|
I was wondering--when STAP is done being published, are you Paizomeisters gonna spill the beans on the next AP that now never will be, or save it for possible retooling in future endeavors?
I just ask, because I have a few theories about what would've come next; where all this AP goodness was going. I just don't want to say because I have a few ideas that, if true, would be hardcore spoilerage.
Isn't Pathfinder what they were planning during the Savage Tide?
Creative Director
|
Actaully, by the time we started working on the Adventure Path after Savage Tide, I already knew that it wasn't going to be in Dungeon, and that it was going to be in some other format because our license was ending. So there's no "missing link" adventure path out there that we had to scuttle. Had we kept our license, I strongly suspect that Rise of the Runelords would have more or less remained a giant-theme adventure path of some sort.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen...yes, here it comes...a "space"-themed AP, featuring creatures the likes of which haven't shown as major figures since (I'm told) Spelljammer. Mind flayers, neogi, even giffs could make for a fascinating campaign.
Now what I'm wondering is whether Wizards are going to steal Paizos idea and come up with their own online adventure path. Of course, you could say that the adventure path idea was stolen from all those old linked modules from 1st Edition and onwards.
Of course, with everyone hating WotC (I'm fairly ambivalent) would anyone buy it/stomach it? ;-)
Yah I'm ambivalent over it, too. I actually don't understand why everyone took it so personally, and I own Dragons as far back as 62. I guess I'm not the sentimental type.
Honestly, I think the guys at Paizo are better off on their own, which I already wrote elsewhere, and I also think the world is ready for another campaign setting, especially one not done by WotC.
If WotC picks up the AP idea I would buy into if it was good, but truth be told I use Greyhawk and they aren't, it seems, very likely to put any more APs in GH.
Paizon invented AP, did they not (I'm a little late on the bus, I just returned to D&D after a 17 year absence)? Sure, there were the old AD&D module series which could even be linked loosley together, but they lacked the total unity I'm looking at here in SC. I don't have all the AoW issues but I hear it's the same...
And one day, when JJ and Mona are adjusting their colostomy bags to reach their figures with a cane handle, someone might come along and make even better APs than Paizo.
Yah I'm ambivalent over it, too. I actually don't understand why everyone took it so personally, and I own Dragons as far back as 62. I guess I'm not the sentimental type... Honestly, I think the guys at Paizo are better off on their own...
I'm with the angry crowd. IMO, Dragon & Dungeon have been taken over by the third-string team.
And Paizo, now having to stick to OGL material, is going to be somewhat limited in what they can do now (no mind flayers or Greyhawk, for instance). I have no doubt they'll continue to do a great job, but my guess is that it would be easier operating with WotC's license.
My two cents :)
Jack
Why can't they use Mind Flayers? They're just a monster. Is ther a problem with them using Bugbears or Minotaurs too?
And Paizo, now having to stick to OGL material, is going to be somewhat limited in what they can do now
Jack
Hey Jack,
I'd say exactly the opposite, and that we are no longer limited to what we can do:)
Huzzah!
Rich
Why can't they use Mind Flayers? They're just a monster. Is ther a problem with them using Bugbears or Minotaurs too?
Mind Flayers are intellectual property of WoTC. OGL material (SRD) is material that any company can use as it is considered 'open'. That is the jist of it anyways. I believe monsters like Beholders, Illithids, Yuan-ti are all IP of WoTC (mmmm . . . abbreviations)
Mind Flayers are intellectual property of WoTC. OGL material (SRD) is material that any company can use as it is considered 'open'. That is the jist of it anyways. I believe monsters like Beholders, Illithids, Yuan-ti are all IP of WoTC (mmmm . . . abbreviations)
You can use them if you call them something else. You will have to totally stat them out as you can't reference the MM for those creatures.
Like Ocular Tyrant for a beholder, and Misbegotten for a mind flayer.
j.
I was thinking like a beholder, cept it has a big nose, and a big mouth, and about 10 noses on stalks that shoot magic boogers at folk.
You could call it a smeller or something. Or a roamin' nose.Hey, Paizo,...this one's a freebee. ;)
Heath, let me be the first to thank you for inventing the Benoser. History will point to this moment as a glad day:)
Now for some variants:
Me first! Me!
Snout of the Deep.
|
Creative Director
|
Yeah... the list of monsters we can't use, since WotC has made them closed content, are as follows:
mind flayer
yuan-ti
githyanki
githzerai
carrion crawler
displacer beast
umber hulk
kuo-toa
beholder (and by extension, the gauth)
slaad
I might be forgetting one or two...
Nor can we use certain names that they've retained, like baatezu and tanar'ri and eladrin.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with that. Sure; these monsters and names are great, but there's mountains of other monsters that we can use that are just as "D@D" like the otyugh, the rust monster, the roper, the gelatinous cube, drow, and the owlbear.
I very much doubt that Pathfinder will spend any time trying to build copies of the ones we can't use, though; it's better to do something new or use something that can be used rather than obsess about the very few monsters that are now off the list.
And, of course, when you add in the fact that we can now draw upon the d20 industry as a whole for monsters, or that we'll be introducing six new monsters (at a minimum) with each volume of Pathfinder... I'm really not worried about monster shortages at all! :)
|
|
I was thinking like a beholder, cept it has a big nose, and a big mouth, and about 10 noses on stalks that shoot magic boogers at folk.
You could call it a smeller or something. Or a roamin' nose.Hey, Paizo,...this one's a freebee. ;)
Heath, let me be the first to thank you for inventing the Benoser. History will point to this moment as a glad day:)
Now for some variants:
Me first! Me!
Snout of the Deep.
Benoser! Eureka! a.k.a. "nostril tyrant."
Would the nostril tyrant have little symbiotic mutant gnomes known as Nose Miners?
The benoser would be very susceptible to a "cone of allergy" spell.
bigbys folding hankie could be useful as well.
Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
nostril tyrant:)
Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
I would totally buy into that.
You are a freelancer, so why can't you try and get WotC interested (rhetorical question: I assume you are already working on this)?
It supports their centerpiece campaign setting, it sounds cool. It might even get me to buy into Eberron.
Heck, I'll buy anything that has the name "Nicholas Logue" on it. Have never played Eberron, don't particularly like it, but I managed to convert Murder in Oakbridge to the Realms. And if this seems impossible to convert, I'll just have to buy the Eberron books. My players don't like Eberron either, but hey, I'll just find some new players.
In short. Yes.
Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
I would totally buy into that.
You are a freelancer, so why can't you try and get WotC interested (rhetorical question: I assume you are already working on this)?
It supports their centerpiece campaign setting, it sounds cool. It might even get me to buy into Eberron.
I've tried to get WotC to pick up my ideas before to no avail. Things get decided in these meetings like years in advance and only company insiders have any real say as to what will get published. Shame though, I'd love to tackle this project...alas...
I shall not surrender without a fight though! I am going to try petitioning some folks at WotC and seeing if they will let me take a swing.
Huzzah!!!
...now I feel dirty...Huzzah...ugh.
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
All sounds very good.
BTW I'd prefer the '...Long Shadows' title rather than '...Deep Shadows'.
Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
Despite my turncoat ways, that is something I would absolutely buy or play when I move back to New York.
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.All sounds very good.
BTW I'd prefer the '...Long Shadows' title rather than '...Deep Shadows'.
Thanks for the input! Helping me decide!!! :-)
Despite my turncoat ways, that is something I would absolutely buy or play when I move back to New York.Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal James!!! When do you move back to NYC...I ask cause I'll need players for my cool travel-o-larp playtest of the campaign.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal James!!! When do you move back to NYC...I ask cause I'll need players for my cool travel-o-larp playtest of the campaign.Despite my turncoat ways, that is something I would absolutely buy or play when I move back to New York.Speaking of campaigns that will never be...check out this thread I started on the Eberron boards:
Chime in and tell me what you think folks.
As you know, I'm slippery as an eel (and almost as smart!) so I'm not 100% sure. But I'm hoping that by January I'll have found a job with my recently aquired Bachelor of Fine Arts degree and some kind of apartment in the city. Regardless, I'm a train ride away from the city and this sounds cool enough to get over my fear of LARPing.
I've tried to get WotC to pick up my ideas before to no avail. Things get decided in these meetings like years in advance and only company insiders have any real say as to what will get published. Shame though, I'd love to tackle this project...alas...
I'm actually quite surprised Wizards isn't leaping at the chance to have more modules published. It seems like they're shooting themselves in their financial foot by not cranking out more adventures, (especially with Dungeon magazine becoming discontinued as a "physical" publication). Fresh ideas will broaden their fan base, and create a higher demand for their product. Restraining their rate of publication will only stifle their overall economic potential...
...whoa. I think I was just possessed by a marketing demon.
Paizon invented AP, did they not (I'm a little late on the bus, I just returned to D&D after a 17 year absence)?
