GVDammerung's page

I have finished reading The Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer (PCG) and am struck by just how easy it is to identify the “steals” that went into making up the campaign setting. YMMV but this is my count:

Azlant - Atlantis. Less obviously, the Azlanti survivors to the east harkens to Robert E. Howard’s use of Atlantis in his history of the Hyborian Age.

Kelesh - Persia.

Tian Xia - China.

Vudra - India.

Absalom - Lankhmar by way of the City of Greyhawk.

Andoran - Greece. Backwards. Real history goes Greece, Rome, Byzantium. PCG goes Byzantium, Rome, Greece. See Cheliax and Taldor.

Belkzen, Hold of - The Pomarj (Greyhawk) or any other Orc realm.

Brevoy - The Hold of Stone Fist (Greyhawk) meets the FtA era Hold of the Sea Princes where everyone dies overnight (Greyhawk).

Cheliax - Rome. With a double reverse twist. Rome had Republic and Imperial periods. Cheliax has godfearing and diabolic periods. Also Rome begat Byzantium. PCG Byzantium (Taldor) begat Rome (Cheliax).

Druma - The Ferenghi (Star Trek DS9) and the Bajorans (Star TrekDS9) combined go medieval.

Galt - France during the Revolution. Que the Scarlet Pimpernel Adventure Path.

Geb - Aerdi undead (Greyhawk) meet Jakandor (TSR) undead meet Magic the Gathering -Urza vs Mishra = Geb vs Nex.

Irrisen - Baba Yaga Russia meets Iggwilv’s Perrenland (Greyhawk) with a nod to Birthright (TSR) Land of the White Witch

Isger - No clear parallel

Jalmeray - India/Ceylon/Serendip

Katapesh - Lankhmar’s Bazaar of the Bizarre as a country

Kyonin - Elf realm - Celene (Greyhawk) or most any other elf realm (Birthright, Realms etc.)
Lastwall - Shield Lands (Greyhawk)

Linnorm Kings, Land of the - Viking barbarians, Barbarian states (Greyhawk) etc.

Mammoth Lords, Realm of the - Quest for Fire, Clan of the Cave Bear, 10,000 Years BC, Land That Time Forgot etc.

Mendev - Warhammer fight against Chaos

Molthune - Germania (Roman Province)

Mwangi Expanse - Every pulp Africa cliche you can shake a stick at

Nex - Axum meets Magic the Gathering’s Urza vs Mishra with a nod to Dark Sun (TSR) in the interior

Nidal - Any shadowy, shadow magic kingdom meets Hellraiser

Nirmathas - The Vesve Forest (Greyhawk circa FtA) as a kingdom

Numeria - Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor

Osirion - Egypt

Qadria - Arabian Persia Palmyra

Rahadoum - Any atheist realm

Razmiran - Any false god theocracy

River Kingdoms - The Bandit Kingdoms (Greyhawk)

Sargava - Freed colonial possession, Rome meets Africa

Shackles, The - Caribean or any other pirate isles

Sodden Lands - Mosquito Coast and ruins move to Africa

Taldor - Byzantium via Atlantis to beget Rome (Cheliax) to beget Greece (Andoran)

Thuvia - Land of the Lotus Eaters (Odyssey) meets the Fountain of Youth

Ustalav - Ravenloft (TSR)

Varisia - Gypsy adventure land

Worldwound, The - Warhammer

This isn’t a criticism of PCG. PCG has a nice sense of fantasy historicism that does much to stitch together what could otherwise be a crazy quilt of borrowings. However, and this is a criticism, so many of these lands scream Adventure Path and not much else - prime example Galt. As a nation state Galt makes little sense but as a site for an Adventure Path it has an obvious utility. This raises the question - is Golarion primarily a means to set and sell Adventure Paths or is it primarily a place for DMs to set their own campaigns? I like Golarion after only Greyhawk but I know Greyhawk and Golarion is no Greyhawk. It is too obvious and too obviously on the make for Adventure Paths. Still, second place to Greyhawk is fine company.

Not sure if this is the Sub-Forum in which to place this thread but its my best guess. Please feel free to relocate as needed.

My question -

What is Paizo's policy, if any, with respect to fan websites that would utilize Paizo intellectual property, for example Pathfinder material, in the creation of derivative works - ie fan fiction or fan created game material?

By way of example, please see Canonfire.com, wherein fans have posted fan created Greyhawk fiction and fan created Greyhawk campaign material that builds upon or expands upon officially published Greyhawk material.

Does Paizo:

a) Prefer no such fan websites be created?
b) Encourage the creation of such fan websites?
c) Express no opinion, pro or con, with respect to such fan websites?
d) Look to evaluate such fan websites on a case by case basis?

Can you please provide me with some guidance?

Thank you.

I have noted that the number and complexity (quality) of adventure site maps within the Crimson Throne adventure path have been decreasing. This continues a trend from the later Runelords.

All this harkens back to a discussion that was had in relation to Dungeon Magazine and the Maps of Mystery series in that magazine. Long story short - maps are good.

Please include more and more complex adventure site maps in future adventure paths. Paizo has done some outstanding cartography and, for me, it forms part of the value proposition Paizo offers and, in part, it is why I purchase the adventure paths. So. Maps, please.

I am seeing some folks whose opinions I generally respect increasingly saying that Pathfinder is too different from 3.5 and that they have "lost" or are "losing" interest in Pathfinder. I respectfuly suggest they are confusing not liking this or that bit of Pathfinder with the suggestion that Pathfinder is overly divergent from 3.5. To wit -

IMO, PF must be generally compatible with 3x. Put another way, it should be as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0 (as those two versions can be switched back and forth with little difficulty in 9 out of 10 cases by anyone reasonably familiar with both versions). PF being as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0 is essentially saying Pathfinder takes the place of a 3.75.

This said, a 3.75 is not just 3.5, so absolute rules identity with 3.5 is not only out of the question, it is undesireable. General identity or general compatability, not specific, is good enough.

To survive, Pathfinder must establish its own identity, even as it looks to assume a compatible, 3.75 niche in the market.

So, the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. is not the 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. Such a comparison completely misses the point.

So, the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. is better/worse than the 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. Such a comparison completely misses the point.

The question is - is the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. capable of being played in a campaign alongside the 3.5 version (remember a same/different, better/worse comparison is not the point!)? If they can, all is well.

By comparison can a 4e Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. be played in a campaign alongside a 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc.? The answer is clearly "no" as too many rules for how they play are different. So long as PF avoids this level of rules divergence, it accomplishes its basic design goals. Now, of course, within this broad definition of success, there is plenty of room for this approach or that and thus room for some to find PF not to their taste. This, however, should not be confused with saying PF has failed in its design objective. PF's design objective is not to be to everyone's taste because that is impossible. PF's design objective is to assume a 3.75 niche - compatible with 3.5, even if not identical, but not so radical a departure as 4e.

In my estimation, PF is holding to its fundamental design objectives, and I like it. I think many people are conflating these two distinct observations. To many try to justify a "not to taste" feeling with
a "they're doing it wrong" argument. Those observations are distinctly different and should not be confused.

Just got my copy of Curse of the Crimson Throne No. 2 - Seven Days to the Grave and read the lower planar details for Golarion. I just wanted to say "Well done." Bringing back daemons is, I think, an outstanding design choice. Daemons, as conceptualized, are cool and their return gives Pathfinder a definite "old school cool" vibe. If you are not already planning a sourcebook on Golarion' devils, demons and daemons, please allow me to suggest it. You've got a nice signature bit here that, IMO, can and should be followed up in a major way at some early point. Good job!

I don't want to contribute to thread proliferation necessarily, but as I don't see a general "Thief Thoughts" folder, here goes.

I and my group feel that the thief is the standout new class and it is all attributable to the thief's "talents." People want to play this thief and they want more talent possibilities. Of special note are the low level magic abilities where the feeling is that this is the slickest method to simulate a Grey Mouser sort of character that anyone can recall, far superior to forcing a multiclass. In fact, adding a bit more "umph" to the minor magics would not be rejected.

This raises a problem; like feats, not all talents are created equal. Some are plainly unequal. Likely, this is unavoidable. However, to the greatest degree possible, talents of a similar level should have a similar value or utility. Inexact, but there it is.

Excellent design here! On first look, everyone is very impressed and pleased!

I don't want to contribute to thread proliferation necessarily, but as I don't see a general "Fighter Thoughts" folder, here goes.

I and my players like the new fighter. The armor and weapon bonuses make it feel like the fighter is accomplishing something more as he levels and that he is less "everyman." Good work.

Looking at the Pathfinder thief's "talents," there is a thought that the fighter could have something similar to vary fighting styles beyond type of armor and type of weapon. A suggestion.

With respect to iterative attacks, the feeling is to split the baby. Fewer iterative attacks but retaining them in 3 levels, sort of nodding to 1e. So, 1 attack at low levels, 2 attacks at mid levels and 3 attacks at high levels. Problem is backwards compatability. So, the suggestion is a side bar similar to the variant XP progression. Make it an option (of course, applicable to all classes with fighters getting the most iterative attacks.)

In fact, the thought is lots of sidebars with lots of options. Pathfinder - The Game With Options?

I really don't understand why one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.

Incorporated into her response to a poster who decried the allegedly overly negative tone of the Paizo message boards with respect to 4e, in the wonderfully entitled thread “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” Lisa Stevens made the above comment. This comment has gone uncommented upon in the aforementioned thread and, I believe, deserves one of its own. Why?

1) Well, here we have the CEO of Paizo professing some mystification over the split in the D&D gaming community between those who support for 3x as opposed to those who support 4e. The CEO of Paizo. At the same time Paizo has very publically not decided between 3x and 4e. And has on multiple occasions asked its customers what they are going to do and how their opinions of 4e are evolving.

2) The comment might be neither here nor there, perhaps, but for the immediate impact of the posting. Despite the heavily freighted inference inherent in “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” Ms. Stevens sympathized and agreed with the poster. Thereafter, she is the CEO after all, Paizo’s 4e forums were made subject to “moderation” where one could not reference other gaming companies or other parts of the larger online gaming community, at least not in anything but an affirming manner. Discussion of 4e on Paizo’s message boards was henceforth to be conducted in something resembling a vacuum, as if a larger world did not exist and did not matter in the discussion. To say that such a vacuum bears any resemblance to the reality of the gaming community and how it interacts across internet forums is, with understatement, curious. If one questions this assertion, one need only observe Paizo employees speaking as Paizo employees on other message boards and the employees of other gaming companies, speaking as employees of those companies, speaking on Paizo’s message boards.

Given the above, Ms. Steven’s self expressed lack of “understanding” deserves, even needs, to be addressed. So, let’s begin.

1st – D&D requires a commitment that is greater than that in games like Monopoly. D&D requires more time to prepare and play and encourages players, to include the DM, to roleplay, to take on a role. In both these ways, D&D is an immersive experience, unlike other non-roleplaying games.

2nd – D&D calls upon both player and DM creativity much more than other sorts of games like Monopoly. DMs create their own worlds and adventures, making the game uniquely theirs in its play. Even if a DM uses published campaigns or adventures, a very large number of DMs modify the published material, again, making it uniquely theirs. Players, in either situation, create their characters personalities and vicariously experience the game through these characters, making the game uniquely theirs. Making the game uniquely theirs gives rise to a sense of “ownership” or at least “investment” in the game, distinct for other games.

3rd – The social interaction, the give and take, of playing D&D is highly immersive, again distinct from other sorts of games. The consequence is a level of bonding with other players and with the game that one does not find with games like Monopoly.

In consequence, the D&D player or DM is predisposed, even conditioned, to look at D&D in highly individual or personal terms. The game in this sense “matters” more than non-roleplaying games. If the play of D&D has occurred during a person’s formative years or just over a long period of time, the above factors are further strengthened.

Having established in broad outline something of the mind frame of the D&D player generally, we can next turn to the 3e version of the game.

1st – After a period of waning popularity, 3e marked a resurgence in the game. D&D became more popular than at any time since its heyday in the 80s. Players had the sense of being a part of a rebirth or renaissance of the game, something played up by the manufacturer. 3e was synonymous with this sense of purposeful community.

2nd – The 3x rules set encouraged, even demanded, that players delve into the minutia of the system. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the emergence of various and complex “builds” for optimized characters. What is more, the 3e rules were sufficiently complex and involved that “builds” were rewarded with more effective characters. At the same time, “builds” were only the most obvious manifestation of the 3e rules set’s spur to creativity, One could get very, very creative with feats, skills, PrCs etc. That creativity was further multiplied many fold as, for the first time in D&D’s history 3rd party publishers could add their visions to the official ones.

Between the widespread popularity of 3e and the creativity on several levels that it unleashed, and given gamers predisposition to identify with the play of the game, 3e enjoyed a strong positive bias, even loyalty.

Now we need to discuss the broad mechanics of game publishing.

1st – D&D editions that are currently published are supported by new products. D&D editions that are not currently published generally do not see new products released. New products are important to many who do not have the time to create full campaign settings and adventures from scratch. Take an edition out of current production and many players will be practicably unable to play, save for out of date material they may have accumulated.

2nd – D&D editions that are currently published are supported by the RPGA. D&D editions that are not currently published are not generally supported by the RPGA. For many, the RPGA is a chief or valued source of D&D games. Take an edition out of current production and RPGA play is foreclosed to many.

3rd – Most critically, the majority or plurality of gamers inevitably play whichever edition of D&D is currently being published. Players of older, non-current, editions have increasing difficulty finding players. As importantly, the community and sense of community is diminished with respect to any non-current edition of D&D. Those preferring other than the current edition find fewer outlets with fewer participants to discuss the game in the edition they prefer. The whole game experience is then diminished. One is made to feel less relevant. Indeed, one may see this dynamic with only the announcement of a new edition.

In short, gamers of any edition but that being currently published are disadvantaged to one degree or another.

Here we need to touch very briefly on 4e.

