Review of THE HERMIT Module

[Col_Pladoh]

I'm one of those people who don't like the LA in the book so it's on the bottom of my list to get right now.

Really Joe? Have you looked at the module? The LA game material in it is really pretty slim, and as far as I know, the D20 stats are predominant. with the LA material not likely to get in the way at all.

Just checking to see if it's prejudice or antipathy

Cheers,
Gary

 

[JoeGKushner]

Really Joe? Have you looked at the module? The LA game material in it is really pretty slim, and as far as I know, the D20 stats are predominant. with the LA material not likely to get in the way at all.

Just checking to see if it's prejudice or antipathy

Cheers,
Gary

Depends on what you mean by prejudice or antipathy.

The Hermit is a generic fantasy module meant for all settings correct? Based on that, I really have little need for it at the top of my adventure list. Add in the fact that it has dual stats, no matter how little, and well, it goes to the bottom of my to get list. In addition, I didn't like the way they handled Canting Crew on a number of levels. I did enjoy the Slayer's Guide to Dragons though, so in this case, it's a strike against the Troll Lords, not the author. On the same vein though, I hated Dark Druids, also by Troll Lord Games. I don't know if they fear to edit the 'elite' or 'old guard' or what but if there was a module in dire need of an edit, that was it.

So we've got three factors going against me picking this up anytime soon.

1. Generic adventure module in generic land.

2. Dual stats. (BTW, if as has been noted a few times the LA stats take up so little room, why do them at all? Are the LA fans making up for the D20 fans not buying the product?)

3. 'Old Guard' Product by a company with two strikes when using 'Old Guard' writers.

Now you can change my mind on point one. Maybe this is a huge setting module with a lot of unique and inventive uses of the d20 system but 2 isn't going to change and 3 isn't going to change. Didn't like Canting Crew or Dark Druids.

Now just so I'm clear, I don't hate Gary or Troll Lords. Slayers Guide to Dragon good. Heart of Glass by Troll Lords, good. Combinations by Troll Lords with old guard? So far, bad.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Depends on what you mean by prejudice or antipathy.

Prejudice is judgement withoout real knowledge of the subject, while antipathy is a dislike based on familiarity with such subject.

The Hermit is a generic fantasy module meant for all settings correct?

Actually, it is presented as a D20 adventure based somewhere of generic nature so as to fit the GMs campaign. I anme that place for the LMs, as the game assumes a base world now. DMs using a variety of world setrings are given date so they can select the spot they like in their won world setting

Based on that, I really have little need for it at the top of my adventure list. Add in the fact that it has dual stats, no matter how little, and well, it goes to the bottom of my to get list.

But Joe, isn't a good adventure just that? It seems to me you are basing your dislike on things that are secondary to what a module is supposed to stand or fall on. If you were saying to the effect that you thought the adventure material sucked, I'd nod and understand, but...

In addition, I didn't like the way they handled Canting Crew on a number of levels.

Again, was there a content issue? That is something I understand.

[QOTE] I did enjoy the Slayer's Guide to Dragons though, so in this case, it's a strike against the Troll Lords, not the author. On the same vein though, I hated Dark Druids, also by Troll Lord Games. I don't know if they fear to edit the 'elite' or 'old guard' or what but if there was a module in dire need of an edit, that was it. [/QUOTE]

The Good Folks at Mongoose are likely not going to like attribution of the SGtD to Troll Lord. That aside, your not liking the material, as I assume you mean, in DARK DRUIDS is a matter of personal taste, and none can dispute that. Differences of that sort provide us all with a wealth of choices However, isn't a gripe about editing sort of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? You make no criticism of the adventure per se, and that makes me wonder.

So we've got three factors going against me picking this up anytime soon.

1. Generic adventure module in generic land.

2. Dual stats. (BTW, if as has been noted a few times the LA stats take up so little room, why do them at all? Are the LA fans making up for the D20 fans not buying the product?)

3. 'Old Guard' Product by a company with two strikes when using 'Old Guard' writers.

Well, objection number one is baseless, number two is simply answered by pointing out that I do not enjoy writing adventure material in the D20 system, but the publisher, and a considerable number of 3E players agree, that the converted material provides a food game experience. That being the reason for a module, after all, what can be wrong?

As an aside, your constant complaint about LA game stats being in the work seems highly defensive, as if they somehow threaten you by presenting some alternative to the system you espouse. From a detatched standpoint, I should think the dual-stats would be as likely to interest LA game system players in 3E as vice versa.

The "strikes" you mention seem to have a very shallow basis, one of form, not content. Of course I might well be dead wrong, that you are simply pointing out the most egregious things in your view, while ignoring content material you found less than satisfactory.

Now you can change my mind on point one. Maybe this is a huge setting module with a lot of unique and inventive uses of the d20 system but 2 isn't going to change and 3 isn't going to change. Didn't like Canting Crew or Dark Druids.

Now just so I'm clear, I don't hate Gary or Troll Lords. Slayers Guide to Dragon good. Heart of Glass by Troll Lords, good. Combinations by Troll Lords with old guard? So far, bad.

In truth I am not seeking to change your mind, Joe, or even get into some sort of acrimonious exchange here. The matter is one on information, and I appreciate your straightforward comments. What I am seeking to determine is if the content of the work is what is amiss in your view, or if things attendant to the product brought forth the dismissal out of hand.

Similarly, you speak of "old guard" as if it were some form of adventure design concept. If that is the case, how does one define the elements that constitute that form? What, of anything, is desirable about it? What specifically is undesirable?

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Inzae]

Please please please Joe

PLease no CC discussion please please please.

CC was all our fault. Gary's original intent, I believe - though Gary can speak for himself much better than I - was a generic roleplaying supplement describing the world of thieves as it actually existed. This was to be used as a template for characters wishing some honest to goodness information about how things work out there in the real world and not just in our heads.

We marketed and set it up wrong. As with the upcoming World Builders Guide and the Gyagaxian Fantasy series there is a serious marketing dilemna. If we market it and set it up as generic we kill some d20 purchasers, if we set it too much d20 we kill the generic market. Then we gotta figure which is the larger market. Anyway, seems we made all the wrong decisions on the CC.

On the CC though, outside of its d20 mechanics and formatting, I have to say I stand behind that material 100%. That is awesome roe playing material to work with - I think so anyway. It even has value outside of the game community because Gary's research on the Cant and the Thieve's guilds. This is really good information and properly formatted, addressed and discussed/analyzed would be a widely valuable academic text.

Anyway, I am going on too long. As for the Hermit, the adventure itself is really interesting and has some really cool things in it so is probably worth a gander while your whiling away time at the store. LOL

woops gotta go!!!

Davis

 

[JoeGKushner]

Actually, it is presented as a D20 adventure based somewhere of generic nature so as to fit the GMs campaign. I anme that place for the LMs, as the game assumes a base world now. DMs using a variety of world setrings are given date so they can select the spot they like in their won world setting

So it's a generic nature right? Lots of modules out there so it's not in a prime position to start off with.

But Joe, isn't a good adventure just that? It seems to me you are basing your dislike on things that are secondary to what a module is supposed to stand or fall on. If you were saying to the effect that you thought the adventure material sucked, I'd nod and understand, but...

Reviewed Dark Druids. here. It was more than just the game system, but lets me be clear. I've bought modules in the past, from the company you used to wrok at even with Cyborg COmmandos, etc... with 'generic' stats that fit all game sysems and these days, with the numerous amount of support material for a game system out there, i.e. d20, to bash a game for having a poor grasp of d20 mechahnics is a very legitimit concern.
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_7181.html

Again, was there a content issue? That is something I understand.

Content, pricing, game mechanic, lots of things I didn't like about Canting Crew.

The Good Folks at Mongoose are likely not going to like attribution of the SGtD to Troll Lord. That aside, your not liking the material, as I assume you mean, in DARK DRUIDS is a matter of personal taste, and none can dispute that. Differences of that sort provide us all with a wealth of choices However, isn't a gripe about editing sort of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? You make no criticism of the adventure per se, and that makes me wonder.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water? Um... no. Paying for adventuers means editing should be done. If this was something freely downloaded or passed out, no problem but as I noted above, I did review the module and found it lacking on many points. As far as attributing SGtD to Troll Lords, I meant that it was a book written by you and I wasn't bashing you as a writer, not attributing it to Troll Lords per say.

Well, objection number one is baseless, number two is simply answered by pointing out that I do not enjoy writing adventure material in the D20 system, but the publisher, and a considerable number of 3E players agree, that the converted material provides a food game experience. That being the reason for a module, after all, what can be wrong?

Well, because it's a generic module with LA stats, there are a ton of other modules out there that don't have LA stats and are by companies that have a higher track record of success with their modules so your opnion that it's baseless is your opinion, not necessarily everyone's.

As an aside, your constant complaint about LA game stats being in the work seems highly defensive, as if they somehow threaten you by presenting some alternative to the system you espouse. From a detatched standpoint, I should think the dual-stats would be as likely to interest LA game system players in 3E as vice versa.

No, I just don't like ANY dual statted game, which you took out of context, because I specifically mentioned two other settings, L5R and 7 Seas, which you dropped. I mentioned that because your module is generic, it doesn't have the same hold that these or even Deadlands or Fading Suns do. A unique setting where if you want the rules and information, you've got to buy the dual stat books to get it.

The "strikes" you mention seem to have a very shallow basis, one of form, not content. Of course I might well be dead wrong, that you are simply pointing out the most egregious things in your view, while ignoring content material you found less than satisfactory.

In truth I am not seeking to change your mind, Joe, or even get into some sort of acrimonious exchange here. The matter is one on information, and I appreciate your straightforward comments. What I am seeking to determine is if the content of the work is what is amiss in your view, or if things attendant to the product brought forth the dismissal out of hand.

Similarly, you speak of "old guard" as if it were some form of adventure design concept. If that is the case, how does one define the elements that constitute that form? What, of anything, is desirable about it? What specifically is undesirable?

Cheers,
Gary

As far as Old Guard, I mean the 'famous' writers from 1st ed. D&D, nothing more. I've enjoyed several of Necromancer's book and they boost "1st edition feel." I highly doubt for example, if John Wick came to Troll Lords and wanted Ork stats in a module he wrote for d20 that we'd see it there. I could be completely off base but I believe the LA parts are in concession because you are well known, famous even in the role playing community. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I want and I'm glad for example, that the SGtD didn't have any LA stats and I suspect, but could be wrong, that they didn't because they are a larger company and didn't have to give you any concessions.

If you have any more questions, fire away. I've read and played a lot of your material, enjoyed some, hated others and have no problem sharing my opinion.

Part of the problem with the internet is that despite the fact you can refer to what you've written, it doesn't always come across the same way due to different backgrounds each person brings to the table and sometimes requires clarification which I'm glad to provide when I can.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Thanks, Joe,

Seems I was totally ignorant of your reviews, so...

Anyway, from my read I take it that the thrust of your ficus on non-generic setting means that you want work specific not only to a game system but to a/the world setting for the system. Assuming that, had I inferred the setting for THE HERMIT was on Oerth, that would have made it more valuable in your estimation,

As an aside, many of the old AD&D modules I penned fit that mold, were "generic" so as to allow any DM to put them into whatever setting suited the campaign.

How right you are about the difficulties of communicating in writing thus. Likely over a glass of buttermilk the actual intent would be clear quickly--like you'd have said, "What, you didn't see my review?!" That would have stopped a lot of the inane questions I actually asked I don't take any offense about someone not liking some or all of my materail, that's not a personal attack. Lots of things other's like that I don't and vice versa. Hell, I am one of the few members of the imaginary ZARDOZ fan club... Thankfully, most folks I know judge me not on whether I like the same sort of entertainment as they do

Cheers,
Gary

 

[JoeGKushner]

Thanks, Joe,
Anyway, from my read I take it that the thrust of your ficus on non-generic setting means that you want work specific not only to a game system but to a/the world setting for the system. Assuming that, had I inferred the setting for THE HERMIT was on Oerth, that would have made it more valuable in your estimation,

As an aside, many of the old AD&D modules I penned fit that mold, were "generic" so as to allow any DM to put them into whatever setting suited the campaign.

Cheers,
Gary

Closer my friend, closer. Let's take it a step further though. Let's say Rolemaster came out with a dual statted d20 book that didn't expanded the ruleset of d20 in any way shape or form but was a generic module set in Shadow World.

Shadow World is fairly unique in its own way and I might be tempted to pick it up but... it's still a generic module and I'd have to think about it really hard and see what others said about it.

Putting the module on Oerth wouldnt' do much for me either because Oerth has become a generic setting too. Putting it in the Scarred Lands though, or Nyambe, or Tirn Na... damn, what it is Ooog? would make me pick it up though in a hardbeat as those are all settings I'm interested in so the dual stats would become secondary, as is the case with the Coroliors line from Atlas so far.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

At last the dawn

Your use of "generic" threw me. You employ it in a narrower sense than I am used to, but it is apt once I have understood how it is applied.

Am I then correct in assuming that the major value you find in a madule is its new material content, game or setting specific? While there are some number of new D20 critters and magic items added in THE HERMIT, it isn't focused on a particular setting and isn't aimed at any innovations in any game system, 3E or LA. It is just an adventure I hope a lot of other gamers will have fun with, as I did

At one time I made considerable effort to include much of that sort of thing in my work. At this point I have aimed more at the adventure proper, less at anything new not absolutely needed for the adventure. I understand your viewpoint, if I have come close to it, for in writing a sourcebook for the LEJENDARY EARTH World Setting, revealinl much and leaving lost of questions unanswered, places of mystery, I tossed in a great mesa-like plateau in the middle of the barren area, and then treated it separately in another sourcebook, adding thereafter a long and harrowing adventure portion set thereon so as to round out the whole and reveal more details of the history of the area. Those works are still awaiting production, likely come sometime in 2003.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[JoeGKushner]

Yeah, that's about it.

Say that one of these modules took things in your Lejendary system and provided not conversions, but d20 ways of doing them. That would be worth picking up.

One of the strengths I think, of the Corlioris line from Atlas, is that they're taking games and putting rule sets, like the Wuxia rules for Feng Shui, and the Mechanomancy from Unknown Armies, and putting them into D20.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Yeah, that's about it.

Say that one of these modules took things in your Lejendary system and provided not conversions, but d20 ways of doing them. That would be worth picking up.

I *thought* a lot of that was done in THE HERMIT, as many aspects of play from the LA game system need translation to D20, but... Joe, eyball HALL OF MANY PANES when it hits sometime next spring and give me--us all--your take on it

Cheers,
Gary