DMSteve's page

I am actually going to start my group through "The Whispering Cairn", but they are using established characters, a mix of 2nd and 3rd level.

Others have criticized me for this, but given the lethal nature of these adventures, I think that it will work best in the long run. They might be 4th level when they finish the Cairn, since the great thing about the EL thing, is that it is self limiting.

Hopefully that will make 'em tough enough for the second meatgrinder ;)

Cheers,

Galen Rubel wrote:

While the new Dungeon format has been great, I'm not terribly fond of the Shards of Eberron series. My creativity has kind of dried up and I was hoping for some more substantial Eberron material.

Erik mentioned somewhere something to the effect that they need Eberron adventures like they need an administrative assistant... which is to say desperately. Maybe they haven't had an awful lot of quality queries for Eberron stuff yet. I know as an aspiring writer myself, I've been trying to take some time to absorb some of the setting before submitting adventures for it.

-Ashavan

I had a first level Eberron adventure that I ran once for my PCs - Based on the Movie the "Ghost and the Darkness" PC's hired to find out about the "Ghost" and "Darkness" two beasts that have been stalking the small town in Wyrhusrt outside of passage. The House Orien had been expanding their railnetwork to cross over into the Eldeen Reaches - rebuilding after the war and all. But now all work has stopped.

A Marquis [or other noble] wants the PC's to invistigate as he has a lot of money wrapped up in Wyrhurst, and having the train line completed on time is very important to get all that cattle to market.

However, in the background of all this, there is a shadowy plot at work. An ancient tomb that has been long since buried. Inside is an Earth Demon Sword, that members of the Aurum are desparetly trying to get at, and are using the cover the Beasts to give them time to dig and find the tomb.

So it has a bit of a twist and some Eberron Flavor, plus the potential for some future intrigue with one the major secret socities of Eberron.

Plus there was a lot of fluff, an ex-war vet who has an advocate keeping him of jail who they think is the sabutuer, a shifter from the Eldeen Reaches that the town thinks is the Beast! Can the PCs discover the truth before an innocent shifter is killed....

Anyway, it was fun. Would have to be reworked since I have some non-cannon stuff in it, like living spells [which could not have been in a tomb that old], and such, but I wanted to try out some of the nifty critters in EBCS.

As someone who knows a bit about Kyuss and a bit more about Eberron I'll try to help.

Kyuss was originally a powerful cleric of a god like Nerull, and was granted immortality due to his work in creating the dreaded spawn of kyuss and several other forms of undead. The avolakia from MMII worship Kyuss as do several debased groups of humanoids. More will be revealed by Erik and the others soon enough, so just be patient, and by the end of the AP you will know just about everything you need to (remember that Kyuss is a relatively obscure deity and PCs need high Knowledge checks to know much about him).

Since Eberron, unlike Greyhawk or FR has very few gods, adding a new god like Kyuss would create very little impact. Remember though that Eberron's gods are distant fathomless entities that rarely act, so depending on how involved Kyuss becomes in the AP will in some ways shape what sort of entity he should be. Suggestions on how to change Kyuss would be to make him a daelkyr obsessed with worms and death, one of the enigmatic Lords of Dust, a consort of Vol (or perhaps one of her aliases), or some sort of powerful outsider from the plane of Mabar. Again, how the AP is fleshed out by the writers will give you some sense on what path you should take.

Well I think it is important if it is a god or a Demon from Kyber like the Chaos Queen and Wolf-Spider. Eberron has what Dieties and Demigods defines as "Tight Pantheon" while core DnD has a "loose" one.

So really what I was hoping to hear is if Kyuss is a preist of a death god made immortal - would/could he be:

A) A cult figure head "since gone and died" of a Priest of the Keeper?

OR

B) A demon from the Age of Demons? That has become free?

OR

C) None of the above - something else entirely such as a former priest that was transformed into a powerful outsider from the plane of Mabar?

Anyway, thoughts would be greatly appreciated on how to cram this seemingly square greyhawk [not dissing on GH - I love it] peg into a round Eberron hole?

Cheers,

Who or what is Kyuss? An outsider, minor diety, devil, demon, etc.? And which book has information on him or his undead?

Also, does he fit in Eberron (I wanted to run it Greyhawk, but my game group insisted on Eberron since they already had PCs for that setting?)

I don't recall seeing anything in Kieth's write up on the online supplement for Kyuss?

