D&D Encounters is great for getting new people jumped straight into the action to get them hooked on the game.
I wouldn't make it my typical game of choice, however, and there can be a lot of burnout with experienced players.
Heh, true. My wife and I were just commenting yesterday that we'd like to play a D&D 4E game where we actually get to play characters above 3rd level. =]
Heh, true. My wife and I were just commenting yesterday that we'd like to play a D&D 4E game where we actually get to play characters above 3rd level. =]D&D Encounters is great for getting new people jumped straight into the action to get them hooked on the game.
I wouldn't make it my typical game of choice, however, and there can be a lot of burnout with experienced players.
Play D&D the game days. The hour long single combats will fix that.
They had one at 7th level. It was last summer I think because I remember our group giving up because of poor air conditioning and we had already been playing for 5 hours.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think it would be a great idea for WotC to once again make PDFs of their out-of-print/older edition products available. In a perfect world, you could get them here at Paizo or other online PDF sellers, but if you had to be a DDI subscriber to pay for those PDFs, I don't think that would be all bad - assuming when you paid for the PDF the file was yours to keep and you could redownload it from WotC any time as long as you maintained your DDI subscription.
I think physical reprints of a few classic adventures like Queen of Spiders or Temple of Elemental Evil or Keep on the Borderlands would be good too and would likely sell.
Lastly, my dream product to see from WotC is a deluxe, leather cover, republishing of classic D&D in the form of the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia with a revised layout and artwork and perhaps additional content (like gnome or half-orc classes and a removeable map of Mystara). I think that should be a premium release for the 40th anniversary of D&D coming up soon.
L
Lastly, my dream product to see from WotC is a deluxe, leather cover, republishing of classic D&D in the form of the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia with a revised layout and artwork and perhaps additional content (like gnome or half-orc classes and a removeable map of Mystara). I think that should be a premium release for the 40th anniversary of D&D coming up soon.
L
If WotC could do anything to recapture me as a customer (even if only for a moment), this would be it. I wouldn't even insist on the leather cover... ;-)
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
What I got out of the miniatures announcement was that they were making a name nothing like D&D, but were going to use the minis made for D&D for the game.
Collectable cards, interlocking tiles, no dice, war bands... sounds like they a completely new and almost unrelated game to me.
What I got out of the miniatures announcement was that they were making a name nothing like D&D, but were going to use the minis made for D&D for the game.
Collectable cards, interlocking tiles, no dice, war bands... sounds like they a completely new and almost unrelated game to me.
Probably part and parcel of trying to turn D&D into a tabletop board game since Hasbro bought out WotC.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Probably part and parcel of trying to turn D&D into a tabletop board game since Hasbro bought out WotC.
I agree with this. It seems that D&D has a stigma as a RPG, but they seem to think they can overcome this stigma if only you change how people see it. Instead of tackling the stigma, they're tackling turning an RPG into a board game. Innovative, yes, but not particularly appreciative of the game's history.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think some of you may be getting confused - WotC has released boards games based on D&D, but hasn't made any attempt to turn D&D itself into a board game. Nor have I seen any indications they find D&D to have some sort of stigma as an RPG - the attempts to branch out the hobby by releasing boards games and other related content are a way to draw new customers into the RPG system, not an attempt to change the default perspective of the game.And, honestly, we've seen many similar things before. The first D&D board game was... what, over 20 years ago? And we've seen all sorts of other games based on the brand, from dice games to MMOs to CRPGs, etc. None of those involved any sort of shame over the RPG nature of the game itself. They are just ways to expand the brand and potentially bring in new gamers. Something most would consider a good thing.
There's no confusion. With the advent of 3.5 and even more so with 4e, the trend has been to make miniatures more incorporated into the core rule system. Add into this trend Dungeon Tiles, the modular room format of the delve approach to adventures and now, the D&D board games that seem to be increasingly produced by WotC, not to mention the aborted D&D/Heroscape-miniatures game and what you have is a trend toward a more board game-like system of tabletop role-playing. I'm not arguing whether this is a good or bad thing, but it does seem to be a way in which the creators of D&D are moving. The mindset behind it could be that board games are popular and in order to peel away some players from that hobby, you emulate that hobby. Or it may be that,as I stated above, board games are more culturally acceptable than RPGs have been historically.
Yes, there have always been D&D board games, but the discussion is about the aspects of D&D which are being slowly evolved into something closer to a board game set-up. The two are different topics entirely.
Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
My, you are a bundle of assumptions, aren't you? Why did you assume that I was complaining? I'm merely observing the trend. I placed no value judgement on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the trend.
There's no confusion. With the advent of 3.5 and even more so with 4e, the trend has been to make miniatures more incorporated into the core rule system. Add into this trend Dungeon Tiles, the modular room format of the delve approach to adventures and now, the D&D board games that seem to be increasingly produced by WotC, not to mention the aborted D&D/Heroscape-miniatures game and what you have is a trend toward a more board game-like system of tabletop role-playing. I'm not arguing whether this is a good or bad thing, but it does seem to be a way in which the creators of D&D are moving. The mindset behind it could be that board games are popular and in order to peel away some players from that hobby, you emulate that hobby. Or it may be that,as I stated above, board games are more culturally acceptable than RPGs have been historically.Yes, there have always been D&D board games, but the discussion is about the aspects of D&D which are being slowly evolved into something closer to a board game set-up. The two are different topics entirely.
I don't think the motivation for more tabletop elements in D&D are driven by the desire to make it more like a board game. Possibly this impacted their decision making way back when they where releasing 3rd edition because the concept was newish then and there may have been a hope that WotC could in fact get board gamers to play more D&D if they made a system that emphasized the table top miniature element.
However its pretty clear by now that this is simply not a viable option. Maybe there is a way to turn the board games into an on ramp for D&D - that idea is only now being explored but that is not the same thing as making D&D into a board game. It seems clear that the table top elements are emphasized in D&D because that is a really popular way to play RPGs.
Further you point to elements that make D&D more like a board game but ignore similar elements that seem to work in the reverse direction. The Delve format, for example, has been ended because it was felt that it was too constraining. D&D/Heroscape was in fact cancelled etc.
My, you are a bundle of assumptions, aren't you? Why did you assume that I was complaining? I'm merely observing the trend. I placed no value judgement on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the trend.Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and maybe 2e.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So, back to the actual thread topic - for the out of print books being published as PDFs, I saw someone mention that old novels are being put out electronically also. Does anyone know if the never published 5th Dark Matter book By Dust Consumed by Don Bassingthwaite is availible anywhere. If not, can anyone direct me to who or what board at Wizards.com would be the best way to request this? I know it never was printed, but it was released as a free PDF at one point, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and maybe 2e.
And you catch more intelligent responses with polite discourse than sarcasm. We'll have to agree to disagree: I don't have any significant experience with pre-3rd edition D&D to continue the debate.
|
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and 1st/2ed.
fixed!
And before you start railing about the "measurement system/range, blah, blah" in 1st or 2nd, yeah it was derived from a minis based game and that was the system they adapted to measure range and movement. All the core books from 1st/2nd ed era had little support for detailed miniature combat, board movement, etc. None really. They just like to use inches the same way they liked to use the word "level" for everything (class, spell, dungeon).
TSR didn't even support minis on the physical product side. This was a WotC generated idea to marry a strong supported minis line with the core RPG.
|
|
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and maybe 2e.
I agree with some of what you're saying, Professor, but not completely. It's true that minis have been a staple of D&D from the beginning, but the game became much more tactical in nature with 3.0/3.5/4E. It's very difficult to play without figures (or something) to identify precisely where characters are in relation to one another, especially since Attacks of Opportunity entered the picture. Of course, that has nothing to do with Hasbro.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I like minis), but back when I played AD&D we mostly just used minis to represent a marching order. We never felt as though we really needed a battle map or grid for exact placement.
