Dungeon 117

[takasi]

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.

That's a valid conclusion, but what are you basing that on?

If Greyhawk was the perfect, generic setting for everyone then it would be promoted and sold through WotC. It would have books, PC games and other ancillary merchandise built around the franchise. Unfortunately for Greyhawk fans (myself included as a fan of my region, the Theocracy of the Pale) Dungeon is the only professional outlet beating the Oerth drums with no artillary to follow it.

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.

This is where you are alienating new players. New players have no clue about Greyhawk continuity. You're putting a lot of effort into ensuring your modules follow Greyhawk canon when only a minority of gamers can appreciate it, thanks to a lack of published canon available.

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.

A pantheon does not make a campaign setting, at least not in Greyhawk. There are no professional continental maps, timelines or political background materials for Greyhawk for a new player to find even if they did have an interest in where the core elements of the rulebooks come from. The last thing WotC provided was Chainmail, and it included more "fantastic" elements than Eberron has.

Have you missed the fact that we've printed an Eberron adventure every other issue since 113?

That's a very sarcastic reply. I have posted in this thread several times about the exact number of Eberron references in Dungeon. There have only been two adventures so far and IMO the first one was presented below par. The adventure was a pretty good dungeon crawl but the presentation was not done as well as it could have been.

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.

I don't follow you. Could you explain how using Greyhawk as a backdrop helps an Eberron or FR DM rather than using a generic backdrop?

Well this could get wonky if you try to support too much with them...

If you believe Eberron is so far fetched that you can't put its modules in Greyhawk than the elements that are in Eberron have the potential to interfere with Greyhawk modules. The least I'm asking is that Dungeon take this into consideration when designing their Greyhawk backdrops and create sidebars for every adventure to showcase these differences.

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

How often have they put "Grayhawk" on the cover? I'm just pointing it out as another example of their minor mistreatment of the setting's launch.

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

Merric might have enjoyed reporting it on his site, but can you agree that it's confusing to add that element to the introduction of a new setting? If the editors truly believe that their readers are too conservative to stomach an Eberron adventure in every issue then why add another unusual element into the mix? They should have kept the same format as every other adventure, making it as traditional as possible if they feel their readers are so resistant to change.

 

[Swiftbrook]

I don't mind the idea of rotating between FR & Eberron every other issue. I don't think Greyhawk is necessary, considering the HUGE number of free modules available for home campaigns through the RPGA as well as past Dungeon coverage.

Well, I'm in the subscribing to Dungeon for the first time because of the Greyhawk magerial. Greyhawk material in Dungeon is a great vehicle to draw more people into Living Greyhawk. Also, that "Huge" number of free modules don't get the same treatment as a module in Dungeon -- cool maps, layout, art, etc.

Do I think Dungeon should be all Greyhawk -- No. All Eberron, FR, Dark Sun, ..... No. 3 or 4 Greyhawk adventures a year, plus an article or two like the City of Hardby would be great. The four part map is wonderful. FR got the four part map several years ago. Eberron got the map this year (I think).

Also, RPGA support for Greyhawk is just not in the same category as WotC support for FR or Eberron, or Sovereign Press support of Dragonlance.

-Swiftbrook

 

[Darren]

Finally, Greyhawk is NOT the default setting for 3.5 edition D&D. We were told this, but in fact only certain Greyhawk elements are the defaults for the core rulebooks. The history, culture and geographyc of Oerth are nowhere to be found. In fact, is Greyhawk even mentioned in the revised core books?

Actually, in the DMG, chapter 1, we are told Greyhawk is "the standard D&D campaign setting."

I have no idea about how the print run of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer stands, but there are still plenty of new copies for sale. It even has a Wizards logo on the cover. History, geography, organizations, a fold-out map... it's just about everything you need for a campaign... Granted, it's not as detailed as FRCS or Eberron, and it's not a core rulebook, but it's there.

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.

Hmm... Dungeon filled with Forgotten Realms and Eberron...
It would immediately lose much of its utility for many of its subscribers. I have no statistics, but I would hazard to guess, "most." Also, though I do not have stats for this either, I would hazard to guess that most adventures in Dungeon get modified a bit anyway before actually being run, no matter what the campaign setting. Whether it be lightning rails or warforged, or portals or spellfire, the further you venture from the materials presented in the core rulebooks, the harder it is likely to be to adapt an adventure to the average reader's campaign. It's easy to put things in; taking them out can be difficult. Look at all the threads around here about attacks of opportunity...

When people say "Greyhawk" they often (though not always) just mean "core" or "generic." It's a bit sloppy, something like saying "memorized" instead of "prepared," but not so much to get upset over. I don't mind a few adventures in other settings. In fact, I thought "Steel Shadows" was very good, even though I'm not in an Eberron campaign. It had some neat characters and ideas. However, frequent excursions into the Cogs with the warforged would greatly lower the magazine's utility for me, and anyone else who doesn't play in an Eberron campaign.

I have no problem with putting in sidebars for certain adventures, but only if they are really needed. By keeping things close to core, the less you need those sidebars, because that is what the campaign supplement books are for... adapting generic core material to a specific setting. I really can't remember a Greyhawk adventure in Dungeon that had anything more than proper names or an occasional geographical reference that couldn't be found in the core books. As far as Dungeon is concerned, "Greyhawk" is practically synonymous with "generic" and "core."

I wish you well in your Eberron campaign, really. But Dungeon needs to appeal to as many people as possible. It's a tiny niche market to begin with, after all, and narrowing its focus would make that market that much smaller. Just do what the rest of us do: mine the magazine for ideas, plots, maps, and NPCs, and cherish the occasional adventure that needs little or no prep to run as the golden nugget it is.

Oh, and I'm a new player, beginning with 3.0. I've never been in a proper Greyhawk campaign. I do not feel alienated by Dungeon at all.

Edit: What was this thread supposed to be about anyway? Another cover with a figure-sans-background in a dramatic pose?

 

[thalmin]

Hello, all. Quick question from a newcomer:

Is Dungeon #117 the first of the Greyhawk-maps series?

Sorry you had to wait so long for your answer. NO, it isn't. Paizo decided to push it back a month to allow more time to properly do the maps. #118 should now be the first.

 

[Bob the Reaver]

Eric Mona and the Dungeon staff do a great job every month. Though he should quit for a few months and make a meta 4 world book for MnM.

I really enjoy Eberron. The published adventures in Dungeon , I feel, havent showcased the great flavor of the world but I do welcome all the Eberron content they can put in the magazine. I love Greyhawk more the FR. And yet I love FR more then my mother (jk mom).

The best thing about the new Dungeon is the Backdrops. I would love to see back drops in every other issue (more if possible, but I know it cant be so). Please do the Xendrik back drop asap.

Also the new cover art has been cool, with the exeption of that giant war forged face. I would stay away from the computer 3-d stuff and the scupltures. As a matter of fact just make WAR your only artist throughout the entire magazine. Perez is good to. A few other guys.

 

[MerricB]

Existing fans are familiar with the setting; new fans aren't. Dungeon is the only retail product that continues to support Greyhawk.

I'm going to assume you are just ignorant of the Greyhawk support in Frostburn, Complete Divine and the D&D Miniatures line. Oh, and in a bunch of other recent D&D books.

And the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game.

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
This is where you are alienating new players. New players have no clue about Greyhawk continuity. You're putting a lot of effort into ensuring your modules follow Greyhawk canon when only a minority of gamers can appreciate it, thanks to a lack of published canon available.
>>>

I respectfully disagree. I'm not intending to create a boatload of new continuity with the "Greyhawk" adventures. In fact, nearly all of the "Greyhawk" adventures we've published are listed as "any setting." Whom does it hurt if those adventures are set in, say, Furyondy rather than some author-invented nation from his home campaign?

The answer is that it harms no one.

>>>
A pantheon does not make a campaign setting, at least not in Greyhawk. There are no professional continental maps, timelines or political background materials for Greyhawk for a new player to find even if they did have an interest in where the core elements of the rulebooks come from. The last thing WotC provided was Chainmail, and it included more "fantastic" elements than Eberron has.
>>>

Dungeon #118 will include the first of four quadrants for a massive continental map of the World of Greyhawk, incidentally. And the ties between Chainmail and Greyhawk are tenuous at best (about on order with the ties between Faerun and the events of the "Double Diamond Triangle" serial Forgotten Realms novel, which took place on an entirely different continent. A "core" Chainmail hardcover that would have provided more concrete ties never came out, so I don't think your point is wholly accurate.

But regardless, the point is not to detail the setting in the magazine. The point is to provide easily adaptable "core" D&D fantasy adventures. The Greyhawk stuff is a nod and wink to long-time D&D players, who make up a sizable portion of our readers.

>>>
That's a very sarcastic reply. I have posted in this thread several times about the exact number of Eberron references in Dungeon. There have only been two adventures so far and IMO the first one was presented below par. The adventure was a pretty good dungeon crawl but the presentation was not done as well as it could have been.
>>>

Well, Dungeon 117 is circulating now (ours just arrived on Tuesday), and that contains an Eberron adventure. So that's three adventures and a fairly lengthly "Lord of Blades" Critical Threat. Oh, and a poster map of the world (albeit one on which Wizards of the Coast provided virtually no useful map tags).

In the same time period (Dungeon 113-117), we've published a total of15 adventures. Here's the breakdown, by campaign setting:

"Any Setting": 8
Eberron: 3
Explicitly Greyhawk: 2
Forgotten Realms: 1
Psionics: 1

The only adventures I'm counting as "explicitly Greyhawk" are "Mad God's Key" (114) and "Raiders of the Black Ice" (115), both of which are relatively easy to adapt to any campaign setting. In fact, while trawling the Eberron folder on wizards.com today, I noticed someone talking about his plans to convert "Mad God's Key" to Eberron.

We've got a few more Forgotten Realms adventures coming in the next few months. But all this stuff should be easy to convert to an Eberron campaign, or really to any campaign (which indeed is the whole point of Dungeon).

"Queen with Burning Eyes," like it or not (and I've seen strong reactions on both sides of that issue) is simple to adapt to any campaign. Ditto "Fallen Angel," although with a little more work. Although we give several suggestions in "Steel Shadows" on how to adapt the adventure to settings other than Eberron, it works best "as is" as a murder mystery involving warforged. Every so often, we'll do an "explicitly Eberron" adventure just as we will for Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms. But for the most part, the emphasis is on providing adventures usable to the majority of our readers, whether they're playing Eberron, the Forgotten Realms, or Red Steel, for that matter.

I agree that the presentation on "Queen with Burning Eyes" isn't up to the usual standard, which is why you haven't seen maps using miniatures tiles since #113.

>>>
I don't follow you. Could you explain how using Greyhawk as a backdrop helps an Eberron or FR DM rather than using a generic backdrop?
>>>

Using Greyhawk as a backdrop helps an Eberron player exactly as much as using a generic backdrop, which is to say "not much." But the job of the magazine is not to serve Eberron and Forgotten Realms players exclusively, but rather to serve the general Dungeons & Dragons fandom. My informed opinion is that the majority of our adventures are useful to the majority of D&D gamers no matter what setting those players use. Our research tells us that most of our readers don't use _any_ of the official settings.

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

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Also, RPGA support for Greyhawk is just not in the same category as WotC support for FR or Eberron, or Sovereign Press support of Dragonlance.

But Dragonlance is pretty much dead on the vine, isn't it?

 

[rounser]

Eberron is _not_ getting the short shrift at Dungeon (or at Dragon, for that matter).

The old editors of Dungeon didn't pay "six-a-year" attention to new settings, though, if memory serves. But then, they were putting out half the number of magazines. So 6-a-year of Eberron would be equivalent to them putting out 3 FR adventures a year...which I think they did.

 

[Sunderstone]

regarding the eberron stuff

First off let me say that I have ALOT of confidence in Erik and Crew on Dungeon Magazine and will continue to buy it every month.

That being said, count me out of the Eberron modules as well. No offense to the creators of course, but my players and I are not really into the setting. Baker, Collins, Wyatt, etc write excellent stuff but I'll pass on these. TBH, I heard "Queen with Burning Eyes" was very good but I didnt even read it once I saw it was for Eberron. Magic Trains, Warforged etc. just dont fit into my groups vision of D&D.

Im a Forgotten Realms DM first (my favorite setting), and I love Greyhawk. I have been wanting a Greyhawk HC since d20's beginning. To be fair, Id sacrifice any upcoming Dungeon mag FR adventures to get "standard" (Greyhawk) adventures rather than more Eberron. Eberron is already getting module support.
Id rather have a matching ratio of Eberron and FR BUT both outnumbered by standard adventures. Standards are easily adaptable into any setting.

Just my 2 pennies.

Once again, Erik and Co. are doing a fantastic job and Dungeon is better than it has ever been.