Dragon Reflections #11 - The Sorcerer Speaks!
  • Dragon Reflections #11 - The Sorcerer Speaks!


    The Dragon Issue 11 was published in December 1977. It is 38 pages long, with a cover price of $1.50. This issue saw the introduction of an important new column.



    Editor Tim Kask is once more talking about fiction, with a new Fritz Lieber story this issue and upcoming stories from Andre Norton and L. Sprague de Camp. Kask also proudly mentions that one of the Gardner Fox stories they published, "Shadow of a Demon," was included in Lin Carter's anthology "The Year's Best Fantasy Stories: 3". Kask loved publishing good fiction, though the readers were generally a little less enthusiastic.

    He also mentions that last issue's board game, "Snit Smashing," was so well received that a sequel, "Snit's Revenge," was being included this month. These games really cemented Tom Wham's reputation as a designer.

    Kask finishes his editorial with more good news for the fans--The Dragon is going to be published monthly! This was more evidence of the magazine's growth and popularity.

    On to the issue itself, which contains plenty of interesting articles. There are two new combat sub-systems offered up. The quarter-staff rules by Jim Ward are a bit clunky and were never heard from again. Rob Kuntz's brawling rules are more elegant--certainly better than the grappling rules that eventually appeared in AD&D.

    We also get another "Seal of the Imperium" column from M.A.R Barker. If I'm not mistaken, it is the last thing he ever published with TSR, although Dragon would continue to publish "Empire of the Petal Throne" articles for the next couple of years.

    There is a short but profound article by Thomas Filmore called "The Play's The Thing..." It urges players to spend time developing the backstory and personality of their characters. He writes:

    "When you roll up your next character, try investing more in him than just the six die rolls. Try to create a colorful background for him. Give him a purpose and reason for being where and what he is. Could it be that he is a rich bastard, always getting his way due to position and wealth and expects to do so now? Or was he a serf that rose up and killed one of his Lord’s men and is now an adventurer/outlaw? How would your character react to authority, what does he want in life? Does he have a drinking problem? Does he chase women? Is he brave? Greedy? Tricky? Just what does he want from adventuring? By investing a few minutes into developing your character, you can extend the game down hundreds of new avenues."

    This seems like very basic and obvious stuff in 2018 but these ideas were still all being worked out back in 1977. I can't find much else by Thomas Filmore, but this little article is still quoted right down to the present day.

    We also have another Gygax article, this one with the peculiar title of "View from the Telescope Wondering Which End is Which". In this piece, he defends TSRs right to protect its intellectual property and also denies they are behaving in an anti-competitive manner. He writes:

    "So to restate our position, TSR does not object to honest competition. We will not praise our imitators, but neither will we try to drive them out of business. Frankly, we are too busy running our own affairs to worry overmuch about competitors. TSR co-operates with certain firms in order to produce D&D associated products, offerings which add to the game. For this co-operation and for the right to display the D&D logo, we receive a small royalty to compensate us for our past and present expenditures in time and money. Under no circumstances will we permit individuals or companies to make unauthorised use of our materials."

    It's hard to disagree with anything he has written here, but TSR would soon develop a reputation for being overly litigious. And the great irony is that Gygax himself would become the favored target of TSR's lawyers in the not too distant future.

    In my view, the most important article in the magazine is "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" by Robert J. Kuntz, who I find one of the most fascinating and enigmatic figures from the early history of the game.

    As a teenager in Lake Geneva, Kuntz developed a passion for gaming and soon became Gary Gygax's precocious protege. He was there at the birth of D&D itself, being part of the original playtest group that ran from 1972 up until the first publication of the game in 1974. He went on to author important works such as the "Greyhawk" supplement and "Deities and Demigods". Kuntz was TSR's sixth fulltime employee, but he quit when it became clear that the job involved more administration than game design.

    After leaving TSR, Kuntz continued to contribute to the hobby as a freelancer. His publishing record is impressive but spotty, and he has noted elsewhere that publication is not high on his list of priorities. His career has had a strangely nomadic quality about it. He shows up every now and again with original designs and opinions (sometimes brilliant, sometimes obtuse) and then disappears again, like a ghost from the dawn of the hobby. He is a genuinely interesting and original character.

    "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" was intended as a regular column wherein he would publish new material (such as magic items and player options) as well as answer player questions. The first column, however, focused mostly on the business aspect of D&D, discussing things like the upcoming product schedule and how the game was faring overseas.

    As it happened, Kuntz would only go on to author two more of these columns before Gygax took over (possibly because Kuntz left TSR). Gygax soon put his stamp on the column, using it to share new game material, and also to ruminate on game design philosophy and the state of the RPG industry. In my view, it is the most consistently interesting column in the early issues of Dragon and often provides fascinating insights into the development of the hobby. I do wish that Rob Kuntz had penned a few more of them, though!

    In the next issue, great Cthulhu rises from the depths and clashes with D&D!

    This article was contributed by M.T. Black as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program.M.T. Black is a game designer and DMs Guild Adept. Please follow him on Twitter @mtblack2567 and sign up to his mailing list. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
    Comments 20 Comments
    1. pemerton's Avatar
      pemerton -
      There is a short but profound article by Thomas Filmore called "The Play's The Thing..." It urges players to spend time developing the backstory and personality of their characters. He writes:

      "When you roll up your next character, try investing more in him than just the six die rolls. Try to create a colorful background for him. Give him a purpose and reason for being where and what he is. Could it be that he is a rich bastard, always getting his way due to position and wealth and expects to do so now? Or was he a serf that rose up and killed one of his Lord’s men and is now an adventurer/outlaw? How would your character react to authority, what does he want in life? Does he have a drinking problem? Does he chase women? Is he brave? Greedy? Tricky? Just what does he want from adventuring? By investing a few minutes into developing your character, you can extend the game down hundreds of new avenues."

      This seems like very basic and obvious stuff in 2018 but these ideas were still all being worked out back in 1977.
      If you look at the PHB (1978) or Moldvay Basic (1981) there is not the least hint that players might develop and play their PCs in this sort of fashion. And if a player tried to, what would the GM do? What resources does a GM find in either AD&D or PHB for handling the escapades of a PC whose goal is to "chase women", or who wants to overthrow the government of the realm? How would this fit into the XP-for-gp foundation of these systems, either in its original (mega)dungeon variant or the later predominant module/scenario approach to D&D?

      As Chrisopher Kubasik put it around 1993,

      The basic plot form of a story is this: A central character wants something, goes after it despite opposition, and arrives at a win, lose or draw. All roleplaying games involve this basic plot in one form or another.

      Dungeon & Dragons fulfilled this requirement brilliantly and simply. Characters wanted experience points and wanted to gain levels. Any other want they might have had – social, political or personal – was subsumed within the acquisition of levels. . . .

      Dungeon modules worked for this very reason. A D&D character who wanted to become a lord didn’t go off and court a princess. He became a lord by wandering around dungeons, killing monsters and overcoming traps. The game offered no rules for courting a princess, but did provide rules for becoming a lord at 10th level . . .

      Modules disintegrated the moment a player got the bright idea of having his character become a lord by courting a princess. Suddenly the world opened up. Instead of getting what they wanted by pursuing a single activity – namely, overcoming traps and monsters characters now wanted to interact with people, gaining what they wanted through individual action and detailed plots.

      The motivation behind hitting on the princess rather than crawling through a series of traps is obvious. First, and perhaps most importantly for some, the idea of wooing a princess was more fun than hanging out in a dungeon. Second, just because the rules didn’t say anything about wooing didn’t mean you couldn’t do it. As we all know, the minute an idea pops into a player’s head, he’s going to try it. Third, the goofiness of acquiring the title of lord by looting holes grated against the sensibilities of many players. They wanted to become lords in ways that made sense. . . .

      [N]o pre-generated adventure can be complete because characters have different motivations.

      Remember the adventurer who left the dungeon to woo a princess? Before he did that he assumed that if he trashed enough dungeons, a princess would be his once he got to 10th level. His motivations and desires were subsumed within the group activity of exploring dungeons.

      Let’s say this guy – Charise d’Amor, a lovable rake who’s trying to marry a rich princess – is your character. You arrive at the gaming table and see the GM crack open a new pre-generated adventure, “The Quest of Tallian’s Orb.”

      A busy wizard hires your group of adventurers to steal back a magical orb that keeps the fair land of Tallian safe from terrible monsters. He tells you what he knows about the theft of the orb. You’re on the doorstep of a scene-based module. You know the goal, the clues and the options of what to do next.

      Let’s assume the author has done a good job. The clues presented are intriguing, not obvious. The characters encountered are amusing and full of life. The scene descriptions help the GM evoke the proper mood. Every, thing is going fine.

