The next issue of Dungeon (#114) will contain an adventure set on the infamous Isle of Dread, of X1 fame. It also contains a poster map of the locale and a short gazetteer of the archipelago filled with adventure hooks, encounter charts, and more.
I wanted to drop you guys a line to let you know about it not only because you probably have a natural interest in the Isle of Dread, but because in putting together the issue I made the difficult decision to present the Isle as a location in the core Dungeons & Dragons world, rather than in Mystara/the Known World.
I did this for a number of reasons (not least of which being that Mystara is no longer actively supported by Wizards of the Coast), but the main one is that I believe an Isle of Dread detached from the continuity of an out-of-print world would be more appealing to the majority of my readers than one explicitly tied to a long-out-of-print campaign setting.
Secondly, I am not an expert on Mystara, and am leery of introducing "official" Mystara continuity that might upset long-suffering Mystara fans due to errors of exclusion and ignorance.
Mystara and the core D&D world (Greyhawk) have an interesting set of common features. Both worlds boast alternate versions of the Land of Blackmoor. Both feature Keeps on the Borderlands. Both of these ties date back to the early 1980s, so it seemed a natural to suggest that both worlds feature an Isle of Dread.
The idea of a dinosaur-ravaged island with native tribes is an excellent setting for adventure, and I think spreading it across a couple of mutually friendly campaign settings makes a lot of sense. It keeps the place fresh and top-of-mind. For new readers, the upcoming articles will offer a window into Mystara, which may even drum up some interest in the setting.
All that said, it will be _extremely_ easy to use the adventure, background article, and especially the poster no matter which campaign setting you use.
While I've got you, anyone interested in pitching a "Monsters of Mystara" article that updates some classic Known World beasties will find a very receptive staff on the other end of the [email]dungeon@paizo.com[/email] email address.
Thanks, and I hope you guys enjoy the issue!
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
Thanks for taking your time sharing this with us. It is sort of annoying seeing all of our favorite modules being transported over to GH, but you have a point, GH and Mystara can in many ways be considered twin worlds. In addition to the similarities you mention both worlds also have Orcus, Demogorgon, Garel Glittergold and other Deities/Immortals.
Although I would have loved to see the good old Known World map appear in Dungeon in association with Isle of Dread, I am still looking forward to seeing the rewamped version of the adventure. Its gonna be great fun picking it apart and seeing if it can spark new ideas to further fleshing out Mystara.
Oh, and I'd love to see a Monsters of Mystara article! Anyone reading this who are willing to write something like that? I'd very much have liked to do it myself, but I don't think time will allow me to, at least not for now.
Again, thanks for your interest over at Dungeon!
Håvard
The Isle of Dread, while it was the Expert set supplied module and it included information on the "Known World" directly, it was really meant to be a generic module. It's better to present it in a generic form rather than try and place it in an out-of-print campaign setting and upset all the fans because some minor fact is out of alignment. The Dark Sun articles really illustrated this particular problem well.
That being said, there are other classic modules which are, in my opinion, not so easy to relocate. "Castle Amber", which is ironically the second Expert module after Isle of Dread, is deliberately set in the Principalities of Glantri, a very specific location in Mystara. Subsequent materials for Mystara have tied the Amber family rather tightly to the setting, uprooting them is sure to cause an outcry. In addition, the module is loosely based on the writings of Clark Ashton Smith, so there's probably some legality issues involved with a remake, unless every CAS element is purged.
Not that I would object to seeing a 3.5 revised Castle Amber module in Dungeon. It could still be done in a generic form that would be useful for any setting. (Eberron actually would be a fitting place for it.) I've considered writing one, but I figured the legal issues would present too many problems to Paizo. If they're willing to have a look, though, I'll take a stab at it.
Adamantyr
Originally posted by Erik Mona
I wanted to drop you guys a line to let you know about it not only because you probably have a natural interest in the Isle of Dread, but because in putting together the issue I made the difficult decision to present the Isle as a location in the core Dungeons & Dragons world, rather than in Mystara/the Known World.
I did this for a number of reasons (not least of which being that Mystara is no longer actively supported by Wizards of the Coast), but the main one is that I believe an Isle of Dread detached from the continuity of an out-of-print world would be more appealing to the majority of my readers than one explicitly tied to a long-out-of-print campaign setting.
Secondly, I am not an expert on Mystara, and am leery of introducing "official" Mystara continuity that might upset long-suffering Mystara fans due to errors of exclusion and ignorance.
