Dedication
Ps1. Mordenkainen
Ps2. Holloway
Ps3. Raupp
Ps4. Leomund
 
 

1. DL modules, incl. DL5
2. ALL Polyhedrons
3. Alternate worlds?
4. Dragon #118 (competition section)
5. The forum

(DONE) dragon 96: killer DM and quazar dragon
(DONE) classes --> David Crawford, James Patrick Patyrsun
(DONE) martial arts

(DONE) WSG articles --> Christopher Barnhart
    Dragon (87 && 88)
    Hunting (137)
    Environmental  Hazards (108)

(DONE) pages from the mages
(DONE) centaur papers
(DONE) the 9 hells
ed greenwood
LTH
bazaar bizarre
quirks && curses
fountains
dragon 61: Or with a weird one
169: the strategy of tactics.
129: dwarves, new dwarf spells, hobbit guardian, drow, driders
dragon damage: 98, 110
dragon deities: 86
dragon spells: 134
redefining dragons: 38
method V
charging isn't cheap, 101 + recharge spell (136)
elminster, 110
72(joke)
Hero points
ecology of the spectator
end of the world (plagues)
races
languages
59
77
83
druid spells: 132, 142, 122
119 (druid)
160? (folklore/origins)
160? (feats for fighters)
Luck points?
Quest?
Fighter feats?
Shield skills (Dragon #127)
When the rations run out (#107)
Dragons (#65)
Creature Catalog
Wand of Wonder
Dragon (OA Articles): 121, 164
Piai Shih
Giant articles in Dragon 141
deck of many things
94: same dice, different odds

Oct 1st 2020
* All color art up to issue 170 was added
* Dragonmirth (color panels) was added, up to issue #250
* Color art for AD&D from 171 to 260 was added

Q: Is everything that appears in DRAGON Magazine an official
rule change or addition?

A: No. Virtually all of the magazine's contents are not official,
excepting only those writings that are defined as official, either
by their nature (such as most articles written by E. Gary Gygax,
which are *automatically* official) or by a note prefacing the
article that indicates it should be considered official. For the
most part, the material in DRAGON Magazine is intended only
as possible suggestions for referees && players to adopt into
their campaigns if they so choose. No one is obligated to use any
of the material in the magazine -- but if you try something out
and you find you like it, have fun with it.
(76.64)
 

James M: 9. How much of the material you produced in Dragon had its origin in your personal campaign?
I ask because, as a younger man, I always appreciated the "lived in" feeling that articles like "Pages from the Mages," "Seven Swords," and "Six Very Special Shields" evoked.

Ed Greenwood: My “home” Realms campaign generated a lot of what became articles, because I had SUPERB roleplayers who always wanted to find out more about the world around their characters (so when playing the characters, they frequently talked to old folks or librarians or sages to find out old lore, and even asked questions like detectives to try to piece together “the truth” when they thought clergies, rulers, or guilds weren’t telling them what was actually happened), and because ethically I felt it was only fair to hit my players with new monsters, spells, magic items, poisons, and so on AFTER I’d published them in DRAGON. For one thing, EVERYONE who played D&D read or tried to read DRAGON in those days (even if only by standing in a hobby shop, paging through issues), so whatever a player could remember of what they’d read helped to simulate what their character “might have heard” in life, and so “felt fairer” to me (and of course the editors had examined my writing and could “fix” anything way out of balance or misworded; I don’t recall them ever doing so, but I felt they had the “stamp of approval.”) The Featured Creature (later Dragon's Bestiary) columns even carried a little note at the bottom saying the monsters published in them were “as official” as anything in the rulebooks, so I got to contribute to the game!

By the way, the titles of almost all DRAGON articles were chosen by the editors, not article writers.
 

- Interview with Ed Greenwood, Part II (Grognardia)

THE FORUM

It would be wise to devote a major portion of
the Forum to new ideas rather than criticism
which is mostly superficial and based largely on
personal opinion. Instead of hearing about what’s
wrong with an article, let’s hear about new cam-
paign ideas, magic items, and monsters. “Out on
a Limb” seems naturally suited towards criticism,
while The Forum could be used more produc-
tively as an idea exchange between Dungeon
Masters and players. I encourage other readers
who agree — or disagree — with my suggestion
to write in.

Peter Bregoli
Braintree, Mass.

*    *    *    *

I would like to discuss two items that may or
may not be related, depending upon a particular
point of view: DRAGON magazine and the GEN
CON game convention. Assuming that they  are
related to a goodly degree, inasmuch as both are
results of concentrated efforts of divisions of
TSR, Inc., I’ll make my comments with that in
mind.
I’ve attended the last four GEN CONs and
have also read DRAGON during that same
period. In that time, I have never understood
why the magazine published. by TSR has virtu-
ally ignored any extensive follow-up of the game
convention  presented  by TSR. (I seem to recall a
photo and a small article concerning GEN CON
XII, and I know you now publish the pre-
registration schedule in the June issue.) With the
exception of Kim Eastland’s fine follow-ups on
the miniatures’ competition, there have been no
articles of any depth that concern the last four
GEN CONs. With the wealth of subject matter
that would be available from such an event, it
baffles me as to why DRAGON has not plun-
dered this treasure trove of game tournaments,
seminars, exhibits, art shows, ad infinitum, and
turned your magazine into a complete publica-
tion. Without articles, reviews, results and photos
of TSR?s convention, TSR?s magazine is, indeed,
incomplete.

Now, I know (as you have stated in your
editorials several times) that you do not want to
be known as a ?house organ,? and maybe this is
why you haven?t done any follow-ups on TSR?s
convention. As far as I?m concerned (and you
said you wanted to hear our opinions) it doesn?t
really matter if you are hung up on what you
consider to be a derogatory title, your magazine
is  published  by TSR, so why not take advantage
and have one division of TSR link hands with
another. Of course, I am not aware of what ethics
might be involved here, if any, but it appears
painfully logical that if TSR puts on the biggest
game convention around, why not use their own
magazine to further both the convention  and  the
magazine?

And if you?re worried that ?house organ? will
attach some sort of stigma to DRAGON, you
need fear not. With the influx of gaming maga-
zines in the past four years, DRAGON still
retains (and constantly improves on) its quality
and professionalism. You truly lost the ?house
organ ? monkey on your back when you stopped
printing E. Gary Gygax?s diatribes against the
entire gaming industry. Gary Gygax?s war with
his competitors has absolutely no bearing on any
of us average gamers.

But, GEN CON does have a bearing on read-
ers of DRAGON: it presents what you publish,
live. Articles, reviews of seminars and exhibits
and art shows, some tournament results, and
photos would not only renew memories and give
news to those of us who attend, but it would give
valuable information and stir the interest of a
gamer who may be reluctant to attend. In the
end, it means more and more satisfied DRAGON
readers, as well as new convention attendees who
can find out how much fun a large scale conven-
tion can be.

Anyway, these are just one man?s comments
and opinions on a couple of subjects that could
and should complement each other, and I hope
you take this constructive criticism in the light
that it was given and deal with the situations.

Bill Cavalier
Rolling Prairie, Ind.
(Dragon #84)

In issue #84 there appeared in The Forum a
letter asking why DRAGON didn?t cover GEN
CON more thoroughly than it does. Although
DRAGON and GEN CON are both run by
TSR, the magazine maintains a separation from
company policy and politics that is truly remark-
able. The letter asked why TSR did not advertise
and review GEN CON in the pages of
DRAGON.

Well, if TSR were in financial hot water, it
might make sense. But TSR is not, and
DRAGON?s hard-built reputation of being
company-blind in reviews and ads is too valuable
to risk by plugging for GEN CON. Endorsing
one TSR ?product? would lead to endorsing
more, and that we don?t need.

Not that I am against covering conventions.
They are a valuable part of gaming, and I
wouldn?t mind seeing more than just their sched-
uled dates in DRAGON. But GEN CON is not
the only good convention around: there?s also the
Game Faire, Aggiecon, Onocon, Orccon and
GEN CON South, to name a few, which
DRAGON would not do badly to review. Con-
ventions deserve more mention than they have
been getting, but without any loss of the imparti-
ality which makes DRAGON so special.

Jennifer Walker
Lake Oswego, Ore.
(Dragon #86)

I would like to applaud Peter Bregoli?s state-
ment in The Forum of issue #84. However, it is
also true that The Forum is needed for the more
lengthy letters of criticism and comment. Else-
where in that same issue is a letter to Out on a
Limb saying that  that  column has changed for the
worse to a worthless place where nit-picking
letters are printed and the Forum a mere replace-
ment, a poor one at that, under a different,
unfitting name. But it seems to be that Out on a
Limb, besides being a relatively traditional space
where minor errors are corrected, is more a
column where letters are directed to the editor(s)
specifically, whereas the Forum is where gamers
can speak their mind to other readers. Take
another look; do you see any editorial replies in
the Forum? Give the editors a chance, I think
they?ve thought through their choices well.

Definitely the Forum is a place for new ideas,
but these new ideas must be the briefest of the
bunch. Most new ideas worthy of being printed
grow quickly to become full-fledged articles that
grace other pages of the magazine.

The Forum is absolutely necessary as the
location for the more lengthy letters of criticism,
and that?s why those letters are most commonly
found there. Look at your most recent issues of
the magazine, the ones without the Forum; see
the astonishing lengths of those letters, which are
more directed at other gamers, and you feel pity
for the publishers in their hunger for space.

So let the Forum contain what the editors think
needs to be there. Most certainly, new ideas from
readers represent an important part of DRAGON
Magazine, but if your ideas are really that good,
think about writing full articles on them. Re-
member, criticism and commentary on previous
issues or present concerns are a vital part of any
magazine ? DRAGON even more so.

Kirk Everist
Dubuque, Iowa
(Dragon #86)

* * * * * * *

Coming Soon!
October, 2574
Pre-order your copies Now
Support the Kickstarter!
 

Reprints +
 

‘A few chuckles’
Dear Editor:
I'll begin this letter by saying that, although
I don't particularly care for TSR Hobbies, Inc.,
I like the AD&D game system very much, despite
its flaws, it is a very playable game that
manages to achieve a better balance of rich
detail and ease of play than any other RPG game.
Also, I enjoy DRAGON magazine,
which is an invaluable source of ideas;
no DM should be without it. Thus, even
though I don’t like the company, I’ve spent a
lot of money on its products (why does the
game have to be so addictive?)

Concerning Terrance Mikrut’s letter in #49:
I heartily disagree with his opinions. It is my
belief that DRAGON’s ever-growing roster of
NPCs provides even more diversity than is
already present in the system and can spice
up any adventure or campaign. Keep up the
good work; the more, the merrier.

Speaking of interesting changes of pace,
DRAGON #48½ gave me a few chuckles.
Gaming is, after all, a pastime to provide enjoyment,
and most games (and gaming magazines)
can benefit from the injection of a bit
of humor into the proceedings. In this spirit, I
have placed Bugs Bunny in my campaign, not
as a monster to be fought but as comic relief
and a source of information for the characters
— assuming they ask the proper questions
and are well equipped with carrots!

The cover of issue #49 does indeed suggest
a dynamic scenario. I can’t wait until the characters
in my world get around to building castles
so I can spring this one on them. Congratulations
to Tim Hildebrandt for an outstanding
piece of artwork, and to DRAGON
for commissioning it (ditto Phil Foglio and the
cover of #48).

Michael A. Lavoie
Nashua, N. H.
(Dragon #53)
 

After saying all those nice things about us,
Michael, I wish you would have explained why
you don’t like TSR. At any rate, your letter was
selected for publication not because you said
nice things about us, but because of the point
you made about DRAGON #48½ (the April
Fool section inside #48).

Games are amusement, first and foremost,
and not only is humor beneficial in adventure
and role-playing games, it is necessary. We
must be careful to never take ourselves too
seriously — such is the ammunition used by
those who view adventure gaming as demon
worship, closet violence, or worse, based on
misinterpretations and ignorance. Besides,
after a rough day at the office, hacking and
slaying monsters and sacking up gold pieces,
I always find it relaxing to hear, “Down the
corridor you see a large yellowish object.
Upon closer examination, you find it has a
smooth surface. It gives slightly when you
touch it, and you hear a high-pitched squeak
. . . yep, it’s a giant rubber ducky!

— JJ
(Dragon #53)
 
 
 

*    *    *    *

Finding opponents
Dear Editor:
Nearly two years ago, I was introduced to D&D
at a local book store where a party was holding its
weekly sojourns. Although I had been involved in
board war gaming prior to my college days, I quickly
developed a growing enthusiasm for this new
simulation gaming aspect: role-playing. <AD&D is NOT meant to be a simulation>

As one might expect to find, this D&D party
consisted of a melting pot of individuals, each with
their own characteristics: personalities, age, education,
careers (??), etc. The campaign progressed
moderately, possessing both its high and low
points. It finally met with its overdue death as a
result of players’ geographical relocation and the
general failure of the individuals to evolve their
role-playing abilities.

With the disintegration of that campaign, I discovered
that I was now confronted by a gamer’s
curse: lack of good co-gamers. In this area of upstate
New York, RP gaming remains very undeveloped,
if even barely alive. Most of the campaigns
(and there are mighty few to begin with) consist of
younger adults (??) whose personalities, motivations,
approaches, etc. do not mesh with mine.
Fortunately, I have been able to form a bond with
one other local gamer with whom I interact well.
However, a population of two does not lend itself
to proper RP campaigns (the occasional board
game sessions maintain our active participation in
the art of gaming, but at a subsistence level).

All of this brings me (at last) to the thrust of this
letter: How does a RP enthusiast make contact with
other “mature” (in the sense of sophistication)
players, especially when one finds himself (or herself)
marooned in the back-water provinces of the
RP world?

The two attempts at simulation gaming conventions
held in the area over the last two years
produced very poor turnouts with relatively unsophisticated
(depending on one’s own tastes)
players. A large amount of hack-and-slash tactics
were employed with no thought of the more refined
methods of getting one’s posterior out of the
problem.

I would like to propose that you run a short
article with suggestions on how the isolated gamer
may be able to meet other “mature” gamers. (The
Judges’ Guild published results of a survey in their
June/July 1978 issue that indicated the average <find & link>
gamer is 24 years of age. There are obviously a
large number of such participants spread across the
countryside.)

This would act as a great catalyst and give us
“outcasts” more hope.

Sincerely,
Gary Reilly—Rochester, NY
(The Dragon #29)
 

I don’t think that there are any pat answers or
solutions to your problem, in which you are not
alone. As you may know, we have printed on Intl.
DM’s Guide, and plan to update it in the Dec. or
Jan. issue of TD. If you look elsewhere in this issue,
you will note that we ore initiating a Classified Ad <link>
section in the Nov. issue. One of the categories will <link>
be Opponents Wanted.

You know, a good deal of the younger player’s
play the way they do because they don’t know any
better. It is not uncommon for a given group to
splinter when someone comes up with a better
campaign. Surely some of the people show some
promise of becoming good gamers given the opportunity
and experience. Invite the most promising
candidates to an adventure at your home. It
becomes rather easy to weed out undesirable
players by simply not inviting them bock for future
adventures. When I was in college, I was the first
DM, and the only one for some time, for a group of
20 + D&D’ers. We had club adventures, conducted
at meetings, where everyone, within limits,
could participate. We also had adventures at my
home in the evenings that were attended by only
the best players, by invitation. If what you have to
offer in the line of adventuring and campaigning is
good enough, people will do a lot to be able to
participate, including getting an offensive act
together.

Barring the aforementioned, I guess you could
try to handpick a whole group of neophytes and try
to teach them. This, tho, would soon get boring.
DM’s need constant stimulation and interaction to
consistently turn out fine adventures.

We would be most interested in hearing other
readers’ suggestions or solutions.

—Editor
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #29)
 

‘Age/interest group’
Dear Editor,

Unfortunately, I share the same problem as
reader Gary Reilly expressed in TD #29—namely
finding opponents/players in my same age/
interest group. I’ve recently moved and the prospects
of trying to find a compatible group are very
intimidating. I was listed in the last International
DM roster and I’m afraid it really didn’t help. I’m
30 years old with a college education and I just
don’t have that much in common with the 14-16
year-olds who seemed to dominate the responses
to my listing. It’s probably too late for this DM
guide, but maybe in the future, if the DM specified
the age group he is interested in moderating for,
the situation might be improved. At any rate, if
there are any D&D’ers in the Houston area in the
20+ age group, I’d like to hear from them.

Dennis O’ Neill—TX
(The Dragon #32)
 

‘Kids are people too’
Dear Dragon:

I very much sympathize with the problems
expressed by Gary Reilly as regards finding suitable
opponents to play with.

When I first started out in D & D (via T & T, by
the way) I found myself at odds with the world as a
40-year-old lady playing with 12-to-14 year-olds,
then with college dropouts.

Perseverance, however, won me some reallife
Experience Points. I formed my own group of
13-to-18 year-olds, together with another interested
19-year old DM.

Believe me, our games are not unsophisticated,
especially as regards the elder gods and
magical systems.

I think in a good game there has got to be
something for everyone, and the younger players
are learning a lot from me; I believe I may be
learning more from them.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that kids are
people too and the more you expect from people,
the more you get.

Best regards, and keep up the good work.

Sonia Brock—Canada
(The Dragon #32)
 

As ever, there are two sides, at least, to every
issue. Anybody else care to comment on this
topic?
—ED.
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #32)
 

*    *    *    *

'Pleasure and a pain'
Dear Editor:

There is one aspect of Dungeons & Dragons
which is both a pleasure and a pain: new ideas. The
advances in the game create ever-changing worlds
for the players to explore, but getting these advances
to the players poses problems. The original
publishing of D&D was an attempt to make public
an expansion of the fantasy supplement in Chainmail. <make and link>
Then came Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch <make and link>
    <Greyhawk: M&M, M&T, U&WA,.
    <Blackmoor: M&M, M&T, U&WA>
Wizardry, Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes, and <make and link>
Swords & Spells. The drawbacks with these were <make and link>
that one had to search from one book to another to
find needed material, and the books got worn out
quickly. AD&D has consolidated and refined this
material, but as the popularity of D&D grows, so
does the volume of new material. The Dragon has
provided an outlet for this wealth of new ideas,
making it available for the devoted D&D’er. But
the problem of the supplement remains: the material
is dispersed and the magazines are fragile.

I have an idea to help solve this problem; one
that I think will benefit both TSR and the average
D&D’er. The idea is loose-leaf supplements. As I
see it the original purchase would be a hardcovered
three-ring notebook with perhaps a D&D
insignia on the outside. Inside would be three dividers
corresponding to the three AD&D books, plus a
set of the most-used playing charts. Later, as new
material is accumulated at TSR, sets of supplements
would be printed and sold to be arranged in
the notebook at the players’ discretion.

This system has several advantages for the
D&D’er. First, all the material is under one cover.
Second, that cover is a hard cover. Third, this also
gives a place to keep other information. And last,
loose-leaf sheets are cheap and, with proper stick
on reinforcements, will last a long time.

The advantages are no less for TSR. Loose-leaf
sheets are quick and cheap to produce. If you run
out it is easy to print more. Mail-orders for them can
be sent in manila envelopes at low postage. The Dragon
provides a source of new materials, and
easily obtainable supplements might encourage
players to write in with more. The last page could
be an updated price list. The one thing to look out
for is putting two subjects on the same sheet of
paper, thus restricting how the sheets are arranged.

To the reader: If you think this is a good idea
write to TSR and tell them so. My vote is yes.

To TSR: Look out. Rival companies will read
this letter and if you don’t do it they will.

Hopefully,
Stuart Malone — MD
(The Dragon #30)
 
 

An interesting idea.
Any rival company had better be licensed, or
suffer the lawsuits for copyright infringements.
—ED
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #30)

*    *    *    *
 

"First rate publication"
Dear Editor:

Enclosed you will find a check for $24.00
towards a subscription to THE DRAGON. The
reason for this is, to put it simply as possible, that
THE DRAGON has in the last year turned into a
first rate publication. Most specifically I am talking
about the addition of “Little Wars” and the new
features along with the general quality of the magazine
itself.

With all the improvements there is one thing
that bothers me and that is simply the lack of fiction
in latest issues. I sorely miss the Gardner Fox, <make & link>
Andre Norton, and Fritz Leiber stories of old. I <make & link>,  <make & link>
would understand if you thought that these shorts
would lessen the quality of the end product but
would still miss them.

In closing, when all’s said and done. I feel you
have a fine product in THE DRAGON and look
forward to the next “new and improved”
DRAGON.

Truly
Lance Wm. Pickett — WI
(The Dragon #30)
 

Thanks for the kudos.

Fear not on the fiction: we have two by Gar <link>
Fox, one by J. Eric Holmes, and one by a talented <link>, <link>
newcomer, all in hand.

One will appear in Nov. — which one depends
upon which art gets finished first.

—ED.
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #30)
 

*    *    *    *
 

'An excellent job'
Dear Editor:
 

I’m glad to see many of the older columns (such
as this) back in THE DRAGON. Your new staff is
doing an excellent job. Why the change of logos? I
thought something would be in the Rumbles but it
wasn’t. I personally liked the old one better. The
Giants in the Earth column is very good and hopefully
it will be a permanent feature. My compliments
to the TSR Games staff for the new Judges <DMS?>
Screen and the boxed Boot Hill. The artwork is <BH2e, make & link?>
fantastic! Here’s hoping you get some positive
letters instead of overly critical ones.

Sincerely,
Greg A. Patchell — PA
(The Dragon #30)
 

Ahh, the logo . . . . Had I known I would get so
many letters, I would have explained up front.

Nobody loved the old logo more than I did. Not
only was it a gorgeous piece of unique art, but it
was rendered for me by someone I admire very
much. However, it was a hard logo to use, because
of its odd shape and unique composition. It could
only be used so small, then the detail blurred out
and got muddy. It took up a lot of room, even at its
smallest. It was also nearly impossible to read from
any distance at all.

It is that last reason that weighed heaviest in the
decision to scrap the old logo: it could not be
deciphered from farther away than 15’ or so, unless
you already had seen it or knew what it said.
This factor hindered over the counter sales — who
will buy a magazine that they can’t even read the
title on? Made it hard to spur impulse purchases,
you know?

THE DRAGON is in the process of designing
some new T-shirts for next season. There is every
likelihood that at least one of them will feature the
old logo . . . .

—ED.
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #30)
 

*    *    *    *

'A matter of opinion'
Dear Editor,
 

First of all, your magazine is fantastic. I always
haunt the bookstores weeks before the next issue
is going to come out in hopes of getting an early
one. I do have one criticism, though. I know it’s
tough to get a magazine as big and of such great
quality as The Dragon out, but the times you guys
release your issue fluctuates as much as the
weather. I’d really like to see something done
about this. Perhaps a little estimate in each issue as
to when the next will be out.

