Kobold Quarterly 9

I like it for the pictures. Last issues centerfold was HAWT!

Question for everyone:
Would you like to see some indication of what the edition breakdown of an issue is?
Like in the product description text:
Article Title/description - 3.5
Article Title/description - 4.0
Article Title/description - Pf

Or just a note in the description saying, "This issue contains 3.5, 4.0, Pf material."

Would you like some kind of description in the magazine itself, like an icon, telling you which edition the article supports?

Thanks,
-Kobold Graphics

Pf = Pathfinder

@Pax - I see your point. I view it differently, but I see it. I think that when there is some support, that is better than no support. It sounds to me unfortunate to withdraw funding for a source of quality support, even if it isn't always "pure" to your edition of choice. Wizards, by contrast, is never going to give back what they have taken away, nor are they going to go backward with their current edition.

Put differently, I think many gamers have already moved into 4th Edition. Not supporting that edition by boycotting KQ (a very separate, small company) will hardly slow sales of those 4th Edition books. I think the real cure is winning the lottery, buying Wizards, and broadening D&Ds appeal again. That will never happen of course.

Those of us who have no 4e need will not be impressed that "more gaming material for everyone" is what we should be supporting. We want relevant products.

Everyone wants relevant products. I agree completely. And yet gamers take material supplied and tweak it to fit their own needs. They use portions of products. I see people buy books for D&D and fully reject 2/3 as never needing use. Unearthed Arcana anyone?

That a portion of a magazine may be useless to me by virtue of belonging to a specific edition seems like an odd justification for not buying the whole thing. I find plenty of good ideas and great reads in the 4E stuff even though I never read it. Now, if KQ were fully one edition or another, I could see not buying it. However, I would probably buy it anyway just because I like the content.

I guess I don't understand the position that a publisher should respond to the individual needs, wants and desires of specific consumers. It's just not cost effective to tailor down to that level. Moreover, it still feels like everyone wants Wolfgang to validate their edition of choice by steering his magazine into a specific direction.

Isn't the sandbox big enough for all of us to play in together?

I look at it ("it" being the inclusion of 4E material) as being similar to when Dragon magazine offered up non D&D game content. I for one liked a lot of it. I certainly wasn't one of those people who seemed to think D&D purity was threatened by such content.

I don't like 4E. For that matter I don't like 3E, or Pathfinder. I don't play any of them. What I do like is the ideas. Even though I don't use the mechanics I enjoyed the flavors given to several of the familiars and dinosaurs by the feats assigned. Same goes for the Maened and Kitsune.

Old School gaming is much more my thing, but fortunately for me (and unfortunately for my bank account) I use a rules system that allows me to easily use material from an system. So when I look at KQ material, and their mechanics, I am always deciding what I am keeping, changing, and throwing away.

I also see a lot of compatibility between 4E and 3E. Granted it requires some work on the part of a DM, and that can be a big issue for those who are seriously short on free time, but even those of us who don't like 4E can make use of the material. With regards to monsters its even easier since you don't have to decide on spell lists.

So I currently subscribe to KQ and Crusader magazine and own all of Fight ON! (a completely old school magazine, that RAWKS!!) and have bought the first issues of Knockspell, Big Iron Vault, and Level Up!

Now you see why C&C hurts my wallet, but I get to see all kinds of ideas and use any of them I like.

All of that taken into consideration and set aside now, I totally agree with Pax Veritas about how "THAT" company has handled its relations with its customers. This business isn't normal. We are a "consumer community" in a very real sense. More than any other "market demographic" that I can think of we gamers think and act like a "family". "THAT" company's actions are akin to a parental unit intentionally causing divisions within their own family. So a number of us "children" realize this, and feel betrayed like any family member should. "THAT" company has freely admitted they are aware of the division of the family and are not only fine with it but are to the point where they are going to continue full steam ahead, and if we alienated children don't like it, get off the ship.

So they get off the ship. Where do they go? Well most probably just stayed in their homes and continued to play whatever edition of D&D they liked with their group, or the groups died. Others moved into Paizo's house. Others went to other games, like C&C, OSRIC, Swords and Wizardy, Labyrinth Lord, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Risus, etc...

