Dragon Compendium Hardback Volume 1

[Craig Shannon]

Fairly basic question: are the articles going to be presented in a re-edited and updated for 3.5 ruleset format? If not, why not?

The reason I ask is I already own the Dragon Magazine Archive CD ROMS, so I have issued 1 to 250 covered, and I physically own copies for 251 onwards. The older DRAGON articles are of limited use, some of the FR ones are great for "fluff" but not "crunch", and some of my favorites, like Wyrms of the North, where given a third edition upgrade by Sean K Reynolds for the WOTC website anyway.

If the articles in the compendium have been given the same sort of treatment that would be great, if not I really fail to see what relevance the Hardback would have to current gaming groups.

[Yamo]

I would not buy any edited articles. As far as I'm concerned, these are historical documents of the game and any changes would be inappropriate and even wrong. Might as well paint a nose-ring onto the Mona Lisa.

At least for me, original content = automatic sale. Edited or "updated" content = automatic declined sale and concerted effort to convince fellow gamers in my social circle not to buy, as well.

[Amaril]

Yamo wrote:

I would not buy any edited articles. As far as I'm concerned, these are historical documents of the game and any changes would be inappropriate and even wrong. Might as well paint a nose-ring onto the Mona Lisa.

At least for me, original content = automatic sale. Edited or "updated" content = automatic declined sale and concerted effort to convince fellow gamers in my social circle not to buy, as well.

According to the thread below, updating the content is part of the plan, which is good in my opinion, because it makes it that much easier to use.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dragon/generalDiscussion/theDragonComp endiumHardcoverAnnounced#9550

[Yamo]

I guess you can't please everybody. I see it as profoundly disrespectful to an author to retroactively edit his work and disrespectful to the history of the game to alter these documents from their original form. The entire concept is offensive to me. If 3.5 players want more material that badly, they can buy any one of thousands of third-party D&D and d20 products. There is no need to bastardize classic Dragon content to feed that need. I won't be buying this book and I'll discourage others from doing the same in my real-life gaming circles and online.

[Sublimity]

Yamo wrote:

I guess you can't please everybody. I see it as profoundly disrespectful to an author to retroactively edit his work and disrespectful to the history of the game to alter these documents from their original form. The entire concept is offensive to me. If 3.5 players want more material that badly, they can buy any one of thousands of third-party D&D and d20 products. There is no need to bastardize classic Dragon content to feed that need. I won't be buying this book and I'll discourage others from doing the same in my real-life gaming circles and online.

Is updating the stats really to be considered bastardization? I can see where authors would get upset (and justifiably so) were Paizo to change the body of their text. . .but simply bringing a "new" product up-to-date doesn't seem like blasphemy.

I imagine that those of you who are "hard-line" for leaving the old dragon info the way it is probably have those issues on your bookshelves. What about those who don't play 2e or 1e (and who don't have the time to convert stuff) why shouldn't they get to benefit from some of the unique productions of the Dragon's trove?

If you are just looking for a rehashing of the old material, there is the Dragon cd archive, and, from the looks of it, the slowly developing *pdf archive of current issues.

I don't know that you need to do anything so drastic as to stand outside the Paizo offices picketing them or threatening a boycott. It’s a complex game, it should evolve—those old texts still exist, even if just on the shelves of collectors and players. This new book will bring back to life some of those articles and authors—giving new players a chance to see what helped bring the game to its present state.

Wizards has been updating stuff for quite a while: just take a look at the various Forgotten Realms books that have come out (and are due out soon): most of them recognize in their “dedication� sections the older articles/books that they’ve cultivated material from—is this a disservice? Why is it so terrible to make what was old relevant again? I’m looking forward to the book, and, if I knew anyone in Columbia, SC who played D&D, and, based upon my actually reading through the material (and seeing its relevance), I would probably recommend it. I certainly wouldn’t praise or malign something before I’ve read it.

[Yamo]

"What about those who don't play 2e or 1e (and who don't have the time to convert stuff) why shouldn't they get to benefit from some of the unique productions of the Dragon's trove?"

With the huge mountain of first, second and third-party D&D and d20 material available for them, I do not think their potential interest justifies altering classic Dragon content, no. Their needs are extremely well-serviced.

[Erik Mona]

We're not publishing material for out-of-print games.

Sorry.

In general, we will be reprinting stuff verbatim. On the other hand, we will also be presenting old information in new ways. For example, we might present a creature that once appeared as a monster as a playable PC race, or something.

This is not a book of straight reprints. If you want straight reprints, the Dragon CD-ROM is the way to go.

If you want a book that updates classic Dragon material and brings it into the new era of the game, the Dragon Compendium is for you.

--Erik

[Erik Mona]

Jason tells me that my last post wasn't clear enough.

It's a 3.5 book through and through.

--Erik

[Amaril]

Erik Mona wrote:

Jason tells me that my last post wasn't clear enough.

It's a 3.5 book through and through.

--Erik

Awesome! That's actually my biggest problem with older material; it takes more work and more time than I have to convert stuff over to 3e/3.5e. I don't want to reread old articles as they are; that's what back issues are for. Thanks for helping the newer gamers out, Erik! You have me sold on this product already!

[GVDammerung]

Yamo wrote:

I see it as profoundly disrespectful to an author to retroactively edit his work and disrespectful to the history of the game to alter these documents from their original form. The entire concept is offensive to me. If 3.5 players want more material that badly, they can buy any one of thousands of third-party D&D and d20 products. There is no need to bastardize classic Dragon content to feed that need. I won't be buying this book and I'll discourage others from doing the same in my real-life gaming circles and online.

Hi Yamo,

Please let me offer some basis for a "wait and see" approach.

I am engaging in speculation here but please bear with me.

If an article is not "mechanical" in terms of a particular edition's rules, then it will likely not be changed at all - for example suggestions on running a particular type of game, a "DMs advice" sort of article or "opinion piece" or any of EGGs "theory of the game" articles or Roger Moore's "demi-human point of view articles."

If an article is completely "mechanical," I doubt it will be reproduced because it is so specific to the rules interplay of a specific edition - say, for example, any of the "Player's Option" articles that once appeared with fair regularity.

This leaves at issue articles that mix the mechanical with the "fluff."

In such mixed articles, the "fluff" will not be modified as it is non-mechanical. The mechanical portions, we are told, will be "updated" to be 3.5Ed compliant. Is this a "travesty?" Maybe.

Let's look at Ed Greenwood's Nine Hells articles. They are classics of the game, long out of print with both descriptions of the Hells, the inhabitants and those inhabitants' stats. Only the stats would be "updated." If we are being even handed, nothing of the sense of the articles will be changed by a faithful "updating" of the stats. I say "faithful" and IMO this is the key. Let me illustrate.

Take the classic witch article from Dragon 114. In its time, it was highly controversial because the witch as presened kicked ass. The witch was arguably a match for or superior to the then wizard or cleric. A "faithful" updating would see the witch just as "controversial" and for the same reasons. If the "updating" is "faithful" in this way to the original concept and author's vision, I have very little to complain of. It would be something like or akin to a well-done later edition to the Cthulthu Mythos by an author other than Lovecraft.

If, however, the "updating" aims for "balance" in a 3E version of "political correctness," then, I would agree that Paizo is riffling the pockets of "deceased" articles in an unseemly fashion. The question, I suggest, is how "faithful" the update to the author's original vision and intent.

Done well, I see the "update" as a "tribute" to the author's enduring contribution to the magazine and game. Done poorly, and I'll agree with you it would be a species of "graverobbing" for a quick cash hit from the Dragon's "backlist." I hope the former is the case and I will extend Erik and Company the benefit of the doubt.

I offer to you this alternative possibility. :)

Either way, if it sells, watch for Vol. II and don't suppose Dungeon will be immune. Gotta love getting mileage from that backlist. Heh. Besides copyright is not forever if not periodically "renewed."

[Amaril]

This is just a guess, but I assume that Paizo had to get permission from the original authors to reprint and "update" their works (this assumption is based on copyright issues that followed from magazine CD-ROM archives, which require the authors' permission and payment of additional royalties). Assuming they did, is it valid for readers to criticize Paizo for updating the content and to call it "bastardizing" the authors' articles even with the authors' permission? I'm not so sure that we know whether or not the authors are the ones updating the articles either. if this is the case, would the articles still be bastardized?

It's interesting to see how readers and fans like to take ownership of work that isn't their own.

[Yamo]

"Assuming they did, is it valid for readers to criticize Paizo for updating the content and to call it 'bastardizing' the authors' articles even with the authors' permission? I'm not so sure that we know whether or not the authors are the ones updating the articles either. if this is the case, would the articles still be bastardized?"

I would say yes and yes, as I see this material primarily as historical documents of the game and the preservation of them in their original forms only as the most important thing.

To use an analogy that most nerds can appreciate: Is it important in Star Wars that Han shoots first or is it preferable to edit the old material and make Greedo do it?

[LloydBrown]

Yamo wrote:

I see it as profoundly disrespectful to an author to retroactively edit his work

As a writer, I have no problem with someone editing my work. The only time I have a problem with it is when the editor has a poor grasp of the rules.

Yamo wrote:

disrespectful to the history of the game to alter these documents from their original form

Those products are still out there in paper form. Collectors can still have those. Nothing about the history of the game is changed.

