|
What's the best way to assign Layer Numbers to the Abyssal Lords of Golarion in our Homegames?
I agree that Paizo can't really number their Abyssal Layers the way they've been done in the past -- on #1, on 597, etc., but it would be nice to have a general guideline on how to decide where , the jungle realm of is in the Abyss in relationship to, say, The 88th Layer which belongs to . Or to have some principal to follow on where we might, in our Homegames, put , "one of the deepest known anchor realms, said to be the den of the... Qlippoth."
|
After the first layer, I generally think of numbers as being for reference only. For me, the Abyss isn't a linear ladder with a top and a bottom. It is a multi-dimensional maelstorm with planes constantly shifting and stretching. This seems to me to fit with the chaotic nature of the Abyss; an orderly ladder of planes is too lawful.
Any layer might connect to any other layer via gates and portals, although the most stable are always to the 1st layer, which is why it acts as a gateway to the Abyss. And some gateways might be open for a while and then close for a while, depending on if the two layers are "close" or "far." What we, two-maybe-three-dimensional-thinkers, think of as "deep" might be better thought of as "remote." Places where the REALLY strange demons and Qlippoth reside are more remote, farther from the hub, less connected to the other layers, but not "under" another layer.
I really like the way Eberron handled the planar structure, like an orrery or a solar system, with some planes getting closer in ascension and having more affect on the world, and others waning and having less impact. Demongorgon's layer might be receding now as his influence on the multiverse wanes, but who knows (given the chaotic nature of the Abyss) when it will draw again near to the Prime.
Anyway, sorry, that probably doesn't contribute to your question one bit as far as creating a systematic way of assigning layers to demonlords. But for me, there probably shouldn't be anything systematic about the Abyss.
What Mosaic said. After layer #1 Pazunia, the classic AD&D Abyss wasn't a linear ladder of layers one after another: the numbering was wholly arbitrary. In 2e (and I think referenced in 3e as well) the numbering scheme was explained as being not one of spatial or even metaphysical relationships, but the order in which the layers were discovered/explored/cataloged by the Fraternity of Order.
Golarion's Abyssal layers are likewise devoid of order, since the connections between each of those layers and the presence of any openings into the Maelstrom changes.
That said, it's a damn fine question of how to describe them and give some sense of relative 'how hard is it to go from this layer to others' or 'how often do these layers connect and does it have a tendency to gravitate towards specific others'.
This is a James question :D
|
|
The layers were discovered/explored/cataloged by the Fraternity of Order.
I remember when that first came out and immediately recognizing it as a stupid blunder. NO WAY the Layers are numbered according to when mortals (or whoever) discovered them.
Obox Ob is in 663 but there's only about 150 known Layers 1 through 663?!B.S.
It was a stupid publishing blunder when it was first published and sounds ever more ridiculous every time I hear it.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The layers were discovered/explored/cataloged by the Fraternity of Order.I remember when that first came out and immediately recognizing it as a stupid blunder. NO WAY the Layers are numbered according to when mortals (or whoever) discovered them.
Obox Ob is in 663 but there's only about 150 known Layers 1 through 663?!
B.S.
It was a stupid publishing blunder when it was first published and sounds ever more ridiculous every time I hear it.
There's 666 layers of the Abyss because 666 is a spooky number. And while D&D's been doing Abyss stuff for decades, the reason no one ever listed ALL of the layers of the Abyss is because we wanted to leave lots of them open for further exploration, either by GMs in their home games, or by professional game designers working on the setting.
I'm not a huge fan of the concept that the 666 layers of the Abyss were "discovered/explored/cataloged" by the Fraternity of Order at all, in any event, because I think that VASTLY marginalizes and de-mystifies the Abyss. Some of those layers are hideously dangerous... some are so dangerous that people who blunder into them die or worse at once unless they're super high level. In my mind, folks know there's 666 layers of the Abyss because of primeval legend and ancient texts left behind by pre-mortal scholars or mysterious unknowns... NOT because some group of guys went down there and made a catalog.
I'm a big fan of Planescape... but one of the things that's ALWAYS annoyed me about the setting was how they "wasted" high level stuff like this by marginalizing it and de-clawing the mystery. Having things like pit fiends or other powerful outsiders simply walking around in Sigil or showing up as NPCs you can interact with all the time in low level adventures is another way of "wasting" high level content. Frustrating.
In any event, back to the original question...
We deliberately avoid a numbering scheme of the realms of the Abyss in Pathfinder's Great Beyond, in any case. We don't even call them "layers" really... they're realms.
|
Creative Director
|
There's 666 layers of the Abyss because 666 is a spooky number.Allow me to be a neigh sayer.
Why would the formless, infinite expanse of the Abyss be limited to arbitrary hard-set rules like having 666 layers?
That and I always associate 666 numerology with devils because of the background for the number and the themes and names of D&D's devils, with only the 1e use of 666 layers to the Abyss linking demons to it.
The Abyss isn't formless and infinite. That's something that Planescape really started to push... Planescape ALSO started pushing the fact that there's more than 666 layers of the Abyss, and I find that kind of lame as well.
30+ years of development of the Abyss hasn't even come CLOSE to filling up all 666 layers. There's enough to last.
There's 666 layers of the Abyss because 666 is a spooky number.Allow me to be a neigh sayer.
Why would the formless, infinite expanse of the Abyss be limited to arbitrary hard-set rules like having 666 layers?
That and I always associate 666 numerology with devils because of the background for the number and the themes and names of D&D's devils, with only the 1e use of 666 layers to the Abyss linking demons to it.
The Abyss isn't formless and infinite. That's something that Planescape really started to push... Planescape ALSO started pushing the fact that there's more than 666 layers of the Abyss, and I find that kind of lame as well.
30+ years of development of the Abyss hasn't even come CLOSE to filling up all 666 layers. There's enough to last.
It's my contention that "666 layers" is nothing more than abyssal marketing.
The abyss looks like a shell around the outer planes. As one ventures further down/far, weirder things like qlippoth are encountered. What happens if someone gets to the "bottom" and emerges on the "other side"? Would they be outside the multiverse? Is the abyss an eggshell containing all the planes?
Abyssal exploration sounds like a great epic level plot hook.
|
One of the things that I dislike about the official Pathfinder setting is that the overwhelming majority of the planes are finite, and that you can technically travel to another plane of existence simply by traveling an (admittedly vast) distance through mundane means. My personal Abyss would have infinite layers...and some of those would be infinite in size.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
666 action-packed layers! Completely destructible terrain! Thousands of distinct enemy types!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I've grasped on to in the last 48 hours of working on The Abyss -- for those who like infinity -- is the idea of Demi-Planes associated with an individual Layer, making it potentially FAR bigger.
The idea hit with two Pathfinder cases. The first is The Sea of Whispering Sands & its Demon Lady, Aldinach, in conjunction with her arch nemesis, Ereshkigal and her Abyssal Realm, Blood Clefts. In the Pathfinder cosmology, Aldinach usurps The Sea of Whispering Sands from Ereshkigal but Ereshkigal's consort, Nurgal, remains in the Sands. I decided to make Blood Clefts and The Sea of Whispering Sands adjacent Abyssal Layers and have Nurgal's "part"(?) become an associated Demi-Plane, still part of Sands but also connecting somehow with a whole-other Layer, Blood Clefts.... And the wars these two Demon Ladies can fight with Nurgal stuck in the middle is atrociously good.
The second case is of Orcus. Paizo can't call his Layer Thanatos and I'm not gonna stop calling it Thanatos cuz it IS Thanatos. But that leaves Uligos, a Realm that Paizo can develop further, out of luck. Orcus is waaay cool enough in D&D history to rule two Layers -- but I love the idea that only Graz'zt has more than one Layer with his Azzagrat. So I made Uligos a Demi-Layer of Thanatos. Now Thanatos can remain itself and Uligos is free to be filled in without any contradiction to D&D canon in my Homebrew.
There are others, too, though I don't like them so much. Kostchtchie rules the 23rd Layer, The Iron Wastes. I don't think he's cool like Orcus to get a Demi-Layer so Jhuvumirak will likely just be a fortress or something in The Iron Wastes.