Erik, speaking for myself I am dissapointed that it is being placed in another campaign world but I can't fault you on your reasons for doing so. That being said, I'm not a regular subscriber to Dungeon but Iwill be picking up this issue.
So were rakasta and phanatons ported over to 3.5E along with the rest of the module?, those are two classic known world beasties right there.
likewise, thank-you for sharing your view with us on this, but I do have a question. My memory is that there was a Greyhawk version - "The Isle of the Ape" (I can't remember the module number, never having owned it). Whilst this seems to be far less well known, would it not have been equally suitable for your update (and presumably far more in keeping being already a Greyhawk island)?
Note: - in case my DM reads this board - I will NOT be buying this Dungeon magazine as I know he will - I expect to be playing it fairly soon so no spoilers please.
Secondly, I think gamers are mature enough to understand that if a blurb indicates its origin (Mystara) and its location on Mystara that it is still 100% portable to Greyhawk or any other campaign setting...
I know I for one have used other campaign setting material in mystara and will continue to do so...
Having said all that, I'll will still be picking the issue up to have a read.
I actually moved the ISLE OF DREAD to Earth circa 1988 for my Marvel Super Hero RPG game as an adventure point.
Lots of good memories of this campaign, as prior to it, when playing the old red boxed DnD set, advenures were always set indoors.
So were rakasta and phanatons ported over to 3.5E along with the rest of the module?, those are two classic known world beasties right there.
>>>
We may be updating the phanatons in an upcoming issue, but I decided to leave the rakastas off entirely, making them one of the elements that defines the Mystara version as distinctly "Known Worldish."
>>>
My memory is that there was a Greyhawk version - "The Isle of the Ape" (I can't remember the module number, never having owned it). Whilst this seems to be far less well known, would it not have been equally suitable for your update (and presumably far more in keeping being already a Greyhawk island)?
>>>
The Isle of the Ape is actually a demiplane attached to Castle Greyhawk, and is not quite the same thing. It's also not a very popular module, so that lessens my interest in revisiting it.
>>>
I too am a little dissapointed in the fact that it appears the Mystara product will be pillaged to feed other campaign worlds that will slowly devalue to Mystic around mystara. You mentioned that it will offer gamers a window into Mystara but how will this be the case if there is no reference to its origination or is there?
>>>
The fact that the original is set in Mystara is very much mentioned in the article, and I expect the issue to explode in our letters column, where I have a fairly detailed response planned about the goods and bads of stealing stuff from other campaign settings. Recall that Greyhawk has been on the opposite end of this several times, with the drow and Vecna being the two most odious examples.
>>>
Secondly, I think gamers are mature enough to understand that if a blurb indicates its origin (Mystara) and its location on Mystara that it is still 100% portable to Greyhawk or any other campaign setting...
>>>
Unfortunately, our experience with the magazine suggests otherwise.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
Secondly, I think gamers are mature enough to understand that if a blurb indicates its origin (Mystara) and its location on Mystara that it is still 100% portable to Greyhawk or any other campaign setting...
Well, in my DragonLance campaign, I have Mystara located about 3000 miles to the north of Ansalon. And thus, the Isle of Dread lies about halfway between the realms.
Why, whats the signifigance? Well, because I liked Mystara and wanted to integrate them. No other reason then that.
When I played the classic MARVEL SUPER HERO rpg back in the late 80's, my character (Merlin) arch enemy was the DungeonMaster whom actually was able to transport the Isle of Dread from Mystara to Earth, and the Avengers had to investigate and stop him.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
>>>
So were rakasta and phanatons ported over to 3.5E along with the rest of the module?, those are two classic known world beasties right there.
>>>
We may be updating the phanatons in an upcoming issue, but I decided to leave the rakastas off entirely, making them one of the elements that defines the Mystara version as distinctly "Known Worldish."
fair enough, sounds like a good idea.
>>>
I too am a little dissapointed in the fact that it appears the Mystara product will be pillaged to feed other campaign worlds that will slowly devalue to Mystic around mystara. You mentioned that it will offer gamers a window into Mystara but how will this be the case if there is no reference to its origination or is there?
