Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 1815995" data-attributes="member: 20194">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.</blockquote>

Verification