That's pretty much what I'm doing with Kurmugia because Torremor is TORREMOR dagnabbit. Same goes with Darklight and The Midnight Isles; Darklight can be Nocticula's Tower on one of the Isles. (Similar can be done with the Abysssal Realms/ Layers of Abraxas, Haagenti and Socothbenoth.)
Why can't they call it "Thanatos"? As far as I know you cannot copyright that word for the same reason that you can't copyright "Orcus", "Pluto" or "Hades". (I suppose you could copyright calling a layer of the Abyss "Thanatos" if you really wanted to, though. Might have answered my own question.)
|
Creative Director
|
Why can't they call it "Thanatos"? As far as I know you cannot copyright that word for the same reason that you can't copyright "Orcus", "Pluto" or "Hades". (I suppose you could copyright calling a layer of the Abyss "Thanatos" if you really wanted to, though. Might have answered my own question.)
If we wanted to, we probably could. We couldn't make it look and feel like WotC's Thanatos, though, so what would be the point?
Why can't they call it "Thanatos"? As far as I know you cannot copyright that word for the same reason that you can't copyright "Orcus", "Pluto" or "Hades". (I suppose you could copyright calling a layer of the Abyss "Thanatos" if you really wanted to, though. Might have answered my own question.)
Theres nothing stoping them from calling it Thanatos. But they seem to have a fairly clear policity of not Duplicating stuff that Is very obviously derived directly from Wotc IP. So while they could get away with it i dont blame them for not doing it.
Another case example is Fraz l Bur ( i think i spelled his name wrong) Hes from real world mythology and for that makes it suitable for him to be used by Paizo but in Gamer terms hes really strongly associated with Greyhawk.
anyhow i think its a good policy over all that sees to ahve worked.
I understand "won't", it was the "can't" that hung me up. <grin>
|
Creative Director
|
Another case example is Fraz l Bur ( i think i spelled his name wrong) Hes from real world mythology and for that makes it suitable for him to be used by Paizo but in Gamer terms hes really strongly associated with Greyhawk.
If you're thinking of Fraz-Urb'luu, he's actually NOT from real-world mythology. He was, as far as I can tell, created by Gygax for Greyhawk. That said, Fraz-Urb'luu showed up in the Tome of Horrors and so we COULD use him if we wanted... he's open content.
We chose not to use him because he is SO tied into Greyhawk's mythos that we didn't want to poach him. He's cooler, in my opinion, the more he stays in Greyhawk and the less he shows up elsewhere.
|
|
It's a realistic "can't" because, were Paizo to do "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" they would not be allowed to make it the "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" we know and have been gaming with for decades.
"Thanatos" can not be owned. "Thanatos" as The-113th-Layer-of-the-Abyss-ruled-by-Demon-Lord-Orcus-with-'This-That-and- the-Other'-feature" is WotC's IP.
The better example, obviously, is Demogorgon. Paizo can't realistically publish much more than the name because they can NOT make him a two-baboon-headed, octopus-armed, chicken-legged gigantic monster. Cuz WotC owns that. They'd have to make him completely different and no one, especially Jacobs & the other Paizo designers (apologies for speaking for you), would want that, or even allow it.
It's a realistic "can't" because, were Paizo to do "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" they would not be allowed to make it the "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" we know and have been gaming with for decades.
Tiamat is someway already there, although little detail is given (as far as I know). But I appreciate that so far it is not the old dull Tiamat of D&D.
For the others, as well, if they are ever to be made, I hope they aren't the ones we know.Where there is room for fresh wind, may it refresh and rejuvenate all.
|
Creative Director
|
It's a realistic "can't" because, were Paizo to do "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" they would not be allowed to make it the "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" we know and have been gaming with for decades.Tiamat is someway already there, although little detail is given (as far as I know). But I appreciate that so far it is not the old dull Tiamat of D&D.
For the others, as well, if they are ever to be made, I hope they aren't the ones we know.
Where there is room for fresh wind, may it refresh and rejuvenate all.
