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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erik Mona" data-source="post: 5444004" data-attributes="member: 2174">I remember some of this stuff differently. To wit:I agree that this was a mistake, in that it turned off the folks who were most likely to be interested in a new take on Spelljammer. I chalk this one up to "lessons learned," though I still stand by Shadow of the Spider Moon and in many ways I think it's conceptually stronger than the original Spelljammer campaign setting. But I shouldn't have dissed the Giff.I suspect the editorial you're referring to was "Please Pass the Ketchup," on page 6 of Dragon #321. That editorial included such observations as: "The planar cosmology of D&D stands out as the most unique and imaginative element of D&D fantasy, a trophy tarnished merely by the fact that the cosmology is also the worst element of the game" and "Sure, we should keep the sacred cows, but the rest should find their way to the chopping block."Outrageous, you might think! Detestable!And I'd probably agree with you. Because I didn't write that editorial. That came from the pen of Mr. Matthew Sernett, my immediate predecessor on Dragon, and I remember that editorial driving me up the wall when I first read it. Mostly because I have a soft spot (perhaps much too soft) for stuff that's been part of the game since 1st edition, and the editorial read, to me, like heresy. Reading it now, 7 years later, I don't find it nearly so offensive, but if you want to know the reasoning for all of the changes they made to the Great Wheel in 4e, this editorial is, in retrospect, a nice preview. I still don't like it very much.  Did I? I'd love to see that post, because I'm having a hard time imagining that I might have defended that editorial back then, but I suppose anything is possible. Matt's a great guy, so I may have tried to stick up for him out of solidarity or something. I don't remember this exchange, in any event.You mean the Dragon #319 that was not edited by me, but by the aforementioned Matthew Sernett? I am guilty of editing the adventure in Dungeon #110 and the associated world and monster info in that issue's Polyhedron section, but I most certainly had nothing to do with the Dragon article that force-fed the paladin and sorcerer into Dark Sun. Poor Matt, I don't even think it was his decision, but rather something Wizards insisted that we did to make it "compatible" with 3e. I certainly don't think I would have posted to the effect of "some fans just can't be pleased," though. I think you're thinking of someone else in this case (again).For the record, I took over Dragon starting with issue #327 and continued through to the very last issue of Dragon, #359. For many years prior to #327 I edited the Living Greyhawk Journal section of Dragon, but had no editorial control over the rest of the magazine.I'll cop to an inartful insult against D&D's hippo men, but as for the other criticisms, like Grizzly Adams, I'm afraid I've been convicted for crimes I did not commit. --Erik</blockquote>

Verification