      And then the princess shows up. The module’s author just put the princess in because she was a fun character who would have some information about the orb’s location. You see, the guy who wrote the module didn’t know your character is Charise d’Amor.

      Suddenly your character doesn’t care about finding the orb. The only reason he’s out searching for an orb in the first place is to pull together enough cash for a suitable set of clothes and an introduction to royalty. But now he’s got a princess right in front of him. You could play “out hours of flirting with the princess. The story suddenly fractures into tiny pieces.

      Does everybody wait around for Charise to woo the princess? Do the others leave your character behind? Do you blow the princess off to stay with the group, even though your character’s motivation is right in front of him? . . .

      The problem is this: simple plots and sophisticated characters just don’t mix. If you want a character who’s more than a hired gun, you’ll be disappointed by pre-generated adventures. . . .

      The problem is with the structure and format of the adventures themselves. We keep stapling new ideas on top of old ones, putting more interesting characters into formats designed for dungeon crawls. If you want more interesting characters, you have to take the risk of having more interesting stories.

      I'm not sure that D&D (nor many other RPGs) has solved this problem even in 2018.
    1. Matesamo's Avatar
      Matesamo -
      Another fine issue from the early days of the magazine. It was interesting to see the mentions of the upcoming Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books and the excitement which they were being described. My other highlights from this issue include:

      Gary Gygax's editorial praising some non-TSR products:
      This is not to say that we resent inspirational use of D&D. A notable example of such in- spiration is EN GARDE by Game Designers Workshop. It is an excel- lent game, and I personally admire the application of role playing which they devised. Likewise, TRAVELER is an imaginative game, and if it was inspired by D&D, it can be considered an imitation by no possible stretch of the imagination.

      Character Chronicle Cards from the Judges Guild which were ultra small 2 5/6 x 3 1/2" cards to be used with player characters and NPC's. They were sold 100 cards for $1.98.

      First Fantasy Campaign advertised in this issue for a princely sum of $7.98 was a 92-page booklet retelling the background of the original dungeon adventure campaign by Dave Arneson. It included campaign notes, maps and more. I wonder if any copies survive and knowing what was to come between Arneson and Gygax, if there is anything revealing for be found on its pages.

      A review of the animated Hobbit movie which aired on NBC:
      Nothing is more disheartening than to see someone spend a great amount of effort, time and/or money on a project only to do it wrong or badly. Sad to say, that is just what happened with the Rankin/Bass collaboration recently aired on NBC.






    1. Eirikrautha's Avatar
      Eirikrautha -
      re: pemerton

      I agree. I think there are a couple of things that directly inform this problem that haven't really been solved (though have been mitigated somewhat by players).

      D&D has always played better as a cooperative game. When the game was "simpler" (in concept, if not in mechanics), that cooperation was easier to come by. In some ways, the cooperation was almost a default assumption of playing. D&D was almost boardgame-like: you know when you play "Sorry" that you are going to try to move around the board and get all your pieces home. If that isn't what you want to do, then you pick another game. Early D&D was like that; you're going to kill stuff and take its loot in order to up your characters' level. That was the end "goal" of the game.

      With the re-imagining (or expansion, or evolution, or whatever) of the roleplaying genre that has happened over the last 30 years, the mechanics really haven't kept up with the shift in focus. Along with a change in culture (which seems focused on the individual to an almost narcissistic degree), the expectation in the game is that many players will want to create a unique individual with personal attributes, motivations, and personalities to bring their characters to life. But, outside of a concentrated effort established beforehand, there is no guarantee that the motivations and personalities within the group of characters will be conducive to group cohesion. In fact, these characters can have personalities that directly work against group cohesion or cooperation. And woe to he who tries to explain to those players that they are not helping the party with their choice of character behaviors!

      I think that some of the most uncomfortable "metagaming" complaints within our hobby are rooted in this tension. For example, I believe that the railroad vs sandbox debate is often an outgrowth of this. A sandbox reduces the friction between the characters' motivations and the campaign; "OK, so you want to overthrow the government of this town? We'll roll with it." Likewise, a railroad avoids the problems of character buy-in: if the characters are whisked from one encounter to the next with little choice, then there is no problem with character motivation and action derailing the adventure.

      The most common approach to solving this problem, in my experience, is outside the game completely. It's the social compact that most of my players make by default: an agreement to go along with the adventure despite their characters' motivations. For example, when I ran Hoard of the Dragon Queen and the characters were faced with the town under siege (including flybys from a dragon), several characters should have just fled off into the wilderness and found another town. It would have fit their personalities much better. But to do so would have derailed the adventure ("OK, roll up another character that WILL agree to this adventure"). So they found a reason to stay, even though it partially invalidated the character concept they had created. This social contract seems to be the stop-gap for this problem.