We won't be remaking them. And we won't be saying much more about Tiamat either (I kind of wish we'd never said anything in the first place). Turns out, I actually really REALLY like how D&D handled things like Tiamat, Demogorgon, and Thanatos, and I don't WANT to replace them. Since I can't expand upon them as they exist in the game, I'd rather leave them alone and do other things. That way, I don't force the official Tiamat or Demogorgon of Golarion into being different things—home games (including my own) can use those creatures and locations without fear of feeling weird about it.
|
We won't be remaking them. And we won't be saying much more about Tiamat either (I kind of wish we'd never said anything in the first place). Turns out, I actually really REALLY like how D&D handled things like Tiamat, Demogorgon, and Thanatos, and I don't WANT to replace them. Since I can't expand upon them as they exist in the game, I'd rather leave them alone and do other things. That way, I don't force the official Tiamat or Demogorgon of Golarion into being different things—home games (including my own) can use those creatures and locations without fear of feeling weird about it.It's a realistic "can't" because, were Paizo to do "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" they would not be allowed to make it the "Thanatos" or "Demogorgon" or "Tiamat" we know and have been gaming with for decades.Tiamat is someway already there, although little detail is given (as far as I know). But I appreciate that so far it is not the old dull Tiamat of D&D.
For the others, as well, if they are ever to be made, I hope they aren't the ones we know.
Where there is room for fresh wind, may it refresh and rejuvenate all.
Names in a book should be enough to give GMS and players an idea of what to do with certain mythical entities. Either players can use what has gone before and adapt that to their home games, or come up with something new. Anything can be allowed in a home game. (There are some rough Golarion equivalents for some entities, but this can be seen as more competition to keep Orcus and others on their toes. I seem to recall a demon lord of vermin that might work well if someone wants to have traditional drow -- along with those dedicated to other demon lords and princes.)
The better example, obviously, is Demogorgon. Paizo can't realistically publish much more than the name because they can NOT make him a two-baboon-headed, octopus-armed, chicken-legged gigantic monster.
Those are actually mandrill heads.
|
|
. . . . Oh, holy crap, Jon, you're right; I'm wrong -- THAT's Demogorgon!
Thanks, man!
I stand corrected.
(Mandrill, heh, learned something new)
.
.
.
EDIT: Checked my 1977 Monster Manual where the illustration looks more baboonish and the description says, "visages of evil baboons or perhaps mandrills with the hideous coloration of the latter."
Certainly the cover of Dungeon 150 is of mandrill faces.
Oh noes the images!
... I actually thought that looked cool... *shifty eyes* Seriously goofed yes, but ignoring tradition it was kinda cool looking.
I also liked the art order error that led to nycaloths getting 4 arms in 3e.
It's interesting...
Like many Paizo staff, I believe in honoring previous traditions of D&D, and all the cool stuff that has come before. I don't believe in just junking all of that stuff.
But I think it is entirely possible to come up with new ideas, creatures, and villains that will also stand the test of time.
Granted, I missed a lot of 3.5, but I've used and enjoyed a lot of Golarion baddies a lot more than I have used the likes of Demogorgon and Orcus.
I think what leaves a lasting impression is whether the material gets used or not. Of course, I'll always remember some of the cool Monster Manual illustrations, but after time the nostalgia becomes just that, nostalgia... moving aside for new memories.
|
|
IOf course, I'll always remember some of the cool Monster Manual illustrations, but after time the nostalgia becomes just that, nostalgia... moving aside for new memories.
Remember the drawing of supposedly "real" creatures like dogmen from our own history. Just 'cause some sage drew Demogorgon as a baboon-headed, tentacl-armed menace does not mean it actually looks like that. I'd like to see the day when Golarion is old/mature enough to have false legends and untrue fairy tales. Not every monster in the world needs to be "real" and people can believe in boogeymen even in a fantasy world. Lots of old D&D cannon can serve this function.
|
|
Lots of old D&D cannon can serve this ("false legends and untrue fairy tales") function.
The reason this can't work is that for every one gamer who would like that kind of "new evidence found about Demogorgon (for example) -- rewrite the textbooks" function, there's one-hundred-thirty-four gamers who have already played campaigns where Demogorgon's cult, Demogorgon's Aspect, and/or Demogorgon itself have been encountered. And for those groups Demogorgon IS as has always been described. (because, Hello, we fought him)
You can't flush down the toilet what 3.4 billion gamers have been using just cuz a few hundred gamers might think it's cool.
On the other hand, there's a handful of things that don't have anything more than generic, banal background noise, so Paizo can do a complete redo and, instead of infuriating EVERYONE, they'll actually make everyone happy. See "Pathfinder Goblin."
Of course, there's a risk with doing this. It's a fine line between what is a generic, bland element and a beloved staple of the game. See "Pathfinder Drow." I've met a handful of gamers who really hate what Paizo did there. One of whom, believe it or not, refuses to buy anything else from Paizo and even switched to the WotC game for a while before coming back to D&D (with just a Core book).
I agree with WE Ray in principal. Part of what I was saying is that 3.4 billion gamers are happy with the way things are, let's not ask them to part with their cherished memories of young adulthood..
That being said, I don't think the well is dry just yet, and we can make up new stuff that we'll cherish in our nursing homes.
(...)
That being said, I'm starting to understand why all my friends looked at me as if I was crazy when I said I volunteered to write the drow for the Advanced Race Guide. :|
'Future Uncertain' indeed!
|
|
LOL!
(Stay away from that one, Jim!)
Certainly the well is not dry -- I took what Paizo did with the drow, for example, and applied it to Derro, an awesome race that (to me) has always needed some cool design to replace the banal background noise of its race.
I LOVE the idea of the occassional evil, vile Gnome spontaneously transforming into a Derro.
(And hate the idea of the occassional evil, vile elf spontaneously transforming into a Drow)
LOL!
(Stay away from that one, Jim!)
It's much too late. Months too late in fact. :)
It's not my place to discuss ARG any further, but to manage expectations, I did not divert from Paizo's interpretation of the drow (similarly, it was not my place to do so).
BUT.. I am glad you found some cool ideas to apply to the derro! Ultimately that is what we're supposed to do, provide you with ideas. If some ideas work well in one respect, but not another, you're smart to take what you want and leave the rest behind!
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
In my opinion there is very little point to mourning a "Paizo" version of classic D&D Abyss elements. Via our time on the magazines and our work on Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss, James and I wrote hundreds of thousands of words on the subjects. Want to know what a "Paizo" version of Thanatos would be like? Read its section in Hordes of the Abyss, which was written by Paizo's publisher. Want to know what we'd do with Demogorgon? Check out the Savage Tide Adventure Path or James's Demonomicon articles in Dragon.
From time to time I get a little sad that we'll never be able to do a really awesome beholder adventure, or to detail elements of the secret history of the illithids. But it's hard to have regrets about the Abyss. Our treatment of that is as exhaustive as something can be given that the subject matter is theoretically infinite...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a really interesting discussion of Demogorgon as a Demiurge figure here.
And here is a picture entitled "Demogorgon in the Cave of Eternity" (not exactly sanity-blasting demonic horror, btw).
Completely of-topic, this pic by the same artist (Goltzius, a Mannerist, late 16th c.) is fun in a creepy way.
Oh, and here's a picture of the Palace of Demogorgon from an opera based on Orlando Furioso! Um. Heh. Well, he's king of the Fairies in that one.
:)
|
Creative Director
|
In my opinion there is very little point to mourning a "Paizo" version of classic D&D Abyss elements. Via our time on the magazines and our work on Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss, James and I wrote hundreds of thousands of words on the subjects. Want to know what a "Paizo" version of Thanatos would be like? Read its section in Hordes of the Abyss, which was written by Paizo's publisher. Want to know what we'd do with Demogorgon? Check out the Savage Tide Adventure Path or James's Demonomicon articles in Dragon.
From time to time I get a little sad that we'll never be able to do a really awesome beholder adventure, or to detail elements of the secret history of the illithids. But it's hard to have regrets about the Abyss. Our treatment of that is as exhaustive as something can be given that the subject matter is theoretically infinite...
True enough. And in fact, for me, that goes for beholders as well, since I got to write the chapter about beholders in Lords of Madness. I'm not sure what else I would have to say about them, save that if I did a big article about beholders in Golarion, it'd look VERY similar to the one in Lords of Madness.
From time to time I get a little sad that we'll never be able to do a really awesome beholder adventure, ...