So what I think KQ needs to be sensitive to is the fact that a certain portion of their 3E customer base feels betrayed and abandoned by the parental unit. So these customers are going to respond like the betrayed offspring that they are.

Even a fellow sibling like me doesn't directly support "THAT" parental unit, but I am willing and able to support other siblings, like KQ, Fight ON!, Crusader, et al... I am a very small part of the family, though. The question for KQ is how many of my/our other siblings are going to be offended by KQ's support of our parental betrayers? How will that effect the survival of our sibling KQ? How many straddle the line between 4E and 3E versus those who stay loyal only to 3E?

ITs a tough question that KQ obviously needs to know the answer to, and I see your taking steps to try and find out.

I can tell you that this sibling of KQ will keep subscribing to KQ as long as I keep seeing cool ideas in its pages. I don't care if you go fully 4E or 3E, just keep giving me cool ideas to play with. I do have a preference, though. I would prefer to see KQ be completely 3E/Pathfinder.

However I accept that KQ is in a tough position. The bottom line is your a small business, and you need to satisfy and keep the largest number of readers you can. Any advertising dollars you can pull from the pockets of "THAT" parental unit by supporting 4E certainly doesn't hurt either. So make the best decision you can, I'll be able to support you whichever way you go, but you now know my preference.

If the 3E/OGL audience doesn't renew (witness Pax), then KQ becomes a 4E/Pathfinder magazine by default.

Well, I'll continue to pitch OGL (and generic) content. But I'll also continue to read 4E (or whatever game system) content, because cause good writing is good writing, regardless.

I don't envy Wolfgang. Trying to walk what can only be described as a precarious tightrope between editions and somehow keep most people happy must sometimes feel like a thankless job and a no win situation. Having said that, I think he is doing about the best he can with the mix, really.

The reality is that the D&D world was pretty much split (some would say fractured) when 4E came out ... probably to a degree WOTC had not quite anticipated. But, this is the unfortunate reality we now are faced with.

Some people made the switch to 4E, some are playing both and some rejected 4E and are sticking with 3E/Pathfinder (and I would have to put myself firmly in the 3E/Pathfinder camp). If he is to make KQ grow and be successful, he has to find some way to appeal to all of those people.

Look, I admit it - I would have rather seen KQ remain a pure 3E/Pathfinder magazine and was a little sad to say 4E content begin to creep in. But, as I said, I understand the reasons why and certainly don't begrudge Wolfgang for doing it. Would I be very disappointed to see KQ go all, or even mostly 4E? Without question. But would I bash him for doing it? No way!

Bottom line - there are TONS of 3E and Pathfinder fans out there (and I suspect, there will be MANY more once the core book comes out in a few months) so the answer is to write great 3E / Pathfinder content and submit it!

For what it's worth, I've already put my money where my mouth is - I queried, and then submitted, a Pathfinder article which I am very proud of and will hopefully see in KQ's pages soon. Let's get more 3E / Pathfinder content to Wolfgang and then see what happens!

I guess it's partly self-fulfilling, is what I'm saying. If the 3E/OGL audience doesn't renew (witness Pax), then KQ becomes a 4E/Pathfinder magazine by default.

I hear you loud and clear. I am now committed to posting reviews of my two issues to pound my good buddy Pax into submis..er...subscription. Completely seriously, though, my own complaining/expressing of anxiety was intended to do more than buzz in your ear, although I am mindful of your tolerance and thank you for it. I am hoping that more of the 3e/Pf community will invest in KQ as subscribers and contributors so that both the magazine and the community are enriched.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Those of us who have no 4e need will not be impressed that "more gaming material for everyone" is what we should be supporting. We want relevant products.

Everyone wants relevant products. I agree completely. And yet gamers take material supplied and tweak it to fit their own needs. They use portions of products. I see people buy books for D&D and fully reject 2/3 as never needing use. Unearthed Arcana anyone?

That a portion of a magazine may be useless to me by virtue of belonging to a specific edition seems like an odd justification for not buying the whole thing. I find plenty of good ideas and great reads in the 4E stuff even though I never read it. Now, if KQ were fully one edition or another, I could see not buying it. However, I would probably buy it anyway just because I like the content.

I guess I don't understand the position that a publisher should respond to the individual needs, wants and desires of specific consumers. It's just not cost effective to tailor down to that level. Moreover, it still feels like everyone wants Wolfgang to validate their edition of choice by steering his magazine into a specific direction.

Isn't the sandbox big enough for all of us to play in together?

Well, Varianor (I think I misspelled your name earlier, sorry about that), I'm not against any taking of foreign material and tweaking it. But when it comes to the mechanical side of things, this is precisely the side of things that I particularly want help with and want to be less burdened with, thence the wheel squeaks. I don't find your analogies to answer well, frankly. If National Geographic switched from good ol' geographic expeditions and writing to, oh, I don't know, postcolonial studies, I'd have no use for it. If it went partially postcolonial studies, I'd complain at the least. And it's funny you also raise UA, which I recently found

As to “the position that a publisher should respond to the individual needs, wants and desires of specific consumers,” I think I have a fair grasp of the economic principles involved, although I claim no insight into Wolfgang's customer base. Of course I hope that I am not simply an individual, specific consumer. I hope that I am a representative of a large share of his customers, his likely customers, and his potential customers. I may be disappointed in the that hope, but I do not want to jump to that conclusion prematurely. If I am disappointed due to market forces and not, say, misjudgments on whoever's part, then no harm, no foul. But only time will tell whether it is realistic to expect the farmers and the cowboys to be pals...they're competing for the same resources. And to this cowboy, it looks like the 4armers have almost all the sandbox, so asking me to share kind of sticks in the craw – what, all that sandbox isn't enough?

And to this cowboy, it looks like the 4armers have almost all the sandbox, so asking me to share kind of sticks in the craw – what, all that sandbox isn't enough?

No worries on the name! I appreciate your thoughtfulness though. Few people on the internet are that considerate.

Now, with respect to your comment above, I guess I wonder why everyone seems to take it so personally? Why does everyone think that they are being crowded out? Is it better to be in a friendlier corner of the sandbox, or able to get in with the big crowd all kicking sand in everyone's face?

Perhaps there is a thin line between being passionate and taking it personally, so that is it not always easy to stay on the passionate side or to tell when someone is staying on the passionate side?

I don't think Wotc or 4e fans are out to get me, but I do think they are competing for resources in a limit situation. To some extent, say, if they kept making good cheap miniatures that I would continue to use (Wake up, Mairkurion! Wake up!), then I would derive some benefit from them. Instead, the benefits appear to dry up and the resources for non-4e fans appear to be hoarded -- and this is not just some natural occurrence, it is a corporate strategy. And if they nab Wolfgang Baur and run away with him, then this is just another example of loss of resources. So I think I am passionate, but not taking it personally. And of course Pax is very passionate, but I'm pretty sure he's not watching his rear view mirror for Hasbro thugs.

Well I see it as there are three options when it comes to 3PP in the modern gaming market.

1) Squirl away in your bunker and play your game until your books fall apart. This is essentially what 1e and 2e players are reduced to, with sneaky updates on the internet.

2) Rally against the gods of gaming for market realities, be bitter and divisive whenever an avenue for your 'pure' game system dries up or takes solicitations for other 3pp.

3) Take the effort to promote 3pp of your game system. This doesn't mean just 'if you don't like the articles, shut up and write your own*' it means putting your budget where your mouth is. Open Design, the Arcana Evolved adventure path, Paizo products, other 3pp PDFs. don't buy junk, but if you have the extra C-bills (and I assume the people who are complaning about the lack of product do) check out a new publisher now and then.

*

Matthew, I hope that more and more diseneditionized* folk will react proactively.

What was supposed to come after the asterisk? :)

Funny phrase. Diseditionized.

What I meant with "why get articles if I write my own" could have been better explained.
Do you watch movies? Ever seen one you thought could have been great but was only so-so? When you told soebody how you felt did they tell you to either start making your own movies or shut up?
Same with reading stuff. I dont write well. I can run a game or play a character for days on end. Writing sucks because you need to know how to write. Not just being creative.
I know what a good picture looks like but I cant draw for crap either. When did that disqualify me from saying if it is good or not.

I never subsribed to KQ because Mr.Baur said right up front awhile ago he was going to do 4E stuff. So I took it on a case by case basis. Still ended up buying every issue (including #9). I just wanted other people that felt like I did to know what they were buying. I hate buying books on the internet for this same reason. I felt if I could have seen the articles then I would have skipped it (am willing to sell my #9).

as far as business models go, unless the 4e crowd is just way more wealthy I dont see how luring them away from all-4e print magazines is going to work unless you yourself dedicate the mag to 4e. If I played 4e and I was watching my budget I would not get a hybrid hands-across-D&D mag when I could get all-4e-all-the-time. (as in Level Up!)

Unless you think the 4e players will just buy anything as long as it says "4e" on it. I have a little bit more respect for them then that.

P.S. Creative people always think what they do is simple. Talk to a musician. Most think anybody can play music. I know I cant. I also know a great deal of people who followed that advice and should not have. So everybody that told me to write my own stuff must be the creative types. That means I want to see articles from each and every one of you. I hope we weren't being facetious.

Edit: How in the world am I supposed to "convert" the 4e articles when I dont even have the 4e books?

P.S. Creative people always think what they do is simple. Talk to a musician. Most think anybody can play music. I know I cant. I also know a great deal of people who followed that advice and should not have. So everybody that told me to write my own stuff must be the creative types. That means I want to see articles from each and every one of you. I hope we weren't being facetious.

Writing isn't easy, nor do I expect everyone to do it. I simply found your comment "If I could write my own, why do I need to pay?" odd. It implies, for instance, that a musician doesn't listen to music or that novelists don't read, when, in general, the opposite is usually true.

I hope you didn't take any offense, and I'm glad you explained what you meant.

(Oh, and I totally get the music thing. My girlfriend is a flautist, while I have no rhythm and am tone-deaf. She can't comprehend it.)

as far as business models go, unless the 4e crowd is just way more wealthy I dont see how luring them away from all-4e print magazines is going to work unless you yourself dedicate the mag to 4e. If I played 4e and I was watching my budget I would not get a hybrid hands-across-D&D mag when I could get all-4e-all-the-time. (as in Level Up!)

I take this part back. It appears the 4e crowd could easily afford to buy both magazines since Level Up! is 56 pages of $1.99.

dang!

CharlieRock wrote:

P.S. Creative people always think what they do is simple. Talk to a musician. Most think anybody can play music. I know I cant. I also know a great deal of people who followed that advice and should not have. So everybody that told me to write my own stuff must be the creative types. That means I want to see articles from each and every one of you. I hope we weren't being facetious.

Writing isn't easy, nor do I expect everyone to do it. I simply found your comment "If I could write my own, why do I need to pay?" odd. It implies, for instance, that a musician doesn't listen to music or that novelists don't read, when, in general, the opposite is usually true.

I hope you didn't take any offense, and I'm glad you explained what you meant.

(Oh, and I totally get the music thing. My girlfriend is a flautist, while I have no rhythm and am tone-deaf. She can't comprehend it.)

Am I to conclude that Mr. Baur published every single article submitted to him? Unless he did or does or plans to , then I honestly dont get the "write them in" stuff. Because when everybody sends their stuff in they are going to go through some sort of weeding out process and what happens when there are articles from different systems that are equivalent quality?

Am I to conclude that Mr. Baur published every single article submitted to him? Unless he did or does or plans to , then I honestly dont get the "write them in" stuff. Because when everybody sends their stuff in they are going to go through some sort of weeding out process and what happens when there are articles from different systems that are equivalent quality?

