# The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is up (EDIT-All Chapters Now Added)



## Rauol_Duke (Oct 12, 2007)

First adventure for the online _Dungeon_ - Iggwilv's Legacy

EDIT: 2nd, 3rd and 4th chapter now added... the link remains the same.

Written by EN World's own Rodent of the Dark, *Ari Marmell*


----------



## Voadam (Oct 12, 2007)

That's it, I'm now signed up on their site.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 12, 2007)

Solid cover illustration.

Layout... either it's for screen or it's for printing.

Either get rid of the color corners or make them black and white or smaller or something. Ditto for headers, etc...

It pretty much looks like some of the freebies that we've seen in the past in terms of layout. It doesn't hold a candle to the latter print issues I'm afraid.

And ugh... rules for taint! Ah well, if they're going to be used it's good to have the rules again (but I believe this would be #4 for me... let's see... OA, UA, HoH and now here... yup, 4) Monsters that aren't core have full stats but those that are core have page references. Good way to handle it.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 12, 2007)

Darn  it, I posted this on the 4e board without even thinking that, of course, it's a 3.5e adventure and the thread probably belongs here.....

Anyhow, looks pretty solid on a first glance.  Same formatting and style of presentation as the previous downloadable adventures on the WotC site.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 12, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Solid cover illustration.
> 
> Layout... either it's for screen or it's for printing.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the layout is... Word set on two columns and printed as PDF! 
Erm... yeah. The pictures are not well-integrated into the layout, they look like an afterthought. The layout itself has some strange whitespace (after the Taint-rules, for instance). And it has strange printing borders - yet it is too colourful to be considered a print-version. It is... a bit schizophrenic, eh?

Well, they have to work a bit on that. If it's a screen-version, get rid of that white background. Black on white is fine on paper, but sears your eyes on the PC. And it looks unfinished, especially after reading so much Dragon/Dungeon articles with a different background.


			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And ugh... rules for taint! Ah well, if they're going to be used it's good to have the rules again (but I believe this would be #4 for me... let's see... OA, UA, HoH and now here... yup, 4) Monsters that aren't core have full stats but those that are core have page references. Good way to handle it.



Well, these rules are basically the HoH rules in abbreviated form, so it's no. 3. Especially considering that the adventure shares some authors with HoH.

And generally, besides the layout, this looks pretty solid. I'm looking forward to see it in its completed form! 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 12, 2007)

Awesome Ari. I think this cements any adventure with your name on it as a "must buy" for me.

Too bad I'm not going to subscribe to the WOTC Dungeon. Hopefully you'll do more work for Paizo and Necromancer. Plus more published WOTC adventures.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Awesome Ari. I think this cements any adventure with your name on it as a "must buy" for me.




Thanks. 

With one _very_ minor quibble*, I'm really happy with the way this turned out. And I love the artwork for the cauchimera. (Since the original _Lost Caverns_ introduced the gorgimera, I felt that a similar but different new critter was entirely appropriate here. ) I'm also really interested in hearing what people think of the background that C.A. and I came up with. We tried to expand and reinterpret canonical references to Tsojcanth, and tie it up into the history of Iggwilv and Graz'zt, without actually directly changing or contradicting anything. I _think_ we succeeded...

*(In the original draft, both the mines beyond Steddegar's Hole and the cavern with the bebilith provided hidden entrances to the Hollow of the Horn, without the need to pass through the Caverns of Tsojcanth themselves. I thought that was kinda nifty, but apparently development decided that they really want PCs to progress through the three "chapters" in order. I liked the old way, purely aesthetically, but I fully understand why they went the way they did. And as I said, it's a really minor issue.)



> Too bad I'm not going to subscribe to the WOTC Dungeon.




Sorry to hear that. I've got at least one more adventure coming out through them, and I think it's one of my best. (But I think it may be due out before the DI switches to a subscription mode, actually.) And I'm sure I'll do more for them later. But that said...



> Hopefully you'll do more work for Paizo and Necromancer. Plus more published WOTC adventures.




I certainly plan to do all three, so long as the various companies allow me to.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 13, 2007)

Just thought I'd pass on something I hadn't appreciated until Chris Thomasson posted it on the Wizards boards just now.  Chapter Two continues the Greater and Lesser Caverns, but Chapter Three is a brand new continuation from the original module.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Just thought I'd pass on something I hadn't appreciated until Chris Thomasson posted it on the Wizards boards just now.  Chapter Two continues the Greater and Lesser Caverns, but Chapter Three is a brand new continuation from the original module.




Yep. 

Let me offer a brief primer on the history of this project. Originally, when C.A. and I proposed it to the folks at Dungeon way back in the day, it didn't include an update to the original. It was a new "sequel" adventure. (That's why, incidentally, we had entrances to the Hollow that didn't require travel through the original lost caverns.) Only when things moved back over to WotC, and I first talked to Bart Carrol about it, did I found out that he already had someone working on a 3.5 update to the original. Obviously, then, it made sense for the three to be reworked to fit together into the single mega-adventure that you're now seeing.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 13, 2007)

As I posted on the other thread, I had hoped that w/o page constraints we'd get art for every monster. That makes the DM's job so much easier.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> As I posted on the other thread, I had hoped that w/o page constraints we'd get art for every monster. That makes the DM's job so much easier.




That would, indeed, be quite cool. But I'm guessing it would also raise the cost of putting together the adventure beyond the point where it'd be a feasible endeavor.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 13, 2007)

But, the advantage of the medium is unlimited space. How about just gathering the art that already exists for the monster at the end. I realize that isn't free and easy, necessarily, and that I could do that on my own, but I'm trying to justify the switch over (since I'll now have to pay for the content, and then again in ink to print it).

the intro is nice, which is about as far as I've been able to read so far.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 13, 2007)

The cool thing for me, Ari, is that Lost Caverns is the next mod up in my C&C game, after they finish DCC 18. So now I have new 3E content to adapt.

BTW, to be clear on what I meant by "published" in my last post I should have said "printed by WOTC".

I've been buying a lot of PDF for the last two to three years, and I definitely prefer print to PDF by at least a 10:1 margin.

So until the price difference has that same margin, I am concentrating on print from now on.

I actually seriously cut back on PDF since before last Christmas.


----------



## RichGreen (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi,

I'm very excited about this but I need some advice! 