>>>
The fact that the original is set in Mystara is very much mentioned in the article, and I expect the issue to explode in our letters column, where I have a fairly detailed response planned about the goods and bads of stealing stuff from other campaign settings. Recall that Greyhawk has been on the opposite end of this several times, with the drow and Vecna being the two most odious examples.
well if it's mentioned then that is good. And if you point people to the current sources for getting Mystara on the web then even better.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
>>>
So were rakasta and phanatons ported over to 3.5E along with the rest of the module?, those are two classic known world beasties right there.
>>>
We may be updating the phanatons in an upcoming issue, but I decided to leave the rakastas off entirely, making them one of the elements that defines the Mystara version as distinctly "Known Worldish."
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
What does this implies?
That Rakastas and Phanatons aren't present in the adventure? If so the adventure will not really be a conversion of the Isle of Dread aventure to 3.5 Ed. I sincerely hope that i'm misunderstanding you statement...
Rakasta aren't really "Known Worldish" but generally associated with the Savage Coast campaing setting (set in mystara) that portraits the only rakasta kingdom known in Mystara or even the Isle of Dread module. In fact, the Known World, must be the place in Mystara where rakastas are less present...
What does this implies?
That Rakastas and Phanatons aren't present in the adventure? If so the adventure will not really be a conversion of the Isle of Dread aventure to 3.5 Ed. I sincerely hope that i'm misunderstanding you statement...
>>>
There are two "Isle of Dread" elements in Dungeon #114, neither of which is a strict "conversion." The first, an article entitled "Exploring the Isle of Dread" sets up the Isle as a mini-campaign setting, and gives an overview of its history, mood, and the creatures encountered therein. Although the article is rife with adventure hooks and inspiration, it is not strictly an adventure.
The second element is an adventure entitled "Torrents of Dread." The adventure takes place in the village of Mora, and although it deals with elements introduced in the original module (koprus make an appearance), it is in no way a conversion of the original module. In fact, it takes place entirely south of the Great Wall that divides the safe part of the Isle from the more dangerous regions.
If this whole thing is popular, we may revisit the Isle of Dread in future adventures, which will naturally explore other areas on the Isle.
>>>
Rakasta aren't really "Known Worldish" but generally associated with the Savage Coast campaing setting (set in mystara) that portraits the only rakasta kingdom known in Mystara or even the Isle of Dread module. In fact, the Known World, must be the place in Mystara where rakastas are less present...
>>>
I was using "Known World" interchangably with "Mystara." I think it's safe to say that the rakasta are "Mystaran," since they appear in no other campaign settings (or at least not prominently). That's all I was trying to say.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
There are two "Isle of Dread" elements in Dungeon #114, neither of which is a strict "conversion." The first, an article entitled "Exploring the Isle of Dread" sets up the Isle as a mini-campaign setting, and gives an overview of its history, mood, and the creatures encountered therein. Although the article is rife with adventure hooks and inspiration, it is not strictly an adventure.
The second element is an adventure entitled "Torrents of Dread." The adventure takes place in the village of Mora, and although it deals with elements introduced in the original module (koprus make an appearance), it is in no way a conversion of the original module. In fact, it takes place entirely south of the Great Wall that divides the safe part of the Isle from the more dangerous regions.
If this whole thing is popular, we may revisit the Isle of Dread in future adventures, which will naturally explore other areas on the Isle.
>>>
OK, now i'm aware of this "conversion" parameters let me praise the initiative of Dungeon magazine.
Still a total a conversion (as a whole or separate) would be a great bonus to us all, if not, just to have official conversions of our unique mystarian races and monsters.
>>>
I was using "Known World" interchangably with "Mystara." I think it's safe to say that the rakasta are "Mystaran," since they appear in no other campaign settings (or at least not prominently). That's all I was trying to say.
>>>
Along with Lupins, Phanatons, Tortles (already converted in Dragon) these races make mystara an unique place.
I think i'm talking not only for myself when i say that official conversions of mystara material is something i always look for in your products.
Keep up the excelent work and congratulations for the initiative!!
Originally posted by Erik Mona
I wanted to drop you guys a line to let you know about it not only because you probably have a natural interest in the Isle of Dread, but because in putting together the issue I made the difficult decision to present the Isle as a location in the core Dungeons & Dragons world, rather than in Mystara/the Known World.
Erik, I just want to thank you for taking the time to post this thread here. It's an unexpected but very welcome level of consideration for the fans of the original setting.
I did this for a number of reasons (not least of which being that Mystara is no longer actively supported by Wizards of the Coast), but the main one is that I believe an Isle of Dread detached from the continuity of an out-of-print world would be more appealing to the majority of my readers than one explicitly tied to a long-out-of-print campaign setting.
Secondly, I am not an expert on Mystara, and am leery of introducing "official" Mystara continuity that might upset long-suffering Mystara fans due to errors of exclusion and ignorance.
Let me see if I have this straight...you divorced it from Mystara entirely...because you think fans of Mystara would be less upset than if you put it there and made a few mistakes...?
I don't want to be critical, but this sounds like amputating your hand because you don't want to deal with hangnails.
Mystara and the core D&D world (Greyhawk) have an interesting set of common features. Both worlds boast alternate versions of the Land of Blackmoor. Both feature Keeps on the Borderlands. Both of these ties date back to the early 1980s, so it seemed a natural to suggest that both worlds feature an Isle of Dread.
I think everyone here thought of Blackmoor (though, from what I understand, the Mystara Blackmoor is the "real" Blackmoor, since thats the one the various modules such as City of the Gods, Temple of the Frog, etc are set in).
I didn't know about the Keep on the Borderlands though, since I don't have a copy of the original B2. That explains why the Return to adventure had the Babylonian deities though (and, as such, became totally non-canon for Greyhawk).
Seems Planescape was right about things happening in threes.
We may be updating the phanatons in an upcoming issue, but I decided to leave the rakastas off entirely, making them one of the elements that defines the Mystara version as distinctly "Known Worldish."
Admirable, but does that mean we'll never see them for 3.5E? That's rather depressing.
The fact that the original is set in Mystara is very much mentioned in the article
It is? Where? I have my copy of the issue here, and the only mention that this wasn't always on Greyhawk is the second paragraph in the "Exploring the Isle of Dread" article. And that never once mentions "Mystara" or "Known World".
and I expect the issue to explode in our letters column, where I have a fairly detailed response planned about the goods and bads of stealing stuff from other campaign settings.
I'm looking forward to that, so I'll have to start planning my response to your response. :D
Recall that Greyhawk has been on the opposite end of this several times, with the drow and Vecna being the two most odious examples.
Not exactly the same. Those were never the exact same drow, and Vecna's presence in other settings was explained. This is the same location, cloned in a new setting; a third instance, as you mentioned. There is a difference between cross-campaign pollenation, and one campaign directly copying another.
Unfortunately, our experience with the magazine suggests otherwise.
Not to sound disrespectful here, but if you expect that this will cause trouble, perhaps it would be better not to try and port it over to begin with? Being that the nature of this article was to present it as self-contained, mentioning a few things from Mystara-proper couldn't really have been that deterring to new readers. Articles like this one are, from what I can tell, specifically targeted at the gamers who remember the original; doing something that your experience tells you won't go down well seems counterproductive.
Let me see if I have this straight...you divorced it from Mystara entirely...because you think fans of Mystara would be less upset than if you put it there and made a few mistakes...?
>>>
Precisely so. If you're interested, I invite you to spend an afternoon with Google and the search function on this website. Suggested topics: "Spelljammer: Shadow of the Spider Moon" or "Dark Sun 3.5."
>>>
I don't want to be critical, but this sounds like amputating your hand because you don't want to deal with hangnails.
>>>
And here I thought it was more like having my cake and eating it too. ;)
>>>
I think everyone here thought of Blackmoor (though, from what I understand, the Mystara Blackmoor is the "real" Blackmoor, since thats the one the various modules such as City of the Gods, Temple of the Frog, etc are set in).
>>>
In fact, the "real" Blackmoor is probably neither the Greyhawk or "Mystara" versions. Indeed, it is probably best exemplified by a Dave Arneson-penned volume entitled "First Fantasy Campaign," published by Judges Guild in the late seventies (or possibly very early 1980s). That book was unfiltered Arneson, essentially a collection of his campaign notes for the first D&D campaign in history.
The "Mystara" version was produced several years later, in collaboration with another author named David Ritchie. I have no idea how much input Ritchie had on the first three adventures (although they are far more polished than the work in "First Fantasy Campaign"), but he wrote "DA4: Duchy of Ten" alone. Arneson is not credited on the cover of the module.
The Greyhawk version of Blackmoor is an homage to Arneson's campaign, just as Oerth's "Great Kingdom of Aerdy" is an homage to the campaign area of the "Castles and Crusades Society," for which Troll Lords Games's new d20 "rules lite" system is named.
