Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4784593" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 118: February 1987part 1/5110 pages. A lovely cover from Dennis Beuvais here. Now that's a scheming villain with style. I want that outfit as well. The contents look promising as well. Finally, this month's special topic is PvP! Oh joy, for I have oft dreamed of this day! Well, not quite, as actually it's about other types of competitions within the game. But it's certainly not impossible that multiple PC's would wind up competing against each other in one. And it's nice to see them avoiding the all co-operation all the time mantra that Roger has spouted before. (see issue 73) I am cautiously optimistic. Now, if they could just do something about the chaos in the office, and the reorganizations in the magazine. One thing after another, don't know if I'm coming or going. Forget my own ears if they weren't stuck on. <img src="http://paizo.com/image/product/magazine_issue/dragon/118/cover_500.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />In this issue:Letters: A letter asking them if they plan to do any more cardboard cutout things in the future, and if they'll publish call of cthulhu articles. The answer is yes, and if they get any good ones sent in. Can't publish what we don't have, as they've said before. A letter complaining about a monty hauling DM. Roger gives his usual advice, that the best thing to do in this situation is to end the game and start a new one, preferably with a new DM. Another letter asking them to cover more non TSR games (BRP is getting a lot of love. ) and maybe do miniatures reviews again. Roger is once again cautious. You gotta send that stuff in if you want us to cover it. We also intend to keep Dungeon strictly D&D for the time being. All this is subject to change due to demand. Forum: David Carl Argall points out that due to sloppy math, it's impossible for a horse in barding to carry a fully armed and armoured knight. Encumbrance would make them collapse. Dear oh dear. How very amusing. Will they fix that next edition? Thomas Kane thinks that if the magazine wants to grow further, the game needs to market itself better. No matter what you do to the magazine, nongamers won't read it. To aid this, the D&D and AD&D games ought to be as simple and compatible as possible. Don't keep messing around with things. Someone else would probably prefer it if D&D was treated as a perennial rather than a supplement mill.  Paul Griffin thinks the alignment system is stupidly written. Where's the room for pragmatists who do whatever is most convenient at the time, or people who try to be good most of the time but cave and betray their friends when things get tough? This badly needs fixing.  Greg Surbeck has a problem with the xp for gold system, as it produces wildly unpredictable results that can really mess up the game, particularly where thieves are involved. What are we to do with these awkward level disparities? Ethan Sicotte thinks that the ease with which D&D can be modified is actually a strength. If it were a more internally consistent ruleset we wouldn't be able to do that without breaking things. I find this opinion highly amusing. You can't break it if it's already broken, eh? Amazing what you can rationalize. Chris Lincoln and Ed Friedlander give some fairly solid opinions on how illusions should work. Perception can only do so much. Nelson E Hemstreet expresses his contempt for the chauvinists out there. They don't know what they're missing. Dave Robinson thinks that the magazine should have a few laughs in it. Even a serious game needs the tension relieved every now and then. Peter C Zelinski thinks that multiple weapon specialization shouldn't be allowed at 1st level, as it's too unbalancing. Only higher level slots should be applicable that way. You mean how BD&D does it then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Slyvain Robert is another writer in favour of greater differentiation of clerics via the god they serve. You know, I don't think I've seen anyone actively against that idea. It's just the implementation that can be problematic. The fighting circle: Gladiatorial fighting is an interesting business. Amusingly enough, if you want to bypass the crappy wandering around in nasty environments and looking for traps part of adventuring, and just have lots of fights with interesting people and creatures of a similar power level, it's a very good way to go for an aspiring adventurer. You get more fame, controlled encounters, that you (or at least the house) can pace to a reasonable level, and if there are clerics around, you might even get healed up between bouts. You could actually gain levels and fame a lot faster than people wandering the world. (although you'd probably end up with below average treasure & equipment. ) Course, it's not as easy as that, and most people come to the profession as slaves, thrown in and not surviving beyond one or two fights. Even if you do get decent training, your odds of surviving the three year term are not good. This 9 page article goes into plenty of detail on the whole charming business, including historical and sociological details, and plenty of variations to make things more interesting than an endless series of white room fights. A pretty strong start that opens up another campaign style for you to try, be it as a brief diversion, or an entire plot arc. (Once again, paper mario makes good inspiration, amusingly enough ) You get to live. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification