Zarathos's page

The interesting thing about Bill's House Rules is that they represent OD&D using his own alternate combat system other than using Chainmail or one provided in Volume 1: Men & Magic.

Applying this to Swords & Wizardry, if you combine this with Matt Finch's approach to magic ("An Alternate Approach to High-Level Magic, S&W Complete, p. 50, basically no 7-9th MU, no 6-7th cleric), it is readily apparent that there is little point to going up above 14th level (practically about 10th for martial classes) Beyond, hit points gained are minimal and saving throws no longer improve. For all practical purposes, everyone one has maxed out on their abilities other than the advanced classed in S&W Complete like the monk and ranger.

Character survival would be higher because the most dangerous monsters with special abilities like level draining and swallow whole would have greatly reduced chance to hit.

It wasn't specifically mentioned but I am wondering if OD&D rule of only a single attack is used as well. Multi-attack monsters would have a great advantage in this system. With single attack, the one roll is a synthesis of all attacks i.e a ghoul still attacks with claw/claw/bite but is only single chance to hit and cause 1d6 points of damage (plus only 1 change to cause paralysis in a single round)

JR

The PDF thing is why I vaguely alluded earlier to it not being a good idea to rip off a currently-available product (even if just via PDF). Anything that harms sales of earlier versions of D&D could be seen as a threat. Things like OSRIC have probably existed too long now to take action, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were hit with C&Ds (or 30-day OGL noncompliance warnings where applicable) if they were released today.

I think you are right about the above, although I think WOTC would like to kill the current OSR retroclones by competition instead of litigation. Why bother with Labyrinth Lord when D&D B/X is available? Why with OSRIC with 1e & 2e reprints (likely in pdf when it goes out of print)? What if the basic form of D&D Next is also fairly close?

Of course, some like Castles & Crusades and Adventurer-Conqueror-King System are really well done according to your focus and preferences.

I would still bother with Swords & Wizardry because OD&D is really badly written and edited. EGG freely admitted it was more like alpha/beta run, yet there are still people happily playing it.

Many are simply dying because there is so little support with adventures. 3e/PF is really the major elephant in the room with lion's share of the RPG gaming market with Paizo creating the perfect storm of support in combination with other 3PPs.

There's an important clause in the OGL, however, when dealing with other OGL products. It's that 30 day time limit to fix infringement, which means you're far more likely to receive a harshly-worded warning letter to change your infringing product than you are a court summons. I actually think the OGL is worth using for that clause alone, just to ensure you've got that additional buffer between you and legal action.

I was unaware of the above, the OGL just becomes more awesome the more you dig into it. It really is an exceptional piece of work. Thank you, Ryan Darcey and early WOTC employees.

With above in mind, if you publish as LLC and pdf only, your risk goes way down. In 30 days, you could change any pdf and wouldn't have dead tree inventory that you couldn't sell.

LazarX wrote:

Given the relatively smaller size of the gaming industry, there is absolutely no excuse not do the same legwork yourself. Any proper noun you're thinking of using, you should look it up, just to make sure TSR didn't TM it in Marvel Superheroes. :)

Unless I've *completely* misunderstood Product Identity, it isn't just the proper nouns, is it?

Richard

It is pretty much anything in your quoted definition ever published by TSR/WOTC that is not in the SRD. Interestedly, publishing under the OGL according to the letter of the law appears more restrictive than copyright law which you agree to by using the license. WOTC has shown unwillingness to follow the exact letter of their own license.

As has been shown, WOTC can be fairly inconsistent but you shouldn't bet any real money on their continuing inconsistency.

I think it all goes back to what is considered Product Identity by WOTC. If you use "Lolth" in your product, it is considered so and they have sent out cease and desist in the past.

In the case of the spell "Firewater" from 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana, I don't think this name is under copyright or trademark, however it could be considered Product Identity under the OGL even though Necromancer Games got away with considering it open in their product Eldritch Sorcery. If you try to name a monster "beholder", they will consider it Product Identity and revolve your license under OGL.