Interestingly, the capital of Greyhawk's Blackmoor is Dantredun, which is an anagram for "redundant." One supposes that Gygax may have intended that as a snub, since his new Greyhawk setting made Blackmoor obsolete (at least in the minds of some). But that's merely conjecture.
>>>
Admirable, but does that mean we'll never see them for 3.5E? That's rather depressing.
>>>
No. I would probably publish a "Monsters of Mystara" article that could easily include the rakasta. I've nothing against them, but would urge that they not be divested from their Mystaran heritage, lest Mystara lose an element that is unique to it. The Isle of Dread "works" in the core D&D world in a way I'm not sure rakastas (or cat people of any stripe) do.
>>>
It is? Where? I have my copy of the issue here, and the only mention that this wasn't always on Greyhawk is the second paragraph in the "Exploring the Isle of Dread" article. And that never once mentions "Mystara" or "Known World".
>>>
I believe we cut a sidebar referring to it because we were so tight on space in the issue, and I'd forgotten that when I made my earlier post. Look for something when we publish a follow-up article.
>>>
Not exactly the same. Those were never the exact same drow, and Vecna's presence in other settings was explained. This is the same location, cloned in a new setting; a third instance, as you mentioned. There is a difference between cross-campaign pollenation, and one campaign directly copying another.
>>>
I think you'll find that elements of the Vault of the Drow module, the foundation upon which the theory that drow "belong" to Greyhawk is based, have been incorporated wholesale into the early Forgotten Realms drow material. All of the noble houses. All of the names. The basis of drow culture. Drow weapons. The Demonweb Pits. Everything. It's almost as if Ed Greenwood wrote a book about the drow of Greyhawk, and then at the last minute went in and added a bunch of Realms stuff. I don't begrudge them doing that, personally. It clearly helped the popularity of the Forgotten Realms, and the fact that so many people are ignorant of the details is further evidence of how well it worked.
Vecna was robbed from Greyhawk and put in Ravenloft. I'd argue that was even worse, because the official TSR "line" was that Vecna was not on Oerth, but had been kidnapped by the mists of Ravenloft. Where does that leave a player who wants Vecna to be part of his campaign? Well, he can just ignore the Ravenloft stuff, but the fact remains that the official story took something away from one setting to give to the next.
The core continuity "Isle of Dread" takes absolutely nothing away from the original, in my opinion. If I felt that it did, I wouldn't have done it at all.
>>>
Not to sound disrespectful here, but if you expect that this will cause trouble, perhaps it would be better not to try and port it over to begin with?
>>>
Far, far more of my readers remember playing the Isle of Dread than recognize the word "Mystara." That's a simple truth. The Isle of Dread is the second-best-selling adventure module of all time, selling an order of magnitude (and possibly two orders of magnitude) more copies than any product with the Mystara logo and any of the Gazzetteer products. While I'll be thrilled if Mystara fans appreciate the article, the audience I'm shooting for is in the much larger group.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
Originally posted by Erik Mona
>>>
It is? Where? I have my copy of the issue here, and the only mention that this wasn't always on Greyhawk is the second paragraph in the "Exploring the Isle of Dread" article. And that never once mentions "Mystara" or "Known World".
>>>
I believe we cut a sidebar referring to it because we were so tight on space in the issue, and I'd forgotten that when I made my earlier post. Look for something when we publish a follow-up article.
that's a shame
Far, far more of my readers remember playing the Isle of Dread than recognize the word "Mystara." That's a simple truth. The Isle of Dread is the second-best-selling adventure module of all time, selling an order of magnitude (and possibly two orders of magnitude) more copies than any product with the Mystara logo and any of the Gazzetteer products. While I'll be thrilled if Mystara fans appreciate the article, the audience I'm shooting for is in the much larger group.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon
the gameworld of Mystara didn't exist back when Isle of Dread came out, the Known World was only beginning to take shape.
Good to hear that a lowly Dungeons and Dragons module is the second-best selling adventure module of all time.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Precisely so. If you're interested, I invite you to spend an afternoon with Google and the search function on this website. Suggested topics: "Spelljammer: Shadow of the Spider Moon" or "Dark Sun 3.5."
No need, I wrote my own share of upset letters and comments on those topics.
Which, I feel, is precisely the point. You said you didn't want Mystara fans to be upset over a mistake, but the fans of Dark Sun and Spelljammer weren't upset over mistakes; they were upset over deliberate changes.
