Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4959150" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 149: September 1989part 1/5108 pages. Another classic cover graces this issue. They're really having a good run of those lately. Guess the work of the art director, and the rest of the team working under Roger deserves credit. Speaking of which, Roger decides to let the assistant editor do this month's editorial. How's that for delegation. Let them handle the tedious stuff about what we're currently looking for, and how to format it in such a way that it has the best chance of being accepted. How very tempting for him. One of those things I know will become more common later, especially once Dale A Donovan joins the team. Definitely worth noting. Increasingly, they become a corporation rather than a collection of individuals. <img src="http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-water.phtml?picid=8806" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />In this issue:Mutazoids! Feel the allegory, or just enjoy the gonzo and ultraviolence. Letters: There is no escaping Waldorf! They tried to shut down discussion of him in issue 141, but people keep sending letters in. Must be the most popular topic they've had in a long time. This is absolutely hilarious, but does get a little repetitive, since it mostly involves even more powerful characters engaging in revenge fanfic upon him. Can't we just call it quits and rebuild Greyhawk like it never happened? Of course we can. But this isn't over yet. Waldorf will be back! :shakes fist: Forum: Toby Myers thinks that wishes should be the province of found objects, not PC spellcasters. He also thinks they shouldn't be able to directly grant you metagame stats like XP and levels. No escaping this crowd. Peter M Wilbur thinks that artificially dividing low and high fantasy when D&D is designed to progress naturally from one to the other is a bit silly. It's also a bit of a waste to miss out those first few levels. They go by awfully fast, and if you miss them your characterization won't be the same. Matt Richardson thinks that people are having problems with low level magic-users not because the class is weak, but because they're playing them stupidly. They need high intelligence for a reason. R. J. Wenzel thinks that even if wizards did wear armour, and use weapons, their low attack probabilities and hit points would result in them getting trounced in short order. Course, even in an all fighter team, bombarding the enemy from a safe position is vastly preferable to toe to toe fighting anyway. Surely winning without being in danger is a good thing? Jeremy Gilliam rebutts Bob Tarantino (while misspelling his name, dear oh dear) simply saying that he prefers the greater detail and character options in AD&D. Ilya Taytslin once again demonstrates that you've gotta actually play smart creatures smart if you want to challenge powerful adventurers. Anything that just charges into hand to hand combat deserves everything it gets. Even if they don't have magic, allies, traps, items, environmental stuff can all be put to great use. Aaron Goldblatt is another person who thinks that evil characters should be entirely capable of working together as long as it seems more beneficial for them to do so than betraying or stealing from their allies. Just leave the assassins out of it please. David G Rathbun also thinks evil PC's can make sense, as long as they aren't chaotic evil, and they have some reason to stick around and work together with the other characters. If they act like complete idiots, enforce logical consequences upon them and things should sort themselves out pretty quickly, probably by killing the character or removing them from play. Tarun Nagpal also gives his experiences with evil PC's. They'll certainly face more than their share of obstacles. But that does not mean the game won't be fun to play. It'll just be different to the shiny heroic ones. And variety is a good thing. If your players can predict you too well, it's hard to challenge them.</blockquote>

Verification