Greyhawk: Return to Keep on the Borderlands (pseudo-GH)
Emirikol7
Just picked up a copy of Return to B2. Labled a Gh product, and about 1/2 the
gods therein are Greyhawk (cuthbert..wee jas), but the main gods are Babylonian
(along with the NPC names), Egyptian, or definately non-Greyhawk. The location
is Yeomanry, but it's going to fit nicely into anycampaign.
Should be easily adaptable to Greyhawk or Realms otherwise (no spoilers here).
Killer for low level PC's though. I fear for their lives! Maybe it's an
attempt by TSR to boost the sale of character sheets ;)
From a DMing standpoint, I consider it to be one of the years better
adventures.
Dr. Jay H, D.C., B.Sc.
(less 'spolys' to email)
Down with elves! Down with longswords! Down with all the AD&D cliche's!
Paul Stormberg
Here is one of the initial reviews of Return to the Keep on the
Borderlands "Greyhawk" module that I posted there the other day on the
GreyTalk list. It has set off a bit of a thread but WotC/TSR's best
response so far is by Steve "Tamerlain" Wilson (I don't even think he is
on the payroll). In his response he essentially says there are now two
types of Greyhawk products: canon campaign setting specific and
not-so-canon core AD&D rules. RttKotB being the latter. Here is my
review of the Greyhawk and Old Timer content of the revisited module:
[begin crosspost]
Re: [GREYTALK] Return to the Keep on the Borderlands
Paul Stormberg <stor...@neonramp.com> wrote:
These are the first signs of the curse that is: making Greyhawk the core
world. That is really gonna bite us in the butt. I bet "team Greyhawk"
didn't get a look at this one! As far as Greyhawk goes, this module is
pastiche crap and it shows. It very much reminds me of my effort to
update the KotB, using red markers to add names and alter maps. Of
course I was 15 at the time, but even then I would have said "I can do
better than that minotaur labyrinth!" The minotaur labyrinth expansion
is really dumb. It looks like a 12 year old designed it.
If you took all the Greyhawk references out of it and eliminated the
silly minotaur-expansion-labyrinth it would be a great module. In fact,
I would *really* like it. However, claiming it as Greyhawk makes me
bare fangs:
Essentially this Rateliff fellow took his already written NON-GREYHAWK
Return to the KotB and slapped a few Greyhawk names in it. Boo!
Indeed, I am sure this thing was originally a Mystara/D&D Known World
module. It would have been great if it had stayed as such.
There are so many sins against Greyhawk canon in this one that it
belongs right beside WG10 Child's Play!
Sure the module is good and there are some really neat parts to it but
as to it being Greyhawk - it stinks. It throws a whole bunch of GARBAGE
into Greyhawk that we *don't* need!
Please, please WotC/TSR, let the Greyhawk team look at these first.
This is just awful.
Sins against Greyhawk canon:
1. Moved a bunch of Mystara/D&D information and gods into Greyhawk,
e.g., Cynidicea, Cynidicean language, Cathos City, d'Ambreville, Maruda,
etc.
2. Added more gods to Greyhawk and new pantheons, e.g., moon-god (hmm,
a male moon-god - *we* all know Celene and Luna are female - I guess
there are now *three* moons for Oerth), St. Erkenwald, Maruda,
Babylonian gods, Egyptian gods, ankh symbols, Marduk, Ishtar, Anunnaki,
Igigi, Erishkigal, Nergal, the Lawful Good snake-god Hispis (it's
*somebody's* piss that's for sure), Apep the Devourer, and Prophet
Quonzar - boy we needed *another* female goddess of death didn't we?
But I suppose Mr. Rateliff didn't know of any female Greyhawk deities of
death he could use...
Gosh, and I was just thinking we needed more undescribed deities
(especially ones with aspects and spheres that duplicate existing
deities) and pantheons, I mean we only have 180 gods and a dozen
pantheons - mostly undescribed.
3. They locate Quasqueton right next door! The Yeomanry isn't even one
of the suggested Greyhawk locations from the original module B1, it is
supposed to be in Ratik, Tehn, or the Pale)!
4. They located the Keep in southwestern Yeomanry!? The Keep's
terrain: forest, rivers, and fen/swamp, better correspond to
south*eastern* Yeomanry. In fact they *exactly* correspond to that
area's terrain. I bet Mr. Rateliff didn't even look at the map.
Crimes against old-timers everywhere [NGC but the whole add campaign was
aimed at us old-timers]:
1. Bugbears purr? Sure they can like catnip but do they have to purr?
Mr. Rateliff thinks "hearing a bugbear purr should be a rather
disconcerting event for the average PC" - what the... It would only
make may player's laugh and say "Here kitty, kitty" and then fireball
the lot of 'em. What a disgrace.
2. They don't give the original translation of "Bree-Yark!", only other
ones! To this I can only say "Hey Rube!"
3. Oh yeah, the advertisements all talk about the "Chapel of Evil
Chaos" - well they renamed it. It's the "Hidden Temple" now:-(
Swords Bright,
Paul (Who wishes he could shout "Do-over!" and have it actually work.)
GreenRonin
>Return to the KotB and slapped a few Greyhawk names in it. Boo!
No, he didn't. He wrote the product he was asked to write.
>Indeed, I am sure this thing was originally a Mystara/D&D Known World
>module. It would have been great if it had stayed as such.
Indeed, you are wrong. Try to remember that this is a core book, and that the
original Keep was not a Greyhawk product either.
Chris
Russ Taylor
green...@aol.com (GreenRonin) wrote:
Well, they really ought to have left Greyhawk off the back, then.
--
Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
CMC Tech Support Manager
"Hey, it don't split up even any more" -- Bill
Phil Rhodes
>Indeed, you are wrong. Try to remember that this is a core book, and that the
>original Keep was not a Greyhawk product either.
If it's a *core* (i.e., non-world-specific) product, why does it have
a Greyhawk label on it? And why is it littered with deity names from
the Known World?
Ah, well, one more Greyhawk source to ignore. :-/
-Phil
PS. The Known World: where men are real men, elves are real elves,
and wizards are real wizards - and they all live in different
countries! ;-D
Josh Jasper
>
> >Essentially this Rateliff fellow took his already written NON-GREYHAWK
> >Return to the KotB and slapped a few Greyhawk names in it. Boo!
>
> No, he didn't. He wrote the product he was asked to write.
>
I'm minded of how TV marketing depts destroy good shows by demanding
that
demographic factors dictate content, as opposed to author ideas.
> >Indeed, I am sure this thing was originally a Mystara/D&D Known World
> >module. It would have been great if it had stayed as such.
>
> Indeed, you are wrong. Try to remember that this is a core book, and that the
> original Keep was not a Greyhawk product either.
>
No, he is *not* wrong. It's a valid, and right assumption to place
KoTBL in
Mystara, because *all* Basic AD&D products were there *before* Mystara
became
what it is today, so far as I know. Sure, after the Master and (?)
immortals
set came out, they may have changed location, but *I* remember the
orriginal
basic D&D modules, and where they were set, because *I* was there to
see
them come out!
Mind you, KoTBL can be set in different places, and we've already placed
it
near the borders of The Horned Society, off the Shield Lands in my
campaign,
but saying it was a "core book" means you know the author's original
intent.
If you can prove that, I'll apologize, but until then, I stand by my
statement
that it's more than reasonable to assume it was a Mystara product.
Steve Miller
<< No, he is *not* wrong. >>
He *is* wrong. The majority of the B-series were perfectly generic and weren't
placed on the Known World map until they were revamped for B1-9 "Into the
Unknown" (or whatever it was called... it was in a box of game material that
vanished during my latest move). The exceptions that spring to mind are "The
Veiled Society" (B7, I believe) and "Night's Dark Terror" (B10).
"Keep on the Borderlands" belongs to all worlds and to none of the worlds.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
"Live in Greyhawk once, but leave before the Doomgrinder crushes it.
Live in Istar once, but leave before the flaming mountain smacks it."
--Elminster to this year's graduating class of Bargle's Academy of Magic
GreenRonin
<<Mind you, KoTBL can be set in different places, and we've already placed
it near the borders of The Horned Society, off the Shield Lands in my
campaign, but saying it was a "core book" means you know the author's original
intent. If you can prove that, I'll apologize, but until then, I stand by my
statement that it's more than reasonable to assume it was a Mystara product.>>
As it happens, I'm a designer at TSR and I was in the concept meeting for
Return to the Keep on the Borderlands. John Rateliff sits about ten feet away
from me, and I was one of the playtesters for the new keep. I believe I'm
fairly well-informed.
Best,
Chris Pramas
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> Josh Jasper wrote:
>
> << No, he is *not* wrong. >>
>
> He *is* wrong. The majority of the B-series were perfectly generic and weren't
> placed on the Known World map until they were revamped for B1-9 "Into the
> Unknown" (or whatever it was called... it was in a box of game material that
> vanished during my latest move). The exceptions that spring to mind are "The
> Veiled Society" (B7, I believe) and "Night's Dark Terror" (B10).
>
> "Keep on the Borderlands" belongs to all worlds and to none of the worlds.
Hmm somehow I think there is middle ground.
from "The Keep on the Borderland"
" The 'Realm' is off to the west, off the map" page 12, copyright 1981
As such the realm is not named, but does reffer to locations that are
indeed part of the world. The Isle of Dread copyright 1981, certainly
placed a description of the Known World, that was later to be named
Mystara. It futher was a continuation of the Basic series.
Any one buying Basic and Expert around that time, got KotB and IoD as
part of the same game in the boxes.
OTOH in KotB the location of the realm is:
"The Realm of mankind is narrow and consticted. Always the forces of
Chaos press on its borders, seeking to enslave its population, rape its
riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in
thr Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surround them." page
6
This description does not well fit any known world where human kind is
so hard pressed that there are only a few that stive to stop chaos
surrunding on all sides. I have never found a good place to set the Keep
based on this description, but it could indeed fit into almost any world
where humans are starting to expand and adventure. Any one (if
surving) traveled beyound the chaos that surrounded Realm, they could
find almost any realm.
"In Search of Adventure" copyright 1987 indeed B1-B9 where edited
together with all roads leading to Specularum, the compiliation indeed
indicates that some things were cut and other things added.
"Most of the material in this book has been previously published in the
B-series of advantures modules. To keep as much of the original material
in print as possible, we have created an antohology of connected
adventures, much like short stories." page 3
This is first time I know of to tie all the B series together, of course
they are linked by having the B as ID number and the modules where for
Basic D&D not AD&D which we know already existed in the 1980s. There
was not requirement to play all 9, in fact it would be hard to stay
level 3 or lower if one survied all 9 :)
a little latter
"Towns are few and often isolated by hostile humaniods. Small farms and
hamlets dot the countryside, threatened on ever side."
This could fit the KotB description of chaos on all sides, but so can
many other locations.
A final note TSR is not supporting D&D just AD&D at this time, so
indeed the remake would have to be adjusted to AD&D world, It could
become core if TSR chooses not to have any other modules for Level 3 or
lower. *shrugs*
Josh Jasper
Again, and with *respect*, most of the original Basic D&D books
were intended for Mystara, before it was even called Mystara.
And you'll not I said "reasonable assumption", not "100% fact".
Well, I supose someone coult ask Mr. Gygax. He wrote the darn
thing. I'd be willing to wager that, when it was first written,
as Mystara was the *only* world known in the "expert" set, it was
set there.
Perhaps it was a core book, perhaps not. Given the options of
worlds to be set in, again, assuming Mystara is not unreasonable.
GreenRonin
worlds to be set in, again, assuming Mystara is not unreasonable.>>
I think there's been a bit of confusion on which version of Keep we're talking
about. My comment on the Return to the Keep was that it was a core book, and
thus not meant to be Greyhawk through and through. It is not unreasonable to
call the original Keep a part of Mystara, so I think we are in agreement.
Chris Pramas
Josh Jasper
>
> Josh Jasper wrote:
>
> <<Mind you, KoTBL can be set in different places, and we've already placed
> it near the borders of The Horned Society, off the Shield Lands in my
> campaign, but saying it was a "core book" means you know the author's original
> intent. If you can prove that, I'll apologize, but until then, I stand by my
> statement that it's more than reasonable to assume it was a Mystara product.>>
>
> As it happens, I'm a designer at TSR and I was in the concept meeting for
> Return to the Keep on the Borderlands. John Rateliff sits about ten feet away
> from me, and I was one of the playtesters for the new keep. I believe I'm
> fairly well-informed.
>
Went back and looked over the first, Basic D&D version of KoTBl, and
found it
was intended as a core product, not set specifically in any game world.
I
think Gygax's tone and concepts made me think it was in Mystara.
Apologies
all around, *however* according to people here, the new Keep has the GH
logo
on it, and a pastiche of different pantheons. Is there truth to this
rumor?
I don't know. I'm mainly buying Planescape now, and as I've said, we
ran the
Keep in our own version of GH, which has a divergent history from even
Gygax's
setting due to our own modifications, so I'm not going to buy it right
now.
Perhaps at some later date, with extensive modifications of my own, I'll
run
it, but not now.
Jimmy Kerl
>
> Josh Jasper wrote:
>
> << No, he is *not* wrong. >>
>
> He *is* wrong. The majority of the B-series were perfectly generic and weren't
> placed on the Known World map until they were revamped for B1-9 "Into the
> Unknown"
but B1-B4 and X1-X3 if i recall corectly WERE placed on
the d&d expert set map. i believe one of the earyler versions of the
expert set well before the companion/masters set.
i think it was mentioned in x4 that x4 and x5 were to the west of the
map as well.
mystara grew from the known world,
which grew from the B and X modules!
(or so i had thought all along ... geez)
oh well, TSR and consistent just dont seem to mix.
(which is probably why i have no idea)
wouldn't it be nice if they put ome person in charge of each
world/setting and keep things in there proper place. oh well im
dreamin again...
of course i stoped keeping up with it, when they
placed 100,000,000 immortals, and cheezy countries
into mystara loosely baised on real-world places and 'gods'
dont they have enough immagination to create something
unique and enough restraint to know when enough is enough??
Jimmy
Josh Jasper
>
> Steve Miller wrote:
> >
> > Josh Jasper wrote:
> >
> > << No, he is *not* wrong. >>
> >
> > He *is* wrong. The majority of the B-series were perfectly generic and weren't
> > placed on the Known World map until they were revamped for B1-9 "Into the
> > Unknown"
>
> but B1-B4 and X1-X3 if i recall corectly WERE placed on
> the d&d expert set map. i believe one of the earyler versions of the
> expert set well before the companion/masters set.
> i think it was mentioned in x4 that x4 and x5 were to the west of the
> map as well.
>
I have B-1 in front of me, and so far as I can tell, there's no mention
of where it is in the module.
> mystara grew from the known world,
> which grew from the B and X modules!
> (or so i had thought all along ... geez)
That's semi true, X-1 was the game world presented in the expert set,
which later became Mystara.
That said, I'd *love* to see Isle of Dread redone, preferably by
Bruce Cordell, whom I think is perfect for the job.
>
> oh well, TSR and consistent just dont seem to mix.
> (which is probably why i have no idea)
I personally think putting KotBL in Greyhawk, or mixing GH gods
into it is a mistake, but they've re-orged several times, so
I understand the error, if it was one.
>
> wouldn't it be nice if they put ome person in charge of each
> world/setting and keep things in there proper place. oh well im
> dreamin again...
Ah, you mean like Star Trek ;-) Heh. I think they've done a
*fair* job, but it could be done better.
>
> of course i stoped keeping up with it, when they
> placed 100,000,000 immortals, and cheezy countries
> into mystara loosely baised on real-world places and 'gods'
> dont they have enough immagination to create something
> unique and enough restraint to know when enough is enough??
Dark Sun. As for when "enough is enough", well they sell things,
people buy them. That's buisness.
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>That said, I'd *love* to see Isle of Dread redone, preferably by
>Bruce Cordell, whom I think is perfect for the job.
While it would be fun seeing a "Return to the Isle of Dread", I would hate
to see it as anything but a Mystara product. But we aint gonna see a new
Mystara product ever are we? *snif*
Haavard
--
Haavard R. Faanes (h...@nvg.ntnu.no)
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc
"Remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people." -Mr
Garrison, South Park.
Steve Miller
<< but B1-B4 and X1-X3 if i recall corectly WERE placed on
the d&d expert set map. >>
You do not recall correctly. The X-series was set in the Known World, but the
B-series, with a couple of exceptions, was not. The Known World *was* the
default setting for D&D, but the B-series as a whole did not make any effort to
utilize it, even with throwaway references ala some of the AD&D modules and GH.
If I'm wrong, I would like to know. You see, I still *use* those modules
occassionally--just used B4 ("Horror on the Hill") a month ago in my current
campaign). Most of them aren't a distant memory to me.
Steve Miller
<< Depends on how you look at it. When they were published, the B modules
didn't refer to any particular setting. >>
That's how I look at it. After all, RotKB is a Greyhawk product, no?
[snip rest]
<< Oh, and "Horror on the Hill" is B5. B4 is "The Lost City". >>
Both are/were currently slated for use in my current campaign. ("Horror on the
Hill" was supposed to lead to "The Lost City," but the party decided to decline
the path of least resistance, so they're currently heading straight for the
underground portion of "Doomgrinder.")
Ryan S. Dancey
news:19990608210815...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> That's great! You can tell us what the reasoning was for putting a
Greyhawk
> logo on the back.
I can tell you that.
The current strategy is for all materials that would have formerly be
considered "generic" to be situated in Greyhawk for D&D. That means that
whenever we develop a product that is not specifically designed for one of
the active campaign settings, it will be designed so as to be compatible
with the Greyhawk material presented in Greyahawk: The Adventure Begins.
Note: This is supposed to be a very light touch treatment. We want that
material to be usable for essentially anyone; not just Greyhawk DMs.
However, instead of constantly making up place names, NPCs, gods, etc. we're
going to use Greyhawk references (just like in the PHB) to provide some
consistency of experience.
Honestly, I am not happy with the number of anachronisms in Keep - however,
I do think it is a cracking good adventure, is very true to the original
without just being a cut-copy-paste rewrite, and anyone who remembers that
strange blueprint colored map on the inside of the cover of B2 will love the
new multicolored Caves of Chaos map.
If you're a real Greyhawk fan, there are probably parts of the text that
you'll want to either ignore or replace with material that is more "cannon",
and you have our pledge that we're going to do a better job with continuity
in the future.
Ryan S. Dancey
TSR Brand Manager
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Staffan Johansson
> You do not recall correctly. The X-series was set in the Known World, but the
> B-series, with a couple of exceptions, was not. The Known World *was* the
> default setting for D&D, but the B-series as a whole did not make any effort to
> utilize it, even with throwaway references ala some of the AD&D modules and GH.
>
> If I'm wrong, I would like to know. You see, I still *use* those modules
> occassionally--just used B4 ("Horror on the Hill") a month ago in my current
> campaign). Most of them aren't a distant memory to me.
Depends on how you look at it. When they were published, the B modules
didn't refer to any particular setting. However, the Expert book
provided locations for some of them on Map 2: The Lands and environs of
the D&D Wilderness (B1 was set one hex N and one hex NE of Luln, B2 4
hexes NE of Threshold, B3 3 hexes south of B2 and B4 4 hexes W of
Ylaruam). Also, they were later reworked as B1-9 (IIRC), which *was*
placed in the Known World.
Oh, and "Horror on the Hill" is B5. B4 is "The Lost City".
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@geocities.com)
"There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of
course, to the bottom of the C."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
Rasgon
> Well, I supose someone coult ask Mr. Gygax. He wrote the darn
>thing. I'd be willing to wager that, when it was first written,
>as Mystara was the *only* world known in the "expert" set, it was
> set there.
As if Gygax would have (at the time) set it anywhere than his own World of
Greyhawk. Remember that both Greyhawk and Blackmoor were originally D&D worlds
before AD&D was even invented. Heck, they were RPG worlds before D&D was
invented.
And KotB came out with the "basic" set, before the Expert set was even
published.
And this was an earlier version of Basic, not the red box.
Ą
Mi povas mangxi vitron, gxi min ne doloras.
Rip Van Wormer
Rasgon
>As it happens, I'm a designer at TSR and I was in the concept meeting for
>Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.
That's great! You can tell us what the reasoning was for putting a Greyhawk
logo on the back.
Peter Seebach
Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
>Honestly, I am not happy with the number of anachronisms in Keep - however,
>I do think it is a cracking good adventure, is very true to the original
>without just being a cut-copy-paste rewrite, and anyone who remembers that
>strange blueprint colored map on the inside of the cover of B2 will love the
>new multicolored Caves of Chaos map.
You mapped the Caves of Chaos? After telling all us budding DM's we could
design our own?
I still have fond memories of my first attempt to design that dungeon. There
were 8 red dragons in one room. Also, I thought you could wear as many suits
of leather armor as you wanted, and each improved your AC by 2...
>If you're a real Greyhawk fan, there are probably parts of the text that
>you'll want to either ignore or replace with material that is more "cannon",
>and you have our pledge that we're going to do a better job with continuity
>in the future.
Cool.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Jimmy Kerl
> Steve Miller wrote:
> > If I'm wrong, I would like to know. You see, I still *use* those modules
> > occassionally--just used B4 ("Horror on the Hill") a month ago in my current
> > campaign). Most of them aren't a distant memory to me.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. When they were published, the B modules
> didn't refer to any particular setting. However, the Expert book
> provided locations for some of them on Map 2: The Lands and environs of
> the D&D Wilderness (B1 was set one hex N and one hex NE of Luln, B2 4
> hexes NE of Threshold, B3 3 hexes south of B2 and B4 4 hexes W of
> Ylaruam).
AH ha! this is what i had remembered. yes please consult the
wildernes maps in the d&d expert set (i dont recall which expert
set though)
BTW, Luln was in the earyler d&d basic set, what other references in earyler
d&d sets (non-ad&d) sets can still be found on the known world/mystara maps?
--
Jimmy
Truls Pärsson
>
> In article <92889908...@news.remarQ.com>,
> Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
> >strange blueprint colored map on the inside of the cover of B2 will love the
> >new multicolored Caves of Chaos map.
>
> You mapped the Caves of Chaos? After telling all us budding DM's we could
> design our own?
>
I think you are confusing things Caves of Chaos were mapped in the
original as well it was the Cave of the Unknown (or somesuch) which was
left for DM's to map.
-Truls
Sir Clarence
Ryan S. Dancey wrote...
>Honestly, I am not happy with the number of anachronisms in Keep - however,
>I do think it is a cracking good adventure, is very true to the original
>without just being a cut-copy-paste rewrite, and anyone who remembers that
>strange blueprint colored map on the inside of the cover of B2 will love
the
>new multicolored Caves of Chaos map.
You might call me silly but I really love these old blueprint colored maps.
They remind me of a time when not everything was as perfect as today (for
example nice-looking multicolored, 3d looking maps). Don't get me wrong
here: I'm not going to say a word against the new outlook of the products.
It's just that the old stuff has a certain charm, that I still can feel
today.
Clarence
Christopher Pound
>Again, and with *respect*, most of the original Basic D&D books
>were intended for Mystara, before it was even called Mystara.
This and your previous reference to Masters, Immortals, etc., make
me think your first D&D set had a red rulebook and suggestions about
a campaign setting of some kind (Duchy of Karameikos?). I.e. that
you were introduced to D&D with the 2nd or 3rd editions of the D&D
"Basic Rules Set."
The edition of D&D prior to that had a rulebook with a faded blue
cover and a silly-looking dragon on it. It had *no* specific campaign
setting at all, not even a hint of one that I recall (just a sample dungeon).
But later printings of this first edition were bundled with KotB. Thus,
Keep on the Borderlands predates any published hint of the Mystara setting.
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu)
Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
Phil Rhodes
wrote:
>However, instead of constantly making up place names, NPCs, gods, etc. we're
>going to use Greyhawk references (just like in the PHB) to provide some
>consistency of experience.
OK...then you admit you blew it in Return to the Keep, with its
multitude of *non*-Greyhawk references? I don't mind references to
generic things, like a sun or moon god, or a 'big city'. Those are
easy to replace for any DM. It's the references to locations and
things that are *clearly* non-Greyhawk that I object to in a product
with the Greyhawk label.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: *EVERYTHING* that has the
Greyhawk logo on it *MUST* be read and approved by the Greyhawk team.
If not, you wind up with things like _Puppets_ and _Gargoyle_...
I know the decision has been made. It's a bad one, but it's not too
late to change it. Slapping a Greyhawk logo on every 'generic'
product is good for only twoe things: killing off the line again, and
disillusioning the loyal fan base that kept the world alive *and* made
the relaunch a success.
-Phil
Peter Seebach
Truls Pärsson <era...@sud005.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>> You mapped the Caves of Chaos? After telling all us budding DM's we could
>> design our own?
>I think you are confusing things Caves of Chaos were mapped in the
>original as well it was the Cave of the Unknown (or somesuch) which was
>left for DM's to map.
Oh, you're right.
Sorry.
Nevermind.
Paul Stormberg
That and *at least* the old "blue-line" map actually followed the grid
lines. The new fancy-schmancy, multi-colored map gets *way* off the
grid, being badly schewed on the westernmost portion. It might be cool
to look at but it will be a pain to call mapping instructions for it.
But I guess accuracy is one thing this module has very little of:-(
Swords Bright,
Paul
Ryan S. Dancey
news:375e6b35...@bunews.baylor.edu...
> OK...then you admit you blew it in Return to the Keep, with its
> multitude of *non*-Greyhawk references?
I admit that the number of anachronisms is higher than I would like and that
everone agrees we could have done a better job synching up with Greyhawk
cannon, but I wouldn't go so far as to use the words "blew it" with such a
great product with such minor flaws.
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: *EVERYTHING* that has the
> Greyhawk logo on it *MUST* be read and approved by the Greyhawk team.
> If not, you wind up with things like _Puppets_ and _Gargoyle_...
Eh, that's just not true. The designers will be much better at doing this
sort of thing after a few iterations. We're taking steps on the back end of
the design process to make it easier to stay in continuity. The biggest
step - of course - is just being careful not to make up something when
there's already a perfectly usable Greyhawk proper noun already in
existence.
> I know the decision has been made. It's a bad one, but it's not too
> late to change it. Slapping a Greyhawk logo on every 'generic'
> product is good for only twoe things: killing off the line again, and
> disillusioning the loyal fan base that kept the world alive *and* made
> the relaunch a success.
Now that I disagree with.
I want to get back to a situation like we had in the early and mid '80s when
>every< adventure product was set in Greyhawk. Most people didn't notice or
care, but those who did could stitch the setting together quite nicely. The
biggest problem was that certain owners of the company were less than
willing to allow other people to produce Greyhawk material, so the pace of
development of that "generic" material slowed to a crawl.
I would say that "Shattered Circle" is a fairly good representation of how
this can be accomplished. There are issues with SC, and we'll refine the
process as we go forward for sure, but it is a clear demonstration that the
concept is viable.
Ryan
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
<snip>
>
> Now that I disagree with.
Not having any grey hawk, I can but wonder why you disagree.
>
> I want to get back to a situation like we had in the early and mid '80s when
> >every< adventure product was set in Greyhawk. Most people didn't notice or
> care, but those who did could stitch the setting together quite nicely. The
> biggest problem was that certain owners of the company were less than
> willing to allow other people to produce Greyhawk material, so the pace of
> development of that "generic" material slowed to a crawl.
Does Karameikos exisit also in Grey Hawk?
That was published 1981 early 80s, *sighes* OTOH those that control can
always rewrite history.
><snip>
> Ryan
Roy
Sir Clarence wrote in message <7jlctp$ffm$3...@news05.btx.dtag.de>...
>
>Ryan S. Dancey wrote...
>
>You might call me silly but I really love these old blueprint colored maps.
>They remind me of a time when not everything was as perfect as today (for
>example nice-looking multicolored, 3d looking maps). Don't get me wrong
>here: I'm not going to say a word against the new outlook of the products.
>It's just that the old stuff has a certain charm, that I still can feel
>today.
>
>Clarence
>
I think they call that "nostalgia" and I get a pretty big dose of that
myself whenever I pull out one of those old "blue" maps, or anything else
from "back in the day." It tends to be a very nice feeling ;)
Roy
Arivne
The Grand Duchy of Karameikos was indeed in the DnD game and not part of
Greyhawk.
I believe Mr. Dancey meant to say that the earliest *ADnD* products were
set in Greyhawk, which is correct.
Arivne
Phil Rhodes
wrote:
>I admit that the number of anachronisms is higher than I would like and that
>everone agrees we could have done a better job synching up with Greyhawk
>cannon, but I wouldn't go so far as to use the words "blew it" with such a
>great product with such minor flaws.
OK, that probably was a little harsh.
>Eh, that's just not true. The designers will be much better at doing this
>sort of thing after a few iterations.
One would certainly hope so...but *how* will they know unless the
product is reviewed by the Greyhawk team?
> We're taking steps on the back end of
>the design process to make it easier to stay in continuity. The biggest
>step - of course - is just being careful not to make up something when
>there's already a perfectly usable Greyhawk proper noun already in
>existence.
Are Dragon magazine articles included in this process? I'd like to
avoid another 'Yak-men are behind everything' debacle.
>I want to get back to a situation like we had in the early and mid '80s when
>>every< adventure product was set in Greyhawk....
>I would say that "Shattered Circle" is a fairly good representation of how
>this can be accomplished. There are issues with SC, and we'll refine the
>process as we go forward for sure, but it is a clear demonstration that the
>concept is viable.
I can live with that, I suppose. I still believe that *every* product
with a Greyhawk label, generic or not, *MUST* be run by the Greyhawk
team to avoid problems. If not, you *will* get products like Puppets,
Gargoyle, and Return to the Keep - products that are *clearly* NOT
Greyhawk products, *regardless* of the quality. Slapping a 'Greyhawk'
logo on a product doesn't make it one.
A couple of other thoughts: what happens when a player used to the
generic modules finally picks up a Greyhawk product, and it ignores
the 'generic' stuff? At best, there is going to be some confusion.
At worst, a growing pressure on TSR to make the generic products
'canon', with established locations and times - which is A Very Bad
Thing (tm) IMO.
I suppose we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You
seem to be approaching this from the standpoint of 'We want to give
players a common thread running through all the generic modules, and
that thread will be Greyhawk'. My POV is completely different: 'If
it has a Greyhawk logo on it, it damn well better be a Greyhawk
product'. I suppose I'll just have to vote with my wallet. :-/
-Phil
GreenRonin
with a Greyhawk label, generic or not, *MUST* be run by the Greyhawk
team to avoid problems. If not, you *will* get products like Puppets,
Gargoyle, and Return to the Keep - products that are *clearly* NOT
Greyhawk products, *regardless* of the quality. Slapping a 'Greyhawk'
logo on a product doesn't make it one.>>
Just as a point of information, there is no "Greyhawk team" anymore. Lisa
Stevens has moved on to a different department at WotC, and Kij Johnson has
left the company. As Greyhawk will only be used in core products that need
setting info, it doesn't need a dedicated team anymore. However, people like
Sean Reynolds and Roger Moore are still active, and they do get consulted on
Greyhawk issues.
Chris Pramas
Josh Jasper
Untill the next re-org, of course. When that'll happen is anyone's
guess,
if it happens at all. Who knows, if there's enough call for the
products,
I'm sure TST/WoTC would consider a new "Greyhawk" team were it a good
financial choice. Or if WotC goes the route of TSR's previous sets of
owners
in terms of product management. Or if I make a killing in the stock
market
and buy them. Or if Bill Gates buys the whole RPG industry. Or if...
I've been working in Sillycon valley too long. It shows.
BluSponge
green...@aol.com (GreenRonin) wrote:
> Just as a point of information, there is no "Greyhawk team" anymore. Lisa
> Stevens has moved on to a different department at WotC, and Kij Johnson has
> left the company. As Greyhawk will only be used in core products that need
> setting info, it doesn't need a dedicated team anymore. However, people like
> Sean Reynolds and Roger Moore are still active, and they do get consulted on
> Greyhawk issues.
This certainly is news to me -- and not good I should say. I've always
advocated GH needs a sort of guiding hand to set things up and put them in
a direction they need to go. Its a sort of "too many cooks" theory. If
there is no Team Greyhawk, who is responsible for managing the line (not
the generic stuff, but making sure the hard-core GH material is fit for
publication)? I hope its not left up to whether or not they double-check
their facts with Sean or Roger.
Why do I get the feeling GH is getting shorted here again?
Tom
BluSponge's Gray Matter Website (Rants, Greyhawk SAGA...)
http://web2.airmail.net/sponge2
Marvin Keene
BluSponge wrote in message
<0AB6A2AB8168367C.9F05B9D9...@lp.airnews.net>...
towo...@concentric.net
>Why do I get the feeling GH is getting shorted here again?
Rumor has it the same thing has happened to the Realms team. According to
what I've heard, Steven Schend has been moved to the Alternity side of
things. He'll still do some stuff for the Realms, but not much. I
haven't had the time to contact him about it, so I don't know if it's true
yet or not, but thats one of the rumors going round...
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords really need to stay away from wells.
towo...@concentric.net
>Does Karameikos exisit also in Grey Hawk?
>That was published 1981 early 80s, *sighes* OTOH those that control can
>always rewrite history.
It was also published in the *D&D* line, NOT the *AD&D* line.
If you look back at the early/mid 80's generic modules, they WERE all
placed in Greyhawk, either to begin with or were included in later by
adding those areas to the maps.
Allister Huggins
>
> BluSponge <spo...@airmail.net> might have said:
> >Why do I get the feeling GH is getting shorted here again?
>
> Rumor has it the same thing has happened to the Realms team. According to
> what I've heard, Steven Schend has been moved to the Alternity side of
> things. He'll still do some stuff for the Realms, but not much. I
> haven't had the time to contact him about it, so I don't know if it's true
> yet or not, but thats one of the rumors going round...
Well, that's news to me. I haven't heard anything about Steven on the
Alternity mailing list. I can understand the reasoning though, behind
the shifts. After a while, no matter how much you love a setting, you
will suffer burn-out. Going from AD&D to Alternity should re-energize a
person's juices. (I got the feeling he, if he did shift over, is
probably working on the DarkMatter setting).
Allister H.
Ubiquitous
>Phil Rhodes <Phillip...@baylor.edu> wrote in message
>> OK...then you admit you blew it in Return to the Keep, with its
>> multitude of *non*-Greyhawk references?
