81

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the first installment of a new
feature in DRAGON® Magazine, one which
we hope will serve our readers in two ways.
?The Forum? is a place where we can print
your opinions and observations, about
articles that we?ve published or about other
subjects or issues of a more general sort.
From now on, the ?Out on a Limb? letters
column will be reserved for short letters,
primarily those that ask direct questions
requiring a response, and ?The Forum?
will be the home for long letters containing
detailed commentary or criticism. Forum
letters will not be accompanied by direct
responses, although as time goes on their
questions and criticisms may be ?an-
swered? in some other place and some other
way in the magazine.
 

As a writer, you don?t have to be as con-
cerned any more about whether your letter
is going unnoticed. We do read every letter
we receive ? honest! ? but until now we
haven?t had a convenient way of getting
many of the long ones into print, to
?prove? that we got ?em and that we aren?t
reluctant to share them with you.
 

And, as a reader, you now have an op-
portunity, more than ever before, to find
out what sorts of things are on the minds of
the other people who share your interest in
DRAGON Magazine. Not everyone who
has an opinion or an idea also has the confi-
dence, or the time, or the skill to form that
idea into a publishable article manuscript
? but that doesn?t necessarily mean they
shouldn?t be printed anyway And that?s
what ?The Forum? is all about. Here,
printed just the way they were written, are
the thoughts that this issue?s writers want to
share with you.

* * * *

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.
(Dragon #84)

*    *    *    *

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 campaign
ideas, magic items, and monsters. “Out on
a Limb” seems naturally suited towards criticism,
while The Forum could be used more productively
as an idea exchange between DMs and players. I encourage other readers
who agree — or disagree — with my suggestion
to write in.

Peter Bregoli
Braintree, Mass
(Dragon #84)
 
 
 

* * * *

THE CHARACTER WITH 2 CLASSES
While rolling up a friendly neighborhood
arch-villain this afternoon, inspiration
struck. What would happen if I gave this
7th level assassin a single level of experience
as a fighter first? I tried it. The result pro-
duced a staggeringly powerful NPC that
exposed a serious flaw in the current
"Character With Two Classes" rule.

As many players realize, at low levels the
fighter is one of the most powerful classes
around. In fact, a first-level dungeon party
can be composed entirely of these and real-
ize no noticeable difficulties. Most fledgling
magic-users, thieves, and even clerics are
kept going only by the promise of far
greater things to come. Why, resourceful
players may reason, should the entire party
not begin as fighters and switch to the de-
sired class after one level? The DMGs
?cheating? methods for generating abilities
usually provide the high stats required to do
this. It sounds okay, but look at the results:

1. Non-fighter characters normally re-
stricted to 18 strength could receive scores
of 18/50, 18/75, or even 18/00!

2. They would receive four ?starting
weapons? immediately, as well as a gamut
of others upon beginning their new class a
mere 2,000 experience points later. As if
after this weren?t enough, they would ever
fight at only -2  for non-proficiency.

3. They would be able to obtain high hit-
point scores at low levels (why fight a giant
rat when you can take on a hydra?), throw-
ing the game off balance.

4. Upon reaching so much as second level
in their new class, things would get really
out of hand. The now non-fighters would be
able to carry all sorts of extra goodies nor-
mally restricted to fighters to prevent other.
classes from becoming self-made godlings. I
have nightmares of sword-swinging clerics
who sport girdles of giant strength, or of the
warlock with two javelins of lightning, a +3
battle axe, and a rod of lordly might stuffed
in his pack, ?just in case.?

This isn?t the only situation, either. What
about the monk with but one level of magic-
user experience who discovers a wand of
fire in some forgotten crypt. . . ?

Most players, including my own, have
not yet discovered this overly effective strat-
egy, but you can see my problem. Minimal
levels of experience in a class can bestow
such advantages that the whole ?Two
Classes? threatens to fall apart. Is there any
way to correct this rule, or to dilute some of
the superhumans it creates? What about
allowable weapons? Should a two-classed
character be permitted at all?

David Hutton
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
 

While reading through my copy of DRAGON
#81, I came across an article by David Hutton in
the Forum section concerning the power of the
character with two classes, and I felt obligated to
express my feelings on the subject.

I feel that the current system of the character
with two classes is very accurate and adds flavor
to the game. I see no evidence in what Mr. Hutton
has written that the character with two classes
is so "staggeringly powerful," as he puts it. In the
example he gives of a Cutthroat
who was once a fighter of first level, I see a
character who wasted two thousand experience
points to gain the ?benefits? of better armor in
combat, which doesn?t come in too handy if the
NPC is attempting to sneak up and assassinate
someone. If you examine the two characters, it is
obvious that an assassin has a better chance to
hit, an equal number of weapons (with just as
many to choose from), and an equal nonproficiency
penalty with his first level fighter part.
The only good which comes out of the whole deal
is that this character can use all the magic weapons
a fighter can use, instead of just most of
them, which other thieves and assassins can use.
And I would rather have an assassin in nice quiet
leather armor with a girdle of fire giant strength
than an assassin/first level fighter with a potion of
the same name.

Also, if there is still a reluctance on the part of
you DMs out there, consider this: the more the
power, the greater the risks most players can and
will usually take. In most cases, when characters
die it is because they bit off more than they can
chew. Your characters with two classes are just as
likely to make ridiculous mistakes and blunders
as are your "normal" characters. To enhance this
swelling of pride is easy; a few peasants falling on
their knees in front of the heroes pleading for
salvation from the local dragon or wizard, or a
king offering a nice, fat ransom to anyone who
can infiltrate the castle of one of his enemies
should blind the characters to all caution and
send them headlong into doom, if for no other
reason than to save their precious reputations.

One final point to consider: If the characters
are that great, sooner or later some deity will call
on them to give eternal service. Former player
characters who have been divinely called do make
great right-hand men and women for most Dungeon
Masters. . . .

Eric Odgaard
Lincoln, Neb.
(Dragon #82)
 

*    *    *    *    *
 

Some years ago, when creating the first character
I would play, a third-level magic-user, I was
distressed by how slim his chances of survival
were. Then I recalled the "Character With Two
Classes" section of the Players Handbook. Suddenly
I could create a character with a chance.

However, I still didn't have a character of great
power. In "The Forum" of DRAGON issue #81,
David Hutton said that by giving a character one
level as a fighter, one would get someone who was
"staggeringly powerful." I noticed that possibility.
However, having been a DM for some time, I
realized that such problems might be avoided
without a tremendous amount of difficulty.

The key concept in the change of class is the
amount of time necessary to spend in training for
the new class. (Lenard Lakofka thankfully detailed
this in DRAGON #51; hopefully that
article will be reprinted in BEST OF DRAGON
IV.) It is on the order of years. This tends to keep
most characters from switching. Also, with this
information the first of David's problems -- that
a character switching from fighter to another class
could cause non-fighters with 18/01 to 18/00
strength -- is easily solved. Since no other class
has the need for as much physical strength as
fighters, the muscles that were carefully honed
during fighter training, and vigorously kept up,
will go slack, say at a rate of 05 every other
month, until finally, after 18/01, a strength of 18
is reached, there to remain. (Certain exceptional
individuals might keep their muscles in shape
while training for another class, at the DM's
option. Training times would be considerably
lengthened.)

David's 2nd problem was that of weapons of
proficiency. First, he said that the fighter (first
level fighters switching to another class was his
main concern) would have 4 weapons, and
then would gain even more upon entering the
new class. Again, this is a question of training.
Most people won't spend the time and money
necessary to learn to use additional weapons (say,
darts if becoming a M-U) if they can already
wield 4 weapons (say, a long bow, a mace, a
long sword, and a two-handed sword).

He also said that they would ever after fight at
-2 for non-proficiency. This is only true to a
point. They would fight, as a first level fighter, at
-2 (assuming they switched from being a first
level fighter). As an example, let's take my favorite
character, Zephyr, a first level fighter who,
after long years as a wizard's apprentice, became
a magic-user and then gained 3 levels (this
first/third level human, having never been unnaturally
aged -- yet -- was already almost forty
years old). Let us say he found a long sword, with
which he was proficient as a (1st level) fighter.
He could use it as a 1st level proficient fighter,
or as a third level non-proficient mage, at -6
(don't tell me a mage can't swing a sword, albeit
poorly). He would, of course, swing as the
fighter. Even if it was a bastard sword, with
which he was non-proficient in both classes, he
would still attack as the fighter.

Now let's say that Zephyr, after many, many
years of adventuring, has become a 22nd level
Archmage (he hasn't). Now it is much to his
advantage to swing that +3 sword he made, as a
21+ level M-U, at -6 (as opposed to a proficient
1st level fighter).

David's 3rd problem was high HP
scores. I am not certain if he meant "scores" as
in a number of HP or "scores" as in "hits
for damage." The latter would basically rely on
exceptional strength, which we've already discussed,
so I'll address the former.

As everyone knows, a high CON can
give a character extra HP (sometimes a lot
of extra HP). Non-fighters can, at most,
only get +2 per HD, but fighters with a CON
of 18 can get +4 per HD. Add to this the
common practice of giving maximum HP
for the 1st level's HD (see Len Lakofka's
article), and one has problems. Fortunately, one
doesn't gain additional HP after changing
classes, until the level of the new class exceeds the
level of the old. 2nd, only the fighter HD
will get a +4, the others only getting +2.
Take the 1st level/3rd level fighter/M-U again.
With an 18 CON he would get 14 HP (maximum
10, +4 constitution bonus) for the fighter
level, and 6-12 HP for the M-U levels (1-4
for each level after the first, +2 CON. for each level
after the 1st), for a total of 20 to 26 HP.

Finally, David wonders what would happen if
special "classed" magic items were used by the
wrong class, say, monks using wands of fire
(because they have 1 level as a magic-user).
The wizard Zephyr wields the very highly enchanted
long sword Firefrost -- technically
speaking, it's an intelligent +5 flaming vorpal
frostbrand. And despite all that, he's more likely
to hit an opponent with a 2 gp dagger than with
Firefrost.

To sum up, the ?Character With Two Classes?
is not so much a veritable godling (like an ?official
? bard), but rather is an interesting change
from the typical stereotypes (a wizard with a
sword ? unheard of!) to a more fantastic, more
all-encompassing system wherein a character can
be what he wants to be.

Scott D. Hoffrage
Miller Place, N.Y.
(Dragon #83)

<^House Rule^: When changing class to a class that is not able to have exceptional STR, each game month, drop your exceptional STR by 5%, until 18 is reached.>
<Zephyr: fighter>MU>
 

*    *    *    *    *
 

PSIONICS
I believe the article by Mr. Schroeck in
issue #78 has pointed out a major problem
in psionics; specifically, low level characters
automatically getting their full calculated
value of psionic points rather than going
through a system of controlled progression.
I would like to present this idea for general
consideration.

