Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 5210239" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 186: October 1992part 5/6The marvel-phile: Sorta in theme, this month's marvel-phile tackles some of the more obscure giant monsters that have plagued our heroes over the years. Gomdulla, a giant alien mummy with an off switch on his foot who tries to assemble a cult around him where possible. Groot, a space travelling giant plant creature that can animate other plants to do his bidding. And Zzutak, a creature that stepped off the page due to magic paints being used in it's creation. All have a rather awkward tendency to cause mass devastation that somehow results in very little loss of life before being stopped. They may also laugh maniacally and explain their plan to the tiny pathetic fleshlings, but that's entirely optional. An above average entry, as it has both a decent amount of creatures and some campaign advice about creating and incorporating similar things into your game. They may not be traditional horror, but giant monsters are definitely a topic which can make for fun games. We probably have room for a few more of these in D&D as well. The game wizards: Hmm. A second article on the playing of villains. What's brought this on? Still, where the last one was largely examining new mechanical considerations, this is a more typical roleplaying one, with a particular emphasis on horror gaming. Well, that genre does tend to have more enduring and compelling villains. Not sure why this is under this column, as it doesn't seem to be anything to do with official TSR stance or upcoming products, but it's certainly not a bad article, even if it is a bit short. Maybe they couldn't find one that was the right size in the slush pile, so they got a staff writer to fill the gap again. Another minor mystery for the ages, I suppose. Have fun creating suitably nuanced enemies in both the mechanical and personality arenas. Forum is having another round of the sexism debate. As usual, this ironically brings a far larger proportion of female participants than is standard for this magazine. After all, if we've learned anything from sexist jokes, it's that women love to bitch about stuff. Still, I can't see violent protest working very well on this topic. Can we not just get back to playing? That'll work far better, really. Caroline Bussey thinks that it's the shame that's putting girls off. You shouldn't hide your hobbies. The censure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Learn from the example of Oasis. You get less derision if you act like an <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> openly and then laugh about it than if you try and hide your depravities behind a saccharine screen. Donna Beales thinks that it's bad marketing that's primarily to blame. That and the silly little things like pronouns and cheesecake minis that make women feel subtly unwelcome. You will never attract the female demographic as long as they feel patronised. Strange that this should be such a problem with a female CEO. But I supposed Lorraine :rumble of thunder, howl of wolves: makes everyone feel patronised. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Elysa Moulding gives us her own patronising story. Women don't take pleasure in bickering and violence for violences sake. Damn right, they have more important things to snipe at each other about, like boyfriends, shoes, weight loss and fashion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> It's so easy to be cynical after a sex and the city DVD marathon. Halina Adamski thinks all the women getting worked up over pronouns should lighten up. There may be real reasons for complaint, but this isn't really one and the fixes just look clunky. Just enjoy your playing. Mathew W Hurd brings the male perspective to this. He doesn't see why girls think it's boys stuff that isn't worth their attention. Join in the games! Helaina Martin attacks the ghastly cheesecake art. Alias ought to have died of exposure long before finishing her first adventure. The contents of the novels are generally better than the covers. She also attacks agism too. Kids should be allowed to play as soon as they can read the rules. Treating them like they're dumb will not help them develop skills and confidence. Colleen Fireely praises Dragon for their persistence in tackling the sexism problem. I may grow bored, but you do need persistence if you want to make an impact.   Frederic Bush also brings up the agism problem. As a 15 year old who's been playing for 7 years, he feels quite capable of mature and nuanced roleplaying, and was rather annoyed to be told he couldn't DM at a convention until he was 18. Age ain't nothin but a number. Steve Giblin goes back to the wizards sucking at high levels issue. They really really don't, unless you have no tactical sense at all. Learn your spells and what they're good and bad against. Your party will thank you. Michael Thomas heaps disdain upon TSR's current family friendly stance. Evil is quite depressingly capable of working together and prospering, as the real world demonstrates. They're far more interested in money than artistic integrity! Well, duh. Chris Roberts also thinks Skip's ideas of good and evil are stupid and unworkable. Remember how real world tribablism works, allowing people to be kind and compassionate to those in the in, while also classifying others as nonpeople who can be killed without a twinge of conscience. How does that fit into your alignment system, huh? David Howery, on the other hand, supports TSR's family friendly policy. There should be plenty of evil in the world, but that's just to give the PC's a better challenge and make their victory more heroic. Choosing heroism as the default is a perfectly valid choice, as most books and movies do it.</blockquote>

Verification