1st – 4e is not backwards compatible with 3e. It is mechanically sufficiently different that no conversion guide is offered or deemed officially possible. This is at variance with 3e as regards 2e and 2e as regards 1e. Any investment in 3e materials will be of limited utility with 4e.

2nd – The play of 4e, not surprisingly given its mechanics, will be different from 3e. If one enjoyed how 3e played, one will get a different experience with 4e. The 3e play experience will not be replicated.

3rd – Just as the mechanics and play of 4e will be different from 3e, the background or frame for 4e will be greatly different from that of 3e. In some real sense, 4e speaks a different language reflecting different assumptions or givens with respect to the story elements of the game.

Very simply, 4e is not 3e. 4e is not even close to 3e. 4e make no attempt to accommodate anything much of 3e and instead advises a clean break with 3e in favor of 4e.

Finally, we arrive at Paizo’s role in why 4e and 3e players are so strongly antagonistic in many cases.

1st – D&D’s publisher is the industry leader and many other companies follow its lead. To date, a number of well regarded 3e 3rd party publishers have, sight unseen, announced that they are dropping support for 3e, still possible under the OGL, in favor of 4e. Other companies have made no announcement. Paizo is virtually alone in very publically announcing that they are not simply undecided but may stick with 3e.

2nd – Paizo’s reputation as a publisher is first rate. Many like or admire Paizo without regard to any particular set of rules. Others, favoring one set of rules or another, would look forward eagerly to Paizo’s support for their preferred rules and would be very disappointed were Paizo to no longer support their preferred rules. That 4e and 3e rules are so incompatible in terms of rules, brings this factor to a fine point.

3rd – Paizo has frequently, prominently and repeatedly engaged and involved its customers in the company’s deliberations as to whether to support 3e or 4e. It has done so on its message boards, the very same message boards it now “moderates” because there is antagonism between 3e and 4e supporters.

So to come full circle, why Ms. Stevens is “one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa?” Because a) D&D is an immersive, personalized experience, b) 3e was a strongly, even uniquely, popular game, c) non-current edition games are disadvantaged to one degree or another, d) 4e is a strong break from 3e and e) Paizo’s support is highly valued and has been opened to player input.

The positioning of 4e as nonconvertible from 3e has placed 3e and 4e fans at odds. Paizo holding itself out as unpersuaded but persuadable has given these fans a flashpoint for their disagreements. These disagreements are both sharp and heated for the reasons set forth at length above. It would be my hope, Ms Stevens, that you now understand why “one person choosing 3e over 4e is such a threat to the 4e devotee and vice versa.”

Given what I hope is your new found understanding, I would like to suggest to you that you revisit your quick agreement with the original poster of “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?”

The very title suggests its answer in the negative. The question is then rhetorical and immediately biased as it calls into question posts unfavorable to 4e. That the result is moderation only nominally begs the question of who is being moderated. It is clearly those who do not support 4e. Of course, the post is well framed in terms of civility and politeness but this is transparent as it is clear whose “representation” of Paizo by their participation on these message boards is being called into question. It is that poster(s) not persuaded that 4e is a good thing. The issue is then not whether politeness and civility will prevail but whether politeness and civility will serve to “moderate” those disinclined to like 4e. While “moderation” certainly applies to those inclined to support 4e as well such moderation is a chimera for there is nothing there to moderate because those favoring 4e are nothing but praiseful. They can be easily civil and polite because they are for the emerging status quo. You, Ms. Stevens, I suggest have been gulled in the name of politeness and civility by a well phrased request to muzzle those questioning 4e.

I must remind you that Paizo has been more than a mere bystander in how the tenor of the Paizo message boards have developed. Paizo has encouraged those questioning 4e to find expression here and, should Paizo decide after seeing the GSL to stick with 3e, Paizo will have profited by this policy. Indeed, Paizo has attracted those not inclined to immediately support 4e to Paizo’s site and thereby profited already. Paizo’s hands are not clean and to use another cliché, the genie cannot now be placed back in the bottle, at least not without some breakage.

The level of alleged “negativity” warranting moderation is largely a phantasm. George Carlin and his seven words have not been invoked. No ones parentage has been called into question. The rare hyperbolic flourish that “insults” in any real sense is just that - rare. In short the moderation, particularly the ban on mentioning specific companies in other than a positive light and other message boards is overblown and pretextual. The “I know it when I see it” ban on the “insult by insinuation” is so vague and standardless that it is nothing but a muzzle. And from the above only one side is in practicality and reality being muzzled.

Its your house. Its your rules. I’ll ask the same question you so quickly leaped to answer before – is this how Paizo wants to be represented?

I’d prefer a level playing field. I prefer no ticky tack fouls and that the players be allowed to play, particularly as this game is largely at Paizo’s specific invitation. If you prefer, however, a “moderated” forum that advantages one group, and summon up what logic you will but the fact remains that those in opposition to anything are always more subject to being “moderated,” I can live with that. Paizo may, however, find me as dubious about matters as the poster who first inquired “Is this board really how Paizo wants to be represented?” I can withhold my patronage as easily as the previous guy, particularly if or when Paizo goes 4e.

And should that last be of concern to you? Well, I’m liking the Golarion line of products so far, particularly the Lovecraft touches. HPL just might be enough to get me to ignore an edition change should Paizo make one. Then again . . .

If you want the 3e hold outs to stick with Paizo in the event of any change to 4e, I suggest that making the 3e holdouts feel as if they have had a full and fair opportunity to be heard would be a good strategy. Until recently, I thought that was not an unfamiliar idea to you.

In all moderation, civilly and politely yours,

Glenn Vincent Dammerung

Some brave soul has compiled a list of known 4e monsters here - http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/Monsters%20&%20More%20(4th%20Editi on).pdf

A really strong trend emerges. Witness:

Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, Wyrmpriest

Each of the more common races are being given multiple individual monster entries based upon function or activity.

The list above is only what has been released to this point and is thus partial. It takes no imagination to think that the 4e monster manuals might be filled with literally dozens of variations on each racial or monster theme.

For example, the above list sports six sorts of kobolds. While the dwarf and elf entries sport only one sort, it is easy enough to imagine a Dwarven Rock Fighter, Dwarven Mountain Ranger, Dwaven Shield Warrior, Dwarven Nosepicker etc. Or Elven Forest Friend, Elven Forest Runner, Elven Forest Ranger, Elven Butt Scratcher etc.

What a brilliant design move for 4e! Imagine how easy it will be to fill monster manuals! Just think of the money that will need to spend to keep up!

If you add another adjective, things can only get better - Red Dwarven Nosepicker! Green Elven Butt Scratcher. As opped to the black, white and puce versions.

Just amazing design.

No. This is not a knock on Paizo's efforts. Note the quotation marks.

I came across the following passage while reading Tales Out of Innsmouth from Chaosium -

"Then one day at an estate sale near my home in West Hills, I picked up a ratty copy of an obscure 1940's pulp called 'Amazingly Ignorant Planet Stories' (later shortened to 'Ignorant Planets')."