According to page 3 of Eldritch Wizardry,
"Psychic Potential" is gained at 10% incre-
ments, plus or minus a bonus or penalty as
determined by a d% roll. Putting things
together with some modification, the table
could read as follows:

Psychic Potential

D% roll	Rate of progression per level
01-10	4%
11-25	5%
26-50	6%
51-75	10%
76-90	11%
91-99	12%
00	13%

This table may be usable in the current
psionic system. For illustration, let?s say a
character has a calculated psionic ability of
200 points. As Mr. Schroeck has suggested,
this would be a ?goal.? How fast will the
character progress toward this goal? We
make a d% roll on the table given above.
Let?s say the d% roll comes up 55. The
character will get 10% of 200 points, or 20
points, each level, half for attack and half
for defense. Any fractions can be rounded
up or down as the DM desires.

This table may be usable in the current
psionic system. For illustration, let?s say a
character has a calculated psionic ability of
200 points. As Mr. Schroeck has suggested,
this would be a ?goal.? How fast will the
character progress toward this goal? We
make a d% roll on the table given above.
Let?s say the d% roll comes up 55. The
character will get 10% of 200 points, or 20
points, each level, half for attack and half
for defense. Any fractions can be rounded
up or down as the DM desires.

Psionic points can fluctuate with changes
in wisdom, intelligence, or charisma. On
the other hand, the rate of progression can
remain as a fixed value or be adjusted up or
down to follow any such fluctuation. If the
initial point acquisition is low, it might
prevent usage of a discipline at 1st level. I
would not expect this problem to have much
effect on game balance.

Ed Zmitravich
Meadow, Utah
Dragon #81

*    *    *    *

Although my AD&D group has used
psionics for quite a while, there have been a
few questions along the way. The articles in
issue #78 helped to clear much of these
away. One question still: Why relate psionic
progression to class progression at all? No
doubt it lessens the DM?s ?not another item
to keep track of? blues, but I can?t find the
logic behind it. A character?s mental abili-
ties (i.e., psionics) have little relation to the
character?s class. When you realize that the
acquisition of psionic disciplines depends
upon the progression within the character?s
class and moreso upon which  class is cho-
sen, it makes even less sense.

Comparisons of the separate class pro-
gression tables shows that a druid wound
gain disciplines quicker than any other
class. Why? Logic along one line would say
that a magic-user or illusionist (who uses
naught but his/her mind normally) would
acquire them faster. Along another line of
logic, a fighter (who uses mostly his brawn
with less mind) would acquire them fastest
as the ?spell users? already have their
minds busy holding spells. Yet the druid
gains them faster than any other class be-
cause he/she is a druid. Either way you
lose.

One suggestion would be to have a sepa-
rate progression for the gaining of disci-
plines and attack/defense modes. This could
possibly be modified by the pertinent ability
scores (intelligence, wisdom, and charisma)
and/or the character?s total psionic ability
score. A bonus/penalty might be added per
the class that is chosen.

Another suggestion might be to create a
new class along the lines of Mr. Collins?
Psionicist. A character who showed  poten-
tial  (per the previous roll of the dice) could
opt for this class only  to develop the talent.
Choosing a class other than this one would
mean that the talent was never developed
and would not be available to the character.

Rodney L. Barnes
Albany, Ore.
(Dragon #81)

*    *    *    *

The issue on psionics was very well re-
ceived. There could have been more on the
political side of the psionic endowed. For
those who wish to find out more of the
political side, I suggest reading  To Ride
Pegasus  by Anne McCaffrey. The book is
very good in dealing with the psionic com-
munity and their dealings with the ?un-
gifted.? The problems they encounter are
similar to the Deryni. And with a little
imagination, a scenario could be built
around a town in need of saving from suspi-
cious neighbors. . . .

Mark Kadas
Allentown, Pa.
(Dragon #81)

*    *    *    *

In reference to Theresa Reed's letter
about male orientation published in issue
#74 of your magazine, I would like to say
that I find your articles are in general very
good, but there are occasions when they are
downright terrible. In the much maligned
issue #72, for instance, there is an article
called "A new name? It's elementary!?"
Quite handy to have for naming characters,
but what if those characters are female? I
see in this article a word for "prince," but I
see no sign of a word for ?princess.? Simi-
larly, there are words for ?man,? ?god,?
and ?warrior, man? but the female equiva-
lents are not even mentioned.

This oversight was bad enough, but the
article about the new Duelist NPC class in
the next issue of DRAGON Magazine (#73)
was even worse. In this article the Fenc-
ingmaster's school is described as a "male
gossip shop" and there is no hint whatso-
ever of the female pronoun throughout the
entire article. It is true that the profession
on which the Duelist NPC class is based
was entirely made up of males, but that is
no reason for it to be limited in the AD&D
world. After all, fighters, cavaliers, and
most thieves were male, but Gary Gygax
has had the good sense not to restrict the
game in that area, and in so doing has
attracted many women to the game. (No
doubt many men find the "him/her," "he/
she" approach of Mr. Gygax's writing
cumbersome, but women resent being
referred to as "he," just as most men would
resent being referred to as "she.")

There are a few other examples I could
give of this male orientation, but as they are
relatively minor I won't cloud over the
major issue by getting picky. I would like to
emphasize, however, that I do not want
articles written from the female perspective.
They are just as bad as articles written from
the male perspective, as they too alienate a
large proportion of the readership. What I
do want is for all articles to be written from,
an unbiased perspective.

Elizabeth Perry
Wellington, New Zealand
(The Forum, Dragon #81)

P.S. Sorry this letter came so late after the
subject of male orientation was raised, but
issue #74 only arrived in this remote part of
the prime material plane three weeks ago.
 

Many moons ago (in DRAGON issue #74)
Theresa Reed wrote a letter to the editor stating
that she felt that DRAGON Magazine was
?ignoring? women. I have played AD&D
for two years and read the magazine for
nearly as long, and I do not feel that AD&D
is a ?male-oriented? game, nor is
DRAGON a ?male-oriented? magazine.
For example, in the Players Handbook,
most of the entries that can refer to
either male or female characters are stated
as ?his or her.? I also think that a slight
strength penalty for female characters is not
sexist; it is actually rather generous, if you
consider that the AD&D game is based on a
medieval society, in which women were
rarely allowed out of the house! Compare
this to a game like the one described in the
book Fantasy Wargaming, in which female
player characters suffer penalties such as -2
to charisma and -3 to social class!

I must also commend DRAGON Magazine
for its fairness. The women we frequently
see on the covers of the magazine
have been anything but weak and helpless,
and are certainly clad in more than chainmail
bikinis. I can even remember that one
old issue of DRAGON contained an article <Dungeons aren't supposed to be 'for men only'>
which strongly discouraged the use of rape
and pregnancy in campaigns.

Laurel Golding
Grosse Ile, Mich.
(Dragon #82)
 
 
 

CONVENTIONS
I would like to discuss two items that may or
may not be related, depending upon a particular
point of view: DRAGONmagazine 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 virtually
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 preregistration
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 plundered
this treasure trove of game tournaments,
seminars, exhibits, art shows, ad infinitum, and
turned your magazine into a complete publication
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 magazines
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 readers
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 convention
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)

*    *    *    *

I'm shocked at the RPGA Ranking System. <link>
All points of it are well thought out except the
placement of fun as a bonus point area when fun
is the only reason I play. If the players are boring
the game is boring, no matter how well they
execute their characters? actions of work together.

James Brewer
Lebanon, Pa.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I found some cause for disagreement in Ka-
tharine Kerr?s December article, "Who lives in
that castle?"

Contrary to what Ms. Kerr states, the average
serf did not live in a constant state of near-
starvation, except in times of drought and fam-
ine, when  everyone  tightened his belt. Serfs ate
quite well, if somewhat monotonously. While the
lord and his guests dined on such delicacies as
peacock (very tough, I?ve heard, and served more
for its looks than taste) and other game, rare
foods and spices such as pepper, white bread, and
sweets . . . his serfs were downing copious
amounts of ye olde standbye ? potage (pea
soup), cassoulet (bean and sausage stew), por-
ridge, bacon, eggs, black bread, and any small
game he managed to poach without getting
caught.

A smart lord would not take so much that his
serfs would starve. After all, it?s bad land man-
agement ? a  serf who is dead or otherwise too
weak to work is not getting his lord any richer.

Nicki Perdue
Morgan Hill, Calif.

*    *    *    *

Both EGG and Ed Greenwood have suggested
that the Nine Hells be stripped of non-devil
deities, which begs the question of where to put
absolute lawful evil deities who aren?t devils.

Actually, the problem extends through all the
afterlife planes, inasmuch as there are far more
pantheons of gods in any alignment than there
are known planes. If we discard the basic axiom
of the afterlife astral planes, however, we can
easily dispose of the problem and not really affect
the known planes too much in playability.

As it stands, there is one afterlife plane per
major and/or minor alignment, with official stats
given for 16 of the 25 possible alignments. If we
remove this concept and say that there is (with
exceptions) one afterlife plane per manifestation
of godhead and these planes have alignments, the
current problems disappear. In the case of the
Nine Hells, those nine planes occupy only a part
of what I call the Astral Space  of Absolute Lawful
Evil. Since the planes are determined by the
intersection of the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos
axes and are afterlife planes, it can be presumed
that the third dimensional axis is the Life/Death
line. (Astral continuums using the Light/Dark
axis?) The plane which orcs and goblinoids battle
for possession of lies parallel to the hells, stacked
within the Astral Space of lawful evil, along with
the planes ruled by other lawful evil deities.

Removing the one-plane-to-a-customer rule
makes it easier to make the astral planes able to
be consistent with established mythology. Olym-
pus can and should be in the same astral space as
either the Twin Paradises or the Seven Heavens.
The Greeks and Romans had civilized (lawful)
societies, and their gods should reflect that.
 

It might be convenient to name the 25 spaces,
but caution should be used to have names which
do not reflect any particular inhabitant of the
space. Mr. Greenwood used the phrase ?The
Infernal Regions? in his article when talking
about the various hells of legend and literature,
and I for one nominate it for the name of the
Absolute Lawful Evil space.

S. D. Anderson
Whittier, Calif.

*    *    *    *

I?m glad to hear you?re allowing more space
for readers? opinions in DRAGON. I?m also very
glad to hear that you call such opinions ?letters,?
as letters can be handwritten while other manu-
scripts have to be typed, and I hate to type. So,
here?s my opinion on one question ? I trust it
will be legible.

Why There's No Such Thing as an Anti-
Paladin:

Gods differ greatly in how easy it is to serve
them. The lawful good gods are the hardest to
serve, since their service goes against so many of
our natural instincts. A couple of examples:

Self-preservation.  Modern policemen are
taught that if the choice is between shooting the
villain when the shots might hurt innocent by-
standers, or holding your tire and maybe getting
shot yourself, you  don’t shoot.  And if an evil man
takes hostages and demands that you surrender
or he?ll kill them, you surrender. (Of course, you
may negotiate, but not to the point where he kills
one of them to add to the pressure.) A chaotic or
neutral good character might argue that killing
the hostage-takers, no matter what happens to th
hostages, will ultimately be the better course in
that it will deter future hostage-takers. A lawful
evil or neutral character might argue that every-
one is responsible for their own actions, so if the
hostages were dumb enough to get captured,
that?s their worry; I?ll just kill the villains. But
neither of these is the lawful good way. For the
lawful good character, defense of the innocent
must come first; self-preservation is secondary.