The main reason I’m writing has to do with
your feature Out on a Limb. I think it’s an excellent
idea in theory, but I wish you would censor letters
that are full of unjust criticisms, and other crud
from the good informative letters.

Of course such things are a matter of opinion,
but it seems to me that the last letter in Out on a
Limb in #28 (Marc Jacobs’) was obviously in the
former category. I quite agree with Mr. Kask’s
comments on the letter. So why don’t you apply a
flaming sword to the letter, instead of wasting
valuable room on it. If you’re that hard up for
letters I feel that Out on a Limb should be discontinued.
I would really like to see more letters of the
other kind that were in that issue (Don’t worry,
guys! Three out of four ain’t bad.).

Thanks a lot for taking time to read my letter

Jeff Fleming—MI
(The Dragon #32)
 

We try to have. . . LIMB represent a crosssection
of the mail we get. Until just recently, we
seldom ever got kudos—just lots of bitches and
gripes. I think it is useful to the readers to see how
our mail runs, tone-wise, to see what we deal with
in the course of a month.

As to our erratic appearance time, we are not
too much to blame for that. In fact, we have been
getting recent issues out closer together as we try
to get back on to the schedule we have set ourselves.
More often, it is the distributor that delays
for one reason or another, over which we have no
control.

—ED
(Tim Kask)
(The Dragon #32)
 

*    *    *    *

'White Dwarf'

Dear Editor:

Recently news has reached this lonely barony
that TSR will soon be distributing WHITE DWARF <make & link>
in North America. Is this true, and if so, can one
(namely me) subscribe through TSR? Also, are life
subscriptions to THE DRAGON available, and if
so how does one get such a wondrous beast?

Only persistent complaint about THE
DRAGON: Please, please, PLEASE get a typesetter
who can spell. Choosing a page at random
from the last issue (TD 27; rolling D100 and dividing
in half) we find, on page 32, “Timeles (sic)
Space.” A minor beef—but this is a recurrent
problem in recent issues, and it is extremely
irritating to a reader as it breaks up the flow of the
narrative.

Ed Greenwood
Canada
(The Dragon #33)
[edit]
 

TSR Periodicals does not sell subs to WHITE
DWARF We merely distribute in N. Amer. to retail
outlets. To subscribe, you must go through publishers
in England. Price is $14.00, address is:
WHITE DWARF, 1 Dalling Road, London, W6.

You could also bug your local store to carry it,
and thereby get us another customer.

Sorry, life subscriptions to TD are not
auailable.

Proofreading has been one of those areas that
we have glossed over in the past, but I think that
you have found a vast improvement in recent
issues. This is due to the fact that we have a larger
staff with more time available to devote to such
activities. In the past, when it became a choice
between proofreading and starting the next issue
to keep on schedule, you know which choice we
were forced to make.

[...]

<^finish^>
 

‘Congratulations’

Dear Editor:
I have just bought TD33 and have decided to
subscribe. My reasons are not primarily those of
Mr. Pickett, but rather the price changes! But you
must admit the flattery (#30) is true.

You have, admittedly, dropped your best article
and postponed what would (a touch of Divination
there) be equally good until only those fanatics
like me would remember it existed. You have also
started/returned/continued some articles/tradition
that make The Dragon stand out as well as its
namesake in a 40x40 room. I speak of: Bazaar of
the Bizarre, Dragon’s Bestiary, Finieous, Wormy,
Leomund’s Tiny Hut, Sage Advice, and your
numerous fictions—not to mention 1,001 oneshot
greats like “Where the Orcs Are” in TD30.
Congratulations.

But why the #%$&@¢ did you have to drop
Giants in the Earth when it was one of the best
things to ever happen to player-reader-DMs like
me?? You haven’t run out of subject matter-or
readers—yet. How about something from Gor, <research>
Sword of Shannara, more Jack Vance, Moorcock, <link, link>
or the ever-popular Tolkien? Your last was the best
ever, but also the last. Thought you’d wind it up
with a bang, huh? The only bang you’ll get is when
my friend the wizard drops a Meteor Swarm in
through the window! This is not hate mail —I hope!
I just want to break your necks for—never mind
As Dastardly Deeds &Devious Devices is coming,
and you gave us “ample” warning when you
introduced it, I am not mad at you on that. I have
sent in three of my best to that and am eager to
send more. Do you want them? And my new ones
are a lot better balanced.

The Dragon is getting better all the time! At one
point I called at my local hobby shop and found
that it wasn’t in. The next day—10 minutes after it
opened—it had arrived and was already sold out!!

Finally, two suggestions: first, the “news from
the college” approach in Clerics take note—no
swords means NO swords was an idea well worth
continuing. Would you show me some more such
looks into the training of characters?

Secondly, an idea for TSR Hobbies: publish a
set of booklets on character classes. These would <links>
contain selected information on the class, with
clarifications and guides to roleplaying the class.
But not spell explanations, please! Keep the price
more or less equal.

Ken Hughes
—Ann Arbor, MI
(The Dragon #36)
 

Ask and ye shall receive! Actually, it’s not quite
that simple-in fact, we already had Giants in the
Earth scheduled to return to the magazine before
we received Reader Hughes’ letter. There was
never any intention to drop Giants in the Earth
permanently, it was merely suspended for a while
for space considerations. REST assured, it will be
around on an “as-regular-as-possible” basis for
some time.

DD&DD premiered in TD #34 (February) and
will be continuing as long as interest and submissions
continue. And, yes, Ken, we’d be happy to
look at any DD&DD material you care to send
That goes for the rest of you with devious and
dastardly ideas, too.

The “my local hobby shop sells out of
magazines too quickly” complaint is, unfortunately,
a common one. We’ve tried to help out by
telling the retailers that they can return, for full
credit, any unsold copies of The Dragon—we can
always use the back issues, and the theory is, that
with no worry of being stuck with unsold
magazines, the retailer will always order plenty.
Obviously there is some breakdown between the
theory and the practice. So, your best insurance to
avoid missing any issues of The Dragon is to subscribe.
You get your magazine delivered to your
door, and you save money—what could be
better?

—Jake
(The Dragon #36)
 

'Lowly players'

Dear Editor:
I enjoy your magazine very much, but can rarely
get a copy because of my DM. He will often tell us
that we can not buy issues because they contain
things for the DM only, things we lowly players
might accidentally see, Therefore, I am prevented
from subscribing, and by the time our DM finishes
“screening” issues, they are sold out at our hobby
store.

Even though I can see his position (especially
where a dungeon module is concerned), it still is
very frustrating. There are several things you, as
the publisher, could do, the most simple of which
is to place all the stuff that concerns the DM only
in the back, clearly marked and separated from
the rest of the magazine. This idea still has the
danger of players reading the section. The best
way that I can think of, is to publish two magazines
— one for the player, the other exclusively for the
DM. Judges Guild already does this with the
Journal and Dungeoneer. Surely if Judges Guild.
can do it . . .

Jimmy Welch’
Tyler, Tex
(Dragon #44)
 

Gosh, Jimmy, I don't know who to rake over
the coals first: your DM, for being so high-handed,
or you, for comparing us to Judges Guild. Seriously,
the Dragon is meant to be read by DM and
players alike ? if the DM is having problems with
his players reading up on modules printed in the
magazine ahead of time, there is a simple solution:
He should run a party through the adventure, but
change a few of the listed traps, creatures, etc.
Take a perfectly safe room, for example, and install
a tilting floor to a pit, or add a couple more
creatures besides those listed in the text, or change
the location of the entrance and exits. It will only
take a couple of unexpected surprises before the
players learn not to trust exactly what they?ve read
(assuming they have a photographic memory),
and put the elements of adventure and excitement
back in the game, without sacrificing the player?s
desire to read the rest of the Dragon (And for the
record, both the Journal and the Dungeoneer are
published bi-monthly, so they're only getting out
12 magazines a year, the same as us.)

— Jake
(Dragon #44)
 

‘The height of absurdity’
 

Dear Editor:
I finished reading my December issue of
DRAGON magazine in a rage. I refer to the
letter from the player (“Lowly Players”) who
says his DM won’t let his group subscribe to
DRAGON magazine because therein are
things meant only for the DM. I’m a DM for two
different groups here in Mannheim, Germany,
and I would be tickled pink if all the players
here subscribed to this magazine. Half of the
players here have copies of the DMG anyway
(they DM the group a lot, too) so as far as
hiding things from the players go, that’s impossible
(and it hasn’t hurt the games here at
all; in fact, it seems to have helped them).
Secondly, for anyone to dictate what a person
can or cannot read is the height of absurdity
and...and..what’s a good word for “gross, petty,
obnoxious despotism”? That’ll do. If I had
a DM who told me I couldn’t read DRAGON
magazine if I was to play in his universe, I’d tell
him to kiss a succubus. Or an otyugh, whichever
is closer. I personally urge all D&D®
players (and C&S, T&T, AD&D™ game, GW,
etc. players) to subscribe to this magazine at
the least; it’s the best there is.

I will confess that I do have one tiny complaint,
concerning the excellent “Super Spies”
article by Allen Hammack. I didn’t see Greg
Morris from “Mission: Impossible”, Bill Cosby
and that other guy (Robert Gulp — ed) from “I
Spy”, Patrick MacGoohan from “Secret Agent
Man”, and Boris and Natasha from the “Rocky
and Bullwinkle Show”. Could someone check
these characters out in a future article?
 

Roger E. Moore
Mannheim, Germany
APO, N.Y.
<issue=x>
 

Page numbers

Dear Editor:
I have played D&D since 1976 and AD&D
since 1979. I have DM’d since 1977. I have
bought your magazine since Vol. 1, #6 and
have three of the seven issues of The Strategic
Review. I have seen DRAGON grow and
develop into what it is today and I must say
you are not getting older, you are getting better.

I have only complaint. When you include a
module or a game in an issue, you should
number those pages such as M1, M2, etc., so
that if a reader wishes to remove it, he/she
won’t end up with the pages of the magazines
numbering 35, 36, 41, 42, etc.
 

Gordon Lawson
College Station, Tex.
(Dragon #51)
 

‘Wavering’

Dear Dragon:
I think DRAGON magazine has been wavering
in consistency. One issue will contain all
the articles I like and I think are qualified to
take up space in the magazine. Then the very
next issue will be lacking all of the necessary
articles.

The following is more of a suggestion than
a complaint. I like DRAGON and most of its
contents. Giants in the Earth is great. I love all
of the new NPCs you’ve designed. The Dragon’s
Bestiary is always a blessing. Leomund’s
Tiny Hut always has something that I can use
in my campaign.

Altogether, my two favorite articles were
Sage Advice and Bazaar of the Bizarre. Notice
I said “were.” They aren’t now, nor is any
other article for that matter. I cannot devote
myself to them because they are so inconsistently
in the magazine

Overall, my point is that I would like to see
more consistency from DRAGON. I know it’s
hard, but can you warn us when you won’t
have everything?

Curt Miner
Hudson, Ohio
(Dragon #54)
 

Hmmm. One man’s consistency is another
man’s what? Form letter? I fear that by
running columns using the same headings
from time to time that we may have promoted
a misconception. With the exception of the
letters to the editor (“Out on a Limb”) column,
the only consistency requirement we place
upon ourselves is 80-plus pages of highquality
material about games and gaming every
30 days. We have never, and will never, run
a column just for the sake of including the
same heading each month in the table of
contents.

There are a couple of reasons for this philosophy.
First of all, the regular features mentioned
in Curt’s letter are produced by authors
and artists who aren’t on our staff, and we
have no control over when new material will
turn up at our offices. Second, even when
material arrives from month to month and
quantity is not a problem, we still have to be
concerned about quality. Like we said before,
consistency in quality is the thing we care
about more than anything else.

By the very nature of gaming, we will never
have everything that everybody wants to see
in a single issue. We couldn’t produce an
issue that big, and even if we did, you probably
wouldn’t like the price we’d have to charge
for it.

— JJ
(Dragon #54)
 
 

Two magazines?

Dear Dragon:
I have both good and bad words to say
about your magazine. First, it is very interesting
but it is overpriced, like all TSR products.
It would be well advised if you split the
DRAGON into two magazines, one solely devoted
to D&D and another featuring your other
games. You could then charge a more
reasonable price like $1.50, or, if you must be
greedy, $2.00.

But on the other hand, your “Giants in the
Earth” feature is extremely intriguing. You
might consider gathering them together and
publishing them in book form. You’ve already
transformed mythology into D&D terms. Why
not literature?

Also, if and when you put out an “Outer
Planes” module, you should also publish a
tome of extra-planar monsters.

Jim Dopkin
Shenandoah, Pa.
(Dragon #56)
 

‘Priceless value’
 

Dear Editor:
When I read “Two Magazines?” from Jim
Dopkin (Out on a Limb, #56), I was extremely
surprised and outraged by his suggestions.
Overpriced? Like all TSR products?!? I found
myself wondering what he was talking about!
From my past experience with DRAGON
and TSR I have always found the items reasonably
priced. In fact, they are a bargain and
are of priceless value because of the hours
upon hours of fun and fantasy they have
brought me. I cannot see how anyone who
plays D&D seriously can call it overpriced.

Nels Bruckner
Jasper, Ore.
(Dragon #59)
 
 

‘Highest quality’

Dear Editor:
I have been reading DRAGON and some
other gaming magazines for the past several
months in an attempt to familiarize myself with
FRPGs after a couple years of forced abstinence,
and I have found your magazine to be
of the highest quality, both in preparation and
in content. Your articles are stimulating and
entertaining, to the point of getting my wife
interested in gaming (something I have consistently
failed to do). I especially enjoy reading
From the Sorceror’s Scroll and your feature
articles such as the one in DRAGON #61
about unusual weapons.

Occasionally, however, I run across an explanation
or statement, especially in Sage
Advice, which appears to be blatantly incorrect,
and tempts me to write in disagreement
or protest, and herewith I succumb to the
temptation. In DRAGON #62, a reader asks if
a person may talk while under the Hold Person
spell. The columnist replies that they may
not, because talking or making vocal sounds
requires movement, and the spell prevents its
victim from literally moving a muscle. If this is
the case, the victim of the spell cannot breathe,
his heart cannot pump, and his capillaries
cannot prevent blood from flowing backwards,
and he will die within seconds from the damage
caused by the subsequent drop in blood
pressure. Obviously, the spell should only
prevent the person from conscious movement,
which will still prevent him/her from
speaking, but will allow unconscious biological
support functions to continue.

Of course, the exact interpretation of a particular
spell’s effects is really up to the DM
whose universe one is in. I have played in one
universe where the Hold spells put all biological
functions in stasis, so that the victim cannot
even think/feel/emote or use psionics.
This was fine — in that universe — and one
creative mage was able to use that spell to
save the lives of two badly wounded fighters,
putting them into a state of stasis until they
could receive medical aid. The DM permitted
this because she realized that her interpretations
of D&D rules and spells, though free,
had to be consistent in her particular universe.
That is all that is really important, for
playability’s sake.

A topic which I have not seen any articles
on, and which I would like to find out more
about, is Play by Mail gaming. What and
where are the companies? What games do
they run? At what cost? How do you rate their
various services, products, and reputations?
Before sending off money to the companies
advertised in your magazine, it would be nice
to see some articles describing what to expect
from PBM fantasy and science fiction gaming,
reviews of the games, and so forth.

Richard P. Davis
Stanford, Calif.
(Dragon #64)
 

Staples and cards

Dear Editor:
There are a couple of things I think would
help make your magazine a little better. First, I
think you should get a new type of binding.
Although there is nothing really wrong with
your current staple binding, the staples seem
to “dig” into the magazine. A “square-back”
binding would be much better. It would help
prolong the life of the magazine. Second, I
wish you would insert cards which the readers
could use as order forms, such as when
someone wanted to order back issues. There
is nothing I dislike more than having to cut up
a magazine, especially a new one.

Tommy Buttress
Shady Point, Okla.
(Dragon #70)

We appreciate both of Tom’s points, and
maybe someday both of the changes he suggests
will happen. But for the time being, we’ll
explain why things are done the way they are.

Both of the changes he — and, no doubt,
many other readers — would like to see would
cost money, and we might not be able to
afford the extra expense without (gasp!) raising
the price of the magazine. We’re pretty
proud of the fact that our prices haven’t gone
up in almost three years (how many other
businesses can make that statement?), and
we aren’t anxious to have that happen.

Like Tom says, staples aren’t all that bad.
And stapling is the least expensive way to
bind the magazine, which is good for us and,
indirectly, good for our consumers. Inserting
an order-blank card into the magazine is,
obviously, more expensive than not doing so,
and that’s another example of an improvement
that we haven’t made because we aren’t
convinced that the benefit would outweigh
the disadvantages.

Incidentally, Tom and anyone else with the
same problem should be aware that it isn’t
necessary to turn in an “official” order blank
when you want to order merchandise. All you
have to do is enclose a short note telling us
what you want, along with your payment,
instead of cutting up a magazine.

— KM
(Dragon #70)

Dear Dragon:
In issue #70 someone wrote a letter about
how you should have more of an assortment
of games in your magazine.  I highly object to
his letter. If other games start popping up
there won’t be room left for D&D. I look forward
to your issues every month, and I hope
D&D will still be focused on.
Will Stephenson
Orchard Lake, Mich.
(Dragon #72)
 

Dear Dragon:
I’ve been reading DRAGON since July, and
I think it is a great magazine, and I love D&D,
but it isn’t my only game. Not that I don’t want
articles on D&D, but it would help to have an
article on STAR FRONTIERS or GAMMA
WORLD once in a while.

David Van Domelen
Waukesha, Wis.
(Dragon #72)
 

Dear Editor:
You call your magazine the role-players
magazine, but you should call it the AD&D
player magazine. Practically all of your articles
pertain to AD&D. I have played AD&D,
but I find TSR’s other role-playing games, like
TOP SECRET and STAR FRONTIERS, more
exciting. For someone who doesn’t play
AD&D, your magazine is a waste of money.
You should at least try to balance the articles
between AD&D and TSR’s other role-playing
games.

Mark Smith
Pickerington, Ohio
(Dragon #72)
 

Dear Editor:
I have been a subscriber to DRAGON magazine
for quite some time, and I think that
more TOP SECRET articles should be included.
A two-page article every two or three
issues is not enough. I play both AD&D and
TOP SECRET, and I know of several other
people who do the same. We would love to see
more of both, but some space in your magazine
would be better used for other things (I
won’t give any examples).

Matt Van Dinter
Las Vegas, Nev.
(Dragon #72)
 

Dear Editor:
In issue #67, instead of Sage Advice, I found
Spy’s Advice. There are many TOP SECRET
fans out there, but more D&D and AD&D fans.
I do understand how TOP SECRET fans feel,
but just think of all us D&D and AD&D fans
who look for Sage Advice every month to see
if we need more information. Not many TOP
SECRET fans probably read DRAGON because
it is mainly D&D and AD&D that you
find in each issue.

Ryan Greene
Stone Mountain, Ga.
(Dragon #72)
 

Whew. Okay, those five letters are just s
small sample from this month’s mail, on the
subject of what we’d better do with our magazine.
If all we had to do was please Matt, Ryan,
Will, Mark, and David (not to mention the
other 39 people who recently addressed the
same topic), we’d have to produce a 156-page
encyclopedia every month and charge an arm
and a leg for it. (Some people think we charge
that much for it now, but that’s another fetter.)
We’d go crazy getting it finished on time, you
wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway, and
neither one of us would be better off. Now,
does that put it in terms that everybody can
relate to?

— KM
(Dragon #72)

‘Disturbing trend’

Dear Editor:
I would like to express my concern over
what I see as a disturbing trend in the last several
issues of DRAGON: a greatly increased
emphasis on charts, tables, statistical comparisons
and the like. Specifically, “Charting the
classes” and “Weapon statistics” (#69), <find and link>
“The hull truth about speed” and “A second volley”
(#70), and “Who gets the first swing?” (#71), to
cite only a few of many examples.

I’ve also noticed the introduction of a plethora
of new character classes and the needless
reworking of older ones, such as the recent
articles on illusionists and druids, for example.
<find and link>
<find and link>

You tout your magazine as a role playing
aid, and although the articles I mentioned
above are all well written and well intentioned,
they do not further the cause of role playing.

It is difficult enough for Gamemasters to
wean players from their beloved handbooks
and charts and [get them to] play their characters
as individuals rather than puppets tethered
to a leash of polyhedra dice. Is fantasy role
playing really served by an article interpreting
the classes on a strictly numerical basis?

Again, the articles were well done. I applaud
the quantum jump in professionalism of
recent articles over some published in years
past by DRAGON. Yet, I see a letter like Tim <find and link>
Henke’s (in issue #64), asking that DRAGON
do his creative thinking for him, and I can’t
help but wonder what attitudes newer readers
are gleaning from your publication of number-oriented
articles.

Mark Kreighbaum
Berkeley, Calif.
(Dragon #74)
 

To thoroughly respond to Mark's letter
would take more space than I can afford to use
here. And, a comprehensive answer is doubly
difficult to come up with because Mark hasn?t
offered any examples of what he likes: Just
what is an article that "furthers the cause of
role playing," as opposed to one that does not?
But, if you'll take that into consideration, I'll
give it a try.

My first reaction upon reading that phrase
in Mark's letter was to say, "Hey, we print a
lot of articles that further the cause of role
playing." And then I looked back to his complaint
about the "needless reworking" of character
classes, and I realized that I would consider
our articles on the illusionist (#66) and <Illusions: Familiarity Factor> <Illusions: Phantasmal Force>
the druid (#48) as ones that "further the <The Druid and The DM> <Druid in a Dungeon? Why Not?>
cause." Yet Mark apparently doesn't, so we
aren't on the same wavelength.

So what does "further the cause" mean?
Articles on how to perform the act of roleplaying
-- that is, practical instructions on
how to adopt a "persona" for some purpose or
another -- are pretty dry reading, and probably
belong in a more scholarly journal than this
one. This can't be the sort of article Mark
wants, can it? I hope not, because we can't tell
anyone, in general, how to "get into character,
-- nor will we try. For articles on "how to
play a role," you'd better look elsewhere.

But articles on how to role-play within the
context of a game system are another matter ?
and I maintain that this is the kind of article
that appears on most of the pages of most of
the issues of DRAGON magazine.

Some of these articles are written from a
broad, philosophical base, and may come close
to being the sort of general "how to" article
described earlier. (For a good example of this
kind of writing, see Lew Pulsipher's essay on
"The vicarious participator" on pages 38-39 of
this magazine.)

Other articles we print also "further the
cause of role playing" -- even if they happen
to include numbers, charts, and tables to illustrate
or support the points they make. In fact,
to the extent that a "world" can only be fully
understood if it is fully quantified, it could be
said that the charts-and-tables articles we publish
do as much to "further the cause" as any
other sort of article.

I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who
agrees with Mark, or who feels I'm not understanding
what he's trying to say. We'd like to
keep you all happy if we can.

-- KM
(Dragon #74)
 

'An acquired skill'

Dear Editor:
Mark Kreighbaum's letter in issue #74 of
DRAGON strikes a number of responsive
chords, about half of which are sympathetic.
Mr. Kreighbaum objects to the emphasis in
recent issues on charts and statistics. I must
admit I have just recently returned to reading
the magazine and so have not seen most of the
articles he cites. I am, however, familiar with
the situation.

In my mind, one of the two most important
qualities a gamemaster needs is impartiality.
Everyone who has run a world knows the
temptation to fudge in favor of preferred players
and to interpret the rolls against the ones
who really deserve to be blue-bolted into oblivion.
It is inevitable that opinions color decisions,
but the better the gamemaster the harder
he or she fights that temptation. My experience
is that the greatest weapons in this struggle are
charts and statistics.  When you have a rigidly
defined system, there is no fooling yourself; the
roll means one and only one thing.  There may,
of course, be special circumstances, and the
referee has complete authority to be creative in
these instances and modify the rules.

Creativity is the other characteristic important
in a good gamemaster. Articles reworking
character classes and introducing new ones are
prime manifestations of creativity. They
represent other people passing on good ideas.
They are an inspiration for less imaginative
gamemasters. I suspect it is rare for anyone to
use material verbatim from these pages; personal
(creative) additions) are the rule.

Mr. Kreighbaum claims that DRAGON is
not adequately expanding the horizons of roleplaying
games. This is true to some extent; the
magazine is not all it can be. You respond to
him by complaining that "furthering the
cause" is ill-defined, and then (negligibly considering
the meaning of the phrase) insist that
you do fulfill this mission of manifest destiny.
Now, I'll offer my own ideas on the role of
magazines in fantasy role-playing.

Role-playing is an acquired skill. It must be
cultivated in players by an experienced
gamemaster and fed by contact with other
approaches to the game in other campaigns.
This contact, however, is difficult except for
players in large cities or on college campuses.
Gaming magazines, like trade magazines and
scientific journals, fill this gap by acting as a
clearinghouse for information and as a forum
for ideas. Both aspects could use further development
in this publication. None of us are
authorities on everything. We all need advice
in areas out of our training and experience. I
was delighted to see Bruce Evry's "The Hull
Truth . . ." in issue #70 for this reason. As for
the forum idea, every Dungeon Master has a
unique philosophy of the game. In its capacity
as a mouthpiece of TSR, this magazine almost
has a responsibility to be a medium for discussion
of these philosophies in AD&D.

Another responsibility that DRAGON has is
to provide guidance for the less experienced
gamemasters. Mark Kreighbaum cites a letter
from someone "asking that DRAGON do his
creative thinking for him."  (Editor's note:
Those were Mr. Kerighbaum's words, not the
words of the original letter writer.)  This is a
serious problem among the youngest generation
of DMs.  Mr. Kreighbaum echoes t he situation
when he complains of new players'
dependency on the literature.  All too little
attention is given to the wisdom of the DMG's
afterword.  Gamemasters are frequently afraid
to stray from the rules.  It must be emphasized
(and emphasized often) that IT'S ALL RIGHT to be
creative.

Jonathan Heiles
Dover Plains, N.Y.
(Dragon #79)
 
 
 
 
 

Copyright query

Dear Editor:
The Sage Advice section of issue #76 was of
great help, but its "appendix," so to speak,
Page Advice, contained a confusing point. It
states that TSR cannot publish some modules
because of copyright reasons; a Smurf module
was given as an example. However, TSR currently
has a new series of modules on the
market, EX-1 and EX-2, which are based
almost completely on [another book]. Did TSR
obtain rights for their publication, or is it
simply that the book is not copyrighted?

Peter T. Ellis
Ledyard, Conn
(Dragon #78)
 
 

The name of the book Peter mentioned was
deleted from his letter, so as to not ruin the
surprise for those who have yet to experience
modules EX-1 and EX-2. And I think there's
an easy answer to his question; the book in
question is in the public domain and (as far as
I know, at least) not protected by copyright.
This is usually the case with works of literature
that were written a long time ago; material
created more recently (such as Smurfs, Star
Trek literature, and thousands of other ideas
and concepts) are copyright-protected and
cannot be used in another person's work without
permission from the copyright holder. It's
relatively simple to find out if something is
protected by copyright; your local librarian
should be able to help.

-- KM
(Dragon #78)

-
Copyright questions
-
Dear Dragon,
I have a question on the copyrights of your
magazine and AD&D materials in general. There
have been several articles in DRAGON Magazine
that can be used in conjunction with other
articles or parts of the AD&D rule books. I would
like to know if I can take such materials and
combine them into tables of my own creation for
my own use. This would save wear and tear on
my magazines.

Also, can I use the material in the magazine or
rule books to write my own computer programs?
A computer can take a lot of the dice rolling out
of creating a dungeon. I would appreciate an
answer so I do not infringe on your rights.
Howard Hill
Akron, Ohio
(Dragon #85)
 

First of all, Howard, thanks for asking. Second
of all, I don't think there's any reason why you
can't do what you're asking to do. The important
phrase in each of your requests is "my own," and
here's why:

You are not in violation of copyright laws as
long as what you do with copyrighted information
is for your personal use. You can rearrange charts
and tables or other material and keep it in a
different form, as long as you don't give those
tables and notes to someone else or (worse yet)
try to sell them for your own benefit. You can use
the information from the game or the magazine
in a computer program of your own devising, as
long as you abide by the same rules.

-- KM
(Dragon #85)

Our symbol system

Dear Editor:
I recently noticed a strange occurrence while
reading over some back issues of DRAGON
Ever since issue #70, you have been using the
zodiac symbol for that month to denote the ends
of articles. Is there some symbolic significance, or
is it just a whim someone at Dragon Publishing
started just for the heck of it?

Shawn Hartley
Knoxville, Pa.
(Dragon #80)
 

The answer is somewhere in between your two
questions, Shawn. After several people wrote in
to suggest that we mark the ends of stories with
some kind of symbol, we decided to do just that.
We chose the signs of the zodiac because (a) they
look interesting, (b) they're different every
month, (c) no other magazine we know of was
using them for the same purpose, and (d) we
wanted to have a little fun. Do the end-of-story
marks have any symbolic significance? No, not in
the astrological sense -- but for the people who
have to lay all those chunks of type down on all
those pages, it's a very significant occasion every
time we get another story ready to send to the
printer.

-- KM
(Dragon #80)

'Only suggestions'

Dear Editor:
Those who have read the works of Michael
Moorcock will be aware of the opposite forces of
Law & Chaos. We live in a time on this earth
when Law is predominant; logic smothers magic
to such an extent that most humans refuse to
believe the latter exists. Several of your knowledgeable
contributors seem occasionally to suffer
from this unhealthy disease, for instance Mr.
Greenwood who, in his, article concerning the
Planes of Hell, after stating that Stygia is cold
went on in parentheses to add: “Why the swamp
and river Styx do not freeze is a mystery to one
accustomed to conditions on the Prime Material
Plane.” Surely he could realize that in a fantasy
world Chaos is going to be present to a larger
extent than in our own; laws of physics, chemistry
& biology just do not exist as we know them,
and the fact that the river doesn’t freeze is going
to be the least of the worries of a Hero entering
the 5th plane of Hell!

I must admit to providing a rather trivial
example in this case (others include the recently
discussed problems of falling damage, boat speed
and the “logic” of language) but it does get my
point across: the majority of gamers (and writers)
seem absorbed in the Law side of the balance and
fail to realize the strength of Chaos. This leads to
another point — the obsession gamers seem to
have for rules. This can be demonstrated in your
“Out on a Limb” section, with letters usually
taking one of the following formats: “I don’t
agree with this rule. In my campaign, . . .” or
“The article was very good, but I found two
mistakes . . .” or “As a professor of Cyplasmicology,
I can tell you that . . .”

This can prove tedious; after all, the articles
are only suggestions, and surely if the reader
doesn’t like certain aspects he/she can alter them
without creating a hassle (in other words, not do
what I’m doing now!). Many argue that rules
and more rules are necessary to promote playability.
This may be true, but then again some of the
most playable games are also the most boring. It
seems to me that some gamers want AD&D
wrapped in an imagination-proof web of rules,
which defies the game’s original intention.

James Douglas
Wellington, New Zealand
(Dragon #81)
 

I heartily applaud what James says about
articles being “only suggestions” — a point that
yours truly makes in a couple of other ways
elsewhere in this letters column. I share his
apparent disdain for people who take an article to
task because it doesn’t describe the way they
would do something, or because it contains a
“mistake” or two (which may be an error of fact,
but is just as often a simple difference of opinion
or interpretation). I like to think we don't take
ourselves too seriously, and I think we’d all be
none the worse off if the people who read the
magazine would feel the same way

— KM
(Dragon #81)

Aids for old rules

Dear Editor:
I have been playing Dungeons & Dragons for
over three years, and find the game and the
available playing aids for it excellent. My newest
group of players and I have been playing for
about a year and a half and we use the original
rules or Collector’s Editions, finding them more
restrictive in many ways than the advanced rules.
I am puzzled because I can’t find any playing
aids, modules, etc., which use these rules. I am
wondering why this is and if you will come out
with any playing aids which use these rules.

Fred Bradbury
Saugus, Mass.
(Dragon #81)
 

The main reason why we publish virtually no
playing aids or adventures specifically for the
D&D® game is that people generally don't contribute
manuscripts on that game. And that’s
because the D&D game doesn't really lend itself
to expansion or variation like the ADVANCED
D&D® game does. As we’ve said many times
before in many different ways, the D&D rules are
more like guidelines and suggestions, and the
AD&D™ rules are more like actual rules, of the
unbreakable or unstretchable sort. In the case of
the D&D rules, it’s difficult to suggest how to do
something in a different way when there aren't
any hard and fast rules on how to do it in the first
place. The AD&D rule system is much more
detailed and more specific to begin with, so
altering it or expanding upon it is easier to do.

People who prefer the D&D Collector’s Edition
rules or the original D&D rules in the blue booklet
are more or less on their own, because those
versions of the game are not being actively pro-
duced or marketed any more. (By the way, I
don't understand Fred's remark about the original
rules being "more restrictive in many ways
than the advanced rules." I always thought the
original rules were less restrictive; maybe this
was a slip of the typewriter?) Even so, the ideas
and suggestions in most of the articles in
DRAGON Magazine can still be applied to
"Collector's" games, if the players and the DM
are looking for ways to add new ingredients to
their adventures.

This is a good time to point out, for those who
are still misled by the similarity in names, that the
D&D game and the AD&D game are not structurally
related to one another. Many of the rules
concerning specific topics are vastly differenmt in
each game. It is not possible to translate a D&D
campaign into an AD&D campaign, or vice versa,
without losing an awful lot in the translation.
Anyone who's ever given advice on this subject
recommends simply scrapping the old campaign
and starting fresh if you want to change games. If
you?re playing cards and you want to switch from
a game of hearts to a game of contract bridge, you
don?t try to merge one game with the other -- you
pick up the cards, shuffle them, and deal them out
all over again. Despite some basic similarities between
the two games (they both use all the cards,
they both involve taking tricks), they don't use the
same rules. It isn't possible to move smoothly
from one game to the other while retaining
elements of the first one. And so it is with the
D&D game and the AD&D game: You can play
one or the other, but if you try to play both you?ll
be playing neither.

-- KM
(Dragon #81)
 
 

Okay, you asked

Dear Editor:
Your answer to Robbie Dean about the Combat
Computer (Out on a Limb, issue #79) contained <link>
a sentence dealing with DM's that don't
let players read DRAGON Magazine.  Well, I
don't let my players read mine or anyone else's
magazine, and they think I'm a selfish su-monster.
Do you think I should let these pixie
players read DRAGON Magazine or not? Please
don't say "It is not my place to say," because I
am asking your opinion.

(name withheld by editor)
Camarillo, Calif.
(Dragon #81)
 

I don't know if you're putting us on or not,
(name withheld), but I'm going to take you very
seriously. Very seriously. I think that not allowing
players to read this magazine is the second most
unimaginative thing a DM could do. The most
unimaginative thing a DM could do is take all of
his "new" ideas straight out of the magazine in
the first place. DRAGON Magazine does not exist
for the purpose of doing a DM's work for him.
Any DM who relies entirely on ideas from other
sources probably runs a campaign that has all the
excitement of a bowl of cold oatmeal.  And any
DM who thinks he's justified in preventing "his"
players from looking at DRAGON Magazine is a
selfish su-monster, to put it mildly.

Sure, there are people in the world who like cold
oatmeal (or who can be convinced that it's hot
when it's not), and there are people who will put
up with almost anything, even su-monsters, if
refusing to do so means they have to stop playing
their favorite game. But how can you, as a DM,
feel fulfilled by the realization that desperation,
not enjoyment, is what's keeping your group
of players together?  Maybe your players are better
off than if they had no DM at all -- but on the
other hand, there are a lot more DMs than su-monsters
in this world.  Sooner or later, they're
going to decide they'd rather play with a human
being, and then where will you and all your
magazines be?

-- KM
(Dragon #81)

However, all semblance of controversy has died
since then. Letters like "I liked" or "I didn't
like" or "Where can I get issue #. . ." are actually
quite dull. This reflects an essence of difference
from campaign to campaign. This is to be expected,
and all of them are right in their own
way. Differences in game theory are far more
interesting (while, granted, also next to unsolvable)
if for no other reason than it keeps you on
your toes. John Stuart Mill, in his essay On
Liberty, wrote that opposing views are necessary
for three reasons:

1. Correct views block out incorrect ones.

2. No "truth" is complete. Opposing views
weed the smaller untruths out of the overall
"truth."

3. A correct view is stabilized and strengthened
by being challenged.

Well, Out on a Limb no longer supports any
views at all.

"Now," you may say, "we show you The
Forum, our new column where our readers can
get things off their chests." But isn't that what
Out on a Limb was meant to be for?

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, but it seems
something is lost somewhere; in the last issue,
only one person went Out on a Limb (and I think
you were a little rough on him, though I agree
with you). Everyone else asked very safe (and by
now redundant) questions. I think (and it pains
me immensely to say this) that Out on a Limb
has outlived its usefulness.

If you won't ditch it altogether, at least shorten
it and call it something more appropriate . . . like
"Letters."

Ken Marshall
Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
(Dragon #84)
 

Like the letter writer says himself, everybody is
"right in their own way" And Ken's observations
are basically valid; on the points where we seem
to disagree, I think he may simply be failing to
see the forest for the trees, and he's a little too
preoccupied with nomenclature.

No, "Out on a Limb" isn't what it used to be.
It changed because our outlook of the magazine
changed, and because our readership has changed
drastically since the halcyon days of issue #38. In
order to devote as much space as possible to
feature articles, we shortened up on the space we
allocate for letters to the editor. We stopped (for
the most part) printing lengthy letters, with
sometimes even lengthier responses, because they
used up too much of that precious space too fast.
At the same time, we saw an even greater need
for a way that our readers could get answers --
clarifications on the wording of an article; the
straightening out of a mistake, sometimes a
statement of policy -- that would help them
understand and appreciate the product they're
paying for. "Out on a Limb," as our only vehicle
for publishing letters to the editor, began to serve
this new purpose. If some of the questions and
answers we print seem obvious or redundant to
you old-timers, try to have patience.- The number
of people who read DRAGON® Magazine has
multiplied by three or four since issue #38, and to
that not-so-silent majority, their questions are
new, and the answers are, too...

Now, finally we've re-committed some space
to the sort of thing we used to put in "Out on a
Limb," and in less than original fashion we're
calling it The Forum. I would have thought that
people like Ken would applaud The Forum;
instead, he seems upset because the column for
readers' opinions isn't called "Out on a Limb"
any more. To that, I have two things to say: First,
don't think in terms of what it's called -- think in
terms of what it is, and try to realize that the old
"Out on a Limb" isn't gone after all; it's back,
after an absence, under another name. Second,
we might just solve the whole problem anyway by
changing the names of both of our letters
columns. Any suggestions"

-- KM
(Dragon #84)

To begin with, I see no need for both the
Forum and Out on a Limb. Looking at the
remaining regular offerings of issue #83, I find
predominantly cartoons. Is the AD&D game such
a joke that we need four cartoon scripts? My
players now rip open my magazine, turn to the
cartoons and ignore the remainder.

Looking back to issue #57, I spy Leomund?s
Tiny Hut and From the Sorceror's Scroll. Is
Gary Gygax so busy that he cannot contribute an
article once per year? Issues #58-62 are particularly <#58, #59, #60, #61, #62>
noted for their in depth coverage of the
various races. With the introduction of new races,
I could foresee an infinite amount of interesting
literature.

Delving into issue #83, I enjoyed "The test of
the twins" the most. It is my belief that pieces of
fantasy such as this should be incorporated into
every issue. Since the investigation of the mind
flayer and doppleganger, I can hardly wait to turn
to the ecology. Perhaps this space could be filled
with monsters more interesting than the catoblepas,
stirge, and piercer. I'd be ecstatic to find an
ecology on the drow. <The Drow Point of View>

As an AD&D enthusiast, our best campaigns
were staged on the World of Greyhawk. Is the
World of Greyhawk non-existent? Why not
explore some of the other planes? I always find
articles on the middle ages highly interesting.
"Who lives in that castle?" (issue #80) was an
excellent article.

Enough rambling, let us breach the subject
incurring the most wrath. Being a member of our
school newspaper, I realize the importance of
advertisements. However, 20 full page ads with a
myriad of others spread throughout in a 78 page
magazine is pushing it. If TSR, boasting of
mammoth expansion, cannot afford to promote
its product without 30%-50% of advertisements,
something is seriously wrong. The greatest improvement
of DRAGON has been not between
the covers, but the covers themselves. I challenge
you to justify the disturbing trends in the past ten
magazines. Contrary to past articles where you
have torn the authors apart, I believe that it
would be far more difficult for you to defeat these
convictions.

Tom McCarthy
North Adams, Mass.
(Dragon #86)
 

Thanks for the many nice things you did say,
Tom, even if some of them were like delivering a
fistful of flowers with a right cross. I appreciate
the compliments, but I won’t dwell on them, and
I don’t think you expect me to argue with you
about what you like.

As for what you don't like, let’s take it from the
top. You answered your own criticism about why
we print so many cartoons — people like them. I
pass out magazines at home every month, and I’d
probably flip out on the spot if the kids did anything
but turn to the cartoons first. I’m sorry that
your players “ignore the remainder,” but that
doesn’t have anything to do with the cartoons.

Yes, Gary Gygax is so busy. And if he could
provide one column a year, we’d still get gripes
from people who want two or three or twelve. I
am just as sorry as you that Gary’s name doesn’t
appear in print very often any more, but that’s
neither our fault nor his, and not something we
can rightfully be criticized for. Your comment
about coverage of “the various races” is ill-considered,
because our long-ago “in depth
coverage” dealt almost exclusively with player
character races, and no new player character
races have been created in the meantime.

I guess I can figure out what you mean by
“more interesting” monsters as the subject of
ecology articles, but I think you're missing the
point of the series at the same time. You will
never see an “ecology of the drow” because the
dark elves are more than “just” a monster type
— that’s a race which has its own subculture, and
which (if we ever cover it in detail) will be done    <The Drow Point of View>
in a manner much more extensive than our
standard ecology presentation. For similar reasons,
you will probably never see the ecology of
the storm giant or the ecology of the hobgoblin,
for instance. For monsters of those types, the
issues that need addressing don't pertain so much
to their physical makeup but instead to their
society, their culture, and their status as civilizations
within the AD&D game universe. It’s hard
to fully describe the difference without going in to
cumbersome detail, but I think you can see what
I mean.

We haven't published a lot of material for
people with campaigns based in Greyhawk, I’ll
admit — but where was it ever written that
people needed more material? If you play the
Greyhawk campaign on the continent of Oerth as
outlined in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK™
Fantasy Setting, you’ve got what you need already
in that product. If you want to use that
world as a foundation and modify it, you get a
magazine’s worth of ideas every month on how to
do that. Just because an article doesn’t say
“Greyhawk” in it doesn't mean it can't be used
by someone who runs that type of campaign.

For the record, we have explored other planes. <link>
And as I wrote in issue #82, we’re actively seeking
other manuscripts of that sort. I’ve been
saying this for longer than most people have been
reading this magazine, and it should be obvious
even if you haven’t read it before: We can’t print
what no one writes.

With all due respect, you can't learn the importance
of advertisements by working on a
school newspaper, and you can’t get away with
making gross assumptions about the publishing
business based on that sort of experience. The
revenue from advertising has helped to keep the
price of this magazine at the same level for four
years. The amount of space we “spend” on ads is
comparable to many other magazines of the same
size and circulation, and less than many others.
And even with “30%-50% of advertisements,”
you're still getting more non-advertising material
in every issue than any other gaming magazine
— at an equal or lower price.

I don’t expect that this has defeated any of
your convictions, Tom; the only person who can
<CHANGE> your mind is you.

— KM
(Dragon #86)

My question is this: If a letter is not printed in
your magazine, will it still be answered, and if so
will it be typed on Dragon letterhead? I would
greatly appreciate any information you could give
me about this.
Andy Bowles
Litchfield, Ill.
(Dragon #88)
 

If anyone representing DRAGON® Magazine
answers a letter from a reader, you can bet that
response will be signed, even if it’s only a “KM”
or “RM” at the end of one of the passages in this
column. I can‘t speak for Mr. Gygax, but I really
can‘t imagine him sending an unsigned letter to
anyone, either.

I also can’t imagine him or anyone else who
represents this company writing a letter on ordinary
paper. The letters we send out are either
typed on actual letterhead or they’re computer
printouts that are still unmistakeably identifiable
as coming from (in this case) someone on the
magazine staff.

No, we don‘t answer every letter that we don‘t
publish, but if we do send a response, we sure
aren’t going to conceal who wrote it or where it
came from. It sounds to me like someone tried to
pull a fast one on you, Andy — and I do mean
“tried.”

— KM
(Dragon #88)

David Heys
Scarborough, Ont., Canada
(Dragon #89)
 

We'd like to be able to offer copies of our cover
art for sale, for two pretty obvious reasons: The
artwork is good stuff, and we could probably
make a decent hunk of money by offering prints
or posters of the most popular pieces. But we
can't do it, for one not-so-obvious reason: We
don't have the right to reproduce the paintings in
any other form.

We purchase first reproduction rights to the
cover paintings we publish -- we can use the art
once, but that's it. The original artwork and all
other rights remain the possession of the artist.
We could offer to buy the right to make prints or
posters, but chances are that many of the artists
we work with wouldn't be willing to sell those
rights -- and those who did agree would (quite
rightfully) want a lot more money.

David and all the other people who've written
letters to us on this subject seem to be under the
mistaken impression that we own the cover art we
publish. I honestly wish we did, but such is not
the case. Unfortunately, we'll all have to be
satisfied with seeing the artwork on the cover and
nowhere else, unless the creator of a painting
takes matters into his or her own hands and
markets prints or posters independently. If we
ever get word that one of our covers is being
offered for sale like this, you can be sure we'll let
you know.

-- KM
(Dragon #89)

So, my suggestion to you is to maybe update
the facts and statistics in the form of new magical
and biological breakthroughs. My fellow AD&D
players and I would be very grateful.

Elan Cole
Huntington, N.Y.
(Dragon #89)
 

To address this subject clearly and honestly, we
have to leave the realm of fantasy as it applies to
gaming and enter the world of reality as it applies
to writing. I’ll use the ecology articles as a general
example, and try to explain why some of the
“facts” can't be pinned down.

A writer who tries to fill in details about an
obscure or complicated creature sometimes
doesn't have a lot to go on, and logical reasoning
can only carry a theory so far. If a writer characterizes
a certain piece of information as unknown
or undetermined, that usually means he wasn't
able or willing to stretch his reasoning or make a
guess to arrive at an answer. We don't let writers
get away with that very often, or else the ecology
articles would be so bland they wouldn't be worth
printing. But we'd rather have someone say that
a fact is undeterminable rather than have him
make an off-the-wall assumption just because he
felt the issue had to be decided one way or the
other.

Will the "blank spots" ever be filled in? Probably
not, or at least not unless we get the benefit of
some insight about the nature of a creature that
didn't get included in its official description. The
only way a breakthrough of knowledge can be
achieved is if some additional knowledge can be
gained upon which to base some more assumptions
and theories. Since the knowledge we already
have about AD&D® game monsters is all
we're liable to get, any ecology article we publish
contains all the breakthroughs you're likely to
read.

-- KM
(Dragon #89)

One good turn . . .
--
Dear Editor:
I just discovered your magazine and think it is
great. Now that I have complimented you, I need
a favor. I understand that many of your old issues
are sold out, so all you have to do is make a
photocopy of all the pages from those old issues
and send them off to me. If you do this for me, I
will buy another copy of your magazine next
month and maybe write you another nice
letter.

Howe Audacious
Greedy Hollow, Ariz.
(Dragon #96)
 

Dear Howe:
I can't say how nice it was to hear from you.
As soon as your letter arrived, all us of dropped
whatever we were doing, commandeered all the
photocopy machines in the company, and spent
three days making you a complete set of all the
old issues. Look for a large truck to back up into
your driveway one of these days and drop off an
enormous crate. All the old issues will be inside
-- we promise.

The Editor
(Dragon #96)
 

Point of contention
-
Dear People:
You usually do a pretty good job, but I think I
found a pretty bad mistake in this month's issue.
My copy has the usual 96 pages, but all of them
are duplicates of the table of contents. If you
don't send me a good copy, I'll have to go to the
library across the street from my house and
permanently borrow one of theirs. They get a
whole lot of copies, and I'll bet you never send
them bad ones.

Vic Timm
Pickton, Me
(Dragon #96)
 

Mister Editor:
The strangest thing has happened. Your magazine
is very popular here in town, and we have to
maintain 96 separate subscriptions to meet the
demand. (A lot of boys accidentally take them
home inside their schoolbooks, and other copies
seem to get lost at home after they are checked
out.) Well, this month all 96 of the magazines
arrived as usual, but not a single one of them had
a table of contents page in it. Can you suggest
how we might solve this problem, so we won't
have to deal with complaints from people who are
forced to steal defective magazines?

Mrs. C. Date
Public Library
Pickton, Me.
(Dragon #96)
 

Dear Mrs. Date:
A word to the wise should be sufficient: Do it
to Timm before he does it to you.

The Editor
(Dragon #96)
 

Free thinker
-
Dear Editor:
My lifelong dream is to have you publish a
letter from me in your forum section, but I do
understand that you can't just publish every letter
you get. I've noticed that every letter you publish
seems to be expressing an opinion. I'd like to be
able to do that, too, but I just can't decide what
any of my opinions should be. Can you please
give me some tips on how to get opinions? Should
I take the first ones that come along, or should I
shop around for some really good ones that fit
me?

Andy Cisive
Whichever, WA
(Dragon #96)
 

Dear Andy:
Those are both good ideas, but we think you
should make up your own mind.

The Editor
(Dragon #96)
 

Two quick questions
-
Dear Editor:
First of all, are you an expert on the rules?
Second of all, how would you handle this rule
problem: My best friend has a 99th-level magicuser
that just earned his 34,125,001th experience
point and wants to go to 100th level. I, as DM,
tried to make a ruling that there could be no such
thing as a 100th-level character, feeling that there
has to be a limit somewhere. Besides, the character
record sheet we use in my campaign only has
space for a two-digit number under "Level." My
best friend got mad at me, and said just because
it was my world didn't mean I could do everything
the way I wanted. When I designed that
record sheet, I never dreamed that a character
would get as high as 100th level -- but we have
been running this campaign for almost three
months now, and I sure didn't think it would last
this long. Can you give me some advice on this
problem?

Timothy Id
Feeling, Ill.
(Dragon #96)
 

Dear Tim:
First of all, no.

The Editor
(Dragon #96)
 

LETTERS

Well, not really. This month, the Letters
column should more properly be called “Answers.”
We decided to spend some space in issue
#100 to deal with some questions that get asked a
lot (or that we suspect get asked a lot), but which
don’t fit well into the format of our regular Letters
column.

Two qualifications before we start: First, you
should understand that a lot of statements in
these answers are expressed in absolute terms for
the sake of brevity, and we don’t necessarily
mean them to be taken entirely at face value. In
other words, assume the word “usually” in front
of every verb. Second, the statements and opinions
expressed here are the sole responsibility of
the Editor-in-Chief and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of TSR, Inc., my boss, or
anybody else who isn’t me. And now, the first
envelope . . .

Why didn't you answer the letter I wrote?
Our reasons for not answering a letter are just
about as numerous as your reasons for writing
one. The major causes boil down to these:

-- You asked us about something we aren't
qualified to talk about, such as a game or other
product put out by TSR, Inc. For instance, this
is not the place to direct questions or observations
about The Book of Marvelous Magic, or about a <link>
TSR module for the AD&D® or D&D® game. We
can't help anyone with questions like "Where can
I get a copy of issue #13?" or "How much is my
copy of issue #2 worth?" or with other similar
questions pertaining to out-of-print back issues.
We don't hand out information on other departments
and sections of TSR, Inc.; if you want to
submit your novel, write to the book department,
and if you want to solicit an assignment to illustrate
a module, then contact the people in the art
department. This category covers a lot more
ground than these examples indicate -- please
understand that our sphere of knowledge is
relatively limited. We can't take the time to dig
up answers that we can't quickly provide, and we
won't speculate about things we don?t know
about.

-- You asked a question that has also been
asked by several other people, and for which we
intend to publish an answer in the magazine. The
best recent example of this is the avalanche of
letters we got pertaining to the druid/ranger
alignment problem; Frank Mentzer has answered
all of those letters in one fell swoop in the article
that begins on page 9 of this issue.

-- You didn't enclose a self-addressed, stamped
envelope with your letter. We do respond to some
letters that come in without SASEs, and we don't
always answer letters that do have SASEs. In
general, the content of your letter will be the
major factor in determining whether it gets
answered, but your chances of hearing back from
us are better if you send an SASE.

Why did it take so long to get an answer?
Nobody has actually asked this question, but
I?ll bet that most of the people who've written to
us have thought it. The stock answer, of course, is
"We're busy?" but who isn't? I figured that a
short description of our work schedule would help
everyone who has received an answer understand
why it was so long in coming, and it will serve as
fair warning for anyone who might write in the
months to come.

Our schedule runs on a cycle that repeats itself
about every four weeks, and we keep track of
time in a backward fashion. The day after we
send an issue off to the printer is not "deadline
plus 1," it's "deadline minus 29." For Roger
Moore and me, at least two weeks out of every
four are spent in production -- that is, doing
things that contribute directly to making the next
deadline. During that production time, we have
little if any opportunity to dig into manuscripts,
art submissions, and other correspondence. (In
addition to what he does for this magazine, Pat
Price also has to contend with getting an issue of
AMAZING® Science Fiction Stories out the door
every 60 days. I won't even try to explain what
his schedule is like.)

So, what that leaves us with is two weeks -- at
most -- out of every month to deal with four
weeks' worth of articles, letters, and art samples.
Obviously, it's a losing battle. I consider myself
caught up if I can get to the point where I'm
answering letters that arrived three weeks previously,
and I don't get caught up very often.

Manuscript evaluation lags even farther behind
than regular correspondence, because it often
takes almost as much time for us to evaluate an
article submission as it took the author to write it.
If you get an answer back on your submission
within six weeks from the time you sent it to us,
then you must have hit us at a good time. Or else
your submission was very good . . . or very bad.

It's essentially a simple process, but on a oneby-
one basis, decisions about particular manuscripts
are often very complex. If we don't accept
or reject something outright, we'll ask the author
to revise his submission and will usually give a
fair amount of specific advice on how we think it
could be expanded, shortened, or improved --
but without making any promise that the revised
manuscript will automatically be accepted.

Fiction manuscripts start their journey at Pat
Price's desk. He reads them and shows the good
ones to me and, on occasion, Roger, too. The
process is pretty much the same as for article
manuscripts, except that we hardly ever ask for
revisions to a fiction submission: If it isn't right
for us exactly as written, we send it back, perhaps
with a suggestion to show it to other publishers.

How do you handle an art submission?
At least ninety percent of the art submissions
we receive come to my desk initially, and most of
them go back out in the mail without being seen
by anyone else.

Like most publishers, we get a lot more solicitations
from artists than we could ever hope to
take advantage of. Unlike most publishers I know
of, we get approached by quite a few people who
are starting out along the road that they hope will
lead to a career in illustration. One of the most
unpleasant aspects of my job is being the bearer
of bad tidings to the vast majority of the artists
who show us samples of their work (just as I'm
sure Roger doesn't enjoy sending rejection letters
to writers).

Practically all of the people who get their
artwork published in the magazine nowadays are
artists with a few years of professional experience.
We're not prejudiced in favor of established
professionals, but when we have a choice between
working with someone who's starting out and
someone who has already traveled down the road,
well . . . . what would you choose?

When we run across a submission from someone
whose style and technical expertise compare
favorably with what we've been publishing, we
send back a more-or-less positive response that
says, in so many words, we like your stuff and
there's a possibility that we'll get back to you in
the future with a proposal for an assignment to
illustrate an article or a short story. (Virtually all
of the interior artwork we use is done on assignment;
we don't usually try to make "off-therack
" illustrations work -- because they hardly
ever do.)

Sometimes we decline an artist's solicitation
even if the style and technique displayed in the
samples are of professional quality, because that
style and technique just aren't appropriate for us.
And all too often we are forced to send back
samples submitted by someone who obviously (in
our estimation) hasn't been working at the craft
long enough to develop and mature. We try to be
encouraging, without sugar-coating our criticism,
and we hope that everyone who receives a turndown
takes it in the same spirit it was given.

Are the articles in the magazine just as
"good" as the rules in the books?
Yes . . . and no. The key word in this question
is in quotation marks because it has at least two
different meanings that can be applied here. The
articles we accept and publish are just as well
thought out, just as logical and sensible, and just
as usable within the context of a game or campaign
as the rules of the game itself -- so, yes,
they are just as "good" as the rules.

But, at the same time, they aren't actual
additions to the rules. You, as the DM, can
incorporate the ideas or the substance of a DM-oriented
article into the game that you run for
your friends. You, as a player, can (with the prior
knowledge and consent of your DM) use an
article directed primarily at players to make your
character, or your playing technique, different in
some way from what the rules of the game provide
for. But in neither case are you actually
changing the rules of the game you play -- and,
in this respect, the suggestions and guidelines
offered in an article are not as "good" as the
rules that the article was inspired by or derived
from.

Let's use the MONOPOLY® game for an
analogy. The rules of that game dictate that the
"Free Parking" space is just that -- a place
where nothing good or bad happens to you. Yet
some people like to throw a lot of the bank's
proceeds into a pot that is picked up by the next
player who lands on "Free Parking." (Maybe the
space should then be called "Free Lunch.") If a
group of players uses this variant rule, you certainly
can't (and shouldn't try to) tell them that
they aren't playing a MONOPOLY game. But if
they enter a sanctioned MONOPOLY competition,
they'll find out that there's no such thing as
a Free Lunch (unless the regulations of the competition,
for some reason, specify otherwise).
That doesn't mean that the Free Lunch variant is
"bad" -- but it's not a rule, and not everyone is
obliged to play that way.

So it is with a magazine article that suggests a
way to "improve" the game you play. If you like
it, use it. (That is, after all, what we're here for.)
If you don't, turn the page. In either case, the
rules of the game you play haven't changed.

Why don't you make posters of your cover
art?
When we pay an artist for the privilege of
reproducing a painting on the cover, all we purchase
is the right to use that painting one time,
for one specific purpose. Sure, we could draw up
a contract that allowed for the possibility that we
would want to make a poster of the painting at a
later date, and if so, we would make a second
payment to the artist.

Sounds easy -- and it wouldn't be much more
difficult than it sounds. However, we aren't in the
poster business. (I was going to try not to answer
any of these questions with "THAT'S THE WAY it is,"
but . . . that is the way it is.) The reasons why we
aren't have a lot to do with the workings of big
business (which is another thing I promised
myself I wouldn't talk about). Many of the stores
that sell the magazine don't carry posters, so
we'd have to develop a different distribution
network for them. And even if we had enough
poster outlets rounded up, we would have no way
of knowing ahead of time which, and how many,
paintings to make into posters. A lot of people
might like a painting that appears on the cover of
a $3.00 magazine, but how many of them would
like to spend another few bucks to put an oversized
reproduction of the same artwork on their
wall? (If anyone out there can guarantee a pleasant
answer to that question, I'm sure our marketing
department would like to see your resume.)

Simply put, we don't do it because we aren't
sure we’d make enough money on the effort to
make it worth doing, from a business standpoint.
Someday, maybe, we’ll give it a try, and maybe
we’ll find out that we had nothing to worry about
in the first place. In the meantime you’ll have to
be content, just as we are, with seeing your
favorite paintings on the cover of your favorite
magazine.

How do you decide what goes into a Best of
DRAGON anthology?
In each of the three BOD’s I’ve been involved <BD1, BD2, BD3>
with producing, the first and foremost consideration
has been reader desire — we reprint what
you want to see, not necessarily what we think
are the “best” articles we’ve done. The decisions
aren’t based on how many people write to say
they like an article when it’s printed (although we
do enjoy the kind words); instead, they’re based
on requests from people who want us to reprint
an article from an issue they don’t have, or from
people who say, “Why don’t you do an article on
so-and-so?” — when “so-and-so” happens to be
a subject we covered in an old issue.

One of the incidental advantages of an anthology
is being able to produce a group of related
stories in a package, so that you don’t have to leaf
through a pile of magazines to get all the information
you want. That was one of the motivations
behind our reprinting of Roger Moore’s
excellent “Point of View” series in the Best of
DRAGON anthology, Vol. III.

And sometimes we like to give you a look at
the way things were, a sampling of the sorts of
subjects that were filling up the magazine before
most of you even knew it existed. That was part
of the reason for the collection of articles by Gary
Gygax that graced the pages of Vol. II — the
thoughts of the man who started it all, dating
back to a time when dice was something you did
with vegetables and AC was a term referring to
electricity.

How does a letter get selected to be published
in the Letters column?
Any letter that contains what we consider to be
a legitimate question about an article, or an
observation about some aspect of the magazine,
goes into a special “Letters” file. Once a month,
just before the deadline for the upcoming issue,
we sort through what’s there and pick enough
letters to fill the space we have available. We can
never guarantee that a particular question will be
answered in print, or that a certain person’s letter
will be printed, but your chances of having your
letter published will be enhanced if at least one of
the following things is true:

— Your question or observation is phrased in a
civil, reasonable tone. We do use inflammatory,
caustic, or downright insulting letters once in a
great while, but only (heh, heh) when it serves
our purpose to do so.

— Your question or observation, if it’s a specific
one, pertains to a magazine that’s no more
than four months old when letter-picking time
comes around. (For instance, if we had used a
regular Letters column in this issue, the general
cutoff point for questions and criticisms would
have been issue #96.) This keeps the column from
getting too “stale” and gets questions answered
and issues resolved at a time when the magazine
feature that spawned the question is still fresh in
people’s minds.

Your question is one that was asked by a fair
number of people. (That way, we can be reasonably
sure that your concern was shared by a good
portion of the readership.) In such a case, we try
to use the letter from the person who got the
question to us first; promptness counts, even if
the answer to your question doesn’t show up for
three or four months after you sent it in.

We don’t print a letter as a special favor to
someone. (That’s directed at the dozen or so of
you who have written in the last few months to
say, “Please print this, because I have a bet with
my friends that I can get a letter published.“)
And we don’t take dares, such as “I dare you to
have the guts to print this.” That’s the nice thing
about having guts: When you’ve got ‘em, you
don’t have to flaunt ‘em.

How does a letter get selected to be published
in the Forum column?
Two of the general guidelines in the previous
answer apply to Forum letters as well as Letters
letters. We don’t look kindly upon insults, slander,
or letters that criticize a writer instead of
what that writer said. And your chances of getting
into print are better if your topic is relatively
timely; don’t wait three or four months to send in
your reaction to a Forum letter, or you run the
risk of buying your ticket after the train has left
the station.

As befits its name, the Forum column is a place
for two kinds of letters: those that raise new issues
and ideas, and those that respond to, rebut, or
support a letter that was published in an earlier
issue. We like to keep a discussion on a certain
topic alive for a while -- not to fan the flames of
controversy, but to give people a chance to get
their two gp's worth in. At the same time, we try
not to beat an issue into the ground and we try
not to publish two letters that say essentially the
same thing, no matter how differently the
thoughts are expressed. (If you see a letter that
sounds like your opinion translated into someone
else's words, you can safely assume that your
letter isn't going to make it in.)

At least once every two or three issues, we try
to include a letter that introduces a new topic for
continued discussion. If part of your motivation
for writing a Forum letter is to see it in print (and
it should be), then you might do well to break
some new ground or dash off a response to a topic
that has just been introduced. The longer you
wait, or the older your topic is, the greater the
chance that your letter, after being read, will
become a permanent resident of the "Old
Forum" file.

Do you read every letter you get?
YES. Absolutely every one. All the way
through. Sometimes more than once.

If you can't be sure of anything else, you can
be sure of this: If your letter gets delivered, it gets
read -- and kept. We can only print a small
fraction of all the letters we receive, but every one
we read has some amount of influence on how we
do what we do. (If you could hear the number of
times I start a sentence with "We get a lot of
letters from people who . . ." then you'd know
what I mean.)

Every one of you who has written, or will
write, deserves credit -- not only for making the
effort to send a letter, but for making that effort
in the face of overwhelming odds against that
letter being published. For as long as I've been in
control of deciding what we print, we have had a
policy of not publishing letters that are written
solely for the purpose of complimenting the
magazine and its contributors. (When you spend
a lot of time patting yourself on the back, the best
you can hope for is a sore arm.) But, over the
years, that hasn't stopped hundreds of you from
dropping us short notes -- and long ones -- to
make sure that we know you appreciate the
product we put out. If you got letters like the ones
we get, you'd read 'em all, too.

How do you decide what articles to put in
each issue?
Well, as we log in each accepted manuscript,
we assign it a number. Then, when issue planning
time rolls around, we get out the dice.

But seriously, folks . . . a fair amount of
thought does go into figuring out what we would
like to run in each issue. The first consideration,
obviously, is what we have in the "to be published
" pile: Once upon a time we tried printing
an article that no one had written yet, and it
wasn't very exciting reading.

After assessing what's on hand, we make
preliminary selections with the intention of (a)
satisfying your continual demand for articles on
certain games that we, and you, consider top
priority -- the AD&D® game and the MARVEL
SUPER HEROES game, to name the two most
prominent examples -- and (b) providing, when
we can, a little bit of variety with an occasional
historical piece or an article or two on lowe-rpriority
games.

With a total readership of better than 300,000
people every month, DRAGON® Magazine
cannot possibly please everyone at the same time.
What we do try to do is provide the greatest good
for the greatest number -- and even that approach
is ultimately doomed to fail. We get letters
every month saying that the most recent issue was
the best yet, and we get letters saying that the
same issue was worse than most. Fortunately, the
first group outnumbers the second -- and as long
as that continues to be true, we'll continue to
operate the way we do.

Is the Roger Moore on your staff the same as
Roger Moore the movie star?

Nope. Our Roger Moore once got an offer to
play James Bond, but he decided to hold out for
the role of Mr. Fantastic. He's still waiting.

One out of three
Dear Dragon:
What happens to old issues of DRAGON that
are no longer available?

What would happen if I sent in an order form
from issue #71, ordering issues not available in
my latest issue?

Is there any way that I can get a copy of the
astral article in #67?
    George Embley
    Cape May, N.J.

Dear George:
Nothing. They don‘t exist.

Nothing. They don‘t exist.

Not unless we reprint it in a future anthology
— and the chances of that are good, since you‘re
far from the first person who has asked for a way
to get that article. — KM
 

The Next Index
Dear Editor: 
When is the next index of DRAGON Magazine 
scheduled, or is there one scheduled at all? I 
hope you don't wait too long to do it.  I think 
making an index every year or two would be 
good.  That way, it wouldn't be a huge project  like 
the last index.  Hope you consider the thought.  
    Yong Pak
    Edmonds, Wash. 
    (Dragon #107)

Funny you should ask. As a matter of fact, we
just started making plans to produce another
index in the August 1986 issue (#112). The
question of how often to put out a new index is
something that all of you will help us decide by
the way you respond to question 8 in part B of
the reader survey in this issue. -- KM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Last Word

Dear Editor:
Even though I’m sure you’ve heard it asked
many times before, why does your magazine
cost so much? It has to be the most expensive
magazine I have ever subscribed to. (Although
it is also the best one I’ve ever subscribed, to.)

Alex Jones
Marietta, Ohio
(Dragon #72)
 

Dear Mr. Alex
(You answered your own question.)

— KM
(Dragon #72)