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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 1472065" data-attributes="member: 8461">I just came late to the debate, but I'm rather impressed with the vehemence displayed here. I too was rather disappointed by Dragon's take on Dark Sun. However, I wasn't going to write about it, but seeing everything here (along with Dave Noonan's post from that other board), I've since decided to write in to Paizo to express my feelings on the matter.Given that there are a lot of people here who seem to feel as I do, I've decided to post the contents of my email to them here. While it will require some tailoring depending on the individual, this should make it quick and easy for anyone to copy this and email it to <a href="mailto:scalemail@paizo.com">scalemail@paizo.com</a> to express their dislike of how Dragon treated Dark Sun. Please write in, be it a copy of my letter or your own, to express your feelings on the matter to Paizo. It's the only way any changes can really be effected. The open letter is as follows:Dear Paizo Publishing,Having read through the Dark Sun section of Dragon #319, I feel quite disappointed with the content presented there. Specifically, the deliberate inclusion of classes that do not fit the tone of the setting is of consternation, along with lesser things, such as the lack of breakage rules for weapons, the lack of any major prohibition on armor; all make this not the Dark Sun I was expecting, or remember.From reading posts on the message boards at EN World and the Dark Sun forum on the Wizards of the Coast website, I am not alone, as the general trend (as I have observed it) seems to indicate that many people (possibly the majority) feel the same way I do. The fact that David Noonan himself posted on a message board to make clear his initial manuscript was quite different from the final version is an indicator of how bad the reaction seems to be.I confess, Mr. Noonan's post is, in fact, the real reason behind my writing to you now. The idea that, what was apparently a very well-done article by Mr. Noonan, was deliberately edited to become the les-liked version we saw in the magazine, does not inspire confidence nor affection towards Paizo Publishing.Matt Sernett, the editor of Dragon, has since (very kindly) posted back on EN World to explain why certain changes were made. While his reasoning is sound, I still find that his explanations leave me somewhat cold. The idea that all classes, no matter how against the grain of the setting they may be, must be included to make the setting "suit 3rd edition", does not seem reasonable to me. Simply removing four out of eleven base classes (from the PHB; the base classes from the Expanded Psionics Handbook notwithstanding), does nothing to necessarily eliminate interest from readers who have never played Dark Sun before. There are still many classes left, and the deliberate exclusion of a few adds flavor to the setting; sometimes what's denied says as much as what is included - having every setting use the exact same eleven possible classes can result in them seeming interchangeable. I believe it was for this very reason that Wizards of the Coast's Oriental Adventures book has several classes that it does not allow (page 32; the bard, cleric, druid, paladin, or wizard).While Paizo most certainly had the right to make the changes that were made, it seems obvious, from the reactions and debates that have arisen, that these changes were not for the best. New campaigns can be different, and even exclude certain "core" materials, without repelling potential buyers of the magazine. Likewise, making such (rather drastic) changes to an existing campaign world (even with the built-in clause of advancing the timeline several centuries) is an almost-certain way to alienate the people who would otherwise buy the magazine specifically for that content.In future coverage of discontinued worlds, please take steps to retain the changes that make that world unique. It's because such worlds were never truly "standard" that we all enjoyed them before; that still holds true now.Sincerely,[insert name here][insert city and state here]</blockquote>

Verification