|
I tried to post this thread last night, but the boards collapsed around me. I even had the post saved to clipboard, but I foolishly copied over it helping a friend with a link. So, not that you care, but here we go AGAIN.
The most recent issue of Dungeon had three adventures, of which one was part of the Adventure Path, one was the conclusion to the "Shards of Eberron" campaign arc, and the third was loosely tied to a recent adventure.
I've really enjoyed the adventure paths, and I love having suggestions for how to connect one adventure in Dungeon to another. That being said, when Dungeon runs a series of related adventures, they tend to share many similiarities, such as mood, tone, style, and general area. It is quite possible that if a DM finds one adventure unsuitable, the whole campaign arc will not work for him.
So, this thread is a place to discuss "how much is too much?" In a different thread James Jacobs wrote:
Sales figures and reader feedback seems to indicate that linked adventures are very, very popular. That said, we don't want to go too overboard. You'll always have at least one stand-alone adventure in any issue of Dungeon (I hope), and we do our best to make sure that the Adventure Path and Campaign Arc adventures are self-contained enough that they can be run as stand alones. We've got a 3-part Forgotten Realms Campaign Arc running through issues #126–128, but after that, we don't have any Campaign Arcs planned (apart from the Adventure Path) for several issues. Plus... we managed to squeeze 4 adventures into #126, so you'll have 2 true stand-alones in that one.
So, this really won't be an issue for a while, but it might be good to have some discussion of this before we get to the 135 or so. I know I like some continuity, but I think I'd like more stand alone adventures than we've gotten lately.
What is the proper balance? What do you think?
I can't say I have been overly impressed with the three series arcs at this point. The Greyhawk arc was very nicely tied to the world of Greyhawk and were pretty good adventures... but I don't play Greyhawk so they didn't do much for me.
As for the poor Eberron fans out there, they just got some mediocre adventures that were designed for quick play in a tourney and didn't strike me as good adventures in themselves.
That all said, I am a big FR fan and am looking forward to the FR arc... I just wish it were for lower level play (no one is ever happy are they?).
I would say as far as balance goes, I would either have an adventure path or campaign arc going at once, but not both at the same time. The smaller arcs are great fillers in between adventure paths.
For the record I feel the Adventure Paths are the best thing to have happened to Dungeon, hands down.
Sean Mahoney
I don't like them as a rule. I prefer stand-alone.
I would prefer if there had to be an Adventure Path, that we still have at least three stand-alones each issue in addition to it.
Age of Worms is better so far than Shackled City, but it's still an awful lot of material to ask the subscribers that won't be using it to pay for.
It seems pretty simple to me; the adventure path stories, while linked, have been very easy to modify to a normal game.
The Whispering Cairn, in particular, was easy to adapt.
So I guess I would say that I like them. If yu run them in a chain, they're super, and if you don't they're easy to fit into your own campaign.
I would prefer there were more low level adventures, though, and that is my main problem with the arcs; they get progressively higher level, and sometimes less useful.
I don't like them as a rule. I prefer stand-alone.
Why do you subscribe? Seriously? All you ever do is b*!*@ about Dungeon or Dragon content and how you hate 3.x and yet... you subscribe to Paizo mags, and post on 3.x messageboards... one could get the mistaken impression that you just like the sight of your own text...
I love the linked adventures and I think they're a great idea. :) (The Istivin arc in particular has a reserved spot in my campaign sometime later this year.) Here's the giant HOWEVER that always shows up here: Mr. Jacobs is entirely on the right track with not wanting to go overboard. I would suggest no more than one arc adventure in any given issue.
The modular, "drop this into your game TONIGHT" nature of Dungeon is one of its most useful aspects to me, and that takes a big hit when the adventure that's the right level for my group in this issue, is #4 of 6 from a long arc. So, statistically, if there are three adventures per issue, and there are two "path" adventures, there's a 66% chance that a particular adventure is going to be hamstrung this way.
Having one path scenario per issue gives you the best of both worlds, IMO. The coolness of a path scenario, and the utility of stand-alones.
-The Gneech
"All you ever do is b*!*@"
If you have questions for me, post them in a way that's worth dignifying with a response.
|
|
Let's not let the thread to deteriorate into useless flaming. That wouldn't be the reason that I want the staff to come here.
Now, I like the adventure path - I think it is a great idea. I personally think having one adventure that will be linked to the next magazine each issue is enough. If we're going to see related adventures in a particular issue, I think that one would be a real good candidate for having 4 adventures total.
"All you ever do is b*!*@"
If you have questions for me, post them in a way that's worth dignifying with a response.
Yamo -
While I don't agree with Delgath's method of asking, his question is not entirely without merit. I read and post regularly here, and I don't object to people offering constructive criticism to the editors... indeed I do it myself.
Your posts, however, have become a class of their own. Unlike other critical posters, you frequently say, in essense, that the magazine needs to be 100% content useful to you all the time and that only by changing the magazine to be all adventures, all the time - will it ever meet that mark, and then only if it prints only the kind of adventures that suit your taste. Since Erik has flat out stated that the magazine cannot be financially sustainable by doing so (in a response to a letter to the editor, the issue number escapes me at the moment) I can only conclude that you would rather the magazine cease production entirely than do anything that might appeal to readers who don't 100% agree with you.
Frankly your posts are, I expect, partially to blame for an author whose column I, quite frankly thought was wonderful, making a decision to no longer write for the magazine. I am therefore no longer content to allow your posts to go unanswered. You have stated many times that only generic or greyhawk adventures are acceptable to you - but recently when an oriental setting adventure was announced you responded with a post saying only "sweet"
It seems that "setting" adventures are perfectly acceptable when it is a setting that you like. I realize it has been a long time since Dungeon featured an "Oriental Adventures" piece, indeed the frequency of these seems in line with those for psionic and epic adventures, but I can't help but wonder why that piece is acceptable and an Eberron one is not.
I realize that frequency is an issue for you - that Eberron is receiving a lot of support at present. But your "generic" and Greyhawk adventures seem to have the MOST support, so berating and attacking all other setting adventures is really frustrating to me.
James, Eric, Jeremy - you all do a wonderful job on Dungeon... I cannot express how frustrated I was that so many rude people eliminated a favorite column in the magazine so recently. Don't get me wrong... a number of the people in the Failed Wil Save thread spoke eloquently against the piece, providing reasoning and constructive criticism. But too many were rude, condescending, and downright mean, and that I have to expect was the primary drive behind Wil deciding to call it quits.
I will never suggest that you don't listen to constructive criticism, respectfully given. But when all the criticism a person gives is negative, you have to begin questioning the source. At least ASEO, for all that I often disagree with him, says nice things about the magazine on occassion too.
- Ashavan
"Your posts, however, have become a class of their own. Unlike other critical posters, you frequently say, in essense, that the magazine needs to be 100% content useful to you all the time and that only by changing the magazine to be all adventures, all the time - will it ever meet that mark, and then only if it prints only the kind of adventures that suit your taste."
Yup. That's exactly what I want.
Nobody ever said that wishes had to be modest or realistic.
I know what I like and I know what I don't, and as long as there's a place to post about it, the other posters there will know it, too.
It's all about moderation. If the editors keep things mixed, keeping roughly 3/4 of adventures generic and roughly 3/4 stand-alone, it should please the bulk of the audience.
Campaign arcs and adventure paths are great fun, but I feel 75% of Dungeon content should really be generic, stand-alone adventures. Right now the Dungeon staff seems a bit juiced up about linked adventurers (especially understandable if they are that popular) but they also seem aware of the need to mix things up. So long as the arc segments can be used stand-alone without heavy modification, I don't see the big deal.
And DeadDMWalking is right. I understand (I think) where you're all coming from, but hey, we all have our own likes & dislikes and way of stating it. (Personally I prefer the occasional curmudgeonly-sounding postings to the borderline-sycophantic ones, but that's me!) We all obviously love the mag, we just want to fine tune it in different ways.
The only problem I've seen with the campaign arcs so far, and it's not really a big deal, is that they have been for higher levels. It would be nice to see an arc for 1st-3rd level characters. There aren't many low level adventures in Dungeon but I guess that's a submission problem on it's own.
--Ray.
Good point Ray. I'd love some low level campaign arcs.
(One adventure can bring PCs up two levels, so the arc might still end at levels 5-7 or thereabouts after 3 segments, but that's fine.)
It seems that the campaign arcs intensify the campaign setting problem that Dungeon faces. If you hate adventures published for campaign X then you're really going to hate three of them in a row. I will use material from any adventure if it strikes my fancy so the campaign specific adventures are rarely a problem, but a strong theme running through a single arc can be repetitive and overly specific campaign components become useless. So I guess I prefer one shot adventures for their flexibility and new offerings. One final argument against the adventure arc from a writer's perspective is that it takes three aventure slots from freelancers in favor of industry pros, add that to the adventure path and us struggling freelancers fight it out for one (if that) adventure slot per month. But I digress, that is perhaps for a different thread.
"PS - Yamo. "Don't go changing, babe." ::best Bill Murray voice:: ;-)"
Oh, don't worry. I won't.
The way I see it, I'm here to represent one subscriber and one subscriber only. My viewpoint is mine and mine alone (except where it might coincidentally overlap with someone else's). I've never been shy about that. Every suggestion I give is meant to nudge the magazine closer to the Ideal Magazine that exists in my head (but is not guaranteed to resemble the Ideal Magazine in anyone else's head in any way). I would expect nothing less from anyone else here.
I find your posts smartly written and well worth reading.
You would.
"You would."
Yeah! Rage against that machine, dude! Raar!
Of course, with only 16 stand alone adventures, there is something of a premium on providing "conversion notes" for the non-stand alone adventures. I think Dungeon could improve the utility of _all_ adventures with a standardized sidebar that gave conversion notes to FR, GH and EB - whereever the adventure is not set, in other words.