In 2006, when OSRIC was released this was the true test for OSR. Technically, "thief" and "magic-user" could be considered Product Identity from 0e, 1e, B/X, etc. WOTC should have required OSR clones to only use "rogue" or "wizard" per SRD; however, they let it go and decided to not pursue it. From this point on, the line has become blurred, in "Adventures Dark and Deep", they do not use "beholder" in the Bestiary, but it contains a spherical monster of multiple eyes on the sphere (no eyestalks) called a "sphere of many eyes" with same mechanics.

I don't think WOTC would consider "bonerattle" any more important than "firewater". However, if you change it and rewrite the description, you protect yourself from WOTC ever be able to consider it Product Identity.

Agree and think that is exactly what is happening. Products are either free or too small to be considered. My examples are stuff that shouldn't be happening but are because WOTC can be bothered. I think they are copyright violations but it is up to WOTC to try enforce it.

I guess I saying that taking an obscure spell from a now obscure product then renaming it and rewriting the description from the building blocks of open content is very unlikely to be a problem. Although you used the obscure product for inspiration, it is possible using SRD elements that you could have created it independently. Not likely, but possible.

Zarathos wrote:

There is a lot of fear of the possibility of litigation but there hasn't been any appreciable action on WOTC's part.

Tell that to Fast Forward Entertainment.

Oh, wait, you can't, they don't exist any more.

Hmm, had to look this up.

Apparently in their product, they referenced Gruumsh, Pelor, Merrshaulk and Hieroneous, Lolth, and Drawmij. Referencing proper names part of D&D IP is a big no-no.

That me restate the quoted part above:

"There is a lot of fear of the possibility of litigation but there hasn't been any appreciable action on WOTC's part that doesn't include a significant trademark or important iconic IP."

I agree, Steve. So, I looked up the d20 System Trademark License and their is nothing in there that gives special permission. The text for version 6 is easily found with Google.

It appears very fishy that WOTC just didn't enforce their own Product Identity in this instance.

I would think like the case of ToH monsters where it was required to give a line item for each monster in the legal appendix that we would see something similar.

Under the FAQ for the Open Game License, it also states that Product Identify must be clearly identified. I don't see how as written in the legal appendix that not all spells including the ones in question are not considered open content.

Also in FAQ, I read the following: "Product Identity is material, otherwise clearly identified as Open Game Content, that is excluded from the License terms that apply to Open Game Content. Product Identity usually includes trademarks and other Intellectual Property (characters, settings, etc.)"

The above may answer the question. There may simply be some cases where if there isn't a significant trademark or important iconic IP that Wizards just won't defend it as Product Identity. I guess old defunct spells from Unearthed Arcana may well fit in this category.

Zarathos wrote:

In the Necromancer product, Eldritch Sorcery this product copied the name and description of spells from 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana with little revision other adding d20 mechanics. These were spells discarded by 2e and therefore didn't make it into 3e. Why did they let it go? Probably because of the statement on the back cover "Requires the use of Dungeon and Dragons Player's Handbook, published by Wizards of the Coast" Would they be so forgiving if this book is converted to Pathfinder? Who knows? I would consider this an example of taking the OGL with regard to copyright too far.

I don't know that book, but I'd check if it was released under the d20 license (which, as i understand things, was separate and additional to the OGL) before drawing any conclusions as to precedent. It's possible that you were allowed more "access" if you operated under the additional license.

Yeah, I guess it is possible that WOTC allowed greater access in similar fashion like it did with Tome of Horrors monsters.

Yes, you are correct there is a d20 System logo. The following is in the Legal Appendix

This printing of Eldritch Sorcery is done under version 1.0a of the of the Open Game License, below, and version 6.0 of the d20 System Trademark License and version 5.0 of the d20 System Trademark Logo Guide.

However, the only thing under Product Identify relates to Necromancer Games only. I don't see how the d20 trademark and logo relate to those spells. They are included without differentiation along with the others.

The OGL has made copyright issues for the D&D game murky.

