|
|
|
Recent posts by
Destro Fett:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wild magic and dead magic are cool.
So are portals.
And Dracoliches.
And Red Wizards.
And Waterdeep.
And the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jib wrote:
I find it strange that other table top RPG companies can put out multiple editions of games and no one complains at all.
Which companies are you speaking of, pray tell?
People are complaining because there's nothing wrong with 3rd Ed. Wizards equates lack of sales with a stagnant product - I equate it with the over-indulgence associated with a "collectible" market. Those D&D minis, while cool, herald the downfall of modern gaming because of their inherent ties with a twisted "collectible" consumerism.
As long as they keep us buying the same regurgitated material, we won't have to worry about wasting our time with new concepts. Look at the Expedition series - sure, it's great... but there's nothing new. Those hardcover modules are cool, but they reiterate the notion that the gaming industry is out of ideas.
And this Gleemax business... sign of the Apocalypse. Mark my words. End of gaming as we know it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EATherrian wrote:
I hate using miniatures, so the format doesn't help me one bit.
I know what you mean, but I don't feel the same way. 3.5 encourages if not demands a physical representation of the encounter for the combat rules. When I first began playing, under 2nd Ed., the one thing that frustrated me most was a vague notion of what the encounter really looked like in a 3D space. The best DM in the world can describe it, but there's no room for doubt when it's right in front of you. Plus, minis these days rule.
EATherrian wrote:
and maybe that's the point of this new format, to hold our hand and not give us any room to play around with the material on our own. That said, as a huge Greyhawk fan, I will purchase this, but I don't have high hopes for its usability.
The point probably is a hand-holding, newbie friendly format. But the DM is still in charge of the material at the end of the day. I'm with you on the spatial issues though. Less material sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, the content is top notch and I'm proud to be a charter subscriber. Can't wait for the next issue. But I had a few comments/suggestions:
- Most of the hyperlinks in my PDF don't work, which is frustrating for two reasons; not only am I interested in what the dead links originally had to offer, the reminder of not being able to use them is very prominent since the formatting utilizes a box around the text instead of something less obvious like bold or even underlined text. Maybe a list of the URLs in the ToC or an issue index would at least help bypass the technical difficulties.
- The Underdark Encounters page is rad. I want to start using it, even though I don't have all of the referenced books. Therein lies the rub - you (WB) mention a potential online posting of the abbreviations, but it would have been cool to actually have that available in the zine. Although most of us are savvy with the net, I don't want to have to rely on it once I've purchased the zine. (Granted, I can do the research to figure most of it out, but it's a little thing that would go a long way).
I don't mean to gripe. I'm just excited to see the KQ grow.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|