The passage comes from the short story "It Was the Day of the Deep One," reprinted in Tales Out of Innsmouth (2006) from Midnight Shambler No. 5 (1997). It is humorous Mythos fiction, as the named periodical is certainly.

I was struck funny by the coincidental name elements. It seems Paizo has a humorously dubious doppleganger in Mythos fiction.

Fnord! I mean, Fhtagn! ;-D

A thought - Planet Stories might publish an anthology of new fiction that pays tribute to the classic fiction of Kuttner, Moore etc.

By way of example Stephen Jones, has pulled together some new works for Fedogan and Bremer's Shadows Over Innsmouth, Weird Shadows Over Innsmouth and the Dark Detectives volumes. Get Mr. Jones to pull together some new classic S&S etc. for Paizo, or someone like that. The fiction is new but the spirit is classic.

Just no hack game fiction authors, please. They don't count. For anything.

"Carthago delende est!" ;-D

This might be prohibitively expensive but has any thought been given to releasing hardcover editions of some Pathfinder titles?

Personally, I'd be interested and willing to pay a premium to get some Pathfinder titles in hardcover. How much of a premium would depend. If a "normal" hardover might go for $35 (which is the cover price for Nighshade's Kane collections), I would pay a $15 premium if necessary for the Jirel title in hardcover, so $50. I would not go the Wandering Star Conan edition route and pay a lot more than that, however.

As I have no idea of the economics of publishing hardbacks in addition to the trade paper vis a vis Paizo, I'll just offer up the suggestion for whatever its worth.

Just to deposit another fiftieth of a dollar:

I will continue my Pathfinder subscription, regardless of the edition it is published for.

I thought this deserved discussion distinct from the undecided Pathfinder thread.

Sadly, I cannot say the same thing as the quote above.

If Pathfinder goes 4e, I will not continue supporting Pathfinder.

I use adventures mainly for inspiration or cool maps and I recognize Pathfinder in any edition can offer both. I also recognize that Pathfinder offers "Dragon Magazine" style content in addition to the nuts and bots of the adventure and associated maps which can be useful outside of any edition. Still, if Pathfinder goes 4e, I will not follow.

Ultimately, if Pathfinder goes 4e, it will necessarily conform to 4e rules and conventions which I am led to believe will not be backwards compatible with 3x. Goodly portions of Pathfinder, if it goes 4e, will therefore be of no use to me (stat blocks for NPCS, stat blocks for monsters, magic items, spells, class variants etc.). This is strike one.

I understand 4e will be as "tactical" if not moreso than 3X and that conventions supportive/reliant on miniatures (even if minatures are not strictly mandated by the 4e rules) will be hardwired into the rules. I use miniatures if and when I decide to do so and any set of rules that presupposes or strongly imagines otherwise I have no use for. This is strike two.

Lastly, given the degree of prevalence of the above (which may well very in the final analysis and might then alter my opinion), I have to look at Pathfinder's price. It is not inconsiderable now for content that I can fully use. It becomes more considerable when I factor in content I likely will not be able to use. This is strike three.

Consequently,as matters now present themselves, if Pathfinder goes 4e, I will no longer purchase Pathfinder.

I know this is going to likely go over like a lead balloon. But anon.

Planet Stories is appreciably cheapened as a line IMO by the inclusion of authors like Gary Gygax, who as a novelist should not be mentioned in the same breath as Michael Moorcock, Henry Kuttner, Leigh Brackett, CL Moore, etc. By comparison, IMO, Gygax is a hack's hack, whose idea of story telling is juvenile by juvenile standards. As a game designer, EGG is great but as a novelist - he sucks - the end.

Much the same can be said for treacly Ed Greenwood, prosaic Elaine Cunningham and the workmanlike RA Salvatore. Yet, these worthies, along with Gygax are seeing print as readily as the aforementioned and far more accomplished writers.

What gives? Planet Stories has product slots to fill in the catalog and unable to reach agreements fast enough with real authors has to go slumming in the "game fiction" ghetto? That's what it looks like to me.

I very much like the idea of Planet Stories as I thought I understood it - to return to print some classic authors and tales now mainly out of print. I dislike and have zero interest in Planet Stories as "amateur hour" for the "game fiction" set.

Gygax, Greenwood, Cunningham and Salvatore all have other outlets for their work and thus Planet Stories is not providing them a forum they could not find elsewhere. You want Greenwood, Cunningham or Salvatore? You don't need Planet Stories to publish them to have access to their work. Their work is readily available from no less than that paragon literary publishing house - Wizards of the Coast - most know for their literary publishing business as a subdivision of Hasbro, also a known publisher of literary masterpieces. Not.

Planet Stories is/was a nice idea. Diluting it with othewise readily accessable "game fiction authors" is stupid and wasteful. I'm looking for Planet Stories to be more Arkham House than Wizards of the Coast, more Nightshade than Hasbro. If I want empty calorie fiction from Gygax, I can get it from the republished Gord books. One hour reads from Greenwood, Cunningham and Salvatore are all readily available from Wizards and Hasbro. Planet Stories only does me, as a reader a service, when it brings back works from noteworthy authors now out of print, particularly from the pulp era, the 60s and 70s that I can't easily find elsewhere.

Paizo started as a gaming company but those loyalties and habits are out of place if Paizo wants to be taken seriously as a fiction house. Maybe Planet Stories doesn't want to be a serious publisher but just a publisher content with "game fiction" and its authors who owe their popularity, such as it is, to games, not independent story telling.

Without D&D and Greyhawk, no one would read Gygax. Without the Forgotten Ralms, no one would read Greenwood, Cunningham or Salvatore. Demonstrably and tellingly, the latter three have all tried to break away from game related fiction to write works independent of any game - all have returned to writing game fiction because their other works did not sell. In other worlds, they need the game worlds to attract readers because without a game world connection they are not interesting enough writers on their own.

Planet Stories needs to figure out what it wants to be - 1) a publishing house that publishes good authors whose works stand on their own or 2) a publishing house that publishes authors whose only notable works are all tied to game worlds for D&D. I'm all for the former and have no interest in the latter.

The foregoing is IMHO. Some words to the wise.

In another thread, Eric Mona has imagined a possible sequence of events wherein Paizo might not immediately switch over to the 4e rules, if those rules could not be provided to Paizo in a manner sufficiently timely to accommodate the production of the third Pathfinder adventure path. In the same thread, he mused about perhaps even producing a Paizo “3.75 edition” set of rules if such a hypothetical third Pathfinder adventure path were well enough received. I would like to suggest that Paizo do just this.

While the OGL gives Paizo the opportunity to create a 3.75 set of rules, it is doubtless safer and easier for Paizo to adopt the forthcoming 4e rules and continue to support D&D as published by Wotc. However, 4e has not met with universal acclaim and, in part, this is because it is significantly departing from prior editions in terms of both the rules and the flavor of the game. Are there enough D&D gamers sufficiently disgruntled with the impending 4e to make a 3.75 rules set from Paizo and a line of conforming products commercially viable? That’s the open question. If there were a sufficient number of such gamers, Paizo could find its business greatly increased.