Self-enrichment:  Too much wealth in the hands
of too few people is a hallmark of lawful evil ?
get all you can and hold onto it, and don?t think
about all the impoverished peasants who average
your money out. Lawful good people can live
comfortably, but any extra money goes to im-
prove the lot of their less fortunate fellow crea-
tures. Hoarding and ?flaunting it? are alike evil
traits; lawful good people take what they deserve
and need, but no more. They are good as well as
lawful.

I could go on ? for one thing, I haven?t
touched on when killing (i.e., vengeance) is
justifiable  ? but you should have the picture by
now. Being lawful good requires great restraint
and goes contrary to many of our basic instincts.

Therefore, the lawful good gods give considera-
ble benefits to their more loyal followers, both as
inducements to serve them by following this
basically unnatural way, and as rewards for
arduous services (suitable recompense for services
rendered is definitely a lawful good virtue).

Now, consider how one serves the cause of
chaotic evil. It?s a  lot  easier. If you have foes, you
can kill them, torture them, enslave them, or do
what you will. If innocent bystanders get you
don?t care. You can pile up all the money you
want, not caring how many people get impover-
ished in the process. In short, being chaotic evil
places you under no restraints whatever. It?s  fun
(for those with the ?right? ? by which I mean
wrong  — mentality, of which there are very
many). So why would the chaotic evil gods want
to reward one for having fun?

And  that’s why there is no such thing as an
anti-paladin (or an evil saint; see issue #79).

Ralph Sizer
Providence, R.I.

*    *    *    *

While reading through my copy of DRAGON
#81, I came across an article by David Hutton in
the Forum section concerning the power of the
character with two classes, and I felt obligated to
express my feelings on the subject.

I feel that the current system of the character
with two classes is very accurate and adds flavor
to the game. I see no evidence in what Mr. Hut-
ton has written that the character with two classes
is so ?staggeringly powerful,? as he puts it. In the
example he gives of an assassin of seventh level
who was once a fighter of first level, I see a
character who wasted two thousand experience
points to gain the ?benefits? of better armor in
combat, which doesn?t come in too handy if the
NPC is attempting to sneak up and assassinate
someone. If you examine the two characters, it is
obvious that an assassin has a better chance to
hit, an equal number of weapons (with just as
many to choose from), and an equal non-
proficiency penalty with his first level fighter part.
The only good which comes out of the whole deal
is that this character can use all the magic weap-
ons a fighter can use, instead of just most of
them, which other thieves and assassins can use.
And I would rather have an assassin in nice quiet
leather armor with a girdle of fire giant strength
than an assassin/first level fighter with a potion of
the same name.

Also, if there is still a reluctance on the part of
you DMs out there, consider this: the more the
power, the greater the risks most players can and
will usually take. In most cases, when characters
die it is because they bit off more than they can
chew. Your characters with two classes are just as
likely to make ridiculous mistakes and blunders
as are your ?normal? characters. To enhance this
swelling of pride is easy; a few peasants falling on
their knees in front of the heroes pleading for
salvation from the local dragon or wizard, or a
king offering a nice, fat ransom to anyone who
can infiltrate the castle of one of his enemies
should blind the characters to all caution and
send them headlong into doom, if for no other
reason than to save their precious reputations.

One final point to consider: If the characters
are that great, sooner or later some deity will call
on them to give eternal service. Former player
characters who have been divinely called  do make
great right-hand men and women for most Dun-
geon Masters. . . .

Eric Odgaard
Lincoln, Neb.

*    *    *    *

Many moons ago (in DRAGON issue #74)
Theresa Reed wrote a letter to the editor stating
that she felt that DRAGON Magazine was
?ignoring? women. I have played AD&D
for two years and read the magazine for
   nearly as long, and I do not feel that AD&D
is a ?male-oriented? game, nor  is
DRAGON a ?male-oriented? magazine.
For example, in the Players Handbook,
most of the entries that can refer to
either male or female characters are stated
as ?his or her.? I also think that a slight
strength penalty for female characters is not
sexist; it is actually rather generous, if you
consider that the AD&D game is based on a
medieval society, in which women were
rarely allowed out of the house! Compare
this to a game like the one described in the
book  Fantasy Wargaming,  in which female
player characters suffer penalties such as -2
to charisma and -3 to social class!

I must also commend DRAGON Maga-
zine for its fairness. The women we fre-
quently see on the covers of the magazine
have been anything but weak and helpless,
and are certainly clad in more than chain-
mail bikinis. I can even remember that one
old issue of DRAGON contained an article
which strongly discouraged the use of rape
and pregnancy in campaigns.

Laurel Golding
Grosse Ile, Mich.

Some years ago, when creating the first charac-
ter I would play, a third-level magic-user, I was
distressed by how slim his chances of survival
were. Then I recalled the "Character With Two
Classes" section of the Players Handbook. Sud-
denly I could create a character with a chance.

However, I still didn?t have a character of great
power. In ?The Forum? of DRAGON issue #81,
David Hutton said that by giving a character one
level as a fighter, one would get someone who was
?staggeringly powerful.? I noticed that possibility.
However, having been a DM for some time, I
realized that such problems might be avoided
without a tremendous amount of difficulty.

The key concept in the change of class is the
amount of time necessary to spend in training for
the new class. (Lenard Lakofka thankfully de-
tailed this in DRAGON #51; hopefully that
article will be reprinted in BEST OF DRAGON
IV.) It is on the order of years. This tends to keep
most characters from switching. Also, with this
information the first of David?s problems ? that
a character switching from fighter to another clas
could cause non-fighters with 18/01 to 18/00
strength ? is easily solved. Since no other class
has the need for as much physical strength as
fighters, the muscles that were carefully honed
during fighter training, and vigorously kept up,
will go slack, say at a rate of 05 every other
month, until finally, after 18/01, a strength of 18
is reached, there to remain. (Certain exceptional
individuals might keep their muscles in shape
while training for another class, at the DM?s
option. Training times would be considerably
lengthened.)

David?s second problem was that of weapons of
proficiency. First, he said that the fighter (first
level fighters switching to another class was his
main concern) would have four weapons, and
then would gain even more upon entering the
new class. Again, this is a question of training.
Most people won?t spend the time and money
necessary to learn to use additional weapons (say,
darts if becoming a M-U) if they can already
wield four weapons (say, a long bow, a mace, a
long sword, and a two-handed sword).

He also said that they would ever after fight at
-2 for non-proficiency. This is only true to a
point. They would fight, as a  first level fighter, at
-2 (assuming they switched from being a first
level fighter). As an example, let?s take my favor-
ite character, Zephyr, a first level fighter who,
after long years as a wizard?s apprentice, became
a magic-user and then gained three levels (this
first/third level human, having never been unnat-
urally aged ? yet ? was already almost forty
years old). Let us say he found a long sword, with
which he was proficient as a (first level) fighter.
He could use it as a first level proficient fighter,
or as a third level non-proficient mage, at -6
(don?t tell me a mage can?t swing a sword, albeit
poorly). He would, of course, swing as the
fighter. Even if it was a bastard sword, with
which he was non-proficient in both classes, he
would still attack as the fighter.

Now let?s say that Zephyr, after many, many
years of adventuring, has become a 22nd level
Archmage (he hasn?t). Now it is much to his
advantage to swing that +3 sword he made, as a
21+ level M-U, at -6 (as opposed to a proficient
first level fighter).

David?s third problem was high hit point
scores. I am not certain if he meant ?scores? as
in a number of hit points or ?scores? as in ?hits
for damage.? The latter would basically rely on
exceptional strength, which we?ve already dis-
cussed, so I?ll address the former.

As everyone knows, a high constitution can
give a character extra hit points (sometimes  a lot
of extra hit points). Non-fighters can, at most,
only get +2 per hit die, but fighters with a consti-
tution of 18 can get +4 per hit die. Add to this the
common practice of giving maximum hit points
for the first level?s hit die (see Len Lakofka?s
article), and one has problems. Fortunately, one
doesn?t gain additional hit points after changing
classes, until the level of the new class exceeds the
level of the old. Second, only the fighter hit dice
will get a +4, the others only getting +2. Take the
first level/third level fighter/M-U again. With an
18 constitution he would get 14 hit points (maxi-
mum 10, +4 constitution bonus) for the fighter
level, and 6-12 hit points for the M-U levels (1-4
for each level after the first, +2 con. for each level
after the first), for a total of 20 to 26 hit points.

Finally, David wonders what would happen if
special ?classed? magic items were used by the
wrong class, say, monks using wands of fire
(because they have one level as a magic-user).
The wizard Zephyr wields the very highly en-
chanted long sword Firefrost ? technically
speaking, it?s an intelligent +5 flaming vorpal
frostbrand. And despite all that, he?s more likely
to hit an opponent with a 2 gp dagger than with
Firefrost.

To sum up, the ?Character With Two Classes?
is not so much a veritable godling (like an ?offi-
cial? bard), but rather is an interesting change
from the typical stereotypes (a wizard with a
sword ? unheard of!) to a more fantastic, more
all-encompassing system wherein a character can
be what he wants to be.

Scott D. Hoffrage
Miller Place, N.Y.

* * * * *

REVIEWS

Issue #81 was great, but I take exception to an
article that I have always considered my favorite:
the game reviews. Ken Rolston is generally a
very good reviewer, but here I think he gave too
much away concerning the scenarios.

"Call of Cthulhu" is a game which must have
almost complete secrecy. Things such as revealing
the deity (Cthulhu) or telling that there is an
exploding door and a shoggoth in scenario two
does not work well in this game system (or any
other, for that matter). Giving away important
facts takes away the horror from the scenarios.

"Ravenloft" was not such a giveaway, but I
still think some fun will be taken out of the scenario.
I know I won't have as much fun as I
would have now that I've read the review.

In further issues, review either new games or
supplements -- but please don't give away hints
like shoggoths and death traps. Reviews are
needed to express a writer's opinion (a well
valued one); however, reviews should not give
away plots or hints. Ken Rolston is an excellent
writer -- but this time maybe he wrote just a bit
too much.
 

Jon Paulson
River Falls, Wis.
(Dragon #85)

Mr. Rolston's response:
Jon,

It's difficult to make public judgments without
citing specific examples. I have to balance the
damage of revealing one or two plot elements
against the virtue of communicating and substantiating
my judgment for the reader.

I agree with you that where the element of
suspense is critical, details should not be revealed.
I even agree that the specific references in the
review of Shadows of Yog-Sothoth should have
been less explicit.

I propose one possible solution to this problem,
subject to the editor's approval. In future adventure
reviews I will warn readers when I'm about
to discuss specific adventure details. ("<WARNING:>
The following explicit discussion of plot elements
may diminish a player's pleasure if he anticipates
participating in this adventure.") I also suggest
that such explicit discussions of plot elements be
printed in italics, to make it easier for the reader
to skip sections that he wants to avoid. [Editor's
note: Sounds like it's worth a try]
 

Thank you for bringing this matter to my
attention. Review readers should regularly give
reviewers feedback on the usefulness of their
reviews. Writers address an INVISIBLE and inaudible
audience as they sit typing their articles. To
see and hear what you have to say helps us directly
address the needs of our reading audience.

Ken Rolston
Tabor, N. J.
(Dragon #84)
 

* * * * *

Rules and reasons
To put things in alignment terms: The
Forum has been rather chaotic since it
began, but now it's going to start exhibiting
some lawful tendencies.

First, the rules. To have the best chance
of being published, a letter to The Forum
should be no longer than about 250
words, or roughly one page of doublespaced
typewriting. You should make your
point clearly and briefly. If you exceed the
250-word limit, you must be able to convince
us (by the content of the letter, not
by some sort of cover letter) that you
couldn't avoid going over.

We will publish your name and full
mailing address if you put that information
at the bottom of the letter; otherwise,
we?ll refer to you by only your name and
home town (as we have been doing for
everyone up to now). Whether you want it
published or not, you must include your
full mailing address somewhere on the
first page of your letter. We will not publish
a letter signed with a name that we
suspect is not your real name (such as
"Lord Babbalon"), and we will not print a
letter from a writer who requests that his
name be withheld.

Don't try to cover more than one subject
in a single letter, even if you think you can
handle two topics and still stay within the
word limit. We will give preference to
letters that concern only one topic ? so if
you have more than one thing to say, write
more than one letter.

We reserve the right to edit letters for
the sake of fitting our space limitations,
but we will not edit a letter to make it
more comprehensible or less offensive. We
won't print letters that, in our opinion,
don't make sense or are abusive, insulting,
or overly sarcastic in tone.

Now, the reasons. Although The Forum
has been generally appreciated by our
readers, the ones who don?t like it frequently
complain that letters are too long,
too stuffy, or too snotty. By establishing
and enforcing a word limit, we hope to
solve the first two problems: If you only
have a certain amount of space to get your
point across, you?re going to be more
direct and you?re going to avoid wasting
words on incidental information . . . aren?t
you? By stating and emphasizing something
that has always been an unwritten
and understood rule (no nastiness), we
hope to solve the third problem as well.
You can say that you think someone is
wrong, but you can't say he's stupid; you
can say that someone has failed to exam-
ine all the sides of an issue, but you can't
call him prejudiced. You can advance your
own point of view on a subject, but not by
running down someone else?s opinion or
effort.

We think The Forum is a nice, if not
necessary, part of the magazine. It gives
you the incentive to tell us what you think,
but more importantly it can put you in
touch with the immense community of
people who ? regardless of whether they
agree with all of your opinions ? have one
important thing in common with you:
They enjoy role-playing games, and they
want to learn how to enjoy and appreciate
them even more. Your letter to The Forum
may be the spark that ignites an idea in
someone else, whether he agrees with you
or not. The Forum will continue as long as
you continue to make it possible by sharing
your thoughts with us, so that we can
share them with everyone else.

The letters in this edition of The Forum
don't follow the new rules, because obviously
the writers couldn't have known the
rules before they wrote. And we'll probably
print a few "illegal" letters for another
issue or two out of our supply of letters
we've already received. But any letter we
get that's postmarked after Sept. 15 should
follow these guidelines to have the best
chance of being used. Now, this month?s
opinions and observations:

    (Dragon #113)
 

I was surprised by what I read in "Dawn of a
New Age" (issue #112). First of all, I am extremely
glad about the reduction of science
fiction articles.

However, the new typeface is honestly the
most disgusting, unreadable one I have ever
encountered. In an informal survey of three
people (which, I realize, isn?t many) all preferred
the typeface used before issue #73 to
Baskerville and Zapf. Almost equally annoying is
your method of putting the title of an article
within a box of gray or black. I would like to see
unique and individual ?title printings.? For all it?s
worth (which probably isn?t much), I would
suggest the use of Michelangelo for display type;
both are designed by Hermann Zapf. Perhaps
you could give examples of a few typefaces on
the next readership survey, and let the readers
choose which they like best.

At the bottom of page 8, Mr. Mohan states
that you aren?t going to be as careful in making
sure that the information in your articles is
correct, because the survey indicated that the
readers were bored with ?realism? articles.
Don?t let me tell you how to interpret your
surveys, but it seems to me that no one would
desire an unrealistic article. Maybe that sounds
a bit extreme. What I mean is that I think the
survey responses showed that the readers did
not desire articles that dealt solely with realistic
facts, not that they wanted the articles to be less
realistic.

On page 31, Mr. Mohan wrote of recapturing
the flavor and outlook that the magazine had
three or four years ago. I can?t speak for the
entire readership, but the articles I enjoy are
the ones that give me knowledge or ideas that I
can incorporate into my campaign.

On thing I forgot to mention before: the gray
paper would be put to better use by using for
only the science fiction and superhero articles,
making them more easily identifiable.

Mark Nemeth
Ridgecrest, Calif.
(Dragon #114)

FORUM
A word from the editor
The previous guidelines established in
DRAGON Magazine issue #113 (page 6)
for this column is still in effect, with a
few minor CHANGES.  We prefer that Forum
letters be kept fairly short and to the
POINT, but longer letters are still acceptable
if well written.  Be reasonable in making
your points and respect another person's
opinions even if you disagree with them.
Name-calling letters are dropped in the
trash can, as are those that ramble, or are
so incoherent or illegible that the staff
cannot make out what is said.  Please write
clearly.

The Forum gives you the chance to
express your feelings, opinions, observations,
and ideas on gaming.  Though this
column usually runs without editorial
comment, an exception is being made for
this particular issue.  We Now plunge into
the maelstorm:

(Dragon #117)
 

DRAGON Magazine seems to be constantly
reexamining itself.  As a customer, I would
rather change TSR's publishing division rather
than the magazine.  Kim Mohan told us in issue
#110 that CHANGES were needed because
DRAGON Magazine had stopped growing.  I
doubt that alterations in the magazine can
reverse that.  Most role-playing gamers read
and enjoy -- DRAGON Magazine.  But nonplayers
do not know that it exists.  What  the magazine
needs is for TSR, Inc. to find new markets.

Role-playing should be as popular as
SCRABBLE or MONOPOLY games.  But most
people think it is incomprehensible or that it is a
form of teenage rebellion.  Maybe advertising
can dispel this impression.  The AD&D game
revision also might help.  All beginners would
appreciate one set containing everything A
player |or| DM needs.  The set must be cheap,
however, or else it will scare people away.  I
think this is possible.  The rulebook could have a
few pages describing role-playing, a chapter on
the most popular spells, classes, races, weapons,
monsters, mythos and magickal items, and maybe
50 pages of data, like a big DM's screen or the
monster listing in the DMG.

The revisions themselves create a problem.  It
is disheartening to think that the game you are
playing is about to become obsolete.  I do not
want to abandon my campaign.  Please make the
AD&D game rewrite compatible with the current
books.  I cannot explain the difference
between the D&D<(BX, BECMI)> and the AD&D games to
beginners; 2 AD&D games would be worse.
Generating new role players may be difficult,
but DRAGON Magazine cannot gain readers
without new gamers.

Thomas Kane
Farmington, ME
(Dragon #118)
 

When considering the addition of new rules to
a campaign, such as those in the DSG
and DRAGON Magazine, a DM
should always consider one thing which both
rule books and the magazine have neglected to
mention: the scope of that individual's campaign.

For example, if a character has a use
for anything other than his trusty long sword/mace/dagger,
what is the USE of having
weapon proficiencies at all?  While weapon proficiencies
are, in general, beneficial to the Game, the
weapon specialization rules given in
Unearthed Arcana are meant to restrict a
fighter in his choice of weaponis -- to apply
disadvantages as well as advantages.  What use
are these rules if a fighter uses only 1 weapon
anyway (as most fighters do)?  As the rules
stand, all they do is give fighters and rangers a
considerable amount of undeserved power,
especially in a campaign where level progression
is rapid and 1st level consists of but 2
or 3 adventures.  The mid-level fighter, with a
+3 "to hit" and damage on his nonmagical bastard
sword, becomes a formidable KILLING MACHINE,
capable of devastating any opponents who
come along, no matter how low an SC
they have.  Clerics, magic-users, and thieves are
pushed aside, and the AD&D game becomes a
fighter-dominated game, unless variation in
weapon proficiency is highly advantageous,
which is not the case in most campaigns (how
many times have you see a vorpal bardiche or a
military pick +1, flame tongue?).

Another example of "scope-dependent rules"
is the rules for NWPs in the
DSG.  Unless there is a distinct disadvantage to
not being proficient as a potter or a boatwright,
every 1st-level character will choose blind-fighting
and healing proficiencies (the 2
abilities most players select first), which results
in nothing but strengthening the opposition.
Monsters and NPCs never seem to need to
ability to throw a pot, wright a boat, or heal
themselves; and if they did, a DM could always
think up a reason for them to have that ability.

These rules were intended to diversify the
characters -- not to become mere additions to
their power.  Running a good campaign is a full-time
job as it is; creating a campaign which accomodates
these rules is next to impossible.
Even rules as simple as the alignment system
become twisted and perverted if the scope of
the campaign is not large enough.  Unless there
is a great advantage to being lawful and/or
good, or some disadvantage to being chaotic
and/or neutral, most players only see the disadvantages
to law and goodness (i.e., you have to
keep your promises and you can't kill neutrals
just to steal their treasure).  One of my power-hungry
players has remarked: "CN is
the ultimate alignment."

Unless a DM is either incredibly creative or
has an infinite amount of time, these new rules,
which were meant to expand the game, only
detract from it.

Brock Sides
Moscow, TN
(Dragon #119)
 

Although this is my first letter to "Forum," I
have chosen a topic that seems to be written
about quite a lot. The addition of rules by wellmeaning
player's, through articles in DRAGON®
Magazine, and TSR's new [AD&D® game] books,
has only led to the confusion of everybody. I tell
you from experience as both DM and player
that nothing is more boring than having to look
up the rules on swimming to see if a character
makes it to the far shore, or look up the (three?)
different rules for breaking a weapon. How
simple can it be? You either hit or miss; you sink
or swim.

I have always enjoyed reading the letters in
"Forum." It's fun to read the arguments about
this, that, and the other. I guess it's my turn to
step into the ring. I want more ideas instead of
rules! I was thrilled to read James A. Yates's
article on "The Mystic College" issue 123): It
was new, it was exciting, and best of all, it
wasn?t a set of rules. It fit perfectly into a spot
in my campaign that I just couldn?t fill. That is
the kind of thing that I buy DRAGON Magazine
for.

Don?t get me wrong. As a DM, I have been
known to throw in some little piece of magic or
a new monster to give my players a break from:
?A ring? Well, can I control people, control
animals, regenerate; do I feel warm, weak; can I
jump, walk on water, etc.?? It is almost a chant
when my players find a new item. This is not
what I am writing about. I am trying to get the
point across that the revisions of the ranger, the
thief, the druid, the monk, barehanded combat,
and dragons, just to name a few, are only making
a muddled mess out of the game.

