DungeonmasterCal
First Post
woodelf said:Funny. I'd have said Dragon seemed so much less crunchy and more useful back in those days.
And your examples seem to agree with that statement. The Nine Hells articles are pretty much the antithesis of crunchy--without pulling them out, if there was any crunch at all it was maybe a new devil or two. Likewise, the ecology articles were tons of fluff, and only gradually got crunchier over time [though i hear they're now pretty much all crunch]. For that matter, i'd say that most of Greenwood's Dragon articles were at least heavily fluffy (The Wizards Three, Wyrms of the North), when they weren't all-fluff (The Merry Month of ... Myrtul?). I know the reason i loved some of his magic item articles was precisely for the fluff elements. The fact that a new magic shield would give me half a page or more of backstroy to go with the sentence of game stats was what made it so good.
Regarding Greenwood's "Dragons of the North" articles--how many bloody dragons does a campaign world need? Good grief...anyway..that's my piece on that.
But some of that fluff, especially the 1e and early 2e fluff, was (to me, anyway) interesting fluff. That Tesseract article kept me busy for days, just trying to wrap my 3 dimensional head around a 4 dimensional concept. It was fluff that educated and entertained, not like so much of what Dragon puts out now. The Githyanki issue was a lot of fluff, but it was at least something new and somewhat innovative, not another article about a famous tavern in the Forgotten Realms, for pity's sake. The ecology articles were great fluff, and I really miss those. But I prefer crunch. I can make up my own fluff. I just don't have the time to do both AND run a campaign world.