Although, maybe the fact that I need minis to play the game has something to do with the fact that I have more disposable income than I did in 1977.
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and 1st/2ed.fixed!
And before you start railing about the "measurement system/range, blah, blah" in 1st or 2nd, yeah it was derived from a minis based game and that was the system they adapted to measure range and movement. All the core books from 1st/2nd ed era had little support for detailed miniature combat, board movement, etc. None really. They just like to use inches the same way they liked to use the word "level" for everything (class, spell, dungeon).
TSR didn't even support minis on the physical product side. This was a WotC generated idea to marry a strong supported minis line with the core RPG.
Go pick up your 1E DMG. You'll want to look at page 10 for, I believe the first reference to miniatures. Page 69 covers most of the elements involved in their use such as flank and rear attacks. Other elements presume their use as well, for example the flight rules and grenade like missiles. Even some of the monsters presume that mini's are in existence. If you played without them did you ever stumble into what the hell to do with the ACs of the Beholder? I mean it has different ACs depending on what part of its miniature your facing. Some of the other monsters had that as well - though the beholder is the most famous.
1E was pretty easy to play without them for sure but the presumption was they where in use.
TSR did have a vested interest in miniature lines. The DMG is very explicit that ONLY Grenadier's line of D&D miniatures are 'real' D&D miniatures. I don't think any modern company would admonish the player base in this manner on correct or incorrect fantasy supplements they should use in their home game - it'd be seen as insulting to the player base.
I listened to the full seminar.
I think they're taking a good direction, while I have not been a 4e supporter, I listened to what they said in the seminar and there were some good lessons they seem to have learned.
1. More open play-testing (including the new skirmish rules to go along with the minis.)
2. Less but higher quality products
3. Euro style Board Game - Lords of Waterdeep
(which may be the first WotC product I pick up in over 3 years)
4. Non-collectible, stock mini sets. (because in this economy random is bad.)
I have a big reaction thread on my blog.
I'm saying that the trend isn't a thing. D&D has always been minis centric save for possibly Basic and maybe 2e.I agree with some of what you're saying, Professor, but not completely. It's true that minis have been a staple of D&D from the beginning, but the game became much more tactical in nature with 3.0/3.5/4E. It's very difficult to play without figures (or something) to identify precisely where characters are in relation to one another, especially since Attacks of Opportunity entered the picture. Of course, that has nothing to do with Hasbro.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I like minis), but back when I played AD&D we mostly just used minis to represent a marching order. We never felt as though we really needed a battle map or grid for exact placement.
Although, maybe the fact that I need minis to play the game has something to do with the fact that I have more disposable income than I did in 1977.
Don't need minis, you can use a battlemat and just draaw it on there, or you can use counters, or paper minis.
I like Dresden Files use of zones. Makes combats pretty cinematic, haven't sat down and figured out a way to convert that system for PFRPG though.
|
|
Go pick up your 1E DMG. You'll want to look at page 10 for, I believe the first reference to miniatures. Page 69 covers most of the elements involved in their use such as flank and rear attacks. Other elements presume their use as well, for example the flight rules and grenade like missiles. Even some of the monsters presume that mini's are in existence. If you played without them did you ever stumble into what the hell to do with the ACs of the Beholder? I mean it has different ACs depending on what part of its miniature your facing. Some of the other monsters had that as well - though the beholder is the most famous.
LOL! Sorry, no comparison!
A few paragraphs don't compare to the multitude of minis dependent rules in 3rd and 4th edition.BTW, page 69-70 is the basic format to see how many opponents can surround a foe and attack - you could use paper and draw X's and O's or just visualize it and get the same results.
The diagram and rules on pg 69-70 =/= 3rd and 4th edition miniatures dependent rules.
The rules your referenced on pg 69-70 are standard combat rules - minis or no minis. You are taking the history of where the game came from (with some vestigial miniatures aspect from Chainmail) and comparing it to the very HARD CODED miniatures based (with visual aids provided by their miniatures line) movement and combat of 3rd edition.
This comparison is just dishonest and absurd, all for the sake of blindly defending Wotc. There is no comparison between the emphasis placed on minis between 1st and 3rd/4th.
If you have problems running a fight with a Beholder without minis I don't know what to tell you - it wasn't that hard. That argument is reminiscent to the 4e commercials depicting the difficulties of using THAC0, just a laughable false dilemma.
TSR did have a vested interest in miniature lines. The DMG is very explicit that ONLY Grenadier's line of D&D miniatures are 'real' D&D miniatures. I don't think any modern company would admonish the player base in this manner on correct or incorrect fantasy supplements they should use in their home game - it'd be seen as insulting to the player base.
I consider the GSL an open attack on companies producing 3rd edition material since that was not the "true edition". TSR did it via lawsuits, Wotc did it with the threat of being cut off from the trough (and lawsuits).
And just to be clear, I fully believe that if TSR could have come out with a collectable minis game to complement their core game they would have, I'm not painting them out to be saints. But this repeated "it was a miniatures game too!" cry is just moronic. It wasn't a miniatures dependent game, if they saw the money and if the market was there you bet your ass they would have tried to turn it into one but that doesn't change how things really were back then.
LOL! Sorry, no comparison!
A few paragraphs don't compare to the multitude of minis dependent rules in 3rd and 4th edition.BTW, page 69-70 is the basic format to see how many opponents can surround a foe and attack - you could use paper and draw X's and O's or just visualize it and get the same results.
The diagram and rules on pg 69-70 =/= 3rd and 4th edition miniatures dependent rules.The rules your referenced on pg 69-70 are standard combat rules - minis or no minis. You are taking the history of where the game came from (with some vestigial miniatures aspect from Chainmail) and comparing it to the very HARD CODED miniatures based (with visual aids provided by their miniatures line) movement and combat of 3rd edition.
This comparison is just dishonest and absurd, all for the sake of blindly defending Wotc. There is no comparison between the emphasis placed on minis between 1st and 3rd/4th.
If you have problems running a fight with a Beholder without minis I don't know what to tell you - it wasn't that hard. That argument is reminiscent to the 4e commercials depicting the difficulties of using THAC0, just a laughable false dilemma.
No I'm pointing out that 1E presumed miniatures. I was explicit that it was certianly possible to play it with out but the presumption was they where in. Compare and contrast to 2nd edition where the rules where designed with absolutely no explicit assumption of mini's until roughly Skills and Powers.
Note that to use the rules for combat one of the key elements is facing. You can't determine whether something is a flank or rear attack in 1E unless you have facing. X's and O's on graph paper are possible but only if you are clear as to which direction those X's and O's are facing.
The Beholder is possible to fight without a miniature and facing but it requires that the DM make up house rules to do it...or you have access to Dragon, there was an article in one of their issues that provided an alternate system.
Now I played 1E mostly without miniatures myself - it was pretty easy to do, just ignore the rules on page 69-70 and house rule any other cases that come up.
1E presumes miniatures. Saying that they are not nearly as necessary for play as 3rd and 4th does not negate that. Early 2nd edition, in contrast, does not presume miniatures and stays away from concepts like facing to make sure that things play well without them. Saying that 1E had nothing to do with miniatures except for a measurement system that itself had nothing to do with miniatures but was a purely a vestigial left over from chainmail is factually inaccurate. Saying it was pretty easy to play 1E without them on the other hand is perfectly true.
The one thing in 4E that jumped out at me right away regarding mini's and the battle mat was the earlier editions measured ranges and movements in actual units of measure, like feet or inches, that people could conceptualize without too much problem and included how to convert those to number of squares for use on a battle mat. 4E just has squares, and without a battle mat or something similar to refer to, something measured primarily in squares is going to be very hard to measure. Even if the base assumption is 5' squares, they still have to add all of those squares up and reach a total or have something in front of them to give them something to base their mental calculations on before they can comfortably visualize the full distance. While not a game breaker or something particularly hard to overcome, someone new to the game in 4E is going to have a harder time working without a battle mat because they aren't as likely to have that experience of thinking in terms of anything other than squares.
The one thing in 4E that jumped out at me right away regarding mini's and the battle mat was the earlier editions measured ranges and movements in actual units of measure, like feet or inches, that people could conceptualize without too much problem and included how to convert those to number of squares for use on a battle mat. 4E just has squares, and without a battle mat or something similar to refer to, something measured primarily in squares is going to be very hard to measure. Even if the base assumption is 5' squares, they still have to add all of those squares up and reach a total or have something in front of them to give them something to base their mental calculations on before they can comfortably visualize the full distance. While not a game breaker or something particularly hard to overcome, someone new to the game in 4E is going to have a harder time working without a battle mat because they aren't as likely to have that experience of thinking in terms of anything other than squares.
And the numbers were different in indoor and outdoors locations.
Just for clarity, here are the Hobby Industry estimated sales chart, from Q2 2011
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next thing you know, WotC will make it SO reliant on miniature tactics they'll change the name of the game to Chainmail...
This is a joke. I am not speculating on D&Ds future. Perhaps I am on its past... Carry on. ;)
|
|
The one thing in 4E that jumped out at me right away regarding mini's and the battle mat was the earlier editions measured ranges and movements in actual units of measure, like feet or inches, that people could conceptualize without too much problem and included how to convert those to number of squares for use on a battle mat. 4E just has squares, and without a battle mat or something similar to refer to, something measured primarily in squares is going to be very hard to measure. Even if the base assumption is 5' squares, they still have to add all of those squares up and reach a total or have something in front of them to give them something to base their mental calculations on before they can comfortably visualize the full distance. While not a game breaker or something particularly hard to overcome, someone new to the game in 4E is going to have a harder time working without a battle mat because they aren't as likely to have that experience of thinking in terms of anything other than squares.
That was actually something that they had a very good reason for. By eliminating a specific measure they made the rules more universal for folks playing in both the Imperial and Metric systems, without having to re-edit to accommodate whatever the local system of measure was.
The one thing in 4E that jumped out at me right away regarding mini's and the battle mat was the earlier editions measured ranges and movements in actual units of measure, like feet or inches, that people could conceptualize without too much problem and included how to convert those to number of squares for use on a battle mat. 4E just has squares, and without a battle mat or something similar to refer to, something measured primarily in squares is going to be very hard to measure. Even if the base assumption is 5' squares, they still have to add all of those squares up and reach a total or have something in front of them to give them something to base their mental calculations on before they can comfortably visualize the full distance. While not a game breaker or something particularly hard to overcome, someone new to the game in 4E is going to have a harder time working without a battle mat because they aren't as likely to have that experience of thinking in terms of anything other than squares.That was actually something that they had a very good reason for. By eliminating a specific measure they made the rules more universal for folks playing in both the Imperial and Metric systems, without having to re-edit to accommodate whatever the local system of measure was.
I guess that makes sense. I hadn't really thought about the battle mat as being a tool to cross cultural boundaries, but I suppose it works since most people would be using one anyway.
Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
Are you ever not snarky?
|
So, back to the actual thread topic - for the out of print books being published as PDFs, I saw someone mention that old novels are being put out electronically also. Does anyone know if the never published 5th Dark Matter book By Dust Consumed by Don Bassingthwaite is availible anywhere. If not, can anyone direct me to who or what board at Wizards.com would be the best way to request this? I know it never was printed, but it was released as a free PDF at one point, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
Let's get back to the really interesting question ;-)
Are you ever not snarky?Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
When people aren't being willfully wrong or insulting, yes :)
"4e is a boardgame and D&D has never been about minis" is both, albeit in the opposite order!
Just for clarity, here are the Hobby Industry estimated sales chart, from Q2 2011
Makes me wonder just what percentage of sales each line is getting.
Also, kinda happy that Shadowrun is on the list.
