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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Darrin Drader" data-source="post: 1472194" data-attributes="member: 7394">First of all, well said Monte. One thing I would like to point out is that for the majority of the Darksun fans who read this issue without going online and discovering this big rowe, the material will serve the purpose of updating Darksun to third edition as it is presented. Yes there are things that were done and other things that could have been done differently, but at the end of the day, once an issue is printed it's up to the DMs and the players to make the setting come alive. That doesn't happen because of an article and it likewise doesn't fail to happen because of a few minor changes from the author's original material. A setting and a game comes alive because of the DMs and the players, most of which are house-ruling stuff in their home games on a regular basis. That is the way that D&D has always worked and continues to work. In short, if the published material doesn't work for your particular game, change it to suit your needs and stop worrying about it. The one thing that I think is being largely overlooked is that before this series of articles in Dungeon and Dragon magazine, Darksun was a dead setting. I know that Darksun has a large fan base and there has been a demand by a certain portion of the gaming community to bring it back in some form. Paizo stepped up to the plate and they made this happen. Now that they've done this service for the gamers who have so badly wanted it, they're being publicly lynched because it wasn't done the way they expected. Honestly, I don't feel that this is being fair to the staff who dedicate themselves to serving the needs of the gaming community month in and month out, often giving people their first published credits in the gaming industry. Another thing that needs to be said, as a freelancer who has had my material altered - usually for the better, but sometimes not, is that the process of development is necessary to bring raw material that is full of good ideas to a finished state. The process of development is necessary to ensure consistency with existing rules, as well as to review rules for clarity and game balance. Not ever good idea that a writer comes up with will see print and the developers do almost always have veto power. While communication with the editor and the ability to make changes to your own material is nice, it is not the norm. The developer is the person in charge of ensuring the quality of the final product. Most of the time their work is entierly transparent and nobody ever knows how much better the final material is because of their involvement. Occasionally, as in this case, they make a change that proves unpopular. Such is the life of a developer, and I feel sorry for them. When they do their job well it is the writer who gets all the credit. When they do their job poorly it is most often editors who are blamed. The bottom line, go easy on them.They do the best they can. If you don't like the final product, change it to suit your vision of what the setting should be, after all if this material will be used at all, it will be in your game.</blockquote>

Verification