Way to get girls (?!): the new column for the new Dragon.

[Sammael]

I gave up around the moment she met her former teacher at the mall. I hope the target audience (whoever they may be) enjoys the article.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Some nice anecdotes there, all tied up in a tidy package! Thumbs up!

 

[jasonbostwick]

I certainly enjoyed it more than Wil Save...

 

[Hussar]

I liked it. It's not a "Sage Advice" column, it's a "Wil Save" column. It's personal and anecdotal.

Yeah, it's another Wil Save sort of column. No biggie. Don't like it? Don't read it. I actually don't mind seeing the odd article that isn't a new feat/monster/whatever crunchy bit of the day. Then again, I liked most of the fiction in Dragon as well.

Guys, the magazine doesn't have to be 100% gaming crap all the time. A little bit of other stuff doesn't hurt. Really.

 

[BASHMAN]

This was in Dragon? Boy I'm glad they're not charging money for this yet...

 

[KingCrab]

Not my thing. Hard to read. Not particularly cute. Toss in some pictures of lolcats or something and I might try harder.

 

[fuindordm]

I enjoyed it. Nice style, good perspectives, funny mental images.

Also a bit nonlinear and wandering, but that's clearly intentional. It's an effective way of engaging the reader, presuming they want to be engaged. Personally, I get tired of reading articles that feel like a data dump.

In contrast, I was thoroughly unimpressed by "Ecology of a Death Knight". It was well organized and had competent writing, but the whole thing was rather flat and dull.

 

[Blackrat]

Heh. My new favourite quote:

Life Lesson #879: That which does not kill you makes you brownies.

Nice article overall.

 

[FireLance]

And then like a charging orc, it hit me. New DM's faux antagonizing is part of what's making this fun. He's giving us a reason to invest in our characters, to strategize in battle, to keep coming back. He's giving us a villain -- himself -- sacrificing his cute dimples to give us something to hate. He doesn't want to kill us. He wants to keep us.

It's like she's been reading Chris Thomasson's blog...

But in a playtest, where you're basically testing rules in a series of set encounters with minimal story, it's a little harder. Heck, it's often better to just not even worry about whether the players are "into it." You're there to do a job, after all. But I don't have as much fun if the players aren't into it. And I didn't have the chance to set up the kinds of antagonistic relationships with villains, set up giant battles (since the encounters are pre-set), or even spring extra villains on the characters when they're least expecting it.

So I settled for outright antagonism. Sure, it's a kludgy tool, but you gotta work with what you have. By making the players think you're out to get them, you get some of that fun dramatic tension in every fight. Every spell or sword swing from an enemy feels personal, and victory is all the sweeter as a result. I wouldn't do this week after week in a real campaign -- or at least, I wouldn't do it with such a heavy hand. But it's fun for a playtest, and the players are responding. I even have moles planted in their midst, stirring the pot and spreading the fear like a virus. Good times.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

It was a little bit rambly, but I liked it... very conversational, with a sense of charm. I look forward to a female perspective on gaming, and would give her column further reads.

However, like a previous poster said, as a introduction, it's a fine article, as a regular shtick... it will grow tiresome quick.