To James Jacobs: A Growing Problem with Dungeon Magazine

[pogre]

For example, 143 has many references where you cannot use the monster at all unless you have the non-core book. This is a pretty rare occurance.

Thank goodness.

I'm the core books fuddy duddy who does not mind a few extras thrown into an adventure as long as they are explained or a reasonable substitute is given. The folks at Dungeon have been doing a great job with this.

Why should core-only players be the ones expected to make substitutions?

For me, issue #143 is going to take a bit more work to use, and for that reason it was a slight disappointment.

I think a fair amount of DMs kit bash these adventures. Grab an idea, an encounter, a map, or whatever to use. It's a time saver.

Eberron adventures with lightning trains are a pain. At least the adventure gave some ideas on how to substitute other things in for the train.

 

[blargney the second]

In future issues, I'll be keeping an eye on NPC spell selection and I'll see what I can do to vary it up.

That's gracious of you, James.
-blarg

 

[Mercule]

I think I'm going to write a module that uses nothing core (except skills, I guess). If I can actually manage to do that, I'll submit it and maybe James will include it just to be contrary.

 

[Nightfall]

keep those thoughts in your head rather than on the page please - Plane Sailing And I still support the idea Psion and Tree came up with as ways of alternative spell selection for those that want it. Maybe instead of actually being IN dungeon it could be like the Web enhancement for that issue.

Saves face for everyone.

*will write that one non-core adventure* But some how I doubt James is looking for Scarred Lands submissions.

 

[Plane Sailing]

/Moderator:
Don't want to see any snarky comments about other people, please.

 

[Crust]

I'm a proud subscriber of Dungeon. I don't have any complaints about spell, feat, or class level selection in the bosses. I always change things to suit the campaign. That's part of the fun for me. The module is there. It's up to me to mold it.

 

[der_kluge]

James, what is your policy WRT non-WoTC material? What if, say, someone sent you a really freaking awesome adventure but it included hypermitotic amorphous hiveminded kobolds (templates from the Book of Templates). Would you reject it?



I took a moment to read Dungeon's submission guidelines today. Personally, I think the "problem" (if there is one) is in their overall guidelines. I could not, say, write a module that was a location-based encounter. Personally, those are my favorite. They are the most portable, and they are the easiest ones to incorporate into an existing campaign. The typical Dungeon module often has so much overhead in terms of NPCs or cities, or god-specific stuff (I don't use the PHB Gods, and I don't know many who do), that it often becomes excessively difficult to incorporate the adventure into my game.

I'd personally rather see portable, miniature dungeon-crawl or encounter locations (like the Backdrops). I find those to be MUCH more useful.

 

[humble minion]

If you take a step back though - the definition of 'core' is not as wedded to the concept of 'only what was in the PHB/DMG/MM' any more. Case in point (as always) would be Polymorph. Are the various PHB polymorph spells 'core'? Or have they been replaced by the Spell Compendium polymorph subschool? I'm fairly sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that the latter is true for the purposes of Dungeon, but that's already getting us beyond the 'three basic books are all you need' point. I'm aware that polymorph is a special case, but the inherent blurring of the lines of what is 'core' is worth noting.

Having said all that, I personally favour a bit of a compromise solution. Antagonist spellcasters rarely get off more than a handful of spells before getting ganked anyway, so only one or two of their spells need to be from non-standard sources to make them interesting and novel for the PCs to face. While some spells (telekinesis...) eat up loads of word count, most are short enough that descriptions of one or two can be slipped in without breaking space limitations too badly, and things like energy substituted evocations take up even less room.

And to be honest, the PHB spells include so many basic necessities of spellcasterdom (invisibility, fly, dispel magic, dimension door), that anyone who wholesale neglects them is asking for trouble anyway (with the possible exception of bards, who get major combat benefits from various Complete sources...)

 

[Arawen]

Core Books

I'd like to thank Dungeon's editors for keeping its adventures to requiring only the core books.

I subscribe and read every issue for ideas, but I like the idea of keeping things simple.

As a DM, I can and do change things in adventures before running them. I'm glad that Dungeon's adventures only require those three books. That way I always know what the author intends. If I wish to supplement it or switch out a spell, I can do so.

Arawen

 

[Steel_Wind]

The point of my initial post was not to challenge the concept that Dungeon does not from time to time use other magic items, monsters and even feats from other sources. It certainly does.

The point is that it is rare for this to happen in terms of spell selection. I think, in fairness, that James Jacobs admits that too.

It IS a rarity.

The point in my asking this was not to substitute one damage dealing spell for another just for flavor. It's not about that at all.

It's about different spell selections which develops entirely different tactics and buffs with an entirely different flow to the combat. That is not a minor change in the game's design. It's a crap load of thought behind the design and about 200 words of "development" and "tactics" which would create an entirely different column on the page to read.

As for some of you making the droll little "Gee...I can do it myself comments"... *Ahem* Climb down off your high horses please.

Yes, I've been gaming for 30 years too. Yes I can do this myself with a fair bit of work and have done so often in the past. And unlike most of the posters here, yes, I actually do make a decent income from producing D&D encounters and adventures (albeit on the silicon side of the ledger).

But I'm not so vain to think I know all about it, nor am I conceited enough to believe that I can seize upon every clever angle that the PnP pro designers out there can find. Put simply - when it comes to pure sneaky spin - fresh eyes and a fresh approach helps a lot.

Moreover, sometimes, I don't *want* to do any more design work. It ends up being a lot more like work and a lot less like fun. I just want to have someone else do it for me so I can just enjoy my gaming session. I get to do so infrequently as it stands.

In any event - the editor has spoken with a reasoned response for which I cannot fault him, especially given the stick-in-the-mud responses in this thread which seem aghast at the idea.

So I guess for a different feel - it will be a home reno for my AP game.

:\