Doesn't Lords of Oblivion count for that?
I also liked the art order error that led to nycaloths getting 4 arms in 3e.
That was actually pretty cool. Not all deviations from previous canon are terrible, it turns out.
The abyss looks like a shell around the outer planes. As one ventures further down/far, weirder things like qlippoth are encountered. What happens if someone gets to the "bottom" and emerges on the "other side"? Would they be outside the multiverse? Is the abyss an eggshell containing all the planes?
Abyssal exploration sounds like a great epic level plot hook.
That could make for an awesome adventure indeed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our treatment of that is as exhaustive as something can be.
I'm not sure what else I would have to say about them
This is what has concerned me the last couple years.
The great thing (one of) about Dungeon and Dragon magazines was that fresh new talent came in every handful of years or so that, even if they didn't put everything in the industry on its ear, certainly jolted the system.
Dr. Rateliff described that sentiment perfectly in his praise of Bruce Cordell's Gates of Firestorm Peaks in Dungeon 116.
With the current model, Paizo can't seem to afford to take a chance on an Old Man Katan or a Buzz Under the Bridge. More importantly, you can't seemingly take the risk the mags could on an alternative mechanic or gimmick such as Birthright or Bloodstone Pass. I fear Stagnation will (maybe has already started) hit Paizo.
It's understandable that Mona has less to say about GH (or whatever). It's reasonable Jacobs has less to say about Demon Lords (or whatever). It's neither understandable nor reasonable that we can't get the next Mentzer or Sargent or Baur or Perkins or Cook or Mona or Jacobs to jolt Pathfinder in a couple years.
Now, the obvious rebuttal is that one can write for PF Society or participate in Superstar contests for Paizo. My concern is that the current publishing model doesn't allow for the kind of bend bars/ lift gates -- think outside the box kinda stuff the way the mags could. A Scenario has to fit EXACTLY in the box; a Superstar entry has to fit EXACTLY in the Paizo mold. And certainly, the outline and publishing of an Adventure Path has to tightly fit into Paizo Publishing's current model.
I'm afraid that when the next Mentzer or Sargent or Baur or Perkins or Cook or Mona or Jacobs does come along, his or her material will not be able to breathe (is that the right word?!) the way it could in an article in Dragon or an adventure in Dungeon. Paizo can't risk bending the frame for a Scenario or an AP to do that -- and I'm half convinced that those kinds of odd, creative new ideas will slip through the Superstar contest unnoticed.
.... It was actually last Saturday in our Carrion Crown campaign where one of the Players remarked on something that seemed to him kind of lame that may be a symptom of this:
My immediate response was to defend the campaign, of course, because DMs need to be able to work things like that into their games if the group dynamic or party make-up requires it. But after thinking about it I think it is a symptom of what I consider a potential problem. In the nuts and bolts of it, how different are any APs from each other? And is that scary?
From the beginning I've been promoting an occassional 4 volume AP, or an 8 volume or 3 volume or 5 volume -- just to jostle things up a bit.
Well, here's hoping that Paizo proves my concerns invalid.
True enough. And in fact, for me, that goes for beholders as well, since I got to write the chapter about beholders in Lords of Madness. I'm not sure what else I would have to say about them, save that if I did a big article about beholders in Golarion, it'd look VERY similar to the one in Lords of Madness.
Hopefully you've heard this before many times, but Lords of Madness was a phenomenal book. It's the only 3.5 sourcebook I regret getting rid of.
Did you just write the beholder section?
This is what has concerned me the last couple years.
The great thing (one of) about Dungeon and Dragon magazines was that fresh new talent came in every handful of years or so that, even if they didn't put everything in the industry on its ear, certainly jolted the system.
Dr. Rateliff described that sentiment perfectly in his praise of Bruce Cordell's Gates of Firestorm Peaks in Dungeon 116.
With the current model, Paizo can't seem to afford to take a chance on an Old Man Katan or a Buzz Under the Bridge. More importantly, you can't seemingly take the risk the mags could on an alternative mechanic or gimmick such as Birthright or Bloodstone Pass. I fear Stagnation will (maybe has already started) hit Paizo.
It's understandable that Mona has less to say about GH (or whatever). It's reasonable Jacobs has less to say about Demon Lords (or whatever). It's neither understandable nor reasonable that we can't get the next Mentzer or Sargent or Baur or Perkins or Cook or Mona or Jacobs to jolt Pathfinder in a couple years.
Now, the obvious rebuttal is that one can write for PF Society or participate in Superstar contests for Paizo. My concern is that the current publishing model doesn't allow for the kind of bend bars/ lift gates -- think outside the box kinda stuff the way the mags could. A Scenario has to fit EXACTLY in the box; a Superstar entry has to fit EXACTLY in the Paizo mold. And certainly, the outline and publishing of an Adventure Path has to tightly fit into Paizo Publishing's current model.
I'm afraid that when the next Mentzer or Sargent or Baur or Perkins or Cook or Mona or Jacobs does come along, his or her material will not be able to breathe (is that the right word?!) the way it could in an article in Dragon...
I think your concerns are reasonable (and no doubt partly true, given the nature of the world and achieving success - "If it aint broke, dont fix it" is a powerful instinct to rebut). Nonetheless, part of why I admire Paizo so much is their willingness to try out new things, within a fairly tightly controlled environment. I dont think that's substantially different now that they're publishing books from when they were publishing magazines.
I'm thinking of things like haunts, kingdom rules, caravans, romance, fame points etcetera.. Some of these worked and some didnt, but it hardly seems to me that they're averse to experimenting with new systems, themes or approaches.
Speaking as an outsider, it appears to me they have incorporated 'experiment' within their standard business. Moving from magazines may have been a shift from the edgey fringe to the safer mainstream, but I personally dont see it as a complete change. I want them to try new things, but I also want them to be financially successful. Risk/Reward and all that.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, here's hoping that Paizo proves my concerns invalid.
Here's hoping as well.
But you bring up a lot of really valid points. When Dragon and Dungeon went away, the industry took a pretty significant hit to its capacity to grow and expand.
Things like RPG Superstar are specifically designed to find the next great RPG designers... but it's not nearly as efficient as the Dragon or Dungeon slush piles were. Dungeon was pretty much how I got into the industry, after all, and I know that the magazines are responsible for a lot more industry folks than me.
|
Creative Director
|
True enough. And in fact, for me, that goes for beholders as well, since I got to write the chapter about beholders in Lords of Madness. I'm not sure what else I would have to say about them, save that if I did a big article about beholders in Golarion, it'd look VERY similar to the one in Lords of Madness.Hopefully you've heard this before many times, but Lords of Madness was a phenomenal book. It's the only 3.5 sourcebook I regret getting rid of.
Did you just write the beholder section?
Nope; I wrote the aboleth chapter, the beholder chapter, about a third of the new monsters, and many of the prestige classes and spells and magic items. And the ulitharid, although I didn't write/design it for Lords of Madness, but I did invent it in the first place back in Dungeon #24, inspired in no small part by Ed Greenwood's "Ecology of the Mind Flayer" back in Dragon.
|
Creative Director
|
I think your concerns are reasonable (and no doubt partly true, given the nature of the world and achieving success - "If it aint broke, dont fix it" is a powerful instinct to rebut). Nonetheless, part of why I admire Paizo so much is their willingness to try out new things, within a fairly tightly controlled environment. I dont think that's substantially different now that they're publishing books from when they were publishing magazines.
I'm thinking of things like haunts, kingdom rules, caravans, romance, fame points etcetera.. Some of these worked and some didnt, but it hardly seems to me that they're averse to experimenting with new systems, themes or approaches.
That's a good point... we DO try new things out in the Adventure Paths a lot... but that's not gonna address the concern of "how do the new generations of future RPG designers break into the industry and get noticed."
(Since all of the things you list above (haunts, kingdom rules, caravans, romance, fame points) were things I designed and added into the Adventure Paths during the development of the adventures.)
|
|
Yeah, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to cancel those magazines after all? Who knew?
I thought shutting down the magazines was a bad idea. I suppose people can try Kobold Quarterly, but the loss of Dragon and Dungeon is a big loss for our hobby. I am not sure if there will ever be anything quite like either magazine, in terms of being an entry into the industry.