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: 5935047" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 279: January 2001part 6/7Forum starts taking the supplements into consideration. Psionics are coming. What are you planning to do with them. I suppose that depends what they think of the changes. Still a bit up in the air, you know. Scott Sloan has no problem with the dungeonpunk aesthetic. Since one of the important things about 3e is sweeping away all the built up cruft, it seems very thematically appropriate. All the more fuel for shouters of betrayal. David Werling was a skeptic, but rapidly converted when he realised how much better the new rules were. Plus not needing all those supplements is a huge weight off your shoulders. (literally if you carried the books to the game in your backpack) Jeff R Taylor reminds us that D&D would have died entirely if not for the new edition. The playtesters and writers are saving roleplaying, not betraying it. I'm shocked at the sheer venom of some of the people writing in. Jeff Dern likes some changes, but confused by others. His main hope, however, is that the old campaign worlds get brought back. 2 generic ones just isn't enough really. Randy Donahue has been away from D&D since 2e came out, as he moved on and craved new experiences. But now he's back, and thoroughly happy with the improvements. They really are bringing back more people than they're losing. Role models: Another round of painting advice. Here we go again. Must not fall asleep and skim over. Must make effort ……. to ……. judge …….. on ……. own merits. It looks like our new writer is set up for the rest of the year at least, so he's decided to plan ahead and go for the same decompressed doling out of information as Ray. Which is already better than last year's flailing around, but less useful than the 1999 ones where they were cramming in as many ideas as they could into the small space they had. And this actually goes into quite a lot of detail on painting techniques, and getting everything ready to work on your own minis without making an awful hash of them. Taken alone, it's pretty good. There is the inevitable rehash problem, but no escaping that really. And the photos are clearer than ever. With digital camera and desktop publishing software, you cut out several layers of inconvenience and analog degradation that used to be a real pain. But writing engagingly remains as big a challenge as ever. The play's the thing: Speaking of engaging writing, Robin Laws does a little better here, in his first regular column than earlier on in the issue. Battle cries for your character? That's a vein of characterisation that's rich in comic potential, both intentional and unintentional. It's also one where it's all too easy to overthink things, come up with one that looks good on paper, but is a mouthful that doesn't come out clearly or leaves you open in an actual battle. It's hard to be threatening when the enemy asks you to repeat yourself three times before they get it. A good standard to see if it'll stand up is if you can imagine it being chanted by thousands of football hooligans. Most of the examples here are probably a little too verbose to stand the test of time, but they are interesting, and tap a wide variety of literary sources. And the formatting is very interesting, with bloody lines breaking things up in uneven patterns that make reading this a less linear process. This is another neat little bit of characterisation you can add to your game easily enough, but probably won't have thought of.</blockquote>

Verification