It is my opinion, that Paizo is in just the right position at just the right time to do the heretofore unthinkable – goes heads up with D&D as published by Wotc with a competing version of D&D. Paizo would not need to “win” or “beat” Wotc to be successful. If Paizo saw its business increase by say 30%, I think they might well break even. Anything more than a 30% increase would be gravy. And, of course, the goal should be more like at least a 50% increase in their business. Can this be reasonably possible in anything but a pipe dream? I think so.

The keys to Paizo launching its own 3.75 edition of D&D are four. Two are must haves and two are highly desirable.

First, how fast can Paizo get a 3.75 rules set to market? 4e launches in May 2009. Paizo would, I think, need to be to market no later than August 2009 – Gencon or bust. There are three ways they might be able to do this. One – perhaps the Paizo staff has sufficiently house-ruled 3x in their own games to have a basis for seeing a 3.75 edition with a little more elbow grease. Two - perhaps Paizo can bring on board some folks who can do the heavy lifting for them. Paizo has certainly worked with a number of heavy weight D&D folks. I’ll come back to this.

Second, will Necromancer Games support a 3.75 rules set from Paizo. Necromancer Games is already partnered with Paizo. This would take it one – big – step further. Paizo has a sterling reputation and so does Necromancer. Both have established themselves as “brand names” with devoted customers. Necomancer’s support would combine two great tastes to taste greater together.

The above are the MUST HAVES. Now, for the highly desirables.

Third, if Paizo and Necromancer can agree to link up for a 3.75 edition with Paizo and Necromancer product support, can they convince Goodman Games to join the party? Goodman Games has easily as strong a reputation as Paizo and Necromancer. If Goodman Games joined with Paizo and Necromancer games, there would be a critical mass of well respected muscle behind the 3.75 edition and a virtual guarantee of top notch support. While Paizo and Necromancer could likely go it alone, adding Goodman Games to the mix would put the venture over the top. Customers would be there.

Fourth, can Monte Cook be persuaded to lend his name and his knack for the 3x rules to a 3.75 edition? Monte Cook has a reputation every bit as formidable and positive as Paizo, Necromancer Games and Goodman Games. He could also significantly speed along the development of the 3.75 rules to meet an August 2009 release date. While Monte Cook has said goodbye to game developing, a 3.75 rules set, particularly partnered with Paizo and Necromancer Games, and perhaps Goodman Games as well, might be the sort of thing to see him come out of “retirement” for one more go around. That he knows Eric Mona and is on friendly terms with him can only help.

These are the HIGHLY DESIRABLES.

With only the “must haves,” a Paizo lead 3.75 rules set would be a player, certain to give Wotc a run for its money and very likely to be “successful” at least from Paizo’s position. With both highly desirables, a Paizo 3.75 would be a certain hit and very likely to see 4e from Wotc breathing very hard indeed. Again, Paizo “wins” and so do its partners if they see their business increase by 30% plus.

Either way, Paizo is IMO in the catbirds seat. I doubt this opportunity will ever again present itself. Carpe diem! Or play it say and support Wotc’s 4e for sure dollars.

I would say - launch the Paizo Revolution! Market 3.75 on its merits but also as the “outsider” resisting the “abandonment” of D&D by 4e. Vive la Revolution! Vive la Paizo!

Or not.

Like I will hope many others, I have received my copy of Pathfinder: Burnt Offerings, the first installment of the Rise of the Runelords Gamemastery Adventure Path. I would like to offer up some general comments and a specific suggestion. This is not intended as a review.

1) The adventure is, IMO, first rate. This is particularly so given the low levels involved. I particularly liked the quantity and quality of the maps that accompany the adventure, both the regional map and the site maps. While my subscription (my wife’s actually) is free from the conversion from Dragon/Dungeon, this is content of the sort I will happily pay for in the future.

2) Sandpoint’s description follows that of Saltmarsh, Scuttlecove, Diamond Lake, and Ahlaster in being first rate. In my mind, the detailed description of cities and towns is now a signature feature of Paizo’s products and one that I am more than happy to pay for, going forward.

3) While I am a huge admirer of Wolfgang Baur’s work, the Thassilon background is very weak, IMO. I find it entirely two-dimensional. The first full paragraph on p. 74 bespeaks of either quick or lazy design or both, IMO. It is entirely too convenient. What proceeds from there is fit for a D&D movie backstory; that is not a compliment. Thassilon comes across as a one-trick pony. That’s fine to set up the adventure path, at best. If the thought is to use Thassilon beyond the first adventure path, however, this kind of two dimensional development will not help that cause.

4) The description of the Pathfinder organization (p. 80) is everything that the Thassilon piece is not. The Pathfinder set up is rich and textured, while still delivering the necessary facts for play. This material has legs and practically screams “tell me more.” As much as I dislike the Thassilon setup, I really like the Pathfinder organization setup. What could have been just a quick and dirty framing tool for adventure generation has a (to my pleasant surprise) depth and breadth that makes me hopeful for Golarion outside of Thassilon.

5) To this point in the Gamemastery line, even beyond Pathfinder, the seven sins have appeared as a prominent theme. I think this is wonderful in theory. In practice, I have difficulty with how the theme is being delivered. I find the theme thinly and weakly developed. Considered by itself, the seven sins is archetypical of evil. When made a prominent part of the definition of a particular evil vexing a campaign, its nature is even more important. To date, looking at Seven Swords of Sin and Burnt Offerings, the seven sins are presented as rather ho-hum. I’m not scared; I’m not impressed and most troubling, I’m not fascinated. Compare D&D’s development of the demonic. Now, that’s scary, impressive and fascinating. The seven sins have the same potential but it is not being realized. I think a couple of things would help.

First, some more detail on how the seven sins impact the setting would be good. To date the grandest exposition has been via the Thassilon piece. See above. That’s not good. Some organizations dedicated to each sin, other than the Thassilonian Runelords, could be a place to start.

Second, some personification of the sins is a must. A start is made with the Sinspawn but much more along this line could, and IMO, should be done to realize the theme. More sin-type monsters is an obvious route. Some unique sin-type monsters, which might be analogized more or less closely (I can see arguments both ways) to demon princes, would go over very well, I think. The Runelords, thanks to the flat Thassilon piece, are really nonstarters beyond the immediate needs of the adventure path in this regard, IMO.

Third, the evil quotient of the sins needs to be ratcheted up quite a bit. I’m not suggesting a need for a parental advisory label, but for such archetypical and prominent evils, I think there needs to be a greater payoff. Unfortunately, the easiest way to accomplish this has been done elsewhere and doesn’t really fit the sins so much, IMO. I speak of the selling of the soul into “damnation;” devils and demons both have this as the premier exposition of their evil and archetypically so. The seven sins could “me too” on this point but even then I think they would have to work to deliver on the seven varieties of damnation. Whether “me too-ing” or presenting a unique exposition of evil (my preference), I think the writing needs to be a tad more explicit on just how evil this evil is. Devils and demons have it easy, in a way, because their evil is, after a fashion, a “given.” Not so the seven sins because, even while they are sins, they have been usually presented as paths to damnation, not end points in and of themselves. For the sins, exclusive of a “hell” or “abyss,” to pack the punch of a “hell” or “abyss,” they need more delineation in terms of the progress of their evil. To assume that, merely because they are the seven sins, says enough would be, IMO, an error.