Timothy J. Cunningham
Wichita KS
(Dragon #128)
 

I want to challenge a common claim about
role-playing games: that the primary aim is to
have fun -- bend the rules, insult everyone's
intelligence, ignore any subtlety or sophistication
-- just have fun. As long as you're having
fun, the story goes, it doesn't matter if you're
playing the most mindless rubbish imaginable.

I think this devalues RPGs. I?d like to claim
that the ?work hard, play hard? ideal should be
applied here. Good RPG play challenges intelligence,
makes demands upon puzzle-solving
abilities, brings out the actor in players, and
more, and all this makes a lot of demands on the
players? skills. You get out of an RPG what you
put into it. If you?re too lazy to think, the ?garbage
in, garbage out? dictum applies.

I?m not saying that RPGs shouldn?t be fun.
That would be stupid. Instead, I?m making the
point that putting the objective of having fun
above everything else is pointless. Rather, the
fun and pleasure generates itself as the players
and DM play through the challenges of the
adventure. It arises from player by-chat and
improvised DM-player exchanges set against the
backdrop of a fairly serious business. If an
adventure doesn?t have a worthwhile goal, all
the higher qualities of role-playing just disappear.
This is why silly dungeons ? adventures
with no worthwhile goal ? are a total waste of
time. The humour in an adventure has to be
incidental or the whole thing falls flat. In my
experience, the utter failure of silly dungeons
shows how self-destroying the claim that the
primary objective of RPG play is having fun
really is.

Also, the ?just have fun? bunch, by the nature
of the argument, obviously rail against any idea
of quality or standards in RPG play. Yet this is
absurd; every RPG player knows good and bad
players. If we can distinguish between good and
bad, then we?re using some kind of rule to do
so: So-and-so is a good role-player, someone else
is very poor. They might both be having fun,
but almost all of us know which one we?d prefer
to enjoy role-playing with. We do think that a
person who acts out a role well is a better
player than an unconvincing one ? an intelligent
player is better than a dumb one, a harmonizing,
mediating player is better than a petty
dictator or a disruptive one. Indeed, our views
on these matters decide with whom we are
prepared to game and with whom we form
friendships, and they concern personal qualities
strongly tied with the ability to play well, not
just what some fun-o-meter rating would read.

This is serious stuff. But there are too many
dumbheads outside role-playing who see us as
whackos for us to put up with the ill-disciplined
fun-seekers inside the hobby. Let them go play
something else and let the rest of us get on with
really enjoying a good time!

Steve Allen
London, U.K.
(Dragon #135)
 

I am writing to contest the assertions made by
Steve Allen in issue #135. In his letter, he states
that the primary objectives in RPGs should be to
think and solve problems, and that the pleasure
and fun will generate itself. Perhaps his players
enjoy that, but mine feel that fun is more important.
As far as I recall, fun has been the prime
objective in playing any game. If Mr. Allen can
assert that solving problems will generate fun in
an RPG, perhaps he also feels that winning is
the most important thing in board games. When
I lose in games like that, I don?t feel bad because
I?m still having fun.

I feel slightly insulted by Mr. Allen?s statement
that players who play just to have fun cannot
determine standards of quality. There are good
players and bad players, yes, but my objection
lies in his definition of ?good players." In my
mind, a player who has fun and makes things
more fun for other players (using humor, crazy
actions, or whatever) is a far superior player to
one who thinks over every move carefully,
solves puzzles, and achieves the adventure?s
goal. The latter approach is as hollow as playing
a board game strictly to win and accepting no
other goals in the process.

My gaming group?s all-time favorites are West
End Games? PARANOIA® and Steve Jackson
Games? TOON® games, and we?re just starting to
play TSR?s BULLWINKLE & ROCKY? game.
These were certainly designed to be fun over
everything else, with freewheeling, fast-moving
mechanics. Granted, as Mr. Allen put it, they
have ?silly dungeons ? adventures with no
worthwhile goal," but they are much more
enjoyable for us than so-called ?serious? games.
Fun is, after all, the ultimate point of RPGs.

Amod Lele
Kingston, Ontario
(Dragon #139)
 

In response to Steve Allen's letter in issue #135:
However you go about it, RPGs will
always be nothing more than a source of fun.
Without getting too philosophical, it seems to
me that the overall goal in life is nothing more
than to maintain a level of happiness and satisfaction
and to have as much fun as possible.
People can pretend that their reasons for living
are to strive for world peace, obtain religious
enlightenment, or whatever, but such lofty, wellmeaning
aspirations are really just subdivisions
within the everyday quest for personal satisfaction.
For instance, in seeking to help others, we
are really just helping ourselves. I think that if
everyone in the world would seek a fun and
happy life according to his own beliefs, the
world would be an honest, open-minded, ambitious
place, even if it would be somewhat wild, I
play RPGs for fun, and I, like Mr. Allen, prefer a
somewhat more serious level of play, but I like
to mix it in with humor and stupid stuff because
I think that funny, knock-around gaming makes
the darker material that much more scary and
surprising when it finally rears its blackened
head. I like to watch the gamers go from hysterics
to serious action, then to sad regret and back
to laughter again. I do what makes me the most
happy; so does Mr. Allen, and so does everyone
else. That is the way it should be in gaming,
because 500 years from now, who?ll know the
difference?

David Moyle
North Olmsted OH
(Dragon #139)
 

I think RPGs are entering a "settling down"
period. The future stress will not be on new
game systems, but rather on strengthening
current systems. For the first time in the RPGs?
history, the number of new players will taper
off (due to shifts of taste in the public). Established
players will age as a population and will
also have greater levels of disposable income.
Thus, I think the future will hold an expanded
market for supplements designed to complement
an existing game. The market has been
saturated with campaign settings, most of which
are more or less mutually exclusive. (Who has
time to adventure across both Krynn and Oerth,
not to mention the Forgotten Realms?) As players
become comfortable with one setting, they
are less apt to purchase others. If they do, it is
probably more for ideas than anything else.
Thus, the most successful game companies of
the future will cater to the generic campaign,
selling products any DM can use in any campaign
(e.g., TSR?s REF3 The Book of Lairs). Of
course, the second-edition AD&D game is likely
to spark new interest in RPGs and bring in
many new players. Yet, I see an overall trend
toward serving the established player.

While major efforts should probably be in the
direction of satisfying this established clientele,
new players should still be sought. This can be
accomplished by maintaining a high visibility
(more conventions, charity events, and ? most
importantly ? press coverage). Direct confrontation
with Bible Belt groups should be avoided.
Just keep producing fine products and let them
scream. Any press is good press. Total parental
approval could destroy the new player market
as much as anything; the D&D game should
keep its rebellious edge. On the other hand, a
marketing campaign aimed at the older player
could help in making the D&D game an ?acceptable
? pastime for ?adults.? Another market that
needs to be targeted is the female consumer. If
the D&D game can establish itself with women
of all ages, its future is secured.

While I have only mentioned the D&D game
by name, other RPGs certainly will be a major
part of the future market. Yet in the public?s
mind, RPGs and the D&D game are synonymous.
Something should be done to correct this;
the emergence of ?Party Games? might be an
avenue to open new RPG markets.

Overall, I feel the main emphasis should be on
established players. Flexible, multisystem
products of high quality are the way to go.

Jeffrey M. Carey
Chicago IL
(Dragon #138)
 

I'd like to reply to Kenneth Arromdee's reply
to my letter [issue #135]. If you have ever
played or run a magic-user who has set up his
own magic shop, one of the first things you
discover is that scrolls are the primary source of
income available to you. There are a couple of
cases where the cost of making a single application
's worth of ink for a scroll exceed the sale
price listed for that scroll, but for the most part,
scrolls are a high-profit, easily produced item
with a price range within reach of people who
can't afford the cost of magical items. More to
the point, they can be made at low levels. Scrolls
are the only thing an 8th-level magic-user can
make and sell.

Mr. Arromdee doesn't like the loophole I
pointed out about the spell phantom armor and
states how he?d make a ruling against it in his
campaign. But just for the record, all this ruling
does is rob the players of the chance to role-play
(that magic-user has no rings, cloaks, or bracers;
how did that ogre miss?). And while reversing
the robe so the armor doesn?t show protects its
wearer from having the armor dispelled by
disbelief, when was the last time anyone ever
used disbelief to get rid of a phantom armor
spell? That ruling is the equivalent of making an
insurance policy against being run over by a
1913 Rolls Royce while within the Grand Canyon
illegal.

The point he made about PCs needing DM
collusion in order to mistakenly sell a higherlevel
version of an armor or magic missile spell
is nonsense. I didn?t post any odds for it in my
letter because there were too many variables
involved. Obviously the odds of it happening are
small, but impossible? Look at the chance the
game gives for characters to make a successful
?god call.? Consider a magic shop run by an
absent-minded buffoon like the alchemist Amelior
from DQ1 The Shattered Statue. In such a
case, the PCs actually have a fair chance of
lucking out. They might do slightly worse if the
store is being run by a new apprentice. The
odds are that the PCs will only get the regular
scroll, but the chances of getting lucky are
realistically within the range of the dice we roll.
If tossing the dice to see if a party gets an
unlikely break is DM collusion, I am a cardcarrying
collusionist!

His last paragraph had nothing to do with my
letter but deserves a little comment. Using the
dual-classed character option to help a magicuser
survive is an admission that the singleclassed
magic-user is not weak at low level ? it?s
hopeless! The problem is that a lot of characters
do not have the minimum 15 strength and 17
intelligence needed to qualify for the fighter/
magic-user dual class. What do you do with this
set of rolls: S 5, I 17, D 13, W 11, CN 16, Ch 10,
CM 12 ? declare the character hopeless?

Even if the character does qualify, there is a
problem. Look at the minimum starting age for
a fighter (16) and for a magic-user (26); see the
DMG, page 13. Do you get the idea that there is
a long length of preparation to learning how to
cast spells? How long should a character who is
changing classes leave the campaign, and how
far does the rest of the party advance while he
is gone?

Even if you are generous and let Joe Fighter
spend a couple of weeks at Magic Camp and
come back as a 1st-level magic-user, he is a least,
one level behind the rest and starting anew in
one of the slowest advancing classes. (Incidentally,
most players who go this route go up to 3rd
level as a fighter to get the benefits of better
saving throws, a better ?to hit? chance, and
extra hit points for a relatively small experiencepoint
cost.)

No, the dual-class option in not the solution,
unless the player has a lot of DM collusion.

Larry Madden
Glendale CA
(Dragon #141)
 

I have been an avid D&D® game player for a
little over five years now, and I am concerned
about the future of the D&D game. No, not the
AD&D game, the original game. Even though
players of the AD&D game number more than
the players of the D&D game, there is still a
wide audience. I have heard remarks like ?D&D
is for babies.? Unfortunately, most players are
not willing to give the D&D game a chance.
Granted, it is much simpler than the AD&D
game, but it is still an excellent system. Many
DMs play a mixture of the two; this is fine (I do
this myself), but they don?t recognize the D&D
game as a separate system. Right now, I?d like to
add some points which I think make the D&D
game better.

First, the combat system is a heck of a lot
easier. It doesn?t have weapon speed factors,
weights which affect the swing, and so on. You
just use the normal combat system without all
the added extras. Next are the characters. [The
D&D game has] all the basic classes, but there is
no dual-class rule; you are one class and one
class only. Fantasy heroes didn?t train half their
lives as fighters and then become magic-users; it
was just impossible. The spell system is exactly
the same, except that there aren?t as many spells
to choose from. Finally, there is the role-playing
aspect of the game; there is a whole set of rules
on running a large-scale campaign in the Companion
Set. The mechanics of the game are
simple, so the emphasis is on role-playing.

I hope that I have made it clear that the D&D
game is worth your while to play. It is a startling
difference for both DMs and players alike. I
hope that, you give the D&D game a try

Bob Tarantino
Etobicoke, Ontario
(Dragon #143)
 

For those DMs looking for a new twist, a
friend of mine once suggested what he called
?Reversal AD&D.? That is, the players hand
their characters to the DM and each is allowed a
choice of monster of appropriate level (with the
DM?s general discretion) to name, develop a
background on, and present in a dungeon. Your
experienced characters are somewhere in the
dungeon, and your group of monsters will
either have to work together or make alliances
with other creatures to work against your
characters. It?s important that the DM doesn?t
harm the actual characters ? just the copies of
the PCs? statistics.

Darren Hennessey
Tampa FL
(Dragon #143)
 

For quite some time now, I?ve read the polemics
about how the AD&D game is a different
game from the old D&D game, and how the
new Mentzer D&D game is the true descendant
of the old D&D game. I beg to differ. I have
researched copies of all the D&D and AD&D
games, and I have come to some easily proven
conclusions:

1. The AD&D game is the original D&D game
put into hard covers, with the rougher edges
filed down. Almost everything in the DMG,
Players Handbook, and Monster Manual is from
the original three books (with the Blackmoor,
Greyhawk, and Eldritch Wizardry expansion
books) or the early DRAGON and The Strategic
Review issues. For example: artifacts and relics
from Eldritch Wizardry (page 41) are now in the
DMG, page 155; the bard character class, from
TSR #6, is now in the Players Handbook (pages
117-119); the ranger character class, from TSR
#2, is now in the Players Handbook (pages 24-
25); the druid character class, from Eldritch
Wizardry (page l), is in the Players Handbook
(page 20-21); and the thief, dwarf, paladin, elf,
hobbit (now halfling), and half-elf, from
Greyhawk (pages 1-12), are now in the Players
Handbook, (pages 15-30). Most of the treasures
in the DMG first appeared in those small paperbound
books. The game matured a bit in the
rewriting and reprinting into hard covers, but
the major difference between the version is that
everything has been made easier for the players
than it was in the earlier three-book-plus set.

2. The new D&D game is actually the latest
rewrite, of the D&D game. This game IS different,
relies more on skill [than does the AD&D
game], and is MUCH better [than the AD&D
game]. It is a carefully thought-out game
designed for play up to very high levels with
challenge all the way. [The monsters are relatively
stronger than their counterparts in the
D&D game, the characters are relatively weaker],
and in the D&D game, the monsters have
more friends, too. An AD&D game fire giant has
a 25% chance of having 1-4 hell hounds; a D&D
game fire giant has an 80% chance for 3-18 hell
hounds and a 20% chance for 1-3 hydras.
Experience-point awards are smaller in the
D&D game, and you don?t even get experience
points for magic, period (this corrects itself,
though, as it takes fewer experience points to
advance to levels higher than the first nine).

This is an answer for all those folks who think
of the new D&D game as being for ?kids.? I
believe that any player why tries it will find, as I
have, that the new D&D game, not the so-called
ADVANCED D&D® game, is skill-based.

Ivy K. Reynolds
Portland OR
(Dragon #144)
 

Hail thee, brave and hearty adventurer! Hast
thy sword become dull or thy spell books
moldy? Or hast thy DM become more concerned
with details on the weather than on the
adventure?

Seriously, one element that has all but disappeared
from the AD&D game world is the
proverbial ?hack-and-slash? type game which,
I?m sure, we all have enjoyed at one time or
another. Remember the good old days with
module S1 Tomb of Horrors, when you could
enter a hidden crypt, spend hours puzzling out
riddles and smashing skulls, then come out with
a few dead characters and a lord?s ransom in
gold? Those types of games have all but given
way to political/socioeconomic masterpieces
designed to give your high-level lords a chance
to govern a remote province and design tax
laws for the peasants, or perhaps to test your
diplomatic qualities in dealing with the various
clans, tribes, nations, and hierarchies of an
expansive AD&D game country.

I commend the authors of such masterful
creations of fantasy gaming lexicons for their
use of AD&D game rules to initiate a broadscale
campaign for the serious gamer. Yet, time
after time, I have found it extremely difficult to
interest a group of bloodthirsty players in the
politics of their campaign or any aspect of the
region?s landforms. In my area, we are more
interested in a long, challenging, dungeoneering
game that requires player intuition as well as
knee-deep, blood-and-gore fighting. My friends
and I had a marvelous time playing the G1-3,
D1-3, and Q1 AD&D game modules. We found
they challenged our AD&D games skills of
combat, magic-use, and guile as they rewarded
us. Is TSR planning to release any more of these
adventures? Are the golden days of the AD&D
game over?

S. R. Oldson
Tallahassee FL
(Dragon #146)
 

Ever since I started the AD&D game, I have
played in a house campaign that revolves around
a realistic (almost, at least) game world, much like
the FORGOTTEN REALMSTM campaign. Characters
are treated as if they were real, -and every
thing we do or act upon has consequences that
could affect us, much like something real people
would experience (barring, of course, the occasional
dispatching of an unlucky monster). Admittedly,
a competent DM has a lot to do with this
fact, but a not-so-good game master brings me to
my next point.

Prior to my AD&D game days, I played I.C.E.'s
MIDDLE-EARTH ROLE-PLAYINGTM game. The
campaign was a joke. Each module I bought was
used for a couple of weeks until all the dungeons
in it were played out. Every time our
gaming group would assembled, totally different
characters were played, and no feeling of continuity
was generated. I later learned, thanks to
the AD&D game and a sharper DM, that I was
going about it wrong—simply not playing the
game in the way it should have been played.

Or was I? My query is, how do you play? Is
your campaign world treated as real with
direct-action-produces-results scenarios that
may affect characters for the rest of their lives?
Or do you game without abandon, where the
DM simply says, “Okay, you’re there. Do you
enter the dungeon?” It would be interesting to
see a little feedback in “Forum” or elsewhere
concerning how some gamers enjoy doing what
they do; role-playing is a highly underrated
hobby and could stand a little positive publicity.

Lastly, I would like to comment on a point
made by Mr. Shawn DeMers in issue #132. He
mentioned the accusations he received from
friends about devil worshiping and the
DRAGONLANCE® saga. Here in Utah, roleplaying
games are subject to scorn and distrust.
Many outsiders view the AD&D game as either
a visage of evil or as a game too complicated to
bother with.

Perhaps this narrowed perspective contributes
to the entirely unfounded rumors about
satanism within the AD&D game. Seeing positive
(e.g., no pentagrams or drooling demons)
and interesting advertisements for such a truly
exceptional medium would excite the majority
of true-blue role-players and possibly spark the
interest of those not associated with the vast
and wonderful world of fantasy role-playing.

Michael Drake
Pleasant Grove UT
(Dragon #146)
 

In "Sage Advice" in issue #134, the question of
house rules was brought up. If there is one
thing I hate, it?s a player who challenges a house
rule. The DM had a reason for making the rule,
and if players don?t like it, they can find another
game. In my own world, elves cannot be clerics.
The reason for this is that an elf can be almost
any class, and it is usually advantageous to be
an elf. Aside from the bow and short-sword
adjustments, elves each have infravision and the
ability to find secret doors. Combined with any
class, an elven character will dominate a game if
the PC is played correctly. My house rules also
make dwarves most powerful as clerics (I loved
the dwarven cleric in issue #129) and humans
most powerful as fighters. I have corrected a
major imbalance in the game regarding elves,
and I have given other races, notably humans
and dwarves, a chance. If I had to make one
recommendation for the revised AD&D game
books, it would be to make the elves less powerful
and other races more powerful.

Dean Wright
Security CO
(Dragon #140)

I am writing in response to letters by Dean
Wright and Steve Allen, recently found in "Forum"
(issue #140).  I agree with Mr. Wright on
the fact that house rules should not be contested,
unless the player has a good argument.
In my own campaign, gods and demigods are
invincible, as well as devil and demon lords; not
much is even a challenge to the more powerful
demons and devils.  I also agree with Mr. Allen's
statement that tells everyone to stop crying
about low-level magic-users.  If you don't like
'em, don't use 'em.  The characters in my campaign
realize how nice it can be to ahve high-level
magic-users as friends and, therefore
protect them when they're still weak.

After reading my 1st paragraph you might
believe that I totally agree with these 2 people.
Wrong!  They both sound like one of my
players.  From this player we ofen hear quotes
such as, "These characters are so cheap' or "I
hate method V!"  Also, he always protests against
elves, humans, cavaliers, paladins, magic-users
and rangers, claiming that they 're too generic
and that we should make something different.  I
wonder what he thinks our gnome/fighter/illusionst is?.

1st, to address Mr. Wright's question: Why doesn't anybody like elves?  The argument that
they can be too many things is a bad one.  What about humans?  Humans have unlimited ability
in any class.  And as for an elf's bonus for
swords and bows, what good is this if the character
isn't proficient in these weapons?  Try
giving an elven cleric a long sword and see how
well he does in combat.  I also disagree with his
rule about the nonexistence of elven clerics.
Every race shouled be allowed to choose the
cleric as an occupational class.  Primitive people
are not atheists, and most people maintain those
beliefs in their god or gods for many generations
and have priests to help guide their woshipping
of deities.

Now, Mr. Allen, have you ever tried pitting a
5th- level fighter against a 5th-level cavalier,
paladin, or barbarian?  It doesn't work. Specialization
is needed to balance out a campaign;
fighters have no chance otherwise.  Just look at
the name: FIGHTer.  Specialization gives fighters
the edge they need to compete.  What good is a
15th-level fighter when a 12th-level magic-user
can kill more enemies faster with chain lightning
and magic missile spells? Even a 5th-level
magic-user is better at close range using a
fireball (5d6 hp damage vs. the 3d6 hp damage
from the two-handed sword the fighter might
be using).

Pertaining to method V character generation:
The last character I saw generated by this
system was a drow cavalier (in my campaign,
players use any system they want to make
characters) S 17, I 16, W 15, D 18, C 17, Ch
14, and Co 18. As you can see, the original rolls
were 17, 16, 15, 17, 18, 14, and 16. Only one 18
was rolled. Due to the race of this character
dexterity was raised to 18, constitution was
lowered to 17 and comeliness was raised to 16
(also partially due to the charisma roll).

