Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2114917" data-attributes="member: 23012">I hate to shock you, FilthyIke, but the fact that you add  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  to your comments does not make them any the less insipid or counterproductive.Yes whatever.  They can be found on ebay for relatively little money.  You will no longer be  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> ...  Anyway, back to Red Steel ...As far as I can tell, despite TerraDave's enigmatic remarks to the contrary, the big difference between the OD&D and 2e versions of Red Steel is that in the latter version the 'Red Curse' is not an addictive drug, but a general 'pseudo-radioactive' cloud.Is this incorrect?And what exactly makes the earlier version of the Savage Coasts so much better than the Red Steel (2e) version?(I am not being snarky here, as I have yet to pick any of this up.  I am genuinely curious as to whether there is anything substantively different that warrants preferring the Dragon magazine version of the Savage Coast over the Red Steel version.)</blockquote>