3 Reasons Why I’m Not Running Pathfinder
One of the things that naturally comes about in a discussion of switching from D&D to another game system is Pathfinder. Because the community has embraced Pathfinder as a way for fans of 3rd Edition to continue playing their game while getting new product, there is this illusion that the whole world is in “D&D vs. Pathfinder” mode.
I think that perception may be a bit overblown. Let’s face it: most D&D players aren’t switching to Pathfinder (or anything else). They play D&D. That’s what they’ve always played, and unless it says “Dungeons and Dragons” on the cover, they’re not going to buy it.
On top of that, there are other choices. If you don’t like 4E, there are plenty of gaming systems out there. Pathfinder is one of the youngest, and it’s not the best-selling. Even without insider information, I guarantee that there are still more RIFTS players than Pathfinder players. That can, and probably will, change. But, my point is that it’s not a “D&D or Pathfinder” decision - it’s a “D&D or Non-D&D” decision.
So, why am I looking at another system instead of switching to Pathfinder? Several reasons.
Pathfinder isn’t yet a proven product
Here’s the fact: Pathfinder still sells less than most non-D&D RPGs, and it will for a long time. They’re only in Beta, and the full game isn’t due out for a year. Could the final product be better than 4E and wind up atop the market? Sure, it’s possible. But it’s not happening any time soon.
I’m not especially interested in playtesting someone’s game, and I’m certainly not interested in playtesting it for a year or more. Come talk to me when Pathfinder’s been in the game for a decade, and then we’ll talk about a long-term commitment. In the meantime, it’s a novelty worth exploring, but still a novelty.
Pathfinder isn’t D&D
Pathfinder is a fine product. It’s a good-looking game, from what I can tell. It’s certainly an offshoot of D&D. Most of the designers have professional experience designing D&D.
However, Pathfinder is not D&D.
What do I mean, exactly? I’m not writing esoterically. I simply mean this: Pathfinder is owned by Paizo. Paizo doesn’t hold the intellectual rights to Dungeons and Dragons. I’ve heard people say “4E is OK, but it’s not D&D.” They’re wrong. 4E, like it or not, is D&D. Pathfinder is not D&D.
If folks want to suggest that Pathfinder is somehow the “spiritual descendant” of D&D, that’s OK by me. But for me, the name on the box defines the product. Maybe I like the new D&D, maybe I don’t. No matter. It’s D&D.
For a long time, I’ve been a D&D player. If I’m going to switch to something else, I’m going to consider all possibilities, plain and simple. Pathfinder is one, Vampire is another.
You’ll carefully notice that I don’t hate Pathfinder or think Paizo is the devil. I hope the product does well alongside D&D. More good games make for a deeper industry, which means better product all around.
Pathfinder doesn’t solve any problems
I need a new set of rules. I’ve complained for a long time that I just can’t keep up with the sheer number of rules available for third edition. 4E solves that problem; so does Vampire. Heck, Toon: The RPG solves that problem. Pathfinder is the one product that doesn’t offer me a rules reset.
Add to that the fact that our gaming group has certain dynamics that center around D&D rules. That’s a nice way of saying I’ve got a couple of power gamers at my table. Power gaming is fine, but I’d like to see something new at the table. A rules reset is one way around that. For a while, at least, my power gamers will be on equal footing with one another (and with me as their GM).
What do you think? Are you going Pathfinder? If so, how do you see it?
What I Learned from Gen Con 2008 - Part 2
Last time, I offered a few observations on Gen Con 2008. Today, I want to continue that theme, but focus in a bit on the RPG side of things. I want to tell you what Gen Con did for me, in terms of my approach to gaming.
Back in March, I wrote about The 4E Malaise, and how things have changed for our group, gaming-wise, over the last year or two. I also wrote about my Thoughts on D&D 4E, and offered some thoughts from our group’s other DM on the topic, as well.
I’ve been at a crossroads, for a while, in terms of my game, and what my next campaign would be. That’s been due, in part, to the 4E announcement. Or so I thought.
My assumption going into Gen Con was that I’d come out with a clearer picture of where I wanted to go, in terms of our group’s game. Would I stay with D&D, or would I go backwards to 3.5? Would I cave to peer pressure and go with Pathfinder?
I discovered, however, that there are no easy answers. I was looking for something that I’ll never find. I was looking for an experience to define who I am as a gamer these days. Gen Con can’t do that for me.
In fact, no one else can do that for me.
You see, I’m having a gamer mid-life crisis. I haven’t run a regular campaign in a year and a half. And many of our local gaming group are in the same funk. Not all of it can be blamed on 4E, either. We’ve had folks move away, we’ve had career changes, we’ve had all sorts of lifestyle disruptions. Whatever the reasons, it’s happening to all of us.
I want to play an RPG, to be sure. I want to play something that is more than hack-and-slash. I wan an immersive game where my players get majorly geeked about playing. I want something that’s role-play intensive, with rich character histories and plenty of intrigue.
I’m not sure if that can happen in D&D anymore.
Now, I’m not blaming the system. I’ve always said that rules can do very little to encourage roleplaying, and I still believe that. But our group dynamic has gone all screwy. One of my players is so anti-4E that he actually told the guys at Paizo “I hope Pathfinder puts WotC out of business.” That’s hatred, plain and simple. And, while he’s entitled to his opinion, it creates this cloud over any discussion of a 4E game.
Even if I were to stay with the outdated 3.5 system, there are problems. We are all creatures of habit. I believe a 3.5 game would lead us into old patterns, where players are min-maxing and finding infinte combos, and I’m struggling to keep up and find anything that’s a real challenge.
Add this to the mix: I asked a couple of my local guys who were at the con this question: “What game would you play if it were up to you?” One answered, “probably something by White Wolf.” The other said, “I don’t know. Maybe Vampire.”
- So, what to do? I’ve had to ask myself the tough questions. Here are some of them, in no particular order:
- Am I willing to give up gaming altogether?
- Am I willing to run another system?
- Is there a better game than D&D?
- Can I pull off something big, like a new Mind’s Eye Theater troupe?
- Am I better off sticking with some flavor of D&D, because it’s comfortable to me and to my players?
Gen Con answered a couple of those questions for me. I’m not willing to give up gaming, I know that for certain now. I’m also willing to run something other than D&D. Based on my interest level and that of my players, it sounds like Vampire would be the way to go. I do have at least one player who won’t play anything that’s not D&D, but there’s no game right now that I can get everyone to agree to. I’m going to lose someone no matter what.
So, I guess the only question I really have left is this: do I do live action or do I do tabletop?
The more I think about it, it probably makes sense to start with a tabletop game. If that goes well over time, maybe we could expand it into a live action game. I’d say there’s about an 80% chance that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Does this mean I’m giving up on D&D? Hell no.
Does this mean I’ll write less about D&D? Some, I’m sure. But part of the reason for the name change a few months back was just that - to open up possibilities.
I’m still very interested in D&D and what happens to the game. My suspicion is that, after a couple of years, the dust will settle. These violent emotional responses to 4E will wane, and our group might actually consider playing the thing.
I’m sure I’ll continue to buy D&D books. I want to be ready for when we come back. On top of that, I just enjoy reading them.
Will it be too late? Maybe. It could be that edition wars have splintered our group so severely as to put us off D&D forever. I hope not. The fact of the matter is that D&D is likely to be around for a long time, and I’m not ready to give it up forever.
Heck, I’m not entirely sure that the next game will be Vampire.
Ask me again in 2 weeks 
Gearing Up for Gencon
Hi all,
Just a quick post today to let you all know I’m still alive!
I’m getting totally geeked for GenCon. We’re less than 40 days, and this year could be awesome. Out of curiosity, who all is going? Also, if you’re going, did you sign up for one of my games? Let me know in the comments on either or both of these questions.
I’m thinking about some slight changes to the catalog description, and wondering if any of you are reading the blog these days. I’m curious if it’d be worth discussing those changes here.
Look for more posts soon!
Thoughts on D&D 4E: Round Two
Hello, all.
You may have noticed that I decided to give my good friend Randy a shot at expressing his thoughts on Fourth Edition, and why it isn’t for him. I did this for a couple of reasons:
- I’m interested in Randy’s opinion. We are part of the same extended gaming group and while, because we both tend to DM we don’t often play at each others’ tables, I am interested in what our shared players might think and feel from the other side of things. Beyond that, we’re good friends and I genuinely wanted to know the reasoning behind his distaste for 4E.
- I think our gaming group is probably not that different than other gaming groups. Some folks play 4E and say “I like it” or “I don’t like it,” some folks don’t even read the books and say “it’s crap,” and some folks (like Randy) DO read the books and decide they don’t want to try it. The dynamic between those positions is worth discussing in a public way.
Now, I haven’t said a whole lot about 4E here since release. I mentioned I liked the idea of Rules Convergence and I gave a peek into what I thought about Keep on the Shadowfell both before and after I played it. Before release, I talked about liking the new cosmology (which I believe Randy’s adopted at his table. Correct me if I’m wrong here, bro). I also talked before release about why I was confident that 4E would be a good product. But I haven’t given a thorough opinion.
I’ll be doing that, over the next few posts (hopefully they’ll come more often than once a week, LOL). But I want to specifically address Randy’s complaints, and tell you all what I think about them. I’m not doing this as much to argue with Randy (we’re completely cool between us on the issue) but to broaden the discussion with my readers. Let’s go through the list, the way he presents them:
1)The powers section for PCs just scream ” goofy” to me.
I haven’t had the same experience. I think I’ve figured out why it is, too. See,once I accepted the fact that “Hit Points” were no longer representative of physical damage, it opened up a whole new world of possibilities. D&D isn’t about physical health anymore; it’s about heroic acts and the flow of battle. An ally’s ferocity or focus in battle is boosted when I fell my foe? I can buy that easily.
Would it have been easier to accept if they dropped hit points and called it “Hero points?” Maybe, but that sounds a bit wonky. No, I think this is the right move. Let’s get away from this idea that every hit does physical damage. The fact is, hit points as physical damage makes no sense when a naked character can be run through from behind at the dinner table without hardly getting a scratch on him, while it would kill any peasant or king.
As for the ritual thing, I’m not certain Randy’s got a correct reading of the rules. As I understand it, a fighter can’t just pick up a resurrection scroll and use it. Even If he can, though, I can live with it - the magic is in the item, not the user. It doesn’t affect my gameplay that much. I’ve been accused of handing out resurrections too freely, yet my players keep coming back. What do I care if the fighter can read the resurrection scroll I conveniently leave for the party?
2) The game is way too board/minis gamey for me.
Having played through two sessions, I can tell you 4E is the same amount of board-gamey as 3E, no more, no less. There’s very little different in this regard. The leap from AD&D to 3E was what made D&D more like a board game, and nothing’s changed in gameplay. Besides, it’s the DM and his ability to foster good roleplaying (which Randy, for example, does with extreme awesomeness) that keeps a D&D session from becoming a board game anyways.
3) The game just looks boring.
Again, having played 2 sessions, I can tell you 4E wasn’t boring for me. Quite the opposite, I had a blast.
Part of Randy’s argument here is the question of how things scale. I think there’s a danger when you’ve only got core books to say, “gosh, this looks limited. How boring will this be at 30th level?” By the time most of us play 30 levels, though, there will be scores of new books with all sorts of options we haven’t even thought of. That’s how Basic D&D worked; that’s how 3E worked; that’s just how D&D works. Core provides a startup experience with a high learning curve; supplements shake the shit up, so to speak.
The other part of this has to do with everything being “damage.” I think this goes back to the conversation about hit points. 4E uses familiar terminology in a new way to redefine how things work. You no longer make a will save, your opponent attacks you with an attack against your will “defense.” Is that different? Absolutely. Too different for some folks? Probably. Does that detract from gameplay? Not in my experience.
4) The GSL.
I’m more or less indifferent to the GSL and couldn’t tell you whether current rumors are speculation or not. Here’s why: I’m not an indie publisher. For the most part, I don’t usually play with Indie D&D products. I like the idea of there being competition in the marketplace, because it makes everyone’s products better. There’s nothing here to elicit any emotion from me in either direction on the GSL. I’m agnostic on this point. I can see where third party publishers might be really pissed, if the rumors are true.
5) The new DnD stuff is cheap looking crap.
I mentioned my problems with the production value in Keep on the Shadowfell already. However, the core books are better, much better. There are some printers errors and some indexing problems in the PHB, but I haven’t seen anything else that would make me say the books were cheap-looking or crap.
I can’t speak intelligently about the D&D minis. I don’t collect them. I buy individual figs I might like. Mostly, I paint my own minis. Yes, it’s discouraging if the D&D minis start to suck, but it doesn’t affect me much more than the GSL. Randy (and some of our other local guys) are big collectors, so I know this probably bugs them. All I can say here is this: don’t buy the minis if they suck. Reaper minis look a thousand times better anyways.
As far as repeat art, I don’t think the volume was particularly overwhelming. The Monster Manual certainly had plenty of new and interesting artwork.
See, I’m OK with some re-used art. Always have been. I want to think about this statement: “WOTC can afford new art.” First off, D&D isn’t and will never be the most profitable division of Hasbro, or even WotC. Magic has a much higher margin, for cample. This isn’t the right question, though, whether or not W0tC has enough money. The question is this: “Will consumers pay $X more per book to get 100% new art vs. 95% new art?” There is a point of diminishing returns, a point at which we either pay more for the books or they substitute a few older pictures.
Don’t get me wrong; I like new art. But I don’t buy D&D books for the artwork any more than I buy them for the stories. Stories belong in novels, artwork belongs in art books (Vallejo books, for example, are about half the cost of D&D books for twice as much art). I like stories and art in my rulebooks, but they’re not the reason I buy them.
6) Paizo and Monte Cook.
I asked the question a while back: Does Monte matter? Read my comments on that post, but I’ll throw out one quote from there: “if you press me, I’m going to tell you that I like Jim Wyatt and Mike Mearls at least as much as I like Monte, or probably more in the case of Jim.” Monte’s a non-starter issue for me. I like the guys at Paizo, they do great work. But I’m not dumping D&D for them. I recognize that’s a purely personal preference, and that Monte’s got a HUGE fan base. He is *the* rockstar in the D&D world.
———-
As you can tell, a large portion of the 4E debate comes down to personal preferences and habits. For my part, I don’t collect D&D minis. I don’t intend to publish anything under the GSL. I’m not worried at all about what Monte Cook does; I have other favorite designers. I like the idea of rules convergence. I accept the idea of hit points as totally separate from physical damage. I like the idea that the magic in an item is really in the item. Not everyone buys into these preferences, and I’m cool with that completely.
Do I think Randy will go 4E within a couple of years, like he jokes about? Maybe. Maybe not. There are guys, many of whom read this blog, that still play some version or another of AD&D or even OD&D. I’m cool with that. We’re all friends in the big D&D world. They don’t spit on my version of the game and I don’t spit on theirs. It’s all good.
What about the rest of you? How’s your gaming group handling it? What do you think about Randy’s problems with 4E and my replies? Do share.
Image by mborowick
4E: My “Final” Analysis ?
My boy , Bob, here at RPGDigest is putting 4e through its paces and I get the feeling he is loving it. I mean, it does have some nice simplification of the rules, the DMG is nice for beginning DMs, and the art is fabulous. I think some of the mechanics for flying and mounted combat are particularly nice as well. Though I do have all 3 core books, have read the PHB, am half way through the DMG, I belive I’m going to pass on this iteration of the Grandaddy of RPGs. In fact, I have someone who is going to take the PHB off my hands for cheap , and I am willing to sell the other two for a similar ‘good’ deal….any takers? 
I don’t want to start a flame war ,but I just want to put my thoughts out in the ether for posterity. Oh yeah, and so all my buddies can say, “I told you so” when I back track and re-purchase the core books a year or 2 from now when new Pathfinder and Monte Cook tomes for 3.x are no longer avaialable.
Now to squarely put my foot in my mouth.
Why I think that 4e is not for me:
1.)The powers section for pc just scream ” goofy” to me. A paladin smites someone and a nearby ally gains an AC boost….what the? Someone dies from a warlock curse and then the warlock gets to teleport 3 squares….or some such drivel. Fighters using a feat or two and then casting the raise dead ritual or else just buying the ritual on a scroll and casting it without a feat( the scroll part I’m not too sure of ,but I think I read that in the PHB)). However, I do know a fighter can raise the dead with a choice feat and for me that is way too irritating…oh yeah, and goofy. I really did not expect this at all. I was truly flabbergasted at how many times during my read -through of the PHB….I audibly said: “this is stupid”
2.) The game is way too board/minis gamey for me. Now before anyone gets their panties into a wad, you really can’t deny that DND has played more and more like a board game ever since the advent of 3e and minis. Now, I’m not saying that’s all bad , but its just that 4e is move even closer in that direction. I do think that in many ways 4e is a natural progression of the mini’s rules entrenched in 3e and I’ve, quite frankly, had enough. As most of my friends can attest, I find board games and minis games with too many rules and technicalities a real turn off( gimme Heroscape over DnD minis any day).
3.) The game just looks boring. High levels appear the same as lower levels which on the surface sounded good until I realized that everything is just the same. No significant difference except for damage output in the powers. Boring. Oh and don’t even get me started on the cheapening of illusion magic in the recent WOTC article…psychic damage…does every power have to deal damage and some condition? again….boring.
4.) The GSL…need I elaborate. Hey, I respect WOTC’s right to protect their IP ,but please don’t pretend it is really open.
5) The new DnD stuff is cheap looking crap. I mean, just take a look at the 4e Minis. They suck butt! I have been an avid collector of DnD minis since their inception and I can say unequivocally ( IMO) that they are horrendous and cheesy.
Exhibits
A: the new wyvern : horrid!
B: The Keep on the Shadowfell: repeat maps…..
C: The Core books: repeat art…please…WOTC can afford new art.
and
6) Paizo and Monte Cook. Pathfinder and Paizo Publishing is making great stuff that is 3.x compatible and I love it. I am a charter member of their adventure path and can’t wait for their RPG. Also, even though Cook is technically on the fringe of RPG’s these days, I will take his “fringe-work” over anything else …any other RPG creator makes.
Of course, if you love 4e, knock yourself out. It’s just not my cup of tea. At least not until I taste the new flava at Gencon 08″ . Go Gencon!!!!
Shekaka67
Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
It’s all about balance.
Greywulf had an excellent post up at his Lair today. He offers up some of his thoughts on 4E, and how he sees some of the emerging trends.
Here are a some of the main points he makes:
- Game balance should be secondary to enjoyment of the game.
- 4E is combat-heavy, and has little to offer in the way of role playing.
- Because 4E is combat heavy, the classes have all been adjusted to be balanced in combat.
I agree completely that game balance is secondary. I’d even go as far as to say that game balance is, in some ways, an illusion. D&D isn’t a perfect system, mathematically, and it never will be. In my group especially, I don’t worry about game balance because we’re all friends. No one is going to be jealous of another player because of character abilities.
I don’t, however, agree with the other two points. On the first point, I’ll offer you the comment I left over a the lair:
I’m intrigued by what you’re saying here about 4E being so heavy on combat. To me, Keep on the Shadowfell was impressive the way that it handled the NPC interactions during the “interlude” stages. For the first time in a while, I felt like I really knew the NPCs, and could role-play them effectively without having to re-create them in my own head.
True, Shadowfell was a bit encounter-heavy, but no more so than Demonweb Pits.
So, my experience was totally different that Greywulf’s. Which one of us is right, or most reflects how 4E will be? Hell if I know. Time will tell. But here’s the thing: I believe, firmly, that a rule set can’t encourage good role-playing. That’s up to the people playing the game. A complex ruleset can get in the way of good roleplaying, as can one with social “skill checks” like in 3E. But, like with 3E, there are ways around that.
As to the question of the classes being more closely matched in combat ability, I think what Greywulf and others are seeing is simply rules convergence. This is the idea, very present in 4E, that the classes ought to play in a similar fashion, even if their abilities are vastly different. In other words, differences in classes matter most in flavor, not in mechanics.
I like this. In fact, here’s the other part of what I said at the Lair:
In fact, I’m of a mind that the rules convergence may well prove to be the smartest thing D&D ever did. Think about it: my friend who’s only ever played a paladin because he understands the mechanic can now play anything he wants. That’s a boon to many folks, especially newcomers to the game.
So, what do you all think? Really, there are 2 questions here. First, how important is game balance, if at all? Second, is rules convergence a good thing?
photo credit: SuperFantastic
Keep on the Shadowfell - Session 1 Thoughts
On Saturday, five of my good friends and I gave Keep on the Shadowfell, the preview module for DnD 4E, a whirl. Without giving away spoilers, here are my thoughts:
- I like the feel of the mechanic. It was easy to master, and some of the monster abilities were hella cool.
- combat lasted just about the right amount of time, given we were learning the system. I think that, in time, it will speed up. If it’s true that combat at 25th level should take the same amount of time as 1st level, then they’ve definitely got this right.
- Story-wise, the developers did a wonderful job. I especially liked the NPC characterizations as written. I didn’t have to add much of anything.
- I’m not sure, yet, about the flavor matching the mechanic. There were some PC abilities that looked cool but didn’t seem to make sense. It will be interesting to see if they make more sense when we’re less concerned about learning a mechanic, and more able to devote time to the flavor.
- I did shut my guys down at one point. There was some serious 4E trash talk going on, and I felt like it would be better to have that after the game as opposed to during. Some of it was good-natured ribbing, but I think some of it may have been serious concerns.
- The players who I thought would hate it seemed to have a good time.
- The players I thought would be more open minded seemed to have more problems with the rules than the other folks.
It will be interesting to see what the fellas think after we finish Keep on the Shadowfell next session. I’m prepared for the worst; I like what I see. I’m probably 70% sold, after seeing it played. We’ll have to see how it goes with the guys. I’ve got a splinter group ready and willing to play 4E if I need to, but I’d much rather run with these guys.
So, what about you? If you’ve played Keep, was your experience similar? If you haven’t played, what do you anticipate?
Keep on the Shadowfell
I’m not sure how, but I managed to devote a couple of hours last night to flipping through Keep on the Shadowfell, the preview adventure for D&D 4E. Now, until it’s played, I will reserve full judgment, but here is what I’m getting at first blush:
4E completes the work of making D&D a true gaming system, rather than a loosely-connected ruleset.
To be sure, 3E started this process, and it is the right path for D&D to take. No one has ever suggested that the rules in OD&D through AD&D 2nd Edition were balanced. In many cases, they were a bunch of disjointed ideas gathered in one place with often disastrous results. Did that make it a bad game? Of course not. If AD&D had sucked horribly, I wouldn’t be writing this blog today.
But, the next logical step in the evolution of the game was to truly systematize the ruleset. 3E started that process, and 4E seems to take to it’s logical conclusion. One of the things that 4E is sometimes criticized for is it’s resemblance to a Collectible Card Game. This may be true, to a degree; while there are no cards per se, creature and character stats and abilities have specific mechanical language, language that helps to define the rules of the game.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think it’s good insofar as game balance is a concern. I also think it streamlines the system side of things, making it an easier game to learn. That brings me to my next point:
Keep on the Shadowfell reminds me of Basic D&D.
With a player’s guide and an adventure book, the opening pages of Keep on the Shadowfell read like Basic D&D. It lays the whole system out in just a few pages, and does a decent job of describing how D&D works to the initiate. While I’m certain the core books will feel very different, Keep on the Shadowfell is the sort of product a 13 year-old fantasy geek could pick up and be playing with his compatriots within a couple of hours. I’m not sure I can say that about any D&D product since Basic.
This is decidedly good. Anything that brings in a younger generation of players is a good thing. More players means more money, which means more R&D, which means higher-quality products. And, as a seasoned D&D player, I’m not offended in the least by the teaching tone of Keep on the Shadowfell. It’s designed to be introductory material.
So, what else is going on in Keep on the Shadowfell?
Keep on the Shadowfell is decidedly encounter-heavy, but also contains a sufficient amount of role-play material.
For me, D&D is collaborative storytelling, more than killing things and taking their stuff. The problem with collaborative storytelling is the collaborative part: you can never be certain what players will do. As such, it’s hard to design the story side of things for a single gaming group, much less a huge market of gamers. Having said that, D&D has done well over the years in providing some good role-play material.
Here’s what I like about the role-play material in Keep on the Shadowfell: it is designed such that any DM can pick up the adventure and implement the important NPC interactions with little trouble. This adventure really spells things out. Even so, Keep on the Shadowfell also offers DMs ideas about different directions they could take the role-playing side of things, which is something I’ve not seen enough of in recent D&D adventure materials.
If there is something I’d criticize about Keep on the Shadowfell, it is that combat encounters take precedence over non-combat encounters. I can’t say this is that different from previous versions, however.
There is something else I’ll criticize, too.
I’m mildly disappointed in the production value of Keep on the Shadowfell.
Keep on the Shadowfell consists of an Adventure booklet, a Players’ booklet, and 4 dual-sided poster maps, all inside of a card stock folder-style sleeve. This isn’t bad in itself, but I think Wizards cut some corners that they shouldn’t have here. I don’t mind paying $30 for a soft back adventure with 4 poster maps, especially one that is designed so well. Here’s what I have a problem with: the adventure booklet and the players’ booklet have standard glossy magazine-page quality covers. That stinks. Would it really have hurt production costs that much to use card stock or even a thicker glossy paper for the cover? I get that the cardboard sleeve is supposed to protect the contents, but I’m not going to read the thing inside the sleeve.
The production value isn’t horrid in the way that some 3rd party 3E products were horrid. Honestly, I think it’s just the cover thing that bugs me here.
Overall analysis
I give Keep on the Shadowfell 8.5 out of 10 stars. My personal preference for non-combat encounters and the crappy booklet covers keep it from hitting the top.
The real test will be next Monday, when I run the group through it for the first time. Hopefully, I can have some analysis shortly thereafter!
Check out Session Report & Review: Keep on the Shadowfelll (Part 1) from Critical Hits for more analysis.
The Night Before DnD-Mas
Keep on the Shadowfell, the 4E preview module, debuts tomorrow.
Tell me your final thoughts, just before it goes live.
Eve of Destruction:
or
Start of Something Big?
Does Monte Matter?
I almost hate to knock Name This Blog, Win A Prize off the top of the page, but I will. Keep in mind you’ve got a couple of weeks to continue to submit names for this blog still.
At any rate, this discussion is better late than never.
The news you’ve probably heard already is that Monte Cook, one of the 3 lead designers of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, has joined the Pathfinder RPG team.
I’ve got my opinion on what this means. I’m curious, though, to know what you think first? Let me know in the comments, and I’ll join the fracas after a bit.
-
Updates