>
>I admit that the number of anachronisms is higher than I would like and that
>everone agrees we could have done a better job synching up with Greyhawk
>cannon, but I wouldn't go so far as to use the words "blew it" with such a
>great product with such minor flaws.
Speaking of which, it would have been nice to have included sources
to these non-GH deities, much like in Return of the Eight.
Stephen Jaros
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
>
> You don't have to ask Mr. Gygax where B2 was set - just read his
> introduction to the module. He makes it quite clear there that you
> should use B2, as an introductory module, to help you start your *own*
> campaigns. Absoultely not one jot of text throughout the module places
> it *anywhere* other than where Gygax intended you to place it: wherever
> the Hell you liked.
>
This is a good point. Back in the day, even when Gygax or TSR would indicate where
on the Greyhawk map a particular town or module setting was located (ex. the
Saltmarsh trilogy), it was always made clear that that was for those who wanted to
play it strictly within the Greyhawk World, but that any DM was free to disregard
such designations and place the damn thing wherever he wanted to...
*****************
Was the Order to Slay given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the
ancient Roman crypt beneath the cathedral, or because the Dark Man of
the Haute Vienne Coven spoke the Three Words?
Barry B Wood
> more products with Greyhawk elements, but they will not have the depth
> of something like the Scarlot Brotherhood book.
Ouch. I just hope they keep the FLAVOUR of Greyhawk, not dilute it
with a bunch of generic stuff (and this, from a FR player).
Cheers
Barry
Russ Taylor
>Just as a point of information, there is no "Greyhawk team" anymore. Lisa
>Stevens has moved on to a different department at WotC, and Kij Johnson has
>left the company. As Greyhawk will only be used in core products that need
>setting info, it doesn't need a dedicated team anymore. However, people like
>Sean Reynolds and Roger Moore are still active, and they do get consulted on
>Greyhawk issues.
If this is the case (no more Greyhawk products), I'll be taking my
business away from Wizards of the Coast/TSR -- for good, this time. I
certainly hope it's not, although forthrightness from TSR is not something
to be expected.
--
Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
CMC Tech Support Manager
"Hey, it don't split up even any more" -- Bill
Russ Taylor
I'd like to see that. In fact, I'd like to see clear, thorough
announcements on the state of every campaign world from TSR. I'd like to
not find out about this stuff through leaks from employees. I'd like the
dead lines (Birthright) to be labelled clearly as such. I'd like to see
new material on the TSR web site -- since skreyn moved on to better
things, the TSR website has gone completely to hell. I'd like to see more
respect for the consumer at WotC.
Perhaps TSR management can visit http://www.cluetrain.com/ -- and sign on
to it, and demonstrate that they are acting in good faith to their market.
(cluetrain is a site about treating customers as friends, rather than
people to deceive). Right now I'm hearing a lot of doubletalk from TSR
reps -- they claim to be keeping my campaign world (Greyhawk) going, but
they've killed all products that would actually matter to that setting
(the map and the hardcover reference book).
So, TSR reps on this group, how about it? Openness and honesty? Or is
that a little to radical?
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>So? Any openings for a Greyhawk Product Manager over there?
<snip>
Didn't you know that's the Big Announcement for Gencon? The return of
EGG!
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Ian R Malcomson
>Depends on how you look at it. When they were published, the B modules
>didn't refer to any particular setting. However, the Expert book
>provided locations for some of them on Map 2: The Lands and environs of
>the D&D Wilderness (B1 was set one hex N and one hex NE of Luln, B2 4
>hexes NE of Threshold, B3 3 hexes south of B2 and B4 4 hexes W of
>Ylaruam).
Ah, but now you're talking about the two-book re-vamped Expert set. The
wilderness map in the Expert rulebook of the time ("Sample Wilderness
Map" - basically Karameikos) doesn't even have Threshold marked on it.
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Children weep and widows wail; our education systems fail; to hide our guilt we
build more jails; and we shall build still more" - Motorhead, "March or Die"
Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
GreenRonin
>>Why do I get the feeling GH is getting shorted here again?
Guess it depends on what you're looking for out of Greyhawk. There will be more
products with Greyhawk elements, but they will not have the depth of something
like the Scarlot Brotherhood book.
towo...@concentric.net wrote:
>Rumor has it the same thing has happened to the Realms team. According
>to what I've heard, Steven Schend has been moved to the Alternity side of
>things. He'll still do some stuff for the Realms, but not much. I
>haven't had the time to contact him about it, so I don't know if it's true
>yet or not, but thats one of the rumors going round...
Yes, Steven is over on the Alternity team. The thing is that these days the
teams don't exactly carry the meaning they used to. They have become a means of
managing people more than product lines. So I'm in the Worlds group, but only
one of my last four projects has been a Worlds product and at the moment I'm
working on an Alternity sourcebook. So don't write Steven out of the Realms
just yet.
Best,
Chris Pramas
Ian R Malcomson
>Again, and with *respect*, most of the original Basic D&D books
>were intended for Mystara, before it was even called Mystara.
Before it was even a world, then, since all the wilderness etc. stuff in
the Basic and Expert rules of '81 were samples. X1 gave a rough map of
the Known World, and all (AFAICR) the 'X' series were specifically set
in the Known World (but only X10 - Red Arrow, Black Shield is a bitch to
set anywhere else). 'B' modules had no world info until B6 - The Veiled
Society. If info in the B modules prior to that corresponds to Known
World info, it is because the module info was incorporated into Know
World source.
> And you'll not I said "reasonable assumption", not "100% fact".
> Well, I supose someone coult ask Mr. Gygax. He wrote the darn
>thing. I'd be willing to wager that, when it was first written,
>as Mystara was the *only* world known in the "expert" set, it was
> set there.
You don't have to ask Mr. Gygax where B2 was set - just read his
introduction to the module. He makes it quite clear there that you
should use B2, as an introductory module, to help you start your *own*
campaigns. Absoultely not one jot of text throughout the module places
it *anywhere* other than where Gygax intended you to place it: wherever
the Hell you liked.
--
BluSponge
green...@aol.com (GreenRonin) wrote:
> >BluSponge <spo...@airmail.net> might have said:
> >>Why do I get the feeling GH is getting shorted here again?
>
> Guess it depends on what you're looking for out of Greyhawk. There will
be more
> products with Greyhawk elements, but they will not have the depth of something
> like the Scarlot Brotherhood book.
By this do you mean there will be no more GH sourcebooks, or simply that
there will be few (if any) purist GH modules?
Gebhard Blucher
[snip]
> they've killed all products that would actually matter to that setting
> (the map and the hardcover reference book).
What?! They've killed the hardcover? Damn... :(
GB
Russ Taylor
<ch...@organization.gov> wrote:
At least delayed...I'm skeptical that it will ever see light, but I've
been wrong before. Postponed is often companyspeak for Killed, unless
they are willing to announce a revised date.
towo...@concentric.net
>Ah, but now you're talking about the two-book re-vamped Expert set. The
>wilderness map in the Expert rulebook of the time ("Sample Wilderness
>Map" - basically Karameikos) doesn't even have Threshold marked on it.
Unless you're talking about Isle of Dread, there WAS no two-book Expert
set. Both versions (Erol Otus & Elmore covers) were single books, plus
module.
Allister Huggins
>
> one of my last four projects has been a Worlds product and at the moment I'm
> working on an Alternity sourcebook. So don't write Steven out of the Realms
> just yet.
>
Any chance of a hint as to what it is:) I swear I can keep a secret:)
Allister H.
Alexander Bernert
> Just as a point of information, there is no "Greyhawk team" anymore. Lisa
> Stevens has moved on to a different department at WotC, and Kij Johnson has
> left the company. As Greyhawk will only be used in core products that need
> setting info, it doesn't need a dedicated team anymore. However, people like
> Sean Reynolds and Roger Moore are still active, and they do get consulted on
> Greyhawk issues.
>
engines will only be used in core products (cars), so we do not need an
engine design/control group anymore. Sounds strange to me.
Much about the thing which has kept Greyhawk alive in earlier times was a
certain sense of consistency. Same goes for the old Known World adventures and
settings. With FR (due to the many products, sometimes even at odds which
each other) this sense of consistency was lost. If the same is done for
Greyhawk I recommend looking for an alternative _now_. You will not get
consistency without work. The work has to be done either by the DM or by
the designer/team. until now (for Greyhawk) this work has been done by the
designer. If it isn't anymore, then the overall quality of the modules will
have to rise, so that GMs still get the same value for their money. This is
highly unlikely => value for the individual GM sinks => less revenue.
If I have to redesign a supposedly Greyhawk module to truly fit into the
world I can just take any other adventure as well. Redesigning is usually
a process which takes the same time, regardless of the original setting.
Rules may make a difference, though, so I would rather stick to AD&D products
still, but the likelihood of me using a module of a different system rises.
Alexander
Alexander Bernert
> Yes, Steven is over on the Alternity team. The thing is that these days the
> teams don't exactly carry the meaning they used to. They have become a means of
> managing people more than product lines. So I'm in the Worlds group, but only
> working on an Alternity sourcebook. So don't write Steven out of the Realms
> just yet.
An interesting idea. This means that you would expect a team of designers to
do equally well in a new setting as it did in the old, i.e. it does not matter
whether the designer writes for fantasy or SF, or GH or FR. If he is good, the
product will be good, if he is bad, the product will be bad.
I would think that people have preferences as regards their settings and the
mood of the settings.
Alexander
Alexander Bernert
> If this is the case (no more Greyhawk products), I'll be taking my
> business away from Wizards of the Coast/TSR -- for good, this time. I
> certainly hope it's not, although forthrightness from TSR is not something
> to be expected.
Same with me.
If there are only generic modules for Greyhawk I will likely transfer a
setting from another RPG system to a part of Greyhawk. Then I will buy
modules for that system since they are integrated into the "world".
Exceptional products I would still buy (e.g. Night Below), yet these would
be exceptions not the rule.
Alexander
Alexander Bernert
>
> Russ Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
> > they've killed all products that would actually matter to that setting
> > (the map and the hardcover reference book).
>
> What?! They've killed the hardcover? Damn... :(
They did WHAT ???? How do they EXPECT new customers to respect the Greyhawk
logo as a brand if there is no core book describing its WI=World
Identity (TM) ?
Guys, this probably means that Greyhawk is dead again..,
Alexander
Phil Rhodes
>Just as a point of information, there is no "Greyhawk team" anymore. Lisa
>Stevens has moved on to a different department at WotC, and Kij Johnson has
>left the company.
Source, please? AFAIK, there is *still* a Greyhawk team.
> As Greyhawk will only be used in core products that need
>setting info, it doesn't need a dedicated team anymore.
Again, source? Nothing I have heard indicates that Greyhawk will no
longer have any dedicated products (which is what you are implying, if
not stating directly).
> However, people like
>Sean Reynolds and Roger Moore are still active, and they do get consulted on
>Greyhawk issues.
Except that Roger doesn't work for TSR anynore...
-Phil
BluSponge
(Russ Taylor) wrote:
> If this is the case (no more Greyhawk products), I'll be taking my
> business away from Wizards of the Coast/TSR -- for good, this time. I
> certainly hope it's not, although forthrightness from TSR is not something
> to be expected.
Well, there is still one GH product in the pipeline, Against the Giants,
which promises to be pretty sourcematerial heavy. But you're right. If
the only expansion which will come for GH from now on are modules or
half-heartedly done sourcebooks (done without any central editorial
authority who knows GH beyond what it says in the PHB), I think I'll be
budgeting my spending money differently.
Too bad. When Lisa was in charge, things were really looking up. I hope
Ryan can clear this up in a positive way.
