Ordering The Dragon's Gate

[bcholmes]

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

In the meantime, please buy the book from us.

 

I'm glad to hear that Dragon's Gate is available, and I'm gonna pester my local game store to see if they are carrying a copy.

 

One comment that I will make (and you can decide if it's worth acting on): about a month or so ago, I went to your web site to see if the book was available (I was thinking of ordering it). I was on the right page, and I was trying to quickly answer one question: has the product already been printed or not? That is to say, is the product available now?

 

Because I couldn't see anything that leaped out at me and said, "Available now!", I put my search aside and figured I'd come back to it another day. And a month or more has passed. That one little factoid probably would have been the difference between me buying the thing right then and there or not.

[Gold Rush Games]

Thanks for the comment about the web site, specifically the product info page. I'm always trying to improve the site and your comments will help. Though the book's specific status (available or not) is reflected in the online store, I agree that people should be able to see at a glance whether or not it's"Coming Soon" or "Available right now!"

[Blue]

Tracked down a copy. I like it, though it is definitely too low powered for the crew I'm running now (They're only 300pters, but there are usually 7-8 at a time playing).

 

BUT I do think it will be useful in my eventual Dark Champions game.

 

Wish I wasn't the GM. This is the perfect setting for one of MY characters to run around in.

[Gold Rush Games]

Too low powered? The Dragon's Gate is a setting book, not an Enemies book.

 

We may yet introduce some high-powered NPCs based in Chinatown, but the Dragon's Gate book itself, like SACoH before it, is more about the place and the people living there than about the high-powered supers that one may encounter there; the really "premier" supers are supposed to be the PCs and the GM's own NPC supers. That's been our philosophy with the line from day one. Just FYI.

 

I'm glad you like it, in any case. There's certainly a wealth of information in the book (as you well know now ).

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

Too low powered? The Dragon's Gate is a setting book, not an Enemies book.

 

We may yet introduce some high-powered NPCs based in Chinatown, but the Dragon's Gate book itself, like SACoH before it, is more about the place and the people living there than about the high-powered supers that one may encounter there; the really "premier" supers are supposed to be the PCs and the GM's own NPC supers. That's been our philosophy with the line from day one. Just FYI.

 

I'm glad you like it, in any case. There's certainly a wealth of information in the book (as you well know now ).

I think the point that everyone makes about being low-powered is that 350 point starting characters using standard Champions guidelines are exceptionally more powerful than the characters in DG or SA. And of course that's your design decision, but most of the people who are playing 5E Champions are not playing using characters with 15 DEXs and the such. Those are power-levels for Dark Champions. So for most of us each character in the series needs to be rewritten to be useful. It' not something we're opposed to doing. It's just not something we like doing.

[Blue]

Yeh, what Monolith said.

 

It's not that I expected new teams of villains to deal with; it's more that the couple of supertypes are low-end.

 

Don't worry; My heroes are unlikely to rip up your nice city Actually, what I'm thinking about for them is strange and unusual.

[Gold Rush Games]

If we intended The Dragon's Gate to be a book of combat opponents for Champions PCs then we'd have provided tougher NPCs. But the NPCs in The Dragon's Gate were designed primarily to fill a role in the SACoH backstory. They are people who live and work in Chinatown.

 

Not every banker or healer or Tong members has (or needs) a 25 DEX, 40 STR and 16 rPD. The NPCs in the book have the scores that they have because that's what best reflects the characters in the setting, not because that's what we thought was appropriate for NPCs to go toe-to-toe with in combat.

 

The above is just a bit of insight into our design philosophy. Surely Champions players understand "story" elements. Or does everyone simply go around beating the crap out of newspaper reporters and young tennis players?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

If we intended The DFragon's Gate to be a book of combat opponents for Champions PCs then we'd have provided tougher NPCs. But the NPCs in The Dragon's Gate were designed primarily to fill a role in the SACoH backstory. They are people who live and work in Chinatown.