The fans can be forgiving of honest-to-goodness errors; it's inevitable that those creep in. They get noted, an errata gets printed, and the whole cycle begins anew with the next product. It's when the wheel is deliberately reinvented that the fans of established worlds go up in arms. That's why your preceding statement is so hard for me to understand: you decided to implement a major, major change, to avoid making accidental little changes.
In fact, the "real" Blackmoor is probably neither the Greyhawk or "Mystara" versions. Indeed, it is probably best exemplified by a Dave Arneson-penned volume entitled "First Fantasy Campaign," published by Judges Guild in the late seventies (or possibly very early 1980s). That book was unfiltered Arneson, essentially a collection of his campaign notes for the first D&D campaign in history.
The "Mystara" version was produced several years later, in collaboration with another author named David Ritchie. I have no idea how much input Ritchie had on the first three adventures (although they are far more polished than the work in "First Fantasy Campaign"), but he wrote "DA4: Duchy of Ten" alone. Arneson is not credited on the cover of the module.
The Greyhawk version of Blackmoor is an homage to Arneson's campaign, just as Oerth's "Great Kingdom of Aerdy" is an homage to the campaign area of the "Castles and Crusades Society," for which Troll Lords Games's new d20 "rules lite" system is named.
Interestingly, the capital of Greyhawk's Blackmoor is Dantredun, which is an anagram for "redundant." One supposes that Gygax may have intended that as a snub, since his new Greyhawk setting made Blackmoor obsolete (at least in the minds of some). But that's merely conjecture.
*furiously scribbles down notes*
Woot! Thanks for the info! I love learning about the history of the game like this.
When I said "real" Blackmoor, what I meant was "official," and that's a very loaded word, as there are different ways to interpret that (such as ideas of who owns the intellectual property vs. the intent of the original creator).
No. I would probably publish a "Monsters of Mystara" article that could easily include the rakasta. I've nothing against them, but would urge that they not be divested from their Mystaran heritage, lest Mystara lose an element that is unique to it. The Isle of Dread "works" in the core D&D world in a way I'm not sure rakastas (or cat people of any stripe) do.
So that'd be, what, a sidebar on not urging them to be used elsewhere? I'm somewhat confused, as Dungeon tries quite hard to publish material the majority of it's readers can use...but you'd be willing to publish rakasta with the caveat that they don't be used outside Mystara?
I think you'll find that elements of the Vault of the Drow module, the foundation upon which the theory that drow "belong" to Greyhawk is based, have been incorporated wholesale into the early Forgotten Realms drow material. All of the noble houses. All of the names. The basis of drow culture. Drow weapons. The Demonweb Pits. Everything. It's almost as if Ed Greenwood wrote a book about the drow of Greyhawk, and then at the last minute went in and added a bunch of Realms stuff. I don't begrudge them doing that, personally. It clearly helped the popularity of the Forgotten Realms, and the fact that so many people are ignorant of the details is further evidence of how well it worked.
I admit to not knowing the early history of the drow in the Realms...are the actual Noble Houses from the Vault the same as the ones in Menzoberranzen? If so, then you've got a good point. If it's not though, then this doesn't seem like it's theft of specific ideas so much as just having the monster present on one world be on others too, like with dragons.
Besides, we all know Salvatore is the guy to blame for the drow in the Realms. ;)
Vecna was robbed from Greyhawk and put in Ravenloft. I'd argue that was even worse, because the official TSR "line" was that Vecna was not on Oerth, but had been kidnapped by the mists of Ravenloft. Where does that leave a player who wants Vecna to be part of his campaign?
I'd guess in the exact same place he was before, honestly. Vecna is in Ravenloft, yes, but unless the PCs were going to go head-to-head with Vecna himself or an avatar (and they did that in Vecna Lives!), then there's no change to a Greyhawk campaign. Vecna cultists are still all over the place, meaning that there's no problem with having his influence be there. Although it was a bit late in coming, those cultists (usually limited to 1st- or 2nd-level spells) could use knucklebones of channeling to even get their full spell allotments (those items are from Die Vecna Die).
And, in the end, Vecna came back to Greyhawk anyway.
Of course, there are so many ways to introduce so much at that point. Instead of the ancient race (some amphibious race) it could be the Drow or all kinds of stuff if you want. A really ancient dragon, an ancient vampire or mummy or death knight. A fallen deity.