Thanks for help in advance,

Steve

In my first group (I'm running two concurrent AoW campaigns!), there's a poison dusk lizardman sorceror with Draconic Heritage, black.

He ran away from his kinfolk in the Mistmarsh, because the black dragon they worshipped would eat any of its descendants that showed sorcerous talent, to prevent rivals.

He was captured by a group of adventurers and sold to the Emporium, where he was put on display as "Chameleon Boy." (Pretty much the same as "Demon Boy" in Erik's playtest group, but this was arrived at independently by the player, who has not read these messageboards, as far as I know!)

Anyway, Sotek (the PC) escaped, and took shelter at an abandoned mining office. By coincidence, a group of adventurers were meeting there the next day to explore the Whispering Cairn....

In my second group, which will start playing Wednesday night, there's a goblin character. I haven't figured out yet how to work him in. I have to figure it out tomorrow....

Ask him if he is willing to play an albino goblin, then you can have him call mole man! And be part of the emporium. I had a player who really really wanted a gobo PC, and that is how I worked it for a while, until I could talk him into going back into "standard" races.

Another concept is to have the goblin all painted blue "like a blue" but really just be a goblin that plays tricks for mentalism.

Well since the iconic characters thread was hijacked and Erik said his piece about whether or not they would be included. I just wanted to add a thread to give some postive feedback to Dungeon and Editors. I worry in the electronic community, that a single often loud and frequent voice can send a strong [yet often misleading from the silent majority] signal of the fan base, the purschaers and subscibers.

I really like the direction that Dungeon has gone. I let my subscription run out when they axed poly [I understand that I was a minority there]. But the recent issues that I have bought in Japan [which btw are far more expensive than what folks in the states pay for] are really strong.

I espically like the AP, and the online support that it has been seeing. I like 3-4 useful adventures.

My litmus test as reader, and a person with large disposal income, is that I would buy a dungeon if it has one useful adventure in it. Because of the online support I can print the maps v. photocopy those that are included in a module. Plus I get some great ideas and maps from reading other adventures even if I don't use them.

The art is high quality and adds to the expierence.

So I guess in the end, what I am saying, is hopefully with one or two vocal posters, who as far as I can tell don't even like 3E, please don't get your signals/feedback and reposonse to such mixed up and ignore the noise.

The only recommendations I would make to regarding the magazine is to bring maps of mystery, and to make sure that once in a while you do a great campaign backdrop article like the Isle of Dread or Diamond Lake or Cities of Adventure. As a DM those are ripe for plunder into any campaign. Of course, the villages/towns and cities are more useful generically than the specific island information.

Cheers,

if the supplement for this adventure path does not appear on the web before the end of the week, I'm going to go through everything stat by stat and convert them myself. Greyhawk is tired, old and worn out. I will be running this in

Eberron.

Hey I am going to run it in Eberron too. There are a lot of little details that I am trying to work out for Diamond Lake etc. But, I don't think its very nice to say Greyhawk is tired, old and worn out.

I think the fact that it still inspires players after 20 years is a testament to its orginality and endurance. I mean DnD is greyhawk and vice versa. Eberron is just a different flavor with some add ons.

But I will be sure to share what I come up with for Eberron for this great adventure.

I thought the bright folks that peruse these boards might be able to help. I am going to be running the Whispering Cairn for my game group. I tried to get them to go back to 1st level [currently in campaign they are third]. But they weren't having any of that.

I saw the supplement for scaling the adventure for encounters. But any ideas on what to scale for treasure in the adventure [looking for the equivalent for 3rd level characters].

Cheers in advance,

Hello to all Dungeon Staff,

Before working on a project that I have in mind, I wanted to understand if there was still interest in the "Cities of Adventure" type submission, and/or Adventures for Small Parties.

For the latter I have noticed quite frequently on the posting boards that there are many players who want to try and get either their spouse or their Kids playing DnD. Generally these folks are like me, usually not a lot of time to prepare adventures between the demands of work, kids, family, etc.

Where do they turn to? Dungeon. But almost all dungeon adventures are geared towards the 4 player party. Time and time again on the message boards, I have seen people play an adventure designed for 4 with 1 or 2 with negative results (i.e., the dreaded TPK). Which usually is not very fun for first time players.

Now, in my situtation, I am working on designing a city of adventure for my wife to play in. I went for the following ideas:

(1) A venice type city. I think most if not everyone loves Venice. Its easy to imagine the adventurers that a few people could have there.
(2) A venice type city has some of the great elements for a "different" kind of city. Imagine the fights and ruckus on a narrow bridge over one of the canals, or the fights that PC's might have on a gondalla [imagining a sidebar discussing some of the rule specifics of illness for falling a canal, fighting on bridges, tactics, etc.].
(3) Use a location based adventure, i.e. keyed adventure, vs. event type adventure mixed with a good description of some NPCs and ongoing subplots to put some backdrop to all of this.
(4) I could see a sidebar for talking about how to scale the adventure for different groups of small parties - like if there is no wizard in the group, or no fighter.

Anyway, I will do the project anyway to introduce gaming to my wife, but I wanted to know if there was any interest in this idea so that I would understand if it would be worthwhile to write up the adventure and city in Dungeon Format.

Also the secondary nature of the post was to query people's thoughts on small adventures for small parties, is that something you would find useful, or not?

Cheers for now,

Hello to all Dungeon Staff,

Before working on a project that I have in mind, I wanted to understand if there was still interest in the "Cities of Adventure" type submission, and/or Adventures for Small Parties.

For the latter I have noticed quite frequently on the posting boards that there are many players who want to try and get either their spouse or their Kids playing DnD. Generally these folks are like me, usually not a lot of time to prepare adventures between the demands of work, kids, family, etc.

Where do they turn to? Dungeon. But almost all dungeon adventures are geared towards the 4 player party. Time and time again on the message boards, I have seen people play an adventure designed for 4 with 1 or 2 with negative results (i.e., the dreaded TPK). Which usually is not very fun for first time players.

Now, in my situtation, I am working on designing a city of adventure for my wife to play in. I went for the following ideas:

(1) A venice type city. I think most if not everyone loves Venice. Its easy to imagine the adventurers that a few people could have there.
(2) A venice type city has some of the great elements for a "different" kind of city. Imagine the fights and ruckus on a narrow bridge over one of the canals, or the fights that PC's might have on a gondalla [imagining a sidebar discussing some of the rule specifics of illness for falling a canal, fighting on bridges, tactics, etc.].
(3) Use a location based adventure, i.e. keyed adventure, vs. event type adventure mixed with a good description of some NPCs and ongoing subplots to put some backdrop to all of this.
(4) I could see a sidebar for talking about how to scale the adventure for different groups of small parties - like if there is no wizard in the group, or no fighter.

Anyway, I will do the project anyway to introduce gaming to my wife, but I wanted to know if there was any interest in this idea so that I would understand if it would be worthwhile to write up the adventure and city in Dungeon Format.

Also the secondary nature of the post was to query people's thoughts on small adventures for small parties, is that something you would find useful, or not?

Cheers for now,

Well thanks to Erik, and most importantly to the two players that have been posting such great posts! I keep up the journals, and the Wee Jas cleric has inspired me for my own campaign. I love that character - and will have to run out to get the Undead book now.

Keep it up, you guys rock!

I would still like to hear the DM's perspective on how the players handled the challenges, and any deviations from AWAP as written, such as side treks, etc.

Cheers for now,

I liked 3rd edition alot, and was annoyed that 3.5 came out so soon afterwards. Granted, it's improved, but all WoTC had to do was play-test it and refine it for a couple more years and then they wouldn't have needed a 3.5 {in my opinion}.

Refine it for a few more years? Comeon, I was miffed about 3.5 just as much as everybody - but really - 3.0 Had to have been one of the most playtested, and heavily supported and developed game out there. I don't think that any other TRPG company out there has ever dedicated as much time, money, and resources on pure game development. I mean I would have rather had 3E in 2000 with some tweaks with 3.5, than wait until 2004 for 3E in the first place.

Hell it took em more than 20 years to fix all the incompatible, seemingly arbitrary crap that gygax put in there in the first place.

I admit Starwars RPG was shoved out the door too fast, but there are other interface and scheduling issues with that product as I understand for the revised.

Cut the designers a bit of slack, they were messin' around with the sacred cow of gaming, and somehow managed to get it right this time.

Considering that the only thing not in the free SRD is XP which did not change from 3.0 to 3.5 You pretty much got the patch for free anyway.

Mke, ever the unbiased diplomat, has painted an undersaturated account of Dram's squaring off with Taan. Let me illustrate the incidents that precipatated this melee.

1) No one knows Taan. He was just "there" when the Diamond Lakers met serruptitiously to infiltrate the Whispering Cairne. No one knows where he came from. Dram and Taan had a Mexican standoff upon his inroduction to the campaign. I'm still not sure where he came from. "He's like no elf. . ."