When 3.0 came out I converted my long-running 2e campaign over and we played through a few adventures set in Greyhawk with the plan that the PCs would visit a converted and souped-up Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. Instead, they ended up getting side-tracked and never got past a nasty dragon that was living in the mountains. In 2003, when 3.5 came out we put that campaign on hold and started a new one that's still running now.

With this adventure, I'd like to bring back the old PCs and do this as a one-off adventure but the trouble is the PCs are higher level. Rather than scaling up the adventure by quite a few levels, I thought it would be fun to have just two or three of the original PCs go through it. The question is which two would have the best chance of success? The characters are:

Human fighter 13th
Human bard 17th
Human cleric 16th
Human fighter 14th
Human wizard 15th

What do you reckon?

Cheers


Richard


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 13, 2007)

Big GH fan here.  Not much impressed by this effort.  The lay out is IMO meh.  The Hawk is more prefunctory than illuminating.  And the "adventure" is similarly prefunctory.  Hopefully, matters will improve as we see parts II and III.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 13, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Big GH fan here.  Not much impressed by this effort.  The lay out is IMO meh.  The Hawk is more prefunctory than illuminating.  And the "adventure" is similarly prefunctory.  Hopefully, matters will improve as we see parts II and III.





???

Considering this is setting up the groundwork I would say "improving" is a given.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> And the "adventure" is similarly prefunctory.




Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.

I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."


----------



## Morrus (Oct 13, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Awesome Ari. I think this cements any adventure with your name on it as a "must buy" for me.
> 
> Too bad I'm not going to subscribe to the WOTC Dungeon. Hopefully you'll do more work for Paizo and Necromancer. Plus more published WOTC adventures.




He's written an adventure for EN Publishing which is available now!  it's one of the War of the Burning Sky adventures, and is available in PDF or softback format.


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Oct 13, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."




OK,

Until Ari said this I was utterly unimpressed with this offering. Compared to what I'm used to in Dungeon I found this to be sadly lackluster in presentation. I haven't read through it yet but graphically it just does not present to the degree Paizo managed. I'll reserve judgment until the entire product is available. Sadly I will probably never use it, as a digital product is just too much of a hassle to use at the table.

Jack.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 13, 2007)

Jack of Shadows said:
			
		

> OK,
> 
> Until Ari said this I was utterly unimpressed with this offering. Compared to what I'm used to in Dungeon I found this to be sadly lackluster in presentation. I haven't read through it yet but graphically it just does not present to the degree Paizo managed. I'll reserve judgment until the entire product is available. Sadly I will probably never use it, as a digital product is just too much of a hassle to use at the table.
> 
> Jack.




You would think with PDF they would give you two versions, one is the nice presentation version, the second is the simple black and white easy/cheap to print version.

IE save a copy before all the color art and maps are put in, also do a simple line map in B/W for this version, and then add all the PDF layers for the final glossy and pretty version.


So the only extra work is putting together a simple B/W line drawn map. Which they probably do at the "concept level" anyways.  So save it and use it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 13, 2007)

Adobe really ought to have a "print monochrome" button in Acrobat, if they don't already.


----------



## grodog (Oct 13, 2007)

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> First adventure for the online _Dungeon_ - Iggwilv's Legacy




Thanks for the prod Rauol_Duke, I've been keeping an eye on the Dungeon page for awhile, waiting for this to appear.  For two reasons:  1) S4 is one of my favorite GH adventures, and 2) I've been working on my expansions for S4 for the past few weeks (if you're curious, see http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/gh_s4.html for details), and wanted to see if there was more cool stuff in this version worth checking out and/or incorporating into my expanded vision for the adventure.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> With one _very_ minor quibble*, I'm really happy with the way this turned out. And I love the artwork for the cauchimera. (Since the original _Lost Caverns_ introduced the gorgimera, I felt that a similar but different new critter was entirely appropriate here. ) I'm also really interested in hearing what people think of the background that C.A. and I came up with. We tried to expand and reinterpret canonical references to Tsojcanth, and tie it up into the history of Iggwilv and Graz'zt, without actually directly changing or contradicting anything. I _think_ we succeeded...
> 
> *(In the original draft, both the mines beyond Steddegar's Hole and the cavern with the bebilith provided hidden entrances to the Hollow of the Horn, without the need to pass through the Caverns of Tsojcanth themselves. I thought that was kinda nifty, but apparently development decided that they really want PCs to progress through the three "chapters" in order. I liked the old way, purely aesthetically, but I fully understand why they went the way they did. And as I said, it's a really minor issue.)




I'll definitely check out "Iggwilv's Legacy" with a fine-toothed comb, and let you know my thoughts, Ari


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 13, 2007)

grodog said:
			
		

> I'll definitely check out "Iggwilv's Legacy" with a fine-toothed comb, and let you know my thoughts, Ari




Uh-oh. Now I'm nervous. 

Seriously, we definitely took Tsojcanth in a wild direction, one that I don't think a lot of people are going to expect. (Well, unless they know C.A. and me, in which case they might see it coming. )

But while there are some, uh, "creative interpretations," I think we managed it without technically violating anything in official canon. But of course, I could be wrong...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> You would think with PDF they would give you two versions, one is the nice presentation version, the second is the simple black and white easy/cheap to print version.
> 
> IE save a copy before all the color art and maps are put in, also do a simple line map in B/W for this version, and then add all the PDF layers for the final glossy and pretty version.
> 
> ...




Seems a common problem with publishers. For example, Pathfinder is pretty impossible to print unless you're using high end laser printer or don't mind the ink cost.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 13, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Seems a common problem with publishers. For example, Pathfinder is pretty impossible to print unless you're using high end laser printer or don't mind the ink cost.




Yep. I already have posted on their boards asking them to enable the PDF to allow us to remove the layers. Come to think of it, I haven't tried playing with the layers on this new issue. But I did on the newer version of PF 1, and you still couldn't remove all the color and extraneous background. Couldn't remove any of it, to be specific.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2007)

One sweet thing The LE games did with their pdf's was bundle them in a number of formats - landscape for reading on a monitor, full color, black and white with no borders and a few others.  Very, VERY good idea.  It's not like it's a huge amount of work, three clicks before you hit Save and you're done mostly.

One thing I hope the new Dungeon does is have the map pdf's bundled the way Paizo did.  I adored those.  Even if I didn't use the modules, the maps and art often saw the light of day in different games.

Now, if we can just stop them from doing Zip'ed pdf previews, we'd be doing something.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2007)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I'm very excited about this but I need some advice!
> 
> ...





I would say the Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter (either one) would give them the right mix. Unless the Bard is exceptionally strong as a fighter or arcane caster because of character build and.or magic items. Then I would take him over the fighter or the wizard, depending on what he was strong in.


----------



## Mark (Oct 14, 2007)

I think my download is messed up.  It looks like the border is always on the left side.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2007)

Mine is the same way. Only the first page has the border on both sides.


----------



## Mark (Oct 14, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Mine is the same way. Only the first page has the border on both sides.





Thanks.  I thought it was me.  I like the other artwork, though.  I'll probably use a modified version of this for next Wednesday evening.  Thanks Ari (and Friends)!


----------



## grodog (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Uh-oh. Now I'm nervous.




Why, I'm a nice guy? 



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Seriously, we definitely took Tsojcanth in a wild direction, one that I don't think a lot of people are going to expect. (Well, unless they know C.A. and me, in which case they might see it coming. )




It's not terribly dissimilar to various fan-created versions of Tsojcanth we've seen over the years, and 



Spoiler



adding another major demon into the pantheon isn't a bad thing, is it?  I like the interplay between the good and evil sides of Tsojcanth, since it will help most DMs be able to leverage the figure more easily (since many pose him as good, just chuck the evil info onto another figure; if you posit him as evil, the fact that he may have masqueraded as good isn't necessarily a bad thing).


.  



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But while there are some, uh, "creative interpretations," I think we managed it without technically violating anything in official canon. But of course, I could be wrong...




I haven't read that closely yet (although I did notice the typo on page 3, 1st new paragraph of page, lines 3-4:  "...servitude. A terrible battled followed, and..."), but I am curious how close you're making Iggwilv's Horn and the location of the Lost Caverns themselves---if I read right on my first, quick read, it sounds like you've set them both within the same mountain??

Also, do you know the publication schedule for parts 2 and 3?---will they, for example, both follow in each the next two months (or weeks, even  )?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 14, 2007)

grodog said:
			
		

> but I am curious how close you're making Iggwilv's Horn and the location of the Lost Caverns themselves---if I read right on my first, quick read, it sounds like you've set them both within the same mountain??




Hrm. When I sent in the material, it was pretty explicit that while they were connected underground, the entrances were on different peaks (since the original module is pretty clear that Iggwilv's Horn _overlooks_ Tsojcanth's caverns, rather than than contains them). But that's something that could've been changed in development, I suppose. I haven't read it completely yet.



> Also, do you know the publication schedule for parts 2 and 3?---will they, for example, both follow in each the next two months (or weeks, even  )?




I think Chris Thomasson has said that each will follow a week or so after the last.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hrm. When I sent in the material, it was pretty explicit that while they were connected underground, the entrances were on different peaks...




I should amend this. I _think_ that it was pretty explicit in the material that C.A. and I turned over. But it was a while ago, and it's possible that for someone who hadn't just recently reread the module, as we did, that it wasn't spelled out as thoroughly as we'd intended.

So if it the adventure as published _does_ imply that the Caverns and the Hollow are in the same peak, it may be due to a misunderstanding between us and development, as opposed to a deliberate change.


----------



## RichGreen (Oct 14, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I would say the Wizard, Cleric, and Fighter (either one) would give them the right mix. Unless the Bard is exceptionally strong as a fighter or arcane caster because of character build and.or magic items. Then I would take him over the fighter or the wizard, depending on what he was strong in.




Thanks. Do you think this party would be about equal to what's recommended for the module? It's hard to judge ELs when there are three PCs especially if two are spell-casters.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## Treebore (Oct 14, 2007)

RichGreen said:
			
		

> Thanks. Do you think this party would be about equal to what's recommended for the module? It's hard to judge ELs when there are three PCs especially if two are spell-casters.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> ...




I'm just taking into account that with the fighter and cleric you should have enough "fighter power" and that with the Wizard and Cleric you should have enough spell power/healing.

I've never found (well, hardly ever) the CR/EL ratings to be good measures to go by.

I just look at certain "numbers" and figure out how long the combat should last with average hits and damage, and I assume all damage spells are saved against. My "estimations" have worked a heck of a lot better than the CR/EL's usually given.


----------



## grodog (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So if it the adventure as published _does_ imply that the Caverns and the Hollow are in the same peak, it may be due to a misunderstanding between us and development, as opposed to a deliberate change.




I'll re-read later today, too, and provide some quotes.


----------



## rgard (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."




It's awesome imho.  I like the art too and can't wait for installments 2 & 3.  Ya done well!!!  If I wasn't the DM, I'd play my Fiendblade in this!!!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Psion (Oct 14, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Adobe really ought to have a "print monochrome" button in Acrobat, if they don't already.




Most printers let you print B&W only if you want.

That said, you are still wasting black ink on gutter art. One method I've seen used effectively is to have layers with gutter and background art that can be turned on or off.


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 14, 2007)

Somebody on the WoTC _Dungeon_ boards posted requests to make the .pdfs easier to print.  The WoTC rep reading the boards said they were going to take the suggestions to Chris Thomasson.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Um, that's because it's not an adventure meant to stand alone. When they say it's "part 1 of 3," that's 100% literal. Basically, this is just the Introduction, background, and surroundings--what, in the old Dungeon, would have been a "Backdrop" article.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to love it, and I can accept the fact if you don't care for it, but at least judge by what it is and what it's meant to be--the first chapter of a three-chapter "book."




Couple of things.  

A) I didn't say I did not care for it, I just said it was unimpressive or "prefunctory."  If I thought it was bad or poor, I'd have said so.  I did not.

B) I specifically noted that I hoped the future installements improved, recognizing that this was not a stand alone thing but the first of a series.  As the first of a series, IMO, it can be evaluated as such, as others have in this thread.  

I think your response is off base on both the above accounts.  You err when you opine that I "don't care for it" when I simply found it so-so or "prefunctory."  You err again when you opine that I did not consider it in its proper context, "the first chapter of a three-chapter 'book,'" when I specifically noted that I hoped the further installments would  improve.  I think you are reading way more negativity into my comments that is objectively there.

Let me star it for you, if that helps.  3 out of 5 stars.

When something comes in parts, it is evaluated in terms of each of its parts and then, finally, as a whole.  That whole may be greater than or lss than the sum of the parts, but it is fair to evaluate the parts, as well as the whole, if that is how the material is to be presented.


----------



## Mark (Oct 14, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> "prefunctory"





Do you mean "perfunctory?"


----------



## Quartz (Oct 14, 2007)

Way back when, I was looking forward to running the module with Drelzna as a Good character. Pity I never got the chance.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 14, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Couple of things.
> 
> A) I didn't say I did not care for it, I just said it was unimpressive or "prefunctory."



As Mark said, I believe the word is perfunctory, not prefunctory. I'm not sure I agree with your usage in this case, though. Whether you like the adventure or not, I don't personally see it as "done routinely." Everyone has their own preferences in an adventure, of course; mine probably just differ from yours.


----------



## trollwad (Oct 14, 2007)

It wasn't really to my taste overall and it didn't try very hard to adhere to the spirit of the original imho.  I did like the new picture of Drelzna as well as the new gnome hamlet.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Oct 15, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> ...the new gnome hamlet.




Hehehe... that sounds like a sandwich...


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 15, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> Do you mean "perfunctory?"






			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> As Mark said, I believe the word is perfunctory, not prefunctory. . . .




With sow mulch kelp, how neds a spelcheeker?  Tanks tots fur yore hep!


----------



## Mark (Oct 15, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> With sow mulch kelp, how neds a spelcheeker?  Tanks tots fur yore hep!





Stink nuttin' uv id.


----------



## grodog (Oct 17, 2007)

Some good discussion of this over on Canonfire! @ http://www.canonfire.com/cfhtml/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=23749


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 17, 2007)

I liked what I saw...

SPOILERS

SPOILERS


Including, but not limited to, making some gnomes crazy, the reference to the mad hermit (a fav from past campaings)...taint...and in general putting in more links to Tharizdun. WG4 was of course the sequal to S4 (is it not obvious, they both had "4"), so this is interesting. On the other hand, this seemed a little cut down from the wilderness section of the original. 

It does lead to two questions for the vampire bat:

1) Will the next two parts have the same size and scope as S4, which had a lot. 
2) Can we expect a sequal, following up on the leads here?


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 17, 2007)

I adapted the adventure for Eberron, locating the Horn in the Icehorn Mountains - in fact, it's 'The Icehorn' that gives the range it's name. I loved the crazy gnomes - any excuse to slaughter gnomes is a good thing, and the fact that they were insane rabid little monsters was just icing on the cake.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 17, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Including, but not limited to, making some gnomes crazy



"We're removing you guys from the PHB."

"MADNESS!"


----------



## sckeener (Oct 17, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Zaukrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok, I'm for raising the costs.  If our aim is to make life for the DM easier, I'd like to see tokens for each of the monsters in the adventure.  They don't have to be fancy.  (Heck, I wish WotC would do that for each of the monster manuals.)


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 17, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I didn't say I did not care for it, I just said it was unimpressive or "prefunctory."  If I thought it was bad or poor, I'd have said so.  I did not...I think your response is off base on both the above accounts.  You err when you opine that I "don't care for it" when I simply found it so-so or "prefunctory."  You err again when you opine that I did not consider it in its proper context,




I read your comments as negative as well, and also thought you didn't realize there were additional parts of this particular adventure.  Perhaps you didn't mean your comments to be negative, but I suspect they came across as negative to most people who read them.

And I have no horse in this race, for what it is worth.


----------



## Wraith Form (Oct 17, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Couple of things... *snipped*



Wow.  Less coffee?  More vitamin B?

_:: looks at Mistwell's post ::_  I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the tone was a little snarky.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 17, 2007)

I think Ari's work is excellent in general, though I haven't read this one yet.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 17, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> 1) Will the next two parts have the same size and scope as S4, which had a lot.




Well, part two is a pretty direct conversion of the original _Lost Caverns_ interior to 3.5 rules, so I'd say it's got close to exactly as much scope.  Part three is, IIRC, somewhat smaller of a dungeon, but still pretty broad, with numerous sections to explore and even multiple factions of inhabitants.



> 2) Can we expect a sequal, following up on the leads here?




No plans for a sequel, at the moment (though I certainly wouldn't rule it out)*. That said, _some_ of the leads here are followed up later in the series itself.

*I should say that I, at least, have not proposed such a sequel. It's possible one of the other authors has done so, though I don't think such is the case.


----------



## grodog (Oct 18, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That said, _some_ of the leads here are followed up later in the series itself.




Ari, by "later in the series" do you mean the second and third chapters, or, is there more to Iggwilv's Legacy than just those three adventures?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 18, 2007)

grodog said:
			
		

> Ari, by "later in the series" do you mean the second and third chapters, or, is there more to Iggwilv's Legacy than just those three adventures?




Sorry, didn't mean to be unclear. I meant in chapters two and three (particularly three, since it and chapter one were written specifically with each other in mind).

BTW, I should clarify something I said earlier. I said that chapter two was a "direct translation" of the classic module into 3.5 rules. I probably shouldn't have used the word "direct," because I actually don't know if it's 100% conversion with no changes, or if there are a few "Return to"-style tweaks here and there beyond what was necessary to make it mesh with chapters one and three.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 18, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I read your comments as negative as well, and also thought you didn't realize there were additional parts of this particular adventure.  Perhaps you didn't mean your comments to be negative, but I suspect they came across as negative to most people who read them.
> 
> And I have no horse in this race, for what it is worth.






			
				Wraith Form said:
			
		

> _:: looks at Mistwell's post ::_  I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the tone was a little snarky.




Well, I appear to be in the minority.  That much is certain.  

I've read my original post over again and it is certainly not a warm fuzzy but then it wasn't intended to be.  It also wasn't intended to be as negative as people have read it.  I've previously noted that and I think the verbiage in the post is plainly there to back that up.  

Best I can figure is that the post reads negative to some because it is dismissive, perfunctory in its own right.  That would be fair as it was dismissive as I found the first installment largely "meh."  There is, however, a big difference between being underwhelmed and dismissive and overt negativity.  That distinction, however, doesn't seem to have registered.  Not much I can do about that.

Had I been looking to be negative, I'd have discussed the installment in detail where I found it wanting.  I wasn't, so I didn't.  

Not wanting to put too fine a point on it but I reject any suggestion that a reaction must either be praise or condemnation with no middle ground.  In the interests of clarity, let me retract my initial post and say this:

I'd give the first of the three installments 3 out of 5 stars.  IMO, it is an average piece of work with nothing much to recommend it but nothing terribly wrong with it either.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 18, 2007)

I loved the reference to the Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, BTW.

Great work, Ari!


----------



## Shroomy (Oct 19, 2007)

Chapter 2 has been posted.  I think it is the same link as before as now the two chapters have been combined together into one pdf file.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 19, 2007)

*blink*

Chapter two of _four_? Huh.

I guess they decided to split the lesser and greater caverns of Tsojcanth into two chapters.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Oct 20, 2007)

Threat title and OP edited to indicate posting of second chapter.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 20, 2007)

Why can't they put the chapters in separately?  I download chapter 1 ... now I download chapter 1 and 2 together?  WTF?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 20, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Why can't they put the chapters in separately?  I download chapter 1 ... now I download chapter 1 and 2 together?  WTF?




Don't worry about it.

They know better than us.

Yeah, the handling of the e-issues is not going... perfect. And it's a damn shame since they knew well in advanced that they had this coming and that they cancelled two well loved (and profitible) magazines for it.


----------



## grodog (Oct 20, 2007)

Thanks for the heads-up!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Don't worry about it.
> 
> They know better than us.




Or--just a thought, here--instead of snarking on a message board that Chris Thomasson isn't going to see, you could comment on the Dungeon forum at the WotC boards that you'd prefer the different chapters come in different files, and see if enough people agree that they consider changing it.

It's a wild and almost revolutionary idea, I know, but it might be worth a try.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> They know better than us.




Maybe they tried to please those who have expressed a negative opinion about having the adventure released in several parts, by combining the parts as they are released?

/M


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Or--just a thought, here--instead of snarking on a message board that Chris Thomasson isn't going to see, you could comment on the Dungeon forum at the WotC boards that you'd prefer the different chapters come in different files, and see if enough people agree that they consider changing it.
> 
> It's a wild and almost revolutionary idea, I know, but it might be worth a try.





That would require visiting the WOTC boards ... which I refuse to do.  'Tis a silly place.  I prefer to remain here and chew on my spleen.

I'd actually prefer each chapter separately as released, with one file containing all chapters available after all the sections have been released.  That way, if you follow episodically you can get them episodically.  If you come late to the party you can get them all in one document.  Not to mention the download time implications for mega-sized PDFs ...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 20, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Or--just a thought, here--instead of snarking on a message board that Chris Thomasson isn't going to see, you could comment on the Dungeon forum at the WotC boards that you'd prefer the different chapters come in different files, and see if enough people agree that they consider changing it.
> 
> It's a wild and almost revolutionary idea, I know, but it might be worth a try.




I will snark where I please of dreaded mouse.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 20, 2007)

Lame, lame, lame that they put chapter 2 in the same download as 1. Why would they do that? You have to be super observant to know it is there, then you force me to download the stuff I've already downloaded - and i will go to the WotC board to complain there too.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 20, 2007)

the maps and sizes of the rooms and monsters raise an issue I've been wondering about. How do you get that many monsters and PCs into a room? There just isn't room to fight in some of these encounters.

This is a concern for 4E, if they really move to more monsters, and less boss types.


----------



## FourthBear (Oct 20, 2007)

I hope the pace with which they're releasing this and the fact that they apparently had to split  the second chapter into two parts doesn't indicate that they're not adequately staffed to release Dungeon articles.  Hopefully, this is just first issue jitters.


----------



## Beckett (Oct 20, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> the maps and sizes of the rooms and monsters raise an issue I've been wondering about. How do you get that many monsters and PCs into a room? There just isn't room to fight in some of these encounters.
> 
> This is a concern for 4E, if they really move to more monsters, and less boss types.




I haven't looked closely at the encounters, but check the map on page 22- those are 10 foot squares, not 5 foot. Probably still some tight area, but maybe not as bad as it looks at first glance.


----------



## DwarvenDog (Oct 20, 2007)

*Delve portion of the Adventure*

Hi, I just wanted to post some comments on the presentation of the encounter locations.


The large-scale map is keyed at 10' squares.  This, by itself, is fine.  However, when you "zoom in" to the encounter scale, you really need to start filling in the details at that scale.  A simple photoshop enlargement of the other map is not sufficient, because in the Delve encounter map, the scale is not noted.  If I'm DMing this, I have to remember that I can't just draw each of these as they appear on the page.  I have to account for the altered scale, and that takes extra time (maybe not much, but still prone to more mistakes)

Different problem but same cause, all the terrain/feature elements that I would need to run the encounter are not placed on the Delve-scale maps.  One room's description has a big stone in the center, with a fire nearby.  If these aren't presented on the map, what's the point of the Delve-scale?  I can add them wherever I want, but I could have done this without needing to resort to the "one-encounter-per-page" idea.  

At the beginning of the Caves section, we're told that the floors are slick, requiring a balance check when running or charging.  Also we're told about the glowing fungi and its affect on vision.  I think that if the goal of the Delve Encounter style is to provide "all the information needed to run the encounter," then both of these pieces of information need to be handled in the "Tactical Map Details" section.  Otherwise, a DM running the encounter needs to remember this info.  DM's (like myself) who would be running this type of adventure across multiple game sessions are likely to forget these details.


I do like the adventure and please don't take this as negative criticism.  If I'm going to use the Delve format though, I just want it to be presented in the best, most useful way.


Thanks,


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 20, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I will snark where I please of dreaded mouse.




I've noticed that.   

My point, though, was that if you actually want it to _change_--as opposed to complaining for complaining's sake--there are ways to work toward that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 20, 2007)

DwarvenDog said:
			
		

> I do like the adventure and please don't take this as negative criticism.  If I'm going to use the Delve format though, I just want it to be presented in the best, most useful way.




Definitely good points.  I'd suggest making them on the WotC forum, where Chris Thomasson can see them. He might well go back and change it, or at least take it into account for future adventures.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 21, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I've noticed that.
> 
> My point, though, was that if you actually want it to _change_--as opposed to complaining for complaining's sake--there are ways to work toward that.




Yeah but that requires work.

If WoTC is truly worried about customer feedback, then NOT checking places like EN World seems pretty... silly to me.

As opposed to expecting people to go over to their own little part of the web and spend their own time and note things over there, which, as I noted, requires effort.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Yeah but that requires work.
> 
> If WoTC is truly worried about customer feedback, then NOT checking places like EN World seems pretty... silly to me.
> 
> As opposed to expecting people to go over to their own little part of the web and spend their own time and note things over there, which, as I noted, requires effort.




...

 

I'm, uh, going to assume that your winky face applies to the post as a whole, and not just the line with which it appears. Because otherwise, the post is going to implode into a singularity of pure anti-sense and anti-logic which must eventually subsume and destroy the entire Internet.

Which, I must point out, wouldn't be an _entirely_ bad thing.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 21, 2007)

Wait -- you mean the D&D gaming world doesn't revolve around EN World?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 21, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Wait -- you mean the D&D gaming world doesn't revolve around EN World?




No indeedy it doesn't.

But outside of WoTC site, it's probably the largest community of gamers for a specific game.


----------



## skeetyrbug (Oct 21, 2007)

I hate to do this normally, but I agree with Joe, if wotc really wanted to put out a good product, they would be looking at "large" gatherings of their terget audience to read the scuttlebut.

However, by releasing Caverns the way they did, it just once again proves they dont really care about anyone who has played the game for more then , well, 5 years. Maybe.

And, Im amazed at the level of attack going on towards GVD. I read his posts, and I guess Ive missed something. The guy isnt super-impressed by the addy. Ok, no prob. Not everyone has to drink the Kool-Aid. I for one, have downloaded the addy (twice now, thanks wotc, do I have to download it 4 times???) to find the bits and pieces to add to my own campaign.

Alas, its almost more work to change it than to have redone the original myself....

It may be a naive opinion, but wotc doesnt have to use ALL their supplement books for their addys. Heroes of Horror didnt need to be in the addy to amke it good. If anything, a one page sheet at the end of the pdf describing where the "taint" rules may be placed would have done a lot for those of us that just wanted a good Greyhawk adventure. I dont need Raven-hawk adventures. I needed Greyhawk. And wotc should be the one place where I can get that from. they already screwed up the Ruins adventure, how much more bashing are they going to do???


----------



## grodog (Oct 21, 2007)

I skimmed through the Lesser Caverns, and this change stuck out to me the most:



> A river flows through the caverns, though it appears motionless. The river can be used to negotiate the caverns, but entry or exit by the river is impossible. The entry point of the river is a narrow rivulet, about 6 inches wide, that wends its way through the mountain, feeding the river with a small but steady stream of rain and glacial water. The river flows deeper into the mountain, but its course takes the water through miniscule cracks that allows only a trickle and no visible flow.




There's not threat of going over the falls here, which makes the magic boat a bit less useful (though it appears to lack the "go up/down a waterfall" capability of the original), and the hints in the Hermit's old journal scrap less useful (since it warns against the the falls and needing to rope the the bridge).  Any insight as to why the river was changed so significantly, Ari?

I'll be curious to see how the Lost Caverns connect back to Iggwilv's Horn:  I had assumed it would be via the river, which seems much less likely now.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 21, 2007)

skeetyrbug said:
			
		

> However, by releasing Caverns the way they did, it just once again proves they dont really care about anyone who has played the game for more then , well, 5 years. Maybe.




I'm curious about this. Exactly how is this release a proof that they don't care about their older customers?

And why would this release better serve customers who are more recent to D&D? In my view, it's potentially equally encumbersome/convenient for any age D&D player with internet access.

Unless you're making the case that older players have worse bandwidth or worse printers or something.

So if you care to elucidate me a bit, it'd be appreciated.

/M


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2007)

grodog said:
			
		

> Any insight as to why the river was changed so significantly, Ari?




None at all.    In fact, while I may be misremembering--it's been a _while_ since we wrote this--I thought that C.A. and I _had_ used the river as one possible connecting point between the two dungeons.

At this point, until all four parts are out, your guess is as good as mine, I'm afraid.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 21, 2007)

skeetyrbug said:
			
		

> I hate to do this normally, but I agree with Joe, if wotc really wanted to put out a good product, they would be looking at "large" gatherings of their terget audience to read the scuttlebut.




Fourth Edition.... making the enemy of my enemy my friend.


----------



## skeetyrbug (Oct 21, 2007)

now thats a tagline I could get behind...

and that was totally tongue in cheek, BTW. I like Joe's posts...


----------



## skeetyrbug (Oct 21, 2007)

Maggan-

I guess my issue is instead of a fiathful re-release of classic adventures, we get addys that are so heavily loaded with "optional" books, its just another "lets see if we can sell the books we put out a second time" ploy, IMO. If I wanted to use horro rules in Greyhawk, Im fully capable of adding that stuff myself.

It seems wotc has taken a "DM handholding" approach to their books that have been put out for 3.x and up. Yes, I know there was some of that in all editions, but it just really seems to me if you have picked up the game in the last 5 years or so, you dont have to have any DM skills. Back when I started, it wa as a player; you didnt get to DM until you knew how the game workrd with your group. Now, anyone who picks up a book can run a game. Not that they should...

its all just my opinion of course, and I may be a DM elitist, but i dont care for the format of someone telling me how to run my game. just give me the base adventure. if you want to add suggestions, id would honestly like that better, but dont ell me how I have to run my game with the optional books. its just not appropriate.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 21, 2007)

skeetyrbug said:
			
		

> Now, anyone who picks up a book can run a game.




That's what we had to do, all those twenty odd years ago. Pick up a book and run. We didn't have the luxury of being players first, we just had to dive straight into DMing.   

It sure hooked me. Trial and error were the theme of them days. Mostly error, of course.

/M


----------



## skeetyrbug (Oct 21, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That's what we had to do, all those twenty odd years ago. Pick up a book and run. We didn't have the luxury of being players first, we just had to dive straight into DMing.
> 
> It sure hooked me. Trial and error were the theme of them days. Mostly error, of course.
> 
> /M



 IMO, the part of the line you omiited is the more telling of the staement. yes, we did have to jump in, at some point. I guess I was lucky to have older players with more experience to DM us to start. We did not, ever have someone from TSR telling us the way to game, however. One of the big tag lines back in the day was run your game the way you want, dont be a slve to the rules, yadda yadda yadda. Took that to heart, played and learned, and became a DM who could run a campaign on my own.

So, I do see your point, and its quite valid. Im just irritated by the nwere crowd that cant seem to make their own decisions about rules, and have to have everythign spelled out for them, or have a specific rule for evey situation. Reeks of not thinking for yourself, to me.

I ahve also been spoiled by having intelligent players for years. we all just get together for a good night of fun. there is no "I have to WIN" mentallity. If there are rules issues, we stop for a 5 minute smoke break, get a drink or somehting, hash it out, and on our way we go. No game stoppers about rules. we have fun. We're not trying to beat anyone.

And Im not syaing anyone here is wrong in how they play, unless you need to have wotc support on the phone with you when you DM, then, yeah, you're gaming wrong...


----------



## qstor (Oct 22, 2007)

There was aslo a Living Greyhawk module tied to Tsojcanth, that mentioned a Cult of Drezlena (sp) I guess that information wasn't included either. I guess Living Greyhawk didn't affect Greyhawk as far as WOTC is concerned.

Mike


----------



## Lidgar (Oct 22, 2007)

I really like some of the background story and associated writing in this adventure. Kudos to the authors. The presentation/editing is where I feel it falls flat. Many of my "complaints" have already been stated by others: the prolific use of supplements as a way to push said supplements; the issues with the Delve format (why don't they shelf this idea already? Or at least make it an optional download, like an appendix); and the poor production quality (lack or art, quality of the Delve maps, etc.) It may be that part of the "problem" is that this adventure may have been originally slated for a free WotC download, separate from the Dungeon DI. It has the feeling of being repackaged into the  DI, almost as a "Hey, let's start the DI early and use this as our first adventure! It has old-school name recognition, and nothing sells like old-school!" Not sure if this is the case, and, as I said at the beginning, it really is pretty good so far - it just looks rough around the edges when compared to the Paizo adventures to date (an comparisons to Paizo will be unavoidable). 

Regarding some of the comments on the current (and future) generation of D&D and the style WOTC has adopted,  I have viewed it simply as thus: D&D is now much more like a video game, with rules programmed in, not the free-flowing set of Pirate Guidelines that many of us grew up with. That is not to say both can't be fun, but they are certainly different.


----------



## Lancelot (Oct 23, 2007)

I'd just like to say "thanks" to Ari for his work on this one. It's a great blast of nostalgia for an old-timer like myself who both played and DM'ed the Lost Caverns (more than once, on both accounts) back in the heady days of 1e.

Big props for the expanded back-story and the nifty encounters in Chapter 1. The Cauchimera is fantastic, and the depraved gnomes are a riot.

On the converse side, I'd like to echo a few comments already made about Chapter 2 (...and I'll follow your suggestion and try to post them on the Wizards' boards as well).

1) Editing: The dungeon delve format is a major annoyance to me personally. The most useful thing about it is the more detailed maps for the encounter, showing positioning of creatures and special features. The simple enlargement of the 10'-grid map doesn't provide that.

2) Concept: The old S4 module, like most modules in those days, threw a mish-mash of creatures together in an enclosed ecosystem with no real rhyme or reason. I guess one of the reasons I remember it so fondly was that everything was new and amazing back then. Nobody had heard of dao, pech, marids, fomorian giants, chasme demons, mobats, crysmals, behirs, or any of the literally dozens of new monsters introduced by the module. But these days, I can't help but feel that we've got a little past that. I was (personally) sort of hoping for a 3e update where there wasn't a combat encounter in nearly every room... where the creature list was a little less "grab-something-from-every-book". Maybe more options for diplomacy (maybe those wacky fomorians... sorry, ettins... need the party's help?), puzzle-solving (how about a golem-riddle-puzzle, rather than the golem just lunges out to attack?), and so forth.

Overall, though, I very much appreciate the effort. I get a lot of pleasure from reading re-makes of the "classics", and Lost Caverns is one of my favorites.

No chance, I suppose, of you (or anyone else) taking a stab at a 3e (or better yet, 4e!) version of "B4- The Lost City"...?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 23, 2007)

Lancelot said:
			
		

> Big props for the expanded back-story and the nifty encounters in Chapter 1. The Cauchimera is fantastic, and the depraved gnomes are a riot.




Thanks.  And yeah, I love how the cauchimera turned out. I'm hoping for an opportunity to convert it to 4E in the relatively near future.



> I was (personally) sort of hoping for a 3e update where there wasn't a combat encounter in nearly every room... where the creature list was a little less "grab-something-from-every-book". Maybe more options for diplomacy (maybe those wacky fomorians... sorry, ettins... need the party's help?), puzzle-solving (how about a golem-riddle-puzzle, rather than the golem just lunges out to attack?), and so forth.




I agree, that would've been nice. But as I understand it, Ed Albert's objective was a pretty straight-forward translation to the new edition, with minimal dramatic changes, and I can certainly respect that intention. 



> No chance, I suppose, of you (or anyone else) taking a stab at a 3e (or better yet, 4e!) version of "B4- The Lost City"...?




Well, I think it's probably too late (or at least, nearly so) to see many more 3E conversions. But as far as conversions of classic modules to 4E? Yeah, I'm given to understand that WotC has already said such things are likely to happen, and I know that I'd dearly love to be part of that.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Oct 23, 2007)

*updates to old modules*

My personal opinion on updates, is that when doing a 'Return to' type update it's appropriate to change the tone or modernize the dungeon, but when doing a straight conversion, the design of the original (with all its warts) should be respected.

Haven't read this one yet (I'm on vacation in Argentina), but am looking forward to it.

Ken


----------



## Maggan (Oct 23, 2007)

skeetyrbug said:
			
		

> We did not, ever have someone from TSR telling us the way to game, however. One of the big tag lines back in the day was run your game the way you want, dont be a slve to the rules, yadda yadda yadda.




Apart from the infamous Gygax missives in Dragon, I guess ...   

/M


----------



## francisca (Oct 23, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I thought that was kinda nifty, but apparently development decided that they really want PCs to progress through the three "chapters" in order.





All aboard!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 23, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Apart from the infamous Gygax missives in Dragon, I guess ...




Often mentioned, seldom quoted, and always given far too much weight......

IMHO.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 23, 2007)

This has become an _interesting_ thread...

* Overall, I *like* what I am seeing so far, and look forward to the rest.
* I *like* the delve format. 
* I *like* the amount of detail that has been retained from the original, but the new stuff, (mostly from the wilderness section) is also cool.

But, as has been noted many times, by many industry profesionals, it is amazing how demanding people become reagarding products they don't have to pay for. If this a normal for-sale product,  I am sure people posting would be more positive on it. Seriously.


----------



## Maggan (Oct 24, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> seldom quoted.




Dragon issue 17, page 15 to 16, e.g.

Another interesting text can be found in issue 26, page 28 to 30.

They are rather lengthy texts, and I don't think it would be prudent of me to post them in their entirety to this board, out of respect for the author. But I'm sure you can find someone in your circle of gamers who own the magazines, or the Dragon CD archive.

I agree with some of the things Gygax is saying in the texts, and disagree with others, but if those texts are not telling people how the game should be played (see e.g. the evils of spell points, and what constitues a proper AD&D game), then neither are the WotC comments that some people are getting riled up about.

/M


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 26, 2007)

Chapter Three is live.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 26, 2007)

Does anyone know if this is representative?

We are at the end of the month and the October Dungeon only has one adventure.  Granted, they have posted it in three parts and those may be the size of three old Dungeon adventures.  But getting a spread of ideas was a big piece of the appeal to me before.  

I'm not remotely in the anti-online luddite movement.  But I'd feel negative about this if it were dead trees or not.

Here's hoping month 1 is just a bad example.

EDIT: to be clear, I've got no problem or disappointment with the module.  It is just the lack of variety I'm commenting on.


----------



## Vascant (Oct 26, 2007)

I do have some questions?

1.  I can easily see different versions of the Demonomicon, was this your intent or just created something that you felt fit the bill?

2.  Drelnza has a katana and a wakizashi, why the huge change from her bastard sword?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 26, 2007)

Vascant said:
			
		

> I do have some questions?
> 
> 1.  I can easily see different versions of the Demonomicon, was this your intent or just created something that you felt fit the bill?
> 
> 2.  Drelnza has a katana and a wakizashi, why the huge change from her bastard sword?




Afraid I'm not the one to ask. I only wrote part one. Ed Albert did parts two and three, and C.A. Suleiman did the (forthcoming) part four.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if this is representative?
> 
> We are at the end of the month and the October Dungeon only has one adventure.  Granted, they have posted it in three parts and those may be the size of three old Dungeon adventures.  But getting a spread of ideas was a big piece of the appeal to me before.




My understanding is that there's an adventure by Nic Logue coming out on Halloween, so you'll have at least one in October unrelated to _Iggwilv's Legacy_. Furthermore, the size of IL, as you suggest, is the reason it's taken up so much of this issue. Forthcoming issues, as I understand it, are likely to have at least three separate adventures.


----------



## Beckett (Oct 26, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if this is representative?
> 
> We are at the end of the month and the October Dungeon only has one adventure.  Granted, they have posted it in three parts and those may be the size of three old Dungeon adventures.  But getting a spread of ideas was a big piece of the appeal to me before.
> 
> ...




There is supposed to be one more adventure up, by Nicolas Logue. Might see that early next week, just before November starts.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> My understanding is that there's an adventure by Nic Logue coming out on Halloween, so you'll have at least one in October unrelated to _Iggwilv's Legacy_. Furthermore, the size of IL, as you suggest, is the reason it's taken up so much of this issue. Forthcoming issues, as I understand it, are likely to have at least three separate adventures.



cool

Thanks


----------



## Voadam (Oct 26, 2007)

Vascant said:
			
		

> I do have some questions?
> 
> 1.  I can easily see different versions of the Demonomicon, was this your intent or just created something that you felt fit the bill?
> 
> 2.  Drelnza has a katana and a wakizashi, why the huge change from her bastard sword?




In current D&D isn't a katana just a masterwork bastard sword?


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Oct 27, 2007)

OP editted to reflect addition of third chapter.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 27, 2007)

Note that both Dungeon & Dragon magazines aren't at full-speed mode yet. We're getting basically half the content each month that they expect to have when everything gets together.

Cheers!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 27, 2007)

I am on the fence about whether it's a good idea to release the adventures in parts like this.  On one hand, it's not like anyone is going to get through all parts in one session, but I like to look through the whole adventure before I DM it. 

I guess I could just wait to read them when they are all posted...

On that note, though, the first 3 parts have been enjoyable.  It's a quality adventure and I am starting to like the delve format.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 27, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Note that both Dungeon & Dragon magazines aren't at full-speed mode yet. We're getting basically half the content each month that they expect to have when everything gets together.
> 
> Cheers!




Do you have a link for that Merric? And an ETA on when everything is getting together? I mean, I know this whole e-thing came out of nowhere after the completely unexpected implosion of Dragon and Dungeon print magazines and they had to scrabble furious just to put this together...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 28, 2007)

Overall, so far it's a great translation of the original with some fun extrapolations.  I'm looking forward to seeing Chapter 4.

Fun with Chapter 3 (now downloadable as one file Chapters 1-2-3 ... argh):

"Lludd speaks a smattering of several languages." Lludd StatBlock: "Languages: Common." Huh?

"Muscular action closes the hole" makes an appearance! Yay!

I don't understand why some caverns get "tactical encounters", while others do not.  Area 2 is a more straightforward encounter than Area 3 or 4, for example, but only Area 2 gets a tactical encounter.  What's up with that?  I personally find it frustrating that some rooms have enough information to get you started, some have the entire area described, and some have you flip directly to the tactical encounter.  It's inconsistent (and I dislike page-flipping).

Why do the tactical maps on pages 61-62 suddenly change to 5' squares and show monster locations?  It's a good change, actually -- I wish they'd done it for the other tactical maps, particularly sice later on they switch back to the 10' square maps.

I know these are free adventures and I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I do hope the editing quality and consistency for Dungeon improves to what it was under Paizo.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 28, 2007)

I cant get to the 2nd and 3rd parts of this as I forgot my password to gleemax. I dont see a "forgot your password?" type link anywhere either
 :\


----------



## Maggan (Oct 29, 2007)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> I cant get to the 2nd and 3rd parts of this as I forgot my password to gleemax. I dont see a "forgot your password?" type link anywhere either
> :\




There's a link like that if you go to the following URL:

https://accounts.gleemax.com/

Hope that helps!

/M


----------



## Psion (Oct 29, 2007)

They used the craptastic CW samurai?

_(Weeps softly)_


----------



## spunky_mutters (Oct 30, 2007)

I have to admit that when I saw Drelnza was a Samurai, I blacked out for a few minutes.

It's okay to file the serial numbers off a class to get appropriate mechanics, but if you're doing a famous character from a well-loved module, you might want to consider avoiding what is perhaps the most hated class in all of 3.x.


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 30, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> There's a link like that if you go to the following URL:
> 
> https://accounts.gleemax.com/
> 
> ...




thx, changed password but no help :/. something about account migration, tried that its asking for my forum name and pass which for some reason doesnt add up. /sigh

thx anyway


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Nov 2, 2007)

Looks like the adventure has been updated with Part 4: The Hollow of the Horn...

Weighing in at a total of 94 pages for all 4 parts.  Hi and Lo res downloads available.


----------