 

Not every banker or healer or Tong members has (or needs) a 25 DEX, 40 STR and 16 rPD. The NPCs in the book have the scores that they have because that's what best reflects the characters in the setting, not because that's what we thought was appropriate for NPCs to go toe-to-toe with in combat.

Who's talking about the NPCs?

 

Look at your villain Prowler. 18 DEX, 4 SPD, 8 DEF. This is the character who can be a "straightforward challenge for martial arts heroes?" Not in any standard Champions game he can't. The same goes for the Shaman. Kong Que Leng is not a badly designed character, but one out of the only three villains in the book is not a good ratio, IMO.

 

The above is just a bit of insight into our design philosophy. Surely Champions players understand "story" elements. Or does everyone simply go around beating the crap out of newspaper reporters and young tennis players?

That's a cheap shot, and one that makes me want to purchase less of your books in the future.

 

When you present two heroes and three villains in a "Champions" book who are effectively substandard in regards to 5E Champions then you should expect some criticism about it. No player is planning on fighting the reporter or tennis player, but most of the heroes might like to fight the villains, or even the other heroes as the situation arrises, as it does in comics from time-to-time.

 

The 5 characters in Dragon's Gate are Dark Champions power-level, not Champions. Perhaps you should look at marketing the line as usable with Dark Champions instead of Champions. Then you would not have myself, Keneton, and Blue all making statements about the power-levels of the book.

[Gold Rush Games]

Originally posted by Monolith

Who's talking about the NPCs?

Look at your villain Prowler.

Prowler is an NPC.

 

The same goes for the Shaman.

Also an NPC. In fact, every character in the book is an NPC.

 

Kong Que Leng is not a badly designed character, but one out of the only three villains in the book is not a good ratio, IMO.

I'm sorry you feel dissatisfied with the NPCs presented in the book. As a GM, you are free to "boost up" any of the NPCs to provide a better challenge for the PCs if they are to be used in combat.

 

That's a cheap shot, and one that makes me want to purchase less of your books in the future.

As for buying less of our books, that's certainly your right as a consumer.

 

Nothing I posted was meant to be adversarial. I was simply letting people know what our design considerations were for the book. If a lot of people are unhappy with the power levels of the NPCs, then that's something we would certainly consider when developing future books, such as SACoH2E.

 

...most of the heroes might like to fight the villains, or even the other heroes as the situation arrises, as it does in comics from time-to-time.

That's true, and a valid point. Players' and GMs' tastes for power levels in NPCs varies quite a bit, in my experience, however.

[Monolith]

Mark, here's another piece of design consideration for you then: If Prowler and Shaman are NPCs then they should probably not be listed under the section Allies & Enemies and the sub-section Villains both in the book and the Table Of Contents.

 

The fact that you know those characters are villains and would still tell everyone here that they are not villains but NPCs tells me a great deal about your character and your company. I'm not impressed, and you have just lost a customer.

[Gold Rush Games]

Um... I never said that the villains 'weren't villains." What I said was that all of the characters in the book are NPCs, as in "non-player characters."

 

Now, perhaps you have some very unique definition of NPC that I unaware of, but nothing I said was misleading or dishonest, as you seem to imply.

 

As for losing you as a customer, that's a shame but I fully support your right to stop buying our books, no matter how silly I think the reason is.

[rayoman]

Not to get in another man's fight, but...

 

Monolith, NPCs are Non-Player Characters. As in a character NOT played by a human being. It doesn't matter if the NPC is a hero, villain, the fry guy at the local Waffle House, etc. If the character in question is not being played by a flesh and blood person then it is an NPC.

 

If Prowler and Shaman are in the book and they should not be listed under Allies and Enemies or Villains then where should they be listed? How about Big Misunderstanding.

 

Sorry for the smart-aleck comment, but the tone of your posts have steadily gotten worse because it seems that you took some offense to something Mark said. I read all the posts and don't see anything that would or should upset someone so much. Then again, I may have thicker skin than most people.

 

 

Originally posted by Monolith

Mark, here's another piece of design consideration for you then: If Prowler and Shaman are NPCs then they should probably not be listed under the section Allies & Enemies and the sub-section Villains both in the book and the Table Of Contents.

[KA.]

Okay, I am not trying to take sides in the ongoing argument, but I do have a question:

 

What else do you call characters controlled by the GM, other than NPC's or Non-Player Characters?

 

If I have Mechanon or Dr. Destroyer in my campaign, I refer to them as NPC's or NPC Villains.

 

To me, the designation NPC does not imply any particular point value.

 

I am not trying to say Mark is wrong, or being deceptive, but I don't understand the position that the Heroes and Villains in Dragon's Gate have low power levels because they are "NPC's".

 

I can understand that since the Standard Superhero is now 350 points, that you might not want 500 point NPC Heroes running around, since they might overshadow the players, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be at the Standard point level.

 

I do not mean this as an attack, or as something "wrong" with the product, but I do think that it would be a good idea to have, at the very least, a 350 point version of NPC Heroes and Villains included in future products.

 

Even if it is only in the form of a footnote:

"To increase Dr. Example to the 350 Point level:

Add 30 points to his VPP,

5d6 to his Optic Blast,

and 10PD/10ED to his Armor.

Also increase his DEX to 25 and his SPD to 6."

 

One major reason for this is to help out the GM (the main point of a lot of products of this type.)

 

When my players encounter someone, they aren't given a rundown of their stats.

As I often say: "It's not tattooed on their forehead!"

 

But, when they meet an NPC hero, they figure that he will be up to Standard Hero levels unless they have some reason to think otherwise.

 

So imagine this scenario.

 

The PC's meet NPC hero.

They appear to be on friendly terms.

A news flash is overheard that Mechanon is attacking downtown.

 

At this point either the NPC Hero will have to "beg off" (since the 5th Ed. Mechanon could kill him with one shot) causing the players to be suspicious of their new "friend".

 

"Wow, that guy is either up to something or a coward!"

 

Or the NPC can go along, and die.

Triggering all kinds of unintended consequences and possibly derailing the entire plot.

 

I realize that it is the GM's job to prevent this sort of thing, but on the other hand, if they have to redo every NPC Hero and Villain to do it, it limits the utility of the product.

 

Not slamming, not attacking, just pointing out something for future products.

 

 

KA.

[KawangaKid]

Dragon's Gate and SACOH

 

Actually, I'm quite fond of the setting. I have most of the books already...

 

Are you planning on coming out with "event books" in SACOH, similar to those in Malhavoc Press?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by KA.

Okay, I am not trying to take sides in the ongoing argument, but I do have a question:

 

What else do you call characters controlled by the GM, other than NPC's or Non-Player Characters?

A NPC is the banker, the reporter, the chef at your favorite diner. People the characters interacts with who like and hate them but they are not expected to have superhero/villain conflicts with on a regular basis.

 

A villain is an adversary, someone the players are expected to interact with in a physical confrontational way. Ultron is not an NPC for the Avengers. Ultron is an enemy of the Avengers.

 

As far as what ticked me off, it was me making an honest statement that the villains of the book are underpowered for a standard Champions game and then Mark coming back and telling me they aren't villains, they're NPCS the players will be interacting with. He's trying to justify their lower-power by saying they are not really villains designed to fight the heroes (even though their descriptions say they are), but in fact they are really just like the local reporter or other normal. It's just stupidity. Anyone who reads comics or plays the game knows what the villains are there for, and it's not so the heroes have someone to play poker with on a Saturday night.

[Blue]

Wow, I take a day off from the boards and look what happens.

 

I think we're all understanding the score...

 

First off, it's a very nice book. It's well thought out, loaded with non-player characters that help flesh out the setting.

 

As for the power level of the characters, I liken it to Mr. Arsenault's 4th edition book "Corporations" for Champions/Dark Champions, in that the characters there are in that middle range where they're more than a match for the Dark Champions but will not be too hard for a handful of PC Champions.

 

The book will be very useful and I will have little trouble incorporating the setting into my city.

[RPMiller]

Originally posted by Monolith

A NPC is the banker, the reporter, the chef at your favorite diner. People the characters interacts with who like and hate them but they are not expected to have superhero/villain conflicts with on a regular basis.

 

A villain is an adversary, someone the players are expected to interact with in a physical confrontational way. Ultron is not an NPC for the Avengers. Ultron is an enemy of the Avengers.

Monolith, I am not jumping into to argue or say anyone is wrong. Instead I think there are some misunderstandings. First, regarding the definition of NPCs. From FREd page 7:

Character: A person in the game setting; a being constructed by a player or GM and roleplayed by the person who constructed it. The GM’s characters are usually villains or nonplayer characters (NPCs); the players’ characters (PCs) are usually the heroes or protagonists of the campaign.

It is possible that you may have read that as villains are different from NPCs, however this is not the case. If you look at the definition of NPC in the same glossary you will see (See Characters) the phrase "or nonplayer characters" is actually defining villains. This can be easily misintrepreted do to the English languages "looseness". There are a bunch of other gaming systems out there that will define NPCs as those run by the GM and perhaps that is where they should stop the definition. Just look at the words themselves. Non-Player, not a character run by a player. Character, a participant in the story.

Originally posted by Monolith

As far as what ticked me off, it was me making an honest statement that the villains of the book are underpowered for a standard Champions game and then Mark coming back and telling me they aren't villains, they're NPCS the players will be interacting with. He's trying to justify their lower-power by saying they are not really villains designed to fight the heroes (even though their descriptions say they are), but in fact they are really just like the local reporter or other normal. It's just stupidity. Anyone who reads comics or plays the game knows what the villains are there for, and it's not so the heroes have someone to play poker with on a Saturday night.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I believe that the method of communication (written) is causing some misunderstanding. Mark was not saying that villains and npcs are different those were two separate statements. Players in combat with a villain are also interacting with them are they not? Mark, nor anyone else that writes material for us GMs should not, and do not, have to justify the levels of NPCs or why things are they way the are. As an adult, I am sure you can appreciate the fact that just because it is in the book one way doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. After all we are the GM and it is our world so I'm going to change it to fit my setting, just as Blue mentioned above. Finally, your statement regarding enemy npcs is not wholely accurate. I've been reading comics since I was old enough to read in the early 70s, and I can point out hundreds of examples where the villain was in the background not directly confronting the heroes, or even scenarios where the "enemies" allied with the heroes to combat a common threat.

 

In closing, I have to say that I'm sorry that you feel slighted because honestly there wasn't anything said that should make you feel that way, and I'm sorry that you feel you would be best served to not be a GRG customer. Would you feel less affronted if I were to writeup some Campaign Guidelines on how to increase the power levels of the various NPCs in the back of the book, or do you think that is something that you can handle just fine on your own for your own campaign setting? Beyond that, I'm afraid there isn't much else that I can offer you.

[misterdeath]

Hate to disagree, but....

 

Originally posted by RPMiller

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I believe that the method of communication (written) is causing some misunderstanding. Mark was not saying that villains and npcs are different those were two separate statements.

 

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

Too low powered? The Dragon's Gate is a setting book, not an Enemies book.

 

It sounds from this like Mark is saying that the NPCs in the book aren't supposed to be adversaries. Since, ya know, they're not in an Enemies book.

 

So, I read this pretty much exactly the same way Monolith did.

 

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

We may yet introduce some high-powered NPCs based in Chinatown, but the Dragon's Gate book itself, like SACoH before it, is more about the place and the people living there than about the high-powered supers that one may encounter there; the really "premier" supers are supposed to be the PCs and the GM's own NPC supers. That's been our philosophy with the line from day one. Just FYI.

 

My suggestion is to include in the San Angelo Second Edition book a section on "San Angelo gaming norms".

 

Where do the superhero/hero break points lie? What active points can we expect?

 

From the past product, it's a lower power level than in the Champs universe, and hence, it should be spelled out explicitly for the new GM.

 

It'll go a long ways to explain things to people. (Look, the superheroic Dex in San Angelo is 23, or what have you--26 here is really damn fast)

 

I don't know how that would translate to an Action System or a Mutants and Masterminds type game, or even if it would.

 

D

[Monolith]

Originally posted by RPMiller

Would you feel less affronted if I were to writeup some Campaign Guidelines on how to increase the power levels of the various NPCs in the back of the book, or do you think that is something that you can handle just fine on your own for your own campaign setting?

I'm quite capable of making my own character adjustments, thank you. My problem is with Mark and the tone and nature of his replies. Instead of just saying that the San Angelo line uses a lower-than-average standard for its super-powered characters Mark would rather just tell me that the villains are not really weak, because they are not really meant to be fought. They are NPCs not villains in the normal sense.

 

I don't plan on buying any more San Angelo material. There are four other companies going to be producing licensed Hero material this year. I'll support them instead.

[KA.]

Originally posted by misterdeath

Hate to disagree, but....

 

It sounds from this like Mark is saying that the NPCs in the book aren't supposed to be adversaries. Since, ya know, they're not in an Enemies book.

 

So, I read this pretty much exactly the same way Monolith did.

 

My suggestion is to include in the San Angelo Second Edition book a section on "San Angelo gaming norms".

 

Where do the superhero/hero break points lie? What active points can we expect?

 

From the past product, it's a lower power level than in the Champs universe, and hence, it should be spelled out explicitly for the new GM.

 

It'll go a long ways to explain things to people. (Look, the superheroic Dex in San Angelo is 23, or what have you--26 here is really damn fast)

 

I don't know how that would translate to an Action System or a Mutants and Masterminds type game, or even if it would.

 

D

 

First, misterdeath, I agree wholeheartedly with your statements.

 

Second, to the Gold Rush Games, gang . . .

 

I am not as upset about this as Monolith appears to be (not that he has no reason, I am just not), and I am not just trying to turn this into a fight, but there appears to be some circular logic coming from GRG on this issue.

 

(Much Paraphrasing Follows. Trying to be Brief, Not To Slant Things.)

 

When it was brought up that the Villains and Heroes seemed underpowered, Mark said that it was because they were NPC's.

 

When I asked what exactly an NPC was, Monolith said that they were background characters (which would justify the low points) but that Villains should be on the same power level as standard Superhero PC's (back to square one).

 

RPMiller corrected Monolith, saying that an NPC was just a GM controlled character and that it did not imply that the character was low powered.

 

Which brings us back to: Why are the NPC Villains and Heroes Underpowered?

 

Not trying to stir things up. But it seems like we have not quite gotten to the point where everyone understands each other.

 

If GRG is going to use a lower power level, more appropriate for "Dark Champions" than Standard Superheroes, then they should either make that clear or put more than one version of Heroes and Villains in their products.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

But it could be misleading to newer players and GM's, unless it is clearly indicated.

 

Anyone who has been on the boards for a while will remember the "Example Wars" that used to take place before Steve took over.

"But Doctor Zed had a DEX of 21 and Normal Characteristic Maxima, and didn't pay extra points for the 21st point of DEX. Since he was published in Unknown Enemies, that must mean that the NCM limit is higher than 20!"

And so on, and so on, ad nauseum.

 

I, for one, never want to head down that path again.

 

So, if you are going to publish things with a Hero License, either make them Standard, or Clearly Indicate that they Are Not Standard.

 

Either is fine, Neither is not.

 

I don't mean that to sound rude, but it is very important.

 

I know this sounds like obsessive nit-picking, but 5th Ed. was like Hero's version of Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Not everyone was happy with all of the changes, but at least we were able to say:

"Okay, now we know where we stand. Now we know what the rules are."

To start drifting away from that consistency is not a good policy.

 

That's why little details matter.

 

Hero used to be this little bulletin board and a bunch of die-hard fans that would not give up on the system that they loved.

They had to endlessly debate the rules because there was no consistent source of information.

Things were scattered here and there, in supplements that often contradicted each other.

 

If some of us seem paranoid about heading back in that direction, maybe we are.

 

But we have a good reason.

 

KA.

[Gold Rush Games]

Allow me to clarify something.

 

When the general power level of the characters in The Dragon's Gate were criticized as "too low" I assumed that the poster was referring to all NPCs in the book.

 

I was not specifically thinking of the few "supervillains" in the back of the book when I posted my reply, but rather I was thinking of all of the NPCs. So when I said "they're NPCs" I was thinking in terms of the (predominantly) "Normals" in the book.

 

Rethinking my response with the actual "supervillains" -- and only the supervillains -- in mind, I can see where folks would find them "too low-powered." I don't disagree with that assertion one bit.

 

However, I still stand by my own assertion that "power level" preferences are very subjective. Not every player or GM "demands" that NPC villains be created based on the "standard" 350 points. Some, like me, take the approach that the NPC should be created on as many (or as few) points as are necessary to express the character based on the needs of the story that the character is a part of.

 

I have used NPC villains in my games that were built on twice as many points as the PCs and yet those villains were "defeated" quite easily via non-combat means. On the flip side of the coin, I have also introduced extremely "low-powered" NPCs that made the players literally shudder when I mentioned the NPCs name because the NPCs were perceived as nigh undefeatable (outside of combat)!

 

A similar example of the latter type from SACoH: Benjamin Morgan. Any GM worth their salt can play Benjamin Morgan as a bigger "enemy" to the PCs than even Doctor Destroyer, IMO.

 

So, to sum up: It seems to have been a misunderstanding. Yes, I agree that the supervillains were built on fewer points than most PCs are in 5th Ed. I disagree, however, that they are "too low-powered" -- I feel that they are at the power level that they need to be for their story. But I also agree that some players and GMs would prefer to use "higher power" versions and I fully support their right to do so for their game.

 

I hope that clears things up.

[Gold Rush Games]

Just to bring the thread back on topic briefly...

 

Buy The Dragon's Gate today!

[rayoman]

So, Mark, when is the new San Angelo book coming out? I really liked the original and wish that I still had my copy of it. I loved how the characters were created WITHOUT the point breaks. A Dex of 18 was nice too see and not a 17 because I save three points and got the same OCV/DCV as the 18 Dex.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Gold Rush Games

I disagree, however, that they are "too low-powered" -- I feel that they are at the power level that they need to be for their story. I hope that clears things up.

[Gold Rush Games]

Originally posted by rayoman

So, Mark, when is the new San Angelo book coming out? I really liked the original and wish that I still had my copy of it.

 

We're evaluating the development of SACoH2E and future SACoH supplements right now, based in no small part on the performance (i.e., sales) of The Dragon's Gate. That book has performed far below our expectations, both in distribution sales and direct sales.

 

When projecting sales of future books, if we used The Dragon's Gate as the benchmark, there is no way that we could afford to publish more SACoH books. In fact, if we published 4 sch books this year we would be out of business.

 

However, there are other factors to consider and I am aware of that. Releasing the book in the traditionally slower-selling Winter season was not a good decision on our part, and our marketing for our products in general has not been strong this last year.

 

Even so, there are certainly a goodly number of HERO System, M&M Superlink and Action! System fans that know about The Dragon's Gate but for some reason they're not buying it.

 

Publishing a book costs more than just the print cost (which itself is no small amount). We have to pay the author(s), artist(s), pay for marketing, and so on. I won't post the exact numbers but it costs us several thousand dollars to develop and publish a "proper" print book.

 

With those things in mind, Rob and I are closely watching sales trends of it and other recent releases to help us determine if it will be fiscally feasible to continue developing and publishing future SACoH books.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Well, keep in mind that (A) some people will have already puchased The Dragon's Gate in PDF form from Cybergames, and may not feel the need to buy it again, and ( some folks may prefer to wait to buy it until after the revised edition of SA:CoH comes out. In a sense, this updated version of The Dragon's Gate was kinda like the cart before the horse, being a subsetting book that supports a campaign setting (the revised SA:CoH) that hasn't been released yet. I certainly understand your caution, since it's your money at risk, not mine. But I wouldn't base projections of sales for SA:CoH 2nd Edition too heavily on how The Dragon's Gate did. It was in a rather unusual position.