2) When entrusted to liquidate some of the party's treasure, Taan boldly resorted to gambling after his pride got the best of him at the market. Honestly, despite a reckless plan, it only cost us 10-20% of the haul. Taan seems to have a gambling problem. Humans work hard for their wages. Only someone who lived hundred of years would treat concrete resources with such abandon.

3) Dram is no stranger to foolishly cocking off in dangerous situations. It was his mouth that turned Gar into a cold-blooded murderer, forcing him to dispatch the half-orc goon Cullen. However, Dram paid through the nose, and was nearly killed in the encounter. He is keenly tuned in to the danger of impetuous actions. Dram's learned his lesson, and gets more lawful every day. Taan is a crazy elf. Perhaps Dram was excorcising some of his guilt over that encounter. We should do better by Abillard.

4) It was Tiralandi who was ultimately victimized by Taan. He forced her hand onto the relic, endangering her life. Dram has a thing for Tiralandi, and the other women in the campaign. What can I say, he's 17! As far as I know, Dram is the only one who's noticed, but Tiralandi is not at all well. She seems to be dying before my very eyes. Strange . . .

So someone needed to confront this psycho quasi-elf. Like a typically violent teen, Dram wanted to serve up a knuckle sandwich. We were all surprised when Taan responded with lethal force. I'm glad Gar had my back. I'm glad Taan didn't kill me. But after all, I spared the bastard's life. NG vs CN. It's the story of my life.

Just curious but assume the "Stone" Egg was the earth elemental? Why would it hurt the cleric? Just don't understand the statement that she seems to be dying before their eyes? Does the dying bit have something to do with putting your hand on the stone or with the some of the Wee Jas cleric's specific character traits.

BTW - I am sure that all of us that read these posts would love to have some insight from Erik about what worked in the game and what didn't.

As well as some specifics from the players, or even a general Character Sheet. I think that these characters are even more "iconic" than the actual iconic characters in DnD.

I have enjoyed reading about them and their adventures through the Cairn.

Also I had one other quesiton - did you guys have a new player for the cleric of Herinous (sp?) or did Gar's player switch out for another cleric cause you folks need some more cleric power in the adventure?

Cheers for now,

I know this issue has been mentioned before in previous posts, but character reaching 17th level wasn't even a realistic wish in my old AD&D game.

I love 3.5 and will not go back to AD&D, but I've noticed that after only 12 gaming sessions, the group I DM is approaching 6th level....and I've run nothing but Dungeon adventures and a converted old 1983 module from Dragon for them.

My longest continous campaign that I ran as a DM went from 1982 to 1998. The only surviving original player character was 14th level when both the player and the PC retired from gaming for good. It took almost four years of weekly gaming to get to 10th level.

I won't pre-judge the more rapid level advancement as a bad thing until I've run a complete 3.5 campaign. If I decide the advancement was too fast, I'll decide on what to do about it in the "next" campaign.

Up until now I had always skimmed over the super high level adventures as "well, won't be running this--ever!" but now I have to readjust my thinking, I guess.

Just to put my 2c in on the topic. Personally, if Dungeon put in some high level adventures - with the exception of the AP - it would make less likely to buy the mag.

I find that by that level the campaign has really taken off, and there is so much backstory and individual character driven plots that a generic high level adventure just doesn't cut it.

Unless you are playing a one-off high level game where you generate high level PCs from the get go, and well I just plain don't like that idea very much. I think you lose too much not having the lower levels.

Keep the adventures from 1-10th level. Go higher for AP stuff, in which case the whole campaign is mapped out, so the writers know what the characters have done before.

Cheers,

Erik Mona wrote:

Still working on it.

--Erik

Always working for us guys! Sometimes we are a bit too demanding, aren't we?!

I hope you still do also have a private life?! ;)

What are you talking about, I want to hire Kullen and gang to chain Erik to his desk to continue to put out such great and high quality work. I'm sure we can arrange coffee IV and a few pizzas slid under the door.

Of course, just kidding ;)

Keep up the great work at Paizo and CO.

Cheers for now,

Steve

p.s.
Checked out your blog - one of the best I have seen, love the Graphic Design work and font!

This is true...I would have to pound alot of skill points in Use Magic Device. Bards have CLW, CMW, CSW on their list, so you would have to make cure wands available...I think those 2 classes would work..might have to take a level in Wizard just to be able to use all arcane wands and scrolls.

MY 2c again - I would say no to the bard!

Bards are great for rounding out LARGE parties. But as an individual they are "Jack of all Trades, and pretty much such at each one".

Thier real niche is not one that really fills out a dungeon crawl or wilderness adventure. They are great supporters, sucky as main doers.

Again my Ideal Party for Two Person Would be:

Rogue or Rogue/Fighter With:

Cleric [specialised like Elven Cleric with War Domain or Wee Jas Cleric with Magic Domain - kind of like having UMD for free for wands and scrolls]

Paladin (interesting combo to justify I admit)

Swashbuckler

Wizard - allow the wizard to make d4 scrolls ahead of the game - consider getting a buckler or shield (you can alsways drop it if you need to have free hand to avoid spell penalties.

Barbarian with Track

Sorcerer - Trick him out with good social skills and let the Rogue bone up on athelic, and trap finding skills.

If you have a wizard go for halfing and load up on daggers, their small size really helps for wizards or go for a gnome - same thing. Dwarven anything are great for two people parties the Con bonus really helps em out, and for a single feat can be tricked out for a pretty good melee weapon.

Anyhoo just some other combos to consider

Note - Bards were not in the above list. Straight Fighters not in the above list. Bards because of argument above, straight fighters cause they are *too* focused.

As a side note in my home campaign I planning to play a solo game. But the adventures are geared to only having one person. I'm interested to hear how it turns out.

Well tommorrow night we'll be making characters. I'm gonna let them flesh out there characters backgrounds All that i will be forcing is that they are tied to diamond lake and will suggest likely connections based on their race and class. which will take awhile, I'm hoping we get as far as one of the sub dungeons or the land farmstead. I just want to give em a good boost from what i've read this adventure has some pretty tough encounters for a party of for 1st lvls i can imagine what it would be with just two I'm leaning toward handing them max HP for their hd's each level and starting them at 2nd lvl

Well, when I have small parties I do the following house rules -

(1) Bring in a concept of "Background" Feats. These are feats that they can only take at first level. They are free and do things to not only help with the "flavor" of a PC, it also gives them a little boost.

Some BG feats sometimes give players access to skills or abilities that they would not normally have. Like for example - The Street Rat Background - Normally gives the player +2 to Slieght of Hand and +1 HP (since living in the streets can be tough).

If in your game I might instead state the Street Rat Background gave the character the ability to search for Traps like a Rogue, and +1 HP. This would be really overpowering in a normal game, but in a game like the above you mentioned I don't think it would be that big of a deal since you only have 2 PCs.

If you don't have BG Feats, well then I would let the PCs make their characters and then give em some perks based on the BG to do that.

Or just give em all the toughness feat for free in addition to the normal feats.

(2) Action Points all the way.

(3) Another alternative is to give them extra skill points. I think that is probably one of the things most lacking in small parties - not having all the skills you need to complete the adventure. I would suggest giving +2 Skill Points per level.

(4) Try to pick classes that can mulituse. I think multiclassing is a bad way to go. Having a party that is F/T and W/C half levels (or similar combos) is going to really blow at higher levels. They won't have the umph. So try to discourage the multiclassing and instead go for interesting variations on the existing Classes. Like Swashbuckler (which has some good skills) over Fighter. Or go for the Rogue Option which get fighter feats instead of sneak attack.

Another Variant on the above are clerics. If I had a two person party I would make it a Theif and a Cleric. Make the Cleric a cleric of Wee Jas with the Magic Domain, and give them plenty of scrolls and wands. While its a poor Wizard Subsitute its better than no wiz at all.

I take back my comment on multiclass - If I was only going to have a two person party I would do a F/T (more focused on T), and a Cleric of Wee Jas or Boccob.

(5)I think that starting at 2nd level loses some of the fun of the adventure. Instead I would scale back some of the baddies in the adventure. Make the Wolves a wild dog that escaped from town and is holed up there. Don't have the mad slasher - just have the beetle swarm.

Keep the elemental and ghoul - just make the cavern not completly submerged. Make the beetles either wounded, weak, or similar to class them back.

I think that should get you through the first part of the adventure.

(6) Get some hierlings! After the PC's get some gold in their hands - have them look for a hierling to fill the gap. The other fun thing is that you can have the hierling screw around with the PCs if things get boring.

Hope some of that helped?

Cheers,

Don't like it, don't play it.

