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: 9196977" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dungeon/Polyhedron Issue 91/150: Mar/Apr 2002part 1/12155 (180) pages. Robots can’t scowl, but I suspect this one would be if it had any facial articulation. Still, at least it’s positioned in a way so all the promotional blurbs go around it. Let’s find out if it’s human scale, something you pilot, or something seemingly unstoppable your best option is to outrun, as well as all the other things this issue has to offer.Editorial: They already did some pretty dramatic format changes last issue, but they’re not finished yet. This time they’re switching up the trade dress to make the magazine look more like the interiors of the 3e books. A little consistency in design makes putting all the stuff that works together well on the shelves just look right, y’know. I’m not going to argue with that. The quality of the presentation might not be as important as the ideas, particularly when you’re coming from an old school perspective, but it doesn’t hurt either. I can’t argue with the other topic in the editorial either, reminding you that a good villain needs a motivation. They may occasionally do a massive static dungeon where the enemies just sit in their rooms waiting for you for nostalgia’s sake, but the majority of their content for the foreseeable future will be more plot-driven and that’s what they encourage you to submit. 3e may be less ecology and worldbuilding driven than 2e, but it’s never going to be as spartan as those early years. Nothing much to say in response here then. Let’s fastforward to the action, as this exposition doesn’t have any important info you wouldn’t be able to play the game without.Letters: First letter is annoyed by the duplicate monster tokens in issue 89. Some monsters are found in groups more frequently than others. There was some logic in their choice of which ones to duplicate. Second found The Raiders of Galanth’s Roost a little easy for the intended level of characters. It was still fun to play though. Third is annoyed by all their cover blurbs, but mostly likes the contents. What’s up with that half-dragon’s alignment though? Just because he wants to kill his father, doesn’t necessarily make him a hero. But fine, we’ll errata it from NE to NG if it’ll make you happier. Fourth has lots of nitpicks about the rules gaps in Pulp Heroes. This is the problem with borrowing from multiple sources without referencing them all, or forgetting to remove references from things you copy-pasted. Fifth isn’t a proper letter, but more rules questions about Pulp Heroes from the WotC message boards. Having both D&D and Star Wars rulebooks and just keeping it the same as they do there clears up a lot of them. Sixth is irked by the flipbook format of the merged magazines. Turning it upside-down halfway through is just clunky. But without that, they wouldn’t get to have two full-color covers. Where’s the fun in that? Seventh is irritated by the random Tengu encounter that had nothing to do with the plot and wants to see more steampunk adventures. Random wandering monsters can turn up in any setting in D&D, you just have to live with it. Eighth is full of effusive praise for issue 90 in general, with some further suggestions how they could facilitate minis battles if they wanted. Ninth wants more planar adventures, since they’ve finally got around to releasing the new edition’s Manual of the Planes. The editors agree. Submissions that take the heroes out there are always welcome.10th thinks they should talk more about what was changed in response to playtesting. While that would be amusing in many cases, it would also eat up a load of space so they don’t plan to make a regular thing of it. 11th and finally, another letter praising the variety of adventures they do. More ones in specific settings would be very welcome.</blockquote>

Verification