No, I dont think that merely sending in articles will tilt KQ one way or the other. There is still a deciding process that unless it is just based on a percentage of what is submitted then somebody planned for there to be x amount of this and y amount of that.
On the other hand writing in a ton of stuff may improve odds.
But you cant expect me to think that Mr. Baur is sitting somewhere going "Oh, this 4e article was recieved too late, I've already decided what articles to print and it just wont fit."
Unless that is what happens which just goes to show I really don't know squat about writing. LoL

I can't claim to be an expert on the process, but hopefully Wolfgang will correct any major errors I make here:

When articles come in, Wolfgang sorts them into three piles: Definately yes, maybe, and probably no, based on quality. Then, based on the space left by the 'yes' pile, he decides which articles from the maybe pile get in. I don't know what he'd do if the last two choices left were a 3e and 4e article of equal quality, but in practice such a thing never happens. First of all, the chances of two articles being exactly equal when being subjectively equalated is slim. Second, the topic of the article is relevant. Maybe one article complements another that was already accepted. Maybe one covers a topic that has already been covered recently. Maybe one matches art that KQ already has on hand.

But as far as I'm aware, it is based on quality.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Altruism is all well and good in many areas of life, but customers largely do not, and should not, make their decisions based on altruism (someone else's need), they make their decisions based on their own need. Those of us who have no 4e need will not be impressed that "more gaming material for everyone" is what we should be supporting. We want relevant products.

I agree with this entirely. But something like the "Ecology of the Centaur" in KQ #7 is 90% system-independent, and 10% 4E. If that makes it useless to a Pathfinder player, I'd be very surprised. (EDIT: I crossed threads there with Ecologies. Removed the reference)

I guess it's partly self-fulfilling, is what I'm saying. If the 3E/OGL audience doesn't renew (witness Pax), then KQ becomes a 4E/Pathfinder magazine by default.

So the 3e/OGL side should concentrate on driving away the 4E players first? Got it! Operation Edition Wars II: Electric Boogaloo is go!

But as far as I'm aware, it is based on quality.

Wordcount is also a factor, I think. If you submit 3200 words then it really has to be good, Wolfgang cannot afford to spend 4 pages on crap.

I can't claim to be an expert on the process, but hopefully Wolfgang will correct any major errors I make here:

When articles come in, Wolfgang sorts them into three piles: Definately yes, maybe, and probably no, based on quality. Then, based on the space left by the 'yes' pile, he decides which articles from the maybe pile get in. I don't know what he'd do if the last two choices left were a 3e and 4e article of equal quality, but in practice such a thing never happens. First of all, the chances of two articles being exactly equal when being subjectively equalated is slim. Second, the topic of the article is relevant. Maybe one article complements another that was already accepted. Maybe one covers a topic that has already been covered recently. Maybe one matches art that KQ already has on hand.

But as far as I'm aware, it is based on quality.

okay, that seems pretty clear.

Writing isn't easy, nor do I expect everyone to do it.

True, writing is an acquired skill. It took me 3-4 years before I got published, buy maybe I should not have focused on getting published in Dungeon....

And then they cancelled Dungeon, which really didn't help either.

P.S. Creative people always think what they do is simple.

As a creative person, a graphic designer, I don't think what I do is simple at all. (Neither do most of my peers. But this applies to my professional circle.) I've been doing this for 20+ years and have seen the tools we use make our jobs easier but the job itself is still the same. Nothing simple about it. Though there are easy projects out there.

Just addressing the gross general statement...

/back on topic

CharlieRock wrote:

P.S. Creative people always think what they do is simple.

As a creative person, a graphic designer, I don't think what I do is simple at all. (Neither do most of my peers. But this applies to my professional circle.) I've been doing this for 20+ years and have seen the tools we use make our jobs easier but the job itself is still the same. Nothing simple about it. Though there are easy projects out there.

Just addressing the gross general statement...

/back on topic

I made the statement based on the example I used. Musicians. I've worked for a few and met quite a few more. All of them seemed to think they weren't doing anything special. More then a couple even asked me why I didnt play anything.

I guess that was an overly broad statement but I didnt mean for it to be all-inclusive.

Wordcount is also a factor, I think. If you submit 3200 words then it really has to be good, Wolfgang cannot afford to spend 4 pages on crap.

Actually, I left out another way wordcount is a factor: Not only do the long articles generally have to be better, as you said, but it also affects which articles can fit.

Let's say that Wolfgang is filling the last 5 pages of the magazine and he he the following articles:
A - 2 pages
B - 3 pages
C - 2 1/2 pages
D - 1 page
E - 4 pages

If he runs E, then he's either stuck filling the gap with D (which might not be that good), buying art to pad out extra articles, or cutting somewhere else so he can fit in A instead. A & B would fill the spot perfectly, but what if A & C complement each other? Can he find a half page in the slush pile? Maybe C needs a sidebar? Is it too late to commission an illustration?

What if B is the best article left and A & D are roughly equal in quality? A would probably get in, because it fills the spot better. The inverse is true if E is the best instead of B.

Or maybe it would be best to squeeze in three articles instead of two: A, C, and D (cutting a few words to make C fit.)

Anyway, the above just shows how complicated this can be and why I'm glad its Wolfgang's job and not mine.

A magazine shouldnt skimp on artwork though. Especially a fantasy magazine.

Anyway, the above just shows how complicated this can be and why I'm glad its Wolfgang's job and not mine.

I'm having a lot of fun watching the discussion of "editing seen from the outside", and will just say that yes, quality+length have more impact on editorial decisions than edition or art.

Another thing to keep in mind is the amount of space a given article takes up. You could have two articles with 3,000 words not take up the same amount of space. (This is where I come in.)

Things that would effect space: number of paragraphs, number of short sentences, conversations/quotes, charts/graphs/artwork/stat blocks.
All of these need to be coordinated so they fit into a given space.

If a story doesn't fit you can cut some text or change out the story for one that will work better. Or maybe rearrange some ads from different pages to make space, which in turn changes things for those other articles.

Hope that helps 'clear' things up some... :)

A magazine shouldnt skimp on artwork though. Especially a fantasy magazine.

Keep in mind that art is usually the biggest chunk of a magazine's budget. I think every page should have artwork on it but that is not realistic most of the time. You make do with what you have and what you can get.

I felt if I could have seen the articles then I would have skipped it (am willing to sell my #9).

As the author of one of the 3.x articles, I'd really like it if you'd hang on to that issue and use it in your game. That is, unless you think it sucked, and then, by all means...

;) Just goofin'

CharlieRock wrote:

A magazine shouldnt skimp on artwork though. Especially a fantasy magazine.

Keep in mind that art is usually the biggest chunk of a magazine's budget. I think every page should have artwork on it but that is not realistic most of the time. You make do with what you have and what you can get.

Hopefully having a decent sized collection of custom illustrations at your disposal will help a little on this front ... I'm just sayin' ... :)

It seems that Wolfgang has also made judicious use of historical art that is in the public domain. I think this is both prudent and appropriate, and I enjoy it.

OT: By the way, is anyone else envious of the fact that Baur's name is "Wolfgang?" There should be a guide to naming children so they they grow up to be great game designers. Wolfgang and Bulmahn would top out such a book of principles.

OT: By the way, is anyone else envious of the fact that Baur's name is "Wolfgang?" There should be a guide to naming children so they they grow up to be great game designers. Wolfgang and Bulmahn would top out such a book of principles.

Just made a quick Wikipedia check, and there are more of Maurice than there are of Wolfgang

Ofcourse, Wolfgang Baur has his very own page....

OT

OT

** spoiler omitted **

Well, truth be told, my parents really didn't name me Darkjoy

I should have been quicker on the uptake.

Okay, so the issue has info on kitsune for 4th edition. But I read someone refer to info for 3.5/Pathfinder versions of kitsune from KQ. Just where are they to be found?

Okay, so the issue has info on kitsune for 4th edition. But I read someone refer to info for 3.5/Pathfinder versions of kitsune from KQ. Just where are they to be found?

The 3.5 info got rolled into a webarticle found here, by the mighty Scott Gable.

Eric Hinkle wrote:

Okay, so the issue has info on kitsune for 4th edition. But I read someone refer to info for 3.5/Pathfinder versions of kitsune from KQ. Just where are they to be found?

The 3.5 info got rolled into a webarticle found here, by the mighty Scott Gable.

Thank you, sir.