tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post3369589710873346101..comments2024-03-19T04:29:47.922-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: The Articles of Dragon: "Sticks, Stones, and Bones"James Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-67498436305520312842012-05-05T10:08:19.471-04:002012-05-05T10:08:19.471-04:00Found the article. Throwing pepper in someone'...Found the article. Throwing pepper in someone's eyes required you to hit AC 5, then the target had to save vs. breath weapon or be blinded and unable to cast spells for 2-8 rounds.hogarthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80864787230483277312012-05-03T16:21:00.991-04:002012-05-03T16:21:00.991-04:00If I recall this article correctly, throwing peppe...If I recall this article correctly, throwing pepper in someone's face was a kind of super-weapon, too. I can't remember if it just blinded your opponent or if it had a Dust of Sneezing and Choking-style effect, but it certainly made me think that adventurers must be stocking up on pepper in that dude's campaign!hogarthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-2261300992593450822012-04-11T23:50:29.985-04:002012-04-11T23:50:29.985-04:00Indeed. The DRAGON magazine didn't survive as ...Indeed. The DRAGON magazine didn't survive as long as it did because it was TSR's official magazine. It survived because it had stuff for everyone. Even super hero stuff, for a time.Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-68326422438513949142012-04-11T23:47:56.702-04:002012-04-11T23:47:56.702-04:00Oh, great. That other writer was an idiot and insa...Oh, great. That other writer was an idiot and insane (did that make him idiotically insane or insannely idiotic?), and now somebody has OCD.<br /><br />Where's a cleric, if you need him?Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-18098467497975923442012-04-11T23:44:17.844-04:002012-04-11T23:44:17.844-04:00Huh. Seems to me you're more "obsessed&qu...Huh. Seems to me you're more "obsessed" than that writer ever was, going by your calling him explicitly an idiot and implicitly insane...<br /><br />Well, I would've ignored weapon speed but would've used the rest of the weapon guidlines from that article.<br /><br />As for there being very few ways to get disarmed: There're ALLWAYS ways for a good DM to disarm you, if he wants to. <br /><br />What would you consider an "useful" article from DRAGON? Gimme an example.Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-91699157878372214192012-04-11T23:37:33.995-04:002012-04-11T23:37:33.995-04:00Which is a kind of feature, isn't It? If the d...Which is a kind of feature, isn't It? If the difference between between a thrown rock, bottle or wood box doesn't matter, why should the difference between a club and a mace matter? <br /><br />And I for one thought it amusing that now there were optional guidlines (sort of) for using all kinds of ordinary items in combat. (Albeit I have a hard time imagining Sturm Brightblade or even King Arthur reaching for their chamber pots, if attacked in their sleeping rooms and being for whatever reason disarmed. Oh, well.) <br /><br />Again, what would YOU suggest as an useful DRAGON article? You know, the kind of articles a "sane" person would write?Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5049278266831394342012-04-11T11:10:51.439-04:002012-04-11T11:10:51.439-04:00What? I didn't say anything about "option...What? I didn't say anything about "optional". I said that it was a set of resources, not a set of rules. It's like a list of magic items, spells, or weapons (in fact, it <i>is</i> a list of weapons).<br /><br />And some of us did use the weapon vs. armor type tables. Weapon speed factors were more difficult to use, but people frequently found a way to use them (note that Gygax himself did not use them; Gygax also used a different unarmed combat system, which was published in <i>Unearthed Arcana</i>). Segments are necessary for using psionics and spellcasting by the rules in AD&D (though, as you note, many people - but not all of them - skipped over that stuff and did things more freeform).<br /><br />So, what I'm saying is that some people would certainly find a use for these new weapon tables. Other people wouldn't. That's the great thing about this world, it has room for all sorts.Chris Vermeersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16010946624691970022012-04-11T10:00:31.640-04:002012-04-11T10:00:31.640-04:00No one is saying Dragon articles weren't "...No one is saying Dragon articles weren't "optional". Of course no one was FORCED to make use of them. The point is, if most players were already ignoring the most complicated aspects of combat in the original game (weapon vs. AC, weapon speed, segments, the unspeakable unarmed combat rules) then what was the likelihood anyone would really make use of ten tables to resolve the occasional use of improvised weapons? Especially since there were very few ways to become disarmed of your regular weapons, making the whole issue almost moot? Why offer "options" that no one would have been likely to use anyway? This article seems to reflect some weird obsession of the author more than any attempt to meet player demand or add anything USEFUL to the game...The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43710410176114959142012-04-11T09:37:41.894-04:002012-04-11T09:37:41.894-04:00I recognize the work of an author with OCD when I ...I recognize the work of an author with OCD when I see it. Maybe some people need to learn the difference between chicken salad and the other stuff.The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-31799447314298192842012-04-11T09:37:04.123-04:002012-04-11T09:37:04.123-04:00This article doesn't add more "features&q...This article doesn't add more "features" or "options". It just makes fine distinctions between a lot of blunt objects for no good reason.The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47808951467560901362012-04-10T21:04:46.157-04:002012-04-10T21:04:46.157-04:00Have you read the article? It's not really so ...Have you read the article? It's not really so much new rules as a set of resources to be used with the existing rules. That is to say, it's a set of weapon stats for item categories that can be applied to a variety of improvised weapons. It's not a whole new system or anything like that.Chris Vermeersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12257548257368908932012-04-10T20:38:57.667-04:002012-04-10T20:38:57.667-04:00Remember that a new issue of Dragon had to come ou...Remember that a new issue of Dragon had to come out each and every month; not just whenever enough insightful material had been accumulated to warrant a new issue. Looking back through issues of Dragon and comparing it to other magazines with a similar publication schedule, I'd have to say the average quality of its articles was comparatively high. Nevertheless, when you have to publish to a schedule, there is bound to be a lot of fluff and at best notionally useful filler.<br /><br />However TSR might have marketed it, none of the content of Dragon is vital to running a fulfilling game of D&D. Some of the articles are insightful and provide useful ideas for running a game, but Dragon is primarily a source of entertainment: enjoyable first and foremost as literature and imagination fuel, and incidentally as an instruction manual. (Though I will admit I feel that way about D&D as a whole: actual games were fun, but they never lived up to the promises my imagination made to me after reading the books.)<br /><br />By issue #97, you have to expect that most of the obvious and important areas would have been addressed at least once if not multiple times, leaving mostly the obscurae and minutiae, or yet another take on the same thing that has been covered before. But an author can't exactly market his piece as an overly detailed set of rules that are too cumbersome for real play and, in the end, just don't matter that much. I think we need to allow for a bit of hyperbole and self-promotion in this sort of thing. William Wueppelmannnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-55881212478596456882012-04-10T20:00:06.226-04:002012-04-10T20:00:06.226-04:00Ha! How quaint!Ha! How quaint!Scott Abrahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49017795533410380972012-04-10T19:56:25.006-04:002012-04-10T19:56:25.006-04:00Apparently, the Shadow...
...does NOT know!Apparently, the Shadow...<br /><br />...does NOT know!elfdartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-18396621328850900142012-04-10T19:16:41.241-04:002012-04-10T19:16:41.241-04:00I think you're being a bit harsh. Extensive st...I think you're being a bit harsh. Extensive stats for improvised weapons is bad in a system with extensive rules for weapons vs. AC and weapon speed and a big bunch of polearms all with their own stats? It's perhaps more detail than you need on this subject, but AD&D is chock full of more detail than people needed on other things.<br /><br />I think this article wasn't great, but it's not bad just because of it's topic of coverage. It wasn't great because it was unwieldy in actual play (and I tried to use bits of it). And Dragon was full of optional rules and house rules and variations from issue #1 on . . . I think it's fine to say "I wouldn't use this" but this type of article is 100% fine with me. Different strokes and all.<br /><br />My real question with this article is, was this stuff that this guy needed in his own gaming? I'm always curious how house rules worked out in the play that inspired them.Peter V. Dell'Ortonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-30412345117946738872012-04-10T17:27:15.098-04:002012-04-10T17:27:15.098-04:00Didn't you understand how DRAGON articles work...Didn't you understand how DRAGON articles work?<br /><br />Unless otherwise specified, all rules add-ons were OPTIONAL stuff. They could be used or ignored, at the DM's discretion.<br /><br />Now of course, if somebody would mindlessly use everything from DRAGON, allow classes explicitely specified as NPC CLASSES for his PCs, and just use all magic items etc from DRAGON without using his brains by engaging in selecting some of them rather than just gobble up all of it, than I can understand why so many dweebs whine about "rules bloat" supposedly caused by DRAGON.<br /><br />But it's their fault. DRAGON offered OPTIONAL additional features. How (and if) they were used is solely the discretion of the DM. People NEED to be able to think for themselves, after all.Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12493089827606209092012-04-10T17:18:47.837-04:002012-04-10T17:18:47.837-04:00Well, just because he wrote a article giving us mo...Well, just because he wrote a article giving us more features for AD&D makes him an idiot?<br /><br />And what *would* a "sane" person care for in your opinion? Maybe creating the uptenth dungeon adventure, giving us the same old, same old, yet calling itself creative?Andreas Kraußnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77014289244240616532012-04-10T12:57:18.065-04:002012-04-10T12:57:18.065-04:00"I think that the fact that AD&D had fair..."I think that the fact that AD&D had fairly complicated combat rules (that most people ignored!) naturally led to things like this."<br /><br />Maybe the fact that most people were ignoring large portions of the existing rules should have served as a signal NOT to add any more?The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-23897645845427112542012-04-10T12:55:27.380-04:002012-04-10T12:55:27.380-04:00The problem is that the author was an obvious idio...The problem is that the author was an obvious idiot.The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-26943119441321753462012-04-10T12:54:17.146-04:002012-04-10T12:54:17.146-04:00All of those things are clubs. Simple.All of those things are clubs. Simple.The_Shadow_Knowsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6147418277634529692012-04-10T11:25:19.609-04:002012-04-10T11:25:19.609-04:00We must've ignored this one at the time. I can...We must've ignored this one at the time. I can't imagine me using it in a game, even in my "crunchiest" phase as a GM. But, regarding the author, he may well have been fulfilling a request from the editor. If Innis was a regular freelancer at the time, the editor may well have contacted him and said "Hey, can you give me X-number of words on improvised weapons? We have some space to fill in an upcoming issue." (And a question, if Mr. Innis happens to read this: Did you ever use these rules in your game? ;) )Anthony Raganhttp://breeland.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10229774908404017602012-04-10T11:16:46.122-04:002012-04-10T11:16:46.122-04:00Hot liquids are kind of super-weapons.Hot liquids are kind of super-weapons.James Hutchingsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66298645439337783622012-04-10T10:08:22.244-04:002012-04-10T10:08:22.244-04:00"Adjudicate"!?!? There are NO losers wh..."Adjudicate"!?!? There are NO losers when there is a sorority pillow fight.Mike Monacohttp://mikemonaco.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-47452444918799714712012-04-10T09:41:53.917-04:002012-04-10T09:41:53.917-04:00I've written more than one "filler" ...I've written more than one "filler" article for publication before, fortunately not for RPGs, but I imagine the process is similar: start with a reasonable question ("How to handle unconventional weapons?") and then start to create details.<br /><br />If he was pre-assigned a word-count or page-count, his objective expands accordingly. If he was not, he just goes off on a tangent: a thought experiment is expressed in writing, and then that writing is monetized. A six-pager pays more than a two-pager.<br /><br />Rocks, chairs, torches, etc. do make for strange weapons in AD&D, particularly when it comes to damage. In the old days, I can remember a few instances where there was an argument over whether a burning log did double damage on a natural twenty (and if the fire did automatic extra damage, non-automatic extra damage, or was just included in the damage) even with the the "to hit" penalty, for example. I too, recall (not in detail) certain "stupid" weapons that unintentionally became too useful until the DM changed the damage.<br /><br />An article on the fuzziness of unconventional weapons would be interesting, but there really was never a need for anything but the referee to stop allowing weird things to "break" the game. We did very little common rock warfare, but I'm pretty sure we just did damage like a sling, but with a gigantic to hit penalty. Not that difficult.Dan Enessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-87355925497212727272012-04-10T08:09:42.207-04:002012-04-10T08:09:42.207-04:00One of my players took weapon proficiency in barst...One of my players took weapon proficiency in barstool since we had so many bar fights in the campaign and it was the weapon he deployed the most with success.<br />As I recall it was treated as a club with little worry. "Official" stats would have been great... ;-)James Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com