Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 8789191" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dungeon Issue 60: Jul/Aug 1996part 1/580 pages. The contrast on these covers continues to get worse. I know you're down in the dungeon, but you need to strike a balance between realistic light levels and depicting things in a useful manner. Particularly if the things being depicted are weird ones like a kuo-toa asking you to paint him like your french fishes. On second thoughts, maybe a well-lit full frontal isn't such a good idea in this case. Let's see if the adventures inside have any spectacularly bad ideas in them.Letters: First two letters continue on from last issue in praising their art people. Don't take them for granted when they can make such a big difference to how well an adventure is remembered and used.Third is from someone who wants them to continue to support lots of different settings. Travel broadens the mind, so why wouldn't adventurers want to discover new and interesting cultures? (then kill them & take their stuff) Fourth is much more conservative, and wants fewer setting specific adventures and fewer titles that are obvious spoilers. Sure good players will still roleplay their characters being surprised by events, but it's not quite the same. Fifth praises them for publishing something as nasty as A Mother's Curse. TSR doesn't need to be all nice and family friendly all the time. The satanic panic people would complain anyway, at least until they focus on a new target and you become useful in that, like using Harry Potter to attack trans people after decades of hating it for promoting witchcraft.Finally, one of the many complaints that they don't publish enough high level adventures. Send them in please, as this is one they really would like to fix, given how frequently it recurs. Editorial: The editorial instability continues. Dave Gross heads up to Dragon, while Anthony Bryant does a swap with him and takes on the lead role here. Not sure why but if it keeps them excited over what they're covering it might turn out for the better. Of course in hindsight we know it's all shuffling deckchairs on a sinking ship, but at least they're trying. And to be fair, at least they've remembered that they made it a full 10 years, although that's easier here because they've never changed the frequency of publication or taken a break so far. As the letters page shows, they're still wrestling with the question of keeping variety up without alienating people, this time trying to thread the needle by encouraging people to submit adventures that aren't set in specific worlds, but still use unusual elements from less commonly referenced sourcebooks like their historical line. Just don't use so many that it's incomprehensible to people who only have the corebooks. Another instance where switching the person at the top isn't going to make a big difference, because they're still both in the offices, discussing things and coming to conclusions on the overall direction of the magazines. There won't be any radical plans to save the day coming from here.</blockquote>

Verification