The Great Glacier

This information is intended for use with the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.


At a Glance

The Great Glacier reaches south from the polar ice cap between the Tortured Land and Sossal to provide, in the form of a long ice wall, the northern boundary of Vaasa, Damara, and Narfell.

The glacier is also known as Pelvuria.


Civilization

What You See
Geological Divisions

The glacier is divided into four regions: Alpuk, Angalpuk, Nakvaligach, and Novularond.

Communities
Other Landmarks
Neighboring Nations and Features

Politics

The year, in the Xaeyruudh campaign, is 3915 UC (1365 DR).

Who Rules

No one person can be said to rule the Great Glacier.

Who Really Rules
Political Divisions

Culture and Society

Demographics

Notable Individuals


Local History

Timeline

The timeline of events on the Great Glacier has its own entry.

Recent Events

Sources

Primary Sources
  • Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting [11836] page 110
  • The Great Glacier [FR14/9351]
  • Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting [1085] (2e) A Grand Tour of the Realms page 117
Passing Mention
Maps

Disclaimer

Wizards of the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the United States and other countries. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed, sponsored, or specifically approved by Wizards of the Coast LLC.

In the Nick of Time, or Too Little Too Late?

This is a summary of my thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e D&D). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

I don’t know the answer to the question asked in the title. I guess we’ll all see, when 5e hits the shelves. In the meantime, though, I’m seeing a lot of mixed feelings on forums. Very strong opinions, in complete opposition to each other. Several people come at it from a business standpoint, but that’s a boring approach… plus, their savvy is very open to question. Others are saying “no matter what you do, YOU HAVE TO *insert personal wish list here!!!one” Some DMs and players just don’t care what’s coming out anymore; they’re playing Pathfinder, or even first or second edition, and sharing their campaigns in various communities both online and in person, and they’re not planning on buying anything from WotC in the future. Others are sitting in the back of the theater with some popcorn, waiting to see what comes next. I guess I have a lot of each of those viewpoints, rolled up into a giant ball of “MEH, Zeusdammit!”

So I’m gonna break it down, or try to. This is more for me than for you. I have a lot of thoughts in my head, with more piling on continuously, and without some organization I go steadily more bonkers.

The Philosophy

One point that I don’t think has been made sufficiently clear to WotC/Hasbro up to this point, and I think it’s important to get this out in the open up front because it’s a foundation for the new direction of thought that the Powers That Be need to find is: we don’t need you. We really don’t. It’s great having somebody publishing gaming books, but what we need is the creativity, without the chain-jerking and big price tags. If WotC goes belly-up, we will continue playing. Some of us will migrate to different game systems, but others will start new publishing labels and keep D&D alive in substance even if not in name. The game is far more durable than the company. So the future depends on players.

Ed Greenwood seems to be pretty excited about what’s coming, and that counts for a lot with me, but from where I’m sitting —without the benefit of knowing even whatever Ed knows about what WotC has up its sleeve— it seems foolish to not be cynical about this. Here’s one cynic’s opinion.

The Testing

I think looking for more customer input is a good thing. I just don’t know if it will be enough. It’s up to the folks in charge, to prove that they’re sincere about not simply paying lip service to fans but actually taking the feedback to heart.

The Rules

Personally, I’m not worried about the 5e rules. I’ve played every edition of the game, and each one has been playable and enjoyable. I haven’t necessarily liked every single nuance of the rules, but I’ve found plenty to like. I have faith, based on 30 years of reading and playing, that the designers will come up with something cool, yet again. I also have faith that they will screw up the Forgotten Realms, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

There are a couple of priorities I would focus on, if I were in charge. First, as regards the D&D rules, reinstate 1e through 3.5e rules, and retain 4e rules. Introduce 5e rules as an option rather than a replacement. All six rulesets should be valid.

A New Setting

Debut the array of ruleset options in a “new” setting. By “new” I mean either a completely new setting or a previously published setting that has been gathering dust for a while. A brand-spanking-new setting is obviously a good option, but revamping one you already own offers the opportunity to reacquire fans you lost when you made the misguided decision (at least in their minds) to stop developing their favorite alternate reality. I suggest Planescape or Mystara. Mystara might be a more risky option, but one that’s probably worth looking into. It would need to be handled properly to avoid competition with the Realms and Eberron, but done right it would be a brilliant “new” setting. Put out the fires and develop this chosen setting a bit before you write the 5e Forgotten Realms or Eberron campaign settings. Regardless of it being the first setting you retool, it’s not the official setting. Don’t declare anything to be “the official setting” of any ruleset.

Regarding the Forgotten Realms and other settings…

A great way to stop pissing everybody off would be to treat each setting like it belongs to the fans. Give us the benefit of the designers’ creativity, since that’s what we’re paying for when we buy the products, but actively seek our feedback —and act on it— so that you avoid screwing stuff up.

Case in point: No more RSE. Big events are the demesne of individual DMs. Your role as the producer of a setting is to provide a complete and usable foundation upon which thousands of different campaigns will rest. The more unstable you cause the foundation to be, the more the setting suffers. Can I get a “DUH”?

In the Realms, Rewind to 1357 DR, and turn the Post-Apocalyptic Realms into an Arcane Age setting. This can be done without a retcon, at least to the same extent that you’ve declined to describe past changes as retcons. This would mean that the 2e through 4e Realms were exploring the future, or a possible path for the future to take. This is the simple and elegant solution; there are other solutions, which don’t include rewinding to 1357, but they’re more complicated. Also, Stop screwing around with the maps.

Regarding Product Design…

You corporate types who are only concerned with the bottom line: accept that when the creative department argues with you, you’re wrong and they’re right. One exception to this rule of thumb: if the creative people want to incorporate more RSE into the official timeline… then they’re wrong, and you should let them know that their paycheck depends on them growing a brain, and quick.

Regardless of what anyone tells you, what we actually need in this area is organization. The cerebral folks want fluff, and the pithy folks want crunch. So give us both, but do it in a way that enables each of us to access what we want. This means campaign setting books are for campaign material… and rule books are for rules. Crunch and fluff do not belong in the same book. Basically never-ever.

Other Concerns

Lower prices. Do it now.

No more interior art.

No more retconning.

Nipples… not a big deal. Stupidity… big deal.

Ideas from other sources…

More thoughts are probably coming soon.

Popular Opinion

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

I think you (meaning whoever is calling the shots with regard to 5e) are doing the right thing here… or maybe part of the right thing, or starting to do the right thing. Time will tell.

Pay (better) attention to customer desires.

We’re writing your paychecks, in some sense. Up til now, you’ve been pushing us around and we’ve been taking it. Well, ever-decreasing numbers of us have been taking it, with ever-increasing complaints.

You don’t necessarily need to resurrect role-playing, or even tabletop role-playing. Yes, video games are a problem, but not as big of a problem as they’re being made out to be.

Your biggest challenge has been that you’re only concerned about customer opinion when you start losing significant amounts of revenue. When the money is coming in, you’re on top of the world and you couldn’t care less what anybody thinks about anything.

Is that harsh? No, I think it’s actually stupidly mild. Why are you asking for customer input now? Because it’s painfully obvious that you screwed up, and you don’t want to lose your shirt over it. I’m not actually trying to be a snot, but why didn’t you ask for customer suggestions before 4e? Because times were good then, or at least quite a bit better than they are now. Yea, I have hindsight on my side now, but the point stands. You should have asked back then. You should have had a better grasp of everything you’re hearing from customers now… back then. Even before 2e, for that matter.

You seem to be on a schedule of cranking out a new edition, regardless of the old one’s success or failure, every several years. This is lame. Revise the rules when customers raise valid concerns in support of a revision… not whenever you want to give yourself a pay raise. We may be lemmings, buying anything that says D&D on it, but we’re not complete idiots. It might take some of us a few years, but we all eventually start feeling ripped off.

That, more than mechanics, is what you need to fix. See, D&D isn’t broken. WotC is broken. Players can help you with improving D&D, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg of your problems.

Perspective

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

Those of us who are still around from the early days (1982 for me) are not here out of loyalty to the company… some of us might be fans of particular designers, but you’ve fired or lost most of the old guard (and the next guard, and the one after that) so the customers you still have are those who are still stubbornly finding ways to eke out some enjoyment from playing D&D.

We’re still here because we enjoy playing with our friends. We’re here because we love sitting around a table talking and eating and drinking and laughing and maybe even crying, rolling dice and feeling like kids going into Narnia. You, as the heads of WotC/Hasbro, have about as much significance in that picture as that bag of Doritos that refuses to open until someone yanks just hard enough and then the bag explodes everywhere. You annoy the piss out of us periodically, and then, as quickly as possible, we get back to having fun.

We’re here because we enjoy the game, the way we play it. Which, in case it isn’t obvious, may or may not be according to the published rules. The more wildly varying rulesets you give us, the more diluted the game gets with house rules and halfway points. I don’t have statistics, but I’m guessing the only time people play straight-up 4e rules is when they’re participating in Encounters sessions. At home, I bet the rules are different.

And it’s not even that 4e is a bad rules system… I haven’t invested in it because I’m currently unemployed, and I sank more into the previous rulesets than some people earn in a year. 4e isn’t necessarily a bad ruleset. We now have 5 rulesets, though, and everybody seems to love one and hate the rest. So when we’re looking for local gamers, not only do we have to find people who aren’t going to scream and brandish Bibles at us (thank you, by the way, Biblethumpers… it’s nice to have a foolproof way to identify raving idiots) but we’re also limited to people who are on the same page as far as their ruleset-of-choice.

The point is… you (Wizards of the Coast) are expendable. It’s actually been that way since Day One, but it’s more pronounced now than it used to be. We play, the way we want to play. Rulebooks are a convenient starting point, and a way to keep things organized, but that’s it. And some of us have a whole lot of rulebooks at this point. The real essence of the game —the enjoyment— comes from the setting, and what the minds of the DM and players do with that setting. And we’re already getting a bunch of that from Candlekeep and other free sources.

So, here’s some perspective.

If WotC kicks the bucket, D&D will live on, and so will gaming.

When we gripe, we’re doing you a favor, though some of us may not realize it at the time. We’re giving you an opportunity to fix things… before we stop buying from you, you go the way of the dodo, and we start getting our role-playing fixes from other companies, or *le gasp* making it up ourselves.

So it’s great that you’re listening now, but don’t miss the message underlying this whole situation:

WotC needs players a hell of a lot more than players need WotC.

Don’t bother with any sort of “we’re the good guys here, we’re giving you guys the game you love playing.” No, you’re here to make a buck, and everybody knows it. You make decisions based on money first and public perceptions second, and the question of what makes a good product may or may not appear somewhere further down the priority list.

Authors who play and DM care about what makes a great gaming product, and that’s why we like authors. Suits don’t care about the game, and that’s why suits can never be good guys.

I get that money matters. Makes the world go around, and all that. I get it; I have to put spaghetti on the table too. The difference is that I’m content with spaghetti; I don’t have any desire for caviar, or a Rolls in the driveway. Having a bunch of fans glom me at a con would be much tastier than any slimy, salty, stinking fish eggs anyway. Balancing quality and profitability is good, but I don’t believe for a second that that’s what’s been going on. What’s going on is too much partying in the temple of Abbathor, and as long as he’s in charge WotC will ultimately fail all of its saving throws.

Cynic’s Explanation

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

This is conjecture. Cynical conjecture. It should not be taken as Wizards of the Coast’s real motivations… unless it turns out that Cynic is right. In the meantime, I don’t have the inside scoop on goings-on at WotC, and nobody is feeding me any information. I probably know less than what’s in the news. This is just one way of looking at things, from the outside where most of us stand. I anticipate at least one person proving himself (yea, I’m a sexist; I firmly believe men are the dumber gender) a complete dolt by ignoring this intro paragraph and pasting the following into a forum as a quote from Wizards… which it is not, just in case that somehow wasn’t clear.

Cynic thinks that somebody, somewhere, came up with an idea which is simultaneously brilliant and a huge slap in the face to players.

Ask the customers what they want. While they’re responding, we (the Ravenloft Powers) come up with a new version of D&D, maybe start by reverting to 3.5e and re-add the fun parts of 4e, with some different flavor text or whatever. We have creative people to come up with all that googah happy-rainbow garbage. We’ll take the suggestions that we can work in without wasting a lot of time on it, and while still maximizing appeal to our 11 yr old European-descent American male target demographic. Customers will be happy because we asked for their input, but the kicker is that they can’t hate 5e because hey… they asked for it. We asked what they wanted, and gave it to them. Close enough, anyway. How do you complain about that?

With the unspoken understanding, behind the scenes, that customers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, actually contributing anything meaningful to the process of creating 5e. The great thing (from a corporate standpoint) is that customers won’t know which changes came from other gamers’ suggestions and which ones came from WotC staff, the magic 8 ball, or the monkey that only the CEO can see.

It’s been theorized that Wizards feels that D&D needs to be more like WoW in order to successfully compete with WoW. This theory resonates with me (which is why I remember it) because 4e looks to me like it’s trying to be a tabletop version of an MMO. Trying too hard.

Anyway, here’s my point in introducing Cynic: I think your (WotC) success will depend on how well you can prove Cynic wrong. I honestly wish you a resounding success, because I would like to see D&D persist. However, I hope you’ll forgive me if I decline to hold my breath, and instead continue developing campaign material (and possibly game systems) on my own. Cynic and I go way back, and too often he’s been right.

Time Frame (and Patience)

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

Specifically regarding the Forgotten Realms…

Resurrect the Arcane Age product line.
With a new name. Something less specific. Use this avenue for visiting the societies of both the past and future Realms. Develop this product line to include Imaskar, Aryvandaar, the Sarrukh empires, etc. Develop the post-spellplague Realms as a setting in this product line, so that those who enjoy it can continue to play there and have a framework for developing the Realms in that timeline.

For the main product line…

Rewind to 1357 DR. Freeze.
In ten years, it will be 2022 on Earth but the year will still be 1357 in the Realms. Why? Because once you started telling us about 1367, you never went back to fill in the rest of the Realms. Instead, you started over with the so-called Heartlands in 1367. On this subject, lose the term “Heartlands.” It’s a stupid term, because every place is the heart of the land to those who live there. Calling Cormyr and the Dales the Heartlands is not only arbitrary, it’s exclusionist. You want the Realms to be inclusionist, because that’s what will make products sell. Drop “the Heartlands” like a plague-ridden hot potato. Anyway, it was the same again in 1372, and again in 1479. Stop doing that. Seriously. Stop.

There’s been a continuous push to move along the timeline, but ironically it’s made the Realms stagnant because you kept giving us books about the same places over and over again. You’ve still never really developed Lapaliiya, or Narfell, or hundreds of other places. But we have all kinds of info about Cormyr (and the Dales, and Waterdeep). Not that there’s anything wrong with any of those places, but I get really sick of seeing Cormyr in every campaign setting when the other major continents haven’t been touched in one yet.

You really think you’ll run out of things to write about? Then you are doin it wrong, and you should move over and let someone else take the helm. I could give you a list of products that would take you 100 years to publish, all without advancing the timeline. Ed could probably multiply that by 100.

Tell us about the Realms. Develop the whole planet, and do it pretty much equally. Go ahead and tell us more about Cormyr every once in a while, but stop “quitting early” with regards to the rest of the Realms just so that you can start over with the part you know a lot about. Quit updating stat blocks… instead, give us all-new stuff in every single product. Just stop the timeline, for the main product line, and use the revamped Arcane Age line to talk about future and past civilizations… that’s what the line was made for.

So it’s 1357, period. The Time of Troubles may happen next year, or it may not, depending on who’s DMing. There is no return of Netheril, or Myth Drannor, or Imaskar, or Miyeritar, yet. Those places live in the past, and perhaps the future, along with post-spellplague Abeir-Toril. Tell us about Now, and tell us something about the past and future, but leave the decisions up to individual gaming groups.

On a related note… patience.

You have to quit killing great product lines.
I’m referring to Arcane Age, but not just Arcane Age. I don’t claim to have all the answers regarding why many people didn’t buy into Al-Qadim and Maztica and Kara-Tur and the Hordelands, but they were good ideas. Maybe you should have tested the waters with a sourcebook (and maybe a few short stories in some of the Realms anthologies) before betting the farm on them as full campaign settings. I dunno.

But that way, if there wasn’t a huge deluge of interest immediately, you’re not so deeply invested. You can periodically dip a toe in the water with some short stories and maybe an adventure here and there, and — speaking for Al-Qadim at least, interest would surely have developed.

But you pounced on it, despaired at the lack of immediate overwhelming enthusiasm from the customers, and made a full retreat to pretend it never happened, and thus came out of it with gum in your hair and a toilet paper tail on your shoe. Seriously, though… I have to think you just weren’t looking at the Al-Qadim sales figures in the right light. The product was great. Therefore something else was to blame for any lack of success. Spelljammer and Ravenloft, too, most especially Masque of the Red Death… so much potential there. You kept Planescape going for a while, which was great, but you eventually ditched that too. Neat ideas… somebody just decided that the ball should be dropped. Get rid of that person; they’re the problem… the ideas are not the problem.

In the meantime, since you’re not using them, how about you give those old copyrights to me. I need to pay off student loans and I’m pretty sure any one of your “failed” settings could be an answer. Or give me the green light to reboot the Arcane Age line, and I’ll be set with a steady income and plenty of writing to do for the rest of my life.

The Edition Wars

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

Debates over which edition of the game are “better” are going to hound each new version of any game, and it’s going to get worse not better over time. This is because, logically, whenever you change the rules, some people are going to like the old rules better, or just act out their inner instinct to be a stick in the mud. The more systems you have, the more division (and confusion) there is.

Personally, I think complaining about changes in rules is an unconscious drift from role-playing toward roll-playing. If both get the job done, why does it matter what dice you roll or what the modifiers are? But fine. This is an issue. Here’s how you solve it.

Support all versions of the rules.

1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e… all need to be valid. With each new ruleset, you’ve lost customers. Some of them eventually come back, some don’t. Do you want them back, or not?

There are no wrong ways to play. This is role-playing, not roll-playing. So stop emphasizing the switch from old to new. Review the old versions of the game, purely from a balance/fairness angle, and don’t change them but put up a free .pdf for each ruleset with a few suggested alternations to improve play for everyone.

One of the things this accomplishes is justifying your decision to make each new ruleset in the first place. Give us some reasons to believe that it wasn’t just greed, and it wasn’t just someone pulling rank and changing the rules to match his/her style.

Most importantly, make it clear to DMs and players that they can play any version of your game; you appreciate their loyalty regardless of their choice.

The Crunch-Fluff Debate

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

You’ve been screwing this up since (at least) 2e. Stat blocks are a waste of space, and they create the need to put updated stat blocks in future products. This increases the amount of wasted space… or, rather, it decreases the amount of creative output you have to pay the author for, which gets the conspiracy theorists among us thinking that you’re doing it on purpose. Things which make us suspicious of you are obviously bad policy. Here’s how you solve it.

Stop putting ruleset-specific stuff in the setting material.

No more stat blocks in campaign setting books or regional sourcebooks. Yes, they can be in adventures, but only when they’re not simply reprints of stuff that’s in other sources.

NPC stat blocks should go in pdf documents which are setting-specific and ruleset-specific and available to everyone from the wizards website. So the “5e FR NPCs” document will have 5e stat blocks for notable Realms NPCs, while the “2e FR NPCs” document will have all the same people with 2e stat blocks.

Why pdf documents online? Because they can be updated there without the expense (your production and our purchase) of new books. Furthermore, if they’re alphabetized, DMs can print out the ones they need instead of having to carry yet another book to their gaming table.

Why go to all the trouble of making separate documents for NPCs? Well, there is a precedent; you’ve already done it: the Hall of Heroes. This would be more concise than that book, though, because I’m talking about nothing but stat blocks. And if you do it right, you should be able to generate these stat blocks with a computer both quickly and neatly. So don’t bother whining about the expense… I will not believe you.

Furthermore, an NPC document gathers all the stat blocks in one place. No more having to look each person up in the indices of multiple books —and then cursing you (WotC) for your inability to produce indices— and having to pause the game while we flip through books looking for stat blocks. Just open up the pdf and there they are in alphabetical order.

Realmslore goes in the FR books, Eberron-lore or whatever you want to call it goes in Eberron books. Stat blocks, however, have nothing to do with lore, and add nothing to the setting. They’re just crunch, and they should go in a different place… the alternative is 5-6 versions of each stat block in each book, and I don’t think any DM or player wants that.

Cheap Moves

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

Using the last page of the book (or, like in City of Splendors, a whopping 3 pages) for advertisements is a cheap move. So is using a big font, or wide margins. So is putting watermarks and/or edge-art on the paper (in a completely transparent effort to justify wide margins) …and then complaining about costs, so that you can jack up the price of the books while simultaneously giving us less campaign material.

Stop being a cheap whiny jerk.

We want inexpensive books which are filled with useful campaign stuff. You want to maximize profits. Both of these are logical, and neither of them is going away, so you need to find a combination that works for both of us. Because —duh— your bottom line is not our responsibility.

My suggestions: cheap paper, cheap printing, no watermarks, and no interior artwork. Spend the budget for each book on the text of the book. Be nice to your authors and they’ll keep writing for you… kinda weird how that works out, isn’t it. Do not jerk us around with a 12 point font or 1”+ margins. Don’t blow your budget on crappy art. That painting may be beautiful, in person, but reducing it to 8.25×10.8 and xeroxing it onto a page kinda kills it, and more to the point… it takes away from the verbiage without adding anything to my game. And that’s why, no matter how good the art is (and much of it isn’t) it becomes an annoyance when it’s inside a sourcebook.

Expensive books cut down on your profits… fewer people buy them, because it’s far more economical to borrow our friends’ books. Even those who do buy the books often wait a month or three after the book is released, so that they can see what everybody who bought it thinks about it before spending their own hard-earned dollars.

You want to attract young players? Even half a second of half-drunk thought while half-awake would tell you that charging 30-40 dollars per book is not the way to do it. 12 yr olds don’t have jobs, and most of them aren’t living in Hollywood with rich parents who encourage them to play D&D. Kids are buying your books with their freakin’ allowance. I know, because I did. That means they’ll only be able to get a book every couplefew months, if they can save up that much before blowing it on the movies or ice cream. The story doesn’t change much in high school or college, although cigarette and coffee habits are too-often added to the expense list and college textbooks are pure insanity. Over 600 bucks for one semester; true story. And after college, folks with kids are pretty much doomed to a tight budget.

Summary… do I spend this 40 bucks on the new D&D book, or do I keep my WoW subscription for the next 3 months and just borrow my friend’s book when I need to make a new character? Or *gulp* do I ask out that pretty girl in math class? You are hewing, assembling, and nailing your own coffin. Reduce the cost of playing the game, while increasing the quality of your product, or go the way of the dinosaurs.

Art

This is one of several thoughts/suggestions regarding the upcoming fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons (5e). Relevant news items: nytimes and wizards.

I don’t know anything about the history between TSR/WotC/Hasbro and artists, but judging by what I’m seeing in a lot of D&D products I have to conclude that you’ve driven the good artists to hate you. So the first piece of advice is that you should stop doing that. Also:

No more interior art.

Keep the maps; those are good, but other interior art does not help anything.

It’s not that art is bad, per se. Certain types of art, in particular, would be great. Portraits of (in)famous NPCs and locations, renderings of certain spell effects, historically significant battle scenes, and so forth. They should not, however, be in the campaign setting book or regional sourcebooks, and especially not in adventures.

Instead, art should be on a dvd, sold alongside but not bundled with the printed material. In the name of whatever you hold sacred, don’t bundle it. Why? Because you obviously won’t have a whole dvd’s-worth of images to go with each sourcebook… and I will not pay $10 on top of the base product cost for 5 digitized watercolors that look like a 5-year old might have just tossed a couple buckets of colored water at the wall. And because —if it’s good— some people who don’t even play D&D will be interested in the art. You’ll make up the cost of producing these dvds by charging no more than $20 and making sure we’re getting more than our money’s worth. Rule of thumb: if it looks like fingerpainting, I’m not going to buy it… ‘cuz I can do fingerpainting, myself.

As far as watercolor that a 5-year old couldn’t do, very little of what I’ve seen in D&D books, since the beginning of D&D, has been as good as http://bcduncan.deviantart.com/gallery/. And no; I’ve never even met her, but she’s an amazing artist. Your art director(s) should spend a couple lunches every week, if they don’t already, browsing deviantart and other art communities. I’m sure many of the artists would be willing, or even eager, to be featured in a collection of art and role-playing materials in exchange for a fair price.