Overall, I think the first Pathfinder installment is a good one but IMO much work needs to be done to realize the underlying theme and the backstory.

Among the Greyhawk cognescenti there have been something of an uproar over the "hiding" of Sasserine by the Sea Princes. I wish to suggest this is a vast overreaction. I believe I know how they did it.

If the active agent were said to be, not the Sea Princes, but the Scarlet Brotherhood, the problem would largely disappear. I suggest this is precisely what accounts for the hiding of Sasserine -

The Sea Princes were able to "hide" Sasserine with the conivance of the Scarlet Brotherhood. Consider:

1) Generally, the SB had people in place throughout the Flanaess and might have had "spies" who could have a) "infiltrated cartographer guilds and libraries," and b) "bought off or murdered" ship captains;

2) The SB overthrew the Sea Princes in a night during the Greyhawk Wars, suggesting they had for some long period positioned people in deep cover positions throughout the Hold of the Sea Princes and had an obvious long term interest and plan for the area;

3) The SB presents itself in an open and friendly way in Sasserine (Dungeon 139 at p. 51) but also maintains a secret presence (Dungeon 139 at p. 53 (House of Violets entry)).

That the SB might have cooperated with the Sea Princes to "hide" Sasserine, to save it for itself and the Sea Princes, who would be overthrown, is not unreasonable. Under this theory all goes according to Brotherhood plan, more or less - the Hold is overthrown and the SB now looks to Sasserine, the more so since operations in the Hold have hit a rough patch.

I suggest this will be revealed to be the story behind the "hiding" of Sasserine. Not so far fetched after all, I think.

I think I know why the Great Kingdom attacked Sasserine in the background for the Savage Tide adventure path and I think it will be revealed in the Overload for the AP.

Simply put - The GK acted to stop a precursor action by a Demogorgon cult that foreshadows the action of the Demogorgon cult in the STAP. Consider three Dungeon adventures -

The "adult" adventure that introduced Scuttlecove, featuring Demogorgon, which will also appear in the STAP.

The Isle of Dread (which concludes the STAP) adventure, that features Demogorgon.

The lost temple of Demogorgon adventure set in and around Irongate, which features Demogorgon, right next door to the GK. Not yet revealed to connect to the AP.

I believe the last will be revealed to be connected to the AP, likely in an adventure in the AP. The GK/Sasserine connection will be revealed in an Overload.

Its a theory. :-D

If anyone needed evidence of how tatty and threadbare the Dragon has become, one need only look to its sister publication - The Dungeon. To be precise, Dungeon 126.

Dungeon is organized. It has a coherent message. It has a defineable and palpable sense of identity. It has an energy and sense of vitality. It has a "feel" of energy and excitement.

If Dragon has a "feel" it is one of chaotic aimlessness. Each month you never know "what the cat dragged in" until you open the cover. The Dragon is not organized to deliver a coherent message or sense of identity. It is a monthly collection of stuff. A "huh?" or "what was _that_?" reaction after reading an entire issues content is not uncommon. There is no sense of energy or vitality; it is listless.

Somebody over on the Dragon side of Paizo needs to either wake-up and pay attention or to be demoted or fired. Sorry, but no coddling here, if the shoe fits . . . otherwise . . . . The Dragon's troops seem lazy and asleep at their post, happy to watch Dungeon whip their posterior each and every month. The seeming contentment with the status quo at Dragon is baffling. Any comparison with Dungeon leaves Dragon looking like yesterdays news. Yet, Dragon seems entirely unwilling to alter its "approach."

The outstanding quality of Dungeon is Dragon's shame. Each month Dungeon puts Dragon to shame. This will end when? And how?

Dungeon 126 is an excellent issue.

Sean K. Reynolds is better at higher levels where he can get more inventive but the Blackwall Keep adventure is solid. The tactical map was unnecessary, even wasteful as it was rather pedestrian in its details, but it confers bragging rights; more of this later.

Wolf Baur’s Clockwork Fortress is the star of the issue. Solid design but with the inventiveness and energy that are Baur’s signature. It is great to see Baur more regularly in print these days. He is easily among any list of Top 10 designers.

Eric Boyd is a fine designer, of which there is no greater evidence than his ability to pull from the too often soggy Forgotten Realms something other than bathos. Vampires of Waterdeep is particularly adept as it has its Realms chops but is almost equally useful outside the Realms. While it is a cliche excuse that insults the intelligence of the reader only slightly more than the speaker/writer to say that “you can adapt X in Dungeon/Dragon to any setting,” Boyd actually pulls it off and his work could be the benchmark for claims of nigh universal adaptability. Blood of Malar is an outstanding adventure. I look forward to the next installments.

The Menageries is so-so but as the only adventure entry in Dungeon from a non “pro,” it is not bad.

Very nicely done is the synergy between Blackwall Keep, Swamp Dangers and the forthcoming Lizardmen ecology. This is a great template for how to have articles work together in other than “theme issues.”

And closing out Dungeon 126 is the return of a Critical Threat! With Maps of Mystery to return next month! Finally! Sanity has come back to the Dungeon! Applause! Applause!

More than the sum of its parts, Dungeon 126 is a great exercise in C Y-ing your “A.” Here comes Gencon and Mona and company must face the readership. So -

(1) For Forgotten Realms fans who may be disgruntled, we have the 3 parter from Eric Boyd beginning this issue, with Greenwood’s paunchy Big City article in Dragon. That should keep the FR fans quiet and duly servile;

(2) For Greyhawkers, as the Age of Worms is more Adventure Path than Greyhawk, there is the Clockwork Fortress, which has the added benefit of being capable of engendering a fair amount of discussion among the Grey cognoscenti;

(3) For Eberron fans, there is nothing, which is something more than it seems. While the staff can backpeddle and note previous Eberron content, they are still likely to hear Eberron fans voice some complaint, which is the point. Any complaints can then be the impetus for more Eberron content, going forward, and such “in person” complaints will bullet proof Dungeon, to a degree, from any countercharge from anti-Eberroners when Eberron content in the Dungeon increases.

(4) There is even an “insert” for added “value,” the Age of Worms tactical map.

Tactically, Dungeon 126 is a masterpiece of CYA right before Gencon. Bravo!

Some folks like to say that any map from an adventure is the equivalent of a Map of Mystery - usually in support of their belief that Maps of Mystery should not be a feature in Dungeon.

This erroneous assumption has been repeatedly batted down but this past weekend another great beat down became available - the Shackled City Hardback. It contains a map book that features the maps of Christopher West almost exclusively, who as it happens has produced some of the most notable Maps of Mystery.

