• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Erik Mona's secret project revealed yet?

Razz said:
2008, please be less adventure-friendly and more equal with adventure/splatbook ratio... :(

From my game group: 2008 please NOT. I never thought I'd hear myself say this but we have plenty of splatbooks. Let's have some adventures to help us USE the rules in the books we already have! :)

P.S., this adventure is great news guys! Congrats!

-DM Jeff
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, we are going to finally get a definitive, complete, published list of the deities imprisoned by Zagyg? Are there going to be any cameo appearances by any Greyhawk artifacts? Will this include all levels of the castle ruins and dungeon?
 

Psion said:
I liked shady dragon, too. We mainly used it for the map (mine's looking a bit worn nowadays). It made for a great generic adventurer's in. The characters were colorful, but stats useless to me as I didn't play "Basic" D&D after I discovered AD&D (which was about a month after I started playing.)

Re: The hot topic. I liked the much maligned Greyhawk Ruins. I did not like the silly Castle Greyhawk. I hope for more information.

I figured it was some sort of inside joke by Diaglo. Either that or his real name is Carl Smith.

But, yeah, AC1 had over a hundred pregen characters, thumbnail backgrounds, sketches, etc. Plus the foldout inn map was nice for the time. It was a clear improvement on similar products that preceded it.

I've got to read through the old Castle Greyhawk. Who knew you could turn an RPG product into a personal smear? Plus my only exposure to Fluffy came in one of the early Dungeon magazines (#4, I think).
 


No. Yes. No.

I'll leave it to you to figure out which post I'm specifically referring to.

"Greyhawk Ruins" is much, much better than the joke "Castle Greyhawk." When I call it "deeply imperfect" I don't mean to suggest that it is awful, but parts of it definitely approach awful. Basically, in trying to cover 20+ dungeon levels in one product, the whole thing comes off like an outline rather than an actual adventure. The map lacks a grid and often fails to match the text. Most of the encounters are rather pedestrian (of the "this room contains 8 orogs. They fight when the door is opened" variety). The Greyhawk connections are tenuous, and often don't make a lot of sense in light of parallel setting development. Whole articles have been posted to the internet to explain what the heck the wizards in the Ring of Five are doing, and most of them involve swapping out two or three members to better fit continuity. No effort whatsoever is given to explaining the group within the context of the module, however. There are _way_ too many orogs, ogrons, and super-orcs running about. Zagyg is, in many places, treated as little more than a clown.

Other than that, it's a good module.

--Erik
 

Ivid said:
And a friendly word of warning:

Ahould someone dare to write Castle Greyhawk into the Realms, I'll personally lead the mob with torches and pitchforks...
LOL! Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I plan to do when I purchase this book...
 


Erik Mona said:
No. Yes. No.

I'll leave it to you to figure out which post I'm specifically referring to.
Ooh, me, me, me!

Does your NDA allow you to confirm that it details the ruins in their entirety (with room for expansion by the DM, of course)?
No.

Or is it just going to be a treatment of some parts of the ruins, with the rest left undetailed?
Yes.

Of course most folks would prefer the former, more thorough treatment (the 2e Undermountain was somewhat unsatisfying, for example, due to its relative lack of fully fleshed-out areas). But I can imagine that you simply might not have enough room to cover the dungeons completely...
No.

See? It is beyond doubt. Who could claim otherwise?

Erik Mona said:
"Greyhawk Ruins" is much, much better than the joke "Castle Greyhawk." When I call it "deeply imperfect" I don't mean to suggest that it is awful, but parts of it definitely approach awful. Basically, in trying to cover 20+ dungeon levels in one product, the whole thing comes off like an outline rather than an actual adventure. The map lacks a grid and often fails to match the text. Most of the encounters are rather pedestrian (of the "this room contains 8 orogs. They fight when the door is opened" variety). The Greyhawk connections are tenuous, and often don't make a lot of sense in light of parallel setting development. Whole articles have been posted to the internet to explain what the heck the wizards in the Ring of Five are doing, and most of them involve swapping out two or three members to better fit continuity. No effort whatsoever is given to explaining the group within the context of the module, however. There are _way_ too many orogs, ogrons, and super-orcs running about. Zagyg is, in many places, treated as little more than a clown.
Plus it has Farcluun sitting around in the lower levels. Farcluun, who, last I checked, is supposed to be a defiler dragon from Dark Sun. Apparently he also moonlights on Oerth as a venerable red. I blame Tim Brown :D...

Other than that, it's a good module.

--Erik
It certainly has its moments. The giant brontosaurus that you could get inside and explore was one of my favourites. You included that, right?

:p
 


Erik Mona said:
Zagyg is, in many places, treated as little more than a clown.

The clown was actually, according to the designers, supposed to be Fraz-Urb'luu, or at least the stain his evil left on that dungeon level. In clown form. Blame Zagyg for that.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top