Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 8256101" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dungeon Issue 23: May/Jun 1990part 1/568 pages. Being a mighty-thewed minotaur is no impediment to having fabulous hair. In this edition though, the stat penalties are somewhat of an impediment to becoming a spellcaster. Is this one an exception to the rules binding the PC's, or is there a clever but entirely legal trick behind what we're seeing. Time to see what this one has to hold, and if it'll be entertaining, boring or annoying.Editorial: The editorial is another round of things not to send them, because they won't publish it no matter how well written it is. This time it's not to overdo the extraneous setting details. Sure, stuff that establishes the personalities and motivations of the characters so we can roleplay them better is nice, but detailing their family tree a dozen generations back is a waste of your time and our limited page count. On the opposite extreme, a bunch of monsters sitting in their rooms that attack on sight and never surrender is just as bad. Basically, a little focus and self-editing goes a long way in making their jobs easier. Think what will actually be useful for other people's games, keep it in and chuck the rest. Help them tell good stories, rather than dictating a story to them, and they'll be most likely to come back for more. That kind of attitude is why I consistently prefer their module choices to Polyhedron's, which are much more often about forcing us to re-enact the story the writers wrote. Long may they retain it. Letters: The first letter is from someone who's trying to put together a gaming forum on the infant internet. Any help would be appreciated. Good luck with that. There's definite advantages to getting in on the ground floor with these things.Second is another person who wants more regular D&D material. That's pretty consistent across their publications, that writers prefer to submit AD&D material, but there's lots of quiet D&D players out there who feel ignored. Who will step up and be their champion?Third, some praise of their high quality covers. Keep it up, and maybe do some more poster versions without any writing on them to put on our walls. No objection to that idea. 4th, a complaint that they didn't properly value all their treasure recently. Since 2e no longer gives XP for treasure, they no longer feel bean-counting is essential to adventure design anymore. You can focus all the clearer on killing them, since taking their stuff is now optional. The future, everybody!5th, someone complaining that some adventures require supplements to make sense. Trust me, there'd be just as many complaints if everything submitted had to be corebook only. No winning this one, and adventures can be more complex and varied this way around.6th, an IC one from an orc king complaining that the map in Rank Amateurs is inconsistent with the one in GAZ10. Consistent cartography is just one of the many arts and sciences those humanoids have no grasp of. 7th, 8th and 9th continue the interminable debate on if every adventure should use boxed text, with one yes, one no and one maybe. Will they ever reach some kind of resolution on this? Or will the editors just get sick of it and stop publishing letters like the saga of Allycia and Scud. Finally, someone pointing out that House of Cards would be an absolute slaughterfest for a regular-sized party of the expected level and many would give up after just one or two doors. Well, yes. I noticed that too. Like Tomb of Horrors, that's entirely intentional. Even at that level, there are still dangers that can casually humble you, so don't get cocky.</blockquote>

Verification