An open letter to Randy Buehler

Funny, when Paizo did Dungeon, there was never, not once, an overview of all the adventures until after the entire AP was released. Why should that change now?

For the first one (Cauldron), there was no guide (that I recall, during the run at least).
For Age of Worms, it was supposed to be out around issue 1 or 2, but ended up very very late, around 3or4.
For Savage Tides it was out on schedule.

So yeah, they learned.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I also have to agree with the OP. Not printing an overview because you don't want to reveal the twists is pretty stupid - the overview is for the DM, who should have some idea of where the story is going, not for the players, obviously. I wonder if the staff is so overworked they can't task someone with writing some 1 paragraph summations of the adventures, or perhaps if they don't have the entire AP nailed down yet. This, along with continuing to use the pain-in-the-ass delve format (while using a much easier to read format in the physical adventures that they're publishing), really makes me wonder if they knew what they were doing when they took back the magazines.

Also, would it kill them to list the intended levels for an adventure (a) on the download page, and/or (b) on the first page of the adventure? Why do I have to keep hunting through the first few pages for this info?
 
Last edited:

You may want to edit/remove one of the open letter's follow-up comments for obsenities. Unless you don't mind it, of course.
I thought about that but I decided to leave it in there. I'd rather let people express themselves without fear that I'll edit it. :)
 

Ten bucks says the real reason why they won't publish an overview is because they haven't planned the whole AP out yet and they have no idea what will be in subsequent adventures.
 


There's really only two alternatives, isn't there?

First, Randy Buehler has a staggering lack of knowledge about what is involved DMing a campaign. Which is not what you want to see in a bloke who's working on D&D. Alternatively, this is not the real reason why the overview is not being published (though I'm not saying Mr Buehler was the one who decided on this course of action).

Neither are particularly appetising options.
 

If you ask me this smacks of nerves on the part of WotC. They know that as soon as any synopsis is published, it will be pulled to pieces and compared to Paizo's AP's, despite all of those AP's having been completed and this one still getting its foot out of the gate.

Understandable, but IMO still a mistake on their part. The gamer rage it has inflamed? Well, that's as amusing as it always is.
 

There's really only two alternatives, isn't there?

First, Randy Buehler has a staggering lack of knowledge about what is involved DMing a campaign. Which is not what you want to see in a bloke who's working on D&D. Alternatively, this is not the real reason why the overview is not being published (though I'm not saying Mr Buehler was the one who decided on this course of action).

Neither are particularly appetising options.

As far as I know, Randy is not relevant for the content of the Dungeon or the AP, so I wouldn't worry about his DMing skills or experience.
 

Of the theories proposed so far, I'm thinking Wedgeski has the one I like the best.

Although, considering that this AP is also much longer than other Dungeon AP's, it's quite possible that the adventures really haven't been written in more than a very sparse skeleton and they want wiggle room to change things down the road, based on feedback.

If they put up a synopsis of the whole AP, they are locked into that single storyline for a long time. It could be a case of nerves.
 


Remove ads

Top