Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4944493" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 146: June 1989part 1/5108 pages. Welcome to their 13th anniversary. They've come a long way. But like their 10th anniversary, they're much more interested in moving forward than looking back at the moment. After all, we've got a new edition to fill up with splatbooks. And we have fairly prophetic editorial, as Roger ponders the probability that computer games will come to displace pen and paper ones. Yeah, that's the future alright, even if it'll takes ages to get there. Any activity that requires the coordination of a whole group of people is at an inherent logistical disadvantage compared to stuff you can do on your own. Back to reading for me. In this issue: Letters: A rather dumb letter in which someone is surprised that they don't reference their own books in the discussion on high and low fantasy. That would be a touch incestuous, non? A letter praising the quality of their cover artwork. They do regularly have some pretty impressive pieces, don't they. A letter about claydonia. The people who contributed to it should be properly credited! A whole bunch of rather good questions about what they'll accept in submissions. Interesting. Forum: Barry A. McEwen contributes his experience of gaming with people with impaired vision, working as he does in that field. He's even created a 20 sided braille die for use by fully blind people. Roleplaying games can be an excellent means of escapism for people with all kinds of physical impairments. Introducing them to a nursing home would also be a cool idea. Katherine York responds to the piece about MA in Marvel superheroes, with her own suggestion for a new ki power. Charge that internal energy, and release it suddenly. Perfectly reasonable given the universe. S. R. Oldson craves some more classic modules like the ones released in the late 70's. Modern stuff just doesn't cut it like the tomb of horrors or demonweb pits. Prefab politics and railroads just don't work in other campaigns like a nicely challenging dungeon crawl. You may be disappointed by the next few years then. Wayne Roberts tells a rather interesting story of his own experiences with role vs roll playing thinkers. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, and good tactical thinking and knowing your adversaries  make even a combat heavy game much more fun. (and survivable) Michael Drake contributes a rather scattershot letter, of which the main point, as far as I can tell, seems to be asking what is badwrongfun. Overall, I'm not sure what to make of this one. Daniel Reardon also has a rather interesting and complicated point to make. The D&D system revolves around parties of adventurers working together. Selfish characters go against the whole system, and will ruin the fun of the game. Ian Reyes, in contrast, has had plenty of evil PC's, and it hasn't caused problems, while allowing a whole bunch of fun scenarios you couldn't do with good ones. As long as you keep the PvP betrayals to when it would be logical, and find reasons to work together for greater profit, it can work just fine. Douglas J. Hutchinson finds both the fearmongers and obsessive players tiresome. You have nothing to be ashamed of. Just get on with playing, and ignore the stupid reactionaries. They do the same thing to virtually every cool innovation, and it rarely amounts to much in a generations time. Kirk Karste is not amused at all about the OA misrepresentation of ninja. They were a spiritual order who only used violence in adversity. Here we go again. It's as bad as the stuff about druids and barbarians. Martin Millar also talks about samurai and ninja. As usual, in the real world, strict divisions of good and evil really do not hold up to close scrutiny. Even the samurai/ninja divide is pretty blurry, with some samurai secretly employing or being ninja. Just because D&D abstracts these things for ease of play, doesn't mean you should take them as fact.</blockquote>

Verification