To James Jacobs: A Growing Problem with Dungeon Magazine

[Mystery Man]

How about a sidebar that could be included in the adventure's web supplement that suggests alternate spell, class, feat and magic weapons options? That might be a happy medium.

DOH!

 

[Psion]

ENWorlders have an ongoing monthly thread of what "non-core" spells and what not would be cool to use in the current Dungeon mag's adventures. Then have the mod's "archive" each issues discussion.

I was thinking the same thing. A sort of "team uncore". I already tend to jazz up published adventures. Usually, when I scale things up, I use it as a chance to add non-core items (new spells, PrCs, etc.)

Of course, some of the changes I make are not only non-core, but third party.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Personally, I am fine with Dungeons policy. I've been perfectly capable of swapping out spells, monsters, magic items, and even BBEG, as I've seen fit for over 20 years now. I sure don't need Dungeon magazine telling me how to be a DM. Their advice, excellent maps, and solid adventures have been of great help and inspiration to me over the decades. But a "hand holding" approach telling me how to best swap things out for maximum effect is not something I want or need.

As a Real DM (TM) for almost 30 years now, I find that all I need is a square with "Monster" written in the middle and "Treasure" written beside it. Everything else is hand-holding, as I'm perfectly capable of customizing the map, monster and treasure on my own.

 

[takasi]

I view Core as the lowest common denominator.

I know some people don't like that term, but it's the best way I can describe it.

Core is what is common to the most number of players. Everyone who uses non-core books also uses core books.

That being said, I don't like it when the magazine always focuses on the lowest common denominator.

I'm guessing it's an overcompensation (IMO) for the negative feedback to Polyhedron.

If an adventure has non-core elements it isn't useless. In my experience very few people run Dungeon as is with no modification. In fact, the nature of D&D prevents you from running it 100% like it's spelled out in the module. IME tables want to explore and test the boundaries of everything the DM presents to them; it's what separates the tabletop experience from other types of games.

I wish every adventure in Dungeon did not have to be "playable" for 100% of their audience from a rules perspective. Even if 10-20% of one (out of three) adventures contained non-core references I don't think that's all that bad, do you? There is still a lot of good stuff a core only player can mine. I mean, look at the times of Polyhedron. IMO the adventures and ideas weren't playable to the majority of D&D campaigns, which made at least a quarter of the magazine useless.

I strongly dislike when the non-core player always has to adjust adventures if they want to play their way so that everything is being catered to the core player. To be fair it should be more even, IMO.

 

[Shroomy]

The problem with core vs. non-core is where do you draw the line? Core is core. There are always three books; in some cases, such as psionics, the Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, the editors can safely assume that the readers will have access to the XPH, FRCS, and ECS. But beyond that? Every non-core campaign could conceivably use a different mixture of books.

In any case, just about every Dungeon adventure uses non-core material anyways, especially monsters, classes, and feats (with a lesser emphasis on spells, magic items, weapons, and rules).

 

[Tharian]

How about a sidebar that could be included in the adventure's web supplement that suggests alternate spell, class, feat and magic weapons options? That might be a happy medium.

I think I like this suggestion best. It prevents the word count in the magazine from being cut back in any single adventure and it allows those who are interested to find material online that allows/suggests alternate sources for enhancing the adventure. Thanks for the idea, MH.

 

[D'karr]

If an adventure has non-core elements it isn't useless. In my experience very few people run Dungeon as is with no modification. In fact, the nature of D&D prevents you from running it 100% like it's spelled out in the module. IME tables want to explore and test the boundaries of everything the DM presents to them; it's what separates the tabletop experience from other types of games.

You're right the adventure is not useless but it is less useful. Many DMs might not have the time or inclination to change things around. I know there have been plenty of times when I haven't had the time to modify things. At those times a "core" adventure is right up my alley.

I wish every adventure in Dungeon did not have to be "playable" for 100% of their audience from a rules perspective. Even if 10-20% of one (out of three) adventures contained non-core references I don't think that's all that bad, do you? There is still a lot of good stuff a core only player can mine. I mean, look at the times of Polyhedron. IMO the adventures and ideas weren't playable to the majority of D&D campaigns, which made at least a quarter of the magazine useless.

Your example here seems to be contradictory. You don't see it as bad that the majority of the customer base would not find the content useful. Then you use the Polyhedron example ,which obviously 'tanked' specifically because it was not useful to the majority of the customer base. This makes no sense.

I strongly dislike when the non-core player always has to adjust adventures if they want to play their way so that everything is being catered to the core player. To be fair it should be more even, IMO.

Since the base assumption is that core works for the majority of their customer base I see no problem with their present policy.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

What if spells were "customized" for the NPCs in the module- nothing mechanically different, but just descriptively different? The snake-themed mage villain of the module casts magic missiles that look like ghostly serpents instead of glowing arrows- that sort of thing. Would that make any difference to those who are asking for a change?

I guess what I'm wondering, is what exactly is the change you're looking for? The OP mentions the sameness of encounters, as PCs use the same tactics against the same spells. At the very least, something like I suggest will require PCs to make Spellcraft checks each time against these different-seeming spells (maybe not a huge deal, I guess). Is it something mechanically different that is being sought, or are cosmetic changes enough?

 

[Festivus]

Having the optional Spell Compendium / PHB2 / DMG2 material available would be great... but not in the magazine. Make it a part of the downloadable content if applicable. You wouldn't need to include much more than the spell / feat name and where to find it in the appropriate book.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What if spells were "customized" for the NPCs in the module- nothing mechanically different, but just descriptively different? The snake-themed mage villain of the module casts magic missiles that look like ghostly serpents instead of glowing arrows- that sort of thing. Would that make any difference to those who are asking for a change?

Given how little difference there is between most D&D damage spells, I think this effectively exactly what they're wanting.

Hell, the most mysterious creatures IMC are ordinary bugbears that I've performed plastic surgery on, so they're tall men with the heads of owls. Sometimes, that's all it takes.