Hall of Many Panes

[S'mon]

Oh, if you don't like the lengthy text boxes - edit them down! You are the DM! Take back control!!

Um, yes, I will be doing that, of course. And so will 90% of other GMs who want to make this scenario work. I still think the Troll Lords should have done that editing for me. In playtesting did your GM really read those all out loud?

 

[S'mon]

See, I have no problem with that. What I *do* have a problem with is that the EL should be adjusted to reflect that they are poorly equipped. If the DMG II covers that, I'll buy it today.

The orcs with AC 11 (padded) and small clubs (no shield) may be borderline acceptable. 200+ War-8s with 60hp doing 1d6+1 dmg is silly, IMO.

Edit: Of course CRs are not adjusted for gear.

 

[S'mon]

What frustrates me about this sort of adventure is that it would take relatively little work to make it fully 3.5 compatible. One of Gary's big strengths is his creativity, and I figure that someone else is doing all the stats anyways. So why the heck are the stat blocks so inappropriate? That sort of poor design is unfortunate, because it undermines and lessens an otherwise good product.

That's my feeling - they are paying a guy specifically to do the stat blocks, I expect a decent job.

My problem with their failure to edit the box text to something manageable is a bigger one, though.

Edit: And I do prefer poor stat blocks to scenarios where the stat blocks are perfect, but take up over half the product. I can restat the Mongols to something workable pretty easily. Redoing the read-aloud text will be far harder.

 

[Deogolf]

Um, yes, I will be doing that, of course. And so will 90% of other GMs who want to make this scenario work. I still think the Troll Lords should have done that editing for me. In playtesting did your GM really read those all out loud?

Seeing that Gary was our GM, yes, he did read them! But, he may have cut it down for us. I have no idea if he always read "everything".

As with most modules, use what you want and change or omit what you don't want.

I know Gary wasn't overly fond of the module being dual-statted. He has his bias towards LA, of course!

mini-note: I am John Seibel in the playtesters section. I played Deogolf the Enchanter.

 

[DaveMage]

So the key is to have Gary Gygax be the GM!

Seriously, though, this worries me quite a bit as I don't (nor wish to) play LA.

I guess I'll just use it as another idea mining source rather than as a playable product for my D&D game.

 

[S'mon]

Seeing that Gary was our GM, yes, he did read them! But, he may have cut it down for us. I have no idea if he always read "everything".

Yes - reading it to myself, it felt very much like EGG was there in the room with me.
As DaveMage said, I'm sure with EGG GMing it was indeed a fine adventure, but the test of a published product is its universalisability. At worst it seems like a very minable ideas source, but I'm hoping for rather more than that...

 

[Deogolf]

Yes - reading it to myself, it felt very much like EGG was there in the room with me.
As DaveMage said, I'm sure with EGG GMing it was indeed a fine adventure, but the test of a published product is its universalisability. At worst it seems like a very minable ideas source, but I'm hoping for rather more than that...

As many may already know, Gary is not one for "tons & tons" of rules. So, when an adventure which was written using a game that is not rules-heavy, it may lose a little something in the translation. Which can be a real bummer!! Sometimes one has to completely change the monster in the adventure because there isn't an equivalent creature in another game system. I think that's why Gary doesn't like the dual stats - at times you have to change things and it takes some of the flavor out of encounter, giving it a completely different look than what was intended.

I think if Gary had written the adventure for D&D 3.5, it would have a different feel and look. Of course, that will NEVER happen! May the Gods not strike me down for having typed this!

 

[S'mon]

Heh

Looking over it I had already decided to treat the LA version as the 'official' one and the 3.5e version as suggestions on conversion.

 

[S'mon]

The Troll Lords have posted over on the Necromamcer forums that the loose-leaf art pages are a mistake, it's supposed to be a bound pamphlet, and they have promised to send bound copies of the correct book to anyone who emails them and asks for it. I've just done so. Apparently most copies of HomP should have the bound booklet and mine is a rogue, *sigh*
Email troll@trolllord.com

 

[DaveMage]

The Troll Lords have posted over on the Necromamcer forums that the loose-leaf art pages are a mistake, it's supposed to be a bound pamphlet, and they have promised to send bound copies of the correct book to anyone who emails them and asks for it. I've just done so. Apparently most copies of HomP should have the bound booklet and mine is a rogue, *sigh*
Email troll@trolllord.com

Does it really matter if they are loose or bound?

I have the loose ones too, so I'm curious as to what the benefit is to get a bound copy?