I'm not so sure of the utility of this. The problem is that if I am trying to adapt an adventure to fit into the Forgotten Realms it might just be better if the module covers teh key elements required. That way I can stick it near Waterdeep if thats where my PCs are adventuring or alternitivly it can be in Mulhorad if that fits beast. If the conversion notes specify that the adventure is in Mulhorad then it becomes a problem if my PCs hang around Waterdeep. After all its often a long way from one end of these fantasy continents to the other. With Greyhawk fans I can see this simply being accepted. Greyhawk fans can be pretty ana...err...intense about maintaining the authenticity of that campaign world - one can see a Greyhawk DM deciding to forgo an adventure because its set in Geoff and the party is in the Great Kingdom, but I suspect that most Eberron or Forgotten Realms DMs are not so finicky on maintaing the settings Cannon. Give 'em the gist of whats required and maybe a suggestion and they'll park the adventure wherever they need it to be.
Adventure Arc No. 1 - 3 Adventures
Adventure Arc No. 2 - 3 Adventures
Adventure Path - 12 Adventures
Castle Maure Installments - 2 Adventures
Sounds great. Throw in 2 Maps of Mystery every issue, and its perfect.
If something got to go, throw out the adventure path.
Back to the topic at hand, 2 "adventure arcs" in a year of 3 adventures each strikes me as about right. Plus one "adventure path." Plus two installments of Castle Maure.
GVDammerung,
I agree with everything except the Castle Maure part. I think it would be a better idea to do only one CM level per year for another year or two, and use the other adventure "slot" for a first level adventure. That's an area that Dungeon doesn't seem to be able to do very well. It's not their fault as it's largely a submissions problem so everyone should submit their 1st level adventures!!! :)
--Ray.
Creative Director
|
I agree with everything except the Castle Maure part. I think it would be a better idea to do only one CM level per year for another year or two, and use the other adventure "slot" for a first level adventure. That's an area that Dungeon doesn't seem to be able to do very well. It's not their fault as it's largely a submissions problem so everyone should submit their 1st level adventures!!! :)
Hear hear! Send in those 1st level adventure proposals!
I think it would be a better idea to do only one CM level per year for another year or two, and use the other adventure "slot" for a first level adventure. That's an area that Dungeon doesn't seem to be able to do very well. It's not their fault as it's largely a submissions problem so everyone should submit their 1st level adventures!!! :)
--Ray.
It's funny you saying today this and James Jacobs agreeing. I was just wondering if a first level adventure might have a better chance of seeing print considering how glamorous high level adventures can be to write. They must get an eighteen wheeler full of 13th level and higher submissions.
"To Defeat Asmodeus!" An epic level quest to regain the +10 (+500 vs. enemies) spear of world cancelling!"
Hear hear! Send in those 1st level adventure proposals!
I've been working on one. ;) I'm off most of this week - maybe I'll actually get a chance to finalize it and send it in (along with my 13th level one I've been working on).
Adventure Arc No. 1 - 3 Adventures
Adventure Arc No. 2 - 3 Adventures
Adventure Path - 12 Adventures
Castle Maure Installments - 2 AdventuresSounds great. Throw in 2 Maps of Mystery every issue, and its perfect.
If something got to go, throw out the adventure path.
Every issue has a bunch o' Maps of Mystery. Pull any map from any adventure and you have a map of mystery.
I have to agree with Zherog on this one - with so many maps already in each issue, extra maps seem like a waste of space. As for the discussion at hand, I agree with Sean Mahoney that campaign arcs should only be used during "down time" between adventure paths; otherwise, up-and-coming authors begin to feel the squeeze.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I have to agree with Zherog on this one - with so many maps already in each issue, extra maps seem like a waste of space. As for the discussion at hand, I agree with Sean Mahoney that campaign arcs should only be used during "down time" between adventure paths; otherwise, up-and-coming authors begin to feel the squeeze.
A couple of observations.
1) I basically agree that Campaign Arcs, in the main, should come between Adventure Paths. I think we've had too many of them lately (although I've been generally pleased with the ones we have published so far). Like anything, it's a matter of timing, and I think we can make some improvements in this regard.
2) While I want "up and coming" authors in the magazine, my primary concern is to provide a magazine that appeals to the _readers_, not to would-be authors. If I have a choice between serving the readers with good content that will increase the circulation of the magazine or doing something that makes it easier for new writers to break into the magazine, I will err on the side of the readers every single time.
That said, they needn't be mutually exclusive.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
That seems fair.
And for the record, I really liked the Shackled City adventure path and the campaign arcs - I don't want to see them disappear or anything!
1) I basically agree that Campaign Arcs, in the main, should come between Adventure Paths. I think we've had too many of them lately (although I've been generally pleased with the ones we have published so far). Like anything, it's a matter of timing, and I think we can make some improvements in this regard.
Forgive me, but is am I assuming correct that a Campaign Arc is say the main storyline that binds say a campaign comprising of four adventures together? If so, what exactly are the adventure paths?
Additionally, for us writers out there, what is the protocol for submitting dungeons and adventures that follow on from each other?