For what it's worth, Wizards did the first Adventure Path that I know of. It was the series of adventures they published right after the release of 3.0 that ran from the Sunless Citadel to the Bastion of Broken Souls. It even used the name 'Adventure Path'.
Paizon invented AP, did they not (I'm a little late on the bus, I just returned to D&D after a 17 year absence)?For what it's worth, Wizards did the first Adventure Path that I know of. It was the series of adventures they published right after the release of 3.0 that ran from the Sunless Citadel to the Bastion of Broken Souls. It even used the name 'Adventure Path'.
aaaAAAAHHHHhhhhhh!
And, of course, when you add in the fact that we can now draw upon the d20 industry as a whole for monsters, or that we'll be introducing six new monsters (at a minimum) with each volume of Pathfinder... I'm really not worried about monster shortages at all! :)
I don't think monster shortages will ever be a problem, not if the huge number of monster tomes I've collected over the years says anything. I really like the idea of 6 new beasties every issue. I'd be thrilled with just one! :)
Still, when it comes to submissions, there's the potential for a whole lot of material being auto-rejected for no other reason than WotC declaring those specific creatures as closed content. With so many other creatures not being shielded under this particular weird closed content umbrella, I ask myself why these few creatures are exceptions every time this subject comes up.
Because they supposedly came from the old TSR intellect whole cloth with no independent basis in myth, folklore, literature, etc. Heck even the rust monster was based off an old propeller-tailed plastic figurine (I actually had one that came with a set of dinosaur figures when I was about six, sigh for the old days, though I don't know exactly what type of dinosaur they were trying to depict.) I guess all the SRD monsters have roots elsewhere.
I had those! I always thought that the makers of the plastic monsters looked at the Monster Manual, not the other way around.
As I remember the pack, there was a Rust Monster, a Shambling Mound, a Naga, a few different winged Demons and a couple of Men-at-Arms.Over the years, I've looked for them on eBay and found one partial set.
It's kind of strange to me that kuo-toa are on the list of nonSRD monsters but sahuagin aren't. Well, one culture of fish people should hopefully be enough for anybody.
What about the Locatha? Are they on this list too?
Locathah are OGL
Yeah... the list of monsters we can't use, since WotC has made them closed content, are as follows:
mind flayer
yuan-ti
githyanki
githzerai
carrion crawler
displacer beast
umber hulk
kuo-toa
beholder (and by extension, the gauth)
slaadI might be forgetting one or two...
Nor can we use certain names that they've retained, like baatezu and tanar'ri and eladrin.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with that. Sure; these monsters and names are great, but there's mountains of other monsters that we can use that are just as "D@D" like the otyugh, the rust monster, the roper, the gelatinous cube, drow, and the owlbear.
I very much doubt that Pathfinder will spend any time trying to build copies of the ones we can't use, though; it's better to do something new or use something that can be used rather than obsess about the very few monsters that are now off the list.
And, of course, when you add in the fact that we can now draw upon the d20 industry as a whole for monsters, or that we'll be introducing six new monsters (at a minimum) with each volume of Pathfinder... I'm really not worried about monster shortages at all! :)
Is there a place someone can get the full list?
...
Nor can we use certain names that they've retained, like baatezu and tanar'ri and eladrin....
Prefer just calling them Demons anyway...
As for Slaad, weren't there some in one of the Tome of Horror "monster manuals" put out by Sword and Sorcery? I know I saw some in either that or one of the Creature Collections. Either way, not a WoTC product.
|
Creative Director
|
...
Nor can we use certain names that they've retained, like baatezu and tanar'ri and eladrin....
Prefer just calling them Demons anyway...
As for Slaad, weren't there some in one of the Tome of Horror "monster manuals" put out by Sword and Sorcery? I know I saw some in either that or one of the Creature Collections. Either way, not a WoTC product.
The retention of these monsters as intellectual property is something that happened during the 3.5 transition, so there are certainly a lot of pre-3.5 products that do have slaadi and mind flayers and kuo-toa. Once 3.5 came around, that gravy train ran dry.
D&D doesn't suffer too badly from the loss of a few monsters. In fact, by forcing writers to use new monsters, it brings new and interesting content to the game.
James did mention in the last Greyhawk chat that, before the Paizo staff knew that Dungeon was on the chopping block, they had kicked around the notion of doing an adventure path set in a desert with genies - but this was at the GenCon right before they heard about the revocation of the license, so as he says upthread they knew Savage Tide would be the last Dungeon adventure path well before it came time to actually begin work on its successor.