-
Drawing the Line +
DUNGEON adventures +
Writing Modules (Polyhedorn) +
The Module Hunt +
-
Drawing
the Line +
DUNGEON adventures
+
Writing
Modules (Polyhedorn) +
The
Module Hunt +
The
Manshion of Mad Professor Ludlow +
The Halls
of Beoll-Dur +
Citadel
by the Sea (1-3) (Wild Coast)
Chagmat (1-4)
Barnacus: City in Peril (1-5)
Betrayed! (3-5)
Quest for the Midas Orb (4?)
Valley of the Earth Mother
(4-6)
The Forest of
Doom (4-7)
Mechica (4-7)
Cavern Quest (1/2e F4MU4)
The Wandering Trees (6-9) (Gnarley Forest)
Fedifensor
(7+)
Temple of
Poseidon (TPL 70) +
The Garden
of Nefaron (7-10) +
Death of
an Arch-Mage (8-9) +
The Ruins
of Andril (8-11) +
The Dancing Hut (9+) +
R Series +
Nogard (high level) +
<
The GREYHAWK locations are unofficial suggestions,
for the TAGDQ campaign.
If you have better placements, please let
me know. I recommend using only the 'dungeon' part of the adventure.
The wilderness section should be left out,
unless it is something that fits in a 30 mile hex.
>
'Inspiring'
Dear Dragon Staff:
I have thoroughly enjoyed 1980 with the
Dragon so far. In particular I am writing in regard
to Karl Merris’ “The Fell Pass,” and “Doomkeep”
by Brian Blume. These inspiring articles
are what I, a fantasy gamer (AD&D),
look for in
your magazine. I hope many of your other readers
feel the same way and tell you so. I would
love to see articles like these published regularly.
Continued success in '80; your fine product and
AD&D take most of my spare time.
[...]
Tom Kliebhan
—Winfield, IL
(The Dragon #37)
DUNGEON
The Dark Tower of Cabilar (by Michael Ashton
and Lee Sperry)
The vampire is the least of your worries
4-7
Fs, MU, T, C: magical weapnos
(Dungeon #1)
Assault on Eddistone Point (by Patricia
Nead Elrod)
What awaits you in the lonely signal tower?
1-3
R, C, dwarf
(Dungeon #1)
Grakht's Lair (by John Nephew)
The war is over --but there's one battle
left
1-3
F2+, MU, C, T
(Dungeon #1)
Into the Fire (by Grant and David Boucher)
A lost prince, a silver necklace, and a
dangerous journey
6-10
Good, F, F
Early winter
(Dungeon #1)
Guardians of the Tomb (by Carl Smith)
Vengeance awaits beyond the grave
3-5
C, magical weapons
Minor road in a forested region
(Dungeon #1)
The Titan's Dream (by W. Todo Todorsky)
A bizarre journey into the realm of sleep
5-9
C, F, MU, T, Good
(Dungeon #2)
In The Dwarven King's Court (by Willie Walsh)
The game is afoot in the royal palace
3-5
Dwarves, Stour hobbits, gnomes, humans.
Good.
(Dungeon #2)
Caermor (by Nigel D. Findley)
Why would a town refuse to be rescued?
2-4
(Dungeon #2)
Falcon's Peak (by David Howery)
Lord Falcon's nest holds a new brood of
evil
1-3
C, T, R
(Dungeon #3)
Blood on the Snow (by Thomas M. Kane)
A deadly hunt deep in the Arctic wastes
3-7
F, B, R, anti-cold items, secondary skills
(hunter, forester, trapper, trader, furrier), divination spells
(Dungeon #3)
The Deadly Sea (by Carol and Robert Pasnak)
A desperate rescue beneath the waves
4-7
Undersea items, open locks, mariner
(Dungeon #3)
The Book With No End (by Richard W.
Emerich)
Out of the eons, the deadliest artifact
8-12
MU, F, T
OUT ON A LIMB
‘Why modules?’
Dear Editor:
I must get it off my chest: Why do you print so
many modules? I agree that it’s a nice concept, a
magazine and a module for only $3.00, but
there are some people who could do without
them and be able to afford this almost perfect
magazine. If you must put a filler of some sort in
here, why not. make it a game? I have been
waiting for DIRT for years!
You ask for articles on games, but what
about readers’ fantasy stories? If you could
clarify your feelings on reader-submitted fiction,
I would greatly appreciatie it.
Jeff Wagner
Rochester, Mich.
(Dragon #40)
Jeff’s complaint, although directed against
the idea of using modules in TD, seems
to be
more concerned with the price of the magazine.
His reaction is to TD-37, the first
issue priced at
$3, which also happened to contain an AD&D
module. The inclusion of the module was not the
entire reason for the cover price increase, although
obviously it does cost more to produce
special projects such as a new module or game
for each issue. Some of the “extra” money
you’re paying now is going into improving and
enhancing the physical quality of the magazine,
by the use of heavier, more durable paper and
the occasional use of cardboard stock to serve as
a counter sheet or cover on a special inclusion.
Those kinds of improvements don’t come
cheap. And, for any further justification, you
need look no further than that shrinking dollar in
your pocket. We all live in a Monty Haul
world.
There will be more games in TD, following
the footsteps of Ringside in TD-38
and the Awful
Green Things expansion set in this issue. We
hope Jeff and the rest of you will find them to
your liking. There will be more modules; next in
line is “The Halls of Beoll-Dur,”
the third-place
winner in the first International Dungeon Design
Competition, for AD&D. Other original games
and modules are in the works. We intend to keep
giving you your money’s worth.
We realize that it might be hard to get $24
together all at once, especially for someone who
has to work hard to save $3 a month to buy one
magazine. But for a $24 subscription, anyone
can get a year’s worth of TD for only $2 a piece—
for as long as we can afford to keep the subscription
rate that low. Subscribe, or pay for your
copy of TD the same way we pay for ours-one
month at a time.
What about readers’ fantasy stories? Well,
The Dragon does not regularly publish works of
fiction other than the long-running series of Niall
of The Far Travels stories being done by
Gardner F. Fox. There are exceptions to our <link>
general tendency away from using fiction in the
magazine, but at the present time The Dragon
will continue to lean heavily toward gaming
articles and only provide short stories as a
change of pace.
Does that mean we don’t want to look at
readers’ stories? No, not necessarily. If an
author thinks his or her story has been professionally
prepared and is equal in quality to
fantasy/s-f stories being published today, we’d
sure like a look at it. Exceptionally good stories
could become the “exceptions” to be published
in future magazines—or they could be set aside
for a place in a collection of short stories to be
published as a separate volume.
Obviously, we are not sending out a clarion
call for fiction submissions. But we’ll give any
well-prepared manuscript a thorough evaluation,
and if we think the story is good enough to
share with our many thousands of readers, we’ll
find a way to show it to them
—Kim
(Dragon #40)
"More AD&D"
Dear Editor:
I have been very happy with the improvements
that I have seen in The Dragon since
I
began subscribing about a year and a half ago.
My favorite improvement has been the inclusion
of dungeon modules and games in the magazine.
I’m writing this letter in response to a statement
made a few issues ago about the lack of
reader response to the boxing game Ringside
included in the magazine. You seemed to feel
that because there was no mass protest to a
boxing or sports game in the Dragon that the
readership didn’t mind.
I did not care for the boxing game (and
would not like to see any more sports games in
Dragon), I didn’t like the module for Top Secret,
and didn’t care much for the Traveller module in
the last issue (#43).
I would like to see more AD&D™ type
dungeon modules included in the magazine and
fewer non-AD&D enclosures. I have enjoyed
the dungeon modules that you have printed
very much (I can’t wait until the bold adventurers
in my campaign reach levels appropriate for
them to adventure within these areas) and I for
one would love to see more of these modules.
If any other readers agree with me, please
write to the editor and voice your opinion. How
else can he find out what we the readers prefer to
see in the magazine--
Bill Anspach
Saginaw, Mich.
(Dragon #45)
Bill’s letter raises a point which is a constant
dilemma to us at Dragon Publishing: How can
we give our readers what they want to see in the
magazine, and how can we be sure we’re doing
that?
We don’t expect everyone to like everything
we print. The Field of gaming is becoming larger
and more diverse with every passing day, and
Dragon is doing the same thing with
every
monthly issue in an attempt to satisfy an everwidening
audience. The roster of role-playing
gamers is no longer exclusively made up of people
who prefer fantasy, or play fantasy games to
the exclusion of all others. Top Secret and
Traveller, not to mention dozens of other nonfantasy
games, have developed large followings.
Any magazine which purports to be an
“adventure role-playing aid” (like it says on our
cover) has a responsibility to acknowledge and
accommodate that audience. And that, in philosophical
terms, is the main reason why Dragon
has presented modular playing aids for those
games in recent issues.
Still, the magazine primarily covers fantasy
role-playing, particularly the Dungeons
& Dragons
and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
game
systems, because we know that people who play
role-playing games, as a group, are primarily
interested in fantasy games. However, our
knowledge of history and our knowledge of
“how to succeed in the magazine business by
tying like crazy” make us aware that it’s not a
good idea to constantly cater to the majority and
neglect the minorities. That’s how governments
get overthrown and magazines like this one go
down the drain. We don’t intend to let that attitude
become prevalent at Dragon, for our own
sake and the sake of all of our readers.
Does this mean that we intend to ignore negative
criticism from a member of the “fantasy
majority” like Bill? No, it sure doesn’t. Opinions
from our readers, whether positive or the other
kind, do help determine the direction that future
issues of the magazine will take. It is highly unlikely
that we would ever be able to give someone
like Bill exactly what he wants in a gaming
magazine— but, by the same token, neither can
we completely satisfy (for instance) the Top
Secret fanatic who wants two articles and a
module in every issue. We have to compromise,
and it necessarily follows that you, cur readers,
will have to do the same—unless you think
everything we print is terrific and perfect. And if
there is a person like that among our readership,
we’d be surprised. Even we don’t think we’re
that good.
—Kim
(Dragon #45)
‘Chaotic messes’
Dear Editor:
Having now seen the three winning AD&D
adventures and the first of the winning D&D
dungeons, I feel it my duty to voice my opinions
concerning the quality and creativity of
these works.
My first and foremost complaint with these
IDDC winners deals with an argument long
ago beaten to death in the world of D&D and
AD&D gaming. This is the simple assumption
that fantasy is based (more or less) upon
reality.
Not only has this “absurd” notion been discredited
by game designers and magazine editors
alike, but also by those, experienced or
inexperienced, who have to deal with these
giant loopholes in logic when they play AD&D
or D&D or other similar games. And even
though it was funny at first to see those same
game designers smash Monty Haul-ism
and
realism to pieces in a single blow, it has now
become quite irritating.
I was not at all surprised to see some of
these giant broaches of irrationality in the
winning modules presented by DRAGON,
but
I was shocked to find the overwhelming prob-
lems and sheer impossibilities these prizewinning
entries proposed. This, of course,
only reflects partially upon the makers of
these adventures; the rest of the blame rightly
belongs to those who so ignorantly classified
these chaotic messes as “examples of true
creativity and stability in dungeon designing.”
My “lack of realism” argument is very well
supported in all of the AD&D entries. By taking
a close look you will find an incredibly
large amount of monsters in a relatively small
area, which, in most cases, has not the means
to support even a few of the creatures presented.
A few well placed questions show the
incredibility upon which all these situations
are placed. How do they eat? How often? Do
they always stay in that small chamber, or do
they roam? Does their natural environment
coincide with that of the adventure setting? If
not, then why do they stick around? Why
don’t they fight the monsters next door for
food or territory? Where is their
water
supply?
As you see, these dungeons show a natural
impossibility to sustain even the smallest of
monsters. If the monsters don’t eat each other
(a situation which would trim the population
down fast), then what do they eat? Rats? Is
the rat population that large? The sheer stupidity
in putting a pair of manticores (who
love the open spaces, as any winged beasts
would) in a dark cave 140 feet away from a
hungry gray ooze is obvious. Yet one of the
prizewinning modules did! Many examples of
faults like these exist in those “classic” modules
you have given us.
A natural recourse for those who can’t defend
their dungeon environments is to say,
“It’s all done by magic.” Not only is this a
shoddy way out of bad DMing, but it also
illustrates the lack of commitment present in
the game master. Anyone truly devoted to his
or her players would consider every detail of
his adventure with careful planning before actually
using it, and would discard such obvious
mistakes. I’m sorry to say that this consideration
was severely lacking in the AD&D
modules.
The amount of creativity, or lack thereof,
was also frustrating. Most of the situations
were composed only of bloodthirsty monsters
intent on the kill. Though there were a
few instances of traps and devices that took
brains and not brawn to survive, the number
was too small to make up for the ordinary
humdrum ones that seemed to litter the dungeon
floors and walls. Why wasn’t the amount
of creativity (and the use thereof) a factor
used in judging the entries?
To combat all of these low points in the
AD&D modules presented, I heartily suggest
that all future module makers buy, borrow or
steal the two modules Steading of the
Hill
Giant Chief and The
Glacial Rift of the Frost
Giant Jarl for examples of how
a realistic adventure
would be set up. For those who are
not satisfied with these, the Blackmoor supplement
to D&D has an excellent dungeon
called “The Temple of the Frog.” All of these <link>
would help to eradicate bad dungeon designing
and poor planning on the part of the DM.
However, even this can’t make up for incompetent
judging.
Tom Walton
Eugene, Ore.
(Dragon #54)
Well, we seem to be stuck between the proverbial
rock and the hard place. Despite the
overblown way in which Mr. Walton makes
many of his points, they are valid criticisms,
and we would be hypocritical to suggest
otherwise.
But we also must — and do —stand behind
the contest entries that we judged as the best.
They were the best, in our not-so-humble estimation;
that’s why they won, and that’s why
they were published. But none of the entries
we received for either of the two contests
we’ve staged so far were even close to being
truly professional in presentation and quality
— in other words, the sort of module that Mr.
Walton would consider worthy of winning.
That statement is not meant as a slur on the
enthusiasm or the abilities of the hundreds of
people who have competed; all if means is
that the people who enter our design contests
are not professional game designers — and
they’re not supposed to be. In fact, if we ever
discovered that a “pro” had entered a dungeon
in our contest, we would be compelled
to disqualify that entry, out of fairness to the
rest of the contestants.
The modules that readers of DRAGON
have
seen, and will continue to see, represent the
best adventure settings that we found among
the manuscripts that were submitted. Sure,
they’re edited and aren’t presented to you in
precisely the form they were submitted. But
they aren’t hashed over and wrestled with as
much as, for instance, a professional module
product that TSR Games might publish. We
don’t have the time or the manpower to “develop”
modules as thoroughly as an actual
game company could (and should) — but
then again, we don’t charge five bucks or
more for one, either. And if we did pore over
every published module to that great an extent,
the end result would probably be so altered
from the original that the author might
be hard pressed to find many of his original
thoughts and ideas intact. The object of the
contest is to encourage members of the general
gaming public to prepare a module as
professionally as they can — and then for the
winners to get the lion’s share of the credit for
what is published.
The point at which Mr. Walton’s criticism
breaks down is when he fails to realize, or
acknowledge, the obvious fact that “best” in a
contest such as this is entirely relative to the
quality of the rest of the entries. He has no
way of knowing how good — or how poor —
the non-winning entries were, and thereby
has no foundation for criticizing how the entries
were judged.
I’ve refrained as long as possible from picking
apart certain words or phrases from Mr.
Walton’s letter, but my breath weapon starts
to heat up every time I look at the last sentence
of the fourth paragraph. We didn’t do
anything “ignorantly” in the judging of the
winners, and I take great exception to his
characterization of them as “chaotic messes.”
And I’ve looked everywhere I can think of to
look, but I can’t find a quotation from the
magazine which uses the words that Mr. Walton
places in quotation marks at the end of
that paragraph. (If we had said that — and we
very well could have — I would stand by it. But
as far as I know, the phrase “examples of true
creativity and stability in dungeon designing”
has never been printed in DRAGON magazine,
and it is grossly unfair and misleading of
a letter writer to enclose such a statement in
quotes, which leads a reader of the letter to
believe that we actually did say that. If my
memory is wrong, I’m sure someone will let us
know about if, but I can’t imagine us ever
describing a prize-winning module as an “example
of stability.“)
We fully expect that, as the “art” of module
creation gets more and more sophisticated
over the months and years to come, the quality
of module submissions that we receive and
publish will rise accordingly. And maybe
they’ll be of so-called “professional” quality.
(Heck, some people think they already are,
and we aren’t going to try to talk them out of
feeling that way.) Until that time, we’ll be quite
satisfied to publish the best we can get, and
will do so with pride, and if the Tom Waltons
of the world want to think of us as “incompetent”.
well, we’ve been called worse.
— Kim
(Dragon #54)
LETTERS
Off center
-
Editor:
I would like to complain about the practice of
placing the modules printed in DRAGON
in the
magazine in such a manner as to make it impossible
to remove them without damaging other
portions of the magazine. Recently this was done
with "Aesirhamar" (#90)
and "The Sword of
Justice" (#92). I would like to know
why you
place modules in the magazine this way.
Robert W. Clark
Gettysburg, Pa.
(Dragon #94)
We always start out intending to position each
issue's special feature symmetrically around the
center of the magazine, and intending to have it
occupy a number of pages evenly divisible by
4 so that those who want to can remove the
module, game, or whatever and leave the rest of the
magazine intact and stapled together. 9
times out of 10, <THAT'S THE WAY> it has worked ever
since we started our middle-of-the-magazine
features in issue #37. But
sometimes they just
won't fit nicely into 4, or 8, or 12, or
16 pages. If the text and graphics can't be
stretched or trimmed to hit 1 of those numbers,
you get an off-center module.
By putting our special features in the center, we
intend to make it possible for the features to be
removed and used separately. Based on what
you've told us, we know that for every reader
who does remove every module, there's at least
1 other who doesn't want to dismember the
magazine and leaves the module stapled inside.
Although we regret having to frustrate the takers-outers
among you, we think that's preferable to
leaving out a vital part of a module, or fluffing it
out and taking up space that could be better used
by something else. If we did either of those 2
things instead, all of you would suffer the consequences.
-- KM
(Dragon #94)
