# Monte Cook's new Dungeonaday.com?



## Morrus (Mar 4, 2009)

This launches next week, apparently, and is "a subscription-based website that will offer new game content every weekday. Basically, what I'll be doing is building an ongoing dungeon-based campaign of a decidedly old-school tradition, but utilizing all the newest presentation options."

Sounds interesting!   I don't know whether all the content will be written by Monte himself, or what system he'll be writing for, or how much it will cost, or... well, anything, actually!  But I'm sure we'll find out pretty soon.


----------



## avin (Mar 4, 2009)

What's "newest presentation options"? 4e?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

Interesting - not for me as a customer, so far, I am not sure I need a old-school dungeon based campaign. But it appears the web subscription idea gets traction, eh? 



avin said:


> What's "newest presentation options"? 4e?




Not a presentation option.

---

What happened to Monte novel writing career? (I'am not visiting his website as often as I used to...). Of course, he always said he still might do game stuff (and he did - see BOXM).


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 4, 2009)

No, it's 3.5. He's mentioned the possibility of going to Pathfinder or AE. But apparently he's sticking within the OGL sphere.

(Though he does point out that most of the material is rules-light, and it could be used for anything.)

Really interesting project and business model. Best of luck, Monte!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 4, 2009)

OK, I'm dumb.  I read the first two lines and didn't notice the "Read More" link.  Loads more info!

"Presentation options" means things like hypertext links and the like.

It "describes Dragon's Delve, a mysterious (mega-)dungeon of vast size, fascinating secrets, and great danger."

Cost is $7 per month.

It's 3.5, rules-light, and may have conversion information for Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved, etc.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 4, 2009)

Links:

http://www.dungeonaday.com/ (not yet active. Notice it's not dungeon*on*aday)
The Alliterates » Dungeonaday.com


----------



## arscott (Mar 4, 2009)

This actually sounds pretty lame, for a Monte Cook product.

I feel that megadungeons are boring, both for player and GM.  And I'd definitely not spend $7/month to subscribe to one.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 4, 2009)

arscott said:


> megadungeons are boring



I think it's safe to say Monte doesn't agree, even if we momentarily disregard this piece of news - just look at his published adventures...


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Mar 4, 2009)

Sounds like it might be worth checking out. I've always wanted to run a campaign taking place in a world that was essentially nothing but a huge dungeon. Plus in my experiance Monte produces good stuff. 

Officiallly looking forward to this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> I think it's safe to say Monte doesn't agree, even if we momentarily disregard this piece of news - just look at his published adventures...




You might have a point.  

I played through Banewarrens, and that was a pretty interesting dungeon, but it wasn't really a "classic dungeon" in my opinion - there were multiple parties, betrayals and all such neat stuff in it to make it more than a dungeon crawl. Maybe he'll repeat that...


----------



## Hawkwind (Mar 4, 2009)

Dming the return to the temple of elemental evil put me of running dnd for years. It is a boring dungeon crawl with a paper thin plot. The only good thing about was being able to resell the module for empty quid so i guess someone likes it


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 4, 2009)

What a subscription-based, digital RPG offering!  I expect everyone who complained about the same thing in regards to the DDI to come in to this thread to complain and complain vociferously.[/sarcasm]

Actually, I don't.  This actually sounds like a cool idea for 3.5e/OGL fans, which I may have to check out if several things pan out (conversion to 4e and economics being the big factors).


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 4, 2009)

Morrus said:


> Cost is $7 per month.




I hope for Monte that people expect less for those $7 than what they expect from the DDI subscription.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I hope for Monte that people expect less for those $7 than what they expect from the DDI subscription.




Well, he has a kick-ass editor going for him, hasn't he? 

The positive thing I see is it means WotC has at least a potential competitor, which can only drive quality.

Assuming that Montes offer is good enough ...


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 4, 2009)

This is awesome!


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 4, 2009)

Pass. 

0 interest in subscribtion based services on the web, no matter who's offering them.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 4, 2009)

Well, I love Monte's work, and I've been bummed that he hasn't shown any inclination towards 4E. No change there, of course, but I will definitely check out a semi-systemless content stream from the house of Cook.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 4, 2009)

Here is his blog entry on the subject.

As for the system issue:


> The rules supported will be primarily 3.5, but let me offer up two thoughts in that regard. The first is, even as I'm writing this I'm struck by how rules-light it all is. It would be a piece of cake to use it with any edition (older or newer) of the game. The second is, if I discover that a large percentage of the membership is using another rules system, like say Pathfinder or Arcana Evolved, I'll make a point to offer up frequent conversion information, assuming that I can do so legally, respecting copyrights where needed.




and who is writing it



> It's a team of one. Just me (although I have the excellent and award-winning cartographer Ed Bourelle, the excellent and award-winning editor Sue Cook, and a bevy of excellent--and in some cases award winning--artists to back me up).
> 
> That said, while the updates to the site will be produced by me (with member input and opinions weighed in), there will be much encouragement and ample space for members to contribute their own supplementary material.


----------



## avin (Mar 4, 2009)

I would subscribe if Monte provide 4E versions of the creatures he's going to use in game. If this is going to be something like a massive dungeon I'm not the target audience.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 4, 2009)

Monte Cook Presents: DDI?


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 4, 2009)

avin said:


> I would subscribe if Monte provide 4E versions of the creatures he's going to use in game. If this is going to be something like a massive dungeon I'm not the target audience.



I got the feeling that when Monte was discussing conversions he was partially talking about 4E without mentioning it.  Clearly worrying about "copyright" issues would be most applicable to 4E and the GS.  It certainly wouldn't apply to the mentioned Arcana Unearthed.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 4, 2009)

I'm interested, but not at $7/month.


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 4, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I played through Banewarrens, and that was a pretty interesting dungeon, but it wasn't really a "classic dungeon" in my opinion - there were multiple parties, betrayals and all such neat stuff in it to make it more than a dungeon crawl. Maybe he'll repeat that...




I ran the Banewarrens too and that was a fun dungeon. I think it would be safe to say that Monte would be doing this mega-dungeon with similar themes and style. 

As to whether I would get into this subscription, I don't think so.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 4, 2009)

Monte is a great, great designer-- not just for the quality of his design skills, but for the quality of great, marketable concepts like this.

He's a big thinker. 

I love it.


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 4, 2009)

I think he'll get his 1000 true fans, however. I know he would have two years ago.

He must be bored.


----------



## Dog Moon (Mar 4, 2009)

I hope the first week is free or something, so people can check it out before deciding.  I'm curious about it [and I've always like megadungeons, but not purely hacknslash stuff - there's plenty you can have in a dungeon without every room being either filled with enemies, traps or empty], but I'm tempted to get DDI right now, trying to figure out what happened to my Pathfinder subscription and... this.  Three different subscription things for three different systems.  If I can't see what I'm buying first for Monte, I might just have to skip it cause I can only afford so much.


----------



## Justin D. Jacobson (Mar 4, 2009)

No one's as big of a Monte fan as I am. My very first product, Poisoncraft, was also the first 3pp product with AE conversion notes under Monte's AE license.

Anyone who doubts his ability to make a megadungeon interesting doesn't have Ptolus. I look at this as a way to get in on the next Ptolus from day one, which is an exiciting prospect to say the least.

That said, I'm a full-fledged 4e-phile, so I'll just be checking it out for giggles. To be clear, I simply don't think this can be done for 4e under the GSL. Indeed, it seems like exactly the kind of thing Wizards wants to avoid competing with their DDI.


----------



## balard (Mar 4, 2009)

I don't have a DDI subscription, but i would gladly pay 7 bucks a month to Monte. He is great. But rules light or not, not doing it in 4E is a great barrier. 
I'll read the reviews though.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 4, 2009)

The GSL prohibits online delivery methods of 4E like this, doesn't it?  If so, he couldn't use the GSL to deliver this type of product.  Thus, no 4E.


----------



## Filcher (Mar 4, 2009)

Baron Opal said:


> I think he'll get his 1000 true fans, however. I know he would have two years ago.
> 
> He must be bored.




I think you're right --- that's $7k/month, a decent income by any standard, let alone game designers. Best of luck to Mr. Cook in his endeavor. 

But yes, pass for me. Do I not have Castle Whiterock? Ah yes, I do.


----------



## Glyfair (Mar 4, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The GSL prohibits online delivery methods of 4E like this, doesn't it?  If so, he couldn't use the GSL to deliver this type of product.  Thus, no 4E.



True or not, he certain could make arrangements for a special license from WotC.  Apparently other companies have made special arrangements, and he has more of an inside track than many others.

That being said, Monte might not be interested in doing 4E (I haven't heard very much from him about the 4E system).  Also, WotC might not be interested in this being out that at all (I suspect they don't care too much).


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 4, 2009)

What I imagine we'll see for 4e is a lot of community discussion within the dungeonaday site. At least that's what I'm planning. Its a whole community that you are getting into not just content every day from one of the best designers writing (again yays).

PS. I'm a Monte fan so read into this what you will.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 4, 2009)

I'll get a subscription.  I only play 4e, but it's the ideas I am going to plunder.  Monty has always been creative, from USD to RM to now.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 5, 2009)

For the whole 'system light' thing?

In my experience with 4e, that's garbage.

The monsters scale differently. The characters cale differently. The encounters scale differently.

A lot of monsters that exist in 3e don't exist in 4e. A lot of materal in 4e is different in use than it is in 3e.

NOw I'm sure others are going to come in and pipe up that they've done numerous conversions and it was no problem.

I've done a few too. A huge PIA. No animated objects, no standard elementals, some core monsters missing, equipment types different (what do you mean there's no leather armor) so I'm speaking from my own experience on this.

I've got no problem with rules light systems but let's not confuse rules light with ease of portablity between systems eh?


----------



## 00Machado (Mar 5, 2009)

arscott said:


> I feel that megadungeons are boring, both for player and GM.  And I'd definitely not spend $7/month to subscribe to one.




In fariness, Monte points out that the dungeon isn't the only location that will comprise the adventure.

Here's a quote from Monte's posting
"But the adventure includes much more than just a dungeon. Dungeonaday.com also describes the surrounding area (filled with intriguing ruins), the nearby town of Brindenford (which is far more involved in the goings-on than it first appears), side trips to a mysterious island and an extradimensional tesseract, and forays into strange other planes. And that's just for starters. Seriously."


----------



## jokamachi (Mar 5, 2009)

Now this sounds interesting.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 5, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The monsters scale differently. The characters cale differently. The encounters scale differently.




Heck, even the maps scale differently. In my current D&D game, I'm pretty sure the GM is cribbing from a 3E adventure. All the encounter spaces seem tiny and cramped.

Could be a big factor for a service based around a dungeon.

But then again, as others have pointed out, Monte is a brilliant and creative designer. Maps can be adjusted; great ideas are harder to come by.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 5, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The GSL prohibits online delivery methods of 4E like this, doesn't it?  If so, he couldn't use the GSL to deliver this type of product.  Thus, no 4E.



Or he could provide 4e stats without using the GSL. There are already several products that have done this.


----------



## Vascant (Mar 5, 2009)

I can't think of many (if any) bad things Monte has done with regard to adventures, in many cases his seems to be above and beyond the normal standard.  As long as this is not like WLD, he will be getting my 7 dollars every month.


----------



## Dedekind (Mar 5, 2009)

$7 a month is a pretty big amount. I wonder how much it takes to run the whole thing?  

Is the material retroactive? If you subscribe, do you get all the old material? I know pay news sites (like Wall Street Journal) have only limited archives available.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 5, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> True or not, he certain could make arrangements for a special license from WotC. Apparently other companies have made special arrangements, and he has more of an inside track than many others.
> 
> That being said, Monte might not be interested in doing 4E (I haven't heard very much from him about the 4E system). Also, WotC might not be interested in this being out that at all (I suspect they don't care too much).




What is it with folks telling others to go make arrangements or special license with Wotc lately? If they were interested in the GSL, they would have signed on.

Instead of asking for him to get a special license, which judging by the GSL and DDI coming is probably not going to happen, take what it is and convert it.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 5, 2009)

Dedekind said:


> $7 a month is a pretty big amount. I wonder how much it takes to run the whole thing?
> 
> Is the material retroactive? If you subscribe, do you get all the old material? I know pay news sites (like Wall Street Journal) have only limited archives available.





If your getting an item a day-map, encounter, town, whatever basically new game content every weekday....$7 a day is a steal for what you get. 

It sounds like a better deal than DDI currently.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 5, 2009)

carmachu said:


> If your getting an item a day-map, encounter, town, whatever basically new game content every weekday....$7 a day is a steal for what you get.
> 
> It sounds like a better deal than DDI currently.




Yes, the every weekday certainly is interesting. But there is no Character Builder, no Compendium and no "Bonus Tools" in that package either. 
Dungeon has 2-3 adventures each month, that come with several maps and encounters with them, plus supplemental material. And then there is a Dragon content with rules and stories.

I think that changes the content for DDI considerably. 

But the real amazing thing I'd like to point out: The size of Montes team. Most of the stuff will apparantly be created or commissioned by him personally! To keep that up every day... Impressive.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 5, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Or he could provide 4e stats without using the GSL. There are already several products that have done this.




Providing for-pay online gaming materials using 4E content has not gone well for at least one site lately....  

OGL = safe haven, and Monte knows the OGL.
Non-GSL 4E = no safe haven, and Monte is not a lawyer (though, of course, he may be qualified as a "rules lawyer").  Granted, he could get a lawyer and "go copyright", but in such a case the benefits to doing so might be outweighed by the cost and/or risk.


----------



## Dog Moon (Mar 5, 2009)

For the retroactive thing, this is what monte said: Monte's next RPG project - Line of Sight and Monte's Blog - Montecook.com - Okay -- Your Turn - Message Board - Yuku



> {if we don't get on this right away, will I not get certain information?}
> 
> This was a difficult issue. Obviously, I have to create features that reward people for not waiting. People willing to jump on board this early on need to be rewarded. And they will be. (To begin with, the charter membership plan lasts only through March. After that, the rate goes up. There will be other benefits to being a charter member as well.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 5, 2009)

Hmm.

I'm a big fan of megadungeon underworlds, but I'm not sure.  The 'rules light' approach is good for me (I'm running original D&D), but $7 seems steep for a subscription that I'd probably mostly use for inspiration, rather than something I'd actually run.  (I'm more into doing my own thing, these days.)  Also, there's a lot of good content and inspirational material coming out on various old school sites, blogs and zines, and I know it tends to match my design preferences and requires no real conversion.  

I think I'll be waiting to hear some reviews and such.  A free preview might be a good idea.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 5, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Providing for-pay online gaming materials using 4E content has not gone well for at least one site lately....



Kenzer & Co., Wolfgang Baur and Goodman Games have all provided 4e compatible products for sale witoous using the GSL.

How can you compare producing compatible products and reproducing copyrighted material?


----------



## carmachu (Mar 5, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, the every weekday certainly is interesting. But there is no Character Builder, no Compendium and no "Bonus Tools" in that package either.
> Dungeon has 2-3 adventures each month, that come with several maps and encounters with them, plus supplemental material. And then there is a Dragon content with rules and stories.
> 
> I think that changes the content for DDI considerably.




But only if you play 4e. Its worthless to those of us that dont. 

2-3 adventures a month, plus a couple maps and encounters and suppliment...vs something every day. Plus preview material from Dragon on stuff.

*shrug* Its all in what you want.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm excited for this, but I'm wondering how cost-effective this'll be over the long run.

$7/month comes out to $84/year, which doesn't sound so bad, given that Monte will be posting new material each weekday, but how much is that over the course of a year?

If we assume that Monte writes one page of new material each weekday for a year, that's 260 pages of material (52 weeks x 5 weekdays per week). Now, that's basically two 128-page sourcebooks. The average price of a sourcebook that size (last I checked) is $29.99...so we're paying about the cost of three sourcebooks, but only getting about two. 

That's not a very good deal, all things considered. Of course, if Monte gives us more than one page per weekday, or the basic cost of sourcebooks goes up (if it hasn't already) then this becomes a much better bang for our buck.


----------



## FunkBGR (Mar 5, 2009)

In addition to Alzrius's math, figure in that it's only $7 if you join in March. It bumps up in price to be more for less (since you're out the first month).


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> I'm excited for this, but I'm wondering how cost-effective this'll be over the long run.
> 
> $7/month comes out to $84/year, which doesn't sound so bad, given that Monte will be posting new material each weekday, but how much is that over the course of a year?
> 
> ...



This is a good analysis.  I want to subscribe as well, but I would prefer to do it for a year in advance.... at a discounted rate.   I don't like the idea of having a $7 tick each month that I need to account for.

Also, the price is fixed, not discountable like a sourcebook.  The new 4e Eberron campaign guide comes in at 288 pages and I can get it at Amazon for $26.37 with a preorder.  That's 28 pages more (per Alzrius' analysis) for less than a third of the price.


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 5, 2009)

I think your comparing Apples with Oranges, Dungeonaday isn't a campaign sourcebook, it's an adventure, a mega dungeon to be precise. Keep on the Shadow Fell was $30 for 96 pages and three poster maps. You can probably get it at Amazon for a lot less, but on the other hand you can get it for 'free' as well... Something is worth as much as you value it.

I see that I can get DDI for less then $60 a year, for ~120 pages of content a month. I seriously doubt that Monte can compete with that (more then six pages a week day is a lot of content to write). The problem with that is that it's (primarily) 4E content, monte supplies 3.5E content, so a whole different target audience.

You can subscribe to pathfinder for $14 a month for 96 pages of goodness, but you'll get a printed product with that. It is one of the few high quality adventure publications left.

In the end it comes down to the matter if $7 a month is worth it to you, not compared to other products (that aren't really comparable in the first place). Monte isn't some unknown writer, he's delivered quality products with his Malhavoc Press label, so I doubt that this project will lack quality.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 5, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> If we assume that Monte writes one page of new material each weekday for a year, that's 260 pages of material (52 weeks x 5 weekdays per week). Now, that's basically two 128-page sourcebooks. The average price of a sourcebook that size (last I checked) is $29.99...so we're paying about the cost of three sourcebooks, but only getting about two.
> 
> That's not a very good deal, all things considered. Of course, if Monte gives us more than one page per weekday, or the basic cost of sourcebooks goes up (if it hasn't already) then this becomes a much better bang for our buck.





Flawed assumptions there. Your assuming each new material is only goingto be one page. What happens if the average is 3 pages? 5 pages a day? Or a variety of pages?

If its 3 pages a day....thats now what, 6 source books a year? Much better worth.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 5, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Flawed assumptions there. Your assuming each new material is only goingto be one page. What happens if the average is 3 pages? 5 pages a day? Or a variety of pages?
> 
> If its 3 pages a day....thats now what, 6 source books a year? Much better worth.




My assumption isn't flawed; I took all of that into account in the last paragraph of my post. If he does (on average) more pages per day, just adjust the math as appropriate.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 5, 2009)

Cergorach said:


> Keep on the Shadow Fell was $30 for 96 pages and three poster maps. You can probably get it at Amazon for a lot less, but on the other hand you can get it for 'free' as well...



Yep.  $19.77 on Amazon.  Note that the subsequent adventures are $24.95 retail and only $16.47 on Amazon.  

And there's a big difference between buying it on Amazon for a discount and getting it "free" by other illegal means.



Cergorach said:


> Something is worth as much as you value it.



Not really true.  I value my baby's first car seat.  It was of major importance to our family and was more useful than more expensive items. But I won't be able to sell it for more than $40 no matter how much I value it.  It's only worth $40, _as a product I can sell_.

That's the key point.  We aren't talking about personal value of something.  We're talking about street value of a product for sale.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 5, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Kenzer & Co., Wolfgang Baur and Goodman Games have all provided 4e compatible products for sale witoous using the GSL.
> 
> How can you compare producing compatible products and reproducing copyrighted material?




Because IANAL, and I don't know where the line is.

David Kenzer is a lawyer, WotC advertises in Kobold Quarterly, and Goodman has signed the GSL, so each has a good reason for doing what they have done with regard to 4e.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it may not be worth it to do so.  (Or it might - but I can see why it wouldn't be.)


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 5, 2009)

Spending $7.00 a month for adventure ideas, encounters, etc. is nothing.  It is a good at that price.  I pay ALOT more than that for WOTC print adventures, my goodmangames subscription, and about as much for DDI.

To me, hell why not?  If it straps me (), I may have to have seven less sodas that month.  My waist says I can handle that.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, I think Monte's work is awesome and I was a big fan of the Malhavoc products.  I think I have almost everything, and a lot in print and PDF.

I am sure he has some kind of editorial calendar he is working from and is already way ahead of himself for his first month or so of posts, so it's possible that we'll get quite a bit of content.  I just hope it's more than a few paragraphs a day, that's all.

Also, I hope Monte offers up a yearly subscription at a discount.  I'd go for that, kinda like what WOTC did for DDI.

And since Ed from SkeletonKey is doing the maps, I would be totally in for it.


----------



## Woas (Mar 6, 2009)

If I still was interested in D&D I'd probably sign up. But I've lost all interest in the game so unfortunately it doesn't help me.

Still, the prospect is interesting. I wish I could make (potential) money writing adventures on the side...


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 6, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Yep.  $19.77 on Amazon.  Note that the subsequent adventures are $24.95 retail and only $16.47 on Amazon.
> 
> And there's a big difference between buying it on Amazon for a discount and getting it "free" by other illegal means.
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about personal value vs. product value. I'm talking about cars ;-) You can buy a new car for $10.000 or $100.000, both are cars, both run on gas, and both can achieve the maximum speed your allowed to drive. I'm talking about buying a Volvo vs. buying a Porche.

I'm not saying that 4E or other publishers products are a Volvo, but they don't serve a (large) part of the RPG community. All the amazon and DDI examples above use 4E rules or are campaign settings, etc. Dungeonaday aims (primarily) at the 3.5E community (and system communities very closely related to that system).

Not only that, but all the D&D stuff is very high profile, chances are that if you have a few fanatic players in your game that they have everything D&D. Thus making sure you have something ready that isn't on a shelve somewhere at one of your players houses has it's own kind of value.

Your also comparing purely digital publications with printed publications, so outside of DM day your paying $21 a pdf for that $30 book.

Some people are also comparing Dungeonaday to DDI, not only has DDI Dungeon and Dragon, it has tools. Well, there are a lot of free tools available for making characters for 3.5E (PC Gen for example), online references of the rules (d20srd.org), etc. They have been available for years and are still free. So personally I think this is a non-issue...

If you think it's to expensive, it's not for you.

As for folks that are saying: "Oh, but Monte must get at least a 1000 subscribers at $7 a month, he's getting rich". Not only Monte is getting that money, he also has a good editor that doesn't really work for free, he needs to pay his cartographer and illustrators. He also needs to pay for the website and someone that keeps it up. Suddenly that $7000 doesn't seem that much when a couple of people are going to be paid by it...


----------



## tankschmidt (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind charging for access to an "old school" megadungeon.  I mean, we already have several bloggers giving it away for free.

There's Greyhawk Grognard's Castle of the Mad Archmage:  Greyhawk Grognard: Castle of the Mad Archmage February Release Now Available!

There's Sham's Dismal Depths:
Sham's Grog 'n Blog: The Dismal Depths in PDF

And there's Amityville Mike's Stonehell:
The Society of Torch, Pole and Rope: Stonehell: Monster Dorm

Or I can flip through my Fight On magazine (located at Fight On! magazine - Home Page) and use the Darkness Beneath. 

I just don't understand where Monte thinks the market for this product is going to come from.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

Cergorach said:


> I'm not talking about personal value vs. product value. I'm talking about cars ;-) You can buy a new car for $10.000 or $100.000, both are cars, both run on gas, and both can achieve the maximum speed your allowed to drive. I'm talking about buying a Volvo vs. buying a Porche.
> 
> <snippy, snip>
> 
> ...



I hear ya.  I think your car analogy, while strong on it's own merit, doesn't really have anything to do with the phrase "Something is worth as much as you value it."  Something is worth what the market bears.

And it's not too expensive for me, I'm just looking to find comparisons to similar products online.  As far as I know, there's currently only one other monthly subscription service (that isn't a periodical like KQ or something) that is offering content on a regular basis throughout that month.

And three $21 PDF's totalling over 850 pages (3x288pgs) is still a lower price than an $84/yr subscription.  Monte would need to produce 3 1/2 pages of content a day to keep up page-wise - assuming 48 weeks a year/5 days a week (gotta have vacations and holidays). Not impossible, surely, and he may do even more, but that's a harried pace! 

And my DDI subscription cost me only $60 for a year.  



Cergorach said:


> As for folks that are saying: "Oh, but Monte must get at least a 1000 subscribers at $7 a month, he's getting rich". Not only Monte is getting that money, he also has a good editor that doesn't really work for free, he needs to pay his cartographer and illustrators. He also needs to pay for the website and someone that keeps it up. Suddenly that $7000 doesn't seem that much when a couple of people are going to be paid by it...



I thought this too.  There's a lot more going on than just him and $7K/mon.   This thing won't be produced in a vacuum!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 6, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind charging for access to an "old school" megadungeon.  I mean, we already have several bloggers giving it away for free.
> 
> There's Greyhawk Grognard's Castle of the Mad Archmage:  Greyhawk Grognard: Castle of the Mad Archmage February Release Now Available!
> 
> ...



I hope I don't put my foot in my mouth here, because I don't know who these bloggers are, but....

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

We're talking about Monte Cook, here.  He can charge for his dungeon.  I can't.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 6, 2009)

I buy products first and foremost for the authors, not because the ingredients are "old school".

By that logic of "giving it away for free", it's like saying because there's are local soft drinks that are cheaper or cereals that are generic that nobody will buy Coca-Cola or Kellogg's brands.  

Monte is a popular author, one of the big guys who ended up like Gary Gygax, having fans of him as an individual author.  While this endeavor might not be as profitable as his books, it's a worthy experiment.  Remember, this is the guy who started with PDF only publishing and it turned out so popular he sold hardbacks, AND the guy who sold us Ptolus, a book that turned out to be widely popular even with its high price tag.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 6, 2009)

Never mind.  Just not a worthwhile comment.  :/


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 6, 2009)

Cergorach said:


> As for folks that are saying: "Oh, but Monte must get at least a 1000 subscribers at $7 a month, he's getting rich". Not only Monte is getting that money, he also has a good editor that doesn't really work for free, he needs to pay his cartographer and illustrators. He also needs to pay for the website and someone that keeps it up. Suddenly that $7000 doesn't seem that much when a couple of people are going to be paid by it...




Quite true. 

The concept is something I read on a musician's blog a while ago. An artist, of whatever stripe, needs 1000 true fans to be financially independant. The definition of a true fan is someone who will pay you $100 per year for your products. If you can pull in $100,000 per year gross you should be able to support yourself full time on your art taking into consideration taxes, production costs, shipping costs, advertising, &c. Plus, tastes change so you have to garner new true fans as you will be loosing old ones.

It is definatly not the same as $100k take-home. It is about making enough that your art can support you without the distraction of a "day job". I think Monte has a good shot at it, especially considering how relatively limited his advertising is.


----------



## Monte At Home (Mar 7, 2009)

Limited advertising? Haven't you seen this:










Seriously, though, thanks for you interest, guys, and I hope you'll check it out when the site launches next week. There will be lots of free content for you to preview before becoming a member, a few different subscription plans, and maybe even a few fun surprises.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 7, 2009)

And THAT is one reason it is better value than DDI.

Monte actually communicates with and cares about his fans.

I am SO there.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> And THAT is one reason it is better value than DDI.
> 
> Monte actually communicates with and cares about his fans.
> 
> I am SO there.



I am likely going to subscribe, now that he has mentioned different subscription options.  I'll be doing 4e conversion though. 

And FYI.... the WOTC crew come on and talk about the articles and content from DDI fairly often.  Note:  Mouseferatu, while not a WOTC employee, writes a lot of the DDI material and he is a very active poster.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Mar 7, 2009)

There's always renewing one's community supporter subscription to ENWorld instead if one isn't interested. (I think I need to do that actually.) I'm sure that despite the discussion, those interested will find value for their money.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

Varianor Abroad said:


> There's always renewing one's community supporter subscription to ENWorld instead ...



Well, that's a given every year.   It's so automatic, it's not even in the discussion.


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 7, 2009)

The idea isn't new, but because Monte is doing it and it's 3.5E it suddenly becomes interesting. Im not certain I'll subscribe, it largely depends on the content, it's quality (I'm not really worried aubout that), it's quantity, and the abilty to pay for a years subscription. While a discount for a whole year would be nice, it isn't neccessary, the ability to pay now for a whole year is. While I might 'find' €67 for a single purchase, adding €5,50 to my monthly costs isn't really something I want at this time.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 7, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind charging for access to an "old school" megadungeon. I mean, we already have several bloggers giving it away for free.
> 
> 
> I just don't understand where Monte thinks the market for this product is going to come from.




Better support, better maps and surrounding area, and a community of support he learned w/ Ptolus.

Personally I think its going to be much better then those examples.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 7, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> I hope I don't put my foot in my mouth here, because I don't know who these bloggers are, but....
> 
> "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
> 
> We're talking about Monte Cook, here.  He can charge for his dungeon.  I can't.




How about James Maliszewski? Looks like he's been inspired on his blog to do a mega dungeon as well.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> How about James Maliszewski?





I don't think he's going to charge for it, though.

/M


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 7, 2009)

Maggan said:


> I don't think he's going to charge for it, though.
> 
> /M




That's even better.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> How about James Maliszewski? Looks like he's been inspired on his blog to do a mega dungeon as well.



Well, he's a well published author in the RPG world; even I recognized the name. 

It looks like he's got a different philosophy than Monte does, so running parallel isn't an issue here.  It's not like they are two choices of the same piece of fruit.


 He is looking to go OD&D.
 He wants to make part of the process like a tutorial.  I imagine Monte will be focusing, not on the how or why, but more on delivering a usable product.
 Even though he will try, he's not committing to daily entries.  This is likely because he....
 ...isn't charging (or at least it doesn't appear he will be.)  If he was charging for a subscription, he would have a greater obligation to produce content daily.  Also, because he isn't charging, if life throws him a wrench, he can simply drop off production and not worry about alienating his customers.

Both are pieces of fruit (megadungeon), and they'll both likely be sweet, but they appear to be fairly different.  James is an Apple, Monte is a Banana.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 7, 2009)

> He wants to make part of the process like a tutorial. I imagine Monte will be focusing, not on the how or why, but more on delivering a usable product.




The tutorial aspect, which no one has mentioned, is the thing that made me perk up and say "I think I'm going to subscribe to this, sight unseen."  When Monte says, 



> There are two other very cool things about Dungeonaday.com. One is that there I'll have my own blog in which I'll talk about various aspects of the design, offering tips for running specific encounters to maximize the fun, providing insight into the hows and whys of the design involved, background ideas for PCs, and much more. I'll even include suggestions for miniatures you might want to use, if you're into minis.




That sounds to me like it could be a real-time tutorial on "how to be a good DM."  Similar to this Mearls post on how to design solo monster encounter terrain.  Learning how a designer thinks ought to be fascinating.

Getting a community focused around one dungeon could be a tutorial experience too, as you could get a lot of people interested in talking about one encounter and how it should run.

So I'm hoping the site will improve me as a GM.  Just another big adventure module, I don't need.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> How about James Maliszewski? Looks like he's been inspired on his blog to do a mega dungeon as well.





Well lets also not forget his small irrational hissy fit he threw in a blog post once he heard Monte was doing the megadungeon as welll...

I enjoy hsi blog, but really...


----------



## JamesM (Mar 7, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Well lets also not forget his small irrational hissy fit he threw in a blog post once he heard Monte was doing the megadungeon as welll...



I think _cri de coeur_ is a nicer word than "hissy fit," but to each his own.

Some people appear to have misunderstood my points in that post, which were twofold: First, I am naturally suspicious of anyone using the term "old school" in reference to a project associated with v.3.5. Second, I am not a fan of the subscription model, particularly when dealing with electronic-only endeavors.

But I'd be happy to have my concerns alleviated in both cases, which is why I'll be paying close attention to how this unfolds, even if I am skeptical about it.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 7, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Well lets also not forget his small irrational hissy fit he threw in a blog post once he heard Monte was doing the megadungeon as welll...
> 
> I enjoy hsi blog, but really...




Wow, that doesn't cast him in a good light at all. So he doesn't like Dungeon-A-Day because he doesn't think that Monte is "old-school" enough to legitimately use that term in his marketing, and because he doesn't like the commoditization of old-school material?

Retro-clones and fanzines may be free products now, but back when the old-school material was new-school, you paid for it in the form of modules and magazines. I really think being upset that the work isn't free is ridiculous...and that's the part of his rant that he labels as being the "rational" argument. 

I won't even get into the mire of debating as to whether or not Monte's old-school enough. Even James says that's not a rational reason.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

Noumenon said:


> The tutorial aspect, which no one has mentioned, is the thing that made me perk up and say "I think I'm going to subscribe to this, sight unseen."  When Monte says,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ooooo.  I didn't see this part.  The tutorial aspect of JM's megadungeon was intriguing.  I didn't know Monte was proposing the same -- though I should have guessed, considering how he used his blog during Ptolus and the peak of the Malhavoc years.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 7, 2009)

I bet Monte ends up getting tutored too -- he'll say, "I like to put this kind of encounter in to let the players show off" and people will say, "That's not what happens, every time my group sees an encounter like that they're all 'you take these guys, I'll go get the cheese curls.'"  And then he'll stop relying on the Goblin Punching Bag strategy and make funner dungeons.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 7, 2009)

JamesM said:


> First, I am naturally suspicious of anyone using the term "old school" in reference to a project associated with v.3.5.




Interesting. Is "old School" gaming tied to specific rules sets?

It will be interesting to see how these two efforts pan out. I'm uncertain of whether I'll subscribe to Monte's site, but I guess I'll check it, and other efforts, out for inspiration.

/M


----------



## Greg K (Mar 7, 2009)

arscott said:


> This actually sounds pretty lame, for a Monte Cook product.
> 
> I feel that megadungeons are boring, both for player and GM.  And I'd definitely not spend $7/month to subscribe to one.




Yeah, I am not a mega dungeon person either, but there are people that like them and I am not going to judge them for doing so.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Mar 7, 2009)

Baron Opal said:


> I think he'll get his 1000 true fans, however. I know he would have two years ago.
> 
> He must be bored.




Another Seth Godin fan I see?


----------



## JamesM (Mar 7, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Interesting. Is "Old School" gaming tied to specific rules set?




Not entirely, although there's certainly a mechanical component to the evaluation. My point was more that, given that v.3.5, as written and generally played, wasn't much like what I associate with old school gaming, I'm skeptical of attempts to associate the two until I am shown otherwise. I think it's quite possible that Dungeonaday could, in fact, turn out to be very old school indeed, but the odds don't favor it, which is why I'd like to see what Monte Cook has in store before I pass my final judgment on the matter.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 7, 2009)

The one thing I'm surprised at in this post, unless I missed it, is no one mentioned how Monte keep's 'leaving' the gaming industry. 

Hope that his works with Paizo getting his two PDF's into one print hardcover provided some inspiration to do this but from what the scope sounds like, it must have been in some stages for a long time.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 7, 2009)

JamesM said:


> Not entirely, although there's certainly a mechanical component to the evaluation. My point was more that, given that v.3.5, as written and generally played, wasn't much like what I associate with old school gaming, I'm skeptical of attempts to associate the two until I am shown otherwise.



Interesting.  I've been playing D&D since 1978.  Not as long as others who consider themselves grognards, but certainly long enough to say that I kicked it "old school" with my 1e AD&D games.

To me, old school as far little to do with mechanics and far more to do with the mindset of how a DM and players interact, how the campaign is delivered and played by the players, the shared experience of adventures and game sessions that were built around familiar elements, and how these "old school" elements are presented.  

Now, by old school elements, I mean many things.  But mostly I am talking about dungeon crawls, and environment/fluff-light adventures.  (Oh and you can also add in a few pages of house-rules - some obscure, some obvious - that varied from gametable to gametable.    )

For me, mechanics has VERY little to do with it.  Necromancer Games had 3.x adventures that ran and felt very old school.  Goodman Games' adventures had that old school feel as well.  

Are these disqualified from your definition of old school because they use a rule-set of mechanics that you don't approve of?

Can you define what you mean by old school so that I have a frame of reference to work with?


----------



## Ghostwind (Mar 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The one thing I'm surprised at in this post, unless I missed it, is no one mentioned how Monte keep's 'leaving' the gaming industry.




It's like the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 7, 2009)

I think old school for some gamers is linked to some game design elements, for sure, to the extent that it influences the game in actual play. The particular game design elements and the way they interact with the game will greatly vary from one "old-schooler" to another, though. 

I certainly believe that one can play an old school game using modern rulesets, including 3.5. I don't know if I particularly would be able to fully pull this off, but I think it is possible. If you take some product from say, Necro or Goodman, or build an old school module of your own, and are particularly gifted in providing a particular ambiance at the game table, it's totally feasible. Depends on the DM and players, in the end.

Now, as to the way Monte intended to use the term "old school", I'm not sure he actually intended to use it in its most orthodox, uncompromising sense. I think he was more alluding to such megadungeons as T1-4 or Castle Greyhawk as we've come to imagine its layout rather than anything else. 

Personally, I'm all over dungeonaday.com. I've been really itching for some old school action lately, and I think dungeonaday.com + C&C is going to be pure Win at my gaming table. I know of at least another person interested by Monte's DaD (pun intended) who wants to run it with AD&D. We sure will be providing feedback to Monte about DaD and its adaptability to these rules sets, provide some variants, discuss the various implications of the design, et cetera. 

What's important to understand is that, if DaD is Monte's offering first and foremost, there's clearly the intent to build an interactive, collaborative community around it as well. I can say that among those who will ultimately participate to this community, old-schoolers will be present and vocal. Hopefully, this will create a feedback loop that will ultimately provide satisfaction to other old-timers out there.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 7, 2009)

Odhanan said:


> What's important to understand is that, if DaD is Monte's offering first and foremost, there's clearly the intent to build an interactive, collaborative community around it as well. I can say that among those who will ultimately participate to this community, old-schoolers will be present and vocal. Hopefully, this will create a feedback loop that will ultimately provide satisfaction to other old-timers out there.




And as a bridge between the "old school cool cats" and the "new edge modern dudes", this might be something that benefits both "sides". It might make more gamers interested in the "old school movement", and the producers of such free efforts will get a chance to show off their true colours and dazzle more people with their leet skillz ... erm ... good old dungeoncrafting skills, is what I meant. 

So, I would think that to the "old school movement" this could be an opportunity, and not another enemy to fight. There are enough of those already.

(I confess to not being rocked mightily by old school, having only played since 1982, with systems and play styles that would not qualify ro any definition of old school. But there's always the chance to woo me with stellar stuff).

/M


----------



## JamesM (Mar 7, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> For me, mechanics has VERY little to do with it.  Necromancer Games had 3.x adventures that ran and felt very old school.  Goodman Games' adventures had that old school feel as well.
> 
> Are these disqualified from your definition of old school because they use a rule-set of mechanics that you don't approve of?




Not at all. In principle, I agree that old school has a lot to do with a mindset one brings to play, meaning that it is transferable to other rules sets, which is why I like some of the modules that both Necromancer and Goodman put out during the 3e era, even though I'm not super keen on those rules. That said, I do think that some mechanics help to bolster the old school mindset better than others. Contrariwise, some mechanics detract from it. 



> Can you define what you mean by old school so that I have a frame of reference to work with?




Sure. For me, old school games are those that place greater importance on referee judgment calls rather than on "rules as written," give weight to player (as opposed to character) skill in resolving in-game problems, and whose mechanics don't see "balance" as an ideal, let alone an attainable one. 3e wasn't really designed with any of these principles in mind, which is why I tend to be skeptical of claims that it's compatible with the old ways. 

But notice I said "skeptical." I don't think it's necessarily impossible to run 3e in something that I'd recognize as old school, but it'd likely mean either changing or outright ignoring many aspects of those rules (or so it seems to me). I am willing to be convinced I'm mistaken on this point, which is why I will be paying attention to Dungeonaday.com to see whether it's something I'd feel comfortable calling old school. Honestly, I'd love to be mistaken, because I'd like to see the old ways take root in a serious way outside the little corner of the hobby I call home.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 7, 2009)

I agree with you.

But I note you mention Necromancer Games as one of the companies that's long been doing "1st edition feel."

Previously, Monte really hasn't tried to claim that crown. He's done a lot of marketing and made sure his name is associated with many of his books including those that he hasn't written but has "presented" as part of his marketing. Now there may be some exceptions. I know the book of planar locations he did was in many ways a "nod" to Planescape of yore, but I don't think that's what many people mean when they refer to "old school".

Unless Monte's referring to 3.5 as being "old schol" now.



catsclaw227 said:


> Interesting.  I've been playing D&D since 1978.  Not as long as others who consider themselves grognards, but certainly long enough to say that I kicked it "old school" with my 1e AD&D games.
> 
> To me, old school as far little to do with mechanics and far more to do with the mindset of how a DM and players interact, how the campaign is delivered and played by the players, the shared experience of adventures and game sessions that were built around familiar elements, and how these "old school" elements are presented.
> 
> ...


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 7, 2009)

> Unless Monte's referring to 3.5 as being "old schol" now.




No, I don't think that's what he meant either. I really think he was refering to dungeons like ToEE and Castle Greyhawk.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 8, 2009)

JamesM said:


> Sure. For me, old school games are those that place greater importance on referee judgment calls rather than on "rules as written," give weight to player (as opposed to character) skill in resolving in-game problems, and whose mechanics don't see "balance" as an ideal, let alone an attainable one. 3e wasn't really designed with any of these principles in mind, which is why I tend to be skeptical of claims that it's compatible with the old ways.



*RAW*
One of my biggest complaints with 3.x was the implied supposition that the RAW took precedence over a DM judgment call and that it was more important that everything follow RAW.

I often times mentioned in my games that sometimes the NPC won't use the same "rules" as players, in that they won't always have the same spells, sometimes they will use an item or effect that isn't identifiable nor available to the PCs.   It allowed me to better "go with the flow" in game and make adjustments on the fly if necessary. I didn't always want to be beholden to the RAW, yet didn't want to have to prepare a 10 page set of rules that I would then STILL be bound by.

*Player skill vs. PC skill*
I like to give more weight to player skill than assumed in 3.x, but I generally put them on the same playing field.  I would give bonuses and penalties to situations when they needed to make a roll, and would often listen to what they do and make a judgement instead of rely on skills.  That said, if a player was having his 8 int PC make intelligent decisions about how to handle a situation, or a player starts to wax philosophically with his 8wis 10cha PC, I would call shenanigans.   

It's not just player skill, it also has to be PC skill as well, otherwise we would find all the social skills get dumped by smart, charismatic players.

*Balance*
Regarding balance?  I like it.  I didn't like that a player could choose a class or race combination that would cripple his PC and it was considered NORMAL.  I am not talking about a player that chooses to do this with the full knowledge of the ruleset, but more a new person that has no idea and finds that their PC sucks most of the time while others reign supreme.

Lack of balance isn't old school.  It's just bad design.


----------



## JamesM (Mar 8, 2009)

You know the kind of game you enjoy and why you enjoy it and that's cool. 

My reply wasn't meant to be an argument in favor of one approach or another; it was intended solely to elucidate some of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of old school games and play, as well as why I'm skeptical of calling any v.3.5 game or product "old school."

Again, this isn't meant as a disparagement so much as an acknowledgment of the fact that there are differences, both philosophical and mechanical, that separate older games from newer ones.


----------



## FormerlyDickensC (Mar 8, 2009)

I *LOVE *Ptolus.  I think its the single greatest RPG product made. 

And I'm not sure I get this whole "old school" vibe thing ppl talk about.  But I can't see spending any amount of money for a basic dungeon crawl.  I don't even understand why anyone would want to play a game traveling from room to room battling monster after monster for no real reason or with no link. Maybe this isn't what MC meant. 

But I certainly look forward to the reviews of MC's new endeavor. 

...maybe I'm missing something. 

Totally OFFTOPIC: I'd love to see a complete 4E remake of Ptolus.  And it'd have to be a remake, there is no conversion for that.  Maybe if this new thing doesn't work and MC needs some cash, he could sell his soul and sign the GSL. ...or whatever.


----------



## ruemere (Mar 8, 2009)

Two impressions of Monte's initiative:

1. 7$ is a bit steep for an adventure. Yes, it's not much but given our playtime and little stuff I inject into our sessions, an adventure of 30+ pages can last us months. I just do not play by the book... I like some burden liftend from my shoulders by pregenerated stuff, but I do not just read out adventures to my players.

2. I am not into Ctrl+F, "click-a-link" and "Submit" during course of play. I know that electronic aids are there for me, it's just that I prefer it to be written, printed or improvised instead of generated on the fly. Basically, GM's time during session is scarce and wasting it reading instant material is just this: wasting. That's why I fail to see appeal of any online documentation or generators.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 8, 2009)

ruemere said:


> 1. 7$ is a bit steep for an adventure. Yes, it's not much but given our playtime and little stuff I inject into our sessions, an adventure of 30+ pages can last us months. I just do not play by the book... I like some burden liftend from my shoulders by pregenerated stuff, but I do not just read out adventures to my players.



The old 3.5E adventures where $9.99, so $7 is cheaper, but I don't think you can really compare the two. But you fail to see the real value here, for only $7 a month you can have an adventure that will last you years upon years, at this rate you'll have enough material to last you well into retirement ;-) And I seriously doubt that many folks read the boxed text from the adventures, I might have at one time when I was a whee young pup of a DM at my twelve years of age, but that was a long time ago and didn't last long (the reading aloud part).


> 2. I am not into Ctrl+F, "click-a-link" and "Submit" during course of play. I know that electronic aids are there for me, it's just that I prefer it to be written, printed or improvised instead of generated on the fly. Basically, GM's time during session is scarce and wasting it reading instant material is just this: wasting. That's why I fail to see appeal of any online documentation or generators.



You do understand you can use this to prepare before the session and use a relatively new invention, called a printer, to 'print' stuff to use in your adventures? I generally see these electronic aids as tools to prepare a session before it starts...


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 8, 2009)

Monte At Home said:


> Seriously, though, thanks for you interest, guys, and I hope you'll check it out when the site launches next week. There will be lots of free content for you to preview before becoming a member, a few different subscription plans, and maybe even a few fun surprises.



Just a couple of quick questions:

1) Will there be new maps everyday or one big map on Monday that you fill in over the week?
2) With all that content I assume you will be collecting it in PDF and/or book form.  Will that be done every monthe, quarter or whatever?

Thanks!


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 8, 2009)

One thing about dungeon "a day" I don't get is that you obviously can't play along every day.  Will there be a program to get people to design all week and then play that week's content on the weekend?  It'd be like book club and you could all discuss the adventure the next week.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Mar 8, 2009)

I am an Old School DM.  I DM 4e.  The only other version of D&D I would consider running is the Moldvay/Cook (Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord).  I hate 3.x, never liked DM'ing it.  My perception was that it was not 'Old School DM friendly'.  I ran a 4 year campaign in it too.

The fact that Monte is putting this product out for 3.5 is no bother to me.  I am buying because of the reason I buy alot of adventures, I want ideas so I can plunder them ruthlessly.  Like Goodman Games, I know from Monte I am going to get quality ideas, plots, NPC's, and Monsters.

$7.00?  Great value.  I have risked more for less return


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 8, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The one thing I'm surprised at in this post, unless I missed it, is no one mentioned how Monte keep's 'leaving' the gaming industry.




Next up for Monte: Professional baseball!



FormerlyDickensC said:


> I don't even understand why anyone would want to play a game traveling from room to room battling monster after monster for no real reason or with no link.




Remove the struck portion and you've just described D&D. 



Noumenon said:


> One thing about dungeon "a day" I don't get is that you obviously can't play along every day.




That's interesting. I hope Monte looks carefully at the pacing of his releases. One week's worth of content needs to be at least one weekend session's worth of play-- and (although some may disagree) no more than two sessions' worth of play. 

If I were Monte (and I am nowhere near as clever) I would make certain that my pace of releases was not so great as to give the impression that there is more content than I could ever use. The greater the backlog of content you create for the players, the more stale their current experience is going to feel.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 8, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Next up for Monte: Professional baseball!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's an interesting observation (that might lead off-topic), and I see that I actually experience this problem with the current WotC adventures - due to no fault but our groups DM "shift" system. 

I am half-way through H2, but I already have H3, P1 and P2 lying around. I can't wait to get there.

And I had similar problems when I DMed a homebrew game - I had created a general "plot outline" on what the NPCs where planning and how the PCs might interact with it. And it sucked knowing that there was still so much material and I was still "stuck" with my current adventures. (Despite me being very happy having those completed and finding that story important, too.)


----------



## tankschmidt (Mar 8, 2009)

This quote illustrates very nicely a point I'd like to make.



FormerlyDickensC said:


> And I'm not sure I get this whole "old school" vibe thing ppl talk about.  But I can't see spending any amount of money for a basic dungeon crawl.  I don't even understand why anyone would want to play a game traveling from room to room battling monster after monster for no real reason or with no link. Maybe this isn't what MC meant.




From what you read on the internets, it seems like a lot of d20 and 4E players don't get or simply aren't that interested in the idea of an old school megadungeon.  On the contrary, adventure paths seem to be the order of the day as far as published modules go.

On other side of the spectrum, a lot of the followers of the "old school" movement are more in tune with the do-it-yourself aspect of the hobby.  I'm sure Monte will turn out a polished product, but it just seems like this portion of his target audience would be more willing to cobble together pieces from the blogs I mentioned earlier, from James Maliszewski's exciting new project, or from Fight On Magazine's megadungeon.  The fact is that rules do matter to a lot of old school players.  A lot of things that are more prevalent in old school play - like managing retainers, quickly resolving fights with wandering monsters, avoiding combats altogether, and rolling up characters more frequently to replace the fallen - are handled in a clumsier or more time-consuming way by the newer systems.  I'm not saying that d20 or 4E isn't fun, but those games more naturally handle a different style of play.  Moreover, even if old-schoolers are not turned off by the d20isms in the rules, why wouldn't they look to more authentic old school sources, like RJK's El Raja Key products or his upcoming Original Castle levels?  At least until we wait for Castle Zagyg to arrive in full glory.  

So what exactly is the target market we are talking about here?  Gamers who are interested in old school traditional play, but don't have the time either to design their own dungeons or dress up someone else's, and who are not turned off by an unfamiliar ruleset?  Sounds like a niche of a niche.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 8, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Remove the struck portion and you've just described D&D.



Really? I must be doing something wrong, then, as neither of my two ongoing campaigns features PCs traveling from room to room battling monsters.

During my last session, the PCs investigated a case of teenage girls being abducted from a refugee camp, which had caused mass paranoia in the nearby town (rumors have it that drow are behind the abductions). They also encountered an odd wizard who hides behind mechanical contraptions and tried to cheer up an old drunken soldier (didn't work). One PC spent a good part of his time repairing and improving the well in the refugee camp. Another had a brief and nonlethal melee with a fellow mercenary. All in all, no traveling (except between the town and the refugee camp) and no monsters. Still felt like D&D to me and to the players, with a lot of the usual tropes. Oh, and I don't anticipate much traveling or monster slaying during the next session, either.


----------



## Maggan (Mar 8, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> from James Maliszewski's exciting new project




It is interesting to read JamesM's thoughts, but I've decided I'll be excited about that when the project is actually started. From my reading of it, it's being talked about as something that might happen, but I wouldn't peg it as a "project" just yet.

Too many grand plans have been drawn up by gamers, only to simply fall into the well of forgetfullness, for me to get excited just after two blog posts.

JamesM knows this, and is being cautious about the whole thing, so I think it is prudent to let him work on maybe getting the project going before we saddle him with expectations or even hopes that he will match Monte Cook ... and likewise for Monte of course, although I believe he has a project that's been planned for a while and has probably written a lot fo stuff already, so he's got a head start here.



> why wouldn't they look to more authentic old school sources, like RJK's El Raja Key products or his upcoming Original Castle levels?  At least until we wait for Castle Zagyg to arrive in full glory.




Then we're in for a hell of a long wait.



> So what exactly is the target market we are talking about here?




Gamers probably playing or having played D&D3rd edition, interested in large dungeons. That group is so big that WotC had them as the primary demographic for the launch of 3e.

Of course, it being subscription limits the appeal to many, and it being an internet subscription cuts down the numbers even more. So I agree that it's probably a niche of a niche.

But that describes the target group of everyone except WotC and maybe WW. Even Paizo is going after a niche of a niche, and are hoping to do good business from that.

I have my doubts about the financial viabiity of Monte's project, but if anyone is in a position to try it, he's one of those few with a following and a name.

Interesting times.

/M


----------



## tenkar (Mar 8, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> So what exactly is the target market we are talking about here?  Gamers who are interested in old school traditional play, but don't have the time either to design their own dungeons or dress up someone else's, and who are not turned off by an unfamiliar ruleset?  Sounds like a niche of a niche.




The niche is those that have enjoyed the products that Monte has published in the past.  If he gets Ptolus sales numbers to subscribe to this he is in a very profitable position.  It will most certainly NOT be for everyone, but it will certainly be on my list of things I subscribe to.  A movie ticket in NYC is 10.50 if you are lucky.  7 bucks for a month of Monte is a bargain from my point of view.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 8, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Really? I must be doing something wrong, then, as neither of my two ongoing campaigns features PCs traveling from room to room battling monsters.
> 
> During my last session, blah blah blah blah...




I would commend you on transcending the core D&D experience, but not at the expense of feigning ignorance of the roots of the game.


----------



## Cergorach (Mar 8, 2009)

tenkar said:


> The niche is those that have enjoyed the products that Monte has published in the past.  If he gets Ptolus sales numbers to subscribe to this he is in a very profitable position.  It will most certainly NOT be for everyone, but it will certainly be on my list of things I subscribe to.  A movie ticket in NYC is 10.50 if you are lucky.  7 bucks for a month of Monte is a bargain from my point of view.



I would like to point out that Ptolus sold atleast a 1000 units through direct preorder through the White Wolf website, those first thousand were signed. Then there where the X amount of copies that went into the retail channel.

If a 1000 lunatics are willing to spend $120 plus shipping (and import fees) on a huge book, sight unseen. Then there will be a 1000+ folks that will spend $7 a month on a web service by Monte, sight unseen.

ps. I'm lunatic #37 ;-)


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 8, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> The fact is that rules do matter to a lot of old school players.  A lot of things that are more prevalent in old school play - like managing retainers, quickly resolving fights with wandering monsters, avoiding combats altogether, and rolling up characters more frequently to replace the fallen - are handled in a clumsier or more time-consuming way by the newer systems.



This hits the nail on the head; the system influences the adventure design and the game play.  That's not to say that such influence can't be overcome, but many times it's an influence that is not even perceived or recognized.

Another example: the role of wandering monsters in the traditional approach is that of a dangerous drain on PC resources that offers no real reward.  You don't get much XP from killing monsters in the old systems, and wandering monsters have little or no treasure (i.e. the "story reward" in the old school game where "fortune and glory" is the goal).  Thus, they're something to be actively avoided, and encourage efficient use of time, staying on track, et cetera.  It also encourages avoiding such encounters, where possible.  However, later editions use a different XP scheme for monsters, and this alters the reward/benefit from fighting wandering monsters.  They can even become a reward in and of themselves -- something to be sought out, rather than avoided.  That's not necessarily bad, but it's not the traditional old-school approach.

Another often overlooked example, not as rooted in system: the use of empty space in the dungeon.  The original guidelines suggest that only 1/3 of the encounter areas (e.g. rooms) hold a monster.  There's a lot of "empty space" in an old school dungeon.  That empty space serves multiple purposes.  It acts as a buffer between areas.  It encourages big dungeons, which encourages lots of choices for the players (i.e. multiple paths through the complex).  It offers a level of uncertainty to the players, and they have to balance their desire to thoroughly search everything and everywhere with the danger of wandering monsters.  That means that they may miss stuff, but that's a hallmark of old school play to.  The big, campaign dungeon is a place that PCs return to again and again; it's not merely a lair (even a big one).  It offers opportunities for repeat play and meaningful exploration and discovery.  The empty space also gives PCs the opportunity for meaningful evasion and pursuit.  There's actually some room to run, and multiple paths to throw off pursuit.  Spells like hold portal start getting used.  Food and treasure getting dropped to delay or stop pursuit becomes a good tactic.  Et cetera.

The distribution of monsters and treasures in the dungeon is another area where I'm concerned that dungeon-a-day may not offer what I'm looking for.  We'll see.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 8, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I would commend you on transcending the core D&D experience, but not at the expense of feigning ignorance of the roots of the game.



I'm not feigning ignorance. I know the whole story, Chainmail and all. It's just that it is my firm belief that that particular style of play went the way of the dodo some fifteen years ago. Sure, elements of it persist even today (in 4E more than 3.x), but I have yet to meet a person who likes to play the "all dungeon crawling, all the time" paradigm today. How many people who bought WLD actually played through it? How many gave up after a dozen sessions?

Having said that, since I hate dungeons (both as a player and as a DM), and I am not very good at designing them quickly, I may subscribe to Monte's service to learn from his advice. Because even though I hate them, I think they're still necessary... every once in a while.


----------



## carmachu (Mar 8, 2009)

JamesM said:


> I think _cri de coeur_ is a nicer word than "hissy fit," but to each his own.
> 
> Some people appear to have misunderstood my points in that post, which were twofold: First, I am naturally suspicious of anyone using the term "old school" in reference to a project associated with v.3.5.




If it wasnt so irrational, ci de coeur might work. But hissy fit seems much better fit.

Second: what are you, the gate keeper of "old school"? More than couple of 3.5 products harken back to a bit of old school.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 8, 2009)

Hi.  I'm Dave and I like dungeon crawls.

I like big dungeon crawls and I like small dungeon crawls.

I like the World's Largest Dungeon and Rappan Athuk Reloaded.

I like the Tomb of Horrors and Castle Whiterock (and the other 51 DCCs for 3.x).

I like Undermountain and the Lost Tomb of Abysthor.

I even like the Caverns of Thracia and Dark Tower.

I like the dungeons under Ptolus and the Temple of Elemental Evil.


And even with all of that, I still want more.


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Hi.  I'm Dave and I like dungeon crawls.
> (...)
> 
> And even with all of that, I still want more.




I subscribe to this post and add my stamp of approval on it. You and me, Dave. You and me.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 9, 2009)

tankschmidt said:


> A lot of things that are more prevalent in old school play - like managing retainers, quickly resolving fights with wandering monsters, avoiding combats altogether, and rolling up characters more frequently to replace the fallen - are handled in a clumsier or more time-consuming way by the newer systems.  I'm not saying that d20 or 4E isn't fun, but those games more naturally handle a different style of play.



Well, let's be honest, most of the henchmen (and maybe retainers) that people got back in the old days were used primarily as canon-fodder and treasure mules.  Maybe a retainer eventually became the players next PC, but in my experience that wasn't the norm, but rather the exception.

What is the point of a wandering monster, if the goal is the "quickly resolve fights" with them?  I mean, if they are a nuisance to the flow of the game, why have them?  As living piles of XP?

Oh, and rolling up a new character in 4e is just as fast as one for 1e.  So that particular myth about old-school vs. new-school has been debunked.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I have yet to meet a person who likes to play the "all dungeon crawling, all the time" paradigm today.




Your experience is atypical.


----------



## JamesM (Mar 9, 2009)

carmachu said:


> If it wasnt so irrational, ci de coeur might work. But hissy fit seems much better fit.



As you wish.



> Second: what are you, the gate keeper of "old school"? More than couple of 3.5 products harken back to a bit of old school.



I'm a gamer expressing skepticism at the use of "old school" by a designer whose work I don't think fits my understanding of that term. I'm honestly not sure why this is so outrageous, particularly given that I've also made it clear that I'm nevertheless going to keep an eye on the project before I make a final determination of my feelings on the matter. One of the crazy things about me is that I've been known to change my mind on various matters and admit when I'm wrong, as I have been many times. Go figure.

But, hey, if this discussion is better helped by painting me as an overgrown child pitching a fit, knock yourself out.


----------



## ruemere (Mar 9, 2009)

Cergorach, in response to my post:



Cergorach said:


> The old 3.5E adventures where $9.99, so $7 is cheaper, but I don't think you can really compare the two. But you fail to see the real value here, for only $7 a month you can have an adventure that will last you years upon years, at this rate you'll have enough material to last you well into retirement ;-) And I seriously doubt that many folks read the boxed text from the adventures, I might have at one time when I was a whee young pup of a DM at my twelve years of age, but that was a long time ago and didn't last long (the reading aloud part).



When you look at base numbers, yes, you may be wondering about me calling 7 dollars a month to be a steep price. However, as I mentioned, I tend to develop material further to encompass current campaign story arcs. And so the books grow. My current adventure purchase rate is around one per 3-4 months. I do buy modules, but only if I really think they offer me something worthwhile - a story, an encounter or similar. Full adventures are not something I need right now (especially since my campaign world of choice, Scarred Lands, have been dead for several years now, and since I have subscribed to Pathfinder adventures since the latest adventure path is likely to provide me with some original ideas).

Adding 7 dollars to this does seem to be bit excessive. Especially, since the materials are going to be of digital variety.



> You do understand you can use this to prepare before the session and use a relatively new invention, called a printer, to 'print' stuff to use in your adventures? I generally see these electronic aids as tools to prepare a session before it starts...




You, Sir, underestimate me. I am pretty tech savvy, my sessions are usually prepared via several digital tools and final materials are usually in PDF just in case I needed them. The data is usually printed out (using passable OpenOffice.org template of my design) with various mechanics and statistics included (latest minicampaign is 36 pages long at this moment).
That said, all of this is firmly committed to my memory. As I said, I prefer not to look into docs while the players are waiting for my response - I have to check an odd stat or more vaguely worded stuff from time to time, but I take pains not to browse/click/type during sessions... too much anyway.

For the same reason, I avoid running combats using miniatures (especially, since many of my combat encounters use three dimensions as opposed to two dimensional battlemat). 

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 9, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> What is the point of a wandering monster, if the goal is the "quickly resolve fights" with them?  I mean, if they are a nuisance to the flow of the game, why have them?  As living piles of XP?



"Old school" wandering monsters present to challenge the PCs, but not necessarily as a combat encounter to be vanquished.  Wandering monsters are a danger if you waste a lot of time, forcing you to spend party resources on them when you'd rather be spending those resources on your goal.  They're certainly NOT living piles of XP, since the older editions do not reward you with much XP from monsters (a typical split is probably something like 80% of XP from treasure and 20% from monsters), and wandering monsters have little or not treasure.  They're a challenge that is best met by avoiding them, wasting as few resources as possible.  They're a nuisance, but certainly not pointless.  

The handling of wandering monsters by a party is one measure of skill.  A party engaging in "good play" will try to make efficient use of their time, not spending too much time sitting around or engaging in pointless tasks.  They might have a plan for avoiding, distracting, or evading wandering monsters, rather than fighting them.  As a result, that party will preserve their resources (hit points, spells, et cetera) and spend them on activities that have a greater chance of reward (i.e. treasure, in most cases) than that of a party that wastes a lot of time (more WM checks), bulls through and fights everything, et cetera.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 9, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> Well, let's be honest, most of the henchmen (and maybe retainers) that people got back in the old days were used primarily as canon-fodder and treasure mules.



Nah, henchmen are usually valued and protected.  Hirelings, on the other hand, may end up with a high mortality rate (although too much of that will usually have repercussions as morale drops, few people are willing to risk signing on, and the PCs get a bad reputation).


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I'm not feigning ignorance. I know the whole story, Chainmail and all. It's just that it is my firm belief that that particular style of play went the way of the dodo some fifteen years ago. Sure, elements of it persist even today (in 4E more than 3.x), but I have yet to meet a person who likes to play the "all dungeon crawling, all the time" paradigm today.




I'm not sure that "all dungeon all the time" was ever an actual play-style.  Even the original rules include material on the wilderness, et cetera.  The dungeon is an important aspect of play, but far from the only aspect.  Certainly the oldest campaigns (i.e. Blackmoor and Greyhawk) had huge campaign dungeons, but also wilderness, cities, politics, factions, wars, et cetera.

I love dungeons -- especially big home-brewed "campaign dungeons," but also smaller "lair-type" dungeons.  However, I also love wilderness and town play (especially if the town is "civilization, ancient and wicked," in the Lankhmar mold).  And I think that a good campaign dungeon will also (very naturally) have developed many aspects that are usually associated with more "sophisticated" role-playing (intrigue, recurring NPCs, politics, mysteries, et cetera).


----------



## FormerlyDickensC (Mar 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Your experience is atypical.



Really? Well then could you explain to me how an "all crawl, all the time" type of game is fun.  Such reminds me of FF Tactics, but with more headaches.  

PS.  I'm not trying to start a fight, I'd actually like to understand the appeal therein.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 9, 2009)

FormerlyDickensC said:


> Really? Well then could you explain to me how an "all crawl, all the time" type of game is fun.



Well, as I mentioned, above, I think the idea of "all crawl all the time" is something of a straw-mannish concept.  (Not only because even heavily dungeon-based campaigns have non-dungeon aspects, but also because I think many peoples' concept of a "dungeon crawl" is something of a caricature.) However, since I think that an entire campaign centered around a huge dungeon underworld is a viable (and fun) concept, I'll take a stab at this.

A campaign centered around a huge dungeon needn't lack the features of any other campaign, with many of these elements being present in the dungeon, itself.  A well-designed campaign dungeon will have plenty of room for player choice and player decisions (where to go, when to go there).  It will have factions and politics.  It will have friendly and malignant NPCs, with some being recurring characters.  It will have lots of role-playing opportunities (especially if the PCs are utilizing hirelings and henchmen).  It will certainly have mysteries and puzzles, as well as combat.  It will have secrets and sublevels that remain long undiscovered, and uncovering things like this will be a big reward (and bragging rights) -- "you'll never believe what we found on the second level in that big room with the obelisk -- yeah, the one you guys explored a few months ago."  It will have a nearby town or city, and probably a wilderness around it (or nearby).  In my experience, you don't even have to pre-arrange all these things -- they'll happen naturally, during play.

(Incidentally, I have a new musing on creating an old-school dungeon up on my site.)


----------



## Sammael (Mar 9, 2009)

But see, Wulf is saying that the majority of people enjoy the "all dungeon all the time" style of play, which my own empirical evidence denies. Out of the dozens and dozens of role-players I've met over the years, I cannot name a single one who actually enjoys having a dungeon in a campaign for more than a couple of sessions (followed by a much longer period of non-dungeon play, e.g. wilderness, urban, or planar adventures). 

I live in Europe, so that may make a difference, but I actually started playing RPGs during my 3-year stay in the US (some 12 years ago), and the people I played with there weren't exactly hot on dungeons either. I recall a time when one of my friends pulled out a 1st edition DMG and generated a random dungeon to show how ridiculous the concept was. We played in it for humor value and laughed at the randomly-generated nonsense. 

To me, Diablo does dungeons much better than an average human DM. Descent is more fun for a dungeon boardgame experience than D&D. YMMV.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> I recall a time when one of my friends pulled out a 1st edition DMG and generated a random dungeon to show how ridiculous the concept was. We played in it for humor value and laughed at the randomly-generated nonsense.



This is a good example of what I mean when I say that many people seem to have a view of "dungeon crawling" that is little more than caricature.  If what you're describing were really the extent of dungeon-based play, I'd reject it as unsuitable, too. 



> To me, Diablo does dungeons much better than an average human DM. Descent is more fun for a dungeon boardgame experience than D&D.



I find Diablo to be a terrible bore, as a model for dungeon exploration.  I agree with you that Descent is more fun for a dungeon _boardgame_, but I don't think that D&D's dungeon-based play is anything like a boardgame and its limitations, so the comparison holds little value, in my opinion.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> To me, Diablo does dungeons much better than an average human DM. Descent is more fun for a dungeon boardgame experience than D&D. YMMV.




Sacrilege!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 9, 2009)

Gentlemen, I like dungeons.

Gentlemen, I like dungeons.

Gentlemen, I love dungeons!

I like dark and musty tombs.  I like dank sewers.  I like mysterious temples.  I like forbidden jungles.  I like haunted manors.  I like eldritch ruins.  I like foreboding castles.  I like monster infested forests.  I like underwater caverns.

In moors, on highways, in trenches, in plains, on tundra, in desert, on sea, in sky, in mud, in marshes, I love every aspect of dungeons that takes place on your choice of setting.

I like blowing away the enemy with the thunderous roar of a line of sorcerers throwing fireballs all at once.  When an enemy is shot to pieces after being thrown high in the air, my heart dances.  I like crushing the enemy wizards with the divine power on our priests.  When I mowed down the enemy who fled screaming from the burning war horse with an magic missiles, my heart leapt.

I like it when fighters plow through the enemy's lines with their long swords all in line.  I remember being moved when seeing new level ones, filled with panic, stabbing an already dead kobold again and again...

Seeing an AD&D thief being strung from a lamppost in the street is unendurably exciting.  Seeing a captive be coup de graced with a piercing shriek as my own hand falls was spectacular.

When the pitiful resistance came bravely with their small short bows, and we destroyed them and a good chunk of the city with the metamagic'd Maw of Chaos, I was at my height.

I like it when we are destroyed with the morning dew.  It is a sad thing when the town one is supposed to protect is trampled, and the women and children violated and killed.  I like being squashed and destroyed by the goblin and the kobold's amount of material resources.  Being followed by goblin and kobold forces and having to crawl around on the ground like a pesky insect is the ultimate disgrace.

Gentlemen, I desire a dungeon that is like hell!  Gentlemen, my companions in the forums, who follow me...gentlemen, what do you desire?  Do you desire dungeon as well?  Do you desire a dungeon of no mercy?  Do you desire a conflict that stretches the limits of iron, wind, lightning and fire to the limit, one that will kill all the NPCs in this setting?

Very will then, we shall have Dungeonaday!


----------



## carmachu (Mar 9, 2009)

JamesM said:


> But, hey, if this discussion is better helped by painting me as an overgrown child pitching a fit, knock yourself out.





*shrug* I enjoy your stuff. I enjoy monte's stuff. But I dont always agree with every thing either of you or he do or say. I call'em like I see them.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> But see, Wulf is saying that the majority of people enjoy the "all dungeon all the time" style of play, which my own empirical evidence denies.




You are not playing it "wrong," but you are certainly not playing D&D in the "classic" sense.

You're a niche. (On another continent, to boot.)

The historical market of adventure offerings is 20 to 1 (or more) against you and your atypical experience.

There is absolutely no reason to take offense at that.

In another 30 years, the game may well catch up to you and the experience you believe has defined it for the past 10.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 9, 2009)

Make sure you aren't making personal shots at the people who disagree with you, folks - and thanks to everyone who is already making sure they aren't.



Wulf Ratbane said:


> You're a niche.



I don't think I'd agree. I know many hundreds of gamers, and I know of about five who prefer the dungeon-all-the-time experience. My empirical evidence suggests that it's far more common for people to buy superb dungeon campaigns like Castle Whiterock or World's Largest Dungeon so that they can yoink the fun pieces out to use elsewhere. If you want to split that conversation off into another thread, it may make for some really interesting discussion.

---

And to get back on topic, I've gotten a sneak preview of Dungeonaday! So far I like what I see. I'm not sure the cost is a _great_ deal, especially if you lose access to the material once your subscription lapses, but it strikes me as a _reasonable_ deal for the quality and quantity of content I'm seeing. I'm hoping that he'll offer as discount for a year's subscription, if he hasn't already. 

So far Monte has 12 rooms up, along with a full level 1 map and a side map. There's background information on the dungeon, info on the big threats, a glossary, and a player handout or two. There is art for the rooms (both specific and generic), map closeups, photos of the map built with Dwarven Forge pieces, and miniature suggestions.

Here's something I love. Where this dungeon really shines is providing DMs with an example of how to make a "living" dungeon. Rooms have information on what's there the first time the PCs arrive, and how they change during revisits. I really like how this is implemented; just doing a quick read, it makes the dungeon seem vital and alive. There's also some cool, unexplained weirdness even at 1st level. I see a lot of yoinkable ideas here, and I fully intend to use some of them in my own game.

I am sorry that there aren't 4e stats. My hope is that the fan base on the forums will convert beasties into 4e statistics, which Monte can then link to.

Site navigation is just fine, and will get better once the map is hyperlinked directly to the room descriptions (something that is forthcoming, I believe.)

Initial opinion: thumbs up. Useful and fun, with clear potential and the likelihood of gathering momentum.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 9, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I don't think I'd agree. I know many hundreds of gamers, and I know of about five who prefer the dungeon-all-the-time experience. My empirical evidence suggests that it's far more common for people to buy superb dungeon campaigns like Castle Whiterock or World's Largest Dungeon so that they can yoink the fun pieces out to use elsewhere. If you want to split that conversation off into another thread, it may make for some really interesting discussion.




Fork away. The upshot of your empirical evidence is that there is a huge market for non-dungeon adventures that has been underserved for decades, including by WoTC-- who under ordinary circumstances gets a pretty wide berth around here for knowing what the "real market" is (e.g., I know hundreds of ENworlders who won't touch 4e with a ten-foot pole...)

EDIT: It may be that the "non-dungeon" market is simply served by the Campaign Setting format.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Hi.  I'm Dave and I like dungeon crawls.
> I like big dungeon crawls and I like small dungeon crawls.
> I like the World's Largest Dungeon and Rappan Athuk Reloaded.
> I like the Tomb of Horrors and Castle Whiterock (and the other 51 DCCs for 3.x).
> ...




Amen.  I love dungeons.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 9, 2009)

FormerlyDickensC said:


> Really? Well then could you explain to me how an "all crawl, all the time" type of game is fun.  Such reminds me of FF Tactics, but with more headaches.
> 
> PS.  I'm not trying to start a fight, I'd actually like to understand the appeal therein.




Could you explain what you consider "all crawl", or perhaps what -isn't- "all crawl"?  I've run pretty dungeon-centric campaigns for some time now, and while there are things I leave out of my campaigns, I do so because I'm not skilled at running "those sorts" of campaigns (ie, long on intrigue, short on action).  That said, I make things interesting for the characters, give them motivations (or take the motivations I'm given and exploit those), use reoccuring villains and evil alliances, places of sanctuary, etc and so forth.  In 15+ years I've never had a player complain about the setting.  

A dungeon is a setting, just like a wilderness is a setting or a town is a setting.  Complaining that dungeoncrawling isn't fun because once upon a time you randomly rolled up a dungeon makes about as much sense as saying that intrigue-adventures are boring because you watched Masterpiece Theatre once and didn't like it.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> EDIT: It may be that the "non-dungeon" market is simply served by the Campaign Setting format.



This is certainly the case for me. I love buying campaign settings and mining them for material in my campaigns.


----------



## GlassJaw (Mar 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> EDIT: It may be that the "non-dungeon" market is simply served by the Campaign Setting format.




Or Goodman Games - a company who's popularity is pretty much due to classic dungeon crawls, all 50+ of them.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 9, 2009)

I too received a free sneak peek and had a reaction similar to Piratecat's - fun, useful if you want to see a 3.5 dungeon develop over time, seems a bit pricy for what you get, easy to navigate.  I don't know that I would feel comfortable actually running a dungeon when only some of the rooms are ready to go, so I could see folks holding off for a while before signing up.  I will share more opinions as I get a chance to read through some of the material in depth.


----------



## avin (Mar 9, 2009)

Count me as one people who are not really fond of dungeons. Almost all people who play around here, even some that started with 1E, would rather play a less door to door game.

While I like Toee (PC game) and Diablo if I had to find an example for dungeons I would go with Ultima Underworld II and Ultima VIII.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Mar 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Fork away. The upshot of your empirical evidence is that there is a huge market for non-dungeon adventures that has been underserved for decades.




One could certainly make that case in terms of the historical quantity of published titles (though I suspect a more thorough examination would put the ratio closer to 3:1 or 5:1 rather than 20:1). But maybe not in terms of what gets purchased and, more to the point, played.

Consider the adventures that get talked about here on EN World. Yes, WLD spawned a ginormous thread, but by and large the adventures that have sparked conversation have been the Dungeon/Paizo adventure paths, Red Hand of Doom, and things like that.

Of course, it may be that these sorts of adventures simply give us more to talk about by their nature. But I wonder if it isn't more than that: I suspect that these are some of the best-selling adventures of the recent era. And because they cover longer story arcs, they represent a LOT of play.

I also suspect that homemade campaigns skew very, very heavily toward non-dungeon play. I can only cite anecdotal experience, but the last time I personally experienced a home-designed dungeon in the true D&D sense of the word was probably 1982.

Finally, when you cite WotC, don't forget that their adventures aren't "all dungeon, all the time" either. KotS was only 50% to 70% dungeon, with wilderness, town, and social encounters a big part of it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 10, 2009)

But how much of "wilderness" counts when the "wilderness" encounters basically boil down to that? Encounters? 

First time on road fight kobolds.

Second time make perception check to not get ambushed by kobolds. 

Third time fight kobolds in their caves.

I'm not seeing that as being significantly different than dungeon crawling just because it's outside.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 10, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Or Goodman Games - a company whose popularity is pretty much due to classic dungeon crawls, all 50+ of them.




I just started playing these and I'm having so much fun.  If you love dungeons but you haven't already played every one of them like DaveMage and Nellisir, I recommend this thread or this list where you can see reviews and find out which ones you'll like.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 10, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> One could certainly make that case in terms of the historical quantity of published titles (though I suspect a more thorough examination would put the ratio closer to 3:1 or 5:1 rather than 20:1). But maybe not in terms of what gets purchased and, more to the point, played.




The strongest "data" point of anecdotal evidence, as far as I am concerned, is those adventures that enter into the zeitgeist of D&D. 

There's a reason that Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics have the words, "No NPCs that aren't meant to be killed!" proudly displayed on the cover. It's funny because it's true. 

And Goodman Games built an entire company on the back of the DCCs by tapping into the zeitgeist.

If there's an untapped market out there, somebody really ought to get on it and give Joseph some competition. 

But it won't be me because I play beer-and-pretzels, hack-and-slash D&D. 

I'm a Philistine, I know...



> Consider the adventures that get talked about here on EN World.




Don't be silly. ENworld isn't representative of gamers at large! 

Snark aside, let's be frank: We _are _a different sort. We're all food critics, sitting around insisting that McDonalds must be failing because _nobody _in our social circle eats fast food hamburgers.



> Finally, when you cite WotC, don't forget that their adventures aren't "all dungeon, all the time" either. KotS was only 50% to 70% dungeon, with wilderness, town, and social encounters a big part of it.






JoeGKushner said:


> But how much of "wilderness" counts when the "wilderness" encounters basically boil down to that? Encounters? I'm not seeing that as being significantly different than dungeon crawling just because it's outside.




If the encounter boils down to a tactical engagement where the object is to kill the enemy and loot the bodies-- regardless of where it happens-- I'd say you're playing to the strengths of the core game.

And let's not be dismissive of the dungeon format as if it is nothing but dozens of rooms strung together with absolutely no pretense for either the monsters or the PCs to be there. "Dungeon" simply does not equate to "No story and no interesting NPCs."

I note that Monte didn't launch his new venture with "Interesting-NPC-With-Whom-You-Can-Roleplay-a-Day."


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> There's a reason that Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics have the words, "No NPCs that aren't meant to be killed!" proudly displayed on the cover. It's funny because it's true.



It think it's unfortunate.  That particular marketing strategy plays to the caricature, and helps reinforce it.  If it were taken as a joke, that would be one thing.  But it's most often _not_ taken as a joke, but rather as an actual defining characteristic of old-school dungeon play.  It's not just Goodman that's done that; Necromancer Games did something similar with Rappan Athuk's ad copy.  It makes me frown in the same way that saying "dungeon crawls suck because they're completely random and ridiculous -- just look at the random dungeon generator in the 1e DMG" makes me frown.

Like most caricatures, there's an element of truth in the outlandish exaggeration.  For example, my dungeon-centered games all have the underlying premise that the PCs start out seeking "fortune and glory," so looting the lairs of Chaos for gold and jewels and certainly a big part of play.  And, as I mentioned before, I like the concept of an underworld with mythic/mystic properties, so that the dungeon doesn't necessarily play by the same laws of reality as the normal world.  But that doesn't mean that the dungeon is ridiculous or doesn't make sense or have its own consistency and verisimilitude.  I just wish the caricature didn't have such widespread acceptance as "this defines the dungeon crawl."


----------



## Mark (Mar 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I note that Monte didn't launch his new venture with "Interesting-NPC-With-Whom-You-Can-Roleplay-a-Day."





There must have been a sale on hyphens.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 10, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> It think it's unfortunate.  That particular marketing strategy plays to the caricature, and helps reinforce it.  If it were taken as a joke, that would be one thing.  But it's most often _not_ taken as a joke, but rather as an actual defining characteristic of old-school dungeon play.




Yes, as it's unfortunate that McDonald's hamburgers are cheap and greasy and fast....

... and they've sold billions of them.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 10, 2009)

I just listened to the podcast and I think it is a move in the right direction in the evolution of marketing products for gamers.  Years back, Phil Reed did DM's Idea Pipeline which lasted two years.  I see this in a nice spin off of that idea.  I think Monte will do very well with this, but I do think other companies will copy this idea and start using it for their own product lines also.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 10, 2009)

lmpjr007 said:


> I do think other companies will copy this idea and start using it for their own product lines also.




Anybody in particular?


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Anybody in particular?



Any company looking to have a regualr source of income coming in.  

Using Monte cook as a source, if you get 50 monthly member at $7 each that is $350 monthly.  Not a ton of money but if you think about it from a business point of view, that would pay for any where between roughly 12K to 35K words (1 to 3 cents per word) of work.  As a business you could do the first few months yourself, then pay for one or two months worth of a "sub writer" who ghost writes for you, while you work on another project to make you even more money.  Plus when you get enough online material, you convert it to a POD book that you sell at Lulu or direct with Paizo.  Even more money is generated.

...And that is just with 50 memebers.  How many subscribers do you think Monte will get?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Anybody in particular?



Grimtaleaday.com


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 10, 2009)

Noumenon said:


> I just started playing these and I'm having so much fun.  If you love dungeons but you haven't already played every one of them like DaveMage and Nellisir, I recommend this thread or this list where you can see reviews and find out which ones you'll like.




Just to be clear, I've never played a DCC adventure.  I own a few, but I've never run one either.  The only pre-written adventure/dungeon I ever ran was the very first one I ever ran, back in '91.  I'd have to look it up in Dungeon - it was a pretty straightforward "you inherit a castle - just clear out the hobgoblins and their carnivorous ape".  Everything from then on has been homebrew.


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 10, 2009)

The Dungeon is open for business now


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 10, 2009)

EDIT: doh silly double post

I'm in as a charter member!


----------



## GodDelusion (Mar 10, 2009)

Just purchased a quarterly subscription.  If it is as good as Monte's past work, I'm not going to regret it at all. If the final Pathfinder RPG were out now, I could drag my son's group from 4e and start this dungeon crawl sooner...


----------



## Vascant (Mar 10, 2009)

Erekose13 said:


> The Dungeon is open for business now




Yes, already purchased a charter subscription


----------



## avin (Mar 10, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> But how much of "wilderness" counts when the "wilderness" encounters basically boil down to that? Encounters?
> 
> First time on road fight kobolds.
> 
> ...




Experience varies, for sure, I think the significant difference is the idea of the encounter, not its mechanic.

In my experience, being attacked by kobold on a road rings more *realistic* than fighting kobolds in a room and beholders in other.

That said, I think both styles are good and can provide fine diversion if well executed.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 10, 2009)

OK, I'm a charter member.  Now where's my free toaster?


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 10, 2009)

Are any other members having trouble posting in the forums? I've tried three times now, but when I hit the "submit" button, I go back to the thread, and my post hasn't appeared. It's rather frustrating.


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 10, 2009)

I haven't had any trouble with the forums. I'm using Firefox 3.0.6 if that makes any difference.


----------



## boerngrim (Mar 10, 2009)

Nellisir said:


> Just to be clear, I've never played a DCC adventure. I own a few, but I've never run one either. The only pre-written adventure/dungeon I ever ran was the very first one I ever ran, back in '91. I'd have to look it up in Dungeon - it was a pretty straightforward "you inherit a castle - just clear out the hobgoblins and their carnivorous ape". Everything from then on has been homebrew.




LOL I remember that adventure! I ran it for a 1st level party. It was a fun little adventure.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 10, 2009)

Erekose13 said:


> I haven't had any trouble with the forums. I'm using Firefox 3.0.6 if that makes any difference.




I am too. 

To be clear, when you post in the forums, your posts are showing up immediately after you hit the "submit" button?


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 10, 2009)

Yup right away. You should be able to see a number of mine (Chris Cumming) in there.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 11, 2009)

Well, I just signed up as a charter member.  I am putting my trust in good ol' Monte to give me some good ideas, encounters, rooms and such.

I may be doing looking at these encounters with 4e in mind, so I might be sharing my thoughts on the forums.  I might even need to make some tweaks for 4e to the map areas and I'll share this with others as well.

Of course, this all means that I need to make the time to do it.... (no committments yet).


----------



## Odhanan (Mar 11, 2009)

Erekose13 said:


> Yup right away. You should be able to see a number of mine (Chris Cumming) in there.




No problems on my side of the screen either. I am on Firefox 3.0.7 myself.


----------



## Evil-B (Mar 11, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Gentlemen, I like dungeons.
> 
> Gentlemen, I like dungeons.
> 
> ...




I've got nothing substantial to add here, except that I'm a little scared that I immediately got the Hellsing reference..


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 11, 2009)

GodDelusion said:


> Just purchased a quarterly subscription.  If it is as good as Monte's past work, I'm not going to regret it at all. If the final Pathfinder RPG were out now, I could drag my son's group from 4e and start this dungeon crawl sooner...




We're getting closer!

Jason Bulmahn's primary design on the Pathfinder RPG is over, and the book is now in layout and editing. In a little more than a month, it will be at the printer!

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 12, 2009)

Odhanan said:


> No problems on my side of the screen either. I am on Firefox 3.0.7 myself.




I really have no idea why I can't post to his forums. I even tried from IE also, but the exact same thing happened.

Monte's been great about trying to help me out. He got back to me real fast when I emailed him about what was happening, but neither he nor I are sure what's going on in this regard, and it's frustrating because I really want to post in the forums there.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 12, 2009)

I"m going to hold off for a while.

I suspect at some point we'll see some type of print compilation and if by that point my group wants do to some 'retro' gaming, I may look into it.

It it was half the price for the monthly I might've scribbed for a month just to mess around with it.

I'm the type of 'electronic' reader with DDI who goes to Dragon and Dungeon once a month and downloads the compiled PDF. 

This sounds very interesting but the game system and the format are not a fit for me.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 12, 2009)

Edit: This post is dumb because you don't have to subscribe for a full year if you don't want to.

The only thing that isn't as awesome as I thought it would be is the pricing.  $7 a month, autodeduct from my credit card?  I'd be signed up already.  $84, up front?  I could buy something else with that.  I don't think I'd start playing World of Warcraft either if they told me it was $180 to start instead of $15/month.


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 12, 2009)

You can pay for it quarterly for I think it was 27$ and have it come off automatically (or monthly, but at a higher rate ($10)), though the yearly price is going to rise to $96 after a while.

I'm not sure that he is planning on doing a compilation (he has replied that he isn't in the member forums).  The idea is that the site is a platform for using during the planning or even during the session rather than in a compiled format.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 12, 2009)

I would subscribe quarterly if I were allowed to cancel after that quarter.  $27 is not too much up front.  If it's worth it, I'll know by then and can go for the yearly rate.


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 12, 2009)

I'm pretty sure that it works that way.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 12, 2009)

Erekose13 said:


> You can pay for it quarterly for I think it was 27$ and have it come off automatically (or monthly, but at a higher rate ($10)), though the yearly price is going to rise to $96 after a while.
> 
> I'm not sure that he is planning on doing a compilation (he has replied that he isn't in the member forums).  The idea is that the site is a platform for using during the planning or even during the session rather than in a compiled format.




Yeah.... about that...

He's left the RPG industry a few times now. "Ah, one more PDF. That went well. Another PDF. Hey, Paizo, let's put together a hardcover of this material." So yeah, I suspect we'll see, maybe a year or two down the road, a Pazio published full color book that has some... inpsiration coming from this. Heck, maybe even some Kobold Design style mini-PDF's from it. Monte's not going to let potential work not be put to all of it's uses in the name of exclusitivity I believe. (and I could be 100% wrong about that!)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 12, 2009)

I hope he does do it (put out a hardcover of this when it is done).

I'm really enjoying watching Wolfgang Baur's Open Design project "Halls of the Mountain King" come into existence and grow. I'll be stoked to have a copy of it when it is all done.

Same for Monte. I'm planning on subscribing for the year. What will make me sad is if I have to keep paying forever to not lose the neat stuff there. I'm going to want to revisit it 10 years down the road, and I'll want to be able to do so without paying $7 a month for 10 years.


But as stated, Monte does have a pattern of changing his mind and releasing material in multiple media.

There was the Delver's Guild pdf, which was supposed to be limited only to Ptolus preorders, if I recall correctly (and I may not, I wasn't in on this way back then, so I don't know for sure).


In any case, I guess my point is that I will subscribe AND I want a hardcover version of it when it is all said and done...or even several hardcovers or softcovers or pdfs released as levels are completed.


----------



## Noumenon (Mar 12, 2009)

I'm sorry, I misread the subscription plan in my own unique way and got the impression it was all yearly subscriptions, no true month-to-month.  It's fine.


----------



## Erekose13 (Mar 12, 2009)

Too true, he does release things if there is enough call for it from the community. I think the Spell Treasury was another one that people were calling for and so he went and did it.  The Delver's Guild stuff was just for us preorder people, but I'm glad that everyone had a chance to buy it a year or so down the road. I'm always against closed content being closed for ever and I'm glad that Wolfgang keeps past projects open to the patrons of the next project as that allows at least a few more people to get in on the goodness.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 12, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> I really have no idea why I can't post to his forums. I even tried from IE also, but the exact same thing happened.
> 
> Monte's been great about trying to help me out. He got back to me real fast when I emailed him about what was happening, but neither he nor I are sure what's going on in this regard, and it's frustrating because I really want to post in the forums there.




I'm happy to report that I'm now able to post in the forums!

I really want to thank Monte for all the help he provided in fixing this issue for me. A lot of companies, and people, I know wouldn't have gone to so much trouble for one customer with a relatively minor problem, but Monte stayed with it, contacting his provider multiple times until things were fixed. He really went the distance, and it makes me happy to be a part of the new community he's building.


----------

