Dragon Issue 117: January 1987
part 1/4
108 pages. Roger has to confront the problem facing anyone who gets a regular job. You don't have the time to do all the creative stuff you used too. And as he used to be the second most prolific contributer to the magazine, that does suck a bit. Thankfully, these days there are more than enough writers willing and able to step up. The contents page is absolutely jam packed this time. Also, in response to their complaints, we actually have a female adventurer who may not be perfectly dressed for a swamp, but at least looks as though she's had the crap beaten out of her a few times in the past. And given their current situation, this may happen again sometime soon. Will this provoke complaints in itself. The line between equality and misogyny is easily crossed. Neh. Cant please everyone. The important question is, will this issue please me?
In this issue:
Letters: We get a letter asking why the cthulhu mythos has been removed from the god book. Legal crap, my dear. We ain't getting them back any time soon either. Nor will you be seeing the Melnibonean stuff again in this system any time soon. Until the great d20 comes and unifies us, we must remain apart.
A letter asking if they're going to do any more dragonquest stuff. Once again, the answer is no. We're going where the money is, and it aint there.
A rules question about adjudicating attacks on an army with multiple troop types. Fairly simple division. It may slow things down, but still far less than rolling for everyone individually.
A letter saying that presenting sample characters and their histories would be cool. Roger replies that Polyhedron already does this. Subscribe now! Gotta collect 'em all! You know, we really could have a reading thread for that as well. Anyone with the resources and insanity to try out there?
A letter about if something is available in canada. Yes, but it's gonna cost you more, what with currency conversion and shipping and crap. Oh, the woes of being north of the border and a cultural backwater.
Forum: Mark W McClennan may be 14, but he was not s






ing at the cover of issue 114. He also doesn't think that it's going to draw many new people into the hobby either. At the moment, the controversy is more on the satanic implications than the artwork. He seems to have a pretty level head on the matter.
David F Godwin is a forum regular, and he makes a more highbrow argument, pontificating about the difference between nakedness as Art, and as titillation. Entirely different, fnaw. Yeah, right.
Dan Tejes looks at this topic from a more sociological point of view. If both the writers and readers of fantasy are primarily male, then of course what is produced will primarily appeal to them. That's a rather chicken and egg argument. But maybe they could be appealing better to women.
Marc Andressen Is another of our young readers, and is somewhat embarrassed about the idea of his parents seeing some of the magazine's covers. Nor would he prefer the problem solved by more equal opportunity eye candy. Hrmm.
Carl Forhan also subscribes to the view that some things are more acceptable when done for the sake of Art. The magazine's policy doesn't need that much changing.
At this point Roger butts in again to say that he's shutting down debate on this subject. It grows most tiresome to him. Please do not deluge us endlessly with letters when there are other topics we could also be tackling. We don't want a rehash of the dwarven beards debacle.
Russell Taylor goes back to that old topic of the planes, and the mathematics involved in sets of infinity. They can explain quite easily how one infinity can be accessable from another but not other ones. Funny how a good grounding in the way the universe works can help you better conceive of how other universes might function differently.
Jeff Neely tackles another old topic, PvP. His group's characters argue and compete all the time, but they still have fun. Your group can too.
Mae Tanner thinks that grey on black is a bad thing in a magazine, because it makes it really hard for her to read it. I do have to say it's not the most attractive colour scheme, and I'm glad my eyes don't have problems like that.
Stephen Iicata points out just how much stuff you need for an expedition in the real world. This is why you have pack animals and vehicles if at all possible. Encumbrance is a bitch. Don't forget it.
David Sisk is yet another repeat debater. This time, he tackles the statement that stirrups are an essential part of mounted warfare. They might be helpful, but a good saddle is if anything an even bigger factor in safe riding. Your article does not match up to my 16 years of actual experience! Yes, but have you tried fighting actual battles riding bareback? Yes, I'll bet the other writer hasn't either.

Ahh, the joys of realism debates. Never forget that you can actually do some pretty awesome stuff in reality with a little practice.
S.D Anderson dislikes the hit location system because it assumes all hit point damage is actual damage rather than exhaustion and depletion of narrative immunity. Once again, Gamism Vs Simulationism rages through the magazine, with articles trying to influence the implied structure of the game.
Patrick Goodman is fed up with people trying to put realism in fantasy, and thinks 2nd ed cleaning up the system and sweeping away the bad bits from the supplements can't come soon enough. Everything should be much better organized. Another perfectly reasonable desire that may not be satisfied by events to come.
The elements of mystery: Hmm. A topic we've seen before, but only once, from a rather different perspective. I think we can work with this. Robert Plamadon reminds us that they players shouldn't know everything about the setting, and it can be good for the roleplaying if they don't know everything about the game rules either. Rumours are an important part of making an exciting campaign with genuine choices, letting you hint at what adventures are out there, but not giving away the plot. You do not have to stick with the rules for monsters, and even variant classes and spells from other land could be introduced. If your players have misconceptions about the setting, don't correct them OOC, let their ignorance drive the plot by making amusing mistakes happen. Similarly, if they can't remember all the details of their adventures, use it to your advantage. Drama is born of conflict and misunderstandings. Much of the usual rules are not fixed for your game and roleplaying is important advice. Not a bad article, but probably doesn't deserve pole position. I guess they need to push their anti one true way munchikining powergamer agenda.
What are the odds?: You've used this title before as well. That's not good. Another case of a familiar subject updated to reflect new developments. In this case the use of really twinky ability generation methods in UA has people curious just what the chances of rolling a particular ability score with a certain amount of dice using Xd6 keep best 3. At really high numbers you have a better than 50% chance of getting 16-18. Which very much takes the specialness out of getting a roll that good. Oh well. A lot of the time, you don't want to be normal. And if there wasn't a big chunk of the playerbase who didn't want that, I doubt they would have put this stuff in the new books. Another reminder that for all the accusations of power creep in 3e and 4e, 1e had some very definite escalations of power in it's later supplements. Still, statistics are always fun. A nice crunchy counterpart to the very fluffy previous article.
Feuds and feudalism: So your players have reached name level and have set up a domain, and now you're struggling for plot ideas. Or maybe they haven't, but want to go into that sphere anyway. What do you do? If you're struggling for ideas, it's probably because you never really defined who the various rulers around are, their respective resources, and their opinions of one another. A Lord needs servants, and by ingratiating yourself, you can get to be a local knight or some equivalent. And then it's politics all the way. You've got to keep your boss happy, and keep your underlings reasonably happy, but more importantly productive, keep track of who likes and hates who, who wants what, and what they're willing to do to get it, and then choose what side to be on. It may take a bit of effort to set up, but once you set up a soap opera like this, it runs indefinitely with very little further effort. All you need to do is make things react logically and introduce new players every now and then to shake things up and replace people killed. And before you know it, you've got a full on game of generational power politics. Woo. You make it seem so simple. It's all about relationships. Another fairly solid bit of roleplaying advice.
Condensed combat: A load more tables here as they continue their new trend of compiling stuff from multiple books, and putting it all in one place for your playing convenience. Or it least, it would be convenient, if it didn't have some obvious errors. I know accurate copying it hard, but really, what are editors for? If you're gonna be crunchy, you need to be precise. Fail.