Dragon Magazine Let's read the entire run

[thedungeondelver]

Shouldn't you have title this thread "Dragon Magazine Let's Slag the Entire Run"? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you'll be throwing buy one get one free pie coupons and party beads from your parade float as soon as the grumpy old bearded guy from Wisconsin's influence on the magazine is gone? Or am I being needlessly cynical?

[Vanuslux]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

Shouldn't you have title this thread "Dragon Magazine Let's Slag the Entire Run"? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you'll be throwing buy one get one free pie coupons and party beads from your parade float as soon as the grumpy old bearded guy from Wisconsin's influence on the magazine is gone? Or am I being needlessly cynical?

Funny, I'm not getting the impression that he's slagging the run...it's just that those early issues were rather haphazard as far as the quality of the articles went so there's a lot of rubbish burying the gems...but I don't think (un)reason has ignore the latter.

[Croesus]

Originally Posted by Orius

I'd like to see these rules. I hate Risk because it gets massively bogged down. Let's see the opponent build up that massive army in Yakustk now!

Here you go. If a Mod objects, feel free to delete, but I don't think it's too egregious to post a single article from almost 30 years ago...

NUCLEAR RISK

As anyone knows who has played Risk, victory in the game is often a combination of lasting through the 255th battle turn, handing in the 34th set of cards for 1,019 armies and rolling straight 6’s on defense! To both shorten the game and return the excitement and tension (which is often lost in the slow buildup of ponderous Risk hordes), the following “nuclear options” are presented.

Two modifications are necessary before play can begin:
(1) Draw in additional oceanic paths between Western Australia and Madagascar; and between Argentina and Eastern Australia.
(2) Only five players may participate-the sixth player’s pieces are used to represent nuclear weapons and areas of destruction (the RED player’s pieces are considered particularly appropriate for this use). Alternately, six may play if suitable pieces (coins, small poker chips, counters, etc.) are available to represent each player’s nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear Moratorium
From the beginning of the game through the end of the third game-turn, no nuclear weapons may be used. At the beginning of the fourth turn, they may be employed freely at the discretion of the owning player.

First Strike
The player who first uses nuclear weapons (thereby initiating thermonuclear holocaust!) may DOUBLE the effect of his nuclear weapons for that turn only (see Nuclear Weapons, Offensive Capabilities (below) for effects). This bonus is given both for initiative and surprise. Note that if he does not use all the nuclear weapons in his arsenal, the others’ effect is not doubled on succeeding turns.

Nuclear Builds
Nuclear weapons may be built instead of-but not in addition to-regular armies. A player may: (1) build regular armies only, (2) build nuclear weapons only, or (3) build a combination of both, provided the total of both regular armies and nuclear weapons does not exceed his total allowable builds from cards, continent bonuses, etc. each turn.

Nuclear weapons are deployed like regular armies at the beginning of a player’s turn. However, they may not be redeployed until the strategic phase of that player’s turn, with all the limitations placed on them as on regular armies for strategic redeployment.

Nuclear Weapons
(1) Offensive Capabilities: One nuclear weapon automatically destroys one army unit in the target nation. Range is unlimited for an offensive nuclear weapon, i.e., it can reach any target nation on the board from any launching site on the board.

(2) Defensive Capabilities: One nuclear weapon used in a defensive capacity automatically seeks out and destroys one offensive nuclear weapon in the air, within the following limitation: Range of defensive nuclear weapons is limited to the nation in which they are stationed and those nations immediately adjacent. Adjacent nations are defined as those having a contiguous border with the nation in which the defensive nuclear weapons are stationed. Bodies of water negate the-adjacent-nation status.

(3) Dual Mission: The players should note that each nuclear weapon has both offensive and defensive capability. The actual employment of the weapon in either its attack or defense role is at the individual player’s discretion.

(4) Use: Nuclear weaponry may be used any time during the combat portion of a player’s turn. The attacker need only state his intention of using nuclear weapons, the target nation and the number of weapons used. The defending player then states his intention to defend (if he can) and the number of weapons used in defense.

The attack is resolved first by trading off defensive and offensive weapons on a one-for-one basis and removing them from the board. Any excess in offensive weapons remaining then strikes the defending armies in the target nation, removing them-again-on a one-for-one basis. Normal combat may then follow (or continue) at the attacker’s
option.

(5) Results: If all the defending armies in a target nation are destroyed through the use of nuclear weapons alone, that nation becomes an impassable nuclear wasteland for one complete turn. Although destroyed, that nation still counts toward the owning player’s builds and control of that continent.

The only restriction is that no player may advance armies into such a territory until the beginning of that player’s turn who originally “wasted” that nation, and then only in the strategic movement phase of each player’s turn. Note that this gives the destroying player the advantage since, in his strategic movement phase, he can advance armies into the territory and take it for his own side!

A player may waste his own armies through nuclear attack in order to create impassable “dead” zones between himself and the enemy hordes. However, if at least one defending army remains after nuclear attack, that nation does not become a wasteland and the offensive player may attack it again (at his option) conventionally.

While nuclear weapons can destroy armies on the ground, they cannot destroy other nuclear weapons unless airborne. All player’s arsenals are assumed to be deeply buried in bomb-proof bunkers so that only a rare direct hit might destroy a single weapon. Direct attacks against another player’s arsenal are, therefore, not allowed.

(6) Defense Against Ground Attack: Nuclear weapons have no defense against conventional ground attack. If all the defending armies in a nation are destroyed by the enemy’s regular armies and there is at least one attacking army left, all nuclear weapons stationed in that nation are automatically destroyed and removed from the board.

Doomsday Device
If any player is wiped out in a single turn through nuclear attack alone, his remaining nuclear weapons are not automatically removed from play (since nuclear weapons cannot destroy each other on the ground). Instead, that player may make an IMMEDIATE final strike against the player(s) of his choice, using whatever nuclear weapons remain in his arsenal at the end.

Diplomacy
If is STRONGLYsuggested that players form alliances and make limited treaties and non-aggression pacts well before the use of nuclear weapons becomes legal in the game. While such alliances and treaties are not binding on any player, they certainly help prevent turning 90% of the world into a glowing, radioactive waste on turn four!

Experimental Rule
Nuclear Submarines: Each player may place up to three nuclear weapons at sea in each of the following ocean areas: (a) Arctic, (b) Atlantic, (c) Antarctic, (d) Mediterranean, and (e) Pacific. Such nuclear weapons may be used in an offensive capacity only.

Such weapons may not be attacked by conventional or nuclear arms while “at sea.” Range of submarine-fired nuclear weapons is limited to those nations which are immediately adjacent to an ocean area in which those nuclear weapons are stationed, i.e., the target nation must have a coastline on a body of water where an attacker’s submarine-based nuclear weapons are stationed in order to be attacked.

Discussion
The above variant rules to Risk were first conceived at U.S. Naval Base, Rota, Spain (hence the inclusion of the experimental nuclear submarines rule) and later fully playtested by members of the Mid-Columbia Wargaming Society of Richland, Washington. Richland is also the site of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, where nuclear power plants are being built to generate electricity! Needless to say, Nuclear Risk has a large following in the area.

In the playtesting sessions, it became obvious that additional paths were needed to prevent losing Australia and the entire Western Hemisphere early in the game. Both areas are too easy to defend with conventional forces, thus drawing nuclear fire and reducing them to separate piles of radioactive ash. Try playing these rules without the additional paths and you’ll understand what we mean!

For the same reason, the nuclear moratorium was added to allow the players to consolidate a continent and build up forces-both conventional and nuclear—before the bombs started falling. The variant can be played without the moratorium, but an optional “trading period” —allowing the players to trade nations in order to gain a continent-should be added. Even so, games without the moratorium rule will go extremely fast (ten turns or less) and be less than satisfying . . . except to the winner.

The “first strike” rule places both an advantage and a disadvantage on the player who goes first once the moratorium is lifted. The advantage is obvious: more destruction per weapon if you push the button before anyone else does. The disadvantage is that everyone else knows you have that advantage! This requires a certain amount of diplomacy to prevent being the target of a multi-player alliance, and some risk-taking if you choose not to fire your missiles first. Optionally, the players can roll each turn for first move (beginning with the fourth turn) until someone actually uses his nuclear weapons.

Tactics enter the game when the player uses his nuclear weapons to aid a conventional attack.

Ideally, there are three possibilities:
(1) Attack first with nuclear weapons to “soften up” a position and then go in with conventional forces. This works best against such positions as the Siam barrier and other bottlenecks.

(2) Attack conventionally first and, if the battle turns against you, use nuclear weapons to bring your opponent’s numbers down to your favor again. At that point, return to the attack with conventional forces until you win that battle (note that this tactic can be applied repeatedly to the same battle if your opponent continually rolls high on defense).

(3) Begin the attack conventionally and end with a nuclear strike against your opponent’s surviving armies. This is a “desperation” tactic to be used only if your nuclear arsenal is running low and/or you are fighting defensively on that front (tying to gain a single card through conquest). It works best when you have the manpower to spare.

One important strategy was discovered in playtesting this variant: creating “dead” zones by nuking out your own (or your opponent’s) armies. This is both offensive and defensive in nature: defensively, it allows you to trade space for time as you build up forces to return to the attack; offensively, it gives you a “free” country to conquer on your strategic movement phase—thereby gaining a card if you haven’t overrun anyone else that turn!

Other strategies are possible using the Nuclear Risk variant rules— strategies you’ll discover when you sit down to a short, fast game of Nuclear Risk. Battle fatigue rarely sets in once the missiles begin flying, with most games ending in an hour. Even games ending with the entire world wasted can be useful, providing the broad “historical” background to such games as Gamma World or After the Holocaust.

The next time you want some Risk action but don’t have ten hours to spare, try these rules and . . . “Nuke ‘em ‘til they glow!!!"

[(un)reason]

The Dragon Issue 35: March 1980

Part 2/2

Sage advice: No preamble this time, just straight into the questions. Can magic users cast spells one handed? (yes, unless the GM rules otherwise for individual spells) Can a character who can't be raised normally be brought back by a wish (yes) Can you shoot arrows in hand to hand combat (no) How do I stop the assassins guild going after me for something I didn't do? (that, my dear, is up to the GM) Do druids automatically know speak with animals? (druids and clerics don't need spellbooks, they can pray for any spell on their list) Can evil characters cast protection from evil (oh yes) How do you deal with an annoying, treasure grabbing, bossy tantrum throwing player (Lay down the law, and stick to it, bitch! The rules can't solve this one for you) Do you have to read scrolls aloud to cast them (yes) I'm bored with dungeon delving. How do I spice up my game (start putting proper plots in it. Ask your players what they want to do.) Can you stack multiple armour types(no) Can thieves be chaotic good (no) Man, they really were harsh on thieves in those days, seems like every issue we have someone trying to question limitations on them that now don't exist anymore.

Up on a soap box: Wargaming, a moral issue? Wargaming is a threat to the morals of our youth. If they play it they'll grow up thinking that fighting and killing is a perfectly normal thing to do. Classic. Is there a form of popular entertainment or technology that moralizing reactionary fearmongers haven't turned their sights upon in the history of creating stuff. Pay them no attention. A decade or two later their worries usually seem pretty comical.

Angels in AD&D: Another attempt at this topic. This is pretty elaborate, and draws heavily on real world mythology. They have pretty much the abilities you'd expect. Nothing particularly exceptional to see here. Move along.

Giants in the Earth: This time, the disgustingly twinked characters for your delectation are Cecelia Holland's Muirtagh the bowman, H. Rider Haggard's Umslopogaas, and Henry Kuttner's Edward Bond and Ganelan.

Dastardly deeds and devious devices: A particularly elaborate set of traps this issue, two of which will cause you more harm if you take the obvious route to try and solve or get around them. No wonder adventurers who survived for any length of time became so paranoid. This is nasty stuff. I love it

The AD&D national player rating system: More stuff supporting the use of AD&D as a tournament system, allowing you to work out how good a player you are compared to everyone else who's played in a particular con module. Includes the top 50 rankings from the recent tournaments, which of course has most of the TSR staff in fairly high places. No 1 ranking player in the world at the moment, however is Kristine Bailey, with the highest tsr staffer at 3rd, and Gary coming 47th, Oh, the woes of other people beating you at the game you invented.

The mystery of the bow: Another one of those historical articles explaining the real world history of stuff. Seems very hung up over the handedness of bow firers, and the historical accuracy of various miniatures because of it. Which is a rather petty thing to spend so much time writing about. Worse things happen in academia.

The History of Hothior: More cool stuff on the setting of Divine Right by its original creator.

A big double page advert for citadel miniatures in the middle of the magazine. Someone's got money to spend.

Simulation Corner: The history of wargaming company SPI. One of those potted history bits that presents the topic in a very positive light, focussing largely on their achievements, and saying the future looks great, without revealing any of the drama and work behind the products. Which is the most interesting part. So not a particularly interesting article.

Reviews: Gangster, an RPG. Titan strke, a wargame. Double star, another sci-fi wargame. War in the Ice, a wargame. Plus lots of minireviews.

Classified ads continue.

TOP SECRET!!!! (shhhh). Having done fantasy, cowboys, and two gonzo sci-fi games, TSR moves into the spy adventure genre as well. I suspect we'll be seeing articles for this in the near future.

Dragonmirth gets both pics and a joke article on the way the rules of the universe change with new editions. Even the most mighty character can be unexpectedly nerfed by the AD&D rules revision.

Fineous fingers gets all 4th wall breaking in a double page finale.

Errata for Quirks and Curses from last issue, that arrived just after printing. Ahh, deadlines. How many mistakes are not fixed properly because of them.

Despite not being as long as last issue, this one has been a real slog to get through. All the articles start blurring into one after a while, which frankly is no fun at all. I shall have to develop a mental sorting method to keep my mind from getting overcluttered with the new information.

[(un)reason]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

Shouldn't you have title this thread "Dragon Magazine Let's Slag the Entire Run"? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you'll be throwing buy one get one free pie coupons and party beads from your parade float as soon as the grumpy old bearded guy from Wisconsin's influence on the magazine is gone? Or am I being needlessly cynical?

Good question. It's certainly true that I didn't start playing until later, and it's the 87-95 formats that really trip my personal nostalgia buttons. But there was plenty of duff articles in that period as well, and I certainly don't intend to sugar-coat them either. I've always found a good slagging off a more entertaining read than a bland positive review, and I'm making the gamble that the majority of my readers feel the same. It's not as if I haven't been enthusiastic about the things I like as well. Without the opinions, jokes and random cultural commentary this would basically just be a tedious exercise in cataloging. I don't think I could get through that.

I think the bigger risk is that because I'm consuming so many of them at such a high pace, I might well end up like a film critic, cynical about the medium simply because you come to see the patterns and mechanics behind them, and get hit by just how few original ideas there are in the world. Such is the nature of fanboyism. We pick apart and complain endlessly about the things we love the most.

[el-remmen]

(un)reason, I think you're doing a great job! (and I love your user name).

[Hussar]

I too am loving these.

Thanks also for that Nuclear Risk bit. That's very cool.

As far as slagging goes, let's face it, Sturgeon was 90% right.

[Plane Sailing]

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

Shouldn't you have title this thread "Dragon Magazine Let's Slag the Entire Run"? Why do I get the sneaking suspicion you'll be throwing buy one get one free pie coupons and party beads from your parade float as soon as the grumpy old bearded guy from Wisconsin's influence on the magazine is gone? Or am I being needlessly cynical?

Yes, you're being needlessly cynical. If you don't enjoy the thread, just ignore it.

Thanks

[Arnwyn]

Originally Posted by (un)reason

I've always found a good slagging off a more entertaining read than a bland positive review, and I'm making the gamble that the majority of my readers feel the same.

And that gamble is paying off, I might add.

You've also been reasonably balanced overall, in any case. Good times!

[(un)reason]

And so a potential burst of flames is doused by speedy moderator intervention. So much for controversy. I guess I'd have to take this little show to therpgsite or something if I really wanted a tough crowd. Hmm. Tempting idea.

[amysrevenge]

lol

Keep them coming. I love Gary, but I also recognize his... foibles. Good on you for calling them out.

[(un)reason]

The Dragon Issue 36: April 1980

part 1/2

72 pages. Another april fools issue gets an extensive collection of joke articles, gathered into a mini magazine within the magazine. Nice to see they're taking their humour seriously. Or something like that. Apart from that, there's no particular theme to this month's issue. The regular columns continue, and there are articles aplenty on games of all sorts. To the specificsmobile!

In this issue:

Dragon rumbles: Once again we deal with the tricky issue of playing in groups of different ages, and the conflicts this causes. D&D was originally intended as a game for adults, or at least people with adult attention spans, and the ability to play games without being disruptive and throwing tantrums when they lose. And as it increasingly attracts a younger audience, this becomes more of a problem. We've already seen gary's statement of intent to make basic D&D more friendly to newcomers. Its obvious that some assistance is needed with this. And quite a bit of it needs to come from the current players, as D&D is a bitch to learn on your own.

Out on a limb: A letter complaining about the magical plusses given to Fafhrd and the mouser's weapons, and pointing out that their weapons were given the same names no matter what weapons they had. To which the writer of the piece replies that they had the bonuses to reflect how badass they were and make them superior to regular characters of the same level. To which I say, Isn't level supposed to be the determiner of personal skill? Why not just make them higher level then? They're already around 20th level. What's a few more levels? So much for logic.
A letter praising most of the dragon's content, and complaining about the temporary dropping of Giants in the earth, and also that their shop sells out of issues too quickly. Which seems to be a common complaint. Guess readership is increasing faster than the circulation increases can keep up with at this point.
Three letters on monty haul and the problem overpowered characters present. Overinflation is always a problem. There comes a point when you just have to retire characters and start again. A philosophy they seem to be hard-coding into 4th edition. And finally, another letter of generalised praise. They seem to be printing letters that fit a theme this issue. I guess they have enough to pick and choose from now.

Fiction: The cube from beyond, by Gardner F Fox. A 6th niall story. And he actually gets to do something significant without his demon goddess patron, and be the primary driver of the plot again. But he's still seriously non politically correct. What is the attraction in forcibly taking someone, and why was it so common in books by writers of both genders?

The perseid war: A new Scenario for stellar war, by Steve Jackson (yes, that one. He already seems to be a pretty big player in gaming by now) Designed to support a style of play that is hard to manage in most scenarios, and also includes some new rules. Which is cool. He's the original designer, so the new rules should be well thought out and properly balanced.

Painted ladies and potted monks: Prostitutes and drugs in gaming, and the ramifications of exposing ....... younger players to them. Do you teach them that sex and drugs are bad things to be feared, even in a fantasy world, or a perfectly natural and healthy form of recreation? How much do the games that children play shape their attitudes in adulthood? Will presenting characters of religion or color in the game positively or negatively influence their prejudices with respect to real people. Heavy questions, presented with a light and humorous touch, without the oh noes hysteria that so often acompanies this topic. And they even mention homosexuality positively. (although its the first time they have at all, as far as I can recall.) Overall, this is a very good article indeed, promoting positive liberal attitudes and social responsibility without getting too preachy about it. (Which is a good example of the neutral good way and how it can be distinguished from lawfull or chaotic good, for those of you still involved in that debate.)

From the sorcerers scroll: Gary gives the stats of Conan at various ages, from teenager to ancient king. As is the case for virtually every character published here, he is not a legal character by D&D rules, developing in a decidedly odd way in two different classes simultaneously, and having a whole bunch of special abilities PC's can't acquire. You decry twinks and rulebreakers, and then turn around and present us with overpowered and illegal characters of your own, What kind of an example is that to set us? Ends with a blatant begging bowl asking for freebies in exchange for reviews. Which is pretty distasteful all round really.

Sage advice: As this is getting increasingly lengthy, I'm gonna break up the questions into new lines from here on, to make it easier to read.
Must spellcasters use books to store their spells? (only magic-users and illusionists, but yes, they MUST. (The days of alternate methods of recording spells are still quite a way away))
Can paladins condone or participate in suicide and euthanasia? (Hell no, not even tacitly. There is always a reason to live and keep fighting, and you've got to do your best to convince them of that or lose your specul powerz. Of course, it helps when you have magical healing and disease curing to back up this conviction.)
Must paladins be celibate. (Depends on their religion and the DM, but I personally encourage it. No sexx041ng for you when I'm DMing.)
How do 1st level magic users get their spells(from the person who apprenticed them, silly)
Why can't demihumans be sages (they can actually, they just aren't very often. Also, don't try and send me money. I don't work in the right department, and it won't help you get better rulings.)
Can you recharge charged items or not? (only as long as they still have at least one charge in them. (What's all that about then?))
Will you become permanently invisible if you overuse a ring of invisibility. (no, this ain't middle earth, and you ain't a slave of sauron.)
Can you automatically tell if an item is magical (no, unless it's glowing or something like that.)
What am I to I do with this pesky lawfull gooder in my party not letting me attack wounded creatures without provocation? ( I fail to see the problem And if there is one it is purely a roleplaying matter, not a rules one, so it's not my business anyway.)
Does being resurrected make you lose constitution (yes)
Why cant half orcs be raised? (Once again, they have no SOULS!! Don't believe me, ask Gary. Gary, do half orcs have souls? Gary: Bitch be hollow and empty inside. Jean: See. Get that through your stupid heads. Unless they go all little mermaid on you (which would make a cool story, actually, ) they simply die when they die. Do not pass go, do not get reincarnated, do not get an afterlife. Are we crystal clear, or are you going to keep fighting? Krusk:That's right. )

Honorable designer Speaks! The designer of Samurai gives us a brief runthrough of his game. An article that reads like a combined advert and history lesson, trying hard to convince people that the game is cool so they buy it. Ah so. You must learn greater subtlety, Mr Campagna.

[Orius]

Originally Posted by (un)reason

Why cant half orcs be raised? (Once again, they have no SOULS!! Don't believe me, ask Gary. Gary, do half orcs have souls? Gary: Bitch be hollow and empty inside. Jean: See. Get that through your stupid heads. Unless they go all little mermaid on you (which would make a cool story, actually, ) they simply die when they die. Do not pass go, do not get reincarnated, do not get an afterlife. Are we crystal clear, or are you going to keep fighting? Krusk:That's right. )

Arrrrg!!!! Why did you have to post that?! I just pictured a half-orc Ariel!!! I think this is going to scar me, scar me I say!

[Hussar]

Can you recharge charged items or not? (only as long as they still have at least one charge in them. (What's all that about then?))

I can't remember the specific mechanics, but, wizards could recharge wands in 1e.

[Raven Crowking]

The reason that half-orcs, elves, etc., don't have souls in early D&D is that Gary was steeped in folklore as well as in the literature of the period. There was a folk belief, dating far back into the mists of time, for example, that faeries (within this context, including elves and dwarves, for example) were frightened of church bells because they didn't have souls. The possession of a soul was what made humans unique among all creation.

This is obviously only one worldview upon which to build a game. However, it was a worldview that Gary was consistent with. And it is a worldview that has a history far longer than that of the game.


RC

[(un)reason]

The Dragon Issue 36: April 1980

part 2/2

Leomunds tiny hut: How to make a pantheon you can have faith in. AKA I don't like the idea of PC's killing gods, so I'm going to beef up their powers when they aren't on the prime material, reduce your powers when you are on a different plane of existance, and take a potshot at Jim Ward's GMing style while I'm at it. Now try and kill those gods. Truly Len, you are a visionary. (all of these optional rules would later become canon in Planescape) But the god slayers will rise again come 3rd edition. And then fall again in 4th ed. One of those things that obviously comes in cycles.

Minarian legends: More cool setting stuff for Divine Right, this time covering the history of the kingdom of Immer, and the old empire it was built upon.

Dragon Grumbles: Ok, welcome to this years comedy central. They're sick of doing this, so its time to sell up and head to the bahamas. April fool.

Out on a limbo: Joke letters. Stupid arguments, stupid suggestions, and political potshots. Probably not real.

Enjoying your Dragon: How to properly take care of a baby dragon, so it'll take care of you when you're old and grey. (and it's still a baby.) This may be a joke article, but it isn't entirely useless in game terms.

New joke monsters, the DM, and the keebler: the first is not statistically legal, while the second is. I don't think I have to explain these to you.

The tax man cometh: I think the title says it all. Take their money, more than all of it, and leave them in debt to an organisation that doesn't play fair, and never stops taking. Just like real life. I fail to see the joke here.

Meeting demogorgon: You say demogorgon's name. He appears. What do the NPC's in the party do? Roll on this random table to find out. Not that it matters, because you're all going to die anyway. Even converting to worshiping him won't save you. Because our double headed demon lord friend is an admiral crankypants when he's just got out of the abyss in the morning.

Bazaar of the ordinary: Another set of 4 ordinary items presented as magical ones, just to confuse people.

This months module, a 10 by 10 room. No orc, no pie, just a 10 by 10 room. That's your lot.

Leomunds in a rut: Jokes about footwear.

Sage advice: Jokes about the aforementioned herb, in Q&A form. Much eyerolling punnery here.

A visit to an interesting place: The best excuse for not handing your homework ever. I'm a D&D character who wished I was somewhere interesting, and found myself in the real world.

Campaign mixing sure stirs things up! Another story of a gonzo crossover game. Not sure if this one is based on real events or not, since if anything it's less over the top than the monty haul games. The line between excess and parody of that excess is a thin line indeed.

The mongols: Another one of those system free historical articles that seems to be in vogue in this period. And as ever, the most useful thing in it is the bibliography, as there's no way you'll get enough depth in a few pages to do justice to it.

The fantasysmiths notebook: Modifying and painting skeletons. Oooogie boogie boo. They're always going to be a staple of your undead armies, so if you like undead you'll be seeing a lot of these. This article shows you how to make the best of them while keeping the figures anatomically accurate. Which is pretty nice.

Giants in the earth: This month, the fictional characters overtwinked Aaaaaaaare. Rafael Sabatini's Captain Blood. H.P.Loveraft's Richard Upton Pickman, and Thomas Burnett Swann's Silverbells.
.
Fighting in the streets: A new scenario for Squad Leader, the German sieges of russian cities in 1942. A short but sweet article that does exactly what it sets out to do.

Experience points to ponder: A system of awarding XP by the amount of damage inflicted, so as to make shares more fair, and allow you to learn from fighting even if you failed to kill them. Which of course takes tons of bookkeeping. I think you know my position on articles of this sort by now. It just isn't worth the bother.

Simulation corner: An essay on the development of wargames, from their simple and sketchy beginnings, to increasing crunch as they attempt to be comprehensive and also keep making money out of supplements, to finding out that too much crunch just slows things down and makes things less fun, and creating games designed to be elegantly simple and/or do one very specific thing very well. Which is also an evolution roleplaying games have gone through as well, in the last 3 decades. I wonder, it this one of those natural developmental paths that a media has a tendency to take, like the carnivore vs herbivore size, weaponry and armor race that has taken place at least 5 times in the past? And does the way wargames declined in the past few decades hold clues into the way RPG's will go, and what we could do to stop a similar slide into increasing obscurity, with the exception of 1 big company (games workshop). I think this deserves it's own thread.

The DM's right hand man? Once again we look at the subject of using a computer to aid in the bookkeeping for your gaming. This article is written by a (self proclaimed) computer science expert, and goes into a detailed look at just what a computer can and can't do to help you. Obviously it cannot substitute for creativity, and the visuals will be a bit crap. And you have to watch out that it doesn't use up more time working it than it saves. A pretty well thought out and informative article, which neither exaggerates or understates the benefits and problems. I quite approve.

The fastest guns that never lived parts I-IV: All the previous articles on this subject collected, plus a few new entries. As they point out, they, like the D&D characters in GitE, are tremendously powerful compared to an ordinary PC, sometimes have special abilities that we have no way of getting, (sigh) and should be used with caution.

Maclankhmar - A compromise game: More rather tedious houseruling minutinae by Mr MacKnight. You should have quit this series while you were ahead, instead of overburdening us with detail and running them into the ground.

The electric eye: A second computer article in the same magazine. This one focusses on the software aspect of computing. Another article aimed at the absolute beginner, and a reminder that they didn't really have dedicated computer shops yet, plus programs were small enough that their code could fit in a few pages of a magazine and be input by you personally. Which would also remain true for almost a decade yet. Yeah, things have really changed here. I wonder how long it'll be before the first mention of the internet in the magazine. Not until the 90's, I'll wager.

Dragons bestiary - The krolli: Ooh. writing and art by Todd Lockwood. I remember that name. He'll be doing plenty of cool stuff in the future. A fairly badass race of flying lizard men.

Reviews: Starship troopers (yes, I know the game's been out for a few years, and already got an article here) Mech war 2, a (very crunchy indeed) wargame. And our first computer game review, of Trek-80, a star trek tactical shoot-em-up. A very interesting set of reviews this issue, and nice to see them spreading out into new avenues. I wonder when computer reviews will get their own separate column? And how long it'll be before the magazine stops covering them, for that matter (sigh)

Wormy continues.

It's becoming pretty obvious at this point that the magazines are now too big for me to properly digest them mentally in a single sitting. (And they're still only going to get bigger, as well.) So from here on in, I'm going to stop trying to form an opinion on everything, and just concentrate on the articles that I do find interesting (be it because they are good or bad), useful, or parodyable. The magazine is still full of cool stuff, and it would be a shame if I missed stuff or got jaded with it from pushing through it all too fast.

[Deuce Traveler]

Originally Posted by (un)reason

The Dragon Issue 36: April 1980
Ends with a blatant begging bowl asking for freebies in exchange for reviews. Which is pretty distasteful all round really.

That's not unrealistic. A lot of companies send free copies of their games to reviewers so that they can get publicity.

[(un)reason]

Originally Posted by Deuce Traveler

That's not unrealistic. A lot of companies send free copies of their games to reviewers so that they can get publicity.

I know. It's just the way it's done. Here's the stats for conan! Incidentally, there may be new Conan books out, but we're not going to review them, or even name them in the magazine unless you send us free copies, so there Bantam books. That is pretty much literally what he says. It's like he's starting to take getting lots of freebies as a result of his position for granted.

[Hussar]

Experience points to ponder: A system of awarding XP by the amount of damage inflicted, so as to make shares more fair, and allow you to learn from fighting even if you failed to kill them. Which of course takes tons of bookkeeping. I think you know my position on articles of this sort by now. It just isn't worth the bother.

Funnily enough, we did this. We always tracked how much of a creature each PC killed. Bob get's half that orc, Jim get's a quarter and Sue get's the other quarter. Great minds think alike.

[(un)reason]

The Dragon Issue 37: May 1980

part 1/2

72 pages. Yet another price increase this issue, to $3.00. Dear oh dear. It's been under half a year. Still, I suppose in percentages it's nothing compared to the increases they underwent in the first year.

In this issue:

Dragon rumbles is presented by jake this issue, as tim has quit to get a new job. No, there's nothing acrimonious about the split, he's just tired and just wants to try new things. (is that true, or were there backstage shenanigans we're not hearing about?) There are two new additions to the staff, so its not as if they're tightening their belts. They also deny being funded by TSR, and encourage people to send in stuff on systems other than D&D, so they can cover them. Yeah, if they weren't profitable, they would be dropped. Why do people find that hard to believe? They aren't headed by someone willing to pump money into their own vanity projects and run the company into the ground .

Out on a limb: A particularly long letters section this issue. Two rather lengthy ones on realism in gaming, which recieves an equally lengthy reply.
A letter saying age is not a reliable indicator of maturity and ability to play well with others, and recommending against making listing age mandatory in classified ads. An article of generalized praise, but particularly pointing out the modules as cool and asking for more.
A letter complaining about how the magazine is too male oriented. To which they reply, when 98% of the submissions are by men, its pretty hard not for it to wind up being male oriented. We have a female rules lawyer on the team, and we've published stuff by women before (more on this later on) and will do so in the future if its good. But if you want more stuff, get off your ass and send it in. We can only work with the material we have. Amusingly enough, only recently we had someone else pleased that there were more women into roleplaying than there were into wargaming. I suppose everything's relative. Even when white wolf brought in a big load of new blood, the gender demographics never really reached parity. But I digress.
We also have another letter of generalised praise and commentary, and two letters commenting on the article on angels a couple of months ago. As is their wont, they provide a contrasting pair, one criticising them for being frivolous with the word of god, and one praising them for doing a good job on the topic. I suppose it's those kind of conflicting demands from both sides that would lead them to file the serial numbers off D&D angels and call them Devas and Archons.

The theory and use of gates: General talk of planeshifting (including the first mention of the city of brass.) and how to incorporate it into your games. Another Ed greenwood article, this mentions tons of popular authors, plus most of the RPG's around at the time, showing how well steeped in the culture he is. He encourages keeping things unpredictable, as the laws of physics change from universe to universe, and you should never be sure which bits of your powers and equipment are going to work the way you expect, or at all for that matter. Which is realistic, and keeps even disgustingly overpowered characters from getting complacent, but would never be allowed under current popular design philosophy for being biased and deprotagonising. Meh. Who gives a damn about fashion. This is good stuff.

The Gem dragons! Finally, neutrality gets it's own set of iconic dragons. They have the same iconic traits that they maintain all through the editions, Relatively low physical power, but high intelligence and charisma, and kickass psionic abilities. Includes their own singular high end badass to complement Bahamut and Tiamat, Sardior the ruby dragon. Who I don't remember seeing before, so he must not have caught on. But the dragon deities in 2nd ed were more interesting anyway.

A random event table for urban encounters. How often you'll encounter significant stuff in an urban setting, and what type and level they'll be. Does exactly what it says on the tin, even if it only works in D&D's standard implied pseudomedieval setting.

Cities can help make characters more real: Talk of how to run adventures set in cities, and which classes are most suited to them (rogues get to shine, oh yeah baybey) You can't just go around killing everything that moves. You need to set yourself goals and negotiate with people. Nothing new now, but for people who'd just spent 5 years down a pit in the ground, I guess this is valuable advice.

From the sorcerers scroll: Greyhawk moves into the AD&D realm, with the release of World of Greyhawk coming very soon. Which means lots more setting detail, including our first mention of Iuz. Plus there's lots of modules in the pipline, including lots set on other planes (we also see our first mention of the quasiplane of shadow here.) Deities and Demigods, and the Fiend Folio. Plus basic stats for Bigby and Robilar and their armies. Lots of stuff seen for the first time here that would show up again and again. Nice to see Gary's still busy buzzing away shaping the setting.

Sage advice: One letter that is simply mind breaking in the number of dodgy rules and stupid questions it presents, sending Jean and Skip (looks like he's part of the team as well now) running in terror and urging the writer to retire the character.
How do I deal with characters who gain 10+ levels in a day in someone else's game and then want to play in mine? (make them play separate characters for each game. )
Must someone know a person's language to command them when they are charmed? (yes, charming does not give you any special ability to understand each other)
Can I reuse the jeweled sticks that are the components for augury.(no. You need to shell out each time you cast any spell with material components. Yes, that can get expensive. Suck it up. You should get enough treasure in your adventuring for expenses like that.)
How long does ghoul paralysis last? (you know, it doesn't say officially. We'd better do something about that. I've always used 24 hours in my games.)
How do I deal with characters who have illegal ability scores. (either raise them to the minimums, or make the player roll up a new character)

Minarian Legends: The history of the elven lands in Divine Right. Not all happy shiny dancing, with meteor strikes, racial supremacy movements, and lots of wars detailed. Oh, and terrible terrible poetry. Yeah, this is pretty entertaining.