A few reasons:

1. Too much is defined by the rules. I don't think D&D needs a lot of super-specific options for combat. I preferred just winging it. Attacks of Opportunity, trip attacks, and so on and so on: Too much!

2. Multiclassing is too easy. I prefer when it came with a lot of drawbacks. Originally, you picked one class and could never change it or add another. Later in AD&D, you could, but you had high ability score requirements and severe drawbacks. Human multiclass heroes were rare and extraordinary. Demihumans could multiclass from the start, but advanced very slowly and had strict level limits. I prefer strong, archetypal characters. A Ftr 10 is an archetype with a single broad, but clearly-defined role. That's what D&D is about to me. Team play with strict roles. A Ftr 4/Clr 2/Rog 3/Wiz 1 is not an archetype, but a big mess with no clear niche. I like strict niches that enforce teamwork in play. The video game Gauntlet is a classic BECAUSE one player can't be both the Warrior and the Wizard. D&D is the same for me.

3. I don't like skills in D&D. In original D&D and AD&D, your character's abilities were defined by his profession and his background, things he could reasonably be ASSUMED to know. If you had any doubts about whether he could pull something off, the GM could just call for a roll against an ability score, or something. Simple. Later editions of the game ruined this elegent simplicity, I feel. But I guess juggling skill points, class skills, cross-class skills, maximum skill ranks, skill bonuses and penalties, and pre-set DCs for a whole host of obsure tasks is more fun or something... :(

4. Feats. Hate 'em. Want heroic feats? Make them happen in play, not on your character sheet. More busywork complexity to appeal to point-mongers and power gamers.

5. No limits for demihumans. Earlier editions were very specific that D&D was supposed to be HUMANOCENTRIC. Demihumans were limited to specific classes and roles and restricted from rising too high...

Just a question - where exactly in ADD [1st Edition] did it have a rule for using ability scores for determining if you could do something? I believe that must be one of your house rules {which BTW - I used quite a bit back in my 1Ed. Days]

How about saving throws - wtf - five aribitrary categories that go back to the original monsters that the game had.

I played all the DnD going back to the [not quite original - Blue and Red single box set containing Basic and Expert - 1980 to be precise].

Up until the Wilderness Survial Guide [not sure that was the exact title?] - There were NO mechanics for skills except for the theif (which again seems pretty aribitrary].

Objectively - if you look at (espically 1st Ed and Basic) - all the rules were specifically geared towards hack em and stack em play. With a few specific issues such as max no. of henchmen and finding secret doors thrown in to boot.

There was no unified mechanic - attacks based on D20 while theif skills based on perctentile. Complicated Combat Matrices to look up all the time. Aribitrary saving throw categories. The list goes on and on.

At least 3E and onward is unified and makes sense.

How many DM's out there play 1st or 2nd Ed straight. No special table rules or conventions. Almost none I bet. Lets face it, the Big G was a horrible game deesigner as far as game designers.

Good ideas and concepts I grant you, but bad execution.

Monte et. al. are far better technical game designers.

Finally, in parting, I understand where you are coming from. You want more control over the game, and feel 3E is too complicated. Well just throw all that crap out if you want. House rule it or something.

Nothing says you can't disallow mulitclassing. Nothing says you have to use AoO. Nothing says that if you dislike feats that you have to use them (although IMHO feats far outrank the cldugy spend so many weapon prof for specialization etc.).

I guess the reason I wrote this was your use of "point mongers and power gamers" - 3E is an elegant uniformed game engine. Its what 2ed should have been if TSR had the balls to do it.

TSR was first out of the gate, but the rest of the companies soon caught up and suprassed them. They had elegent useful systems that were a better rules engine for simulating a lot of different activities. That is/was what RPG Rules are about.

1st Ed was a wargame with ad hoc and often aritbritrary rules thrown in, requiring a huge amount of ad hoc referring to determine a result that was not covered in the character right up (if you aren't a ranger you can't follow footprints wtf - Oh unless the DM wants you. Listen through the keyhole - wait your not a theif. Um...OK you hear something, um roll some aribtrary dice since its not in the rules for if you hear something since your not a theif. Oh you are a theif, well then roll percentile and get under 30%. again wtf????]

So to answer the orginal poster - Gamer of 25 years. 3E was the best damn thing to ever happen to the industry!

We should all tear down the Gygax shrine and put up the ones to Monte and Sean.

It took a lot of guts to put away the sacred cow of gaming out to pasture.

Depending on the players that I have, I have a few filler ideas...

1) I have the wizard seeker in the rival party bite the dust. There is probably some great treasure on his body. But off course the players have to go to Stirgenest Cairn to find it... they only have a limited time since the other two are in town resting up after unlocking the secret chamber in the cairn revealing some sort of guardian beasty.

2) I have a group of seekers show up in town hearing rumors of the Whispering Cairn being liberated. Any artifacts, magic items, etc, the PC's have they are very interested in.

3) For the more macabe, the PCs hear about the gold in the coffin in the boneyard (when they talk to the gentleman at the observatory - I have one of them remeber the old kid's tale). Of course there is the Cult of the Green Lady to deal with.

4) Again, I have it that the alchemist in the smelter actually has a history of the Wind Dukes. Turns out he has ulterior motives for being in the town. Allustran or others might want the PC's to aquire it.

5) Invistigations by important people in town now that the PCs are big-wigs. Or perhaps even the Garrison gets involved. Not sure yet.

My favorite is the boneyard or the seekers.

Cheers,

I agree!!!!!!!!!!

Greyhawk is simply not supported at all by WotC. Very sad for a supposed 'Default Setting'.
'Living Greyhawk' is ok (I play it), but sucks as a home campaign (unless you want only to play in your region of Greyhawk). In Australia, it's Perrenland with a flight of hundreds of miles to play other regions, except as Cores. I feel It is a very nice 'side trek' from a home campaign.
It certainly is easier to run a Campaign in FR or E with the stuff WotC produce for those settings. WotC, T$R both, it seems to me just really ignore Greyhawk.
Thank goodness for Dungeon! At least we have some great adventures to work with.
God Bless,
Andrew

OK I have heard this rant many times before. But I really, really, really, really like the fact that WOTC is not making oodles of Greyhawk Products.

For my money the 32 page gazette that came out with game just after 3E came out is the best value for money out there. Enough that a DM doesn't have to spend eons with maps, and histories, and creating gods, etc., but lean enough that there is plenty of room to stretch.

Also any Campaign System that has multiple books coming out is going to have a Meta-plot. Which really screws up my fun. Gotta have the next book to find out what happens!

Deadlands and AEG were the king of the Metaplot.

Greyhawk to me is a bit more like aturian legend and myths in general all wrapped up into one. There is so much *contrary* cannon, that there should be no expectation that any single person greyhawk is the same as anyone elses. But somehow, guess what - they all feel like greyhawk.

MY Free City made not look like yours, cause most of the "offical" maps are out of print or can be hard to find. But you will still know its the Free City.

Anyway - careful what you wish for. I think the worse thing that could happen is if GH got supported like the Realms.

I remember the 1st Ed Realms. It was new and cool. Alittle more constrainging, but still enough room to flex. [hell it was only two "relatively" thin books"] But now, now it is all full up.

I see Eberron headin' that way soon. MY Xendrik drow were completly different than the "offical" ones that came out. Back to GH for me. Where I can flex my creative juices a bit more.

Cheers for now,

OK, this may sound harsh, but here goes....

As DM, you are the Grand Imperial Pooh-Bah of the campaign. If the players and you don't mesh, then it's not up to you to change the campaign for them. Frankly, most players don't pay enough for that.

I'm an old-school D&Der (since 1978), and I've noticed that the younger players (as a gross generalization) are more interested in character optimization than roleplaying. That's cool; some people like low-rider bicycles, too.

Ok I understand where you are coming from, maybe. But since the "Old School" [I much prefer the term Old Guard btw] DnD basically only had rules to cover hacking things, [excuse me except for the theif they got some skills - wtf why didn't any one else] I don't really see how you can say that the old school forced roleplaying any more than the new edition.

In fact the only thing I can say about it, was you had to roleplay to convince the DM you could do something since there were *no rules* to cover it.

How many modules did you read where the rules for this or the rules for that had to be included 'cause the core books missed them.

IMHE - "Old School" was the pinnacle of "powergaming" all you did was whack em and stack em. The rules were written for it. In fact most "old school" gamers I meet have very little interest in "roleplaying" just talking about the good old days of ToEE and KOtB.

Now granted there are certain aspects of the old school game that made it grittier. But in general, the problem is the players not the game. I find that *in general* a modern DnD game is generally not hack em and stack em, while in the old guard that is all we did (oh yeah plus figure out weird puzzles - again wtf, why does an evil arch villian put a giant chess board in his dungeon?).

