Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 9178037" data-attributes="member: 27780">Well, it’s been three and a half years of meandering through the history of roleplaying and I’ve hit the point where Dungeon and Polyhedron merge and start doing minigames. To keep things interesting for myself (and because I haven’t had the chance to actually play since the start of the pandemic) I figured it’s about time I got to grips with these new online gaming platforms that have been growing in popularity lately. So I’m going to pause between each issue with a minigame in and see if anyone is interested in playing a short campaign on Roll20. Hopefully we’ll be able to try at least some of them and find out how the rules handle in actual play.But for now, on with the show. Dungeon/Polyhedron Issue 90/149: Jan/Feb 2002part 1/12180 pages. Well, we’re definitely getting our money’s worth this time, with an issue larger than any they ever did for Dragon. And it’s not even any kind of special occasion either. That should keep people from complaining about getting less of what they signed up for due to the merger. Presuming what they give us is any good of course, because no amount of quantity will satisfy if the quality’s not there. Let’s see how long it takes me to get through something like this and if the effort will feel worth it at the end. Editorial: This is in full damage control mode. You may be suspicious of some of the sudden changes they’ve made, but they’re all good ones, honest! Same amount of Dungeon content plus added RPGA news, D20 minigames and a new column of even more compressed encounter ideas called Critical Threats, since both the side treks and regular adventures have shown definite signs of inflation recently. So this is their most dramatic format change yet, switching things up much more suddenly than the gradual introduction of new features over the course of 1998. Now they just have to get enough submissions to keep those columns going and hope that the majority of the responses will be positive. But we’ll have to wait until next issue at least before the letters page can really weigh in on that. What did you think of the change at the time and which side were you reading before the merger put both in your hands?Letters: First letter likes the maps of mystery, but doesn’t think there’s a need for adventure paths when it’s easy enough for individual DM’s to do it themselves. Some DM’s are more inventive than others. You can make a lot of money out of catering for other people who can’t or don’t want to do their own work.Second is from their ex-boss Peter Adkison, who’s very pleased with their gaming tokens. Much more convenient than minis, particularly when it comes to putting lots of small creatures in the same square, or one thing riding another one. Keep doing more, including ones to represent furniture and other landscape details.Third is irked by them doing too many Forgotten Realms adventures in issue 88. They’re not that hard to convert, you know. Well, maybe the first, but not the second. Fourth is very displeased that they gave “Mistress” Luxora any airtime at all. Maybe if this was a White Wolf focussed magazine, but that romance stuff should stay well away from our D&D! This argument definitely seems like it could run and run if not actively censored. Finally, strong praise for Headless. James Jacobs has done it again and they can’t wait to see how their players will cope with all the horrors of Sterich. Goes to show, there’s a lot of people who rather like his darker take on D&D design.</blockquote>

Verification