Again, from a writer's point of view, the chance to be reprinted (and therefore gain additional market presence) is awesome. It's like a car dealer saying "Hey, remember that car you bought from us four years ago? Well, just because we're trying something new, here's a rental for a week."

Yamo wrote:

If 3.5 players want more material that badly, they can buy any one of thousands of third-party D&D and d20 products

There is only one source for third-party D&D products, Kenzer & Company.

A lot of D20 product is out there. Few products match WotC products for graphic design, consistency of quality, and the shared-world experience.

Buying BAD product is not the answer to people that want more product.

[Yamo]

"Buying BAD product is not the answer to people that want more product."

Throwing the blanket description of "BAD" on the entire d20 market does not demonstrate a great understanding of what's out there right now and really undermines your argument. That might be your personal point-of-view, but it's a very narrow and not very common one.

In fact, you're correct only in that few other companies can produce art of the same calibur and quantity for their books as WotC can. When it comes to the real meat of the d20 market, the ideas expressed in the books and PDFs, it's no more or less hit-and-miss than WotC itself in that respect, in my opinion.

"Those products are still out there in paper form. Collectors can still have those. Nothing about the history of the game is changed."

Again, there's lots of old VHS copies of Star Wars out there in the hands of collectors. Is it no longer important whether Han or Greedo shoots first in the DVD edition?

[Lord Thasmudyan]

Yamo wrote:

Again, there's lots of old VHS copies of Star Wars out there in the hands of collectors. Is it no longer important whether Han or Greedo shoots first in the DVD edition?

To answer your comment Yamo. No, it doesn't matter who shot first and this is a horrible analogy. Give Paizo a little more credit. Were not talking about the Constitution of the USA. All the so called historic documents you mentioned are simply being rereleased for 3.5, for those of us that don't have a lot of the older stuff or DMs that don't have the time to convert stuff. I plan to give this book a look when it releases so i can see if I could use anything in it. Either way like I said instead of registering your complaint before said product comes out why don't you wait and see if it will be useful to you. If not no sweat, don't waste your money and you'll have no reason to be grumpy.

[GVDammerung]

LloydBrown wrote:

There is only one source for third-party D&D products, Kenzer & Company.

A lot of D20 product is out there. Few products match WotC products for graphic design, consistency of quality, and the shared-world experience.

Buying BAD product is not the answer to people that want more product.

Hi Lloyd,

Let me preface my comments in response to your post quoted above by saying that I have greatly enjoyed your work in Dragon over the years. I find the above statements, however, appalling and, in fact, wrong.

Your statement about Kenser & Company, I will imagine, derives from their ability to display the D&D logo. This hardly, however, makes your point. By the terms of the d20 license and the OGL there are directly and implicitly many, many other sources "for third-party D&D products." This is, in fact, part of the rationale behind the entire d20 license and OGL. The narrow ability to display the D&D logo or to be "official" content is irrelevant to the core of the matter. If any of your Dragon articles had been able to be published in other than the Dragon and had been so published, they would have in no way been diminished by not being in an "official" publication. The technical trees cannot obscure the practical forest.

Wotc graphic design is the industry leader.

Consistency in quality is a much more subjective statement. Malhavoc Press publications (Arcana Unearthed etc.) are not equally consistent in terms of high quality? Green Ronin? Of course they are, to judge by their success and the reviews and industry awards they have recieved. You are entitled to your opinion but it hardly bears up under close examination. Consistent quality may be found in the products of a number of other publishers, many of whom employ people who have worked for Wotc (for example Skip Williams) or have employed people who Wotc has subsequently hired away (for example Mike Mearls moving from Malhavoc to Wotc). A logo does not signify quality. You seem overly impressed by "authority," IMO.

Shared world experience? Limited or even predominantly a function of a Wotc logo? Absurd. First, D&D is the shared experience, not any one setting, and the d20 license and OGL allow this sharing as never before. Second, the most popular currently published "shared world experience" with respect to a setting is the Forgotten Realms and it pales next to the number of homebrews by Wotc's own statistics. There are also very active "shared world expreriences" available for a number of no-longer published settings - Greyhawk, Planescape, Ravenloft - to say nothing of settings from third-party publishers - Iron Kingdoms, Midnight, Conan etc.. Again, you sound overly impressed by a logo.

"BAD product?" You imply this is what you will most often recieve if you don't get a Wotc logo on your product. You are again entitled to your opinion but it not shared in the extreme by the vast majority of gamers to judge by any number of product reviews in any number of forums and by the success of any number of d20 and OGL publishers, in fact, and as recognized by industry awards.

Your post comes across like something from a caricature of a Wotc flak and displays an ignorance of the market so easily revealed as to leave me wondering if you have any great familiarity with the game in recent years.

You may need to get out more.

On a different matter, if Amaril is correct and the individual authors have consented to updating, I think that fully addresses every concern.