Steve Miller
<< Source, please? AFAIK, there is *still* a Greyhawk team. >>
Chris is a designer for TSR. In fact, he and I will be collaborating on a
mega-adventure later this year.
<< Except that Roger doesn't work for TSR anynore... >>
Source please? :)
(Roger is editing a Ravenloft sourcebook I just completed work on, so I *know*
he's still working for TSR.)
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
"Live in Greyhawk once, but leave before the Doomgrinder crushes it.
Live in Istar once, but leave before the flaming mountain smacks it."
--Elminster to this year's graduating class of Bargle's Academy of Magic
Keldreth
you'll want to either ignore or replace with material that is more "cannon",
and you have our pledge that we're going to do a better job with continuity
in the future.
>>
The map is pretty good. But I pretty much have disregared all of the GH
material in it.
It is in the bandit kingdoms IMC. Near the shield lands.
Kel
Keldreth
generic things, like a sun or moon god, or a 'big city'. Those are
easy to replace for any DM. It's the references to locations and
things that are *clearly* non-Greyhawk that I object to in a product
with the Greyhawk label. >>>>>>>>
But if you had Greek Gods rather than Babylonian, that would be fine!
Keldreth, of GreekHawk Fame
Keldreth
Alexander
>>>>>>>
That might not be a bad thing. The last GH Death resulted in a Rennaissance of
GH material on the net. Most notably the Excellent Oerth Journals.
There is a wealth of wonderful unofficial GH material on the net. Of course
there is trash and pastiche there too, but there are gems along with the coal.
Keldreth
Phil Rhodes
wrote:
>Philip Rhodes wrote:
>
><< Source, please? AFAIK, there is *still* a Greyhawk team. >>
>
>Chris is a designer for TSR. In fact, he and I will be collaborating on a
>mega-adventure later this year.
So, this means that his statement is true, and there is no Greyhawk
Team? Wonderful...Greyhawk gets screwed again.
><< Except that Roger doesn't work for TSR anynore... >>
>
>Source please? :)
Let me clarify that...Roger is a freelancer now, not a direct
employee. Correct? If not, well, then I retract the statement.
Steve Miller
<< So, this means that his statement is true, and there is no Greyhawk
Team? Wonderful...Greyhawk gets screwed again. >>
I guess that depends on how you're defining "screwed." It sounds to me like GH
is going back to its roots. Do you define the approach in the WG series as
"screwing" the setting?
<< Let me clarify that...Roger is a freelancer now, not a direct
employee. Correct? If not, well, then I retract the statement. >>
Roger is a direct employee of WotC, so I'm afraid you're going to have to
retract that statement.
Russ Taylor
nue...@aol.comDELETE (Steve Miller) wrote:
><< So, this means that his statement is true, and there is no Greyhawk
>Team? Wonderful...Greyhawk gets screwed again. >>
>
>I guess that depends on how you're defining "screwed." It sounds to me like GH
>is going back to its roots. Do you define the approach in the WG series as
>"screwing" the setting?
I'd define it as screwed:
WG4 Forgotten Temple of Tharzy. Gygax's worst module, IMO.
WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. Acceptable.
WG6 Isle of the Ape. One of my favorites.
Okay, now we've run through the _best_ of the WGs -- the ones written by
the original author of the setting. See below for what TSR proposes to do
with Greyhawk now:
WG7 Castle Greyhawk. The joke module. An insult to the setting.
Officially REMOVED from canon.
WG8 Fate of Istus. Poorly handled supermodule, inconsistent with the setting.
Claims to be for 2nd edition, but obviously written for 1st -- with no
attempt to even reedit it. Note the hill giants still have 1st edition
stats, for example (Monstrous Compedium was already out)
Cities remain canon, the entire backplot of the module REMOVED from canon.
WG9 Gargoyle. Generic module shoehorned into Greyhawk (sound familiar?).
Officially REMOVED from canon.
WG10 Child's Play. Generic module shoehorned into Greyhawk.
Officially REMOVED from canon.
WG11 Puppets. Generic module shoehorned into Greyhawk.
Officially REMOVED from canon.
WG12 Vale of the Mage. Haven't read it yet, but it retains
the distinction of being the ONLY WG product not written
by Gygax that's still in canon.
Why do I call this screwed? There have been exactly 5 products removed
from Greyhawk canon. ALL of those five are members of the WG series --
which only contains 9 products. Furthermore, 4 of those 5 are considering
the worst travesties ever fosted off on Greyhawk fans (WG7 and WG9-11).
Since you aren't getting Gygax to write, I'll have to assume this products
will be like Return to the Keep: things that don't belong in Greyhawk,
forced into by marketing idiots.
Mr. Miller, do you have any further questions about why true Greyhawk fans
are unhappy? Do you see why, that with one bad product already out, we
are worried that future Greyhawk products will live up to the example of
the WG series -- which YOU chose to broach?
Phil Rhodes
wrote:
>Phillip Rhodes wrote:
><< So, this means that his statement is true, and there is no Greyhawk
>Team? Wonderful...Greyhawk gets screwed again. >>
>I guess that depends on how you're defining "screwed." It sounds to me like GH
>is going back to its roots. Do you define the approach in the WG series as
>"screwing" the setting?
Considering that the WG series had 2 good modules (WG5-WG6), 2
mediocre modules (WG4 and WG12), and 5 horrible ones (WG7-11), the WG
series is *not* the model I would choose...
That aside, my point was that with no 'Team Greyhawk', there is no
single person or group of people to oversee the line. That leads to
inconsistency (as we have already seen with Return to the Keep).
Greyhawk *needs* an overseer. For that matter, so does the Realms.
So does *any* active campaign setting. It's interesting to note that
three of the four decent modules in the WG series were published while
there was an 'overseer' of a sort for Greyhawk. I won't press that
any further, because the Gygaxian model is not what I want to see,
either (products dribbling out the door at a snail's pace).
><< Let me clarify that...Roger is a freelancer now, not a direct
>employee. Correct? If not, well, then I retract the statement. >>
>
>Roger is a direct employee of WotC, so I'm afraid you're going to have to
>retract that statement.
Retracted. Out of curiousity, I thought he became a freelancer when
TSR moved to WotC and Roger stayed home?
-Phil
Steve Miller
<< I'd define it as screwed:
WG4 Forgotten Temple of Tharzy. Gygax's worst module, IMO.
WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. Acceptable.
WG6 Isle of the Ape. One of my favorites.
Okay, now we've run through the _best_ of the WGs -- the ones written by
the original author of the setting. >>
I misspoke. The WG series had the GH logo on the cover and was actually not the
adventures I was thinking of. I was thinking of things like S1-4, G1-3 and
D1-2. (And if you think "Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure" and Isle of the
Ape" were *good* adventures, then we have very different tastes. That's why I
say people should look at the designer names on products rather than world
logos. If I wrote a GH adventure with perfect adherence to even the slightest,
most obsessive canon detail, you'd undoubtedly hate it.)
<< WG7 Castle Greyhawk. The joke module. An insult to the setting.
Officially REMOVED from canon. >>
*shrug* I've gotten plenty of milage out of it. More milage than any other AD&D
module save DL12, come to think of it. Seems like a good product to me.
<< Mr. Miller, do you have any further questions about why true Greyhawk fans
are unhappy? >>
Not really, but then I don't really care. Too many "true GH fans" went out of
their way to make my life difficult a few years back when they tried to get me
fired from my job. (I suppose there were parties around game tables all across
the land when I *was* dimissed in '96.)
If WotC's stance is that GH is now the default world for all "generic" AD&D
adventures, then I will treat "generic" AD&D adventures as if they were GH
adventures should I be asked to write a "generic" AD&D adventure. After all,
I've got most of the setting information at my finger tips, and I've got Sean
Reynolds and Roger Moore an e-mail or phone call away when I need to ask, "Is
there anywhere in GH where nilbogs have a mighty empire? Or is there anywhere I
can create one? How about flumphs? Can the new mayor of GH be a flumph?"
I would expect any other TSR/WotC writer working on A&D/GH material to do the
same.
Steve Miller
<< That aside, my point was that with no 'Team Greyhawk', there is no
single person or group of people to oversee the line. That leads to
inconsistency (as we have already seen with Return to the Keep). >>
Agreed.
<< Greyhawk *needs* an overseer. For that matter, so does the Realms. So does
*any* active campaign setting. >>
Agreed also. And I believe Ryan Dancey stated in this very thread that TSR is
taken steps to avoid glitches like those in KotB. (Although, frankly, I think
I've been seeing quite a bit of overreacting in this thread to that product. I
helped play-test it, and I had a blast. There is a lot of play in those 64
pages.)
<< Retracted. Out of curiousity, I thought he became a freelancer when
TSR moved to WotC and Roger stayed home? >>
Roger is "telecommuting"... exploring the wonders of the 21st century
workplace, today! Near as I can tell, this boils down to working in one's
pajamas. (There are one or two other TSR staffers who have similar arrengements
with WotC.)
Russ Taylor
nue...@aol.comDELETE (Steve Miller) wrote:
> << WG7 Castle Greyhawk. The joke module. An insult to the setting.
> Officially REMOVED from canon. >>
>
>*shrug* I've gotten plenty of milage out of it. More milage than any other AD&D
>module save DL12, come to think of it. Seems like a good product to me.
There's really not anything that can be said to this, except that you're
missing the point: you may enjoy clown products, but can you explain why
on earth Castle Greyhawk was passed off as a canon GH product?
><< Mr. Miller, do you have any further questions about why true Greyhawk fans
>are unhappy? >>
>
>Not really, but then I don't really care. Too many "true GH fans" went out of
>their way to make my life difficult a few years back when they tried to get me
>fired from my job. (I suppose there were parties around game tables all across
>the land when I *was* dimissed in '96.)
Well, no offense, but why did they recruit someone known to have a problem
with the GH fan base to write Doomgrinder? I do have to admit, I see the
similarities to WG7 (Castle Greyhawk) in this module. And I'm one of the
ones with a _mild_ opinion on Doomgrinder ("salvagable" was my rating)
As for comments on the A, GDQ, and S series being Greyhawk -- A and GDQ
may as well not have been, for what they contributed to the world. They
are undeniably great modules, but they work just as well in any world.
The S series had a bit more content, but two of four aren't that good (S2
and S4), and of the others, S3 is a bit odd for many groups (I happen to
love it).
What the GH fan base wants to see are more of the excellent products like
Marklands and Iuz the Evil that came when GH was treated as a setting,
rather than "the base world" or the late 80's "dumping ground".
Russ Taylor
nue...@aol.comDELETE (Steve Miller) wrote:
><< Greyhawk *needs* an overseer. For that matter, so does the Realms. So does
>*any* active campaign setting. >>
>
>Agreed also. And I believe Ryan Dancey stated in this very thread that TSR is
>taken steps to avoid glitches like those in KotB. (Although, frankly, I think
>I've been seeing quite a bit of overreacting in this thread to that product. I
>helped play-test it, and I had a blast. There is a lot of play in those 64
>pages.)
No. Not overreacting. You need to split out criticisims of Keep-as-a-GH
product from Keep-as-a-module. I gather you're a Dragonlance fan -- would
you like a Dragonlance product that, for no concievable reason, dragged in
a dozen new gods and messed up local geography? It might still be a fine
product, but as a supplement to Dragonlance, it'd stink.
So Keep may be a fine module -- but it should not have a Greyhawk logo if
it is not _rigorously_ checked out for the setting.
Allister Huggins
>
<snip>
> What the GH fan base wants to see are more of the excellent products like
> Marklands and Iuz the Evil that came when GH was treated as a setting,
> rather than "the base world" or the late 80's "dumping ground".
>
I'm not too sure about that Russ. On both Greyhawk and Greytalk, a lot
of people have a serious hard-on for the Realms for two main reasons.