Leafing through the map booklet leaves no doubt that West's creations go far, far beyond the usual mapping found in support of an adventure. Their is, in fact, no comparison. A Chris West style Map of Mystery is on a level far superior to 99% of all adventure maps. It is thus, again, erroneous to imagine that _any_ adventure map can substitute/remove the need for a genuine Map of Mystery.

A genuine Map of Mystery is usually far more complex - to present "mystery" or suggest possibilities - in a way almost all adventure maps are not - most of which are comparatively simple and often serve only to provide the layout/scale for a combat.

Maps of Mystery cannot be effectively replaced by adventure maps. They are entirely different in their complexity and how they are presented.

Dragon goes through cycles. Sometimes it rocks. Sometimes it slumps. I buy it in both instances because I agree with Erik Mona’s estimation that it is the “magazine of record” for the D&D game. I am as loyal a purchaser, rain or shine, as may be found.

I believe the Dragon is now slumping. It has reached a humid level of mediocrity. Each issue is fiercely average, composed with a seeming philosophy that “one good article, if long enough, will makeup for the banal remainder.” And when the “big one” fails, the entire issue flags. While usually “one good article” is to be found, even if it is not the “feature,” this hardly makes the magazine a success.

Since “relaunch” the Dragon has lurched in one direction then another such that it must now be accounted almost entirely reactive and rudderless. It has no consistent feel. The “new Dragon” has failed. The flaws that have been there all along since the relaunch are now exacerbated by increasingly “one good article a magazine makes” thinking.

Specifics.

Class Acts has got to go. The articles are simply not long enough to explore an idea to any meaningful degree. The best ones just get going and have to end. The worst never get started at all and just blather. Most fall unsatisfyingly somewhere in between - the wrong side of average.

The “Big Article” lead idea needs to be paired back. A Big Article 4 times a year would be sufficient - Demonomicon/Far Realms etc. The remainder of the issues need more, medium sized articles. Dragon is now flabby where it should be wiry and tight.

The Ecology articles need some help. They are far and away the best incarnation of the “ecology” articles ever but could use some supporting article support. If the ecology of X is going to be run, a companion article should also run. Best example - Pazuzu lead and the Kenku followed. Excellent. Same principle needs to apply when the ecology is more in the lead or co-lead position.

MOST IMPORTANTLY - All campaign specific material needs to be gotten out of Dragon and placed in its own magazine. Call it “Dragon Campaigns” or what have you, Dragon’s focus needs to be more on the game’s possibilities - homebrews - not some published setting. The idea of “you can adapt it” is apologist pap. Most people do not want to “adapt it.” So, drop the bs. Similarly, don’t try to say “but there is not that much campaign specific material.” It crops up regularly and sometimes dominantly as we see in 334 and 335. Cut the bs.

More specifically “homebrew” friendly material needs to be Dragon’s forte. Ah, ah! Don’t give me that “adaptable” bs. Generic articles are generic; that’s fine and not at issue. Homebrews are not generic, but highly specific, so generics go so far but no father. By more homebrew friendly articles what I mean are articles that explore homebrew options through an author/DMs specific creations. Best example - David Howrey’s excellent articles on fantasy Africa’s, Atlantis, Pleistocene Epochs etc. Another example - the “Small Gods” article (forget the issue). Show the principles in application. That bears repeating - show the principles in application.

Spells, magic item, racial, religion, class and monster articles etc. are still are fine.

ADD to the mix different “theme” issues. We often enough get “the usual suspect” themes - dragons, elves, fighters etc . Different themes are what is needed - underdark environments, planar environments, terrestrial environment, social/cultural environments, science-fantasy, techno-fantasy, occult-fantasy, historic-fantasy etc..

I know. You’d publish them if you got them and you would be happy to entertain submission queries on these type of articles. And that is your problem. Your submission guidelines are antiquated and inefficient. You need to SOLICIT very SPECIFIC types of articles. You need to rewrite the submission guidelines to say other than - “Tell us what you’d like to write.” They should say that but also - “Here’s some things we’d like to see” with a web address for an updated article “want list.” Plan issues in advance and look to fill the article slots with themed articles that you have explicitly solicited as such. This is already done to a degree with “industry pros;” I suggest applying the same principle more broadly. You will get more interesting articles if you give would be writers more guidance on what you may be interested in/looking for.

The “new Dragon” has failed. Time to stop with the stylistic slight of hand and deliver something tangible and “meaty” to more people.

I think that is the issue - more people. Your sales are trending up but how you are achieving this is by a constant “pushing” that is both unsustainable in the long term and which will not see good retention. You are trending up with casual buys that are not retained and then must be replaced with more and more pushing. Your model is a replacement model. It should be recruitment and retention.

Once the campaign specific material is removed, you will far more easily be able to establish a consistent product identity in the public’s mind and this will help retention. Dragon as “The D&D Magazine” or “The DMs Magazine” is almost meaningless in the d20 environment. Dragon cannot be a d20 magazine, per Wotc. But as a D&D magazine, it must compete in a d20 influenced sales environment. Homebrews think like d20, not that d20 predominates - it does not. The campaign specific material, fairly or unfairly, ghetto-izes Dragon, even among “Wotc core” homebrew players and DMs. With campaign material in its own magazine and Dragon exploring the homebrew, as such, Dragon can position itself as “part” of the d20/homebrew picture more effectively, rather than “apart” from it. Top of my head here but I’d suggest - “Your D&D Magazine.” Not “THE D&D Magazine.” I hope you can see and appreciate that distinction. The Dragon Campaigns would be “THE D&D Magazine.” I think the appeal of the magazines would be broadened significantly.

And if I have to tell you that Dragon Campaigns would be a hot seller, you are in the wrong business.

I know people will tell you “you’re fine just the way you are.” If you are happy with your numbers remaining the same, "trending" up or “settling” a bit. Far be it from me . . . You know I’m buying every issue anyway.

A suggestion. The next adventure path after Age of Worms should be set in Eberron.

Dungeon, IMO, has a tendency to severly "flag" after "juiced" issues. It is inconsistently interesting. An adventure path set in Eberron would provide consistently interesting material, I believe.

Eberron may not be to everyone's taste but I have seen no setting to date that is as capable of challenging gamers' usual assumptions about the game. I may not always like the Eberron material but it is never dull. If it fails, it fails with a bang, not a whimper. When it succeeds (I'm still waiting for the first really over the top Eberron smash in Dungeon), it succeeds.

I'm not an Eberron "fan-boy" but my vote (if I have one) would be for the next Adventure Path to be set in Eberron. Get a wide array of talented designers as in Age of Worms. Get some great maps (Eberron desparately needs better maps). I will be entertained - one way or the other - hopefully by some really novel designs.

Hi,

I am not sure where to post this so forgive me if I err. Please forward this to whomever is the appropriate party at Paizo.

I have been looking around the Paizo store and it seems Paizo carries some products I have not seen and cannot find elsewhere - Amazon or FLGS etc. I would like to order but I am somewhat leery about doing so because of the erratic functionality of this website.

I have a T-1 line. Paizo loads slooooowly. Sometimes it doesn't load. Sometimes it "hiccups" and seems to loose a post. Sometimes it throws me off in mid-whatever. Etc.

I would feel a lot more comfortable ordering from Paizo if Paizo's website were more reliable.

Just some feedback.

Thank you. :)

If I were running Dungeon Magazine and had one page to fill, this is how I’d fill it.

Caveat: Assuming I already had my Critical Threat and Maps of Mystery goodness between the covers. And with no disrespect to the “humanist” jazzbos who want columns that feature cutey bunnies, warm fuzzies, and New Age reflections on being a celebrity DM.. ::cough:: Wil Save ::cough:: Note for the humorless - that last’s a joke. :-D

Column Title - Total Party Kill (TPK)
Concept - This column will monthly feature descriptions featuring, singly and in combination, traps, monsters (w/ tactics), NPCs (w/tactics) and environments designed to challenge even the most tricked out 3.5 Edition god-PCs and achieve the ultimate - the Total Party Kill. The emphasis will be on clever design, misdirection and catching the unwary up by their heels - not brute force. Regular columnists will alternate, as possible, with reader submissions. Descriptions can be (usually) specific or (if its good enough) narrative.

Column Title - The Final Dungeon
Concept - This column will monthly present a set of dungeon rooms (1 to 4, depending on size) completely described for the 3.5 Edition of D&D. While each monthly installment will be able to stand alone, over the course of a year, the monthly installments of The Final Dungeon will comprise a single larger dungeon environment. Included in each monthly installment will be themes that, when a year’s editions are read together, will comprise a “theme” or “arc” for The Final Dungeon in question. Ideally, these may be something akin to a mystery or “brain teaser” that comes together over the course of 12 issues.

Column Title - The Media Dungeon
Concept - This column will take for its monthly presentations “dungeons” as presented in various media and look at how they could be translated to D&D. Movies (e.g. The Cube, The Haunting of Hill House, AVP, Rose Red, almost any of the Hammer horror films) may lend themselves most readily to the column, having an immediate visual reference but “dungeons” found in books etc. could also be included. Mapping would be optional as the focus would be more on pulling of the thematics in the game.

Column Title - Tales Better Told Drunk
Concept - This column would feature monthly “war stories” from the gaming table with the specific requirement that the stories must have a particular “slant” or “style” to distinguish them from the dread “war stories” that too often bore or drag. Cleverness, wit, humor, dynamic presentation or take on the rules or play of the game would be prerequisites. Perhaps the best example of this sort of column would be the Paizo poster ASEO’s story of “The .50 Caliber Barbarian” - relating the play of D&D in Afghanistan using expended munitions as “miniatures.” Contributions would be solicited from staff, acquaintances and the readership.

I don't know if anyone else has this sense, but I have watched over the last couple of issues as, IMO -

(1) The quality of the art in Dungeon has deteriorated, with more "cartoonish" art being featured; and

(2) The quality of the maps in Dungeon has deteriorated even further, with the maps looking more like colored sketches than some previous highly detailed and well colored maps.

I realize this may be nothing more than a couple of issues catering to their own needs in terms of art and maps. I would, however, be upset if "corners" were being "cut" on art and maps on a forward-going basis.

With specific reference to maps -

I already miss Maps of Mystery and have to make do with adventure maps. If they are going to become uniformly more "cheap" (for example the Whispering Cairn maps - awful!), I will find the utility of Dungeon even further reduced.

Something I think should be clearly and unequivocally understood - maps matter. Good maps are essential not just for navigating an adventure but for imagining it. Bad maps hurt an otherwise good adventure. Good maps are essential.

There seems to be some systemic failure to understand this as Eberron was produced without a good, detailed map and the Dungeon map of Eberron then added insult to injury. This is wrong-headed at every level and, I will dare say, demonstrates an ignorance of the role of mapping in and to the game. Dungeon is not responsible for Wizard's decision making but I hope will look to improve the quality of maps in Dungeon going foreward.

Maps matter!

I have been gaming for a number of years. I never subscribed or purchased Dungeon. When I did start to purchase Dungeon it was primarily because Polyhedron was merged into Dungeon and in its merged state offered “mini-games” that no longer appear.

When the mini-games disappeared, I was very disappointed but I continued to purchase Dungeon because I found the Maps of Mystery very well-done and very useful. Then, they disappeared.

When Maps of Mystery disappeared, I still continued to purchase Dungeon because I found the critical threats useful and interesting and because, by this point, Greyhawk content was increasing. Then, before or after or around the same time, it became apparent that the critical threats were no longer to be a regular feature.

That leaves me with Greyhawk content. Word is that Wotc has demanded of Paizo that Greyhawk content not be featured too prominently, most recently with respect to the Age of Worms series of adventures.

I became and stayed a Dungeon purchaser because of the - (1) mini-games; (2) Maps of Mystery; (3) Critical Threats; and (4) Greyhawk content. All of these are now gone or greatly diminished. Will I continue to patronize Dungeon for Greyhawk in one out of four issues and a Critical Threat every six month or so?

I have never had the slightest interest in buying Dungeon just for pre-made adventures. I write my own and do not require the assist. I will read the adventures but usually for their Greyhawk content. I’m happy even if an otherwise generic adventure has a sidebar that says - On Oerth, City X is City Y; the A Mountains are the B Mountains etc. This is not usually done, however.

While there are some very fine and notable exceptions (Incursion etc.), generic adventures generally leave me cold. Somebody’s Saturday night home brew that made it through the spellchecker and grammatix to arrive at Paizo is still, IMO, too often still identifiable as somebody’s Saturday night homebrew. Most are mildly clever at best and if that, with their chief merit seeming to lie in the author having assembled the 3E stats for the monsters and NPCs. Pass.

I have less than no interest in the Forgotten Realms and, contrary to common wisdom, find such adventures do not easily convert to my preferred setting of Greyhawk. The Realms is distinctive in its brand of fantasy. Realms adventures in Dungeon are a) generic adventures thinly disguised as taking place in the Realms, see above, or b) are the genuine article, in which case they are distinctly Realms in their flavor. I’ll imagine that those who see Realms adventures as all but generic have no ability to tell the difference between a) and b).

I have a curiosity about Eberron’s unique features but no real interest. For example, there was an adventure that prominently featured the Warforged. Okay. I now get the Warforged. Curosity satisfied. No further interest. Eberron adventures that are not taking advantage of that setting's unique features are, again, thinly disguised generics. This is not a compliment. See above.

I don’t ask that anyone share my particular views and I certainly do not ask for a Dungeon that perfectly reflects my preferences. I would, however, ask for a Dungeon that offers me those things I do prefer, at least as often as anything else and at least often enough that I can justify purchasing the magazine. I know better than to ask for a return of the mini-games. For me, then, the features that tip the balance in favor of buying Dungeon are - 1) Maps of Mystery; 2) Critical Threats and 3) Greyhawk content. As the Greyhawk content will be as it may, this really boils down to Maps of Mystery and Critical Threats. Without these regularly appearing, Dungeon is a very marginal purchase for me.

My Two Cents