[RainOfSteel]

Yamo wrote:

I guess you can't please everybody. I see it as profoundly disrespectful to an author to retroactively edit his work

You should be aware the Dragon editors, all of them, edit each submitted article before printing, and so the published material is never the original material in the first place.

Retroactively altering what was already altered is hardly disrespectful.

In any event, the rights Dragon purchased to most of those articles were absolute. The material pretty much no longer belongs to the original author.

[RainOfSteel]

Amaril wrote:

This is just a guess, but I assume that Paizo had to get permission from the original authors to reprint and "update" their works (this assumption is based on copyright issues that followed from magazine CD-ROM archives, which require the authors' permission and payment of additional royalties).

No. The original authors were not consulted for permission for their articles to appear in the CD-ROM archive. It wasn't necessary for most of it. At least through the mid-250s, for articles (artwork was done differently, and I never investigated that), Dragon purchased all rights to any material that contained D&D related concepts or materials. It usually, AFAIK, purchased all rights to most everything it could.

A lot of other magazines only purchase First North American rights . . . and that's why they would require another round of permission and possibly payment if they wished to reprint.

[RainOfSteel]

I'd like to get some fan-based suggestions in.

1: The Nine Hells: Part 1 and 2, Ed Greenwood.
2: The Nine Hells: Revisited, Ed Greenwood.
3: The Making of a Milieu, Arthur Collins.
4: For King and Country.
5: Welcome to Malachi.
6: Baba Yaga's Hut (Issue 83).

That's the best of the best that comes right off the tip of my tongue. If I think of more later, I'll post more.

[Themes86]

I think at this point, all the articles would have been choosen since it is due out in October.

That being said, those are all good suggestions. I would like to see the numerous 1st edition PC and NPC character classes converted to 3.5 classes and prestige classes. The previously mentioned Witch (which was presented in several articles, not just #114), the Deathmaster, Bandit, and Bounty Hunter to mention a few.

In second edition, several new PC races were introduced. The Aspis is the first one that comes to mind, but there were several based on Star Frontier races made into usuable D&D races.

Ed Greenwood's Pages from the Mages and the Wizards three would be excellent articles to convert. Especially since the flavor text would remain the same, only the spells and magic items need to be converted.

Even some of the 3.0 edition articles would be nice to see reprinted with updated 3.5 statistics. The ecology of the Troll article comes to mind. I still can't get my mind on what would be the best damage reduction to give the suggested rock troll.

With a little research I am sure I could come up with more specific articles, I just can't remember their exact names.

RainOfSteel wrote:

I'd like to get some fan-based suggestions in.

1: The Nine Hells: Part 1 and 2, Ed Greenwood.
2: The Nine Hells: Revisited, Ed Greenwood.
3: The Making of a Milieu, Arthur Collins.
4: For King and Country.
5: Welcome to Malachi.
6: Baba Yaga's Hut (Issue 83).

That's the best of the best that comes right off the tip of my tongue. If I think of more later, I'll post more.

[RainOfSteel]

Themes86 wrote:

I think at this point, all the articles would have been choosen since it is due out in October.

Even so, I had to list them.

Themes86 wrote:

That being said, those are all good suggestions.

Thank you!

Themes86 wrote:

I would like to see the numerous 1st edition PC and NPC character classes converted to 3.5 classes and prestige classes. The previously mentioned Witch (which was presented in several articles, not just #114), the Deathmaster, Bandit, and Bounty Hunter to mention a few.

In second edition, several new PC races were introduced. The Aspis is the first one that comes to mind, but there were several based on Star Frontier races made into usuable D&D races.

I wonder how the Deathmaster would convert in 3.5?

For races and classes, I'd like to see a reprint volume dedicated to that alone, to keep it all together.

This current volumne I hope will focus on the best of the best from after Best of Dragon Vol. 5..

As there were many outstanding articles from the 70s onward, I am thinking that they'll run out of space in the first volumne rather quickly, and that is also why I'm reluctant to wish for races and classes to be included, as there won't really be a lot of room.

Personally, I am hoping it will sell-out rather quickly, leading to further volumes.

Themes86 wrote:

Ed Greenwood's Pages from the Mages and the Wizards three would be excellent articles to convert. Especially since the flavor text would remain the same, only the spells and magic items need to be converted.

I'm going to have to say this ideal does not appeal to me, personally. All that material has been reprinted in previous FR products (IIRC, in more than one FR product), and the spells appeared again in the wizard's spell-compendiums. No need to reprint them again.

I suppose the management will keep a lid on the list of articles to be reprinted . . . although for me, that information will only make me want to buy it even more.

