Really people, can't we confine all these posts to one thread?
How many of these threads do we need?
Really people, can't we confine all these posts to one thread?
You could but only if you keep bumping it to the top of the most current discussion.
I think that WOTC should give their Greyhawk fans something. They did that with Dragonlance, they just released the CS and Soverign Press now Margaret Weis Productions handles the Dragonlance world and products.
Who do you trust to do Greyhawk? At least Margaret Weis is one of the key figures associated with DL.
Why isn't Gygax stepping up to do it? His buddy Dave Arneson managed to secure license to continue his own Blackmoor setting. Where are you, Gygax?
Should they take the highest bidder, or should they be more selective?
Who do you trust, and do they have the capital to form a startup game publishing business?
You know I never thought about Gygayx and his not stepping up to bat with his world. Maybe he is upset over what happened to him by 2nd edition?
I guess I just don't really understand what the point of such a book would be anyway. We have the 1980 and 1983 books, plus From the Ashes available in pdf form. And the LGG, though that's getting harder to find. What more are you really going to get from a new CS? An advancement to the timeline that may or may not suit your campaign? Stat blocks? Is it that hard to convert NPCs on your own if you need them? If these old products had been lost to the mists of time as in the old pre internet days, i'd see how a new product would be helpful in keeping the game around. But as it is, I'd strongly suspect any GCS would be 40 bucks spent on stuff I already have and anyone could get from paizo or rpgnow.com for a third the price.
I think that WOTC should give their Greyhawk fans something.
Since 2001 and the launch of D&D 3rd edition:
- The Dungeons & Dragons Gazetteer
- The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer
- Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
- (Via the RPGA) 6 stand alone issues of Living Greyhawk Journal
- (Via Paizo, yes folks, WotC has to approve everything Paizo puts in the magazines) Constant Greyhawk material in the last 30 or 40 Issues of Dungeon and Dragon magazines
- (Via Atari) Temple of Elemental Evil CRPG
- Greyhawk content, to some degree or another, in every core (read: non-FR or Eberron) book they've put out.
- The RPGA Living Greyhawk campaign, the biggest and most successful, not to mention popular, operation of its kind
- (Via the RPGA section of the WotC website) Monthly "Mysterious Places" and "Power Groups" web articles
- Explicitly Greyhawk themed special D&D minis
Just because some of don't like everything on that list doesn't mean WotC hasn't done it. Compared to any other setting aside from FR and Eberrun, WotC has done a lot more for Greyhawk. Farming RL and DL out to D20 licensees doesn't count, we're talking about work WotC and their proxies, Paizo and the RPGA, has done.
What about Eric Mona? He seems to be a good guy for this kind of thing.
Didn't some of you gave him a proverbial internet swirly for some of his Greyhawk articles in the magazines?
You know I never thought about Gygayx and his not stepping up to bat with his world. Maybe he is upset over what happened to him by 2nd edition?
He's taking his grudge toward TSR and displacing it toward WotC???
Considering his history, that's possible.
What's his incentive to take over Greyhawk again? He has his own game systems and publishes stuff in a different variation of his original campaign world. The published WoG wasn't his own campaign world. It was just based off of it. Not to mention his health doesn't allow him to be overly productive at the moment.
If you mean he cannot run two projects simultaneaously -- although many of us are secretly hoping his Lejendary Adventures sink -- due to his current health, you may be right.
I think that WOTC should give their Greyhawk fans something. They did that with Dragonlance, they just released the CS and Soverign Press now Margaret Weis Productions handles the Dragonlance world and products.
And publishes prestige classes with illegal requirements? Sorry, I looked at the Knights of Salami, er, Solamnia, and put the book down.
And publishes prestige classes with illegal requirements? Sorry, I looked at the Knights of Salami, er, Solamnia, and put the book down.
What illegal requirement?
Requiring specific class/level combinations for advancement in the orders. It shows lack of imagination and creativity. It shows that the designers were too lazy to require this within the rules so they blatantly broke them.
Isn't that how it was in the original format? Before you can be a Sword Knight, you must first be a Crown Knight? I have no problem with the way the order determine their members should rise up in the rank and hierarchy.
Designing prestige class is more of a guideline not a rule. If you need combination of class because of the class ability requirement, so be it. If a prestige class is a campaign-specific "membership" class, they can be specific.
So while it might not be an overt violation of any hard and fast rule, it would indicate some laziness in design, since it isn't that hard to find particular combinations that mandate certain class choices.
Ya don't buy 3rd party campaign settings for the rules. Ever.
If you mean he cannot run two projects simultaneaously -- although many of us are secretly hoping his Lejendary Adventures sink -- due to his current health, you may be right.
Frankly, I think that wishing his projects to fail is utterly lame. Let him do whatever he wants and wish him well at it. Write your own campaign material if you don't like what he's doing now. Its not that hard. Or buy someone else's, it that's just beyond you.
They've actually published like three different versions of the Knights PrC, each wildly different.
Ya don't buy 3rd party campaign settings for the rules. Ever.
The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is actually published by WotC. IOW, they're responsible for editing it before it goes to the printers. The designers are just writers.
If WotC felt what they wrote does not conform to the norm (or format) of the rules, they could have just edited it. But considering the history of previous Dragonlance game rules, it's acceptable. I mean, who here besides me have played the pre-3e version of DL?
I'm a strong believer that the [d20 System] rules should fit the setting, not the other way around. If a few mechanics are not suitable for the setting ... fix the mechanics, not the setting. If you can't fix the mechanics, replace them with something else. That's why you have so many options, so many game tools in the d20 System.
Published and edited. Edited meaning scrubbed for typos and grammar. Editor's likely wouldn't touch the mechanics.
No, proofreaders shouldn't touch the mechanics. Editors in a game publishing company should if the mechanics didn't jive with the company's whim. In the absence of proofreaders, editor(s) must then pull double duties.
AFAIC, there's nothing illegal.
Now, can we close the subject and get on-track?
The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is actually published by WotC. IOW, they're responsible for editing it before it goes to the printers. The designers are just writers.
If WotC felt what they wrote does not conform to the norm (or format) of the rules, they could have just edited it. But considering the history of previous Dragonlance game rules, it's acceptable. I mean, who here besides me have played the pre-3e version of DL?
I'm a strong believer that the [d20 System] rules should fit the setting, not the other way around. If a few mechanics are not suitable for the setting ... fix the mechanics, not the setting. If you can't fix the mechanics, replace them with something else. That's why you have so many options, so many game tools in the d20 System.
I have played all 3 version of the Dragonlance game, 1st-3.5 editions. I dont count saga.
I have played all 3 version of the Dragonlance game, 1st-3.5 editions. I dont count saga.
I'm not a SAGA fan either. I left DL because of that system. DLCS brought me back.
NOW, can we get off DL and on-track? This is a Greyhawk thread, don'tcha kno'?