1. The power level
Admittedly, GH doesn't have to worry about that (Or does it? GH
adventure modules seem to have more items than their FR doubles. Who is
making all this stuff?)
2. More importantly, the level of detail of the setting.
If you produce accessories like Iuz the evil, the Scarlet BH etc., you
will end up with everything detailed. (And if I miss my guess, the main
area for GH is actually smaller than Faerun, significantly or am I
reading the maps wrong?)
Take F&A for example. By far, this is probably the best accessory for FR
(maybe, arguably the best accessory for a campaign world in all the TSR
worlds), yet by the write-up, players now have certain expectations when
they run their characters and the interactions between the gods. With
the follow-up P&P and DD, less world control is given to a GM.
Note: I loved said products and I would love to see such a product for
GH.
What I would love to see.
1. A GH map.
2. A boxed set/campaign book for GH
3. A F&A style accessory.
Allister H.
BluSponge
nue...@aol.comDELETE (Steve Miller) wrote:
> Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
> << So, this means that his statement is true, and there is no Greyhawk
> Team? Wonderful...Greyhawk gets screwed again. >>
>
> I guess that depends on how you're defining "screwed." It sounds to me like GH
> is going back to its roots. Do you define the approach in the WG series as
> "screwing" the setting?
Not to be flippant, Steve, but Greyhawk *can't* get back to its roots
until the core gazetter and map are available. Until then, modules aren't
going to amount to anything. And, unless WotC/TSR has the wits to give
the assignment to someone compitent in such things (which, one could say,
depends on the direction the wind is blowing at this point), we may end up
with a host of Babylonian deities in Dyvers and the Yeomanry being an
Anarchy.
*That* is what people are worried about here -- not whether or not GH will
be supported.
BluSponge
nue...@aol.comDELETE (Steve Miller) wrote:
> << Greyhawk *needs* an overseer. For that matter, so does the Realms. So does
> *any* active campaign setting. >>
>
> Agreed also. And I believe Ryan Dancey stated in this very thread that TSR is
> taken steps to avoid glitches like those in KotB. (Although, frankly, I think
> I've been seeing quite a bit of overreacting in this thread to that product. I
> helped play-test it, and I had a blast. There is a lot of play in those 64
> pages.)
We only overreact because we've had to stomach so much pap in the past.
Can you blame us for being a tad mistrusting?
> Roger is "telecommuting"... exploring the wonders of the 21st century
> workplace, today! Near as I can tell, this boils down to working in one's
> pajamas. (There are one or two other TSR staffers who have similar
arrengements
> with WotC.)
ROFL! That should be right up Roger's alley!
Gebhard Blucher
> At least delayed...I'm skeptical that it will ever see light, but I've
> been wrong before. Postponed is often companyspeak for Killed, unless
> they are willing to announce a revised date.
You're right; "postponed" is a little better than "canceled," but not
by much. I do have faith in Mr. Dancey & Co. when they say the
Greyhawk line will get better (than Return to the Keep); but lack of a
wordbook with no definite plans to make one is a bit disheartening...
Why make Greyhawk the "core line" without any sort of defining source
book?
Or would they rather it that way so as to eliminate the need for
research? (But that doesn't make sense in light of Mr. Dancey's
previous statements WRT anachronisms: 92898891...@news.remarQ.com
& 92889908...@news.remarQ.com .) I'm confused... (Heh. Imagine
that! ;-)
GB
Jason Zavoda
On 8 Jun 1999, Steve Miller wrote:
> He *is* wrong. The majority of the B-series were perfectly generic and weren't
> placed on the Known World map until they were revamped for B1-9 "Into the
> Unknown" (or whatever it was called... it was in a box of game material that
> vanished during my latest move). The exceptions that spring to mind are "The
> Veiled Society" (B7, I believe) and "Night's Dark Terror" (B10).
B1 In Search of the Unknown; had a Greyhawk location suggestion
B2 The Keep on the Borderlands; does not have a campaign location
but the Temple of Evil Chaos seems to cry out Greyhawk, though in a very
toned down way.
B3 Palace of the Silver princess; Has that interesting printing
hsitory, I don't have my orange copy handy but the green copy seems to be
very generic in its location
B4 The Lost City; gives a Known World placement using the
continent map from X1 and suggesting it as being in the Alasiyan Desert
B5 Horror on the Hill: Jumps back to being a generic placement
B6 The Veiled Society: is not only in the known world but the
adventure helps to develop Specularum, the main city in Karameikos
B7 Rahasia; was first published by Daystar west and revised when
TSR bought it and Pharoh(which became the I3-5 series of modules) and it
does not seem to list a Known world location
B8 Journey to the Rock; was a tournement module, I don't have a
copy on hand, so i'm not sure if it mentions the known world or not
B9 Castle Caldwell and Beyond: Has several small adventures which
all appear to be generic
B10 Nights Dark Terror; An incredible module with a siege, a large
map of a fortified Manor being attacked by Goblins (cardboard counters
provided) and followup adventures is another Mystara module
B11 Kings fesitival; and its sequal
B12 Queens Harvest: are both Mystara modules
The compilation module
B1-9 In Search of Adventure: takes parts from all of the first
nine modules and gives them locations within Mystara.
While only 5 of the 12 modules are originally placed in the known
world all D&D material was later set in Mystara.
>
> "Keep on the Borderlands" belongs to all worlds and to none of the worlds.
>
I understand the spirit but the 2nd edition basic set with B2 and
the expert set with X1 came out at the same year. The only basic setting
was the Known world which was then expanded and B1-9 does embrace B2
as a Mystara module. If B2 belonged to any campaign world TSR acknowledged
it as belonging to Mystara first.
I don't have the return to yet, is it just a grass widow, married
to Greyhawk for convenience, or is Mystara truly dead.
Jason Zavoda
"But, as we often see, against some storm,
A silence in the heavens, the rack stand still,
The bold winds speechless, and the orb below
As hush as death, anon the dreadful thunder
Doth rend the region, so, after Pyrrhus' pause
Aroused vengeance sets him new a-work;
And never did the Cyclops' hammers fall
On Mars's armour forged for proof eterne
With less remorse than Pyrrhus' bleeding
sword
Now falls on Priam."
W.S. A hell of a writer
Alexander Bernert
> I misspoke. The WG series had the GH logo on the cover and was actually not the
> adventures I was thinking of. I was thinking of things like S1-4, G1-3 and
> D1-2.
I might add that I find it strange, that a *paid*game*designer* who designs
adventures for GH (as you did IIRC) does not know his way around the old
sources... Anyway.
> (And if you think "Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure" and Isle of the
> Ape" were *good* adventures, then we have very different tastes. That's why I
> say people should look at the designer names on products rather than world
> logos.
Unfortunately Carl Sargent has not produced much for TSR over the last
couple of years. Perhaps you should go for some new European designers:
there is a definite difference between their style and that of their American
colleagues (sp?). Still, I think that saying people should just buy products
of the designers they like leaves the company with less revenue than if people
bought products they could use regardless of the designers.
> << WG7 Castle Greyhawk. The joke module. An insult to the setting.
> Officially REMOVED from canon. >>
>
> *shrug* I've gotten plenty of milage out of it. More milage than any other AD&D
> module save DL12, come to think of it. Seems like a good product to me.
Still, you might also be of the opinion that taking the content of that
module at face value and using it for background information for Greyhawk might
make the Greyhawk setting a bit too ridiculous for what mature gamers
(I thought these were WotC's new target group) stand.
> Not really, but then I don't really care. Too many "true GH fans" went out of
> their way to make my life difficult a few years back when they tried to get me
> fired from my job. (I suppose there were parties around game tables all across
> the land when I *was* dimissed in '96.)
Sure, but these Greyhawk fans are (maybe) a majority of all Greyhawk customers.
And keeping your customers happy seems to be a good business proposition.
Your mileage may vary, though.
Alexander
Dr Jay H DC
doesn't need a dedicated team anymore.>>
Well, you're wrong for a partial fact here. Generic modules coming out from TSR
will be partially-generic, from what I've heard from the distributor out here.
The partial will be a world (like FR, GH, DL) and the generic will be like the
Keep on the Borderlands style of throwing in random gods and NPC's. That way
people don't have to work as hard to convert them. Sounds like a 'messy' idea.
(less 'spolys' to email)
Down with elves! Down with longswords! Down with all the AD&D cliche's!
shawn
h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Rønne Faanes) wrote:
> Josh Jasper wrote:
>
> >That said, I'd *love* to see Isle of Dread redone, preferably by
> >Bruce Cordell, whom I think is perfect for the job.
>
> While it would be fun seeing a "Return to the Isle of Dread", I would
hate
> to see it as anything but a Mystara product. But we aint gonna see a
new
> Mystara product ever are we? *snif*
I think that all these problems with Keep on the Borderlands go to
what people were thinking when they voted for it to be one of the
modules to be redone. As a big fan of D&D/Mystara I know what I was
hoping for, and it wasn't quite what has happened. On the Mystara
Mailing List at the time there were discussions about organising some
sort of organised voting to get at least one D&D product into the
reprinting schedule, it was general consensus that Keep on the
Borderlands was a module that people would vote for, and lo and
behold it got reprinted. I'm not saying that everyone who voted for
it did so partly because it was a D&D module but a number of people
did. When having vote for Keep on the Borderlands the best I could
have hoped for was a generally Mystaran release cementing the
placement of the Keep in Karameikos, the worst that I was hoping for
was a generic release which suggested the widely accepted Mystaran
placement for the keep - how wrong I was. The worst was indeed
much worse, the definite placement of the Keep in another game world.
I'm not glad my vote counted in this way, if I'd have known that
this is what Wizards were going to do with it I wouldn't have bothered
voting in the first place. Ah well, I guess it's not like it's
really a completely stunning blow to any fan of D&D/Mystara - but
the hope that things might have been different was good whilst it
lasted.
shawn stanley
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/5304
what have you done for me lately ... more to the point what have i done
for me
- mightyfew, "i can't wait"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Josh Jasper
>
>
> << Mr. Miller, do you have any further questions about why true Greyhawk fans
> are unhappy? >>
>
> their way to make my life difficult a few years back when they tried to get me
> fired from my job. (I suppose there were parties around game tables all across
> the land when I *was* dimissed in '96.)
>
represent
us.
> If WotC's stance is that GH is now the default world for all "generic" AD&D
> adventures, then I will treat "generic" AD&D adventures as if they were GH
> adventures should I be asked to write a "generic" AD&D adventure.
I certainly hope not. I wouldn't mind having adventures set in the WoG
that
were something like Tomb of Horrors, which had *no* interaction inside
of a
particular city, and could be re-set in anyone's gaming world with
minimum
effort, though. I think the main problem is when GH products have an
impact
on the political and social landscape *and* are poorly written.
> After all,
> I've got most of the setting information at my finger tips, and I've got Sean
> Reynolds and Roger Moore an e-mail or phone call away when I need to ask, "Is
> there anywhere in GH where nilbogs have a mighty empire? Or is there anywhere I
> can create one? How about flumphs? Can the new mayor of GH be a flumph?"
>
> I would expect any other TSR/WotC writer working on A&D/GH material to do the
> same.
>
"That's not my daughter, that's a flumph in drag!"
Chicken Licken
shawn <sh...@leme.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:7jv37a$ltj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> did. When having vote for Keep on the Borderlands the best I could
> have hoped for was a generally Mystaran release cementing the
> placement of the Keep in Karameikos, the worst that I was hoping for
> was a generic release which suggested the widely accepted Mystaran
> placement for the keep - how wrong I was. The worst was indeed
> much worse, the definite placement of the Keep in another game world.
Of course that's just a suggestion. Probably the nicest thing about
published adventures (especially ones that are very loosely connected to a
specific world like RttKotB) is that you can place them virtually anywhere.
Officially, the Barrier Peaks loom over the Moonsea in Faerun, which isn't
on Toril, but located on the southern hemisphere of Krynn, which is a
satellite of Athas. This is because officially anything can be placed
anywhere you want. You don't have to follow canon.
Like you'd be whooping and hollering if it was published in Mystara "Yeah
score one for the Mystarans, now they'll HAVE to play here because the keep
is here!"
Russ Taylor
<mis...@rworld.com> wrote:
>Officially, the Barrier Peaks loom over the Moonsea in Faerun, which isn't
>on Toril, but located on the southern hemisphere of Krynn, which is a
>satellite of Athas. This is because officially anything can be placed
>anywhere you want. You don't have to follow canon.
That's a bit nutty...officially, the Barrier Peaks in Oerth, because TSR
-does- have published locations for their products. What you do in your
own campaign is your option -- but that's unofficial, because it's not
endorsed by TSR. What TSR -does- endorse is doing whatever you want with
the material. See the difference?
Chicken Licken
Russ Taylor <rta...@cmc.net> wrote in message
news:rtaylor-1406...@alander.cmc.net...
> That's a bit nutty...officially, the Barrier Peaks in Oerth, because TSR
> -does- have published locations for their products. What you do in your
> own campaign is your option -- but that's unofficial, because it's not
> endorsed by TSR. What TSR -does- endorse is doing whatever you want with
> the material. See the difference?
So they officially endorse my move of the Barrier Peaks to Faerun on Krynn
orbiting Athas.
Seriously, though, I don't agree with the labelling of the Return as a
Greyhawk product, either.
Steve Miller
<< I gather you're a Dragonlance fan -- would
you like a Dragonlance product that, for no concievable reason, dragged in
a dozen new gods and messed up local geography? >>
You mean like every DL module written by Rick Swan? (1989-1991 was not a good
string of years for DL details...)
I wasn't thrilled... but I didn't throw the baby out with the bath water,
either.
<< So Keep may be a fine module -- but it should not have a Greyhawk logo if
it is not _rigorously_ checked out for the setting. >>
Yes.
Steve Miller
<< I might add that I find it strange, that a *paid*game*designer* who designs
adventures for GH (as you did IIRC) does not know his way around the old
sources... >>
Do you know the difference between "misspoke" and "mistake"?
<< Unfortunately Carl Sargent has not produced much for TSR over the last
couple of years. >>
I don't think he's produced anything for anyone in the game biz. I believe he
suffered some sort of nervous breakdown.
<< Perhaps you should go for some new European designers:
there is a definite difference between their style and that of their American
colleagues (sp?). >>
How are we defining "European designers"? Unless you're just talking mailing
addresses, I probably fit that bill.
<< Still, I think that saying people should just buy products
of the designers they like leaves the company with less revenue than if people
bought products they could use regardless of the designers.
>>
Hey, I'm all in favour of you buying everything put out by TSR. It makes it
more likely that they'll pay me at the end of the day! But does it make sense
to you to buy something by a desiner who's disappointed you in the past, no
matter what the world logo on the cover is? And the reverse: If you like Bruce
Cordell's work and he wrote a "Ravenloft" adventure, why would you ignore it
just because of the world logo?
Porting materials from setting to setting is the easiest of modifications, yet
the individual styles of each designer is something that is unique to each of
us. (Yeah, there are "house flavours" for each game publisher and each subline,
but if you take a look at the products you've bought over the years, I
guarentee that a similar set of names are in the credits of those you rank as
your least favourite and those you rank as your most favourite.)
I'm just pointing out what seems like common sense to me.
<< Seems like a good product to me.
Still, you might also be of the opinion that taking the content of that
module at face value and using it for background information for Greyhawk might
make the Greyhawk setting a bit too ridiculous for what mature gamers
(I thought these were WotC's new target group) stand. >>
No offense... but can't "mature gamers" distingush between what's appropriate
for their vision of the GH setting and what isn't?
There's no question in my mind that WG7 can't possibly be the canon Castle
Greyhawk. That would be "Greyhawk Ruins."
Russ Taylor
<mis...@rworld.com> wrote:
>So they officially endorse my move of the Barrier Peaks to Faerun on Krynn
>orbiting Athas.
They endorse your right to do that with the product, but not the act itself.
shawn
"Chicken Licken" <mis...@rworld.com> wrote:
>
> Of course that's just a suggestion. Probably the nicest thing about
> published adventures (especially ones that are very loosely connected
to a
> specific world like RttKotB) is that you can place them virtually
anywhere.
Yeah but it would have been nice if there was either no suggestion or
that there was a number of suggestions one of which was in Karameikos.
> Like you'd be whooping and hollering if it was published in Mystara
No but it would have been good because it would have shown a small
commitment to a gaming world which the players are still playing in and
who are indeed putting a lot of time into. It might have been totally
loopy of me to assume that Wizards might have seen the commitment that
some people have to the gaming world and repaid it in some kind, but it
would have been nice.
Alexander Bernert
>
> Alexander Bernert wrote:
>
> << I might add that I find it strange, that a *paid*game*designer* who designs
> adventures for GH (as you did IIRC) does not know his way around the old
> sources... >>
>
> Do you know the difference between "misspoke" and "mistake"?
Sorry, could not resist. And there is (generally speaking) truth to it, as far
as the TSR products are concerned. But that just strictly btw, not as a general
accusation.
> << Perhaps you should go for some new European designers:
> there is a definite difference between their style and that of their American
> colleagues (sp?). >>
>
> How are we defining "European designers"? Unless you're just talking mailing
> addresses, I probably fit that bill.
I would use upbringing and educational background. Read the intro of
U1 (sinister secret of saltmarsh) to know what I mean.
> Hey, I'm all in favour of you buying everything put out by TSR. It makes it
> more likely that they'll pay me at the end of the day! But does it make sense
> to you to buy something by a desiner who's disappointed you in the past, no
> matter what the world logo on the cover is?
It depends on whether there is a team for the world of the new
adventure which checks for consistency and quality. If there is, I
*will* buy at least a second product of a particular designer, yes.
> And the reverse: If you like Bruce
> Cordell's work and he wrote a "Ravenloft" adventure, why would you ignore it
> just because of the world logo?
While I do like BCs work, for this particular example: No. Ravenloft
adventures are usually difficult to port into a new setting, given the
special conditions on the demiplane etc. Plus the fact that RL
adventures usually (AFAIK) try to instill horror by using terrible
monsters (to scare the players who love their characters), not (which
would admitteldly be much mor difficult) by style. This is
understandable to an extent: It is very difficult to instill horror if
horror becomes common. Almost by definition horror means something
out-of-place, uncommon, unusual, and unsettling. In RL horror is a
common occurence, therefore it is not horror anymore. No amount of
horror checks and terrible monsters can change that. So, RL adventures
are usually just modules which are terribly difficult for PCs, plus
being straight unfair at times.
Given that BC produces good horror scenarios for "standard" worlds I
would think his talent to be squandered if mixed with RL, where
everyone would expect horror from the beginning.
> Porting materials from setting to setting is the easiest of
> modifications,
Not necessarily so. If the materials indicate certain geographical
relations, if they pertain to certain structures of government, if
they hinge on a certain system of social strictures and laws - and
good adventures with meaningful roleplaying do at one point or the
other, then porting can be a real pain. I know. I do.
> but if you take a look at the products you've bought over the years, I
> guarentee that a similar set of names are in the credits of those you rank as
> your least favourite and those you rank as your most favourite.)
True of course.
Favourite: early EGG, Bruce Cordell (but add 5 levels to given difficulty
rating), Carl Sargent, Roger Moore. All of these have written at least
one (usually more) modules/background materials which I judged to be
excellent.
Unfavourite: Ed Greenwood (cannot write a "balanced" adventure or one
without "high-level-back-of-the-stage-NPCs"); some others (including
you, actually) have not yet written anything worth of high estimate
(in my opinion, of course).
You see my problem: Except for Bruce Cordell these authors do not
write too much for AD&D anymore. I do not know about Roger Moore's
status today. I try to get hold of older products, even for different
settings/systems of CS, but there are limits to this as well. (Any
recommendations for other authors ?)
> There's no question in my mind that WG7 can't possibly be the canon Castle
> Greyhawk. That would be "Greyhawk Ruins."
Well, at least here we have the same opinion (not the Ruins is that
good, but it fits much better than WG7). WG7 is a *good* module from a
"have-a-fun-evening-without-consequences" point of view. I prefer
logic, consistency, and historical flair (even if it means that the
standard neutral knight robs and suppresses his peasants, lives in a small
tower which is filthy and cold, has maybe 4 or 6 manservants which
double as man-at-arms in times of need. or the arrogant clergy
(appropiate for the theocracy of the pale in GH) which takes whatever
they can from the common people, forging letters which grant them
something, following their own agenda (including their weal). Greyhawk
as described in Marklands had the definite dark middle-age feeling to
it.).
Alexander
Steve Miller
<< I would use upbringing and educational background. >>
Gee, then I guess TSR *is* using European designers. (Me, for one.)
I love it when these attempts at snobbery backfire.
<< Plus the fact that RL
adventures usually (AFAIK) try to instill horror by using terrible
monsters (to scare the players who love their characters), not (which
would admitteldly be much mor difficult) by style. >>
Only the poorly designed ones, IMO.
<< Given that BC produces good horror scenarios for "standard" worlds I
would think his talent to be squandered if mixed with RL, where
everyone would expect horror from the beginning. >>
This sentence just summed up why RL modules ARE portable. The setting specific
rules are easily ignored, and the adventures (which are usually
mini-sourcebooks as well) should just be dropped into an as-of-yet
undetailed/unvisited spot on the campaign world's map.. (And you say RL
adventures are unfair... I take it you've read "Tomb of Horrors"?)
<< Unfavourite: Ed Greenwood (cannot write a "balanced" adventure or one
without "high-level-back-of-the-stage-NPCs"); some others (including
you, actually) have not yet written anything worth of high estimate
(in my opinion, of course). >>
But how is that possible?! I'm one of your much-vaunted "European designers"!
(Or are there no-talent hacks being raised on both sides of the Atlantic? I
vote for that, personally.)
<< Any recommendations for other authors ? >>
Stan! has contributed to some of the best TSR releases (period) under the DL
banner with "Palanthas" being particularly excellent. Skip Williams has done
some pretty good dungeon crawls over the years. Tom Molvay and Doug Niles did
some very nice work back in the 80s. Monte Cook did some excellent PS material.
TSRKeith
>until the core gazetter and map are available. Until then, modules aren't
going to amount to anything.
But you didn't need the Greyhawk Gazetteer and map to play and enjoy some of
the classic GH modules of all time (A1-4, G1-3, D1-3, etc.). And you shouldn't
need those things to play and enjoy D&D (Greyhawk) products in the future.
Our plan is to bring Greyhawk back to where it has always belonged--into the
core. As we move forward, Greyhawk should become synonomous with D&D.
We have a tremendous respect here at WOTC for the detailed and painstakingly
crafted fan material for GH, and that has actually helped us steer our vision
for GH. At its core, D&D is about creating your fantasy roleplaying experience,
and our core/Greyhawk products are going to do just that. If you buy a D&D
adventure, it will be, at its very roots, a Greyhawk adventure. Those who want
to modify it and drop it into their own world can do so, and those who want to
attach it to the vast network of GH material both TSR published and fan
published can do so.