I believe the original intent of copyright was the following:

As an author, you can write a novel about vampires. However, you can't take the existing work "Salem's Lot" by Stephen King and change the title, rename the characters, and rearrange the temporal order keeping most of existing syntax and story and call it your own.

Carlos, you made excellent points.

However, my question, is the following: What changes are required to break Product Identity?

I would say the changing the name and not copying the description verbatim is sufficient except in cases that WOTC is willing to defend further that are directly related to trademark and iconic IP i.e no scimitar-welding drow with a large black cat.

Here is another example from OSRIC: As all of your know, "carrion crawler' is closed content; however WOTC has shown that the name is really the only part they are willing to defend. It is perfectly legal to have subterranean worm-like creature with eight 2ft long tentacles that paralyze their prey. The OSRIC entry is identical in mechanics to 1e AD&D Monster Manual entry. The differences in description are only very slight; in MM, "a cross between a giant green cutworm and a huge cephalopod" and in OSRIC, "the magical hybrid of a cutworm and a squid".
Finally, the name change in OSRIC using the same initials is "carcass creeper".

Here is another example and how just far you can go without the dreaded cease and desist.

There is OSR game called Adventures Dark and Deep which is a "what-if" 2e if Gary remained with the game. Game is by Joseph Bloch of BRW Games, used a KS to pay for artwork, uses print on demand. Easy to change if he actually got a cease and desist letter.

In the Bestiary which is for sale on RPGNow, there is a monster called "Demoniarch" which other the name is nearly identical in mechanics and description with artwork to the 1e AD&D Monster Manual entry "Demogorgon"

Zarathos wrote:

There is a lot of fear of the possibility of litigation but there hasn't been any appreciable action on WOTC's part. If you did cross a line, the first action would be a cease and desist letter. The OGL has really weakened the concept of copyright within D&D. At this point, avoiding the name and a rewriting the description is sufficient without worry. The most important part is really the TradeMark. "D&D, Dungeon & Dragons, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc."

Here is an example of what I would think is a blatant copyright violation but WOTC pretty much hand-waved it.

In the Necromancer product, Eldritch Sorcery this product copied the name and description of spells from 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana with little revision other adding d20 mechanics. These were spells discarded by 2e and therefore didn't make it into 3e. Why did they let it go? Probably because of the statement on the back cover "Requires the use of Dungeon and Dragons Player's Handbook, published by Wizards of the Coast" Would they be so forgiving if this book is converted to Pathfinder? Who knows? I would consider this an example of taking the OGL with regard to copyright too far.

Might be-- there are definitely things that WoTC is very protective of though-- anything Forgotten Realms, any of the monsters or spells that were in the 3.5 PH or MM that are not in the SRD, anything that gets into their novel line's characters (the real profit driver for D&D). . .

I bet if someone published a character who was a reformed CG Drow name Miz't Modrane with dual scimitars and a cat companion they would be hit hard and fast.

Absolutely and totally agree. There are certain proper names that Wizards has decided are iconic to their business.

Another example of a product that comes right up to the line is OSRIC (1e retroclone). There are few spells that don't have a direct mapping in the SRD. For example, 3e uses the skill and feat system for creation of magic items but OSRIC includes the spell enchant an item. This is name and description right out of AD&D Player's Handbook.

There is a lot of fear of the possibility of litigation but there hasn't been any appreciable action on WOTC's part. If you did cross a line, the first action would be a cease and desist letter. The OGL has really weakened the concept of copyright within D&D. At this point, avoiding the name and a rewriting the description is sufficient without worry. The most important part is really the TradeMark. "D&D, Dungeon & Dragons, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc."

Here is an example of what I would think is a blatant copyright violation but WOTC pretty much hand-waved it.

In the Necromancer product, Eldritch Sorcery this product copied the name and description of spells from 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana with little revision other adding d20 mechanics. These were spells discarded by 2e and therefore didn't make it into 3e. Why did they let it go? Probably because of the statement on the back cover "Requires the use of Dungeon and Dragons Player's Handbook, published by Wizards of the Coast" Would they be so forgiving if this book is converted to Pathfinder? Who knows? I would consider this an example of taking the OGL with regard to copyright too far.

Zarathos wrote:

stuff about which came first, the adventures or the setting

I guess I misunderstood you. I was assuming you meant published works, where adventures to tend to come well before a formalized setting book.

However, if we're going to include unpublished setting notes, then I still don't really see the difference. You talk about Gygax's setting notes on Greyhawk predating the adventures...I'd wager that Bill Webb has setting notes that predate Necromancer Games. As far as I can tell, the only real difference seems to be that the name of the setting "The Lost Lands", has only recently been decided upon.

By the way, there have been several purely setting materials released for the setting, even if at the time the name "The Lost Lands" was not used. Bard's Gate and Glades of Death, for example.

As an example, the I3-I5 Desert of Desolation series when it was first published was generic and gave little campaign info. In 1987, a compilation was published with details added for use in the Forgotten Realms. The Forgotten Realms was the perfect example of the setting first and adventures second with a few adventures redone and reimagined as above.

All of the Necromancer material is generic and written by multiple authors. The city of Bard's Gate could be in any setting at any time. Bill has some notes but they are not nearly as richly detailed as Gygax's Greyhawk. His primary campaign setting since the 70s is the Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy. That is why it is important for Greg the story guy to unify it with his imagination. Notice the detail in Slumbering Tsar. Also not only the name "Lost Lands" is new, but the complete map of the setting. As shown in Stoneheart Valley foreword, there is a simple map created as an educated guess by The Lone Goldfish during Necromancer's time. This starting map, Greg reading all of the old Necromancer material, and incorporating the new Frog God material is the true genesis of a future marketable setting.

Zarathos wrote:

What is strange is that the standard is the campaign setting is released first and then adventures support it. Necromancer and Frog God have a rich history of adventures that are tied and can be tied together but no campaign setting.

I don't know that that's really true. There was a ton of Greyhawk modules produced even before the 32-page folio came (while there was Supplement I: Greyhawk, it was a rules supplement with no setting information). The same is true of Dragonlance and the best-Forgotten Realms. Ravenloft was a generic-setting module that TSR decided to turn into it's own setting.

More recently, the Midgard setting had been going strong for years before it got a campaign setting book. And even Golarion had a bunch of APs and modules out of the gate before the 3.5 campaign setting book came out.

If anything, putting out the campaign setting first is the lesser used approach.

This is an interesting chicken-egg debate. Greyhawk existed first as Gygax's campaign world before it first saw print in 1980 (0e supplement was little more than a name). His creative period of module writing which included Hommlet, Giants series and Descent series was published first in late 70s but it wasn't created first.

Forgotten Realms was created first as replacement for Greyhawk in 1987 before any significant adventures were released. One of earliest 1e modules was N5: Under Illefarn in 1987 as a original publication and the first to carry the Forgotten Realms logo.

Dragonlance started as series of modules in 1984 that was almost a self-contained campaign setting with different feel than Greyhawk with diminished divine power. A consolidation and expansion of that material first occurred in Dragonlance Adventures in 1987. The DL series of modules practically built the campaign setting.

1e I6: Ravenloft (1983) was significantly different that the campaign setting with rule sub-system that was created in 1990 during 2e. Castle Ravenloft, Strahd, and land of Barovia were the primary points of overlap.

As to other systems created after Y2K like Golarion, I have little doubt there was detailed unpublished notes on these settings before any adventures were published.

In contrast, both the name "Lost Lands" , the map, and the organization of its lands are brand new compared to the age of the adventures preceding them. The greatest amount of background material is given in Slumbering Tsar, Stoneheart Valley, and Rappan Athuk. It will not a trivial task to bring together the disparate material from the other adventures. However, I have great confidence because of Greg's meticulous nature for consistency.

Zarathos wrote:

I know the history and it was workable when Necromancer had permissive rights to Wilderlands and the Scarred Lands, both of which are out of print with no foreseeable print future;

You might want to reconsider that statement. :)

Well, will wonders never cease! No matter how dead something appears, there is always hope of resurrection. Also, pdfs can still be obtained from DriveThruRPG. Let me edit my original statement.

I know the history and it was workable when Necromancer had permissive rights to Wilderlands and the Scarred Lands; it is now backward with Frog God Games which is why it is going to take some time to write with both clarity and consistency. Some products will not move with the setting; the excellent foreword to Stoneheart Valley gives an explanation. Even without the IP problems, the Lost Lands setting is the superior solution.

Is this a campaign setting, something similar to an adventure path, or a combination of the two?

Since no one has responded, I shall try to clarify.

Primarily, this is an adventure that is part of the Lost Lands like Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, and Razor Coast. SoA has a logo on it for the Lost Lands as the run is made for the campaign setting release. It is part of a world which at this time has a map that is sight unseen; however, each of these mega-adventures has campaign setting material in it.

What is strange is that the standard is the campaign setting is released first and then adventures support it. Necromancer and Frog God have a rich history of adventures that are tied and can be tied together but no campaign setting.

Since this is being done in reverse, Greg* is going to have the momental task of making sure everything is consistent. After the Lost Lands campaign setting release, future adventures will be written to maintain canon consistency with the setting.

It almost goes without saying this is not ideal which is why the campaign setting is written first. However, the great advantage is that is the campaign setting would have direct links and ties to the adventures themselves that other campaign settings do not have until a second revision or later.

*Somehow I guess this will accomplished as he goes to medical school. He is currently in his second year and then will be entering rotations.

Bill Webb wrote:

Ps. The free sw rules thing is more community building focused than a "reward" per se

That is exactly how I perceived it.

Same here, I rarely post here because my interests are with S&W community. However, I still consider Pathfinder community to be a kindred spirit that wish continuing growth and success. For me personally, Pathfinder is more of a mathematical exercise in tinkering.

I think of game style as a two-axis continuum which make up play for all role-playing games. One axis is the abstract-simulation and the other is gamist-narrative. Going to any extreme on any one axis and you no longer have a RPG. For example, pure gamist is a board game while pure narrative is group storytelling. Pure abstract would have no sense of realism and pure simulation would bog a game down in minute details for the sake of perceived realism. This leaves a lot of open interpretation to create multiple play styles with any given RPG ruleset.

S&W (as well TSR era D&D) is the best for personal GM play style while still open to play other styles as the opportunity presents itself.

Sounds like it is worth getting both then. Still, I want the map however I have to get it. SoA won't be out until around then either.

Although Chuck said late 2014, I personally think it is more likely to be early 2015. In any case, SoA has to be released first. If it slips for any reason, so does the campaign setting.

I really excited about the Lost Lands setting. This is really the one and prime that brings together Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar, Stoneheart Valley, Razor Coast, and Sword of Air.

I was speaking with Greg Vaughan at NTRPG Con last June. The idea is the campaign setting ties into the adventures. Greyhawk was a skeleton with no direct ties to the adventures in the product itself. However, the level of detail would never be as great as the Forgotten Realms or Golarion.

The other element is that the Lost Lands would become the official setting for Swords & Wizardry, an essential element for any fully supported RPG. This setting in combination with free rules pdf should help generate more interest for this system.

Zarathos wrote:

brvheart wrote:

Not me, the map is 90% of what I want this for!

Hmmm, that doesn't make any sense to me considering the same map is going to be in the Lost Lands campaign setting product. The adventure should be your primary reason for wanting SoA.

Unless he's not getting the Lost Land setting book.

If one has Rappan Athuk, Stoneheart Valley, Razor Coast, and Sword of Air, I find that to be an unlikely scenario; however, this is a possibility that I have overlooked.

Unless the KS starts making an average of about $2500 over the next 14 days, then it may be the only option.

The last timeline I heard was from Chuck Wright for late 2014; the only duplication would be the full map.