Often, deep gnomes aren't taken seriously. I
believe that the ability to summon elementals is
to offset this. Besides, the character can do
nothing except command the elemental while it
is there or be attacked. Drow and svirfnebli are
limited as to how many levels they can obtain.

Finally, we come to the barbarian class. I
know that barbarians are great guys and all,
with their attacks on creatures that normally
can be hit only with magical weapons, their 12-
sided hit dice, and their saves vs. spells. But try
having a barbarian PC in the same party as a
magic-user PC; the barbarian will most likely kill
the magic-user, or at least try.

Last, but not least, I would like to say a few
things about saving throws. Don't a lot of you
DMs out there often hate how a high-level
character can guzzle down a large glass of
poison and still survive? I know I do. The spells
and poisons that petrify, paralyze, or kill people
often do no damage at all. These things should
at least do some damage. Even Hercules was in
great pain when poison was introduced into his
bloodstream, and he was the son of Zeus! My
solution to this problem is to double the experience
level needed to improve a character's
chance of making the saving throw. This will
lower the chance, so that when a question like
"Does a 3 save?"? to quote Gregg Sharp in "The
Last Word" (issue #129)?comes up, the answer
will be no.

Eric Ehlers
Springfield, VA
(Dragon #148)
 

I am writing concerning the letter Bob Trantino
wrote in DRAGON issue #143. I have played
both the D&D® and AD&D® games for some
years, and I personally like the AD&D game
better. Weapon speeds and dual-class characters
give the game a real-world feel. I almost always
play a mage/thief, and I enjoy my PC?s dual-class
status. The D&D game is a simple version of the
AD&D game and, to me, seems too simple and
unrealistic.

Jeremy Gilliam
Valparaiso IN
(Dragon #149)
 

For the sake of honest criticism, this letter
was written in regard to Jeremy Gilliam?s letter
in issue #149. His letter stated that the D&D®
game ?seems too simple and unrealistic.? I am a
Dungeon Master of three parties of six players
each. One of my campaigns uses the D&D
system, and the other two the AD&D® game.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Gilliam fully. But
most of my players (who play in all parties)
enjoy the D&D game more. They like the fastpaced,
less-delayed role-playing better than the
more complicated version.

Overall, the AD&D system may be more
complicated, but the role-playing is not. It all
depends on your work as Dungeon Master and
how well you put the various descriptions into
words. A bad Dungeon Master who gives
choppy descriptions will not make a very realistic
campaign. Some people I game with don?t
even care about the rules; they just enjoy the
role-playing and let the DM do all of the ?complicated
stuff.? The conclusion is that many gamers
don?t like to bother with things like weapon
speeds and encumbrance. If this were not true,
TSR would have a lot of extra D&D sets in its
inventory. My D&D Ethengar campaign has
been a great success in realism because of hard
work and good charisma.

Alex "Maximus" Iwanow
East Brunswick NJ
(Dragon #153)
 

I read with interest the articles on cheating in
issue #144, and I thought you might like to
know how I deal with some of those problems
in my campaign.

First, I will discuss cheating when rolling
ability scores for a new character. As a DM, one
of the first AD&D game rules I ever took issue
with was the experience-point bonus system.
Why should a character who already has it easy
with high ability scores be rewarded for successful
adventuring with extra experience
points? This ruling simply widens the ability gap
(through quicker advancement) between characters.
I told my players to add up their characters
? ability scores and subtract that sum from
90. A negative value is a percentage penalty, a
positive value is a percentage bonus. I then told
them to arrive at the scores any way they
pleased. They could roll numbers and design a
character based on the result, or they could
design the numbers based on the character they
wished to create?end of problem and the
beginning of some great role-playing fun.

Second, I will discuss cheating while playing. I
have a simple rule: Play however you like, and
cheat if you like, but no one can do anything
that will spoil the fun of other players (or you?re
out of the group). I point out to the players that
cheating against the game is like cheating in
solitaire?who are you cheating? No one is
allowed to take issue with another player who is
suspected of cheating. As a result, one of two
things happens: The cheater quits in disgust
when no one seems to care whether he cheats
or not (if I haven?t already had to ask him to
leave) or he sees the point and starts to enjoy
the game as it is meant to be played.

If one or more players are familiar with the
module we are about to play (I have always
used commercial modules strung together by an
overall story line in my campaign), I alter it as
though it had already been visited once in the
past and is now repopulated and redecorated
(with new traps). The characters who have been
here before can then ?remember? anything they
like and can advise the party accordingly.

As often as possible, I ask the players to roll
certain dice without first telling them why they
are doing that or whether they should want a
high number or a low (though they always ask).
If honesty in a particular roll is crucial to the
success of an adventure, I roll it myself.

Though there are honest mistakes made (and I
make about half of them), the players usually
pick them up without much bickering, and
everyone seems to have a good time.

Dennis Rudolph
Prince George, British Columbia
(Dragon #150)
 

Most of the letters in "Forum" deal with people
who regularly play their favorite RPG with a
group of friends. This makes it easy to forget
the number of people, like myself, who find
RPGs very interesting but for one reason or
another can only seldom, if at all, play an actual
tabletop game.

Before I go much further, I need to explain
two of the ways in which people play RPGs.
Some people enjoy being with friends and
playing a game with endless horizons. They do
not bother with particulars such as spell durations.
Others play with friends and have a
similar attitude, but the DM is familiar with and
uses all rules, and the player is and does likewise.
This is the type of play normally seen at
conventions. I?m not saying one style is right or
wrong, but I enjoy amassing books and other
literature on the AD&D game, and with all the
reading I do in place of playing, I have become a
strict follower of the latter example.

I do know several people who regularly get
together and play a few rounds of the AD&D
game, but their DM doesn?t even keep track of
time in the campaign! I also enjoy play-by-mail
games (PBMs) and computer RPGs (written
about in issue #145?s editorial) that can be
substitutes for those not in a group. While
certainly fun, I disagree that computer RPGs
can replace a campaign in which each character
is controlled by a different person.

I would also like to mention Michael Townsend
?s letter in ?Forum? issue #145, in which he
says he did not have many friends in high
school because he was bussed to a handicap accessible
school. He spent many hours in its
library reading fantasy and science-fiction books
as an escape from loneliness. I am not physically
handicapped, but manic depression and extreme
shyness have kept me from making many
friends. Reading AD&D game materials has
helped me escape from loneliness, too.

Matt Foster
Wichita KS
(Dragon #150)
 

I am writing to comment on S. R. Oldson?s
?Forum? letter in issue #146. I have been a DM
for only three years, but I certainly see his
point. When I first began playing the D&D
game, my players and I really enjoyed gaming.
Recently, however, we?ve gotten tired of the
more sophisticated modules in which the characters
must solve some mystery or prevent
some civil war.

Mr. Oldson?s call for a ?long, challenging,
dungeoneering game that requires player intuition
as well as knee-deep, blood-and-gore fighting
? is well justified. Besides, how many players
and DMs want to see DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®
games become PAYROLLS & POLITICS with the
fighters, clerics, thieves, and mages replaced by
ambassadors, lawyers, district attorneys, and
IRS agents?

In my opinion, a good D&D adventure involves
a deep, dark dungeon or other mysterious,
forgotten area with a theme like ?clear the
swamps of the foul lizardmen? or ?delve into the
ancient drow city and retrieve the Talisman of
Light before they destroy it!? Granted, all hackand-
slash adventures would get dull before
long. Those who desire these types of modules
need to play arcade games in which all you need
do is kill. Modules should be balanced with the
right amount of fighting and the right amount
of thinking. (Oldson?s example of module S1 The
Tomb of Horrors is excellent, as the module was
well written.)

Please keep what I have said in mind when
writing modules. I would also like to encourage
others who support the ideas expressed by Mr.
Oldson and myself to write to ?Forum? in order
to state their opinions and encourage module
writers to design more modules of this nature.

Lee Loftis
Greenville SC
(Dragon #150)
 

The "Forum," issue #146, contains several
letters on subjects that I would like to address. I
have been playing the AD&D game since 1982,
and I have seen the long, slow transition from
the original AD&D game to the amalgamation of
the 12 or so hardcovers and finally to the new
AD&D 2nd Edition (which I must say is GREAT!).
I have also seen, the birth of the political/
socioeconomic masterpieces that have become
so popular lately. The point I would like to make
is: WHO CARES?!

First, the whole purpose of a game is to have
fun. So what if a group wants to indulge in the
detail and rules needed to run a direct-actionproduces-
results campaign or indulge in hour
after hour of creating mindless monster-bashing
adventures? I have run and played in both, and
I enjoy both. What are people arguing over?

Second, I am also concerned about those who
say that a bloodbath cannot be creative. In my
estimation, I6 Ravenloft (by Tracy and Laura
Hickman) is essentially a bloodbath that focuses
on vampires, but it?s a hard test of a player?s
skills and game knowledge. It is also the best
module ever produced by TSR, Inc. I dare
anyone to say it?s not creative.

Third, what?s the problem with having evil
PCs? They are hard to play, true (what better
test of skill?), but why can?t they be in a party of
predominately good characters? Raistlin sure
wasn?t good (even in the beginning, he acted like
a neutral PC with evil tendencies). In Dragons of
Autumn Twilight, Laurana asked Raistlin why
he followed Tanis. His reply was: ?Because for
now we walk the same path.?

In closing, let me say this: I am a new waver
(i.e., a punk rocker to some, although there is a
difference), and I try to see people as individuals
(that?s why I consider myself chaotic neutral). If
a group of players prefers building a kingdom
to thrashing orcs and giants, so what? As long as
we are the ones who make the AD&D game
what it is and have fun doing it, nothing else
matters, does it? So just sit back, relax, and let
us all revel in our ?infinite diversity? (to quote a
certain Vulcan).

Anthony N. Emmel
Longview TX
(Dragon #150)
 

I bought my latest issue of DRAGON Magazine
[issue #145], and as always I was reading ?Forum
? when I came across the letter by Michael
Townsend in White Hall, Md. I wrote this letter
to show there still are people who care that
there are lone players out there. Here are some
tips on how to bring a group together. First,
come up with a flyer telling what game you are
interested in playing and what type of player
(serious or casual) you want. Then copy this
many times (at about $0.10 a photocopy, this is
not bad). Then take these copies to bookstores
and hobby stores that sell the game you play.
Ask if you can leave some copies at the register
(if anybody buys something, he will see them).
Also, if you are buying game supplies and you
notice another person buying supplies, strike up
a conversation. See if this person wants to get
into a game or has friends who play. The more,
the merrier! That?s how I meet my friends.

Steve Williams
Lakeland FL
(Dragon #151)
 

I have just finished perusing a copy of the
AD&D 2nd Edition preview [in issue #142] that
describes the dramatic revision changes, and
issue #143 in which one of our Canadian brethren
laments that all those sophisticated AD&D
game players out there refuse to take him
seriously because he is a mere follower of D&D
games. My decade-plus of role-playing experience
compels me to submit an opinion, widely
held by my contemporaries. This opinion is
really quite concise: "PHBT!"