Ryan has already spoken to the concerns about continuity in RttKotB, and I
also wanted to clear something up. We may not have a Greyhawk team in R&D, but
we certainly have a Campaign Worlds team that includes folks like Sean Reynolds
and Roger Moore. They are a fantastic resource for GH continuity, and our
in-house staff will definitely benefit from their understanding of Greyhawk.
GH is not dead. I know that fan expectations and fan relations haven't been
top-notch in regards to the GH setting, so it's easy to understand the reasons
for current criticism of Keep. All I can say is that as time progresses, the
transition of GH as the foundation of D&D will move a bit more smooth.
We value the input and excitement of our fans, and I think you'll be pleased
with what is coming in the future.
Keith Strohm
Brand Manager AD&D
Wizards of the Coast
Alexander Bernert
> << I would use upbringing and educational background. >>
>
> Gee, then I guess TSR *is* using European designers. (Me, for one.)
>
> I love it when these attempts at snobbery backfire.
> << Plus the fact that RL
> adventures usually (AFAIK) try to instill horror by using terrible
> monsters (to scare the players who love their characters), not (which
> would admitteldly be much mor difficult) by style. >>
>
> Only the poorly designed ones, IMO.
In that case all (except I6; I10 is already very much of the "strong
mosnters cause strong emotions" category) of the RL adventures I
encountered were poorly designed (Book of Crypts, Lethal Thoughts I
know). Recommendations ? I am not above changing my opinion.
> << Given that BC produces good horror scenarios for "standard" worlds I
> would think his talent to be squandered if mixed with RL, where
> everyone would expect horror from the beginning. >>
>
> This sentence just summed up why RL modules ARE portable.
No, in a normal setting I would expect the horror to creep in slowly,
unexpectedly. With RL modules this is usually not the case. I know
players who let their PCs *run* whenever there is some fog
around. They do not want RL anymore. But horror should come up
unexpectedly; strange things happening in a perfectly normal
environment. Not the big mallet.
> The setting specific
> rules are easily ignored, and the adventures (which are usually
> mini-sourcebooks as well) should just be dropped into an as-of-yet
> undetailed/unvisited spot on the campaign world's map.. (And you say RL
> adventures are unfair... I take it you've read "Tomb of Horrors"?)
Actually DMed, couple of weeks ago. Comment of the players: "This is
fair, you can evade every trap by thinking" (which they did not do
all the time). I DMed it with something like one "fates-card"
protection for every PC around. Was necessary, all were used. I would
not want to do that in every second adventure. Reason I DMed it (only
reason !): the players were so masochistic and wanted to play it.
> << Unfavourite: Ed Greenwood (cannot write a "balanced" adventure or one
> without "high-level-back-of-the-stage-NPCs"); some others (including
> you, actually) have not yet written anything worth of high estimate
> (in my opinion, of course). >>
>
> But how is that possible?! I'm one of your much-vaunted "European designers"!
> (Or are there no-talent hacks being raised on both sides of the Atlantic? I
> vote for that, personally.)
I do, too. BTW, I admittedly do not know all of your works, so I may
well be in error.
Ok, in retrospect, maybe I should withdraw the European vs American
designer issue. I still think that there are differences due to
different educational background, yet local effects (e.g. family etc)
might be more influential in this respect than more global ones
(i.e. continent).
Alexander
Steve Miller
<< In that case all (except I6; I10 is already very much of the "strong
mosnters cause strong emotions" category) of the RL adventures I
encountered were poorly designed (Book of Crypts, Lethal Thoughts I
know). >>
I'm not familiar with "Lethal Thoughts." Is that a German version of "Thoughts
of Darkness"? (At any rate, some of "Book of Crypts" is pretty good, IMO. "The
Cedar Chest," "The Man with Three Faces," and "Death's Cold Laughter" *can* be
used with great effect. They are difficult to run, however, and require a deft
hand on the part of the DM.
<< Recommendations ? I am not above changing my opinion. >>
For all I know, our tastes are very different. And "well designed" is purely in
the eye of the beholder, so my "best" and your "best" may well be two very
different things. Off the bat, I recommend "Children of the Night: Ghosts" and
"Children of the Night: The Created," anthologies of NPCs and mini-adventures
that cover a wide breadth of design styles, because they contain 13 different
adventures by 13 different designers. Very few rely on "powerful monsters" to
scare the players.
The other recommendations, I'm going to split the list in two, ones I had a
hand in, and ones I didn't have a hand in. (I'm letting you know up front about
the ones I worked on, as I don't have cover credit in many cases. It might help
you know which ones you should avoid, despite my recommendation.)
Ones I had a hand in:
"When Black Roses Bloom," "Circle of Darkness," "The Evil Eye," "Children of
the Night: Vampires," and "Servants of Darkness." In all of these, the horror
builds slowly... and in all of them, there are twists and turns that keep the
PCs (not neccesarily the players) off balance. In the case of "CotN: Vampires,"
you're also looking at an anthology with different adventure styles.
Ones I didn't have a hand in:
"Castles Forlorn," "Vecna Reborn," "Web of Illusion." These likewise build
slowly and revolve around mystery as much as horror.
Now, there are strong monsters in several of these, but in most cases they are
not the object of the adventure, nor is beating them up the way to get through
it successfully. (In "Circle of Darkness," for example, the party would have to
be comprised of idiots if they were to confront that monster directly...
<< Actually DMed, couple of weeks ago. Comment of the players: "This is
fair, you can evade every trap by thinking" (which they did not do
all the time). >>
How does a thinking PC avoid the Sphere of Annihilation?
<< I do, too. BTW, I admittedly do not know all of your works, so I may
well be in error. >>
Probably not. No one can please everyone all of the time. I write the best
adventures and sourcebooks I know how. They are not to everyone's liking, but
that's just a fact of life.
<< Ok, in retrospect, maybe I should withdraw the European vs American
designer issue. I still think that there are differences due to
different educational background, yet local effects (e.g. family etc)
might be more influential in this respect than more global ones
(i.e. continent). >>
Oh, I think the environment a person was raised in has an impact on the work
they produce, as does the environment they live in. The comment just amused me,
because my family, background, and education *is* predominantly European.
(Well, more Global than European these days... one of my sisters has spent so
much time in the Middle East that her English is starting to go bad. :) )
BluSponge
tsrk...@aol.com (TSRKeith) wrote:
> >Not to be flippant, Steve, but Greyhawk *can't* get back to its roots
> >until the core gazetter and map are available. Until then, modules aren't
> going to amount to anything.
>
> But you didn't need the Greyhawk Gazetteer and map to play and enjoy
some of
> the classic GH modules of all time (A1-4, G1-3, D1-3, etc.). And you shouldn't
> need those things to play and enjoy D&D (Greyhawk) products in the future.
Actually, if you were going to use them as part of the Greyhawk campaign
setting, you had to have access to the campaign setting, or the gazetter
as it were. If we're talking pure generics here, sure you could enjoy any
of those modules named. Just drop them wherever you want in whatever
setting you can dream up. But in the World of Greyhawk setting, when
something is set "in the Grandy Duchy of Geoff", or "in the Wild Coast
region", it means something to the tone of the game.
For almost as long as products with a Greyhawk link have been published,
players have had access to the core Greyhawk gazetter, explaining the
world setting to some (albeit limited) degree. Currently, no product, not
even the GH players guide, accomplishes what that 32 page folio did way
back in 1980. Until you have something like that available, Greyhawk may
just as well be synonymous with "placeholder", which would be a bad thing,
IMHO. For new players to enjoy these adventures as part of the larger
Greyhawk setting, core information needs to be made available.
Thanks for clearing all that up.
Tom
Dr Jay H DC
conversion of 'port' adventures between Greyhawk and the FRealms. The major
ocean side of Frealms is on the West (waterdeep's side, varies in the sea of
fallen stars) .. Greyhawk's major ocean side is on the east (wild coast, Great
Kingdom, etc.).
In the past I've always dreaded converting perfectly good maps b/c the ocean
had to be on the other side of the map.
Is there a solution?
Josh Jasper
>
>
> << Actually DMed, couple of weeks ago. Comment of the players: "This is
> fair, you can evade every trap by thinking" (which they did not do
> all the time). >>
>
> How does a thinking PC avoid the Sphere of Annihilation?
>
By reading the obvious warning at the beginning of the adventure, being
suspicious of anything that obviously a trap, sticking a 10 foot pole
into it and coming back with a 5 foot pole with a smoking end if the DM
is generous. Etc... Etc... You can even avoid the Demi Lich in the
first
adventure *by not attacking the fake ghost*, IIRC.
Josh Jasper
> For almost as long as products with a Greyhawk link have been published,
> players have had access to the core Greyhawk gazetter, explaining the
> world setting to some (albeit limited) degree.
I'd suggest future GH products use NPCs that are fairly setting neutral
in terms of thier motivation. An "Evil Duke" is fine, but an "Evil Duke
motivated by the socioeconmomic interplay between Celene and Urnst,
while
also having a grudge agains the circle of eight that's integral to the
adventure" should be avoided.
> Currently, no product, not
> even the GH players guide, accomplishes what that 32 page folio did way
> back in 1980. Until you have something like that available, Greyhawk may
> just as well be synonymous with "placeholder", which would be a bad thing,
> IMHO. For new players to enjoy these adventures as part of the larger
> Greyhawk setting, core information needs to be made available.
>
Agreed. I second the call for an overall GH Gazeteer/Guide to the
Oerth.
Preferably with some "unexplored teritory" that'd be off limits to TSR,
specifically for DM's to put what they want there. A detailed
chronology,
despite my earlier admonitions, and a "hands off" period on major
changes
to GH history and events for a year or so would be a worthwhile project.
More cool lowlevel and mid level adventures too. Something like the
Saltmarsh trilogy would be cool, or an indipendant adventure, like Cult
of The Reptile God is a nice idea.
A set of interlinked, but individually playable adventures like Village
of
Homlett to Queen of the Demonweb Pits? I like that idea. Anyone else
have
suggestions?
Greycloak
>
> One of the problems I see, and have seen in the past with adventures is
> conversion of 'port' adventures between Greyhawk and the FRealms. The major
> ocean side of Frealms is on the West (waterdeep's side, varies in the sea of
> fallen stars) .. Greyhawk's major ocean side is on the east (wild coast, Great
> Kingdom, etc.).
>
> In the past I've always dreaded converting perfectly good maps b/c the ocean
> had to be on the other side of the map.
>
> Is there a solution?
How about turning the map 180 degrees? South = North. West coast = East
cost. Maybe I don't understand the problem.
Greycloak
Ian R Malcomson
>One of the problems I see, and have seen in the past with adventures is
>conversion of 'port' adventures between Greyhawk and the FRealms. The major
>ocean side of Frealms is on the West (waterdeep's side, varies in the sea of
>fallen stars) .. Greyhawk's major ocean side is on the east (wild coast, Great
>Kingdom, etc.).
>
>In the past I've always dreaded converting perfectly good maps b/c the ocean
>had to be on the other side of the map.
>
>Is there a solution?
Find a bit of coastline (on whichever world) which hooks around to give
you the sea on the side you want it on. In the Realms, for example, the
spur near the Cloak Wood could be used - it hooks around enough to make
the sea eastwards. Also, the Lake of Steam, the Vilhon Reach, and the
Sea of Fallen Stars have costlines in virtually all points of the
compass, so setting a "sea" module there would be easy (e.g., the
Saltmarsh trilogy could be set south of Westgate, so that the Azure Sea
coastline represented in the module could be used as the Inner Sea
coastline of the FR).
Or, as someone has said, just change the compass rose on the map to suit
:-)
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Children weep and widows wail; our education systems fail; to hide our guilt we
build more jails; and we shall build still more" - Motorhead, "March or Die"
Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk