Monte Cook's new Dungeonaday.com?

[Alzrius]

Well lets also not forget his small irrational hissy fit he threw in a blog post once he heard Monte was doing the megadungeon as welll...

I enjoy hsi blog, but really...

Wow, that doesn't cast him in a good light at all. So he doesn't like Dungeon-A-Day because he doesn't think that Monte is "old-school" enough to legitimately use that term in his marketing, and because he doesn't like the commoditization of old-school material?

Retro-clones and fanzines may be free products now, but back when the old-school material was new-school, you paid for it in the form of modules and magazines. I really think being upset that the work isn't free is ridiculous...and that's the part of his rant that he labels as being the "rational" argument.

I won't even get into the mire of debating as to whether or not Monte's old-school enough. Even James says that's not a rational reason.

 

[catsclaw227]

The tutorial aspect, which no one has mentioned, is the thing that made me perk up and say "I think I'm going to subscribe to this, sight unseen." When Monte says,

There are two other very cool things about Dungeonaday.com. One is that there I'll have my own blog in which I'll talk about various aspects of the design, offering tips for running specific encounters to maximize the fun, providing insight into the hows and whys of the design involved, background ideas for PCs, and much more. I'll even include suggestions for miniatures you might want to use, if you're into minis.

That sounds to me like it could be a real-time tutorial on "how to be a good DM." Similar to this Mearls post on how to design solo monster encounter terrain. Learning how a designer thinks ought to be fascinating.

Ooooo. I didn't see this part. The tutorial aspect of JM's megadungeon was intriguing. I didn't know Monte was proposing the same -- though I should have guessed, considering how he used his blog during Ptolus and the peak of the Malhavoc years.

 

[Noumenon]

I bet Monte ends up getting tutored too -- he'll say, "I like to put this kind of encounter in to let the players show off" and people will say, "That's not what happens, every time my group sees an encounter like that they're all 'you take these guys, I'll go get the cheese curls.'" And then he'll stop relying on the Goblin Punching Bag strategy and make funner dungeons.

 

[Maggan]

First, I am naturally suspicious of anyone using the term "old school" in reference to a project associated with v.3.5.

Interesting. Is "old School" gaming tied to specific rules sets?

It will be interesting to see how these two efforts pan out. I'm uncertain of whether I'll subscribe to Monte's site, but I guess I'll check it, and other efforts, out for inspiration.

/M

 

[Greg K]

This actually sounds pretty lame, for a Monte Cook product.

I feel that megadungeons are boring, both for player and GM. And I'd definitely not spend $7/month to subscribe to one.

Yeah, I am not a mega dungeon person either, but there are people that like them and I am not going to judge them for doing so.

 

[Angellis_ater]

I think he'll get his 1000 true fans, however. I know he would have two years ago.

He must be bored.

Another Seth Godin fan I see?

 

[JamesM]

Interesting. Is "Old School" gaming tied to specific rules set?

Not entirely, although there's certainly a mechanical component to the evaluation. My point was more that, given that v.3.5, as written and generally played, wasn't much like what I associate with old school gaming, I'm skeptical of attempts to associate the two until I am shown otherwise. I think it's quite possible that Dungeonaday could, in fact, turn out to be very old school indeed, but the odds don't favor it, which is why I'd like to see what Monte Cook has in store before I pass my final judgment on the matter.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The one thing I'm surprised at in this post, unless I missed it, is no one mentioned how Monte keep's 'leaving' the gaming industry.

Hope that his works with Paizo getting his two PDF's into one print hardcover provided some inspiration to do this but from what the scope sounds like, it must have been in some stages for a long time.

 

[catsclaw227]

Not entirely, although there's certainly a mechanical component to the evaluation. My point was more that, given that v.3.5, as written and generally played, wasn't much like what I associate with old school gaming, I'm skeptical of attempts to associate the two until I am shown otherwise.

Interesting. I've been playing D&D since 1978. Not as long as others who consider themselves grognards, but certainly long enough to say that I kicked it "old school" with my 1e AD&D games.

To me, old school as far little to do with mechanics and far more to do with the mindset of how a DM and players interact, how the campaign is delivered and played by the players, the shared experience of adventures and game sessions that were built around familiar elements, and how these "old school" elements are presented.

Now, by old school elements, I mean many things. But mostly I am talking about dungeon crawls, and environment/fluff-light adventures. (Oh and you can also add in a few pages of house-rules - some obscure, some obvious - that varied from gametable to gametable. )

For me, mechanics has VERY little to do with it. Necromancer Games had 3.x adventures that ran and felt very old school. Goodman Games' adventures had that old school feel as well.

Are these disqualified from your definition of old school because they use a rule-set of mechanics that you don't approve of?

Can you define what you mean by old school so that I have a frame of reference to work with?

 

[Ghostwind]

The one thing I'm surprised at in this post, unless I missed it, is no one mentioned how Monte keep's 'leaving' the gaming industry.

It's like the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.