The limitations are endless.
read the Monster Manual and the GDQ modules as they came out, and incorporated the drow (and tke kuo-toa, etc.) into his world, just as thousands of other DMs did (it was hardly expected that they use them only in the World of Greyhawk, which hadn't been published). Drow (probably from the city now known to be Maerimydra) featured in his Knights of Myth Drannor campaign in the early 1980s; we know they kidnapped one of the PCs, Sharantyr, for instance. When TSR bought the Realms from Ed and was gearing up to publish them, Bob Salvatore included a drow sidekick to Wulfgar and Bruenor in The Crystal Shard and its sequels. The popularity of that character led TSR to commission the Dark Elf trilogy, partly set in Bob's city of Menzoberranzan, and the sourcebook FOR2 The Drow of the Underdark from Ed, which is heavily derived from Gary's work, among much new linguistic and cultural lore. It includes Erelhei-Cinlu in its list of drow cities, and some of the Erelhei-Cinlu houses too, out of some sense of inclusiveness, or possibly editorial miscommunication, since all TSR products of that era were in large part determined by their editors in ways that have only filtered to us piecemeal in the years since. Gary's drow houses were never considered part of any specific Realms drow city.
I don't see what's odious. It may have been TSR's wish to obscure Gary's Greyhawk-set drow, but it certainly wasn't Ed's.
Originally posted by Faraer
I don't see what's odious. It may have been TSR's wish to obscure Gary's Greyhawk-set drow, but it certainly wasn't Ed's.
What's odious is when some clown starts telling you why his favorite campaign setting is better than all the others, and starts citing stuff that was ripped off from your favorite setting. Besides Greyhawk Forgotten Realms has recycled or copied plenty from other setting, such as the Minrothad Gazeteer spells for Pirates of the Fallen Stars, and made the Birthright's Lost abilities into a prestige class in the FR 3E hardcover. Which is why I don't buy FR, despite people telling me about "the virtues of the setting"(an actual quote).
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Far, far more of my readers remember playing the Isle of Dread than recognize the word "Mystara." That's a simple truth. The Isle of Dread is the second-best-selling adventure module of all time, selling an order of magnitude (and possibly two orders of magnitude) more copies than any product with the Mystara logo and any of the Gazzetteer products. While I'll be thrilled if Mystara fans appreciate the article, the audience I'm shooting for is in the much larger group.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon [/b]
While this is true, that much larger group will recognize the D&D Known World, because the map and the description of the countries is right there in the original module.
Much of the setting description involves describing the history of the isle, and I see why Paizo Publishing switched it to something other than the D&D Known World/Mystara. If they didn't they would be writing history of our setting. I think it would have been better served to make the module truly generic and leave out the history and keep the isle's origins a mystery, but they do provide history which people can use(or discard).
The history does do a pretty good job of explaining how an ancient civilization constructed the city on the plateau and the wall, while the island today consists of jungle and dinosaurs. I prefer a different backstory, but this one will serve and can be easily modified or ignored. One logical inconsistency, however, the wall was supposedly built to ensure the majority of the population on the peninsula could not get to the plateau unless they passed through the gate. If that's the case, the towers in the original module, and as described here are on the WRONG side. The towers on the peninsula side mean the wall is meant to defend the peninsula. If the walls were meant to defend the rest of the island, they would be on the other side and the local natives could not man them without leaving their warriors unsupported, unless they open the gate.
That was the only problem I spotted, encounter tables and the map show the aranea are still around. The Sea Turtle clan and Tiger clan remind me of the original clan names of the Atruaghin clans before the gazeteer came out.
Overall I recommend it and hope to see some more adventures set on the Isle of Dread.
by NPC Dave
The Sea Turtle clan and Tiger clan remind me of the original clan names of the Atruaghin clans before the gazeteer came out.
I know this is a side trek, but this has had me wondering for a very long time - Which is the true name, Children of the Tiger or Children of the Viper?
Originally posted by NPC Dave
That was the only problem I spotted, encounter tables and the map show the aranea are still around.
The aranea are still around, check page 15 of the 3.5E Monster Manual.
Originally posted by Hugin
I know this is a side trek, but this has had me wondering for a very long time - Which is the true name, Children of the Tiger or Children of the Viper?
It is supposed to be the Children of the Tiger. They were originally billed as the Children of the Viper in ads for the Gaz, IIRC, and are still "misnamed" on the map as such. However, at some point, that concept was changed, and they became the Children of the Tiger. That is the name they are continually referred to by in the Gaz, and even their patron, Danel Tigerstripes (who has "tiger"-like body paint on his form) all support this idea.
As for the whys and wherefores of the confusion, I don't know any details, though I'm sure there's a story behind it (not necessarily an interesting story, but a story).
In all honesty, Vipers probably would have been a better choice (the climate doesn't really seem appropriate for tigers). IMC, I have both groups there- the Viper and the Tiger clans. The Viper clan are largely unheard of, they live mostly underground in tunnel complexes that are marked by large serpent like mounds (a la the Mound people of central north America). They create a buffer zone between the Tiger and Turtle "clans".
Also, as another side note- the map of the plateau in Gaz14" Atruaghin Clans does not fit the scale of the map as presented elsewhere (Champions of Mystara and Wrath of the Immortals, notably). It should actually be somewhat larger than it is presented there.
In all honesty, Vipers probably would have been a better choice (the climate doesn't really seem appropriate for tigers). IMC, I have both groups there- the Viper and the Tiger clans. The Viper clan are largely unheard of, they live mostly underground in tunnel complexes that are marked by large serpent like mounds (a la the Mound people of central north America). They create a buffer zone between the Tiger and Turtle "clans".
I thought Viper would have been a better choice as well, especially considering Atzanteolt's influence on them and as you say the climate. I know tigers are in Ethengar according to the Gaz and I also have them in Sind so there could be a few still in Atruaghin, but I see them as very rare and becoming extinct in this whole region of Mystara.
I think I'm going to use your idea of the Viper Clan IMC too. A buffer clan would be useful.
Originally posted by Hugin
I know this is a side trek, but this has had me wondering for a very long time - Which is the true name, Children of the Tiger or Children of the Viper?
that sounds like a question for the FAQ
Originally posted by Alzrius
The aranea are still around, check page 15 of the 3.5E Monster Manual.
I don't use 3 or 3.5 with Mystara, and in any case the aranea in those editions can shape change, which only applies to Herathian aranea on Mystara.
What I meant is they didn't pull out aranea from the Isle of Dread like they did rakasta and phanatons.
Originally posted by NPC Dave
I don't use 3 or 3.5 with Mystara, and in any case the aranea in those editions can shape change, which only applies to Herathian aranea on Mystara.
What I meant is they didn't pull out aranea from the Isle of Dread like they did rakasta and phanatons.
well presumably Aranea and Kopru are in the issue because both are in the Monster Manual's. Presumably there wasn't additional space to put in other creatures _and_ have to put in conversions for those creatures.
Originally posted by BOZ
for anyone looking for 3.5 versions of rakasta and phanaton, we have them at the Creature Catalog: http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/index.php
A cool list of conversions which I am sure will come in handy in the future!
:-) Jesper
and we're always adding more!
The Creature Catalog is a great site, and has been extremely useful for my campaign. I have downloaded all of the creatures there that are remotely associated with Mystara, plus a few more just cause I like em and made my own little Mystara Monster Manual for personal use.
Hope to see more Mystara critters there in the future!
Håvard
Archer Bush (3.0, two versions thereof)
Baric (3.0)
Bubble (heheh)
Cave Locust (3.0)
Chimera, Undead (3.0)
Decapus (3.0)
Diger (3.0)
Dusanu (3.0 and 3.5)
Flitterling (3.5)
Giant Annelid (3.0)
Hypnosnake (3.0)
Jupiter Bloodsucker (3.0)
Marmoset, Giant (3.0)
Oil Beetle (3.0)
Pegataur (3.0)
Phanaton (3.5)
Polymar (3.0)
Rakasta (3.5)
Soul Eater (3.0)
Tentacled Horror (3.0)
Thoul (3.0)
Vampire Rose (3.0)
plus a number of other creatures that were used in both D&D and AD&D.
many of those 3.0 conversions were reprinted in the Tome of Horrors a couple of years ago, which is set to get a 3.5 update soon.
Originally posted by BOZ
for anyone looking for 3.5 versions of rakasta and phanaton, we have them at the Creature Catalog: http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/index.php
none of these dudes appear to have authors attached
Originally posted by BOZ
we try to do what we can. there's nothing i can do about some of the older entries because i don't have a way to edit that older format, but every monster i've converted has the original author - or as far back as i can find - listed. i do believe this is the case for just about every single 3.5 conversion.
but how did you get the files onto the site in the first place, someone must have sent them to you or something? Was that information never considered important? A lot of the Mystaran ones don't appear to have authors, I haven't one that has yet.