      So, basically, as the focus of the game has concentrated more on individual characters, the cooperative part has become more difficult. And we've all made intellectual compromises to try to mitigate it. I'm not sure how that gets fixed without a total rethinking of why we play, or a total rewrite of the rules...
    1. MNblockhead's Avatar
      MNblockhead -
      Quote Originally Posted by Matesamo View Post
      Another fine issue from the early days of the magazine. It was interesting to see the mentions of the upcoming Advanced Dungeons & Dragons books and the excitement which they were being described. My other highlights from this issue include:



      A review of the animated Hobbit movie which aired on NBC:
      Nothing is more disheartening than to see someone spend a great amount of effort, time and/or money on a project only to do it wrong or badly. Sad to say, that is just what happened with the Rankin/Bass collaboration recently aired on NBC.
      Man, harsh criticism of what is one of my favorite animated movies of all time.
    1. MNblockhead's Avatar
      MNblockhead -
      The issue of a player wanting to RP their character's selfish goals at the expense of party goals isn't really one that can be solved mechanically, short of a multi-DM game or some fluid DM/Player game with multiple individual breakout sessions that come back for group play. That, however, would be difficult to do without a great deal of time.

      Games like InSPECTREs do a great job of letting players have their day in the sun and empowers them to change the plot to their interests by getting to say what happens in the game if the player rolls high enough and using the "confessional booth" mechanic to even makeup background about another character (which the other player can reject--making it just slanderous gossip--or accept for a mechanical benefit). But even in a highly dynamic, improvisational, character-driven game like that, you have to be thinking about group goals and group fun or it all falls apart. You can go off and woo the princess, but more than a few minutes of time on that and other players are going to move the spotlight or the game is going to fall apart.

      Also, I don't think that there is some blind spot that existed for decades causing generations of developers to overlook this supposedly ideal, max-individual-agency style of play. I think most players just do not want it. As a DM, I've run the occasional solo adventure for a player who wanted to pursue a character's personal side quest, but it didn't detract from the rest of players and it was something I was interested in preparing and running. It is not something I do often because I don't have a lot of time for it and it is extra work.
    1. TerraDave's Avatar
      TerraDave -
      Kuntz was EGGs co-DM for Greyhawk castle and created parts of it. He co-authored (but was not the lead author) of Supplement 1 and Deities and Demigods.

      He also famously "beat" Tomb of Horrors, and was one of few people to do so when EGG was running it.

      Did not know he did the first Sorcerers Scroll column, which I closely associate with EGG.

      Hmm, there is sort of a pattern here...
    1. pemerton's Avatar
      pemerton -
      Quote Originally Posted by Matesamo View Post
      First Fantasy Campaign advertised in this issue for a princely sum of $7.98 was a 92-page booklet retelling the background of the original dungeon adventure campaign by Dave Arneson. It included campaign notes, maps and more. I wonder if any copies survive and knowing what was to come between Arneson and Gygax, if there is anything revealing for be found on its pages.
      This blog has a lot of discussion of FFG, and comparisons to other early D&D versions and variants.
    1. pemerton's Avatar
      pemerton -
      Quote Originally Posted by Eirikrautha View Post
      D&D has always played better as a cooperative game. When the game was "simpler" (in concept, if not in mechanics), that cooperation was easier to come by. In some ways, the cooperation was almost a default assumption of playing. D&D was almost boardgame-like: you know when you play "Sorry" that you are going to try to move around the board and get all your pieces home. If that isn't what you want to do, then you pick another game. Early D&D was like that; you're going to kill stuff and take its loot in order to up your characters' level. That was the end "goal" of the game.
      Gygax's discussion of "Successful Adventuring" at the end of his PHB (before the Appendices) fits this model exactly. It is all framed in metagame terms - ie as advice to players getting ready to play a game, not as advice to players in the play of their PCs - and it talks about choosing a party who will work well together (not in personality terms, but in terms of abilities and alignments) with well-matched spell load outs, equipment lists, magic items etc.

      By contemporary standards it is closer to wargaming than "I am my character" RPGing.

      Quote Originally Posted by Eirikrautha View Post
      outside of a concentrated effort established beforehand, there is no guarantee that the motivations and personalities within the group of characters will be conducive to group cohesion. In fact, these characters can have personalities that directly work against group cohesion or cooperation.
      Probably the best-known RPGs to tackle this issue head-on in their PC-gen rules are Fate (with the requirement to build in Aspects that relate the PC to other PCs) and Dungeon World (with the requirement to build in Bonds that relate the PC to other PCs).

      There are other PCs that tackle this formally in their rules, or informally in their player and GM advice (eg Burning Wheel as an example of the latter).

      I think D&D still assumes that it will all be handled at the level of social contract.

      Quote Originally Posted by Eirikrautha View Post
      I'm not sure how that gets fixed without a total rethinking of why we play, or a total rewrite of the rules...
      I'm not sure about why we play; but certainly rules/system (ie how we play) can need revisiting.

      Of the systems I am actively GMing at the moment, the one that best handles physical separation of the PCs is Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic.

      Quote Originally Posted by MNblockhead View Post
      The issue of a player wanting to RP their character's selfish goals at the expense of party goals isn't really one that can be solved mechanically, short of a multi-DM game or some fluid DM/Player game with multiple individual breakout sessions that come back for group play. That, however, would be difficult to do without a great deal of time.
      This way of framing the issue begs the question, though - namely, that there are party goals. In my BW game there aren't really party goals in that sense; and in a session of In a Wicked Age that I GMed there weren't party goals at all.

      Both action resolution mechanics (how does PC A's action affect possibilities/consequences for PC B?) and GM framing techniques matter. If A's actions don't/can't affect B, then we don't really have a collective game but rather a series of parallel games; and if GM framing is managed in the traditional "track the squares moved, tick off the turns spent" manner of D&D then the framing issues become insuperable as well.

      Quote Originally Posted by MNblockhead View Post
      Games like InSPECTREs do a great job of letting players have their day in the sun and empowers them to change the plot to their interests by getting to say what happens in the game if the player rolls high enough and using the "confessional booth" mechanic to even makeup background about another character (which the other player can reject--making it just slanderous gossip--or accept for a mechanical benefit). But even in a highly dynamic, improvisational, character-driven game like that, you have to be thinking about group goals and group fun or it all falls apart.
      I don't know about InSpectres except by reputation (it is one of the games Ron Edwards uses to illustrate points in this essay). But in the games I run, there is a difference between group goals and group fun. Group fun is important, in the sense that there needs to be some sharing of "days in the sun", opportunities to impact the fiction, etc. Burning Wheel gives advice to both players and GMs in this respect.

      But I don't think this means that there have to be group goals in the sense of a common goal among the PCs. There can be, but there needn't be. Edwards gives a description of one alternative approach here:

      Make player-characters in [a chosen setting]. In doing so, drive this into your brain: f*** "the adventurer."

      • Not all types of characters described in the character creation options are OK. They need to be characters who would definitely be at that location, not just someone who could be there. They have something they ordinarily do there, and are engaged in doing it.
      • All characters, player-characters too, have lives, jobs, families, acquaintances, homes, and everything of that sort. Even if not native to that location, they have equivalents there.
      • Player-characters do not comprise a “team.” They are who they are, individually. Each of them carries a few NPCs along, implied by various details, and those NPCs should be identified. It is helpful for at least one, preferably more of them to be small walking soap operas.

      This probably can't work for D&D, but that's because of system features of D&D (eg its emphasis on combined-arms combat resolution as the core of the system) rather than RPGing per se.

      The last session I GMed (a fortnight ago) was Cthulhu Dark. It was a one-off, and by default based in a single place (a contemporary Australian group's conception of between-the-wars Boston). It didn't exemplify everything Edwards described, but the PCs weren't part of a team - we had a reporter investigating a story about financial scandals in the shipping industry, a legal secretary working in a firm representing one of the shipping companies, and a longshoreman who wanted to get paid. (Some of the backstory was GM authored, but most of it was player authored). As GM part of my job was to manage scenes - establishing them and transitioning between them - to keep the PCs involved, to try and throw them together, and even when they weren't thrown together to establish connections between their storylines that generated a shared momentum at the table even if, in the fiction, the individual PCs weren't necessarily cognisant of it.

      Quote Originally Posted by MNblockhead View Post
      I don't think that there is some blind spot that existed for decades causing generations of developers to overlook this supposedly ideal, max-individual-agency style of play. I think most players just do not want it.
      That may well be so. In which, case, though, I'm not clear it's write to call the article in this Dragon magazine "profound". If the players don't want individualised or non-team-based RPGing, then suggestions that players build their PCs with inividual concerns and goals in mind seem misconceived and potentially disruptive.
    1. M.T. Black's Avatar
      M.T. Black -
      a contemporary Australian
      Where do you live, pemerton? I hail from southern Sydney, and I see we are the same age too.
    1. pemerton's Avatar
      pemerton -
      Quote Originally Posted by M.T. Black View Post
      Where do you live, pemerton? I hail from southern Sydney, and I see we are the same age too.
      I'm in Melbourne.

      Also, I'll add my voice to those who've said they're enjoying this series!
    1. M.T. Black's Avatar
      M.T. Black -
      Thanks mate - I better write the next one!
    1. Jhaelen -
      It's Fritz Leiber, not Lieber...
    1. Hussar's Avatar
      Hussar -
      Quote Originally Posted by M.T. Black View Post
      Thanks mate - I better write the next one!
      Work! WORK for our entertainment, I say! Immensely enjoying the columns. Also immensely enjoyed your module Expedition To the Lost Peaks. Had a blast with it. One of my players collected a bunch of the "medicine" cubes and uses them routinely to this day.

      I gotta say though, what's with the slave girls in the background of the cover? Yeesh.
    1. Koloth's Avatar
      Koloth -
      Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
      Work! WORK for our entertainment, I say! Immensely enjoying the columns. Also immensely enjoyed your module Expedition To the Lost Peaks. Had a blast with it. One of my players collected a bunch of the "medicine" cubes and uses them routinely to this day.

      I gotta say though, what's with the slave girls in the background of the cover? Yeesh.
      Notice the whole cover. Guessing related to one of the fiction pieces. The little guy has a slave in tow. Presumably to sell to the folks on the wagon. Or he just purchased same and is wrapping up the transaction. At least it isn't just slave girls, the loincloth guy looks to be shackled as well.

      Wondering if the two gals in the wagon engage in a slightly different business. They don't seem too happy with either the little guy or the critter in tow. Adds to the possibility he just arrived to the wagon rather then is in the process of finishing a transaction.

      Enjoying the look back. Doubt we would see bare female breasts on a Dragon cover today.
    1. Hussar's Avatar
      Hussar -
      Quote Originally Posted by Koloth View Post
      Notice the whole cover. Guessing related to one of the fiction pieces. The little guy has a slave in tow. Presumably to sell to the folks on the wagon. Or he just purchased same and is wrapping up the transaction. At least it isn't just slave girls, the loincloth guy looks to be shackled as well.

      Wondering if the two gals in the wagon engage in a slightly different business. They don't seem too happy with either the little guy or the critter in tow. Adds to the possibility he just arrived to the wagon rather then is in the process of finishing a transaction.

      Enjoying the look back. Doubt we would see bare female breasts on a Dragon cover today.
      That's not two gals on the wagon, unless one of them has a beard. So, no, those are man boobs.

      But, yeah, not really sad that this sort of thing has been left by the wayside. Nothing tells women that they are welcome in the hobby like every depiction of a woman either being a whore or a slave.
    1. Koloth's Avatar
      Koloth -
      Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
      That's not two gals on the wagon, unless one of them has a beard. So, no, those are man boobs.

      But, yeah, not really sad that this sort of thing has been left by the wayside. Nothing tells women that they are welcome in the hobby like every depiction of a woman either being a whore or a slave.
      Hadn't finished my morning mug of tea when I first saw the post. Now that I look again, could be a bearded lady as part of a carnival show. The wagon does have that look to it. And the little critter in the brown robe with the shackled creature in tow looks like they could have wandered off Tatooine from Star Wars. Wonder if the artist was inspired by SW just a bit when this cover was drawn?
    1. M.T. Black's Avatar
      M.T. Black -
      Also immensely enjoyed your module Expedition To the Lost Peaks.
      Thankyou! If I ever get time, I'd like to put together a 7 or 8 levels for that, but it's not looking likely at the moment!
    1. Shasarak's Avatar
      Shasarak -
      Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
      I gotta say though, what's with the slave girls in the background of the cover? Yeesh.
      o_O
    1. Connorsrpg's Avatar
      Connorsrpg -
      Thanks again MT - from another fellow Aussie :P
    1. M.T. Black's Avatar
      M.T. Black -
      It's an oz-fest on here :-)
    Comments Leave Comment