Not me, the map is 90% of what I want this for!

Hmmm, that doesn't make any sense to me considering the same map is going to be in the Lost Lands campaign setting product. The adventure should be your primary reason for wanting SoA.

Honestly, I would prefer that you have to go with B&W artists. I greatly prefer the art direction in Rappan Athuk ( I echo Grimmy that is the one finest dungeon crawls of all), Stoneheart Valley and the previous Necromancer works compared to Razor Coast and Paizo's work. I think SoA in color would be a disconnect from previous B&W works.

Sadly, I hoping this KS only makes about $99,000; not making the map is not too much of a disappointment because it is coming with Lost Land campaign setting anyway. The extra wilderness areas and player's guide are cool but not vital.

The most important goal beyond funding is the 400-backer goal to give S&W Complete away as a free-for-all. I am confident this will be made, without making extra accounts as Kthulhu suggested.

My opinion, color did make sense for Razor Coast and it was ok for for ToH4 but not for this.

P.S. Plus color PDF just bogs my iPad down, although I have successfully optimized Razor Coast to improve this. If it is done in color, a optimized light version like Paizo does should be in order.

Maybe send out an update to the Rappan Athuk Kickstarter (or any of the others) letting people know this is live. I will admit that I expected it to have funded by now, but may be that was just optimism.

Yep, should send an update to Rappan Athuk, Swords & Wizardry, and Razor Coast KS. Everyone who pledged in those should be made aware.

Also, maybe update the blog and place a linked banner on the FGG website. Also, send an email from Rana Reader database.

Hmmm, some advertising and marketing could actually help. However, FGG were caught by surprise on the quick approval so I am hopeful they will implement some of the above soon.

brvheart wrote:

Only one problem with that idea Feros, Blonde Frog doesn't work there anymore.

Wow! When did that happen? Just curious now.

August 25th. Now, works for Legendary Games. Maybe the main reason for the difference in Bill's announcement on August 23th and start of KS on October 1st.

Who's Haskins?

Greg Haskins, creator of Worra Realms card game (see more info, under About Us on Frog God website). I met him at the NTRPG Con 2013 and talked with him about plans to create S&W card game. He has experience with web design and has previously run a KS for Worra Realms. With Rachel gone, he will be great help in getting this Kickstarter up & running. Maybe, he will also help in redesigning the Frog God website.

I am new to this, bit it doesn't appear that I can select Lottery events either.

Then check out pdfs of classic D&D materials at http://www.dndclassics.com.

Classic D&D is the same game from 1974-1999 (0e - 2e). Each edition had ever expanding options and different organization. However, it is all easily compatible and modular with no wrong way to play. It really didn't become a different game (although still easily convertible for spells & magic items) until 3e. The major differences really come down to tone, organization, and the options presented.

As for monster replacement, most are still the same. For example, whether you playing 0e-2e, D&D B/X, D&D BECMI, the basilisk HD are 6+1, the bite is still 1d10 and the gaze reguires a save vs. petrification. Although for 0e, D&D B/X, D&B BECMI, the base AC 9 vs AC 10 for AD&D, Gygax didn't bother to adjust the AC, most ACs remain the same.

As Kthulhu said, any conversions are not that complicated. So, whatever module you have from this classic era will work and if you wish to try anything recent may I suggest any of the Swords & Wizardry material from Frog God Games.

The Mires of Mourning is an excellent adventure, I got the wonderful opportunity to run thru it with Greg at NTRPG Con in June. It was first time I have gotten to play Pathfinder at a Con. Great fun, I am looking forward to what Greg is going to have at NTRPG Con 2013.

@mach1.9pants - Under d20pro Menu Button: Downloads, the maps need to be imported. Once imported, the maps are under Library.

if there is a second printing, even if not, I think the pdf should be updated to include an appendix of player's maps made from d20pro maps. This would allow the option to export the maps into any virtual game space including Paizo's upcoming offering.

Right now, the d20pro maps are locked from export, which I understand. However, since I have a 30 inch monitor, I can screen grab it at fairly good resolution. Since I use d20pro, this isn't a problem but others (meaning future customers) may not wish to spend $30+the cost of Rappan Athuk d20pro maps.

Personally, I feel all adventures/modules in this modern age should be bundled with pdfs that include both a GM and a Player's Map. In fact for me, the usefulness of the printed copy has become greatly diminished. If I just had the RA printed copy without the pdf and d20pro maps, I don't think I could run it due to the complexity of the cartography.

While waiting for completion of d20pro maps (thank you so much for your work on this, Rachel), I am completely reworking the pdf for later printing for play. Removing the art, separating the maps, changing stat blocks, adding errata (S&W version has significantly more than the Pf version), adding art into a illustrations section like Tomb of Horrors, and renumbering the pages. The white space from the lack of art allows notes to be written during play; no one wants to write in their faux-leather hardcopy.

So, the printing copy looks good on my bookshelf and have enjoying reading it but it has limited use in actually playing my game.

D20Pro downloads are fixed for me, hopefully for the others as well.

I can see the Rappan Athuk files in d20, but there is no option for me to download. I assume it has to do with my login. I filled out the survey with my d20 login when it came through.

I e-mailed d20 about the the issue. Should I also e-mail you guys? Thanks!

I glad I not the only one that is having the same problem although it would obviously be better if it just worked. It is in the Marketplace but not linked into download for my login. I emailed Blonde Frog at kickstarter@talesofthefroggod.com.

Of course, the big FGG Hero Lab project would be the Tome of Horrors Complete. When comes it?

Most of the monsters in Tome of Horrors Complete are in the d20pfsrd Community Bestiary. It is still WIP but it looking good.

On the d20pfsrd website, it is under Extras - HeroLab Community Repository; also at this specific site.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/hero-lab

Everything arrived safe and sound. Packaging was, as usual, top notch with not dings or damage at all. I have this peculiar thing of always expecting top quality from FGG and nonetheless being pleasantly surprised by just how good the books are when I finally get them. :)

One query - although it was signed by Bill, my leather PF book didnt get a number (which is no big deal) but I'm curious as to how many were printed. Was it 30 PF and 30 S&W or 30 total? (Or something else?)

The leather PF book has a number; it isn't by Bill's signature; it is in faint ink in the corner of the cover page opposite the art. Bill used ink that was brighter when wet so it didn't work out like he hoped.

You know on the golden ticket thing; I am started to wonder if a ticket is stuffed in one of the books. If so, I wonder how many were opened without the owner turning every page. It just seems strange that only one has ever been redeemed. Of course, maybe not; it could be in the front with the signature card and there really are many out there that are still shrink-wrapped.

GoodReader is an excellent app that has worked well for me using many of the cloud services. iCloud, Dropbox, Skydrive, Box, SugarSync... I have pdfs on all of these cloud services connected to GoodReader. iCloud syncing works well with Mountain Lion on my laptop (for some reason Lion iCloud stopped working on my desktop). Under ~/Library/Mobile Documents is a folder for GoodReader, simply placing files in this folder will sync with iPad under GoodReader. The Library folder is invisible so if you don't use a utility to make it visible(or use Terminal), you have to use the Finder Go Menu and select Go to Folder ... and type in "~/Library" to locate it. Of course, you could also use iTunes as well especially if the syncing computer is Windows. For best results, use the cloud application on your computer(Mac or Windows) to upload your documents.

Personally, I have never used Safari on iPad for downloading documents. Everything goes thru my Mac first. Never ever a problem. I can download at will my many documents. Dropbox is my primary go-to service.

I decided to open mine as well; No Golden Ticket for Killer DM#1000. Dragnmoon, Shem, and myself come up with nada. I believe there were two others that got a RA Reloaded. I wonder how many Bill has got left.

I need to decide what I am going to do with this"Killer GM #993". I already own #20 opened, should I sell it sealed? Or open it to see if there is a golden ticket in it then sell the box?