Also also, really surprised that Shadowrun sales are being beat by the Dragon Age RPG...
|
|
Are you ever not snarky?Yeah, next those dastardly wizards of the coast will decide to measure everything in inches rather then squares or feet, so that everything is connected to how tall miniatures are!
Wait no that was previous editions that literally fit your every complaint.
My bad!
When people aren't being willfully wrong or insulting, yes :)
"4e is a boardgame and D&D has never been about minis" is both, albeit in the opposite order!
FIFY
As for previous editions, it sounds like they'll do hardcopies as one of the other statements was that they're still trying to figure out how to price their PDF's.
Wait, are they simply reprinting old edition books again? Or they going to create new books for older editions? I hope it's the latter...that'd be the best news I've ever heard from WotC! :D
As for previous editions, it sounds like they'll do hardcopies as one of the other statements was that they're still trying to figure out how to price their PDF's.Wait, are they simply reprinting old edition books again? Or they going to create new books for older editions? I hope it's the latter...that'd be the best news I've ever heard from WotC! :D
Going completely on a hunch, I would doubt that they would devote any development time to creating new material for older editions. The wording is so vague in the reference anyway. If they even simply made old PDF's available again, we should count our blessings.
From a business standpoint, 4e is their baby and they should be devoting their creative efforts towards that, and all things related(board games, accesories, etc). New material for old editions just creates a domino effect of complications. Printing costs alone would be difficult to manage with so much material that gets cross-referenced. Not to mention trying to support multiple editions of the same game, at the same time, would be horrendously confusing to new customers as to "which one is just D&D?" and would spread WotC's creative department paper-thin. We'd get a lot of quantity, but the quality would likely plummet.
Older editions have a ton of material published as is. 3.x, with it's OGL, especially had countless other companies creating content for it. The usability of all that content is questionable, but it's there if you look for it. Creative DM's and players can retool any 3pp stuff to be made usable. Even better, we have Pathfinder, which gives us brand new content, and doesn't invalidate our 3.5e collections.
Completely anecdotal opinion here, but I am much happier with the direction Paizo is taking the 3.5 ruleset with Pathfinder, than WotC was towards the end of 3.5's run. The last few 3.5 books were pretty scattered and terribly unbalanced, like they were just throwing out whatever last minute content they had before the big edition change. Paizo at least has a long-term focus, rather than just throwing books at customers with no updates or follow-up.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Completely anecdotal opinion here, but I am much happier with the direction Paizo is taking the 3.5 ruleset with Pathfinder, than WotC was towards the end of 3.5's run. The last few 3.5 books were pretty scattered and terribly unbalanced, like they were just throwing out whatever last minute content they had before the big edition change. Paizo at least has a long-term focus, rather than just throwing books at customers with no updates or follow-up.
Spoiler because I'm meandering off topic...
That's why I'm not as interested unless WotC were to OGL some of their 3.x stuff in a rerelease. Why should I update/convert Closed content Changlings when I can make my own critters under the OGL that serve a similar function and put them out on Google docs to let others expand on? (ignoring that I have a hard time- SQUIRREL! a hard time staying focused).
Likewise, who needs the Duskblade? I have the Magus, the Vanguard and my own Damascarran. And I can count on 3PP to make add ons for them and expand my diversity, while I can't share a 'pathfinderized duskblade' because it's closed content. Give me OGL Warforged and I can make a google doc of Warforged stuff and point back to the original. Or, to look at it another way, compare Rite's Ironborn book (based on the OGL Ironborn Monte did) to all the expansion that's been done on the Warforged (crickets).
So, back to the actual thread topic - for the out of print books being published as PDFs, I saw someone mention that old novels are being put out electronically also. Does anyone know if the never published 5th Dark Matter book By Dust Consumed by Don Bassingthwaite is availible anywhere. If not, can anyone direct me to who or what board at Wizards.com would be the best way to request this? I know it never was printed, but it was released as a free PDF at one point, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
I also would love to find this book or have it published. I have been looking for years for it.