Dungeon 117

[takasi]

Sure. Such as magic trains, magic airships, magic robots (warforged), and cities of skyscrapers.

These are isolated areas of the setting. There are a lot of "fantastic" things introduced to Greyhawk through Chainmail (robots, "machine guns", etc) that are generally ignored by most fans. Forgotten Realms has magic airships, golems and large cities in the skies. These things are rare in all of these setting, including Eberron.

The first and foremost is that the RPGA's Living Greyhawk Campaign is currently set up to allow a DM to run certain Dungeon adventures as adventures in the LG Campaign.

The RPGA provides reward points for playing Eberron adventures as well. And there are far more LG adventures available through the RPGA than Eberron.

The second reason is that its really easy to go from the Greyhawk to another setting, homebrew or pre-written.

If it is easy, then sidebars for setting conversion should be easy to setup. And if Greyhawk is so "generic" that it can be converted to any setting why make the modules setting specific in the first place?

And though I feel Eberron is more traditional than most think, if Eberron does have all of these fantastic elements that are too hard to convert, then wouldn't these elements interfere with a traditional module? Sidebars are then needed to integrate Eberron elements like action points, Dragonmarked Houses, the Five Nations, the Prophecy, the Lords of Dust, the planar cosmology, etc.

 

[The_Gneech]

Sounds like a good argument for the Greyhawk hardback, to me.

-TG

 

[takasi]

If WotC does release Greyhawk material then I would be all for new Greyhawk modules in Dungeon. They haven't done this in several years, and until that day comes I think Dungeon should provide more support for the products released by WotC instead of giving life support to their favorite setting.

 

[jester47]

So by that logic all the adventures should be generic. Cool, I am glad we agree. Now we just have to convince Erik.

All joking and handing out of rough times aside, Eberron will have staying power. Its interesting, different, and fun. In this light I don't think it will have a problem growing. I am faithful of this even to the point where I would wager it really won't need help from Dungeon as long as WotC creates product for it. And I would also make the point that Campaign Settings never really die. I mean Greyhawk is still alive and kicking, without Mama WotCs support. Planescape too. Ravenloft is living with uncle White Wolf and Dragonlance is doing its own thing. Dark Suns following is present.

I think calling the whole Greyhawk thing a Nostalgia trip is not accurate. Its not a "remember when" thing. Even the update articles are more of a "We know you still play the old crap. Here it is in the new rules."

The following is an assumption: Your desperate defence of Eberron in Dungeon indicates to me that you fear Eberron will go away if it is not center stage. So somewhere you feel that it may fail. Why is that? I have a stronger faith in Eberron, Its a good setting. And WotC has sunk too much money into it to just up and decide that its not working, especially when its working. However, as WotC is finding out, good settings are very hard to kill. The fanbases just don't go away. I do not think Eberron is anywhere near failure and thus I do not feel the need to defend its presence in the pages of Dungeon. Fear not it will get developed.

Would I like to see Eberron Adventures in Dungeon? Absolutely. Why? I might change and find that I want to do some Eberron (this is commonly known these days as Flip Flopping) adventures, and I would like some that are geared to the setting to be around.

I mean really, why do you want more than 6 Eberron specific adventures in Dungeon every year? Is there a reason for this? Are you running out? Why not just convert the generics over to Eberron? If anything a generic module in a greyhawk wrapper should be no big deal and should convert quite nicely.

Aaron.

 

[takasi]

logic all the adventures should be generic.

No, the point was if Greyhawk is so generic then why must you say it's a Greyhawk setting?

However, as I've implied before I would not mind if all adventures were generic and sidebars were added with setting specific information for FR and Eberron campaigns. These sidebars should explain how the technological, geographical, political historical and mechanical setting differences might effect the adventure and provide suggestions for incorporating them into the campaign.

Six adventures that are designed for Eberron are enough for me, but in addition to this I would like to see some mention of Eberron (and possibly FR) in every issue of Dungeon through the use of sidebars.

Campaign settings may live on in the hearts and minds of fans, but then again no intellectual property ever really "dies", be it games, movies, books, etc. However, they can lose popularity and professional support. Dungeon should cover what is supported, and right now it is Eberron. I want a magazine that adds to the material I've recently purchased, not one that supplements a setting that is no longer supported.

Personally, I don't think Dungeon has done a very good job with this. To begin with, let's start with their first adventure. How hard is it to spell the name correctly on the front cover? The name of the setting! Second, using miniature tiles was a poor choice. They should have done this with a generic setting. Third, they provided warforged illustrations that are misleading; you can look no further than this thread for evidence of that. And the cover for 115 was horrible. Even the Eberron fans at the WotC boards thought it looked bad. While I don't think Dungeon will make or break Eberron, they are influential and I'd like to see better support for the setting.

 

[Erik Mona]

Some day perhaps you will get to edit Dungeon, and you can publish as much or as little Greyhawk content as you see fit.

Until then, it'll be in the magazine. Greyhawk is D&D out of the three core rulebooks. Greyhawk is swords & sorcery in the tradition of Vance, Howard, and Leiber. Greyhawk is also the setting I know like the back of my hand, making it _much_ easier to put together cool articles that don't violate continuity. It's also the "home" of the core pantheon, which many players already use. Technically, any adventure that has a cleric of Pelor in it is a Greyhawk adventure, and most of our "Greyhawk" adventures don't get any more explicit than that.

Plus, the setting has been around forever, and if you don't play Greyhawk (I suspect most players use a homebrew world), you have to convert all the proper nouns, anyway.

Have you missed the fact that we've printed an Eberron adventure every other issue since 113? We've got at least two more Eberron adventures set to appear in the next five issues. That's at least as many as Wizards of the Coast is producing, and I'm having top-shelf designers like Keith Baker, Andy Collins, and James Wyatt do them. We'll probably do some "Backdrops" that fit into the setting as well, such as new locations on Xen'drik and the like. Eberron is _not_ getting the short shrift at Dungeon (or at Dragon, for that matter).

FR, Greyhawk/Core, and Eberron support is not mutually exclusive.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon

 

[bastrak]

I'd just like to say that IMO Erik and his team are currently doing a terrific job with Dungeon, which has gone from being a magazine I hardly ever bought to being a excellent resource I buy as soon as I see it, largely due to it's support for the Greyhawk/Core setting.

Personally I am happy to see Greyhawk/Core, other generic and convertable FR adventures in Dungeon. I have no interest in additional Eberron content as I and my players do not like the setting and I do not think Eberron adventures are as readily convertable to other settings as adventures in Greyhawk/core, etc. I am very happy with Dungeon as it is, though preferably with less Eberron content in future.

 

[jester47]

No, the point was if Greyhawk is so generic then why must you say it's a Greyhawk setting?

Well, it really works both ways when you think about it. I mean if Greyhawk = Generic then why not have salt flavored salt rather than generic flavored salt? It would make the sidebars you suggested more feasible and less wonky.

However, as I've implied before I would not mind if all adventures were generic and sidebars were added with setting specific information for FR and Eberron campaigns. These sidebars should explain how the technological, geographical, political historical and mechanical setting differences might effect the adventure and provide suggestions for incorporating them into the campaign.

Well this could get wonky if you try to support too much with them... I think it might be best to let DMs use their imaginations. Though I do think the spirit is in the right place.

Personally, I don't think Dungeon has done a very good job with this.

Everyone's entitled...

To begin with, let's start with their first adventure. How hard is it to spell the name correctly on the front cover? The name of the setting!

You would be shocked at the number of times in our discourse that I have had to retype the name Eberron.

Second, using miniature tiles was a poor choice.

I don't know if it was poor, but I certainly did not find it terribly useful. Perhaps Merric did. I dunno.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Some day perhaps you will get to edit Dungeon, and you can publish as much or as little Greyhawk content as you see fit.

Until then, it'll be in the magazine. Greyhawk is D&D out of the three core rulebooks. Greyhawk is swords & sorcery in the tradition of Vance, Howard, and Leiber. Greyhawk is also the setting I know like the back of my hand, making it _much_ easier to put together cool articles that don't violate continuity. It's also the "home" of the core pantheon, which many players already use. Technically, any adventure that has a cleric of Pelor in it is a Greyhawk adventure, and most of our "Greyhawk" adventures don't get any more explicit than that.

Hear hear!

I think DUNGEON is doing a super job of supporting Greyhawk. Eberron doesn't interest me, but it is obviously getting more than enough support.

One look around the 'net will show you that pretty much *all* campaign settings are well supported, either by The Man or by fans themselves. For example, is there a more thriving OOP community than Planescape?

 

[Sebastian Francis]

No, the point was if Greyhawk is so generic then why must you say it's a Greyhawk setting?

Geography. Although Greyhawk adventures are usually relatively easy to plunk into another setting, they *do* take place within a fixed geographical area. If an adventure is set in the Barrier Peaks, then although it may be a relatively generic adventure, it is *still* a Greyhawk adventure.

not one that supplements a setting that is no longer supported.

Every time a person buys a Player's Handbook they are supporting the Greyhawk setting. It is the default setting, after all. Besides, WotC still produce the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, so to say that Greyhawk is "no longer supported" isn't accurate.