Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 5912774" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 278: December 2000 part 1/7116 pages. Dwarves get their first themed issue this edition. And they're already doing something they wouldn't have last time. A topless Dwarf on the cover! I'm betting he has more than a few levels of barbarian. And I'm also hoping that they'll continue their current attempts to show how you can break out of the old stereotypes with the new, more permissive ruleset. Plus they got there's before elves did, so until that happens, we can say they're better covered in this edition. That's a fairly decent present in itself. Scan Quality: Good, unindexed, Some page edge curvature visible. In this issue:Wyrms turn: As I expected, the editorial this month is once again about either going against cliche, or adding additional layers to your character's personality that are orthogonal to their racial tendencies. Does your dwarf have a few ranks in Perform (ballet dancing) from their childhood? Maybe your halfling overcompensates for their size by collecting siege weapons. Or do all your gnomes have lisps, like one of the staff campaigns. The things that make both characters and worlds unique are the finer details. Painting in broad strokes all the time will leave your creations unfinished looking. No disagreement there, and the specific details they give are quite amusing. Good to see they're still having fun playing the game as well as writing it. We didn't see enough of that in the 2e days. Sacrifice takes out 6 bloody pages of advertising again. Truly excessive. Do they really think they'll get returns on that expenditure? Scale Mail: Surprisingly, the issue our first letter praises is issue 273. It kinda got lost in the changeover kerfuffle, but it too deserves it's due. Secondly, we have someone who's not happy about the increased level of gore in the new issues. They give a flippant response to this that makes me unsure if they're going to take it on board. It would be a shame to go back to censoring everything so soon. On the positive side again, we have someone who's taken eagerly to the idea of power plays, and sends in a whole bunch of them. The charop boards are limbering up, and soon the game will be put through it's paces far more rigorously than the playtesters ever managed. We then see Robin Laws generating controversy, as one person finds his ideas full of insight, while another thinks they're useless, and should be cut entirely. Isn't that just a convenient microcosm of a decade of flamewars. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> A more involved suggestion follows, that their heraldry article would be better served by putting it on a CD, and allowing you to custom build your own coats of arms quickly by selecting colours, divisions and creatures. There's a niche in the market there that could well be filled by a proper computer programming company. Even more extreme, we have someone who thinks they should do far more, much smaller articles, with a greater emphasis on reader submitted material. You know, even in the strategic review days they broke up the tiny pieces with multi-page ones. On the other hand, they could do with tighter, more concise editing these days. Some ideas need elaboration, but others really don't, and they could be doing more to work out which is which. And finally, we have more musical suggestions, thus putting the lie to the previous letter's statement that a smaller article would have been just as good in this case. An article on music could have been a lot bigger and more comprehensive with some more research.</blockquote>

Verification