To James Jacobs: A Growing Problem with Dungeon Magazine

[WayneLigon]

Core, for purposes of this post is: PHB, MM, DMG.

I like the policy. Nothing ticks me off more than having to look up some weird spell I've never heard of, even assuming I have the book (which is most cases is 'no'). If for some reason a non-core spell is vital to the adventure, reprint a 'reader's digest' version of it (and to hell with the 'you reprinted info!' crowd).

I think it's a good policy. I think the vast majority of players and subscribers are going to have parties made up mostly of core races and classes, using core spells. Everyone can be counted on to have the PHB/MM/DMG combo. Nothing else should be assumed unless it's a special case or a setting-specific adventure (such as Eberron or FR).

 

[the Jester]

I suggest expanding the definition of "core" by one book - or (option 2) by three books.

But by definition, the core rules are the MM, PH and DMG. I don't think it's wise to inflate what "core" means- look at 2e, after all! There were tons of products that required you to have a dozen different MCs, Complete books, regional sourcebooks, etc. to "get" the whole of the product that you were trying to use. I realize that you're not arguing for something as sweeping as that, but you need to bear in mind that not everyone wants to use stuff from outside the core.

Core rules = required to play the game.

More core rules = bigger investment to get into the game = less new players = stagnant player base = dnd slowly strangles itself.

It's not a good idea, imho, though sidebars stating, "If you have (book X) you should substitute (spell Y) for Bob's scorching ray" are fine imho. Hell, more than fine; they're great.

 

[pogre]

Core is readily available, playtested, and universal. Dungeon's policy makes a lot of sense.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

If all non-core players used all of the same non-core stuff, that might be possible.

 

[takasi]

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.

In one extreme you have Polyhedron with the most unconventional d20 stuff where 95% of the material is unusable in most campaigns. (And this was when you only had one issue every other month!)

In the other extreme you have absolutely no material that is unconventional.

I just think there is a better balance. There are three adventures in every issue and 12 issues a year and IMO that's plenty of room for at least one adventure with psionics, incarnum or campaign specific material every month.

If at least one Dungeon adventure can be used in your campaign then isn't the magazine worth its price?

Do you think Dungeon isn't worth the purchase if you can't use every single adventure 100% as is?

 

[smootrk]

I would very much like to see more content coming from some of the additional books by WotC. Use of Beguilers, Knights, Warlocks, etc. would all be interesting additions as would spells, psionics, or other nifty new fangled stuff. However, I do agree that it would be difficult to please everyone, and it would be rather frustrating if the new fangled rules were taken from books that I didn't have.

That all being said, perhaps Dungeon could allow 1 or 2 adventures per issue to have complete Author Freedom of expression, with the condition that they include a Core-Only version with their submission. Then Dungeon could include either the author's original vision in the magazine and the stripped down core version in a Web-Enhancement (or vice versus, as either route would be acceptable to me personally).

In this Internet-Age, with Web-Enhancements already a reality, it certainly seems like a logical method for a 'plus' for the magazine. I would certainly be happy with this kind of additional offering.

 

[takasi]

In this Internet-Age, with Web-Enhancements already a reality, it certainly seems like a logical method for a 'plus' for the magazine. I would certainly be happy with this kind of additional offering.

I would love to see this. I would even pay for additional web supplements if they included professional adventure design using non-core WotC material.

Doesn't anyone else think it's a little ironic that Paizo is one of the only companies that has a license to publish professional adventures with non-core WotC material yet they stick with SRD material that ANYONE could publish?

 

[Garnfellow]

To me, Dungeon's got the mix almost perfect . . . enough information for me to run the encounters, and to occasionally tempt me to pick up a new supplement or two, but not so much that I find it distracting. I have a hard enough time remembering what some of the higher level core spells do, I don't feel a big need to have non-core spells.

 

[D'karr]

I would very much like to see more content coming from some of the additional books by WotC. Use of Beguilers, Knights, Warlocks, etc. would all be interesting additions as would spells, psionics, or other nifty new fangled stuff. However, I do agree that it would be difficult to please everyone, and it would be rather frustrating if the new fangled rules were taken from books that I didn't have.

That is the biggest problem of all. When you are trying to use an adventure and the "class", "feat", "item", or "spell" does not reside in a book you have or are familiar with. That is extremely distracting and can end up wasting a lot of time. For that reason alone "core only" is the biggest advantage and customer draw. Specially if the adventure is not going to reproduce the text for the "item" in question.

There is a big problem when it is assumed that the customer has access to the "secondary" source for the item in question. This becomes even worse when the customer doesn't have the secondary source.

If I gave two lists of spells one that looked like this (Core Rules):
1st: Alarm, Hold Portal, Shield, Grease
2nd:Arcane Lock, Protection from Arrows, Acid Arrow, Glitterdust
3rd: Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes, Protection from Energy, Sleet Storm, Arcane Sight

And one that looked like this (Secondary Source):
1st: Gavel, Mask, Reinforce, Untangle
2nd: Waldo's Perception, Protection, Minor Missile, Glitterdust
3rd: Channel Energy, Transposition, Reflection

Since the first list is all from the core rules the customer has the source available or readily available. Since playing without the PHB or a copy of the SRD is nearly impossible it is a safe bet that the customer has the "core rules".

However, look at the secondary source list. If the Dungeon adventure has the text for all those spells then having those spells in the adventure is not a big problem. However, you are now eating space from the adventure to put those spells in the mix.

But let's say that the adventure does not have the text for those spells in it. If you don't have the secondary source, what spells do you replace those spells with? You have no idea what the spells do and without the secondary source you are lost in making a "suitable" replacement.

So in that case either you are out of luck or the Dungeon adventure would have to include information on what to substitute, once again eating space from the adventure.

 

[Shroomy]

I'm just not getting this, as this core vs. non-core debate seems like a false dichotomy. Since the Issue 114 relaunch, almost every adventure published in Dungeon has incorporated some sort of non-core elements. Go back and look and you'll see that the last core only adventure was in Issue 131 ("The Beasts of Aulbesmil"). Most of these non-core elements are monsters, classes, and feats, but Dungeon has incorporated non-core spells (I've seen spell substitution, sidebars, and appendixes), magic items, rules, and equipment.