Back On topic - I think the following are the best for reducing power gaming -

1) IF you have a powergamer problem - go back to basics. By basics I mean utilize the Three Core Books only. Use the core races only. Use the 4d6 roll em up in front of you.
2) Start at 1st Level!! - How many "powergamers" problems are out there because DM's fail to start at first level. Make em earn those xp's. You control the treasure v. risk reward ratio when they start at 1st level. When they say we go to the magic shop, you say 'huh? what's a magic shop?
3) Motivate them with what they want - Treasure and XP - by that I mean ad-hoc expierence and treasure. Example, if they get by something using wits, and creativity, give em an adhoc XP on the spot. Give it just to that player, that will encourage the others. Give em gold for doing roleplay things. Reward skills that they have. Perhaps there is a contest in town based on a religous ceremony that who ever can identify all the holy writ they get gold or something.
4) Motivate with negative reprocussions - at first level no way if they put up a stink with the locals are they going to tolerate it. Also don't allow metagaming. By that if they say, damn that was a werewolf, we need silver weapons. Ask them how they know that. If they don't have the right skill then tell them that they don't know that. If they do, make em roll for the skill (how many powergamers load up on knowledge skills?). Make it a little side quest to find out.

Finally - I recommend running the latest Adeventure Path Series - it has that "old guard" feel that I love, which will appeal to powergamers I believe, while encouraging roleplaying at the same time, and not be a simple hack em and stack em game. There are some puzzles. Lots o' Traps. And lots of alternative ways around problems that don't involve bashing something, although you can still go that way. Plus plenty of beefy NPCs so that if the players start wreckin' havoc they will be forced to deal with the represcussions of their actions.

Hiya,

First off new to the forum, but wanted to say that this AP looks really great. I hope to run it with my Japan Based Gaming Group (does this make me the first to run it in the Far East?). Anyway - good job to Eric and Co. I had let my subsricption to Dungeon Expire - and well my wife just might pick it back up for me based on my excitement about this AP.

Now on with some questions to other DM's and hopefully to the designers themselves.

(1) How important is Diamond Lake going to be to the adventures in the future?

I know my group, and well they can go "KODT" pretty fast. One of the driving forces is for them to explore the Cairn, to get enough gold to leave the town. But I know once they get hold of that owlbear chick, they will be off to the "Freecity" for that 3000 gp and probably not get into adventure #2?

(2) How are different people handling the groups interaction with the town at the end or middle of the adventure?

I mean if they whack the resident of the Observatory or the Mr. Tatoo at the Tavern, what are the repercusions. Is some nasty dwarven mine manager going to go after them?

What about the Mayor and the Sherrif - given the amount of loot and/or trouble the PC's are causing and their checkered past is the law going to run them out of town, or confiscate their gold etc, illegal gotten by tomb raiding?

(3) Do you have the Seekers show up at all once rumor that an unspoilt Cairn has been liberated. I could see this being a great sidetrek type adventure to help round out any missing XPs that the party misses? Or if you have a larger than normal group?

(4) How are you handling the other party in town. I was going to have them exploring the Stirenest Cairn to keep them out of the PC's hair. Having a bunch of 5th level characters could easily wipe out the PCs to take their loot.

(5) How are you handling the PC's not going straight for the cult once they find out about rather than go back to the Cairn?

(6) In general - how are you handling the all to frequent reststops in Town. I mean if they start selling stuff, and getting upto no good in town while half exploring the Cairn, are you going to have it change around them? Is the sherrif going to get involved? What about Smenk's cronies, Smenk would probably be curious knowing about a cult and all, about a group of "adventerors" taking up residence and plundering an "unknown Cairn".

Are you going to have the PC's put a stake for the Cairn and set up an offical Adv. Guild as has been suggested in some of the Playtests? How are you handling if the PC's backgrounds make them like runaways (like demonboy) or part of the institution like (Dram)?

I would think between Tirra and Khellek they could work out a way beyond the door that the ghost is guarding. Although I do think it would be funny if the PC's left the Cairn and came back to find Tirra's body at the bottom of the wind trap, with a broken neck.

I guess what i am really getting at in a very long-winded way (sorry) is how as a DM do you justify in a town full of rotten no good theiven *******d's that are all higher level than the PCs not having some of them try to take by politics or force the PCs (ill)gotten gains and send em back to the Emporium, Garrison, Mines, etc. if the PC's let the cat out of the bag.

Cheers for now!