AD&D game players are weenies and bedwetters;
no self-respecting D&D game aficionado
need beg their indulgence. Our battle-scarred
group of graybeards has been involved in a very
advanced style of play since early 1976, when
we immediately grasped the power and potential
of one of the opening lines in the original
release: "[These] are guidelines to follow in
designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign
" [from Men & Magic, page 4). Straightjacketed
dabblers in the AD&D game and their
pitiful reliance on external structures to aid
them in negotiating the lovely, intricate labyrinth
of role-playing are commonly the object of
ridicule in the rarefied atmosphere of our
gatherings. It was with contempt and loathing
that we greeted the AD&D game with its execrable
shift from "imagination rules" to "rules
reign."

A refreshing trend seems to be emerging,
however. The AD&D game preview, page 14:
"This is part of our goal of increasing player
choices and encouraging you to make the game
your own." It's about time. You fellows have a lot
of catching up to do. Perhaps this is the perestroika
of the AD&D game?

Michael Henits
Rome, Italy
with Eric M. Paulson
London, England
and Gregory H. Graham
Colorado Springs CO
(Dragon #151)
 

I would like to disagree with Ms. Reynolds
letter in issue #144. Although I do agree that
many of the AD&D game rules were taken from
the original D&D game, and that the D&D game
is a very good one, it is not better than the
AD&D game!

I think that the AD&D game is better than the
D&D game because the latter is illogical. Saying
that a halfling cannot pursue thieving activity is
simply stupid. Even the D&D material states
that halflings engage in thievery (GAZ 8 The
Five Shires, in particular.) Although some people
could criticize the AD&D game because of its
restrictions on certain races taking certain
classes, the game system has logical reasons
(e.g., dwarves cannot be druids because they
don't live in the woods). Besides the ridiculous
race restrictions, the D&D game also has fewer
spells, a smaller monster selection, and fewer
classes in general.

The evidence above should prove that the
AD&D game is the better game. I do think that
the D&D game is better for the less-serious roleplayers
who like a simpler game and easier
victories.

Joseph D'Amico
Wallington NJ
(Dragon #151)
 

I have a suggestion for other DMs, and “Forum”
seems to be the best place to make it. I
have found that it is very helpful to mix game
systems. I’m not talking about putting guns and
lasers in the AD&D® game, slavering demons in
the STAR FRONTIERS® game, or aliens or wizards
in TSR’s TOP SECRET® and West End
Games’ JAMES BOND 007 games. What I’m
talking about is mixing their systems. For example,
the magic system in the AD&D game can be
converted for use in the MARVEL SUPER HEROES
™ game, which spends about three vague
pages on magic and doesn’t need supplements.
The system for swordplay, knife fighting, and
unarmed combat in the first-edition TOP SECRET
game is far better than the one in the
AD&D game but takes more time. Thus, if the
final scene is a duel between the party paladin
and an evil fighter, the TOP SECRET system
could be temporarily altered to fit, while the
faster AD&D game system can be used when
hacking down giant rats and webbirds. Damage
bonuses and bonuses to hit can be put into
damage bonuses or penalties when using the
TOP SECRET melee system.

I am telling you this because I've tried it and it
works. While some adaptations are harder than
others (and others are simply impossible), it is
possible to create a superior espionage, fantasy,
superhero, or science-fiction game. Try it.

Toby Myers
Hamilton NY
(Dragon #152)
 

I am writing in response to two commentaries
made in issue #145. I've been involved in AD&D
role-playing for almost 10 years now, and I've
learned a few things that can improve the roleplaying
image and gain players (and possibly
friends) to continue gaming.

In support of Mr. Bryan Walker’s letter on the
destruction of the AD&D game’s image, I must
say he has given an excellent analysis. The
movie, Mazes and Monsters, gave the AD&D®
game a terrible image, and I should know from
experience. My parents went from supportive,
trusting souls to panic-stricken, nervous wardens
of my gaming habits. Mind you, we are
talking about a guy who was (and still is) a
dependable, sociable honor student, not the
psychotic animal that has been the classic stereotype
to the general public. Try as I did to
change my parents’ attitudes, they only tightened
their monitoring. Only long, persuasive
discussions would allow me release for a few
hours. I got to the point where I was tempted to
sneak out or deceive my folks in order to play
more often.

Finally, I found a way to achieve more gaming
time and give my parents more confidence in
the game and me. My parents had never seen
me play, so I invited my fellow gamers to my
home. Once my parents saw who my fellow
players were and talked to them, they relaxed
and trusted my judgment on how much involvement
I had in role-playing. I think that part of
the fear of the game involves the mystery of
who is playing the game with you. When parents
see [bad] public images, like the terrible
ones Mr. Walker encountered at the convention,
they develop the idea that their sons and daughters
are flirting with terrible people. Your parents
have probably never seen your fellow
players before, and they fear those players
might influence you in a bad way. Parents
typically worry about peer-pressure situations,
and role-playing is often categorized as one. It is
a sad situation brought about by the terrible
rumors the game has gained.

I believe that by letting your parents know
your gaming associates, they will be more open
and trusting of your gaming habits and of your
fellow players. As long as you’re capable of
having constant company and having gamers
who are both flexible and give a good impression,
and if you have parents who are openminded
(or at least happier to know your
friendships and activities), I think you can
improve the setting in which you play. Maybe
this won’t work for you or maybe you don’t
care, but I think it works given time and patience.
It may even disperse the cloud of superstition
around the AD&D game and improve
your family’s relationships.

To Mr. Michael Townsend (and all concerned),
I reply that I know what it is like to play with a
handicapped individual and how gaming gives
one a sense of meaning. I had a friend who was
blind, and role-playing gave him more confidence
and a more sociable attitude. He became
a great player to have around.

As to the question of finding more gamers, I
have noticed that most role-players are also avid
comic-book and fiction-novel readers. At my
favorite store, the owner had developed a roleplayer’s
bulletin/network for people to look for
fellow gamers. I simply added my name and,
within weeks, found people to continue playing
games. Go to your local book store or comic
store and see if the owner has (or has considered)
having such an announcement board or
network. If not, suggest it or even develop it for
him if he can’t. Usually, independent dealers are
more open to this idea than large chains like
Waldenbook’s, but try wherever you can. If the
store also sells the AD&D game or similar roleplaying
products, it will probably be more open
to such an idea (since this will bring repeat
business). Try it and see if you can find the
gamers you’re looking for.

Alex Martin
Mesquite TX
(Dragon #152)
 

?Simple.? Whenever I read an article in ?Forum,
? this is the word that I hear when readers
describe the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS®
game. To begin with, I was reading issue #151
and noticed that the comments before mine
(specifically written by Joseph D?Amico) had also
been written in response to Ivy K. Reynolds?
opinions on the D&D game in issue #144. I read
his letter with interest and I thought that it had
been clearly written with his points well
explained?until the last paragraph, when I saw
the words ?less-serious role-players,? ?a simpler
game,? and ?easier victories,? all of which referred
to the D&D game. Some letter-writers
imply that the AD&D game is not realistic.
Given that the D&D and AD&D games are
based on dragons, magic, and high-level warriors
who can survive the onslaught of 50 orcs, I
am curious as to what these writers would
consider ?realistic.?

As for the implication that D&D game players
are less serious, I believe that you would need a
serious disposition to play characters up to 36th
level. Then there?s the claim that the D&D
system has ?easier victories.? To prove that this
is not true, let?s compare the magic-user class in
either system. I am sure that Joseph D?Amico is
aware that the D&D system has fewer spells
than the AD&D game (consequently forcing
D&D game magic-users to be much more innovative
than their AD&D game counterparts),
does not offer magic-users the choice to specialize
in schools of magic (as per AD&D 2nd Edition
game mages), and only has one choice of
weapon for magic-users.

However, the words that bothered me the
most were ?a simplier game.? With due respect
to the knowledge of these people, I must question
their experience with the D&D game. To
quote from the D&D Immortals Set DM’s Guide
to Immortals, page 13:

?By similar logic, the boundary of a trispace
may appear as a three-dimensional solid (if it
contains dimensions 2 through 4, or 3 through
5) or as a two-dimensional flat surface (containing
dimensions 1, 2, and 3, the first being unseen).
A dispace may similarly appear two- or
one-dimensional, and the boundary of a monospace
(always one-dimensional) can only be seen
if its dimension is one that can be observed
from the Astral Plane.?

The preceding paragraph may seem confusing
(maybe it is not to some). However, it is definitely
not ?simple,? as some writers believe the
D&D game to be.

I did not write this to prove that either game
is superior in one way or the other. I am aware
that my last comments in issue #151 said that
the D&D game?s weapon-mastery system is
superior to that of the AD&D game?s weapon
specialization, and I still believe that. Regardless,
the AD&D system has many bonuses, including
extended character classes, clearer priestly
descriptions, etc. I think that both games represent
two generations (and styles) of role-playing.
You could compare the AD&D game to a brandnew
sports car, and the D&D game to an older
car in mint condition. In either case, the systems
are both very good. In this letter, you will notice
that I do not discredit the AD&D system, but
merely refute the arguments of those people
who believe that the D&D system is not worthy
to be played by veteran and novice gamers
alike.

Robert Morrison
Calgary, Alberta
(Dragon #155)
 

I wish to address the subject of pregenerated
D&D and AD&D campaign worlds, and the
led into thinking that all fantasy campaigns
increasing output of material and articles devoted
to them (especially in DRAGON Magazine).

I have been DMing since I started playing
nearly 10 years ago, and quite frankly I feel that
the preoccupation with these game worlds
defeats one of the fundamental reasons why I
(for one) began playing in the first place?that
is, to satisfy a creative desire.

I have never used someone else?s campaign
world in which to bade my adventures; I?ve
always felt that the prime purpose of being a
Dungeon Master was to gain a sense of accomplishment
by designing what is (for the DM and
his players) the ?perfect? fantasy world. Thus, I
am irked by the increasing space given over to
the specific details of other people?s worlds (that
are invariably of a high-fantasy nature) within
the pages of DRAGON Magazine. I would prefer
to see articles aiding new and experienced DMs
in the ongoing task of creating and expanding
their own worlds, including creating civilizations
and cultures; personally tailoring monsters,
treasures, dungeons; and (most especially)
refereeing techniques.

I have nothing at all against pregenerated
campaigns per se, many of which have been
derived from or progressed into the format of a
novel. However, this is where they should stay.
Novels are, of course, where much of the inspiration
for the D&D games came from way back
when, and I think novels are still probably the
best source of fantasy ideas next to mythological
tales (although one must not forget art, music,
and poetry). New DMs should not, however, be
led into thinking that all fantasy campaigns
increasing output of material and articles devoted
to them (especially in DRAGON Magazine).
should be treated in this or that way. The writ-
ers have borrowed certain fantasy structures
from the D&D systems and excluded others;
that in itself is fine (this is what any DM would
do, unless he takes every guideline ever written
for the game). Unfortunately, overexposing a
DM?s campaigns [to ideas from novels] implies
that other structures, such as a low-fantasy
approach, are not worthwhile interpretations of
the rules.