Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6018417" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 293: March 2002part 1/1094 (116) pages. Worldbuilding is this month's topic, and the cover reflects that in a literal, yet nonstereotypical manner. You wouldn't want to piss off this earth goddess knowing you could be smitten with a power drill the size of Ireland. There's not a reflex save high enough to dodge that below epic levels. Still, a creation myth like that should encourage people to start developing technology early. Pierce the heavens with your mighty drill indeed. Let's se if the worlds they encourage you to make this time around are particularly generic or unusual. In this issue:Wyrms turn: Ah, the joys of canon. Keeping games up with continuity changes in books has caused more than a few arguments around a game table. But really, unless you're playing in the RPGA or the Camarilla, it shouldn't, for you can change the world at your whim as long as you maintain internal continuity with what's happened to the PC's. Canon can go to hell as long as the game remains fun. So a simple message from the editor this month, reminding us that the rules are different for the official writers and you, and you shouldn't hold yourself to the same standards they need to be kept too. Sensible. it should be a game for you, and a job for them, and not the other way around. But will this stop people from sending annoying letters in? Even a little bit? Anyone? :crickets chirp: Scale Mail: Our first letter is praise for articles that they basically use as an excuse to point out that they misattributed the author of one of them. Who gets the credit? You won't unless you speak up. The demise of Dragonmirth gets noted with dismay. They say it isn't gone for good, but promises are flexible things in the world of media. What was said to be originally a one-off for space reasons can become regular schedule messing around, leading to cancellation due to "declining popularity" that was caused by their own executive meddling in the first place. We've definitely heard this story before. Another letter also involves proper crediting, this time for the cover artist of issue 290. If you get stuff like this wrong, you may well not get repeat projects. Even more than not being paid, people don't like it if they don't feel appreciated. Completely unsurprisingly, converting only some of the planescape factions to 3e results in an immediate clamour for the rest of them. An unfilled symmetry is like a nagging pain to many people, and they will not shut up until it's sorted out. Just get on with it, will you. On a different note, we have someone annoyed about the mechanics of leveling up magic items. Turns out they've misinterpreted them anyway. It's the maker who pays the heavy cost. Keeping it's powers appropriate with your level after that is relatively easy. Their creative decisions in Oriental Adventures get defended. It's easier to put crossovers in afterwards than take them out if they're baked in. Any halfway decent DM can do that, especially in a fairly robust system like 3e. Still, some people really loathe 3e. we have one writer who thinks it's totally kiddified and all the changes suck. Since their readership overall is up, I don't think they're going to be changing things back to please the holdouts. And finally, we have someone unhappy about the reduced size of recent issues. They pass the blame onto the advertisers. I know in many magazines they actually provide more money than the customers, and wind up having more say in what gets put in. Anyone know what kind of ratio Dragon had in that area?</blockquote>

Verification