# Orcus of Necromancer Games says "You were right, I was wrong"



## Orcus (Oct 8, 2009)

Hi everyone.

It's been awhile. 

Normally I wouldn't talk about new releases here in the main forum. But I'm going to. Why? Because many of you were right and I was wrong. Yep. I said it. I was wrong.

What are you talking about you crazy demon lord, you might say. 

Back when 3.5 "officially" ended and 4E started many of you may remember me being 4E's big cheerleader. Well, I still feel the same way about -wanting- to support 4E. But I dont want to get off track. At that time we (meaning me, my partner Bill disagreed but deferred to my wishes on this issue at the time) decided to hold three products we had in the can, essentially. The plan was to retool them and release them for 4E. That plan was thwarted by many things--WotC and the GSL 1.0 and all sorts of factors discussed ad infinitum before. During that process, my position was "dont worry it will all work out and we will have these great 4E modules!" Turns out I was wrong. It didnt all work out. 

So here I am. Ready to eat crow. Go ahead. Give it to me 

Of course, the end result is that some of you get a win/win--you get to tell me you were right and I was wrong AND you get access to those three awesome adventures. When you read them you will see why I was so stoked to do them for 4E (not to play favorites, but in particular Slumbering Tsar). 

Here's the link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/publis...mancer-vault-opens-lost-modules-released.html

So all of you who said you would be starving for 3E adventure goodness (or evil badness as the case may be) come on in! The tomb is open! The vault doors thrown aside! And I have to stand here and admit I should have released them over a year ago. 

Better late than never I guess. 

Clark


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 8, 2009)

I'm sorry to hear things did not work out as planned. I can't think of anyone who did more to try to make the edition change a positive thing for fans of thirty party products. It's good to see you posting.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 8, 2009)

So what does Necromancer Games plan to do?  Try to get in on 4th Edition?  Stay with 3.5 until it dies?  Jump on a retro-clone?  Hibernate (for forever perhaps)?


----------



## Kzach (Oct 8, 2009)

So there's no way to release adventures under the 4e GSL?


----------



## Orcus (Oct 8, 2009)

Kzach said:


> So there's no way to release adventures under the 4e GSL?




I wont say "no way." It was just proving to be a difficult thing to do for lots of reasons. And the adventures we had done were all awesome (in particular Greg's Slumbering Tsar is amazing) and the fans had just waited long enough. Bill convinced me it was time to just let them be released as 3.5 pdfs. 

Clark


----------



## Rechan (Oct 8, 2009)

I'm sad these couldn't be 4e. But, it's mighty big of you Orcus.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 8, 2009)

You're a quality act, Clark.

Still hoping WotC will see that too...


----------



## delericho (Oct 8, 2009)

Oh no! More support for my edition of choice! Whatever shall I do? 

Seriously, though, it's unfortunate that you couldn't make it work. Perhaps you'll find a way in the future.

If it's any consolation, encounter design in 4e appears to be sufficiently different from 3.5e that I would suspect an adventure designed for 4e from the outset would probably work better than an adventure initially designed for 3.5e and then ported over. So the end result is that those three adventures might make for a more satisfying experience in their 'native' edition.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 8, 2009)

Converting a module certainly is more work than just posting a bunch of stat blocks.

Generally you would want to bunch together three 3E encounters or so into a single 4E encounter.

And tweak the map to match. And by "tweak", I don't just mean "enlarge", but also "spruce" - the expectations on the presence of exciting terrain from a quality 4E 'venture are simply higher.

So yes, making a d20 -> 4E conversion without involving the cartographer is probably not a good idea.


----------



## Snoweel (Oct 8, 2009)

I told you so.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 8, 2009)

Will this adventures be available as POD at some point in the future?


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 8, 2009)

Per Bill on the Necro boards, they are working on a POD option, but no timetable yet.

DriveThru recently announced that they are moving to a POD option on many titles, but IIRC, that's going to take a few months to get that up and running.


----------



## Belphanior (Oct 8, 2009)

Uhm... I understand why the Publishers & Press Releases post was made, but doesn't this "I admit I was wrong" story look like a method to slip an add in under the radar? Essentially he's telling us he's got three new products we can buy from him, and maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this particular sub-forum isn't the place for that?


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 8, 2009)

Seriously though, am I reading this right or are these each running around $20 for a PDF? Will the market bear that kind of price? because I can't see myself paying that.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Oct 8, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I wont say "no way." It was just proving to be a difficult thing to do for lots of reasons. And the adventures we had done were all awesome (in particular Greg's Slumbering Tsar is amazing) and the fans had just waited long enough. Bill convinced me it was time to just let them be released as 3.5 pdfs.
> 
> Clark




I would be interested in knowing what makes the release of 4E adventures difficult in your opinion. Other 3rd party publishers are releasing 4E adventures, so what makes the prospect difficult for Necromancer Games?


----------



## kenmarable (Oct 8, 2009)

Remus Lupin said:


> Seriously though, am I reading this right or are these each running around $20 for a PDF? Will the market bear that kind of price? because I can't see myself paying that.



Wait, what happened to the "Pathfinder Effect" causes PDF prices to drop to zero from one of those industry insider rants a while back? 

Yeah, they are pricey, but personally, I've always felt PDFs were undervalued, and as a market leader in adventures Necromancer Games can charge a premium. Plus these are 98 pages, 146 pages, and 226 pages in length. So the 98 page one might be iffy, but when you are looking at 146 to 226 page mini campaigns, that's still a great price regardless of the format - at least in my opinion.


Oh, and Clark, what's the level range on Slumbering Tsar? And are the next 2 parts of the trilogy on their way as well?

And awesome cover images, by the way! Whatever people want to say about AD&D 2e, I really loved the Elmore/Parkinson/Caldwell era of artwork and these images fit into that perfectly!


----------



## diaglo (Oct 8, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Better late than never I guess.
> 
> Clark




any chance you could release these as OD&D(1974) compatiable products?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 8, 2009)

I'm thinking about buying one of these 3.5 adventures just to stick it to Orcus. 

That'll show 'im.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 8, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> Uhm... I understand why the Publishers & Press Releases post was made, but doesn't this "I admit I was wrong" story look like a method to slip an add in under the radar? Essentially he's telling us he's got three new products we can buy from him, and maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this particular sub-forum isn't the place for that?




The ad is not the ultimate goal of the post, explaining his logic on why the products were delayed and why to go ahead and release them now was.  If he had just said the rest and not provided a link, one of the first responses would have been "Where can I find these new products?", and someone would have linked it.  

Besides, Clark seems to have earned a certain amount of latitude here on ENWorld over the years.  If you kept track of the saga that was involved in the 4E GSL at all, you will know how heavily involved he was and he was championing the edition and trying to help moderate a lot of flak that was being thrown around.  I don't have a lot of call for 3.5 personally, but I'm gald to see some more Necromancer stuff released, especially if it's high quality.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 8, 2009)

Clark - from one publisher to another - we're sorry things didn't work out.

But please, do tell us - what were the difficulties with the GSL/4E that made it less possible to release these particular adventures for 4th Edition?

EDIT: Also, is there a particular reason these weren't released for Pathfinder?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2009)

The pdf prices are too high for me, but a lot of Necromancer products are certainly premium.

I'm currently running _Vault of Larin Karr _for 4e and using the _Wilderlands of High Fantasy_ Boxed set for both 4e and Labyrinth Lord, both are great products.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 8, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> I told you so.




Yes you did


----------



## Orcus (Oct 8, 2009)

Belphanior said:


> Uhm... I understand why the Publishers & Press Releases post was made, but doesn't this "I admit I was wrong" story look like a method to slip an add in under the radar? Essentially he's telling us he's got three new products we can buy from him, and maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this particular sub-forum isn't the place for that?




I posted here, too, because back at the time of the 3 to 4E changeover there was a ton of discussion about the impact on the game and the game environment by this. Those of you who remember know what I am talking about. Multiple, multiple threads. So I figured it would be of interest for possible discussion. 

Also, if I am going to come in and say "you were right I was wrong" I didnt want to do it in the publisher thread--a much smaller thread--and risk looking like I'm dodging the full pelting I may take.  So I posted here in the big boy forum. 

Clark


----------



## S'mon (Oct 8, 2009)

Contrition + added sales!  A double win!


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 8, 2009)

Well, I told you so as well, but I don't think it really matters since I don't think I'm representative of a particularly large market

I pretty much thought they'd been going down the wrong road since 3.5.  Fantasycraft, while not perfectly what I'm interested in, seems to be more in the direction I wanted for the game than anything WotC ever wanted to do.

I admit I was never a big fan of your products to begin with, if only for the simple reason that I find Orcus to be a vastly over used and extremely trite and uninteresting villain.  I can't begin to count the number of modules he's been in but the number is now very large, and I never saw the attraction to begin with as he has to be the most dull and unimaginative fiend lord of the entire bunch.  Please diversify your upcoming adventure products if you hope to attract my interest.

However, I do have some of your 3rd edition Ravenloft products which I found to be quite good.  And of course, I picked up a copy of 'Lost City of Barakus', which is one of the better 'super modules' of the era.


----------



## Stereofm (Oct 8, 2009)

Before I get unereasonable with my budget again ... any chance of a print or Print on demand version ?

(yeah, had to ask, sorry)


----------



## Treebore (Oct 8, 2009)

Stereofm said:


> Before I get unereasonable with my budget again ... any chance of a print or Print on demand version ?
> 
> (yeah, had to ask, sorry)




As previously posted, Bill is working on a POD with Drivethru, who is still months away from being able to offer it.


----------



## Belphanior (Oct 8, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I posted here, too, because back at the time of the 3 to 4E changeover there was a ton of discussion about the impact on the game and the game environment by this. Those of you who remember know what I am talking about. Multiple, multiple threads. So I figured it would be of interest for possible discussion.
> 
> Also, if I am going to come in and say "you were right I was wrong" I didnt want to do it in the publisher thread--a much smaller thread--and risk looking like I'm dodging the full pelting I may take.  So I posted here in the big boy forum.
> 
> Clark




Alright, that works for me. 

And I took a break from ENWorld around that time because things were, uh... a little hot back then.


----------



## Skywalker (Oct 8, 2009)

Orcus said:


> It was just proving to be a difficult thing to do for lots of reasons.




I would be interested to here what those lots of reasons were. Though 3PP rules material is proving difficult under the GSL, adventures are prime candidates.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 8, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> However, I do have some of your 3rd edition Ravenloft products which I found to be quite good.




Did Necromancer do Ravenloft products during 3e? I only recall White Wolf/Sword & Sorcery doing them.

Unless I'm just trippin' and didn't notice Clark's name on any of the SSS Ravenloft stuff I have.


----------



## Henry (Oct 8, 2009)

Personally, I have no problem with where Clark put this. I'm not actively moderating these days, though, so if someone comes along and contradicts me, don't let that freak anyone out. 

Clark, we'e all had a "don't see the forest for the trees" moment. As great a job as I think the 4E Design team has done, and as much as I respect all Scott Rouse goes to bat for us gamers, I'm still very unhappy with the GSL and PDF situations that Wotc Brass has settled on - but I'm glad the OGL still shines to pick up the ball. 

Keep rockin', oh Horned Ruler of the Undead.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 8, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I posted here, too, because back at the time of the 3 to 4E changeover there was a ton of discussion about the impact on the game and the game environment by this. Those of you who remember know what I am talking about. Multiple, multiple threads. So I figured it would be of interest for possible discussion.
> 
> Also, if I am going to come in and say "you were right I was wrong" I didnt want to do it in the publisher thread--a much smaller thread--and risk looking like I'm dodging the full pelting I may take.  So I posted here in the big boy forum.
> 
> Clark




First half of your post is relevant to what you just said.

Second half is an ad, which belongs in either a signature or a different forum or both.

Sets a bad precedent in my opinion.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 8, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> Did Necromancer do Ravenloft products during 3e? I only recall White Wolf/Sword & Sorcery doing them.
> 
> Unless I'm just trippin' and didn't notice Clark's name on any of the SSS Ravenloft stuff I have.




Technically, Arthaus did 3E Ravenloft, and World of Warcraft, and like Necromancer Games PUBLISHED via White Wold under the Sword and Sorcery banner. Other publishers, such as Malhavoc and Fiery Dragon did the same at one point in time.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Oct 8, 2009)

Psh, given how hard it is for some folks to admit a mistake, doing so in the main forum is pretty admirable.  I also agree that if he hadn't posted the product info, somebody would have asked.

Just as long as we don't get a rash of product announcements in the form of confessionals.   "I forgot to feed my dog, so come buy my new module done in tribute, _Bloodhound Pass_!"


----------



## ruemere (Oct 8, 2009)

Mistwell said:


> First half of your post is relevant to what you just said.
> 
> Second half is an ad, which belongs in either a signature or a different forum or both.
> 
> Sets a bad precedent in my opinion.




Actually, you're not entirely correct. The link leads to press release located at "EN World D&D / RPG News > Industry Forums > Publishers & Press Releases". The product are not even named or presented (except Slumbering Tsar).
It's an ad in a sense every post with a link leading to any press release or publisher's site is. It's a gray zone since Clark's an official representative...

IMHO, the apologies should go mostly to modules' authors whose products were kept on a shelf for such a long time. Personally, my only gripe is that there is no print version - I am not a big fan of reading PDFs.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Orcus (Oct 9, 2009)

ruemere said:


> Personally, my only gripe is that there is no print version - I am not a big fan of reading PDFs.




Working on Print on Demand with DTRPG. That should be coming soon.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 9, 2009)

Skywalker said:


> I would be interested to here what those lots of reasons were. Though 3PP rules material is proving difficult under the GSL, adventures are prime candidates.




Seems like asking Clark to engage in a bit of needless stirring of the  if you ask me.


----------



## Skywalker (Oct 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Seems like asking Clark to engage in a bit of needless stirring of the  if you ask me.




Not really. I am interested in recent developments in 3PP with the GSL. OBE stopped for very specific reasons (rules material is difficult to do) and Adamant seems to have come to the conclusion that adventures are the most viable product under the GSL. As such, I am genuinely interested in why Necromancer considered that adventures were too difficult to release under the GSL. Any insights could be useful to other 3PP.

Was it something inherent in the GSL? Was it the time needed to learn the ins and outs of the GSL? Was it due to the need to include new rules information?


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2009)

Well this makes me more than a little sad. I love Necromancer Games products, and own just about all of them, but 4E is my edition of choice. While I'm happy they'll be released, they're not for me, and I won't be purchasing them.

Why should anyone care? You probably shouldn't, except that I've been a Necromancer fan since day one, and they would have been a slam dunk for me if they were created for an edition I actually played.

It sounds like this was a choice of "release them in 3x or not at all," in which case I'm glad they came out for fans of the old system...but it's sad that WotC couldn't work something out with someone as reasonable as the Necro guys.

--Steve


----------



## Tharkun (Oct 9, 2009)

It takes more to man up to admitting ones mistakes than not and for that you are worth more respect than some.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 9, 2009)

Thanks, Clark! I am curious as to NG's future products as well. Particularly if we will see the remainder of the Slumbering Tsar trilogy? I will probably still buy it, but I want to know before getting into it.


----------



## carmachu (Oct 9, 2009)

No need to give you a hard time, I already did the last time you posted and said it was ironically funny.

I'll chek them out, thanks.


----------



## carmachu (Oct 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Per Bill on the Necro boards, they are working on a POD option, but no timetable yet.
> 
> DriveThru recently announced that they are moving to a POD option on many titles, but IIRC, that's going to take a few months to get that up and running.





thats the best news I have heard in ages. I dont do PDFs....


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Oct 9, 2009)

This is really disappointing; I had been looking forward to Necromancer 4E adventures to not only use, but also to win a bet. I fear Erik Mona is almost certain to force me to eat a sock now.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 9, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Well this makes me more than a little sad. I love Necromancer Games products....but 4E is my edition of choice. While I'm happy they'll be released, they're not for me, and I won't be purchasing them.
> 
> ...I've been a Necromancer fan since day one, and they would have been a slam dunk for me if they were created for an edition I actually played.
> 
> It sounds like this was a choice of "release them in 3x or not at all," in which case I'm glad they came out for fans of the old system..




All of this.

Glad to finally see SOMETHING, ANYYYYTHINGGG out of Necro , but sad to see it's more 3.X material. If you ever publish some 4E adventures (In print) Clark, you've got my money without me batting an eyelash. For that matter, I'd buy Necro stuff for the retroclones or C&C (though that is a bigger pipedream than 4E I'm sure  )


----------



## Skywalker (Oct 9, 2009)

SteveC said:


> ...but it's sad that WotC couldn't work something out with someone as reasonable as the Necro guys.




Is that the case though? It isn't clear from Orcus' posts. The GSL is out and 3PP are finding that adventures (above all products) are possible and profitable to publish under it. Did Necormancer encounter an issue with the GSL or was it some other reason?


----------



## Treebore (Oct 9, 2009)

Skywalker said:


> Is that the case though? It isn't clear from Orcus' posts. The GSL is out and 3PP are finding that adventures (above all products) are possible and profitable to publish under it. Did Necormancer encounter an issue with the GSL or was it some other reason?





One possibility may be if the GSL would still interfere with how they publish their other products?


Again, if that wasn't changed in the newest GSL.


----------



## Skywalker (Oct 9, 2009)

Treebore said:


> One possibility may be if the GSL would still interfere with how they publish their other products?
> 
> Again, if that wasn't changed in the newest GSL.




I agree that could be the issue. However, I thought that had all been changed in the last GSL iteration.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 9, 2009)

thatdarnedbob said:


> This is really disappointing; I had been looking forward to Necromancer 4E adventures to not only use, but also to win a bet. I fear Erik Mona is almost certain to force me to eat a sock now.




This doesnt mean we wont ever do 4E products or Pathfinder ones. Its just that these products had sat around long enough. It was time to get them out. I should have done that back in the day when everyone said "no, get them out now, dont hold them, dont convert them, we want 3E adventures." I didn't listen. 

I dont want to punish the fans by making people wait to see these products until we get everything in order for what our future plans might hold. No need to do that. So we decided, at Bill's urging, to open these up and let them out. 

Clark


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 9, 2009)

Skywalker said:


> I agree that could be the issue. However, I thought that had all been changed in the last GSL iteration.




Yeah, the so-called "poison pill" clause was removed and an opt-out option was added.

I'm curious as to what it is about these adventures that prevented them from being 4e products.


----------



## Kzach (Oct 9, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Working on Print on Demand with DTRPG. That should be coming soon.




I recently read that some sort of photocopier thingymajigga had been released as a business machine that could POD pretty much any book in mere minutes. The idea being that bookstores would buy them and you could just walk in and ask for a paperback and a coffee and get both to go.

If that kind of thing takes off, print-ready PDFs could be a huge new market. Imagine being able to offer your products to any bookstore with virtually zero distribution costs!

Could be cool.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 9, 2009)

Skywalker said:


> Is that the case though? It isn't clear from Orcus' posts. The GSL is out and 3PP are finding that adventures (above all products) are possible and profitable to publish under it. Did Necormancer encounter an issue with the GSL or was it some other reason?




To be fair, not many 3pp release GSL adventures. GG still do the OGL 4e thing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 9, 2009)

Orcus said:


> I dont want to punish the fans by making people wait to see these products until we get everything in order for what our future plans might hold. No need to do that. So we decided, at Bill's urging, to open these up and let them out.



Rock on, Clark, for you rock mightily.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 9, 2009)

I give much praise and respect...for the courage you muster to do this.

The eagerness to join the 4E flegding path, put many works for 3.5 (as said already,  already'in the can') on the bench.

Folks who spent sweat and maybe tears, getting those projects to completion, only then to be told later, sorry...can't release it right now, due to a 'new edition' on the horizon, was simply...bullocks.

I will digress there...

But to see, that clarity finally came forth...means that business for either 'edition' can be served almost equally, if wanted.

I am not the one of the "I told you so" crowd. But I will be the one to say...Thank you for gaining that extra point wisdom, on seeing the bigger picture that surrounds you.

Peace.



Orcus said:


> Hi everyone.
> 
> It's been awhile.
> 
> ...


----------



## thatdarnedbob (Oct 9, 2009)

Orcus said:


> This doesnt mean we wont ever do 4E products or Pathfinder ones. Its just that these products had sat around long enough. It was time to get them out. I should have done that back in the day when everyone said "no, get them out now, dont hold them, dont convert them, we want 3E adventures." I didn't listen.
> 
> I dont want to punish the fans by making people wait to see these products until we get everything in order for what our future plans might hold. No need to do that. So we decided, at Bill's urging, to open these up and let them out.
> 
> Clark




I would love to see you guys put something 4E out in the future! But in the meantime, Erik Mona is going to make me eat a sock. A SOCK, Clark! Can you imagine the horror?


----------



## amethal (Oct 9, 2009)

thatdarnedbob said:


> I would love to see you guys put something 4E out in the future! But in the meantime, Erik Mona is going to make me eat a sock. A SOCK, Clark! Can you imagine the horror?



What would have happened if you'd won? If Erik Mona would be eating a sock instead, its hard to have any sympathy for you. 

I'm delighted that the 3.5 PDFs are now available. However, I'm going to wait for the POD and buy them all that way. (Am I the only one who gets flashbacks to the GSL whenever someone posts on EnWorld that something will be available "soon"?)


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 9, 2009)

Up until now, I hadn't realized that Goodman Games aren't using the GSL for their adventures. Go figure... so - essentially NO ONE uses the GSL for adventures, do they?

Speaking of that - with Adamant publishing outside of both OGL and GSL, Goodman using the OGL for their adventures - isn't it possible for Necromancer to release this under the OGL but for 4E? Or is that... just too late?


----------



## Echohawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> Up until now, I hadn't realized that Goodman Games aren't using the GSL for their adventures. Go figure... so - essentially NO ONE uses the GSL for adventures, do they?




I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:

1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.

2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.


----------



## malkav666 (Oct 9, 2009)

Well I am glad to finally see these (but I wil be holding out on purchase until you get POD worked out). I am also stoked that they are NOT for 4e  Keep up the 3.x/PF stuff coming, get a POD system set up, and I will open my wallet and give you money for it.

Its so very cool that OGL survived, and that all of the folks that made me love 3.x with their support are still using it to make games, and support the game that I love.

Oh, BTW, you need to go ahead and make a horrors book for PF. I have a good feeling that it would sell pretty dang well.

love,

malkav


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 9, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.
> 
> 2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.




Well, you're wrong since I just checked their Adventures out. OGL. NO GSL.

1. They DO have products under the GSL. Paths to Prestige for example. And you can still sign the GSL without producing product under it.

2. No, it includes companies having signed up for the GSL. And, as stated above, OTHER products of Goodmans use the GSL.

Not to be rude - but fact-checking is kinda cool, atleast that's what I hear.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 9, 2009)

Clark,
I too was an advocate of 4e (as a player not a publisher)  but have since run into...um ethical, reasons as to why I can't play 4e - I'm a fat beard, historical, fantasy masher - too much money, too much magic and too much "tactical role" assigning is involved.   

I had to apologize to people I knew after the PHB came out and it sucked on a personal level.  I have no idea how hard it would be or was to have to do it in front of this crowd (no offense folks but we can be a BIT over the top in our criticisms...sometimes ).   I applaud you and laud you for your contrition and your downright bravery under the circumstances. 

I have never been a fan of Necromancers products, just not my cup of tea, but I will say you guys have ALWAYS been a class act in publishing and this proves that all the more.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 9, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.
> 
> 2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.




Nope. I own all of them and they all have the OGL page inside. 

AFAIK EN publishing and its War of the Burning Sky are the only (decent or better) adventures published via the GSL. There has been a few others, but to be honest, they have been mediocre at best.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 9, 2009)

@Jack99 From a publishing view I'm wondering - since you've probably read them all - are there any differences between say ENP's War of the Burning Sky or GGs DCCs? I mean, related to their choice of license?


----------



## Echohawk (Oct 9, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> Well, you're wrong since I just checked their Adventures out. OGL. NO GSL.
> 
> Not to be rude - but fact-checking is kinda cool, atleast that's what I hear.



No worries, I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong . I would have checked the adventures directly for the OGL/GSL, but alas I don't own any, so my fact-checking was limited to investigating their web site. The explanation that they are producing both OGL and GSL makes perfect sense, even if it is a little odd. I wonder why they split their products like that?


----------



## ggroy (Oct 9, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think it is true that Goodman are not using the GSL for their 4e adventures, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. They have a prominent "for use with Dungeons & Dragons" logo on their main 4e product page. I don't think they can use that without having signed the GSL.
> 
> 2. They are listed on the WotC partnerships page, which I believe includes only companies producing GSL products.






Echohawk said:


> No worries, I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm wrong . I would have checked the adventures directly for the OGL/GSL, but alas I don't own any, so my fact-checking was limited to investigating their web site. The explanation that they are producing both OGL and GSL makes perfect sense, even if it is a little odd. I wonder why they split their products like that?




Looking at Goodman's 4E product page, it looks like the Forgotten Heroes, Hero's Handbook, Monstercology, etc ... line of books have "4E (GSL)" explicitly mentioned.

The Dungeon Crawl Classics and Master Dungeons lines don't have GSL mentioned, where they only mention "4E".  Goodman is smart enough to know to keep the company's "crown jewels" away in a separate entity (ie. OGL) that they have more control over.

They probably know very well that if the GSL product lines of Forgotten Heroes, Hero's Handbook, Monstercology, etc ... were to simply disappear from the market tomorrow, the company would still have other viable product lines.

On the other hand, if the Dungeon Crawl Classics and Master Dungeons product lines were to disappear from the market, I wonder what else the company would have that hardcore gamers would buy.

EDIT:  Last I checked out several local FLGS, the owners mentioned that the Forgotten Heroes books have largely been collecting dust ever since they were released.  This was especially the case for the "Fang, Fist, and Song" book, after the 4E PHB2 was released.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 9, 2009)

SteveC said:


> Well this makes me more than a little sad. I love Necromancer Games products, and own just about all of them, but 4E is my edition of choice. While I'm happy they'll be released, they're not for me, and I won't be purchasing them.
> 
> Why should anyone care? You probably shouldn't, except that I've been a Necromancer fan since day one, and they would have been a slam dunk for me if they were created for an edition I actually played.



This is pretty much my position as well. 

I own just about everything Necromancer Games did for 3.x, and most in both print and PDF, but since I am playing 4e now, I really don't have a need for more 3.x adventures.  I have more than I will ever need already.  

But if this was released for 4e, I would have bought all of them.

I am among the other EnWorld members and Necro fans that want to know why there was a difficulty getting this done for 4e?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 9, 2009)

Orcus said:


> This doesnt mean we wont ever do 4E products or Pathfinder ones. Its just that these products had sat around long enough. It was time to get them out. I should have done that back in the day when everyone said "no, get them out now, dont hold them, dont convert them, we want 3E adventures." I didn't listen.



I'd love to see some Necromancer 4e goodness.  Get us a module, and you'll get my money.


----------



## Retreater (Oct 9, 2009)

My guess (and only IMHO) is that the reason NG isn't producing 4e adventures is that neither the owners of NG nor their stable of writers like 4e sufficiently to produce material for it. Since the release of 4e, their boards have been pretty slow, with few people talking about 4e games they are playing. 

If the Demon Lords of NG and their writers were stoked about 4e, I think nothing would stop them from writing kick @ss adventures for 4e. 

As for me, a longtime NG fan and regular visitor on their boards, I have to say that I haven't played D&D (in any edition) in over 6 months. (I haven't played a session of 4e since July 08.) 4e's release pretty much stalled the momentum of the tabletop gaming hobby in my area, and I would imagine that others are the same.

I say that NG should continue to produce what they want to make. If they're not feeling 4e, then don't do it. There are plenty of people still playing 3.5 (and Pathfinder).

Retreater


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 9, 2009)

I don't take this as "they can't do 4E", I take it as, "these were already finished and we want to be paid for the work we've already done on them, not totally re-write and re-design these specific 3 products, thus doing the work twice but only profiting once." 

The encounter design from 3E to 4E would mean major re-writes of these already finished modules. It's most likely more trouble than it would be worth. 

That's the impression I get at least.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm happy to see Necromancer release these for 3.5.

I'm even happier to see Clark posting again even if it is just for a mea culpa.  I had started to wonder if Orcus was gone for good from the boards.


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 9, 2009)

Retreater said:


> My guess (and only IMHO) is that the reason NG isn't producing 4e adventures is that neither the owners of NG nor their stable of writers like 4e sufficiently to produce material for it. Since the release of 4e, their boards have been pretty slow, with few people talking about 4e games they are playing.
> 
> If the Demon Lords of NG and their writers were stoked about 4e, I think nothing would stop them from writing kick @ss adventures for 4e.




Well Clark is both the mouthpiece and co-owner of Necromancer Games, as well as an author of various bits of material for them over the years.  He was also the biggest cheerleader on all of ENWorld for 4E and especially for 4E being opened up to 3rd party mor than it was originally set to be.  I really don't expect to hear that lack of enthusiasm for the edition is the problem, at least not for Clark.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 9, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> @Jack99 From a publishing view I'm wondering - since you've probably read them all - are there any differences between say ENP's War of the Burning Sky or GGs DCCs? I mean, related to their choice of license?




The differences seem very small, mostly layout-wise although of course there are a few things you can not do with the OGL, primarily in the reference department. 



SSquirrel said:


> Well Clark is both the mouthpiece and co-owner of Necromancer Games, as well as an author of various bits of material for them over the years.  He was also the biggest cheerleader on all of ENWorld for 4E and especially for 4E being opened up to 3rd party mor than it was originally set to be.  I really don't expect to hear that lack of enthusiasm for the edition is the problem, at least not for Clark.




Yeah, but the other half is (seems) less than enthusiastic about it, which doesn't push things forward. Although I do not think that is what has kept them from doing 4e products. If I am to hazard a guess, it's tied to the IP-problems that can arise, but your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 9, 2009)

IIRC, Clark had some minor issues with the 4E rules, but still very much wanted (wants?) to do products for it.

The licensing fiasco rained on that parade, and current market conditions do not seem to favor 3PP 4E products to the sales level Clark desires.  Will that change?  I doubt it, unless some integration with DDI for 3PP comes in the future - such as when they get that virtual tabletop thing working.   Playing your 4E Necromancer adventure on the VTT would be cool, eh?  (Well, to 4E players anyway.    )

WRT Pathfinder, Necromancer would essentially be competing with Paizo for adventures.  Good luck with that.    (I would certainly buy adventures from both companies, but the current market might not produce significant enough sales to the level NG desires.)  The problem is, the entire back-catalogue of Necro products is *already* compatible with Pathfinder.  It may be best to simply market/re-release that back catalogue to Pathfinder players rather than create new stuff.  (Or, perhaps update/convert the 3.0 modules like "Demons and Devils" to "Pathfinder-compatible".)


----------



## SSquirrel (Oct 9, 2009)

I believe in a previous Clark update for NG he had talked about the icy reception 3rd party companies were getting from distributors due to the current economic climate plus rembering the d20 glut.  A few less than popular products used to level out with the winners, but if everyone is buying less anyway and then people stick to the main system instead of the 3rd parties, stores and distributors get stuck with a lot of product, again.


----------



## Greg V (Oct 10, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I don't take this as "they can't do 4E", I take it as, "these were already finished and we want to be paid for the work we've already done on them, not totally re-write and re-design these specific 3 products, thus doing the work twice but only profiting once."
> 
> The encounter design from 3E to 4E would mean major re-writes of these already finished modules. It's most likely more trouble than it would be worth.
> 
> That's the impression I get at least.





I can't speak for Clark, but this hits the nail on the head for me and Slumbering Tsar.  Not only would be the update have been a near-total rewrite, but it would have drastically changed the feel and balance of the adventure as intended.  I'm not bashing 4e here,  I write for 3.5, 4e, and PF.  I'm just saying there is a very real difference in the technique of making them and the feel of what they produce, and ST is very much an atmospheric adventure.  The more frenetic style I have seen and written for 4e did not fit as well.  Now certainly 4e is continuing to develop and may already be to that point, but what I'm saying is that it was beyond my personal abilities at the time (there's my mea culpa ) to capture what I was trying to capture with the adventures and to do it in a 4e format.  Plus the trilogy clocks in at near 500,000 words (ST1 represents about 20% of the total), and converting all of that would have been far more than my schedule could have handled.

So there it is from the angle of ST1 for what it's worth...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 10, 2009)

Greg V said:


> I'm not bashing 4e here,  I write for 3.5, 4e, and PF.  I'm just saying there is a very real difference in the technique of making them and the feel of what they produce ... Now certainly 4e is continuing to develop and may already be to that point, but what I'm saying is that it was beyond my personal abilities at the time (there's my mea culpa ) to capture what I was trying to capture with the adventures and to do it in a 4e format.




I can second this, from my own personal experience, with my Dungeon adventure "The Last Breaths of Ashenport." I wrote it for 3.5, and then rewrote it for 4E--and honestly, I think a lot of the encounters suffered in the transition. It's not that 4E is incapable of handling the adventure, it's just that, at the time I was assigned to write the conversion, I wasn't as well versed in 4E as I am now. If I had to do it over again now, I'd make a lot more changes to the encounters--which would make the conversion better, yes, but also a lot harder to write.

All of which is a long way of saying that even if the adventure _could_ be rewritten for 4E, it's _not_ an easy thing to do, and I can absolutely understand why Greg--or anyone else--might not want to do it, or be comfortable trying.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 10, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The problem is, the entire back-catalogue of Necro products is *already* compatible with Pathfinder.  It may be best to simply market/re-release that back catalogue to Pathfinder players rather than create new stuff.  (Or, perhaps update/convert the 3.0 modules like "Demons and Devils" to "Pathfinder-compatible".)




I would certainly buy the older Necromancer modules updated to be Pathfinder-compatible.  I missed most of the older ones that were released through the Sword & Sorcery imprint during the 3E era.  By the time I found out about them, they were largely gone already (even from the bargain bins).

Better yet, some of the series of older modules repackaged as books updated to be Pathfinder-compatible.  (ie. Similar to what Expeditious Retreat Press is doing with their older 1-on-1 adventures modules).


----------



## dystmesis (Oct 10, 2009)

When is somebody going to make adventures that are Trailblazer compatible?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Oct 10, 2009)

Snoweel said:


> I told you so.



Still a fluffy bunny.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 10, 2009)

Greg V said:


> I can't speak for Clark, but this hits the nail on the head for me and Slumbering Tsar.  Not only would be the update have been a near-total rewrite, but it would have drastically changed the feel and balance of the adventure as intended.  I'm not bashing 4e here,  I write for 3.5, 4e, and PF.  I'm just saying there is a very real difference in the technique of making them and the feel of what they produce, and ST is very much an atmospheric adventure.  The more frenetic style I have seen and written for 4e did not fit as well.  Now certainly 4e is continuing to develop and may already be to that point, but what I'm saying is that it was beyond my personal abilities at the time (there's my mea culpa ) to capture what I was trying to capture with the adventures and to do it in a 4e format.  Plus the trilogy clocks in at near 500,000 words (ST1 represents about 20% of the total), and converting all of that would have been far more than my schedule could have handled.
> 
> So there it is from the angle of ST1 for what it's worth...



So, here you go, right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.  (OK, and it's always cool when the writer pops in and states the facts.   Thanks, Greg.)

This makes a lot of sense to me and with the adventure/scenario work I've done for my own game, I can faithfully claim that I had to have a paradigm shift when it came to designing a scene or encounter.   D&D 4e has a different feel to design than D&D 3.x, not necessarily better or worse.  (Though I must admit 4e is much easier with all the tools available from WOTC and the DDI.)


----------



## Orcus (Oct 10, 2009)

Greg is right on. Reworkings of 3E stuff for 4E--straight conversions, that is--just doesnt seem to work well. That means the whole adventure would need to be redone. That, frankly, is too much to ask of an author in my book. And you know what, I like 3.5. I like it alot. There are things about 4E I really like, but I have never jumped on the 3.5 is broken bandwagon. It had its faults, yes. But it is a great system.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 10, 2009)

I like 4E and run it every week, but much would be gained if WotC had been honest with themselves and branded 4E as a completely new game.

Converting is the right word when you transit from any previous edition to another previous edition. 

But when it comes to 4E, a better word is "recreating".

It's probably less work to move from 3E to 1st ed AD&D or the Rules Compendium edition of basic D&D than to 4E.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 10, 2009)

I do understand why NG didn't want to spend time, money and energy and convert the 3 adventures made for 3.5 as 4e adventures. 

I am however still infinitely disappointed at how Orcus let his 4e fans down. First he failed delivering the promised adventures and AP. Then he failed with his 4e classic project. Without a word it just faded into nothingness. 

It's a pity, but such is life. I hope that NG finds renewed success with Pathfinder or wherever Orcus and Scott choose to go. Hopefully our paths will cross again, maybe in 5e


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 10, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Greg is right on. Reworkings of 3E stuff for 4E--straight conversions, that is--just doesnt seem to work well. That means the whole adventure would need to be redone. That, frankly, is too much to ask of an author in my book. And you know what, I like 3.5. I like it alot. There are things about 4E I really like, but I have never jumped on the 3.5 is broken bandwagon. It had its faults, yes. But it is a great system.




Agreed on all points.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 10, 2009)

dystmesis said:


> When is somebody going to make adventures that are Trailblazer compatible?




Whatchutalkin' about? Anything 3e is ready to roll. Anything by Necromancer Games is perfect for Trailblazer, considering that you'll need all the help you can get to survive the typical NG offering. 

If you have some specific conversion concerns, come on over to our forum and let me know.

Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum - EN World D&D / RPG News


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I do understand why NG didn't want to spend time, money and energy and convert the 3 adventures made for 3.5 as 4e adventures.
> 
> I am however still infinitely disappointed at how Orcus let his 4e fans down. First he failed delivering the promised adventures and AP. Then he failed with his 4e classic project. Without a word it just faded into nothingness.
> 
> It's a pity, but such is life. I hope that NG finds renewed success with Pathfinder or wherever Orcus and Scott choose to go. Hopefully our paths will cross again, maybe in 5e




I don't feel let down by Orcus, and I'm a big Necro fan. I don't see lack of material/product from them as a failure on their part as much as a failure of the market and the restrictions of the GSL.


----------



## Jack99 (Oct 10, 2009)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I don't feel let down by Orcus, and I'm a big Necro fan. I don't see lack of material/product from them as a failure on their part as much as a failure of the market and the restrictions of the GSL.




You can't really blame the market 12 months later, that such a cop-out. When 3PP's started releasing products 12 months ago, no one knew how the market would turn out. Also, please do remember that Goodman Games says it does quite well for him. It's the small 1-2-man publishers that seem to suffer the most, which tbh doesn't surprise me considering the quality of what has been produced so far. 

As for the GSL, there was other ways to do things if Orcus didn't like the GSL. Goodman Games could release 4e adventures under the OGL (and gasp, still do it 1 year later, without having a huge lawsuit on their arms), I am pretty certain NG could as well, if they had chosen to. But they didn't.


----------



## Halivar (Oct 10, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> As for the GSL, there was other ways to do things if Orcus didn't like the GSL. Goodman Games could release 4e adventures under the OGL (and gasp, still do it 1 year later, without having a huge lawsuit on their arms), I am pretty certain NG could as well, if they had chosen to. But they didn't.



And here lies the big problem with having taken the "wait and see" approach: if you want 3PP material for 4E, there are several names that will consistently come to mind. Necro could have been one of them, but isn't. By playing conservative, Orcus has averted a possible legal liability on products whose prime selling season would have been last year, but in so doing has lost mindshare among the small pool of 4E 3PP buyers. For instance, he passed on Ari Marmell's APG because of ambiguity in the legalese. The net result was that XRP got my money instead of NG, and no C-and-D's were issued to the APG's publisher. I think we can agree that, at least in hindsight, passing on the APG was a mistake. Clark could have gotten it moving on the market much sooner than XRP, and, at least at the time, with a higher profile because of the NG brand.

I think it was a mistake for Clark to take a long-term view in a market that is largely ephemeral and totally in support of another companies product. I'm a software developer who works on a product for which other, smaller companies develop plug-in's, and they don't wait around for an okay from us. The money to be gotten is _now_ and depending on what we do with the main product, it might not be there a year from now.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 10, 2009)

Orcus, you are a true gentleman and your comment is really appreciated.



catsclaw227 said:


> I'd love to see some Necromancer 4e goodness.  Get us a module, and you'll get my money.




Please also count me in the "will buy a pdf Necromancer 4E adventure" group


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 10, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Greg is right on. Reworkings of 3E stuff for 4E--straight conversions, that is--just doesnt seem to work well. That means the whole adventure would need to be redone. That, frankly, is too much to ask of an author in my book. And you know what, I like 3.5. I like it alot. There are things about 4E I really like, but I have never jumped on the 3.5 is broken bandwagon. It had its faults, yes. But it is a great system.




Awww, we got da warm fuzzies.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 10, 2009)

I don't think you have to apologize for anything, Clark. You were very enthusiastic and supportive of the new edition of the game, and in return WotC screwed you and other established third party publishers over with the original GSL. And now, if you can't use it with the DDI, 4e fans won't buy it, if they're buying from 3PPs at all.

Ultimately, if 3PPs want to remain viable, they have to follow the cash. I hope to see more of Necromancer now in the Pathfinder and possibly True20 spheres - those licenses are a lot more 3PP friendly.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2009)

I heard of this, from a current creator in the same vein. And the results left that individual with the mindset of NOT doing anymore 4E projects at all (will not get into the full story here), and that creator I do considered highly, a very hardcore industry person, from my view.

Now, I listen to the complaints (about 4E), and honestly...it leaves me in shudders, to hear and witness such a unbelieveable turn around.

But this is just one case, one single situation, it is not reflecting the industry as a whole.



Greg V said:


> I can't speak for Clark, but this hits the nail on the head for me and Slumbering Tsar. Not only would be the update have been a near-total rewrite, but it would have drastically changed the feel and balance of the adventure as intended. I'm not bashing 4e here, I write for 3.5, 4e, and PF. I'm just saying there is a very real difference in the technique of making them and the feel of what they produce, and ST is very much an atmospheric adventure. The more frenetic style I have seen and written for 4e did not fit as well. Now certainly 4e is continuing to develop and may already be to that point, but what I'm saying is that it was beyond my personal abilities at the time (there's my mea culpa ) to capture what I was trying to capture with the adventures and to do it in a 4e format. Plus the trilogy clocks in at near 500,000 words (ST1 represents about 20% of the total), and converting all of that would have been far more than my schedule could have handled.
> 
> So there it is from the angle of ST1 for what it's worth...


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2009)

Yes, there will be a 'diffferent' feel, when reworked to another system, something indeed will get lost in the translation.

But if I was a creator, and was told that (about being change to 4E mechanics).

I would give the money back.

And I will take back my work.

But that is just me.



Orcus said:


> Greg is right on. Reworkings of 3E stuff for 4E--straight conversions, that is--just doesnt seem to work well. That means the whole adventure would need to be redone. That, frankly, is too much to ask of an author in my book. And you know what, I like 3.5. I like it alot. There are things about 4E I really like, but I have never jumped on the 3.5 is broken bandwagon. It had its faults, yes. But it is a great system.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 10, 2009)

I'm going to have to disagree with the points about how 3X adventures can't directly be mapped over to 4E without tremendous effort. It's not every day that you get to disagree with some of your favorite adventure writers, so I'll give it a go.  I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do their jobs, but I think this is really being over thought.

Some adventures will have difficulty being updated, and I'd say typically that those would be adventures that have natural pauses and breaks built in to account for resting. The problem is, most adventures don't have that built in at all. Certainly most Necromancer adventures don't have that built in. Building in more space for the battle is more of a cartographic issue, and having interesting battles, well, a boring battle in 3X will likely still be dull in 4E -- and vice versa.

Let's take a look at some existing adventures of different kinds:

When I think about Abysthor, or the Lost City, (two of my go-to adventures from Necromancer Games) I think of largely site based adventures that let the adventurers come and go (largely) as they please, with no time constraint (other than wandering monsters, of course). How any adventure like this would be different under 4E is a mystery to me, since the group would likely handle about the same number of encounters (perhaps one or two more, depending on difficulty) and then leave off to rest.

For a small, site-based adventure, you might have some difficulty, but I know of so many groups who essentially rest after *any *difficult encounter to go at it full strength that any internal encounter balance that's been done will largely be ignored. So Larin Karr (another favorite) wouldn't take too much work to convert either.

So then we're left with "time sensitive" adventures. Well, the the last 3X game I ran was the Shackled City Adventure Path. If you recall the first adventure, it's a race through a dungeon to rescue kidnapped children. My group took the bait and decided they were going to run the whole thing and not rest at all until they got to the kids. The problem was they were first level, and there was virtually no chance that was going to work. What I ended up with were several near TPKs as the group said, "I know we need to rest, but we've got to get those kids out!" If anything, a 4E conversion of that adventure would run *better*. I would similarly say that the first Burning Sky adventure (where I have both the 3X and 4E versions) runs much better in terms of making the group feel like they can get what they need done in a reasonable amount of time.

So what I'm saying is the notion of adventure design in 4E really doesn't need to be that different from 3X. In fact, it can free the writer from some arbitrary additions they might make to allow a group to rest for a day.

Just my thoughts...and I'll still miss these adventures. I'll be back when Necro makes something for 4E.

--Steve


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 10, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with the points about how 3X adventures can't directly be mapped over to 4E without tremendous effort.




I've found that the big problem comes in later adventures (levels 5+ in earlier D&D) were never designed to take into account the new resting mechanic and the slowed power progression. To Whit, a favorite DCC of mine assumes that 9th level PCs have access to flight/teleport magic of some vein or form. In 4e, you don't really have access to said magic until 16th or higher (barring a few short-range teleports). That makes direct mapping very difficult, since 9th level PCs cannot accomplish an element of the module with substantial re-write. The same is sometimes true of monsters; A dedicated DM must make sure all the encounters match appropriate level challenge in 4e (often raising/lowering monster level or substituting) or fights become odd slogs. (Grindy, easy, or boring). That's very different from replacing 1e stats with 3e stats!

So while true conversions CAN be done, they typically either fail to take into account 4e's design paragrim shift OR they end up practically new modules anyway only sharing the faintest minimum continuity with the original.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 10, 2009)

Er, wouldn't that 3e adventure that at 9th level that necessitates flight screw over any non-wizard/druid party. Many a cleric and sorceror don't have flight at that level.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Oct 10, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> a favorite DCC of mine assumes that 9th level PCs have access to flight/teleport magic of some vein or form. In 4e, you don't really have access to said magic until 16th or higher (barring a few short-range teleports).




The thing is every level a 3E character has is equal to 1.5 levels of a 4E character.  So 9th level 3E PC = 13.5 level 4E PC.  I guess it's not close enough but it would be more fesible for a 13/14 level 4E PC to get teleports somehow.


----------



## delericho (Oct 10, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with the points about how 3X adventures can't directly be mapped over to 4E without tremendous effort. It's not every day that you get to disagree with some of your favorite adventure writers, so I'll give it a go.  I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do their jobs, but I think this is really being over thought.




You can certainly do a direct port of an adventure, and end up with something that works. However, the results may well be less satisfying that just running the same adventure in its native system, and will almost certainly be less satisfying than running an adventure built for that system from the ground up.



> Building in more space for the battle is more of a cartographic issue, and having interesting battles, well, a boring battle in 3X will likely still be dull in 4E -- and vice versa.




There's more to it than simply expanding the battleground, although this is certainly a big factor.

To a large extent, 3e encounter design tended to rely on the single, powerful creature. By contrast, 4e generally assumes that the 'standard' encounter features a number of monsters equal to the number of PCs. (Also, the standard assumption is that a 'challenging' 3e encounter will drain some 20% of the party's resources; 'challenging' 4e encounters seem to be somewhat tougher, largely because of the at-will and per-encounter powers.)

Furthermore, when 3e adventures _did_ use multiple opponents in a single encounter, these were very often a homogenous group ("4 Orcs", "2 Fire Giants"...). In 4e, the stated advice is to go for mixed groups - a Controller with two Brutes, or a Mastermind with some minions (or whatever - I forget the terminology).

(And, yes, the point made up-thread about the expectations for 'cool' terrain features being higher in 4e adventures is probably true - although there's no great reason why this _has_ to be so.)

What this means is that, rather than do a direct port of the adventure from system to system, it's probably better to regroup the monsters into fewer, bigger encounters. Or perhaps even redo the adventure from the ground up.

The 4e encounter design guidelines are one of the great strengths of the system. (And I say that despite not being a particular fan of 4e.) IMO it would be crazy to publish a direct port of a 3e adventure, unless it happened to fit those guidelines reasonably well - why bother if you're going to dim one of the highlights of the system?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 10, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Er, wouldn't that 3e adventure that at 9th level that necessitates flight screw over any non-wizard/druid party. Many a cleric and sorceror don't have flight at that level.




A cleric could use air walk (Clr4), druids could use air walk (drd4) or wildshape, a sorcerer or wizard could use spider climb (wiz2), flight (wiz3), levitate (wiz2), dimension door (wiz4), teleport (wiz5), overland flight (wiz5), polymorph (wiz4), or alter self (wiz2). Oh, and clerics, sorcerers and wizards could all summon a celestial griffon (SM V) while druids can summon a regular griffon (SNA V). That doesn't even begin to touch the potential of magical items!

So if your party lacks a cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer, then yes it does screw over your party. However, if you lack a major caster in 3e, you have bigger problems to worry about!


----------



## keterys (Oct 11, 2009)

One of our later 3e parties had a favored soul and a warmage, so wouldn't have had those spells.

And even if you had a cleric, they likely didn't have Air Walk or Summon Monster prepared so that would require stopping for a day.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Oct 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> One of our later 3e parties had a favored soul and a warmage, so wouldn't have had those spells.
> 
> And even if you had a cleric, they likely didn't have Air Walk or Summon Monster prepared so that would require stopping for a day.




One thing to keep in mind 3PP could not use non core or open classes, so most stuff they made did not really take into account non core classes. For the most part


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 11, 2009)

The one thing that seems to be off to me, is that Necromancer and Paizo are supposed to have a partnership.

Yet these aren't Pathfinder products.

Pathfinder, by many measures, seems to be doing well.

With a 'partnership. why wouldn't Necromancer have had access to the game system before it hit and use the benefit of the Pathfinder logo to snag extra noticibility and sell through the Paizo website as well?

Seems more along the lines of we've sat on this and we're not doing anything with it and were charging a premium for it. Note the page counts are impressive but in the PDF medium, I'm left wondering why it wasn't cut down to more managable slots and sold for smaller amounts and come back again with... we've sat on this and we're not doing anything with it and we have to charge a premium to make up the lost revenues from not printing it.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 11, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The one thing that seems to be off to me, is that Necromancer and Paizo are supposed to have a partnership.
> 
> Yet these aren't Pathfinder products.
> 
> ...



If it has been "in the bag" for over a year, then there would not really have been a game to have access to during the development phase.  Enough stuff changed just between the beta and final that straight 3E is no further off.

And besides, I really don't think there is value in converting 3E to PF.  It is just to easy to do on the fly.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 12, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> A cleric could use air walk (Clr4), druids could use air walk (drd4) or wildshape, a sorcerer or wizard could use spider climb (wiz2), flight (wiz3), levitate (wiz2), dimension door (wiz4), teleport (wiz5), overland flight (wiz5), polymorph (wiz4), or alter self (wiz2). Oh, and clerics, sorcerers and wizards could all summon a celestial griffon (SM V) while druids can summon a regular griffon (SNA V). That doesn't even begin to touch the potential of magical items!
> 
> So if your party lacks a cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer, then yes it does screw over your party. However, if you lack a major caster in 3e, you have bigger problems to worry about!




Keep in mind I did state, this screws over a sorceror/cleric party.

Clerics generally IME don't memorize Air Walk and for many a sorceror, FLY is not one of their known spells. 

I consider FLY a sure thing only by level 13. Level 9 is certainly too low IME to expect actual flight. (AS ana side, I'm pretty sure those other things like Spider Climb and levitate are open to 4e wizards as well)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If it has been "in the bag" for over a year, then there would not really have been a game to have access to during the development phase.  Enough stuff changed just between the beta and final that straight 3E is no further off.
> 
> And besides, I really don't think there is value in converting 3E to PF.  It is just to easy to do on the fly.




And once again, I have to ask, as Pathfinder has been in development for a while, what did the partnership net either group? If Necromancer didn't have access to the material...

And for the latter, that assumes the Pathfinder brand has no value. As several third party publishers seem to indicate, it does. Heck, Paizo doesn't even appear to be SELLING their partner's PDF's. Looking at the list of companies, there is no Necromancer Games. Even when you look under White Wolf, no Necromancer Games. 

If it was me, selling a 'dead game', I'd want to get the 'hot' of Pathfinder and make sure to be selling through my partner's site using the popular Pathfinder branding.

But as I noted, this seems more a fire and recoup some money thing.


----------



## keterys (Oct 12, 2009)

Tangent: Are new pathfinder products selling hotter than new 3e products? 

Or are people mostly treating them as largely interchangeable?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2009)

I think that if you wanted to actually put the PF logo on it, then you would be obligated to go through and replace with PF stats.  (redo skills, replace grapples with CMB, re-do sorcerers, etc etc...)

As I said, easy enough to do on the fly, but quite a pain to go through and clean up in 500,000 words of material.  I can't imagine it being worth the effort.

So I agree they are letting it go "as-is" and getting what they can.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Tangent: Are new pathfinder products selling hotter than new 3e products?
> 
> Or are people mostly treating them as largely interchangeable?




This may sound silly, but _IS_ there any 3.x product being released anywhere?


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> Tangent: Are new pathfinder products selling hotter than new 3e products?
> 
> Or are people mostly treating them as largely interchangeable?




If you mean are Paizo PF products selling better than 3PP 3E stuff, I'd readily wager that the answer is yes, by a long way.
If you mean non-paizo PF vs 3PP 3E, I don't know.


----------



## Psion (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> This may sound silly, but _IS_ there any 3.x product being released anywhere?




I await my Savage Coast with bated breath.

Dark Vistas

0one games was putting out their Great City adventure stuff. There's a few other things.


----------



## Votan (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Keep in mind I did state, this screws over a sorceror/cleric party.
> 
> Clerics generally IME don't memorize Air Walk and for many a sorceror, FLY is not one of their known spells.
> 
> I consider FLY a sure thing only by level 13. Level 9 is certainly too low IME to expect actual flight. (AS ana side, I'm pretty sure those other things like Spider Climb and levitate are open to 4e wizards as well)




I think it depends on subtile things like whether there is a massive time pressure or not.  After all, if you need to be able to transportation magic but have a day before it is critical, a cleric could prepare Air Walk to overcome the challenge.  

There really is not an equivalent 4E option.  

It's also another place where the games differ.  In a 9th level party for 3.5E, I have to consider that teleport MIGHT be available and this will make some types of challenges much less attractive (especially given how much less lethal 3E teleport is than A&D).


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Keep in mind I did state, this screws over a sorceror/cleric party.
> 
> Clerics generally IME don't memorize Air Walk and for many a sorceror, FLY is not one of their known spells.
> 
> I consider FLY a sure thing only by level 13. Level 9 is certainly too low IME to expect actual flight. (AS ana side, I'm pretty sure those other things like Spider Climb and levitate are open to 4e wizards as well)






Votan said:


> I think it depends on subtile things like whether there is a massive time pressure or not.  After all, if you need to be able to transportation magic but have a day before it is critical, a cleric could prepare Air Walk to overcome the challenge.
> 
> There really is not an equivalent 4E option.
> 
> It's also another place where the games differ.  In a 9th level party for 3.5E, I have to consider that teleport MIGHT be available and this will make some types of challenges much less attractive (especially given how much less lethal 3E teleport is than A&D).




The module in question (



Spoiler



Dread Crypt of Srhioz


, if people are keeping score) has a room that is a giant crossroad minus the road: just four open halls all leading to an bottomless pit. Its not necessary to cross the pit; but it does open up more areas of the dungeon to explore. Since the PCs are under no time pressure to complete the Crypt (well, any meaningful time pressure, the sealed gate barring the door isn't a barrier to egress for any serious 9th level party) a cleric/druid can memorize air-walk no problem on the first rest the group takes. 

But as Votan pointed out, the OPTION for the cleric to rest and gain access to those spells; in 4e you either have the right utility power/ritual, or you don't. Its got its own advantages in disadvantages, I guess. And this doesn't take into account magic items that could help (flying carpet, cloak of the bat, even a scroll or potion of a flight spell. Remember casters; scribe scroll is your FRIEND!)

For the record; the dungeon also features a fight with an aquatic monster IN the water. By the same logic, this combat screws over sorcerers and clerics because most clerics don't memorize freedom of movement and most sorcerers don't bother to learn water breathing.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 12, 2009)

I would actually say it DOES screwover a party that has a sorceror as its main spellcaster.

Waterbreathing is one of those "You have it? Good, proceed. No? Go back and get it" scenarios unless the scenario allows for the PCs to bypass or somehow avid going into the water.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I would actually say it DOES screwover a party that has a sorceror as its main spellcaster.
> 
> Waterbreathing is one of those "You have it? Good, proceed. No? Go back and get it" scenarios unless the scenario allows for the PCs to bypass or somehow avid going into the water.




Waterbreathing is also one of those spells that, were I playing a sorcerer, I would make sure I had on scroll by that point in my  career. If the DM doesn't allow magic items easily, or if the DM is running a lower-money campaign than default, I would also expect the DM to take this into account when he's running the adventure, and make sure it's not an "automatic lose" if you don't have that one spell as a sorcerer because he can't get his hands on it.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Oct 12, 2009)

Psion said:


> I await my Savage Coast with bated breath.
> 
> Dark Vistas
> 
> 0one games was putting out their Great City adventure stuff. There's a few other things.




Razor Coast actually


----------



## Theodric the Obscure (Oct 12, 2009)

I am glad that these are at last seeing the light of day, but I still hope we see support for Pathfinder RPG out of NG.


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 12, 2009)

Dark Mistress said:


> Razor Coast actually




And here I thought he had an oldie but goodie on the way from EBay or something:


----------



## billd91 (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I would actually say it DOES screwover a party that has a sorceror as its main spellcaster.
> 
> Waterbreathing is one of those "You have it? Good, proceed. No? Go back and get it" scenarios unless the scenario allows for the PCs to bypass or somehow avid going into the water.




If it's a whole adventure, like U3 for example, then I would expect the DM to have made provision for the adventure to be playable. If it's an encounter, even an important one, I wouldn't consider it party screwing at all. Just a bit more challenging. Note that there are still multiple ways to handle an aquatic monster in his element that don't involve the sorcerer casting a lot of spells. 

Neutralizing one character or even two for an encounter isn't a party screwover.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I would actually say it DOES screwover a party that has a sorceror as its main spellcaster.



I love it when the party is forced to think outside the box.


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 12, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> For the record; the dungeon also features a fight with an aquatic monster IN the water. By the same logic, this combat screws over sorcerers and clerics because most clerics don't memorize *freedom of movement *and most sorcerers don't bother to learn water breathing.




Most clerics dowhatnow?? Every cleric I've ever played or seen had Freedom of Movement memorized, and most had it on a scroll/in a wand/in a ring of spell storing ASAP. I'd tend to agree about Sorcerors and Water Breathing, but that's what scrolls and potions are for!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 12, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Most clerics dowhatnow?? Every cleric I've ever played or seen had Freedom of Movement memorized, and most had it on a scroll/in a wand/in a ring of spell storing ASAP.




Obviously, playstyles differ, because I rarely see that spell in play.  And personally, no cleric _I've_ played has memorized it, much less used it.

I've been in adventures in which a particular spell was required, and no PC had it- sometimes, no PC even had potential access to it.

Which, FWIW, is why I consider any adventure that depends on a particular spell or sequence of spells being cast to be poorly designed unless it has at least 2 backups to the PCs resource pools.  IOW, if the adventure requires that kind of specificity, it should provide 2 ways other than the resources the PCs control- treasures or goods such as wands, rings, scrolls, the help of NPCs or even an alternative path or sequence of spells.


----------



## Votan (Oct 12, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If it's a whole adventure, like U3 for example, then I would expect the DM to have made provision for the adventure to be playable. If it's an encounter, even an important one, I wouldn't consider it party screwing at all. Just a bit more challenging. Note that there are still multiple ways to handle an aquatic monster in his element that don't involve the sorcerer casting a lot of spells.
> 
> Neutralizing one character or even two for an encounter isn't a party screwover.




Yes.  This will always be an issue when the party composition and abilities are varied for a particular module.  It may result in creative solutions or it may result in setbacks but a high level 3.5E party without flexibility in magical resources is likely to have many "challenging" moments.

I think this is even more clear at 15th level . . .


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 12, 2009)

Awesome to see that you finally got these products released! I lament that I no longer play D&D 3.5, so I probably won't buy them, but I'm sure that many will. Welcome back, Clark!


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 13, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> Most clerics dowhatnow?? Every cleric I've ever played or seen had Freedom of Movement memorized, and most had it on a scroll/in a wand/in a ring of spell storing ASAP. I'd tend to agree about Sorcerors and Water Breathing, but that's what scrolls and potions are for!




I find FoM is a hot/cold spell; some players always keep one on hand for grappling beasties, but others never bother with it. More to the point, they don't have more than one casting prepped.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Obviously, playstyles differ, because I rarely see that spell in play.  And personally, no cleric _I've_ played has memorized it, much less used it.
> 
> I've been in adventures in which a particular spell was required, and no PC had it- sometimes, no PC even had potential access to it.
> 
> Which, FWIW, is why I consider any adventure that depends on a particular spell or sequence of spells being cast to be poorly designed unless it has at least 2 backups to the PCs resource pools.  IOW, if the adventure requires that kind of specificity, it should provide 2 ways other than the resources the PCs control- treasures or goods such as wands, rings, scrolls, the help of NPCs or even an alternative path or sequence of spells.




QFT

This is a point that should be remembered by anyone designing an adventure.  Never presume that the party will have a given resource.  One of my longest running groups in the World's Largest Dungeon had no wizard or arcane caster whatsoever, and used a Favoured Soul for a cleric because the player hated the whole memorization thing.

Meant that any challenge that required something like teleport or fly was pretty much right out.

If "thinking outside the box" will get the job done, then fine, but, if the adventure is atop a floating cloud castle several thousand feet up, then no amount of creative thinking is going to solve the issue.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 13, 2009)

Well, Clark (if I can call you Clark). It’s a start. But you are not done admitting you were wrong, I think.

So. You held back 3X product, hoping to go 4e. And you were wrong. 

So. You thought the GSL could be “fixed.” And you were wrong.

Congrats for starting your public confession tour (honestly). But your biggest mistake you continue to defend.

You advocated for 4e and continue to carry a torch for the edition. You are wrong, again, and will eventually admit it. You have been a leading cheerleader for the most damaging (hence worst) edition of D&D, bar none, a fact that will be widely admitted, I think, once 4e is no longer the “current edition.” You have aided and abetted the tulip speculation edition of D&D. You will eventually have to admit and apologize for that to have any shred of credibility as a publisher/public figure.

No. You are not done admitting you were wrong by a long shot. 

But its good to see you making a start.


----------



## Vorput (Oct 13, 2009)

> Well, Clark....
> But its good to see you making a start.




...wow...  ::blinks::


----------



## Urizen (Oct 13, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> Well, Clark (if I can call you Clark). It’s a start. But you are not done admitting you were wrong, I think.
> 
> So. You held back 3X product, hoping to go 4e. And you were wrong.
> 
> ...




Jeez...

Do you want his first born child too?

God man, chill out.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 13, 2009)

Urizen said:


> Jeez...
> 
> Do you want his first born child too?
> 
> God man, chill out.




Clark specifically invited comment.  

I hold in my heart a special place for Clark with respect to D&D.  He helped sell the tulip bulbs and not dispassionately but with extreme enthusiasm, lending his credibility and that of Necromancer to Wotc - for less than nothing as it turns out.  He also went further, derriding any less enthusiastic, and again leveraging and trading on his name and that of his company to help make his case.  Clark helped feed the tulip bulb mania.  He has started to come clean  but hasn't done so yet fully.  So, while I applaud the effort, I note there is a ways to go.

Again, Clark specifically invited comment.  Otherwise, as I have done of late, I'd have kept my own counsel.


----------



## mxyzplk (Oct 13, 2009)

One of the "told you so" squad checking in...  Glad to see the product coming out!  Keep up the 3.5e/Pathfinder stuff and we'll keep buying it.  Maybe a Tome of Horrors re-release for PF to fill in all the post-Bestiary holes.  You know who's been good to you...


----------



## Wayside (Oct 13, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> You advocated for 4e and continue to carry a torch for the edition. You are wrong, again, and will eventually admit it. You have been a leading cheerleader for the most damaging (hence worst) edition of D&D, bar none, a fact that will be widely admitted, I think, once 4e is no longer the “current edition.” You have aided and abetted the tulip speculation edition of D&D. You will eventually have to admit and apologize for that to have any shred of credibility as a publisher/public figure..



You've been a member long enough to know better.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 13, 2009)

Yo!  Listen up!

Don't be jerks.  Don't start with the edition warring.  It will not be tolerated.

I don't think I should have to say more than that - that I should have to say it at all is disappointing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 13, 2009)

> tulip speculation edition




Wow..._THERE'S_ an analogy I wouldn't have made.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 13, 2009)

Again, it depends on WHAT level you're talking about.

By 15th level, yeah, I think a module designer should be allowed to think that a party has both FLY and Waterbreathing solutions readily available.

However, I don't think a 9th level party should be expected to have FLY or Waterbreathing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, it depends on WHAT level you're talking about.
> 
> By 15th level, yeah, I think a module designer should be allowed to think that a party has both FLY and Waterbreathing solutions readily available.




And again, assumptions get you in trouble.

That doesn't reflect the very real possibility that the party doesn't.  Not everybody "optimizes" their PCs mechanically.  Some people base spell selection and equipment choices almost entirely on PC or campaign-specific reasons.

For example, in our "epic level" party that has been active since 1985 or so (started in 1Ed, and updated as far as 3.X), only 1 spellcaster has Fly readied- and that only once- another has Druidic Shapechange, and one has a weapon with a 1/day Fly effect.  That doesn't get it done for the party as a whole, and has, on occasion, led to splitting the party or outright retreat.

And only the one with Druid levels is prepared for underwater action.

Thus, despite the average level in the party being 19+, the party would face great difficulty, mission failure or even a potential TPK if Fly or Waterbreathing were the only options in a given situation, assuming the party wasn't forewarned of that (IOW, they could buy or make items that let them fly or survive submersion).


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 13, 2009)

I kinda have to disagree....

I think at certain levels, a module designer should assume some BASIC stuff available.

We assume that by level 15 a fighter is going to have a +1 sword and similarly, at such a level, the party should have access to flight.

I personally just take issue with WHERE the assumption kicks in (level 9 is way too low, level 15, yeah, that definitely is high enough)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 13, 2009)

Flight isn't basic.

Flight is most commonly accessible as a 3rd level spell, then next through shapechanging of some kind.

But not everyone is a spellcaster or Druid, and not every spellcaster likes to buff partymembers.  Or burn XP to make magic items.

And even more importantly, not every party has Fly as one of their _renewable_ resources like a Sorcerer's spell or a Druid's shapechange, but rather as a potion or scroll or the like.

IOW, once its gone, its gone for good.  And if it is expended before the crucial juncture...

So I say again: if a designer writes an adventure in which flight is the only way to succeed in the mission, then he's well advised to include some kind of access to flight that doesn't depend on the party already having that power before the adventure begins because to do otherwise could result in some ticked off players.


----------



## vagabundo (Oct 13, 2009)

@ some of the responses.

Good idea to release those mod for 3.5x. Unfortunately I've moved to 4e, so I hope you manage to get some 4e stuff out the door. 

Still you took a chance and made a decision, sometimes it doesn't work out; hindsight is 20/02 after all.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 13, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> Well, Clark (if I can call you Clark). It’s a start. But you are not done admitting you were wrong, I think.
> 
> So. You held back 3X product, hoping to go 4e. And you were wrong.
> 
> ...



Whiskey.  Tango.  Foxtrot.


----------



## Squizzle (Oct 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wow..._THERE'S_ an analogy I wouldn't have made.



Examined in the thrilling module _Extraordinary Popular Dungeons and the Madness of Owlbears_.


----------



## Vorput (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If "thinking outside the box" will get the job done, then fine, but, if the adventure is atop a floating cloud castle several thousand feet up, then no amount of creative thinking is going to solve the issue.




Unless you had a _really_ long rope and the ability to talk to birds...


----------



## Maggan (Oct 13, 2009)

Orcus said:


> So here I am. Ready to eat crow. Go ahead. Give it to me




Why should I? I've been wrong about so many things in my life that I'm not about to throw rocks in a glass gazebo.

Cool that you release the adventures!

To me, that is all that needs to be said. Keep on being positive and hoping for the best, that's all I wish from you. 

/M


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If "thinking outside the box" will get the job done, then fine, but, if the adventure is atop a floating cloud castle several thousand feet up, then no amount of creative thinking is going to solve the issue.



Fair enough.  Certainly you can't throw just any challenge at a 1st level party, for example, and assume they can come up with a creative solution.

And the fact that I use modules only a small portion of the time may certainly play into things.

A module can easily be designed badly with no good solutions.

But, I don't consider the specific assumption that a L7+ party is going to be able to find a way to get off the ground unreasonable.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 13, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> The one thing that seems to be off to me, is that Necromancer and Paizo are supposed to have a partnership.
> 
> Yet these aren't Pathfinder products.



Wasn't their partnership strictly a print partnership where Necro would do 4e and Paizo would do its own thing? Necro was never interested in Pathfinder. Didn't Clark state many times that while he could always do C&C or OSRIC or BF or Pathfinder he was more interested in sticking with D&D and that meant 4e. So before his epiphany about releasing these adventures, why would have cared to examine conversion to Pathfinder?



> With a 'partnership. why wouldn't Necromancer have had access to the game system before it hit and use the benefit of the Pathfinder logo to snag extra noticibility and sell through the Paizo website as well?



Again, I'm sure he could call Jason any day of the week and ask him what's new in Pathfinder. But that's not D&D and that's what Clark wants. He's only now realized he can't have it. Hopefully he doesn't take his ball and go home.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Fair enough.  Certainly you can't throw just any challenge at a 1st level party, for example, and assume they can come up with a creative solution.
> 
> And the fact that I use modules only a small portion of the time may certainly play into things.
> 
> ...




Like I said, that assumption wouldn't work in my group.

Savage Tide campaign - wizard had fly, but, that's only good for one person.  At 7th level, it might be possible if the wizard rested, to cast enough fly spells to get everyone up, but, that adventure better have a nice built in break time.

Eberron Campaign - our party had no arcane caster and barely had a cleric.  Not happening.

World's Largest Dungeon campaign - no arcane caster, no cleric - only favoured soul and later a bard.  No fly.

Shackled City campaign - no arcane caster, no cleric.  No fly.  Healing was handled by a Binder.

Scarred Lands campaign - no arcane caster, did have a cleric.  So, again, if there was resting time, the cleric might have been able to get two people up per day, maybe 3.

Now, I'm not saying my group was general at all.  But, if you designed an adventure for my bunch assuming flight by 7th level, you'd be pretty much wrong.  15th?  Sure, I'll buy that.


----------



## jaerdaph (Oct 13, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> You advocated for 4e and continue to carry a torch for the edition. You are wrong, again, and will eventually admit it. You have been a leading cheerleader for the most damaging (hence worst) edition of D&D, bar none, a fact that will be widely admitted, I think, once 4e is no longer the “current edition.” You have aided and abetted the tulip speculation edition of D&D. You will eventually have to admit and apologize for that to have any shred of credibility as a publisher/public figure.




I'm confused. Was this before or after he shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 13, 2009)

That was a grassy _*gnoll*_, jaerdaph!


----------



## BryonD (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, that assumption wouldn't work in my group.



Huh.  ok.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, it depends on WHAT level you're talking about.
> 
> By 15th level, yeah, I think a module designer should be allowed to think that a party has both FLY and Waterbreathing solutions readily available.
> 
> However, I don't think a 9th level party should be expected to have FLY or Waterbreathing.




Then why make them 3rd level spells? 

I mean, maybe we shouldn't have adventure's with hills to climb because not all PCs have ranks in climb? Nor should we have rope-bridges and narrow surfaces because PCs don't have balance ranks or good dex scores? 

You're 9th level adventurers going into a dungeon to loot it (no other reason given in the module). Come prepared to fly, swim, and climb or go home and farm pigs on flat land. 

(Oh, final one to blow your gasket: the main BBEG is a vampire. Guess how you get to his crypt? If you said "Gaseous Form" you win. Luckily, there are several potions of the stuff in the crypt, but finding them isn't easy...)


----------



## keterys (Oct 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If you mean are Paizo PF products selling better than 3PP 3E stuff, I'd readily wager that the answer is yes, by a long way.
> If you mean non-paizo PF vs 3PP 3E, I don't know.




Heh, I meant is non-paizo PF stuff selling better than 3pp 3e - and by 3e I mean any version of 3e. I mean, I realize that Paizo's got the slam dunk for themselves... and probably for any stuff that came out right at the beginning by any company. 

But if I wanted to make an adventure or class, I do wonder how many people playing 3e would refuse to use a PF version and how many people playing PF wouldn't use a 3e version. I wouldn't be surprised if it depends on what you're doing - PF classes I think saw enough changes that I could see people not using 3e versions of such, but PF adventures... well, Paizo has scads of adventures so people who are really into PF will just go to Paizo _first_ then consider others if they still need them, whereas someone 3e oriented might be more open minded initially.

Anyhow, probably too much of a tangent, but again and again I wish we had actual #s for things like how many people are buying what, playing what, etc.



Hussar said:


> This is a point that should be remembered by anyone designing an adventure.  Never presume that the party will have a given resource.  One of my longest running groups in the World's Largest Dungeon had no wizard or arcane caster whatsoever, and used a Favoured Soul for a cleric because the player hated the whole memorization thing.
> 
> Meant that any challenge that required something like teleport or fly was pretty much right out.




Yep, I had a dnd group that would be unable to fly at 15th or so level when I wanted them able to fight a dragon... so I needed to be able to give them ways to fly and/or corner/crash the dragon if I wanted things to work. Needing to fly at 7th or 9th is just silly, from my perspective.



> If "thinking outside the box" will get the job done, then fine, but, if the adventure is atop a floating cloud castle several thousand feet up, then no amount of creative thinking is going to solve the issue.




Well, that's actually easier in some ways - hire a pegasus taxi or something similar, get a ritual that specifically raises up in one area, etc. If you need to fly frequently it's tougher.

I think there's a level 8 ritual that makes an elevator effectively though (Tenser's Lifting Disc or somesuch)


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Now, I'm not saying my group was general at all.  But, if you designed an adventure for my bunch assuming flight by 7th level, you'd be pretty much wrong.  15th?  Sure, I'll buy that.




I wouldn't buy it at 15th level either. But then, I tend to subscribe more to the 3-clues method of getting around these chokepoints (to use terms from the Alexandrian blog posting on Random GM Tips) rather than require a particular way of overcoming an obstacle.

If you _need_ to do something, be it find a clue or overcome an obstacle, to handle the adventure, there should be multiple ways to do it accounted for. In the case of getting to a cloud giant's floating fortress, I can think of a few options.

1) Personal transport magics in the hands of the PCs
2) Permanent teleportation location (give clues that the giants always seem to raid out from and return toward a particular point on land)
3) Pay for transportation by someone else
4) Bribe a disgruntled cloud giant exile to help get you there

But I would make sure I wasn't requiring any single solution to the problem. Not all of the solutions may be equally favorable and some may require additional legwork. I think that's fair.

If it were a question of uncovering a side chamber of loot or some other hidden cache of non-essential but nice goodies, then I wouldn't necessarily have mulitple methods of overcoming it. Optional stuff is just that. Optional. If they can find it, spiff. If not, OK.

That said, if the PCs are consistently finding that they're having a hard time accomplishing things with the skills and abilities they have, they should really think about being proactive about fixing their deficiencies. If you're fighting a lot of flying creatures out in the wilderness, and you aren't investing in ranged attacks because they're not part of your "concept", time to rethink your concept or at least make room for pushing up daisies within it, because that's what you'll end up doing.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 13, 2009)

Hm. Well, good. That is, all this = some more adventures I might check out some time. 

Can't go wrong with a bit of Necro in your life, after all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 14, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You're 9th level adventurers going into a dungeon to loot it (no other reason given in the module). Come prepared to fly, swim, and climb or go home and farm pigs on flat land.




If we're talking about a _dungeon_ dungeon, most people wouldn't look at entering a subterranean space and think "I need to stock up on Fly spells."  Rock to Mud and its reverse, maybe, or Move Earth, or Passwall or Dimension Door...but not so much the flying thing.

Or, just sticking to 3rd level arcane spells, Dispel Magic, Summons, Fireball/Lightning bolt, Deep Slumber, Tongues, Displacement, Gaseous Form or even Ray of Exhaustion might be prioritized for a dungeon crawl before Fly.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If we're talking about a _dungeon_ dungeon, most people wouldn't look at entering a subterranean space and think "I need to stock up on Fly spells."  Rock to Mud and its reverse, maybe, or Move Earth, or Passwall or Dimension Door...but not so much the flying thing.
> 
> Or, just sticking to 3rd level arcane spells, Dispel Magic, Summons, Fireball/Lightning bolt, Deep Slumber, Tongues, Displacement, Gaseous Form or even Ray of Exhaustion might be prioritized for a dungeon crawl before Fly.




So I guess those flying, improved invisible wizards reigning fire and death down safely from orbit aren't; ya know, FLYING?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 14, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> So I guess those flying, improved invisible wizards reigning fire and death down safely from orbit aren't; ya know, FLYING?




Sure they are...which is why _smart _combat engineers started building bunkers (AKA "dungeons")!

(Somewhere out there, thousands of Dwarven engineers are shouting "At last, one of the surface dwellers gets it! Its _DANGEROUS_ out there!")

Flying isn't that much of an advantage when it only gets you 6" of elevation before you hit the ceiling.  That's not even going to get you out of the reach of a determined kobold with a stick.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 14, 2009)

And, just to add to DannyA's point if I may.  If there is a vampire's crypt in the dungeon and no potions of gaseous form lying around, what does the party do?  Should adventure designers assume that groups have access to gaseous form?

"Go back to town and stock up on potions" is a huge presumption on the part of a designer about my game world.  It also assumes that going back to town is a viable option in the first place, never mind the wealth assumptions and availability.

This kind of adventure design is just bad.  Presuming the party has exactly the right tool and no other tool will work is poor adventure design.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> This kind of adventure design is just bad.  Presuming the party has exactly the right tool and no other tool will work is poor adventure design.




Its only bad design if you assume the PCs should be able to overcome every obstacle put in their way.  Personally, in most of my worlds, I just design things in a way that seems reasonable to me and its the PCs problem to overcome.  If I was a vampire I jolly well would have a hard to get to coffin, especially if I was clever and intelligent and had hundreds of years to prepare it.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Oct 14, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Its only bad design if you assume the PCs should be able to overcome every obstacle put in their way.  Personally, in most of my worlds, *I just design things in a way that seems reasonable to me and its the PCs problem to overcome*.



This is how I look at it, too.  I'm not big on "path" adventures where there is a track for the PCs to follow and it's expected that they'll do this, defeat that, et cetera.  Consequently, I avoid designs that assume the PCs must overcome a given obstacle or the adventure grinds to a halt.  Actually, I like the PCs to run into seeming "dead ends" sometimes: an encounter or area that they just don't seem to have the knowledge or tools to handle.  When they do figure out the way to meet that obstacle (sometimes after returning to it several times with different ideas or approaches), it makes it pretty sweet.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2009)

I was always of the opinion that you had to wait 3 spell levels before I would assume a spell could be assumed to be had among the party in sufficient quantities.

Thus, if the spell was a 2nd level spell, I would assume that the party would have it only at 9th level.

Of course, this only applies to 3e since 1e/2e, spell acquisition was much more haphazard.


----------



## Skywalker (Oct 14, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Greg is right on. Reworkings of 3E stuff for 4E--straight conversions, that is--just doesnt seem to work well. That means the whole adventure would need to be redone. That, frankly, is too much to ask of an author in my book. And you know what, I like 3.5. I like it alot. There are things about 4E I really like, but I have never jumped on the 3.5 is broken bandwagon. It had its faults, yes. But it is a great system.




Thank you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 14, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Its only bad design if you assume the PCs should be able to overcome every obstacle put in their way.  Personally, in most of my worlds, *I just design things in a way that seems reasonable to me and its the PCs problem to overcome.*




Thats all well and good if you, the DM, have provided them the necessary tools to overcome the obstacles they present.

If you've designed an adventure that requires Spell X to complete, but you've never given the party access to Spell X or (Magic Item Z that grants the benefits of that spell), you can hardly blame the party for failing to complete the mission.

After all, would Cap. Kirk be alive if the aliens hadn't given him sulphur to make gunpowder to shoot diamonds at the Gorn?

You could validly argue that "Arcanist #1 should have taken Spell X at level 6."  However, the counter to that is that if Spell X was so important, your duty as DM is to inform the players know that someone would have to learn that spell.



> If I was a vampire I jolly well would have a hard to get to coffin, especially if I was clever and intelligent and had hundreds of years to prepare it.




That makes perfect sense, but if the coffin is _impossible_ for the party to get to, it makes the adventure pretty much unfun.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That makes perfect sense, but if the coffin is _impossible_ for the party to get to, it makes the adventure pretty much unfun.




There is that - while there are some types of metagame information that we don't want players to use, a DM really should design with the note that there is a game here, with people (friends, even!) trying to have a good time.  Making players work for their successes is good, as then the success is all the more sweet.  But take that to an extreme, and the undertaking becomes frustrating.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 14, 2009)

Yep.

I mean, how many perfectly fun movies, TV shows, novels or short stories would have been ruined if the BBEG actually followed Peter's Evil Overlord List?

Peter's Evil Overlord List


----------



## Celtavian (Oct 14, 2009)

*re*

Hopefully you support Pathfinder. I like it alot better than 4E. They did a nice job building on the 3e ruleset.


----------



## lrsach01 (Oct 14, 2009)

jaerdaph said:


> I'm confused. Was this before or after he shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll?




OK.. do you realize how PAINFUL snorting hot coffee out of your nose IS?


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 14, 2009)

lrsach01 said:


> OK.. do you realize how PAINFUL snorting hot coffee out of your nose IS?




If it's McDonalds coffee you can sue!


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which, FWIW, is why I consider any adventure that depends on a particular spell or sequence of spells being cast to be poorly designed unless it has at least 2 backups to the PCs resource pools.  IOW, if the adventure requires that kind of specificity, it should provide 2 ways other than the resources the PCs control- treasures or goods such as wands, rings, scrolls, the help of NPCs or even an alternative path or sequence of spells.




This. A module should never assume the party has a given spell or set of spells; in fact, it should never assume the party has spells at all. I have known parties made up entirely of noncasters. I have known other parties where the only caster was a spontaneous caster, who would not necessarily know the utility spell in question.

As for the vampire and the crypt that can only be reached via _gaseous form_, okay, you can put that in if you like, but then don't build an adventure around killing the vampire.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 14, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> This. A module should never assume the party has a given spell or set of spells; in fact, it should never assume the party has spells at all. I have known parties made up entirely of noncasters. I have known other parties where the only caster was a spontaneous caster, who would not necessarily know the utility spell in question.




Ok, this one I disagree with.

I think any module should assume that the 4 "classic" classes are covered, namely cleric, wizard, fighter and thief.

I think any 3e adventure writer can safely assume that spells like Fly and Waterbreathing are available at the least 3 spell levels above where they first get them. Thus, a 3rd level spell means that it can be assumed to be had in an adventure written for 11th adventurers.

This of course doesn't apply for 1e/2e due to spell/item acquisition rules


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 14, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> Well, Clark (if I can call you Clark). It’s a start. But you are not done admitting you were wrong, I think.
> 
> So. You held back 3X product, hoping to go 4e. And you were wrong.
> 
> ...





Um, I'm curious...

Did you think, even for a single microsecond, that writing that post could portray you in a positive light?

Note: I'm not a 4e fan.


----------



## Azgulor (Oct 14, 2009)

Clark,

While I think it was a classy move on your part, I don't think you really needed to apologize.  You were up front from the very beginning as to the personal and business-related reasons why you were lining up to support 4e.  Although I thought you were viewing the 4e announcement & launch through extra-thick rose colored glasses and giving WotC _waaaay_ too much credit, I can hardly claim I was right and you were wrong.

If anything, the reality NecroG came to realize is Exhibit A for the case of "WotC _did_ screw up" (in part).  Whether a WotC customer & D&D fan felt betrayed, slighted, or dismissed is purely subjective.  When the biggest non-WotC cheerleader & popular 3rd-party publisher says supporting 4e isn't viable (under the original GSL)... well, that's as close to tangible data as I've seen in the RPG industry.

_Note: While not a fan of 4e, I'm not saying anything about the game itself.  If you like it, booya for you!_

Obviously a thread this long will start to wander off-topic.  However I do find it ironic that after so many posts about "WotC provides everything I need", "3rd-party support isn't important to my game", etc. we've got 9 pages (currently) of 4e fans expressing disappointment, or clamoring for NecroG 4e modules.  If 3rd-party support is really than unimportant to the 4e crowd, why did Clark's post get anything more than a passing glance?

Perhaps it's nothing more than expressing a desire for a "nice to have".  My own ancedotal speculation is that 3rd-party support _is_ a big deal for many gamers.  I also suspect that while 4e has been successful for WotC, it would have seen greater success if it had encouraged the 3rd-party publishers the way it did under 3.x.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I think any module should assume that the 4 "classic" classes are covered, namely cleric, wizard, fighter and thief.




Ugh, no. This expectation that you have to cover all four classes is one of the things I've always hated about D&D. I can't count the number of times I sighed and chose not to play the character I wanted to play, so the group would have a healer, or a front-line fighter, or whatever. 4E has reduced that dependency and I hope 5E eliminates it.

Even if a party has both a divine caster and an arcane caster, there's no guarantee that they have access to a given spell. They might be a favored soul and a sorceror who spent their limited slots on other things. Or the wizard might be a specialist who's barred from learning that spell. Or the wizard simply might never have gotten around to learning it.

Bad enough that the combat system expects a party to cover the "classic roles,"
 but you can usually muddle through combat without one. But an adventure written on the assumption that the party will include [caster type X] with [spell type Y], and that cannot be completed if you don't, is a badly written adventure IMO.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 14, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Bad enough that the combat system expects a party to cover the "classic roles,"
> but you can usually muddle through combat without one. But an adventure written on the assumption that the party will include [caster type X] with [spell type Y], and that cannot be completed if you don't, is a badly written adventure IMO.




I think it depends on what you mean by "complete."

If by complete you mean defeat the bad guy then most class mixes are going to be okay for most modules, though every bad guy will be more vulnerable to certain classes.  If this is your meaning I guess I agree with you.

If by complete you mean solve every puzzle, open every door and discover all the treasure then no, I would have to disagree.  I think a good module is going to play different for every class.  That is, a good writer will remember to include something that only a bard can really discover, or a spot where the rogue is going to be the only one who can open a certain door, or a fountain that will only reveal its secrets to a good aligned cleric, etc.


----------



## hexgrid (Oct 14, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Obviously a thread this long will start to wander off-topic.  However I do find it ironic that after so many posts about "WotC provides everything I need", "3rd-party support isn't important to my game", etc. we've got 9 pages (currently) of 4e fans expressing disappointment, or clamoring for NecroG 4e modules.  If 3rd-party support is really than unimportant to the 4e crowd, why did Clark's post get anything more than a passing glance?




My guess is that not everyone who plays 4e feels the same way about 3rd party support.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 14, 2009)

I think it might be a good idea to fork this topic.

I believe modules should have SOLVABLE solutions, but not by anyone at any time. Otherwise, you end up with modules full of 10x10 rooms and orcs. I think by 9th level, a PC should be able to come across SOME way of flying, swimming, or short-term teleporting via spells, magic items, or such. I REALLY don't believe modules should try to account for EVERY possible party composition (such as a group of 5 bards) so it falls on the DM to ADAPT THE MODULE to make sure his group can succeed. He can place low-charged items (wand of fly, potions of waterbreathing) in adventures before that one (you DID review the module long before the day of running it, right?) to aid the PCs (assuming they're not idiots and sell it off to by another +1 on their armor...) 

So I really believe somewhat in the middle: a good module has primary objectives that any class can complete, but I believe in side-quests and alternate goals certain classes are better suited for (or they alone can do) spices up the game and makes the players feel good about their "role." Everything I mentioned in the module either was a side-trek (chasm), an encounter doable-but-harder (swimming) or involved finding some resources in the module to aid you (crypt/vampire). Spells certainly made it easier, but a crafty group of PCs could find alternate methods (even if alternate means leaving, resting, and re-prioritizing spells) of accomplishing goals. 

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 14, 2009)

Any word on the follow up two tsar modules?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 14, 2009)

Orcus limited interaction with this thread reinforces my 'fire and forget' theory.

It also showcases one of the reasons why EN World isn't 'hip' anymore.

Orcus, unless I'm misreading this, isn't a community supporter and doesn't 'hang' around here.

He doesn't have to. The Necromancer forum is great even if the Necromancer website is terrible.

Those companies that were able to carve niches out for themselves were able to bring the fans to them. En World is awesome but it is not the heaven for the publishers, especially the little guys who grew into the big guys, that it once was. It's almost a PDF only crowd outside of a few notable exceptions but that's how the 4e market itself it.

And the big player in the 4e market also has it's own forum.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 14, 2009)

Umbran said:


> There is that - while there are some types of metagame information that we don't want players to use, a DM really should design with the note that there is a game here, with people (friends, even!) trying to have a good time.  Making players work for their successes is good, as then the success is all the more sweet.  But take that to an extreme, and the undertaking becomes frustrating.




This reminds me of the Celestial Bee Incident. There's more than one way to locate a coffin.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 14, 2009)

Wicht said:


> I think it depends on what you mean by "complete."
> 
> If by complete you mean defeat the bad guy then most class mixes are going to be okay for most modules, though every bad guy will be more vulnerable to certain classes.  If this is your meaning I guess I agree with you.




Yes, that is my meaning. I'm fine with "Easter eggs" thrown in for PCs who happen to have the right spell or skill or piece of gear for the situation. In fact, such Easter eggs are a good thing; it gives the player who prepared for that situation a chance to show off, without derailing the story.

But the core plotline of the adventure should never be dependent on PCs having access to a certain ability set.


----------



## Betote (Oct 15, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Yes, that is my meaning. I'm fine with "Easter eggs" thrown in for PCs who happen to have the right spell or skill or piece of gear for the situation. In fact, such Easter eggs are a good thing; it gives the player who prepared for that situation a chance to show off, without derailing the story.
> 
> But the core plotline of the adventure should never be dependent on PCs having access to a certain ability set.




Ah, but then you risk the opposite scenario, which IIRC was one of the big complains about 3.x: When the whole adventure is solved by a sole character's power/ability/spell/trait.

A published module should always take into account the most common abilities available to the PCs, and that would be covering Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue capabilities.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 15, 2009)

> A published module should always take into account the most common abilities available to the PCs, and that would be covering Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue capabilities.




There is a huge difference between designing an adventure assuming the 4 roles are covered and designing an adventure assuming that one particular spell or ability is available at the max or even half competence.

IOW, its alright to assume the party has an arcane caster.  Its not alright to assume that the party has a 15th level Wizard with Fly and Fireball prepped.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 15, 2009)

In addition, there is the consideration that things within the game itself may remove the ability of PCs to generate particular effects, either temporarily or "permanently", including (but not limited to):
Sunder
Rust Monsters
Disenchanters
Spellthieves
Confusion effects
Level Draining effects
Stat Draining effects
Wish/Alter Reality effects
Expenditure of charges


----------



## Hierax (Oct 16, 2009)

Better late than never, applause to Orcus for getting these games out there!

I'd love to get them when I get some cash. 


Lots of talk here about modules in general but are there any on topic comments/reviews about these particular new Necromancer modules themselves? 

Are they on par with the rest of the Necromancer stuff, specifically how do they compare to others, say like Rappan Athuk and Abysthor?


----------



## Twowolves (Oct 16, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I find FoM is a hot/cold spell; some players always keep one on hand for grappling beasties, but others never bother with it. More to the point, they don't have more than one casting prepped.





It's a rock to the DM's scissors. It not only stops grapplers (like the dreaded Evard's Black Tentacles) but it stops Web, Entangle, Hold Person/Monster, hindering terrain, even lets you swing that mace underwater with no penalties. It's one of those spells that saves your bacon so many times and in so many situations that I (and the groups I've interacted with) think it almost a no brainer. You are pretty much guaranteed to run into one of these types of encounters (critters/spells/environments) in any adventure.

But that is obviously my limited experience.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 16, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Its only bad design if you assume the PCs should be able to overcome every obstacle put in their way.  Personally, in most of my worlds, I just design things in a way that seems reasonable to me and its the PCs problem to overcome.  If I was a vampire I jolly well would have a hard to get to coffin, especially if I was clever and intelligent and had hundreds of years to prepare it.



Well said.

I like to work from the assumption that most adversaries are at least as smart as the adventurers, and plan accordingly.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 16, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> Well said.
> 
> I like to work from the assumption that most adversaries are at least as smart as the adventurers, and plan accordingly.




that sort of thinking leads to one big problem (inless your me, becuse I am a a god of DMing  ) and that is there are 3-6 minds against one. I mean if you are the smartest guy in your group (witch of cource I am  ) you still have to be smart enought to out think the combined intelagence of the whole party...

of cource if you are a super Genius like me, and wile E cayotie, then no problem...


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 18, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> that sort of thinking leads to one big problem (inless your me, becuse I am a a god of DMing  ) and that is there are 3-6 minds against one. I mean if you are the smartest guy in your group (witch of cource I am  ) you still have to be smart enought to out think the combined intelagence of the whole party...
> 
> of cource if you are a super Genius like me, and wile E cayotie, then no problem...





As the referee, you have access to far more information than the players and unlimited resources at your disposal. If you can't challenge pretty much any group of players, well then, you probably shouldn't be behind the screen.

In my humble opinion and all that.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 18, 2009)

Two questions - first of all, I'll re-iterate my question in a different light (since it didn't get answered earlier) - was it unfeasible, 1½ year ago to write these modules under the OGL, but for 4E like Goodman Games does? OR were these completed for 3.5 rules and assumptions more than 1½ year ago and you wanted to redefine enough stuff to make it "4E rules, 3.5 feel" and were thus screwed by the GSL? Second question - Why couldn't you release "4Erules->3.5feel" rules modifications under the OGL?


----------



## Greg V (Oct 19, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> Two questions - first of all, I'll re-iterate my question in a different light (since it didn't get answered earlier) - was it unfeasible, 1½ year ago to write these modules under the OGL, but for 4E like Goodman Games does? OR were these completed for 3.5 rules and assumptions more than 1½ year ago and you wanted to redefine enough stuff to make it "4E rules, 3.5 feel" and were thus screwed by the GSL? Second question - Why couldn't you release "4Erules->3.5feel" rules modifications under the OGL?




I can't speak for the others, but the writing for the Slumbering Tsar series was completed about 4 years ago.


----------



## Filcher (Oct 19, 2009)

Ouch. That's patience.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Orcus limited interaction with this thread reinforces my 'fire and forget' theory.
> 
> It also showcases one of the reasons why EN World isn't 'hip' anymore.
> 
> ...




Oh come on now, Joe  I havent responded because it seemed like there wasnt much to say to the whole tulip conspiracy thing.  Plus, I put it out there for people to discuss. I dont want to shape the conversation. But if my non-posting is going to be interpreted as an "I dont care" move, then here I am posting. Caring is one thing I do do.


----------



## Orcus (Oct 21, 2009)

Wow, that was way too short of a post for three smiley faces. Sorry about that. Smiley overload.


----------



## Wicht (Oct 21, 2009)

*A Demon Lord of UnDeath who Cares.*

Now there's a PR/marketing slogan for you.


----------



## Votan (Oct 21, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, its alright to assume the party has an arcane caster.  Its not alright to assume that the party has a 15th level Wizard with Fly and Fireball prepped.




One of the challenges with high level 3.5E play (and this is true of many other systems so it is not, by any means, a dig at 3.5E) is that the range of capabilities that a party could have is broad.  An obstacle (say collapsing bridge in Moira) that would be a massive problem with a bunch of fighters becomes trivial if there is a sorcerer with teleport in the party.  

I think that there are two options left:

1. Build a realistic module, for opponents of the level of the party, and let the party worry about whether they can handle it

2. Build a model to the capabilities of the party

For an experienced group I would expect 1 to be the better approach.  #2 might seem to reduce the challenge and part of the intellectual challenge of the game is figuring out what types of challenges you can face.  

If nobody can fly/teleport then you need to think carefully about signing on as caravan guards with a rogue dragon about.  

Similarly, if you have characters with knowledge skills, then I'd worry that I'd have to mimic key features of a vampire's powers should we go vampire hunting.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 21, 2009)

If I could ask, was the problem with the license or the conversions? I can certainly understand if there were legal issues that couldn't get resolved, but if it was a conversion problem, I find it a little bit harder to understand. Some clarification would be most appreciated!

--Steve


----------



## Mercule (Oct 21, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Caring is one thing I do do.



<beavis>Heh. Heh.  You said "do do".</beavis>


----------



## Angellis_ater (Oct 21, 2009)

Greg V said:


> I can't speak for the others, but the writing for the Slumbering Tsar series was completed about 4 years ago.




Ah, well that does explain the inability (or rather, major workload) to convert it into a normal 4E system. Thankyou for taking the time to share and explain, as I guess that the others are somewhat on the same scale.

However, @Clark, that still leaves the question - was it the GSL rigidity that forced you to step away from remaking the rules into a system that would've been closer to your "ideal vision" and could've included these three adventures?


----------



## Grazzt (Oct 21, 2009)

Mercule said:


> <beavis>Heh. Heh.  You said "do do".</beavis>




Settle down, Beavis


----------



## Voadam (Oct 21, 2009)

So the slumbering Tsar one is part one of three, the shortest of the three and the writing was finished four years ago? Any word on when the follow ups will be released?


----------



## Greg V (Oct 21, 2009)

Voadam said:


> So the slumbering Tsar one is part one of three, the shortest of the three and the writing was finished four years ago? Any word on when the follow ups will be released?




Word from Bill Webb on the Necromancer Games boards is that it will depend on sales of the first which, as a pdf only right now, have been slow based on what I've heard   However, Drive Thru RPG is supposed to be launching POD within a few weeks and a lot of people have stated that they are holding out for dead-tree versions.  Hopefully sales will spike then.  So here's my plug: if you want to see 'em published (and I do as a decidedly biased observer) buy the first one!

Oh yeah, and I echo Beavis...Orcus said do do (heh, heh)


----------



## catsclaw227 (Oct 22, 2009)

It would be interesting to compare the sales between 3.x and 4e versions of the same adventure.  Are there any that were written for both (or written for one and converted to both)? 

How are 4e sales of WotBS doing compared to 3.5 version?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 22, 2009)

Orcus said:


> Oh come on now, Joe  I havent responded because it seemed like there wasnt much to say to the whole tulip conspiracy thing.  Plus, I put it out there for people to discuss. I dont want to shape the conversation. But if my non-posting is going to be interpreted as an "I dont care" move, then here I am posting. Caring is one thing I do do.




I'm certainly not saying you don't care. It's just En World is not the haven it used to be. This isn't a slam against EN World, it's the evolution of the other companies to handle more and more of the support on their own if anything. This is especially true when compaies move beyond the D&D model and start doing their own games. While non-D&D games are welcomed here, they're certainly not the mainstream.


----------



## Qwillion (Oct 22, 2009)

I am glad to see that these were finally released.  I hope they do well.  I would not expect real #s to be released but I would love to hear if these are doing about what Clark expected, worse than expected, or Better than Clark expected. 

I look forward to more releases from Necromancer Games.  Crosses fingers from a Tome of Horrors IV for Pathfinder Rpg


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 22, 2009)

Greg V said:


> Word from Bill Webb on the Necromancer Games boards is that it will depend on sales of the first which, as a pdf only right now, have been slow based on what I've heard   However, Drive Thru RPG is supposed to be launching POD within a few weeks and a lot of people have stated that they are holding out for dead-tree versions.  Hopefully sales will spike then.  So here's my plug: if you want to see 'em published (and I do as a decidedly biased observer) buy the first one!




I'm waiting for POD, so you'll have at least 1 more sale at that point.   And, as I'm sure you've seen on the Necro boards, I'm not alone.  (Actually, I'm hoping for a .pdf + POD option as Paizo has spoiled us in that regard.)


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 22, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I'm waiting for POD, so you'll have at least 1 more sale at that point.   And, as I'm sure you've seen on the Necro boards, I'm not alone.  (Actually, I'm hoping for a .pdf + POD option as Paizo has spoiled us in that regard.)



Yes, I'm also waiting for the POD. A print + PDF would be lovely indeed.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Oct 22, 2009)

*A few points...*



SteveC said:


> If I could ask, was the problem with the license or the conversions? I can certainly understand if there were legal issues that couldn't get resolved, but if it was a conversion problem, I find it a little bit harder to understand. Some clarification would be most appreciated!
> 
> --Steve




I am not answering for either Bill or Clark here, but I want to point out that things were a little  more complicated than they appear. Publishing a book, particularly a printed book that has to go into distribution, is not trivial.

First, the announcement of 4e caused Necro and Kenzer (who was their partner on these books) to pull these three finished books (the books just released as .pdfs) from the printer. 

Artwork, etc. is generally paid for when the book is printed/released and the art contracts for these books were based on a print release and the much larger predicted sales that would have been expected with a print release. 

In order to allow Bill to release these books as .pdfs he had to negotiate with Kenzer (their partner on these books) to have them released to him (kudos to Dave Kenzer, one of the coolest guys in the business). Then he had to renegotiate with the artists and author(s) because the expected profits/margins for a .pdf release are much lower than the planned for print release(s).

Second, books like this that were held back pending the GSL, and then the "revised" GSL were not converted right away. There was no sense trying to convert rules to the new system until Necro knew for certain they would/could use the GSL. By the time the revised GSL came out, apparent sales of 3rd party 4e books, and distribution of those books, was low enough that Necro and Paizo (their potential partner for new 4e books) decided against converting books at that time. 

Finally, conversion of an already designed, and mapped, product to 4e might be fairly simple for a DM, but for a published product it isn't as trivial. Many 4e powers for both PCs and monsters involved pushing, pulling, etc. opponents on the battlefield. This means that room sizes and terrain play a larger role in the game.

Running out of time here, I'll just say that I think it is great that Bill went through all of the time and effort to get these books released. Obviously they are out much later than he (and many others) would have liked, but they are out. I know that Bill wants to release some of the other books that were prepped and ready to go when the 4e announcement was made, but that is going to be dependent on how these books sell.

Back to real life,
Patrick


----------



## cnath.rm (Nov 21, 2009)

PatrickLawinger said:


> Running out of time here, I'll just say that I think it is great that Bill went through all of the time and effort to get these books released. Obviously they are out much later than he (and many others) would have liked, but they are out. I know that Bill wants to release some of the other books that were prepped and ready to go when the 4e announcement was made, but that is going to be dependent on how these books sell.
> 
> Back to real life,
> Patrick



Patrick, do any of those other books have your name as the author offhand?  and is there any word on when/if Hall of the Rainbow Mage will get reworked and/or the "offending" artwork removed for pdf sales

I rather enjoyed your Necro work so I figured I'd ask.


----------