I never bought the CD-ROMs, and I dislike PDF/electronic format. For me, this new book will be the first Dragon reprint/collection material available since Best of Dragon Vol. 5, so you can be assured I'll rush out and buy it no matter what*.

* Ok, I'm lying. If it's full of reprints of the best miniatures painting advice columns, computer game reviews, and/or fiction, I wouldn't buy it.

[RainOfSteel]

If they're going to include any Ecology articles, then I hope they would include the absolute king of kings of all Ecology articles.

Issue #78: The Ecology of the Mind Flayer, Roger Moore.

The article is not written in some ho-hum way.

It is written as a dialogue between a group of adventurers seeking information about the Mind Flayers, and a Githyanki Knight who has been given a great deal of money to give some answers.

An absolute stunner.

It remains the foundation of all my Mind Flayer ideas (and many Githyanki ideas) to this day.

[Craig Shannon]

Cool, thanks for clarifying about the update. As I am a gamer, who wants to use articles in his campaigns with a minimum of fuss and effort (due to having a career and family commitments), as opposed to a document historian, I will defenitely be buying it now :) I expect easily usable products for my money, it's this odd trait I have ;)

If I wasn't like that I'd still be refusing to upgrade my PC from Windows 3.11 so I could play some "old classics" as they were originally intended (to the point of refusing emulator software). I have little time for anachronsims, I learn from the past, I don't dwell in (or upon) it overmuch. Otherwise life's ends up going backwards.

As for referencing defacing the Mona Lisa, that doesn't wash with me. The articles were primarily written to be utilised to enhance gaming experiences, not viewed as art. That would be the primary point to the Mona Lisa's creation, regardless of what point in time it was viewed, it needs little context as it is, it's a painting. As the game is now 3.5 insisting on reproducing a book that was not updated to the new rules set would diminish it's practical use and appeal (making it irrelevant for the vast majority), and fundamentally undermine it's original purpose. The original purpose of the authors would have been to enhance current gaming groups gaming experiences, probably closely followed by making some money to buy more miniatures/books, and possibly kudos and bragging rights from their gaming group :) Of course, current is measured as where you are at now, not where you where then. I imagine most authors would be pleased that their work was being used by a new generation of gamers, and presumably some payment (again) might be involved. Unless they where daft enough to sell the IP lock, stock, and barrel back in the day when Dragon looked like it was printed on badly recycled paper :)

Go back to the software again as an example. You has some cool software that you used to use back in the day (1992 let's say). It used to run on Windows 3.11 and little else. The company that makes it announces it's releasing it again. You think this is cool, and ask whether it will run on LINUX because you've had it with Microsoft, and what updated features it will include, to then find out they are releasing it for Windows 3.11, again, and nothing else. It has an excellently informative manual about the business it is designed to enhance but you cannot run the actual software. Good "fluff" but no "crunch". Be honest, you'd think they where mental :) And they would be.

I might be being a bit hamfisted with my examples (Okay I defenitely am) but D&D has more in common as a ruleset with software than it does with classical art, that's why it has version control and the Mona Lisa doesn't (least it didn't last time I was at the Louvre, it's a lot smaller than you think too).

[Katowice]

Honestly, it's quite ridiculous to expect Paizo to publish a reprint of material for an out-of-print game that is no longer supported (D&D 1st edition and 2nd edition) and can't be used for the most current edition of the game. D&D 3.5 is the current version of this game and that's just the way it is.

If someone really wants the "historical documents" that much, go to eBay, a used bookstore or the Library of Congress and get it. I myself have about three volumes of the Best of Dragon series that TSR published. I love the fluff material, but have been hoping that the rules would somehow get updated for D&D 3.5, such as the Nine Hells articles by Ed Greenwood.

I love the idea of having this classic material now for use with 3.5 in the form of the Dragon Compendium and that Paizo is making this happen. I will probably buy it as soon as it's out.

[Yamo]

"Honestly, it's quite ridiculous to expect Paizo to publish a reprint of material for an out-of-print game that is no longer supported (D&D 1st edition and 2nd edition) and can't be used for the most current edition of the game."

Bah. It can too be used, as long as you have a shred of creativity.

[sad_genius]

of course it can, I use 1e material all the time in my campaigm, but it's still ridiculous to expect Paizo to publish stuff for a game many years out of print.

-M-

[Zaister]

Yamo, I have to wonder why you are even here. The way you view things, isn't D&D 3.5 itself a "travesty" in your eyes? Because, well, basically it is an updated reworking of "historic material".
As was D&D 3.0, or AD&D second edition, or even AD&D first edition. Countless sourcebooks and rulebooks that were published for the older games have been updated again and again to newer systems. Are those dispespectful travesties as well?

[Craig Clark]

I loved 1st edition. I probably have a total of about 20 Dragons altogether.

Would I purchase an edited Compendium with updated articles? Possibly.

Would I purchase a Compendium with old 1st edition stuff.
No.

Anyone that has went through the process of converting the old stuff knows that its impossible in some cases and very time consuming in every case. If its done well, and uses some classic articles that need revision for the new edition, I can see this being invaluable.

[Yamo]

"As was D&D 3.0, or AD&D second edition, or even AD&D first edition. Countless sourcebooks and rulebooks that were published for the older games have been updated again and again to newer systems. Are those dispespectful travesties as well?"

Bad analogy. Those books were entirely re-written. They didn't just go back and make a few changes to Gygax's original DMG manuscript when the were creating the 2nd Edition one. They started from scratch.

I am against altering the text of any previously-published D&D book or article in any way. It is disrespectful of their original creators and of their place as historical documents of the game.

[Chris Wissel - WerePlatypus]

Yamo wrote:

Bah. It can too be used, as long as you have a shred of creativity.

It's not really the creativity. . . it's the Math. How is changing an 18 THACO to a +2 Attack Bonus an issue of creativity? The creative aspects of the articles are completely untouched, aren't they?

The next generation of gamers aren't going to learn a previous edition, and then attempt to convert. I think it's very respectful to pull out some old articles and update them to a system that most people, especially younger gamers, can easily use. We are introducing them to greatness, not tarnishing its memory (whatever that means).

Incidentally, if anyone out there who wrote a 1st or 2nd edition AD&D article in Dragon who objects to having their works rewritted for 3.5, speak now. I would be interested to understand your reasoning.

(I doubt I'll get any responses. . . I can't imagine a writer being anything but FLATTERED to make it into the Dragon Compendium)

[Faraer]

You couldn't find an inherently less consumerist medium than RPGs -- they're something you do yourself, without any need for products at all. Yet somehow, driven by quick frontlist turnaround, similar trends with film/DVD and other media, we're getting this myopic RPG culture in which everything published more than a year ago is 'old', liable to be liked only by nostalgics and replaced by something newer and shinier. This would be transparently absurd applied to any other creative work, such as prose fiction, or to abstract games like chess or abstract boardgames. I also think the trend of stressing immediate short-term 'use' over in-depth creativity is very bad for the RPG culture.

The analogy of RPG systems to computer operating systems is a bogus marketing ploy to pressure 'consumers' to 'upgrade'. Operating systems take advantage of objective advances in hardware to offer, amid features which are arguably unwanted, new capabilities which weren't possible before that are of genuine use to many. To a very limited extent successive roleplaying systems can benefit from genuine innovations in design, but their changes are mostly to do with adapting to current trends and wants, reflecting the sensibilities of the designers, and selling a new set of books. Third-rate designers in the 2000s have the benefit of more games to borrow from, but experienced first-rate designers are not in a significantly better position, and to assume that recent games are better than older games is nothing more than reflex-action neophilia. In 2025, for someone inclined to think that way, a 2000 RPG is going to look just as much a dated product of its time as a 1975 RPG.

I think rules content (when there is any) is much the most trivial aspect of RPG articles, which are about the development of ideas, and their mechanical elements can be translated between rulesets much as their text can be between languages. Unfortunately, the fact that currently published D&D is a pointlessly difficult system to design for increases the value of conversions in this Dragon book because conversion is a non-trivial process.

[Scylla]

While I understand (and appreciate) Yamo's point, I think changing the crunch wouldn't hurt if the articles' flavor text is left alone.
I'm more interested in who is doing the crunching, so to speak. In the cases where the original authors know 3.5e, THEY should be doing the translating, otherwise you are getting another designer's view added to (or possible hurting) a classic article. Granted, some translations might be easy ones anyone could do.

That all being said, I'd buy a hardbook of 1e articles too -- it beats collecting & storing many different issues from e-Bay or forking out major $$ for a CD-ROM that I can't read in bed. Either way, they've got my dough!

And Faraer is right, the current system is a nightmare to design for.

[Yamo]

"While I understand (and appreciate) Yamo's point, I think changing the crunch wouldn't hurt if the articles' flavor text is left alone."

See, that's where I disagree. Take, for example, AD&D NPC classes like the Deathmaster, Duelist and Beastmaster. An NPC class is NOT A PRESTIGE CLASS! Prestige classes, first and foremost are supposed to be "balanced" with the other classes and prestige classes available to PCs. NPC classes are intended for NPCs only and are not supposed to be balanced at all! In fact, most were ridiculously powerful compared to normal PC classes and that was their whole point.

You can't translate these guys into D&D 3.x without breaking the rules framework with an unbalanced prestige class or watering them down to the point where they don't do justice to the originals at all.

So fluff and crunch are not always inseperable. Often, they are closely intertwined.

[Craig Clark]

I have only to look at Dungeon 112 Maure Castle to know that the material in any instance will be treated with respect and the original authors will almost certainly be given a chance to work on the material.

I think Mr. Mona has proven an able enough editor for much of the quibbling here to take a back seat. I certainly will give the book a thorough look. I don't presume it to be a bunch of "here is the archer...here is the archer prestige class!", but who knows until we see it?

As with everything else in life, buyer beware.

[Scylla]

"So fluff and crunch are not always inseperable. Often, they are closely intertwined."

True enough some of the time.
(Although one really wonders how many people actually used those NPCs -- complete with experience point charts -- as NPCs ... but that's another discussion.)

Don't get me wrong; I'm an old-timer and I view the old Dragon with a special reverence and I'd gladly, gladly pay for the old material just like it was. There's a host of people, myself among them, that still play 1e or 2e when the mood strikes. (And I'd read the old articles again even if I wasn't still occasionally playing, just this week I pulled a few pre-200 issues out of a 100-degree closet to do just that.)
But alas, they won't support 1e or 2e while publishing 3.5, so that's that. I'll simply have to trust in the editors, buy the book, and see.

[Razz]

Glad Yamo isn't my DM, he'd have lost a player not allowing WotC published content for the sake of keeping "dusty" material "dusty".

My players and I will be happy, Erik. We love Dragon and it's extra material it brings to our games and it's really good to see that you will be bringing back classics prior to 3E and converting them to 3.5 I am personally looking forward to the conversion of the purple, orange and yellow dragons (and I can actually use a real purple dragon for Cormyr in my FR campaign and not an extremely ancient black wyrm *lol*).

I personally allow all WotC printed material to my players. I really haven't excluded anything from my games WotC-published except for one thing: the Allied Defense feat in the Shining South book, that one needs serious fixing or omitting, actually.

Other than that, we don't use and I do not even allow 3rd party products in my games. Most of them are horrible, unbalanced, and none are WotC-supported. Plus my players and I prefer to play a very "official" game of D&D, not hundreds of 3rd party material mixed in and causing a melting pot of pure chaos. No thanks.

As for me having creativity and time to actually take these old articles and convert them, why, are you freakin' INSANE?! I live a life that barely has time to create an adventure for my players once a week, much less I actually have to sit there and try and convert perfectly from old material the stuff I want to use. And I mean perfectly because the last time I converted some things from old material, I pissed off players that were told such material was "in development" and needed "playtesting" after realizing my conversions weren't, well, up to par as opposed to a literal team of people actually being paid to do R&D on making such material as balanced and well-suited for the game as possible.

Never again did I attempt to convert anything from 2E or even 1E again.

[Yamo]

Well, you're quite the WotC fanboy. I can't say I feel the same way. Some people will only drink Coke and some people will only drink Pepsi, but it's all just sugar water to me.

You should look into more books by other publishers. There's a lot of good stuff there.

[Absinth]

I agree with Yamo. There's really good stuff by other publishers out there (like, for example, books by Malhavoc) that are as good in terms of content, quality and design as the WotC-stuff.
I won't blindly allow everything from WotC-books in my game (and this is the case with every other publisher and isn't WotC-specific). Sure, most of the stuff seems to be well thought-out and balanced, but that's not everything that needs consideration.
Some of the recent WotC-material is that far fetched and sometimes weird, that i wouldn't want to have it in my game (like, f.e., the new PC-races from the 'Races Of...'-series or the concept of touchstone-sites). Most of the recent WotC-stuff just doesn't fit into the mood and style of our campaigns.

To get back to the original topic, i realized that i'm using way more stuff from Dragon than from WotC-books in my game.
This might be related to the fact that the Dragon-stuff seems a little more generic and down to earth (sure, with some exceptions).
So i'm really looking forward to a huge delivery of Dragon-goodness.

[David Eitelbach]

RainOfSteel wrote:

You should be aware the Dragon editors, all of them, edit each submitted article before printing, and so the published material is never the original material in the first place.

Retroactively altering what was already altered is hardly disrespectful.

In any event, the rights Dragon purchased to most of those articles were absolute. The material pretty much no longer belongs to the original author.

Well said!

[LloydBrown]

Long post.

GVDammerung wrote:

Let me preface my comments in response to your post quoted above by saying that I have greatly enjoyed your work in Dragon over the years.

Thanks. I take my attaboys where I can get 'em. For the rest of this post, let me justify my existence (and credibility, to some degree) by pointing out that I was a successful retailer for over five years, before I finally sold my store to write full time. As a retailer, I was active on the Game Industry Forum and its successor, the Game Industry Network, two online message boards frequented by several hundred top retailers, nearly all distributors, and over 100 manufacturers. I also read (and still read) Comics & Games Retailer, Games Quarterly, and any news & information I can get. I’m working on two books for the industry: one about retail, and one about freelancing & publishers.

GVDammerung wrote:

Your statement about Kenser & Company, I will imagine, derives from their ability to display the D&D logo. This hardly, however, makes your point....If any of your Dragon articles had been able to be published in other than the Dragon and had been so published, they would have in no way been diminished by not being in an "official" publication. The technical trees cannot obscure the practical forest.

Based on the presence of the D&D logo, the Kenzer core books sold about 10 times as many copies as most D20 products. Generic D20 products have less legitimacy in most D&D campaigns and no validity at all in things like RPGA D&D events (more on this thought in the shared world discussion in a minute).

Look at it another way. How “legitimate” do you think Kalamar was before the 3E license? It was Kenzer’s first RPG product, released in 1994. It was intended for use with D&D, but it wasn’t D&D, just like the fantasy D20 products on the market today.

GVDammerung wrote:

Consistency in quality is a much more subjective statement.

That I certainly agree with.

GVDammerung wrote:

Malhavoc Press publications (Arcana Unearthed etc.) are not equally consistent in terms of high quality? Green Ronin? Of course they are, to judge by their success and the reviews and industry awards they have recieved.

How about Crunchy Frog Enterprises? The early Mongoose stuff? Look at the difference in graphic design between AEG's much-loved L5R material and their hop-on-the-bandwagon Evil, Mercenaries, Good, and Gods books for D20. Bastion Press--Jim Butler has a good reputation, is a former WotC designer, and I think his books are ugly. They might be well-written, but I don't know. In fact, I can probably name 200 publishers (without hyperbole) whose products sell less than 50% of the time off of a game store's shelves in any given calendar year. Or off of their own table at GenCon. With D20, you don’t know what you’re getting. WotC is so reliable that you can usually tell what color the book will be by the title.

GVDammerung wrote:

Shared world experience? Limited or even predominantly a function of a Wotc logo? Absurd. First, D&D is the shared experience, not any one setting, and the d20 license and OGL allow this sharing as never before.

You’re apparently not familiar with the concept; it’s a specific RPG term, not something I just made up. Allow me to demonstrate. Familiar with the Keep on the Borderlands? Of course. Am I? Yes. Is Eric? I’m sure. If we meet up at the Dungeon booth at GenCon and talk about the Keep, the others all nod their head. We know about the ogre in area E and the bag of coins the goblins keep behind the barrel. That’s the shared world experience at work.

Now for the flip side. How about Akrasia, Thief of Time, by Eden Studios? Dungeon Crawl Classics #7, by Goodman Games? Horses, by Avalanche Press? Not everybody here can chime in on those. Official D&D products, with their far greater circulation, are experiences that many D&D players share. I can assure you that no product with a print run of 2,000 (of which 900 are still in a warehouse, unsold) has been shared by a majority of D&D players.

Many players assume that they are typical of gamers, and that their buying habits represent the majority of players. Naturally, many of those people are wrong in one respect or another. *Most* D&D players stick with core D&D products. I have seen thousands (again, literally) of D&D players and examined their purchasing patterns first-hand. Those that branch out into D20 primarily buy general utilities (I’ve sold cases of Green Ronin’s Character Sheets) or licensed products with IPs they recognize—DragonLance, Ravenloft, etc.

GVDammerung wrote:

displays an ignorance of the market so easily revealed as to leave me wondering if you have any great familiarity with the game in recent years

And we started off so politely! In all honesty, there are a few people in the industry with a greater general understanding of RPGs, their sales trends, their buyers, and the numbers in which they appear in the market. I think I communicate with all of them on a regular basis. If you have *evidence* to back up your statements, rather than general impressions and anecdotes, please share it. I’m always eager to learn.

[Rexx]

I apologise if this has been touched upon already:

I look at this product and admit that I'm somewhat interested in it. The material that would lift the $$$ out of my account quicker than Arizona Cardinals Super Bowl tickets (yeah, snowflakes in Baator and all that), is seeing the alignment knights from Dragon 106 appear. Illriggers, garaths, paramanders, lyons, etc. I had a whole culture of my homebrew based on these alignment knights and it would be wonderful to see them treated once more (as a Prestige Class I'd expect). Any hope?

[Absinth]

Will we see a table of content posted before the release?
I guess most readers will decide on buying it or not after they got to know what's actually in there.
I'd go for it as long as most of the content is 2nd edition-stuff because i have no interest in converted 3.0-aricles.
Sure, there were good ones, but i don't think that it's that difficult to convert them yourself...

[shadzar]

if they own full rights to the articles then its theirs to do with whatever they want. so if they want more people to have access to older articles in a the new format for the roll-playing game of D&D 3.x/d20 system let them. it will not deter from the older versions that are role-playing games.