el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
So in Dragon Magazine #163 (November 1990) the editorial staff decided to print a handful of letters they thought were humorous and responded to them in a glib and off-hand way (while kindly maintaining the anonymity of the letter writers to save their dignity), which I stumbled upon in my ongoing browsing of my collection of mags from back in the day. One example in particular stood out to me:
What struck me about this letter and its response, is that the editor decided to leverage the removal of demons and devils from AD&D with the advent of the second edition (a removal that would end up being temporary, since within a year or so they'd be put back in with different names) as a simultaneously joking and "official" response. Of course, this has the effect of completely dismissing the potentially discomforting subject the letter writer is inquiring about for guidance, which I guess I can understand (but then why publish it except to lightly mock someone for making use of what had been an "official" part of the game only a year or so earlier - and would be again in less than a year). The entry for Alu-Demon in the 1E Monster Manual II explicitly says it is the product of a mortal human and a succubus. And while the succubus entry does not specifically list seduction as a tactic for corruption, their description as tall beautiful woman, with the drawing of a one being totally naked and voluptuous, and the general legends of what succubi do, does reinforce a sense of how they can be put to use in a campaign. (On the other hand, stopping dungeon exploration to sleep with a random demon woman, regardless of the rules' suggestions, seems like an odd choice).
Anyway, his got me thinking about the letter writer and many D&D players' need for an official rule or response for the questions that come up in their games and the dissonance that occurs between what is happening at a particular table and how the game evolves and changes in printed materials and various editions, and the sense that the "official" game should cater to what is already happening. It also got me thinking about the opposite position, that old stuff should be dropped as the new iterations come to be the "standard" way of playing.
The main reason why this is fascinating to me is that for a long time now "officiality," whether it be about some silly or puerile edge case that comes up or some core rule or inclusion of some feature or monster, has not been a concern of mine as a D&D player or DM. For example, I never cared if TSR officially had demons and devils in the game or what they were called. If I wanted them in my game, they were in there (and honestly, how often did demons and devils come up? Personally, I can think of fewer than five times such creatures have appeared in my games in 39 years of playing - though obviously my game is not everyone else's game and in some they appear a lot more frequently.
But, I am a firm believer that what is published by whatever company happens to own the D&D license is just one iteration of a much larger hobby and tradition called Dungeons & Dragons.
Anyway, I am not so sure I have a specific question about this, but thought it might be interesting to discuss (sans edition warring) how 5E and/or previous editions encourages (or not) this desire for officiality and what your personal take on such questions might be. (Plus I just wanted to share a funny letter)
What struck me about this letter and its response, is that the editor decided to leverage the removal of demons and devils from AD&D with the advent of the second edition (a removal that would end up being temporary, since within a year or so they'd be put back in with different names) as a simultaneously joking and "official" response. Of course, this has the effect of completely dismissing the potentially discomforting subject the letter writer is inquiring about for guidance, which I guess I can understand (but then why publish it except to lightly mock someone for making use of what had been an "official" part of the game only a year or so earlier - and would be again in less than a year). The entry for Alu-Demon in the 1E Monster Manual II explicitly says it is the product of a mortal human and a succubus. And while the succubus entry does not specifically list seduction as a tactic for corruption, their description as tall beautiful woman, with the drawing of a one being totally naked and voluptuous, and the general legends of what succubi do, does reinforce a sense of how they can be put to use in a campaign. (On the other hand, stopping dungeon exploration to sleep with a random demon woman, regardless of the rules' suggestions, seems like an odd choice).
Anyway, his got me thinking about the letter writer and many D&D players' need for an official rule or response for the questions that come up in their games and the dissonance that occurs between what is happening at a particular table and how the game evolves and changes in printed materials and various editions, and the sense that the "official" game should cater to what is already happening. It also got me thinking about the opposite position, that old stuff should be dropped as the new iterations come to be the "standard" way of playing.
The main reason why this is fascinating to me is that for a long time now "officiality," whether it be about some silly or puerile edge case that comes up or some core rule or inclusion of some feature or monster, has not been a concern of mine as a D&D player or DM. For example, I never cared if TSR officially had demons and devils in the game or what they were called. If I wanted them in my game, they were in there (and honestly, how often did demons and devils come up? Personally, I can think of fewer than five times such creatures have appeared in my games in 39 years of playing - though obviously my game is not everyone else's game and in some they appear a lot more frequently.
But, I am a firm believer that what is published by whatever company happens to own the D&D license is just one iteration of a much larger hobby and tradition called Dungeons & Dragons.
Anyway, I am not so sure I have a specific question about this, but thought it might be interesting to discuss (sans edition warring) how 5E and/or previous editions encourages (or not) this desire for officiality and what your personal take on such questions might be. (Plus I just wanted to share a funny letter)
Last edited:
