small Attention Span wrote:

Fatespinner wrote:

Of course, with a 22,000 word submission paying 5 cents per word, you're looking at an $1100 paycheck (minus taxes) which will certainly get you a subscription for quite awhile. :)

Those are the standard rates?

Yup. They sure are:

James Sutter wrote:

Generally five cents per word... which, in this industry, is pretty darn good.

So if I promise to spend all $1100 on Paizo products, do you think that'll help 'em pick my submission?

Yup. It's true. On some nights, I'm a cabbage -- don't tell my wife.

Nicolas Logue wrote:

Heathansson wrote:

Nic's just sad they're only selling 12 a year...

He could write that many in a weekend of greentea-induced insomnia.

Let's not exaggerate Heath...6 per greentea-induced insomniac weekend.

Actually, I've given up eating too now, man, I'm getting a lot done. The gym is next on my list...its gonna be hard to keep going all the time if I'm not eating anything anyways.

Just think of all the work you could get done if you got a diaper...like that crazy astronaut lady... ;)

Actually, I happen to know for a fact that he does use a diaper. I pay him to send them to me when he's done. I'm that kind of fan.

Awesome! I will buy every single module in this line, just because Nick wrote the first one. AND they all sound freakin' awesome!

Paizo has hit the jackpot again. I've been dying for groundbreaking modules ever since I upgraded to 3rd edition.

You guys win, tureen is a hugely popular word that everyone knows, I just ate some tureen today. (hah) While I may want Dungeon to be simpler, shorter and more to the point of the actual adventure, that is not what the editors want, and it seems not what the majority of the readers want.

Echoing another poster, this is genuine conversation, so it's not about 'winning'. Here's my sincere question for you, Hanexs. Regardless of the reasons and after reflecting upon this thread, do you still feel that the Dungeon writers/editors are somehow 'wrong' for using words that you don't happen to know?

Bocklin wrote:

PS: no marzipan in the US? Boy that should be a tough life...

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

They truly live a benighted life across the Atlantic.

Bocklin wrote:

Do you think they don't have "toad in the hole" or "spotted dicks" either???

Bocklin

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

I fear that they do not.

Louis Agresta wrote:

Ah, but you would be wrong. There is a town near me, Rhinebeck NY, where I have eaten spotted dick and toad in a hole.

So there. phhhhbt!

I'm afraid that eating a toad whilst sitting in a hole doesn't count. Nor does a dose of the clap.

ROFLMAO!

hanexs wrote:

The Jade wrote:

I am concerned about the way things seem to be going. Your suggestion that D&D needed a turnaround in regard to volcabulary usage just seemed to me to be the exact wrong direction.

So Jade, you would say that Dungeons vocabulary needs to increased? Or, that the words in a typical Dungeon adventure need to be more obscure? I mean simpler is the wrong direction so then even more complicated words would be the right direction?

You assume my point is that I'm saying Dungeon's word usage needs to become more obscure? Are you serious? I refuse to believe that's where your reading comprehension is at. I think you're twisting the reality of my argument against me, assigning values to my argument that you know I never intended because it's easier to argue that way. It's also an ideal way to ensure never finding common ground.

I will spell this out for you. Simpler isn't the wrong direction. Your attitude towards learning the language is the wrong direction. It's quite a popular attitude these days and the long term effects are storied throughout history. When the intellectual class collapses, so follows the society in short order.

Hear hear! Well said, Jade! Well said.

Bocklin wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Bocklin wrote:

PS: no marzipan in the US? Boy that should be a tough life...

They truly live a benighted life across the Atlantic.

Do you think they don't have "toad in the hole" or "spotted dicks" either???

Bocklin

I fear that they do not.

Ah, but you would be wrong. There is a town near me, Rhinebeck NY, where I have eaten spotted dick and toad in a hole.

So there. phhhhbt!

Vattnisse wrote:

Here's a good recipe for marzipan; it is a popular dessert item in continental Europe, but I've never seen it here in the US. Which is a shame, 'cause it is DELICIOUS. Yum!

Seriously?

The USA (and Canada) does not stock Marzipan?
Wow! I've never felt so priviledged to live in the UK before...

What about christmas cakes over there? In the UK we have big fruit cakes, with Marzipan on the top, and then covered in a dense layer of icing. Do you not have this either? Or is there a substitute when it comes to the Marzipan layer? Intrigued UK readers want to know...

Sorry, he's just mistaken. Marzipan can be found all over the US.

The Jade wrote:

I am concerned about the way things seem to be going. Your suggestion that D&D needed a turnaround in regard to volcabulary usage just seemed to me to be the exact wrong direction.

So Jade, you would say that Dungeons vocabulary needs to increased? Or, that the words in a typical Dungeon adventure need to be more obscure? I mean simpler is the wrong direction so then even more complicated words would be the right direction?

Actually, I doubt anyone writing a dungeon adventure is thinking in tersm of simpler or more obscure. The authors are thinking that this word, here, strikes exactly the right subtlety of tone. It's exactly the right word.

If that turns out to be a word you don't know, which in turn makes you angry -- then maybe Dungeon really isn't for you and a less 'arty' adventure mag would be the way to go.

If you want your adventures to be less partitioned fiction and more like a toilet installation manual...well, I'm not sure we want the same magazine.

There are 2 real counter arguements:

1. A signifigant portion of the population would understand marzipan, tureen, proboscis and me and my vocabulary are to blame. This I just do not see as reality.

2. We are dungeon magazine and we do not cater to ordinary people but rather the upper crust of society. We prefer to use words that are not common in everyday english and if your players do not understand the words we choose, tough. They will either...

Hi Hanexs,

You're coming under a lot of fire, I can see. And I think you're analysis of the two possibilities is spot on. You're clearly an intelligent person and an articulate one. Your arguments are clear and concise.

Nonetheless, I'm afraid it really is option 1. A significant portion of the population would understand marzipan, tureen, & proboscis.

Taking your call for an 8th grade level of education as the standard, here is my evidence: the New York Times (granted, probably not the favorite paper in Ontario) is generally considered to be at an 8th grade reading level.

A search on the NY Times web site reveals the following:
tureen - 309 articles
proboscis - 127 articles
propensity - 1,943 articles
marzipan - 488 articles
ziggurat - 162 articles

Now, I'm really not trying to be a snot, but I have to conclude what you're arguing for is really something below an 8th grade reading level.

I'd like to suggest that you designate one of your players, per game, as Dictionary Dude. When anyone doesn't know a word they can order Dictionary Dude to look it up. In short, try including the word-lookup into your game, but get the extra prep work off of your back. This way, everyone at the table can learn, but your free time (already at a premium) isn't impacted.

My answer is still "look it up" but maybe that's a more useful way to go about it for you.

I will happily sell any of you copies of my 4.25 edition, as I'm upgrading by pre-order to 5e.

You just have to send $50 per book to my paypal account.

I'm sure I have enough copies for all of you.

And Nick, I've got your copy right here!