Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 8184985" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dungeon Issue 15: Jan/Feb 1989part 1/567 pages. All the mighty power that elephant spellcaster has, and it still has to deal with the irritation of flies. Or maybe it summoned them on purpose for some inscrutable reason, in which case that's a lot of lightshow for such a minor spell. Let's see if the PC's will be helping him along his way, or doing his best to foil his evil plans. Editorial: They've got the result of their questionnaire back and it confirmed their suspicions. The majority of their readers only use a tiny fraction of the adventures in the magazine, which is why they make sure to choose ones that make for good reads and plundering for parts, not just using as is. There's a very mild preference for increasing average adventure length, but not so much to make them actively change their editorial policy. Solo modules and ones in specific settings are definitely contentious topics, so both will be used sparingly while making sure most of the stuff they do is generic AD&D adventures. Basically, not a lot's changing, because they're at the right kind of balance now. Maybe a few more ambitious experiments, but not at the expense of general accessibility. Nothing much to report here then. Letters: Our first letter is just an elaboration on their questionnaire answers. A good mix of all lengths of adventures is preferable, with the exception of froofy and goofy ones that aren't really adventures at all. Anything fae related in particular needs to watch themselves carefully. Not surprised at all. Trickster adventures do tend to annoy people. The second is also very much in favor of variety, and gets annoyed at the people who want to remove solo adventures and worldbuilding. The magazine is far better value for money than individually sold adventures, and a big part of that is getting things you need, but didn't know it yet rather than just things you want. Two letters complain about the hassle of converting monsters between D&D and AD&D. What goes wrong if you use them as is? Fifth, a request for more themed issues, but fewer spoilers on the covers. Both entirely sensible and reasonable requests. A request to put a humour page in like Dragon has. Barbara politely declines this one. We want to stay a more specialist publication, and not waste page count on that kind of frivolity. Finally, another round of complaints that some of the modules are way tougher than the recommended party level. They're definitely not going away anytime soon.</blockquote>

Verification