# Chris Perkins now Senior Producer, D&D RPG



## weem (May 19, 2010)

I wanted to know, so I simply asked him 

His response...



> Hey Mike,
> 
> We've created a new group within the D&D R&D team that's focused on D&D games beyond the RPG (board games and other things I can't discuss). James Wyatt is the Creative Manager for this new group.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2010)

Go him! 

Seems like they're trying to focus the departments.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 19, 2010)

I've always liked Chris Perkins. But to be honest, the longer he has been at WotC, the further removed he's become from the things I enjoyed of his the most:  his adventure writing.

Lots of designers and devs have come and gone at TSR and WotC over the years. But in terms of a prime timer who can design an adventure and tell a geat story along side the very best in the business? Chris Perkins is that man.  And to be honest -- there aren't many of those guys left at WotC. They bulked up on crunchy guys over the years, but the adventure writers? They left; of course, many of them gravitated to Paizo or became freelancers. 

"Chris Perkins, Producer" obviously has other "people" and organizational skills that have lead to his steady promotion within WotC over the years. Good for him.

But I still miss reading the work of "Chris Perkins, gamer."


----------



## darjr (May 19, 2010)

Duh, just ask him.

Congrats. Now go publish the video.


----------



## Shemeska (May 19, 2010)

Huh, I don't see Cordell in there. Is he working outside of D&D specific stuff now, or just a different D&D group not inclusive of the folks listed above?


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 19, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> Huh, I don't see Cordell in there. Is he working outside of D&D specific stuff now, or just a different D&D group not inclusive of the folks listed above?




Read the list of names carefully in temrs of how it is presented. My guess is Bruce Cordell, like Bill Slavicsek (unmentioned) and James Wyatt, don't report to Chris Perkins. They are either above him in the heirarchy - or in a parallel position, involved in some other aspect of the brand.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (May 19, 2010)

Chris Perkins goes into a little more detail on the roster changes here.


----------



## TerraDave (May 19, 2010)

From CPs post:

Slavicsek is in charge still. 

James Wyatt, Chris Youngs, Bruce Cordell, and Peter Lee are working on non-RP D&D games. Given that the first two board games are probably mostly done, this raises all sorts of questions. (A D&D CCG that competes with Magic, and other wild speculation). 

Perkins and Mearls are essentially co-maneging R&D. (Think of Mearls as the Director, and Perkins as the, well, producer) This includes desingers, developers, the main editors, and others responsible for DDI. 

Speaking of which, veteran Steve Winters replaces Chris Youngs?


----------



## the Jester (May 19, 2010)

Wow, Cordell is out of the RPG section. That sucks- he's been one of my favorite writers for the game since 2e.


----------



## deadsmurf (May 19, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Wow, Cordell is out of the RPG section. That sucks- he's been one of my favorite writers for the game since 2e.




Just because he's not directly in the RPG department doesn't mean he won't also freelance RPG material for D&D.


----------



## TerraDave (May 19, 2010)

ooh, self quoting



TerraDave said:


> Speaking of which, veteran Steve Winters replaces Chris Youngs?




Yes, yes he does: (and the link works)

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


----------



## Derulbaskul (May 20, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I've always liked Chris Perkins. But to be honest, the longer he has been at WotC, the further removed he's become from the things I enjoyed of his the most:  his adventure writing. (snip)




I have never understood why WotC acknowledges that it has a problem with the quality of its adventures and yet the names of their two best adventure writers (IMO), Chris Perkins and Rich Baker, are conspicuous by their absence.

Of course, I also realise that this is a consequence of them being promoted further up the greasy pole but it is a shame.

Notwithstanding that, I'm pleased that Chris and Mike both got their promotions.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (May 20, 2010)

D&D finally aligns with the org chart that has made M:tG so successful for so long.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (May 20, 2010)

But I can't help wish, as I sit to plan out how I'm going to spend the next three months rewriting the E-series of WotC adventures before they are in a shape fit to run as an RPG rather than an extended Descent/Heroquest session with my group, Perkins would be writing adventures now that Cordell has been shuffled of to the boardgames to which his talents are more clearly suited.

(Cordell was the primary author for all three E-series adventures.)


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 20, 2010)

Chris is a great guy. I'm glad that he's still moving up the ladder.


----------



## Pour (May 20, 2010)

Big fan of Chris Perkins, a very approachable and knowledgeable guy who has a firm grasp on the game and a flare for story. I think under his direction we'll see adventures and game material in general take more risks. I feel he'll have a lot of synergy with Mearls and his enthusiasm/philosophies, as well. Maybe the whole team will feed off that and be supercharged.

And to have warranted a non-RPG D&D team has to mean considerable time and effort put toward (I hope) thorough exploration of the license. Among their duties, I'm hoping they'll act as liaisons between WotC and video game publishers, animation houses, etc. I mean there is already so much going on outside of the RPG already (boardgames, comics, G9 products...).


----------



## vagabundo (May 20, 2010)

This new business group sounds very interesting.

Computer games; obviously. Films/movies?? Maybe. New cartoons, comics...

DND brand coffee mugs...


----------



## Derulbaskul (May 20, 2010)

I agree: it does sound interesting.

Clearly, Hasbro is expecting that the WotC team extract more value from the D&D brand than they have in the past. RPGs are such a small (sub-)industry that it makes sense to broaden the range of products with the D&D brand. 

I sincerely wish them every success.

(Actually, in a way it reminds me of the game of cricket. I love Test cricket, that's the five-days-of-play-and-there-might-not-be-a-result-version for those of you who don't know what I am talking about. A lot of the "purists", ie test cricket fans, dislike the shorter versions of the game. I don't. The shorter versions are very profitable... and that allows Test cricket to continue. In the same way, I hope the non-RPG stuff for D&D is very successful to ensure that the RPG continues to be published!)


----------



## Desdichado (May 20, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> DND brand coffee mugs...



Get.

OUT!

Coffee mugs?  Wow!


----------



## P1NBACK (May 20, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Get.
> 
> OUT!
> 
> Coffee mugs?  Wow!




I want one. Where do I sign up? 

"World's Best DM" 

Buying one for myself - ala Michael Scott.


----------



## nerfherder (May 20, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Get.
> 
> OUT!
> 
> Coffee mugs?  Wow!




If you're excited now, I can't imagine what you'll be like when you hear about "D&D The Musical!"


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

D&D Hot sauce would be awesome...  Or like a whole line of hot sauces.

Official D&D Halloween costumes would be cool too.


----------



## Ktulu (May 20, 2010)

You haven't made it as a brand until you have a 

Dungeon Masters' Lean Mean Grillin' Machine.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 20, 2010)

D&D breakfast cereal.

Oat cereal in the shape of swords, dragons and polyhedral dice.  

Each box contains an envelope with a Power Card.  "It's the cereal with crunch."


----------



## Ktulu (May 20, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> D&D breakfast cereal.
> 
> Oat cereal in the shape of swords, dragons and polyhedral dice.
> 
> Each box contains an envelope with a Power Card.  "It's the cereal with crunch."




I'd totally buy that.  



What?!?!  I like geeky cereal.


----------



## P1NBACK (May 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> D&D Hot sauce would be awesome...  Or like a whole line of hot sauces.




Oooooh! Or, BBQ sauce. 

"Fire Dragon's Breath BBQ Sauce!"


----------



## Scribble (May 20, 2010)

Ktulu said:


> I'd totally buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> What?!?!  I like geeky cereal.




Do they still make breakfast cereal tie ins these days? I thought that died out in the 80s?


----------



## Echohawk (May 20, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Official D&D Halloween costumes would be cool too.



There was a range of licensed D&D Halloween costumes released in the 80s. Here's a catalog page.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 21, 2010)

Chris is a great guy and a talented designer. I wish he were even higher up the ladder.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 21, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> This new business group sounds very interesting.
> 
> Computer games; obviously. Films/movies?? Maybe. New cartoons, comics...
> 
> DND brand coffee mugs...





I already have a couple of TSR coffee mugs. These feature the logo with the dragon behind the TSR. Jealous?


----------



## tuxgeo (May 21, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> This new business group sounds very interesting.
> 
> < snip >
> 
> DND brand coffee mugs...



D&D-branded *ale* mugs. ("It comes in pints? I'm getting one!") 
Extra points if it's a flagon with a dragon. . . .

(Not that this has anything to do with the recent promotion of Chris Perkins, who may not even drink ale for all I know.)


----------



## Scribble (May 21, 2010)

Echohawk said:


> There was a range of licensed D&D Halloween costumes released in the 80s. Here's a catalog page.


----------



## vagabundo (May 21, 2010)

Darrin Drader said:


> I already have a couple of TSR coffee mugs. These feature the logo with the dragon behind the TSR. Jealous?




lol pictures or it didn't happen...


----------



## Jack99 (May 21, 2010)

vagabundo said:


> lol pictures or it didn't happen...




It's *screenshots* or it didn't happen


----------



## Roland55 (May 21, 2010)

weem said:


> I wanted to know, so I simply asked him
> 
> His response...




These are some talented people.  Results ought to be good.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 22, 2010)

TikkchikFenTikktikk said:


> But I can't help wish, as I sit to plan out how I'm going to spend the next three months rewriting the E-series of WotC adventures before they are in a shape fit to run as an RPG rather than an extended Descent/Heroquest session with my group, Perkins would be writing adventures now that Cordell has been shuffled of to the boardgames to which his talents are more clearly suited.
> 
> (Cordell was the primary author for all three E-series adventures.)





Don't put that on Bruce Cordell.  I think it's wildly unfair to blame the sucktasticness of the published WotC 4E modules on him.  He wrote some amazing modules back in the day.  I think it's the fact that everyone writing published WotC adventures for 4E now are forced into writing them a certain way, and that way is crap.

Blame the format, the encounter and adventure design assumptions which are built into "official" 4E.

_The Gates of Firestorm Peak_ is my favorite D&D module of all time, and Bruce Cordell's illithid trilogy was really cool, as well.  He's more than capable of writing great adventures.  I think he's just constrained now by "it must be in the space-eating delve format, must contain X number of combat encounters built according to X encounter budgets, and fit on a map this small, in this page count, and it has to be written according to a default, codified 4E adventure style".

I can just imagine trying to write a cool adventure for WotC, and being told "well, you've pretty much got five pages total for all story, NPC details, background, interesting description, branching plotlines, discussion of roleplaying scenes, extra fun places to explore that aren't directly used for a pre-designed encounter, or alternative means of handling challenges . . . the rest of the page count _must_ be filled with 50 grindy combats and 10 skill challenges designed according to a specific formula, that _must_ each take up a bunch of space by using the inviolable delve format . . . so, good luck!"

Blame the people who are setting the rules for "this is how WotC 4E adventures must be written and presented", not Bruce Cordell.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 22, 2010)

Firesnakearies, I completely agree. Bruce Cordell is a great designer whose previous work speaks for itself. If you liked hid stuff before but you don't now, you should really ask what has changed.

My hope is that between the D&D Essentials line and Chris Perkins functioning at a higher level, that D&D might evolve into something builds on some of the strengths of 4E, but is otherwise closer to its roots.


----------



## Turbiales (May 22, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> Blame the people who are setting the rules for "this is how WotC 4E adventures must be written and presented", not Bruce Cordell.




I completely agree, the "adventure separated from encounters" format is the main reason i stopped bying any adventures from WOTC. It can be better to use in encounters but is annoying to read them in the first place. 

As a gamer who used to enjoy reading adventures, it  was a disappointment. 

At least we have paizo for traditional adventures.


----------



## Shemeska (May 22, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> I can just imagine trying to write a cool adventure for WotC, and being told "well, you've pretty much got five pages total for all story, NPC details, background, interesting description, branching plotlines, discussion of roleplaying scenes, extra fun places to explore that aren't directly used for a pre-designed encounter, or alternative means of handling challenges . . . the rest of the page count _must_ be filled with 50 grindy combats and 10 skill challenges designed according to a specific formula, that _must_ each take up a bunch of space by using the inviolable delve format . . . so, good luck!"
> 
> Blame the people who are setting the rules for "this is how WotC 4E adventures must be written and presented", not Bruce Cordell.




Very true. Cordell has some crazy talent, and some of his 2e works are among my favorite RPG books ever. 'Guide to the Ethereal' was amazing. His talent didn't vanish unless illithids really do exist and there's a giant creativity eating brain in a pool of green water and tadpoles in the basement over at WotC headquarters, so I'm very much inclined to say that the system in place and the handed-down-from-on-high inviolable guidelines for adventures and other material are at best not the best way to showcase his work - and more in line with my opinion they're stiffling him and others.


----------



## DaveMage (May 22, 2010)

I guess we'll see what happens, but there certainly seems to be a shift away from the RPG....


----------



## Starfox (May 22, 2010)

Considering the last  round of firings was 7 people, the list of people he provides is fitfully short. Was half the DnD staff laid off?


----------



## Dannager (May 22, 2010)

Turbiales said:


> I completely agree, the "adventure separated from encounters" format is the main reason i stopped bying any adventures from WOTC. It can be better to use in encounters but is annoying to read them in the first place.
> 
> As a gamer who used to enjoy reading adventures, it  was a disappointment.
> 
> At least we have paizo for traditional adventures.



Actually, I wish Paizo would go with the Delve format. It encourages dynamic encounter design with varied elements, and I think that encounter design is one of the few areas that the Paizo adventures I've read could improve on. I love the Delve format, because I buy adventures to run them. How well they "read" is of secondary importance to how well they run, and the Delve format makes running them easier on me as a DM.


----------



## Sammael (May 22, 2010)

The delve format limits adventure design too much. I agree that Paizo's combat encounters could be improved a bit (particularly compared to their absolutely superb NPCs, background information, and overall adventure structure), but I really don't think the delve is the way to go.


----------



## Maggan (May 22, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Each box contains an envelope with a Power Card.  "It's the cereal with crunch."




They could make special towels with printed campaign informatin, such as maps, or locations ... even battlemats on towels.

It'd be towels with extra fluff ... 

/M


----------



## Teemu (May 22, 2010)

I disagree with the notion that the 'official' 4e adventure design sucks. The advice in the DMGs is superb, IMO, but it hasn't translated into great modules for whatever reason. If only they'd use those books as guidelines.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (May 22, 2010)

I'm with Darrin and Firesnakearies. Bruce knows how to write an adventure; they're just not letting him. I hope that Chris can change the writers' guidelines (and the whole direction of 4e, for that matter).

The splitting of the D&D team into an RPG group and a non-RPG group might help here. This might allow the RPG group to bring D&D back to a role-playing focus as opposed to the combat- and minis-focus that many, including me, perceive in 4e.

I doubt that will happen, though, because Mearls is still in the RPG section. I think he, the game, and the fans would have been better served if he had moved to the non-RPG group (the caveat being that, since we don't know exactly what the other group is doing, I might be way off).


----------



## Starfox (May 24, 2010)

I've been going over old issues of Dungeon Magazine and checking out the authors, and its interesting to see what scenarios the big names have written.

Mearls have made adventures for 3.5 that are very much like those for 4E; very linear plots, maps with prepositioned enemies marked on them; basically a tactical wargame.

Perkins has made elaborate plots that end in relatively simple dungeons.

I must say I by far prefer Perkins' approach.


----------



## Derren (May 24, 2010)

Ycore Rixle said:


> Chris is a great guy and a talented designer. I wish he were even higher up the ladder.




Be careful with what you wish for. The higher he is on the ladder, the less design work he will do.

See Peter Principle


----------



## Windjammer (May 24, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> Don't put that on Bruce Cordell.  I think it's wildly unfair to blame the sucktasticness of the published WotC 4E modules on him.  He wrote some amazing modules back in the day.  I think it's the fact that everyone writing published WotC adventures for 4E now are forced into writing them a certain way, and that way is crap.
> 
> Blame the format, the encounter and adventure design assumptions which are built into "official" 4E.
> 
> _The Gates of Firestorm Peak_ is my favorite D&D module of all time, and Bruce Cordell's illithid trilogy was really cool, as well.  He's more than capable of writing great adventures.  I think he's just constrained now by "it must be in the space-eating delve format, must contain X number of combat encounters built according to X encounter budgets, and fit on a map this small, in this page count, and it has to be written according to a default, codified 4E adventure style".




I bought "Gates of Firestorm Peak" just last week (because of PHB 3 referencing the Far Realm, which in turn cropped up in an article in Dragon 330...referencing that module) and I was struck by how very _similar _"Gates" actually is to a 4E module. You get a folder with two battle maps working on 1 inch squares (even a sheet with paper minis), and the adventure itself is an extra booklet inside the folder. Beyond product presentation, I also noticed occasional, though less pronounced, similarities in layout (e.g. font choice) and content - for instance, I was surprised how strongly the module sometimes has the DM think in terms of encounters and encounter pacing (I distinctly thought that type of thing was what 3.5/4E brought to D&D). Even the introductory "background" info doesn't really span more than a couple of pages, and the module doesn't really end in a section explaining what happens now that everything is done... it breaks off rather sudden. These are characteristics I strongly associate with 4E modules by WotC and wouldn't have thought would occur in 2e stuff. So there. 

And yet there's a world of difference here - from the get go I felt the module didn't place heavy assumptions on player behaviour. It's a site-based adventure with a time line of events that will unfold regardless of what the PCs do. That's the antithesis of 4E modules, all of which are premised on the idea that nothing is really interesting unless the module author predicts the PCs come in direct contact with it. Given module authors' limits to predict player behaviour, I find the end point of that "premise" rather unsatisfactory. I either end up writing missing bits to fill in stuff for my players to interact with, or modify heavily stuff that the author thinks the players will interact with very specifically. Obviously, most modules suffer from this problem, but a simple look at "Gates" will tell anyone that there are various (and variously successful) ways to address the issue.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (May 28, 2010)

First, Chris Perkins is a machine and will kick a$$ at what ever he works on. Glad to see him movin' up. 

Second, Orc Bacon. Apparently there was Orc Bacon sold in Germany at one point. This needs to make a comeback


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 28, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Actually, I wish Paizo would go with the Delve format. It encourages dynamic encounter design with varied elements, and I think that encounter design is one of the few areas that the Paizo adventures I've read could improve on. I love the Delve format, because I buy adventures to run them. How well they "read" is of secondary importance to how well they run, and the Delve format makes running them easier on me as a DM.






Sammael said:


> The delve format limits adventure design too much. I agree that Paizo's combat encounters could be improved a bit (particularly compared to their absolutely superb NPCs, background information, and overall adventure structure), but I really don't think the delve is the way to go.




As I always say. Put the (mechanical) strengths of WotC and the (storytelling) strengths of Paizo together, and you have a relentless war machine with only one purpose - bringing the best possible game experience you can have. 

(We kinda had that with 3E and Paizo Dungeons, to be honest. But both sides still had to learn... And that learning from WotC resulted in 4E, and the learning from Paizo resulted in the Pathfinder adventure paths...)


----------



## firesnakearies (May 28, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Put the (mechanical) strengths of WotC and the (storytelling) strengths of Paizo together





I would really love this.  I dislike 3.x/Pathfinder, mechanically, but I love the way Paizo writes their adventures.  I like 4E, mechanically, but I dislike the way WotC writes their adventures.  If someone started putting out adventures that managed to combine these two things that I like, I'd be a customer of theirs very quickly.


----------



## Kafen (May 28, 2010)

Scott_Rouse said:


> First, Chris Perkins is a machine and will kick a$$ at what ever he works on. Glad to see him movin' up.
> 
> Second, Orc Bacon. Apparently there was Orc Bacon sold in Germany at one point. This needs to make a comeback




Mmmm, bacon - 

Anyways, I hope Derren is wrong, no offense to Derren, about the Peter Principle. If he can transfer style guidelines into the overall design process, it might make all of his fans happy.


----------



## Scribble (May 28, 2010)

Scott_Rouse said:


> First, Chris Perkins is a machine and will kick a$$ at what ever he works on. Glad to see him movin' up.
> 
> Second, Orc Bacon. Apparently there was Orc Bacon sold in Germany at one point. This needs to make a comeback




As long as he is not The Machine things will be ok...


----------



## Derulbaskul (May 29, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> As I always say. Put the (mechanical) strengths of WotC and the (storytelling) strengths of Paizo together, and you have a relentless war machine with only one purpose - bringing the best possible game experience you can have.
> 
> (We kinda had that with 3E and Paizo Dungeons, to be honest. But both sides still had to learn... And that learning from WotC resulted in 4E, and the learning from Paizo resulted in the Pathfinder adventure paths...)




Absolutely.

WotC basically admits its adventures and (pseudo-) adventure paths aren't up to scratch (Rodney Thompson's thread is evidence of that).

If I owned/ran WotC  and was uncertain about opening up the GSL I would be negotiating with Paizo and/or Necromancer Games for a temporary licence for a series of adventures/adventure path where the licence specifically allowed each party to retain its IP (or whatever it is the pettifoggers-in-charge are quibbling over).

Why not experiment with something like this?


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> As I always say. Put the (mechanical) strengths of WotC and the (storytelling) strengths of Paizo together, and you have a relentless war machine with only one purpose - bringing the best possible game experience you can have.




Actually? No. It doesn't work in the medium to long term. The problem is that the  "sell lots of Rules" approach to RPG sales ends up breaking your ability to sell compatible adventures. The problem with this approach is demonstrated with what happened to the compatibility of 3.5 and _Dungeon_ Magazine.

When you are Wizards of the Coast, your view your sales to be  driven by the release of more and more rules hardcovers. For the most part, these books are directed at the broad mass of players. 

When you are Paizo and selling adventures, you are already targeting your products at a smaller slice of the market (DMs). In order to maximize your ability to sell to that smaller slice, you need to maximize your compatibility of assumed Rules - which means you target the Core Rules only. And that's the problem in all of this.

So, what you had was _Dungeon _Magazine writing adventures based upon the Core Rules only, while at the same time, you had WotC beavering away, MONTHLY, in an attempt to break the game with more and more rules with more and more power creep.

Now, I question whether it is possible for ANY DM to keep up with the release of such new rules on an even footing with the players, who necessarily must only confine their reading and character build exploration to one or two new books...

But whatever the case, once you allow these new Rules hardcovers into the game, you increasingly lessen the utility of using published adventures. And there came a point in time (in my estimation late 2005/ early 2006), where the 3.5  game simply BROKE with the power creep presented in WotC's accessory line.

That's what happened in the final two years of _Dungeon_ Magazine under Paizo. They put out awesome adventure Path products that were enthusiastically received by gamers. And all the while, monthly, WotC was destroying the compatibility of those adventures by releasing books which shifted the power balance in the game radically from that presented in the Core Rules. Paizo's adventure products became broken under this stress.

In the end, DMs were left with a choice: Ban the 3.5 expansion books from use at the table, or rewrite the adventures, sometimes radically, to up the power level of the foes to match the increased power brought to the table by the players.

Either way, you destroy the value in use of either the accessory Rules products or the published adventures.* You cannot have it both ways* -- not with the ridiculous product release schedule that WotC had in the 3.5 era -- and while it is somewhat lessened in the 4E era, I would argue that the same problem is still present in 4E.

The only way this works is if you SLOOOOOOOOOW down the release of rules, and then deem it an assumed requirement that everybody will buy and use the expansion material.  

_Interestingly, I asked James Jacobs specifically about this issue last week and he advised me that forthcoming Paizo Adventure Path products and their module lines for Pathfinder WILL make use of the Advanced Player's Guide within the adventure text. Paizo is making the choice to build the APG into their product lines._

Paizo is very sensitive to this issue as they know what happened to their products' compatibility during the 3.5 era. To deal with this issue, it appears that Paizo will build in the "power upgrade" that happens with release of new player material. Paizo can get away with this because they aren't releasing a new rules hardcover for players every month; instead, they are doing so only once a year.

And Paizo, this time, is the beneficiary of sales of the APG, whereas before, they couldn't make up that revenue by excluding some DMs from their market by requiring those products. (How "required" this APG material will be in terms of being able to use Paizo's APs and Modules remains to be seen, of course.)

So that's pretty much the middle ground you have to aim for. You either slow down the introduction of new player focussed rules to the pace we experienced in the 1st edition era so that you don't break your published adventures...

OR

You go *Wango Zee Tango* like WotC has done with 3.x and (to a somewhat lesser degree) 4.x in terms of your release schedule and say "to hell with compatibility with published adventures".

But you can't do both -- they are mutually exclusive approaches to publishing  RPG products.

@_*Derulbaskul*_:
@_*firesnakearies*_:
@_*Mustrum_Ridcully*_:


----------



## JeffB (May 29, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> I  I dislike 3.x/Pathfinder, mechanically, but I love the way Paizo writes their adventures.  I like 4E, mechanically, but I dislike the way WotC writes their adventures..




Quoting just to bounce off this idea and put my thoughts to ...eerrr....paper? 

I happen to like the way 4E is written ina fluff/story context: minimal but inspirational (to me anyway). But definitely the adventures (i've bought/read) have been lackluster.

But this was a problem through 3rd edition as well, and some (many? all?)  of the Paizo crew are the same whom were writing the 3E "story" as well-whether through the mags, or actual stand alone adventures and supplements. I was reminded of this when I grabbed the "egypt" Pathfinder Supplement several months back-I couldn't even get through the whole thing (and it's not very long..32 pages maybe?). I've read through some of the freebie adventures , and browsed through the Golarion book and I just don't get the "pathfinder is great at story" or "much better than WOTC" comments. I tried to see it/give them a fair shake, but I don't feel they are any better, nor much worse than WOTC at all in this area. 

However,  I think is particularly an issue where I'm much more divided in my old school D&D mentality with newer fangled D&D rules double personality- I cannot stand the concept of adventure paths & highly scripted adventures, or mega campaign setting details. I prefer simple site based adventures of old with little in the way of story or extended plotlines . I also prefer  background and campaign material with alot of "here's whats going on now & a bunch of locations/plot ideas" vs. "here's a overly detailed history about things that are not terribly useful to an actual game" (i.e. 2E syndrome).

My point- I'd  like to see WOTC improve, but going the Paizo route to me is no improvement (and thats no slight on Erik and crew, just where my tastes dramatically differ on what constitutes good D&D "story" .WOTC is a bit more on point for me in that regard )


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> But this was a problem through 3rd edition as well, and some (many? all?)  of the Paizo crew are the same whom were writing the 3E "story" as well-whether through the mags, or actual stand alone adventures and supplements. I was reminded of this when I grabbed the "egypt" Pathfinder Supplement several months back-I couldn't even get through the whole thing (and it's not very long..32 pages maybe?). I've read through some of the freebie adventures , and browsed through the Golarion book and I just don't get the "pathfinder is great at story" or "much better than WOTC" comments.




That's because you are reading the wrong things.  Their Chronicles and Companion lines, most especially the stuff written before the release of Pathfinder RPG (and the "Egypt" Companion product, _Osirion_ is pre-PFRPG and is not even a Chronicles product intended solely for GMs), was fluffy and deliberately inspecific.

It's not the stuff people praise.

The stuff people praise are the Adventure Paths. That's what built -- and continues to fuel -- the adventure component of the company. 

Pick up part 1 of _Rise of the Runelords_ (.pdf only now as otherwise it's about $140 on eBay for print version), _Legacy of Fire_ or_ Curse of the Crimson Throne_... then you'll understand what people are talking about.  

You're just not reading the right stuff to judge what the buzz is all about.


----------



## JeffB (May 29, 2010)

But if I don't like APs, WHY would I pick up an AP? If thats where the good stuff is, and they save the not so good stuff for their campaign setting materials...definitely not my kind of product/product line.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> But if I don't like APs, WHY would I pick up an AP? If thats where the good stuff is, and they save the not so good stuff for their campaign setting materials...definitely not my kind of product/product line.




I didn't say it was good / not so good. You said that. The "Pathfinder is great at story" that people praise? That's the Pathfinder Adventure Path products. The rest of the Pathfinder Companion and Chronicle Product lines principally support and lend context to the story lines in their APs -- or can be used as context for user designed sandbox play. 

Point is: if you are looking for the "story driven content" that Paizo is praised for - then you need to read the story driven products -- which is what their Adventure Paths are.

If you don't like APs, but bemoan the lack of "story driven content" in the products you have looked at which are not designed to "tell a story" on their own, rather, principally to support the story being told in the AP products? Huh? I think we've stumbled upon a _non sequitur_.

I'm curious though. How could you know that "you don't like Adventure Paths" if you haven't read one?


----------



## JeffB (May 29, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Point is: if you are looking for the "story driven content" that Paizo is praised for - then you need to read the story driven products -- which is what their Adventure Paths are.




I think its just confusion of terminology- when I hear people say "PF is great at "story"- I'm talking fluff- not just in APS, but in their world/setting products. But if the Osirion book (thx for the reminder)  is supposed to support the AP why would it be "less good" than the AP itself, from a "good story" (or "good fluff") standpoint? And why not the standalone adventures, or the Golarion CS book either? I suspect that regardless of whether it's a support product with "fluff", a stand-alone module, the CS, or the AP itself, Paizo is putting out the same quality and type of writing. Maybe not, but that would be kind of stupid to write awesome APs, and then mediocre support products and standalones.




> I'm curious though. How could you know that "you don't like Adventure Paths" if you haven't read one?




I have experienced APs through the first two 3.x versions in Dungeon Magazine (and 4E's scales of war)  - it's not an adventure format I like, regardless of who publishes it or system (as I explained in my first post)

At any rate, Paizos "style" is not to my tastes (despite all the claims I hear to the contrary about them  being better at storylines/fluff), and my point was I'd hate to see WOTC go that way. I'm not sure why thats so hard to understand.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 29, 2010)

JeffB said:


> I think its just confusion of terminology- when I hear people say "PF is great at "story"-




I think that's fair. The entire name "Pathfinder" was settled upon by Paizo to evoke and key off of their Adventure Paths published in Dungeon.

Later, the world setting created to support those APs took the same name. And later still, the RPG they released also used the name. So... yeah... the terminology might confuse, depending upon whose post you are reading or recalling.



> I have experienced APs through the first two 3.x versions in Dungeon Magazine (and 4E's scales of war)  - it's not an adventure format I like, regardless of who publishes it or system (as I explained in my first post)




Well, I can see your point of view. I never like _Shackled City _much, and while I did enjoy _Age of Worms_, the format of that AP led to a very significant, nay, relentless amount of combat by reason of the whole intention of taking a character from first to 20th.

But Paizo has done a LOT of these APs now. They did three in _Dungeon_, and are on their sixth AP currently under the Pathfinder brand (4 as OGL products, with two more statted under the PFRPG rules). The seventh is set to premiere at Gencon.

Paizo has vastly more experience at this than anybody else, and with that experience they have improved and refined their AP concept with each successive interation. Since the _Dungeon_ APs, they have since backed off of the 1st through 20th level concept. Their APs now go to about 13th level only (in the main).  The structure has also become more free-form in parts. Indeed, the current AP, _Kingmaker_, is designed more as a great sandbox with some external events and story influence, an far less as a tightly controlled railroad to Awesome Town.

My point: perhaps your impressions were formed concerning certain aspects of an AP that you dont like - without taking into account that the product lines have changed greatly as a result over the past six+ years since SCAP was first published?



> At any rate, Paizos "style" is not to my tastes (despite all the claims I hear to the contrary about them  being better at storylines/fluff), and my point was I'd hate to see WOTC go that way. I'm not sure why thats so hard to understand.




Perhaps that was because your "first post" didn't say that and was less declaratory -- and more seemingly inquisitive on the surface  -- than the above statement you have just made lead me to believe?


----------



## Jools (May 30, 2010)

Have any of you guys checked out Wizard's newest adventure "The Slaying Stone"? Its absolutely excellent. I was very disatisfied with all their previous modules but if this is the new format from now on I will be very happy indeed.


----------



## ourchair (Sep 12, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> I've always liked Chris Perkins. But to be honest, the longer he has been at WotC, the further removed he's become from the things I enjoyed of his the most:  his adventure writing.
> 
> Lots of designers and devs have come and gone at TSR and WotC over the years. But in terms of a prime timer who can design an adventure and tell a geat story along side the very best in the business? Chris Perkins is that man.  And to be honest -- there aren't many of those guys left at WotC. They bulked up on crunchy guys over the years, but the adventure writers? They left; of course, many of them gravitated to Paizo or became freelancers.
> 
> ...



I came to D&D late in my adulthood, despite knowing most of the rules from the SSI Gold Box games and the Forgotten Realms: Unlimited Adventures program and I just want to know...

Which adventures has Chris Perkins written? Is there somehow a complete bibliography somewhere (2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, I don't care) ? I really enjoy watching his adventure design and have even taken away a few lessons from his video sessions: Being Gentle for Other People’s First Time « My Girlfriend is a DM

I'd love to look at his written material and cannibalize it for my own adventures.


----------



## coyote6 (Sep 12, 2010)

I think he wrote a bunch of adventures for Dungeon magazine; he was also editor-in-chief for Dungeon for a while. 

His credits are here.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 12, 2010)

ourchair said:


> I came to D&D late in my adulthood, despite knowing most of the rules from the SSI Gold Box games and the Forgotten Realms: Unlimited Adventures program and I just want to know...
> 
> Which adventures has Chris Perkins written? Is there somehow a complete bibliography somewhere (2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, I don't care) ? I really enjoy watching his adventure design and have even taken away a few lessons from his video sessions: Being Gentle for Other People’s First Time « My Girlfriend is a DM
> 
> I'd love to look at his written material and cannibalize it for my own adventures.




http://pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=420

and 

Ptolus (Ptolus)
Inaugural Celebrity Pro/Am Crawl Module & GM Screen (Xcrawl)
Mega-City One's Most Wanted (Judge Dredd)
Legions of Hell (d20 System (generic))
Sherpa (Sherpa)
Terror in Freeport (Freeport)
A Matter of Family (M&M Superlink)
Shackled City Adventure Path, The (Dungeons & Dragons)
Slayer's Guide to Undead, The (Slayer's Guides)
GURPS Martial Arts Adventures (GURPS)
Freeport: The City of Adventure (Freeport)
Tunnels & Trolls Rule Book (UK edition) (Tunnels & Trolls)
Nocturnals: A Midnight Companion (Mutants & Masterminds)
Bow & Blade: A Guidebook to Wood Elves (d20 System (generic))
Caprice Book Two: Liberati Sourcebook (Heavy Gear)
Jade Dragons & Hungry Ghosts (d20 System (generic))

(which were listed under an unassigned Chris Perkins in the same source)


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 12, 2010)

Jools said:


> Have any of you guys checked out Wizard's newest adventure "The Slaying Stone"? Its absolutely excellent. I was very disatisfied with all their previous modules but if this is the new format from now on I will be very happy indeed.




I'm in the middle of Slaying Stone.  At first blush, it seemed good - non-linear plot, a decent storyline, some extended skill challenges that looked like it was going to make it a lot of fun.

However, now that I'm actually in the middle of it, it's pretty bad; it's hard to make heads or tails out of where you are in the adventure (bad organization), there's several missing details (such as where are the details on the Locate Slaying Stone ritual) and it's still fight, fight, fight.


----------



## ourchair (Sep 13, 2010)

Nagol said:


> Christopher Perkins :: Pen & Paper RPG Database
> 
> and
> 
> ...



So technically his adventure design credits (outside of 'design manager' and other supervisory positions) outside of Dungeon magazine are actually pretty limited?

I understand he started out as a Dungeon contributor and contributing editor when he was younger.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 13, 2010)

ourchair said:


> So technically his adventure design credits (outside of 'design manager' and other supervisory positions) outside of Dungeon magazine are actually pretty limited?



You make it sound like adventures published in Dungeon magazine are somehow not a big deal worth counting.


----------



## P1NBACK (Sep 13, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> However, now that I'm actually in the middle of it, it's pretty bad; it's hard to make heads or tails out of where you are in the adventure (bad organization), there's several missing details (such as where are the details on the Locate Slaying Stone ritual) and _*it's still fight, fight, fight.*_




I'm confused. Do you mean, "it's one fight after another with no roleplaying between" or do you mean, "it's got lots of fights in it"? 

Because, if it's the former. Good to know. 

If it's the latter, isn't this what D&D is about?


----------



## ourchair (Sep 14, 2010)

Eric Anondson said:


> You make it sound like adventures published in Dungeon magazine are somehow not a big deal worth counting.



My apologies, I didn't mean to. I actually really like his Dungeon work. I was looking at it merely from a collecting perspective: That is to say/ask, "Outside of Dungeon, I don't actually have to do too much work hunting down published adventures by Perkins, yes?" (pleased grin)


----------



## Derulbaskul (Sep 14, 2010)

... and the fact that WotC has a problem designing good adventures and they have an adventure designer of Chris Perkins's calibre filling a management role shows that they have wasted an opportunity to design more than one good adventure or so a year!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 14, 2010)

Well, I've loved Bruce Cordell's adventure's of 2e and 3.x era. I'm embarrassed for him after reading Marauder's of the Dune Sea, either that or I missed something in the old adventures.  To get a taste, read through the Amazon reviews for MotDS


----------