How many golden tickets are left that have not been turned in?

Selfishly, I would like you to open your #993 so I can decide if I want to open #1000. Obviously, you would like me to do the same. There are still some golden tickets out there. I think "Free product for life" & "Free PDF for life" , "Attend RPG Con on Necromancer", I believe these are the ones Bill mentioned. If I could get the first one, it would be worth the entire pledge amount.

I am curious if FGG plans to incorporate the Necromancer Games product "Dead's Man Chest" into Razor Coast. This allows both a new and update of popular older product.

Hmm, just thinking that would be awesome. Either way, I am in for the Kickstarter.

@Louis

I really like this product concept; so my gut reaction is no corners will have to be cut; but that is only because of what I know about this particular third-party publisher.

If I had to choose a corner that had to be cut; I would choose D because I like old school B&W.

I am somewhat confused about this initial post since I learned the following today and posted in another thread:

This project has been raised from the dead. More news is coming by October 20th. Let me say that has been picked up a great third-party publisher and will be going into Kickstarter in December.

Razor Coast will be a full-color hardcover as a sandbox-style, mini-campaign setting and toolkit that helps GMs create a rich, age of sail flavored adventure path. It will be complete experience for both Pathfinder and unnamed ruleset.

I think all of you will be very pleased with the company that Nick is now working with on this project.

Furthermore, here is quote from my source which I won't reveal at this time in the pending press release. "This is going to be a hardcover, full color extravaganza, complete with Player's Guide and enough swag to sink any pirate ship!"

Is this a red herring to gauge initial interest before the announcement?

This project has been raised from the dead. More news is coming by October 20th. Let me say that has been picked up a great third-party publisher and will be going into Kickstarter in December.

Razor Coast will be a full-color hardcover as a sandbox-style, mini-campaign setting and toolkit that helps GMs create a rich, age of sail flavored adventure path. It will be complete experience for both Pathfinder and unnamed ruleset.

I think all of you will be very pleased with the company that Nick is now working with on this project.

This is a entertaining thread because it is so obviously stupid, kinda like watching Monty Python. I believe William Senn's analysis should close the book on this thread.

@hellacious huni, if it is a RA subscription, there is no download yet.

@Death Knight Wolfthulhu, Rappan Athuk is not in Golarion unless you put it in there; later, Frog God Games is going to release a campaign setting which includes Rappan Athuk, Tsar, & Bard's Gate i.e the NecroWorld setting.

Another workaround is to download Adobe Reader for the iPad. :)

They've updated it since the start (and it was abysmal, to say the least) and it's right on par with Good Reader at the moment.

Well, Chuck, that does indeed work! Thanks, I downloaded awhile back and didn't like it; however, it now seems to have improved.

@Dark Sasha,

I have noticed that there are several illustrations that do not display when using Preview on Mac OS X and the iPad. For example, in the S&W version, art is missing on pages 156, 391, & 404 as well as the pre-gen characters on pages 436-440.

Since I have Adobe Acrobat, I was able to create a workaround to get this art to show up on my iPad. Others with an iPad may need an updated pdf.

My two cents from the peanut gallery:

Both d20 and pre-d20 are GAMES with different rulesets with their own strengths and weaknesses. The only objective difference is the degree of rigidity with the rest coming down to subjective opinion. I will gladly and happily play in either with a creative and excellent GM and open and honest players without a munchkin, entitlement, or god complex. In the grand scheme of RPGs, it all comes down to the quality of the players, not the differences in the ruleset. Arguing about "a ruleset" as "the ruleset" is a pointless exercise that only leads to hurt feelings.

@TriOmegaZero, I didn't feel you were being hostile. No need for apology.

@Chuck, I have full confidence that you know your business, you are a vital and essential part of the layout and distribution of the final product. Let me take this opportunity to tell what a fine and excellent job you are doing.

So, I was simply thinking out loud (in print) and bemusing in a whimsical sort of way. I will wait in a relaxed and zen-like state for any additional info on this greatly anticipated product.