Rant About Recent Dungeon Magazines

[ColonelHardisson]

If it's in Dungeon, and it's not D&D, and I want the D&D content, then I am being forced to buy a bunch of junk (IMO) I can't use and don't want... and it's stealing space that was formerly used for more of the D&D content I want! How fair is that to me?

Pure hyperbole. I doubt that every single magazine, or newspaper, for that matter, that you buy is 100% full of only material you, specifically, want to read. Magazines have to have a variety of material to appeal to a lot more than one reader. Unless you can buy Dungeon and have it print only one issue specifically tailored to what you like, then you'll have to deal with the fact that it has to try to please other readers. Like me.

Flakey concepts are anything not proven to be a bestseller; therefore it is safe to assume that they will have limited appeal.

If they've never been done before, either overall or just in d20, then there is no way to know if they are bestsellers or not. Unless you have a crystal ball or a timemachine. And, again, we're already playing a "flakey concept."

Pretty much everything in Poly qualifies as far as I'm concerned. Save "innovations" like Thunderball Rally and Hijinks for fan sites or third party publishers. Dungeon is supposed to be all about D&D, not about misc. genre rpgs. The internet is where flakey concepts belong (since that's where so many flakes are, LOL); no sane publisher should risk money on them.

No, just those publishers that aren't boring, and then stagnate and go out of business. Innovation and new ideas are good.

IMO, Paizo is mistaken if they think they can turn Dungeon into a "player's magazine". How many players are going to pay for two $6-7 mags each month (Dragon and Dungeon?). Not many. None of my players even buy Dragon! Heck, I rarely buy Dragon (too many stupid comics, too many useless [for me] articles).

Players outnumber DMs greatly. Aiming specifically at DMs only will only hasten the demise of the magazine.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Originally posted by Iron_Chef
Introduce new rules, feats, spells, etc. Create mini-games that could be used in a D&D campaign. Some ideas that have not been covered yet by WoTC are low magic worlds or no magic worlds (maybe even a real medieval historical setting).

I'm only marignally interested in using Poly for other fantasy settings. We already have 3rd party publishers doing some amazing things with low magic worlds, high magic worlds, licensed worlds based on popular literary works, and so on. I don't mind seeing the occasional mini-game dealing with this, but frankly Poly is really only useful to me if it can provide the foundation for a new campaign or a one-off. Additional fantasy material just creates additional material for D&D that I will likely not use. A no-magic historical setting, on the other hand, is exacty the kind of thing Poly would be suited toward, and would be interesting since D20 is so slanted to magic use and the fantasy genre. Even D20 Modern wouldn't be the right fit for this type of thing. Interesting possibilities for design here.

Originally posted by ColonelHardisson
While I don't think this is a bad idea overall, I'll echo what I just said - the third party publishers would be better suited for this. Still, I don't think it's a bad idea. Heck, why not have a minigame that tries to construct a 1e style campaign setting for d20hi?

Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, and Troll Lord Games are already doing some great stuff here. I'm beginning to think Necro is getting somewhat away from the 1st edition feel a little, but I still like the quality of the material they are putting out.

Originally posted by ColonelHardisson
There have been entire RPGs that have lasted for years based on many of those concepts. Car Wars, TMNT, and Robotech are good examples.

It is the innovation of new concepts like the ones listed above that is the reason I support Poly to the degree I do. While roleplaying still boils down to a game of "lets poretend" with rules and minis, I'm of the belief that there are still numerous untapped possibilities for gaming floating around in someone's skull somewhere that would make for interesting gaming. I personally didn't so much enjoy the WWII mini-game, the genetech min-game, or the Jose and the Pussycats mini-game (I forget what they called it, but I did enjoy the one on the Githyanki, Spelljammer, Omega World, and the one on Mechs. They add a great deal of added content that I either have used inthe past or plan to use at some point in the future.

I also agree that the alternate rule sets Poly publishes should be Open Content if they don't tie directly in with D&D IP. However, we must keep in mind that it was stated in the beginning that the mini-games are cool concepts that are "potentially unpopular." In other words, even if the rules were open source, there's a decent chance no one would want to take a commercial risk on them. Nevertheless, just as surely as someone wanted to take the time to write a mini-game, someone else will find it to be exactly what they were looking for.

Finally, on the Dungeon side of things, I'm not really in favor of adding content other than adventures. While interesting NPC's are a cool idea, I think they're much cooler when placed in some sort of context. I would prefer unique NPCs, new magic weapons, and mini-settings to remain in Dragon.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give credit where credit is due department

No, I'm thinking of Atlas. I have intensely disliked everything d20 the company has done with the exceptions of Backdrops, Three Days To Kill and Dynasties & Demagogues. All of the other books you mention (and those you don't, such as the modules) fall into the "hated it" category with me, including Splintered Peace. Why? Because they include too many demihumans in them and that irritates me because I run humanocentric games. I thought Splintered Peace sounded cool, until I picked up the book and saw the word "halflings" displayed prominently on the back cover. I put it down immediately in disgust. I looked through the other books and thought "Blech! Could've been good, but they ruined it with all these stinkin' elves and dwarves and such. I don't have time to convert this stuff to humans, and I'll never use them, so buying this would be a waste."

I will have nothing to do with dirty, rotten demihumans ever since Gimble ran off with my wife.

Given that nonhumans are such an integral part of D&D, how you play seems to be far from the norm. That could be why you dislike so much of the material in Polyhedron. Your style is variant enough that only third party publishers could afford to produce the type of material you want.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

However, we must keep in mind that it was stated in the beginning that the mini-games are cool concepts that are "potentially unpopular."

Yep, I remember that well.

In other words, even if the rules were open source, there's a decent chance no one would want to take a commercial risk on them.

Agreed that the possibility is there that no one would. It's a moot point, though, since nobody now can take the risk.

Nevertheless, just as surely as someone wanted to take the time to write a mini-game, someone else will find it to be exactly what they were looking for.

Exactly.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re: Give credit where credit is due department

Heh. Atlas... Yup.

Atlas normally puts out horrible d20 content, IMO, so I naturally tried to attribute something as clever as Dynasties & Demagogues to another d20 publisher that started with the letter "A" who actually puts out stuff I like on a frequent basis. My bad.

Are you sure you mean Atlas?

I can't think of one Atlas product that I would call total crap

 

[Teflon Billy]

Woops, asked and answered

 

[Iron_Chef]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Give credit where credit is due department

Given that nonhumans are such an integral part of D&D, how you play seems to be far from the norm. That could be why you dislike so much of the material in Polyhedron. Your style is variant enough that only third party publishers could afford to produce the type of material you want.

They may be "integral" but they are marginalized in the current official settings (GH and FR), which are strongly humanocentric, as humans and human kingdoms far outnumber and outpower the demihumans. The demihumans are in decline everywhere, and have retreated to Evermeet or otherwise isolated themselves from humans. So I must strongly disagree that my game is not in keeping with the mainstream of D&D.

IMC, Demihumans still exist, but generally must be sought out in remote areas, where the seeker will be faced with a certain amount of paranoia and suspicion by the demihumans. Humans bring trouble, either directly or indirectly, and must be proven to be a friend to that particular demihuman people (or clan or other subset) before being accepted and receiving hospitality or trade. There are a few demihumans in major human cities, but they are generally considered insane by their people, or are outlaws, or are forced to deal with humans so others of their race won't have to (such as a dwarven merchant consortium who likes human coin but hates humans--they need a dwarf to run things and make sure that their human "frontman" isn't double-dealing them).

Frankly, I hardly think demihumans are necessary at all to the enjoyment of a good D&D game. IMO, they serve more to distract from a quality setting than add anything of substantive value. Frex, them pesky gnomes could have (should have) been removed entirely, as the original 3e design team considered doing.

 

[Treebore]

My problem with Dungeon was that I was a subscriber to it when they took away the material i had paid to get and replaced it with the polyhedron material. They sent me a renewal and i sent them an email explaining why I wasn't renewing. Sqame thing with Dragon, for that matter. Now that I am not converting to 3.5 i find Dragon to be even less of a loss to me.

Now i just have to decide what to do with this extra money (I budget my D&D purchases). So far I have been buying more Goodman games and Necromancer stuff, so good for them. I still haven't spent the money for the 3.5 core rules books though. Any suggestions on what gaming materials to buy?

 

[Darrin Drader]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Give credit where credit is due department

They may be "integral" but they are marginalized in the current official settings (GH and FR), which are strongly humanocentric, as humans and human kingdoms far outnumber and outpower the demihumans. The demihumans are in decline everywhere, and have retreated to Evermeet or otherwise isolated themselves from humans. So I must strongly disagree that my game is not in keeping with the mainstream of D&D.

Actually in the Forgotten Realms Demi-humans aren't marginalized. Demi-human realms are marginalized, but the majority of the human regions are 80%-90% human, leaving 10%-20% demi-humans. Other regions, such as the Savage Frontier are less (55% human). This may not seem like a lot of demi-humans overall, but when you consider that 1 or 2 out of 10 individuals in most Forgotten Realms regions or cities aren't human, this points towards a completely different scenario - demi-human integration, which is much different than marginalization. Count your co-workers and then imagine if the same number of people in your office were demi-humans. It would really change the atmospher quite a bit, I would think.

Still, that aside, I agree that a humanocentric focus to a D&D game can be a good way to go. By minimalizing the fantastic elements, the world seems more fantastic when you do run across them. When the demi-humans become less commonplace, they are viewed as more mythical and mysterious. I try to find a good balance in my games. I've never let my players form an all elf, or elf and dwarf party. I've always insisted that the racial makeup be more or less representative of the races in that society unless there is a darn good reason, such as the party being a group of emissaries from an elven nation, or somesuch.

Regardless Iron Chef, I get the feeling you might like Necromancer Games' stuff. They like the gritty 1st edition feel, which means that most of their products are adventures (a little heavy on the hack & Slash most of the time, but not always) and they don't overuse demi-humans. They're also usually generic enough to be dropped into either Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms with little to no effort.

 

[Krug]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give credit where credit is due department

No, I'm thinking of Atlas. I have intensely disliked everything d20 the company has done with the exceptions of Backdrops, Three Days To Kill and Dynasties & Demagogues. All of the other books you mention (and those you don't, such as the modules) fall into the "hated it" category with me, including Splintered Peace. Why? Because they include too many demihumans in them and that irritates me because I run humanocentric games. I thought Splintered Peace sounded cool, until I picked up the book and saw the word "halflings" displayed prominently on the back cover. I put it down immediately in disgust. I looked through the other books and thought "Blech! Could've been good, but they ruined it with all these stinkin' elves and dwarves and such. I don't have time to convert this stuff to humans, and I'll never use them, so buying this would be a waste."

I will have nothing to do with dirty, rotten demihumans ever since Gimble ran off with my wife.

Yes, publishers, you shall eliminate all creatures or monsters that have caused emotional scarring in any readers. This includes flumphs (ran off with my car), aboleths (ran off with my boat) and green slimes (ran off with my wife) and 80% of the monster manual (hate the art!) Got it?