Search Posts
Here's some food for thought. I'll ask my four heterosexual male players and my two bisexual female players if they find the cover provocative or sexual in any way. I'll also ask my mother, a preschool teacher if she would be afraid to have the cover visible in the preschool. These kids are three and four years old. A little survey should cover the bases. I suspect I know the answers but why not? I'll even quote them.
Now for another Canadian's input...me. Personally, I'm glad the cover rant has simmered down. Granted, I never once thought the Medusa was provocative at all (nor do I suspect teenage boys dream of such a creature) and as far as the mention of Pazuzu...uh...roleplaying games do involve something besides playing yourself right? If people think that Dungeons & Dragons and the magazines that focus on them involve, drink blood, worshipping demons and starting suicide cults or any other such stupidity that I've seen mentioned in opinionated and uneducated sources, they should learn to learn. Think and question first, for opinions and rant afterwards if it deserves merit. The stuffy Victorian age is over and it's time to toss out the relics of ignorance humanity has been dragging along for it's most of it's history. Thankfully, going by the posts I've seen, at least most D&D players have absorbed that one. Truth, Knowledge and Foresight /|\
And here I was starting to think I was the only one that noticed the awen and triskele graphic swaps. In the general sense, the definitions were right as were the descriptions, a tad brief for rather wide spanning symbols. All in all, they didn't do a half bad job though. An injection of Druidry in the Druid class is a nice touch. Toss out the Arabic scimitars and replace scrolls with ogham sticks for druids and they'll be a nice hodge-podge of fantasy druid and Celtic-style Druid. Beannachd agus slainte! /|\
It's nice to see bits of our world and it's past showing up strongly in Dragon and Dungeon alike. Whether it's an obscure wind demon like Pazuzu (who I still think should have pea soup as a breath weapon!), Mesopotamian gods or Druid's with links to historical Druidry. I was surprised to find the Awen and Triskele/Triskelion had their names mixed up yet the rest was pretty much on the nail. Minor boo-boo, my tree hugging grove cohorts won't burn anybody for it. :P Beannachd agus slainte. /|\
I rarely have any reason to complain over an issue. I rarely use a thing in any of them but enjoy them anyway. I was surprised they had the triskele and awen mixed up in Class Acts for the Druid. The fact that they tried to incorporate some of reality into the druid however pleased my tree hugging friends and I despite the minor boo-boo. Still, I was surprised they goofed the two major symbols and not something more complex. Their are more symbols associated with Druidry and Druidism these days but those are the only two that really can be traced back. Reality and history often present a lot of ways to make a character more rich. The tree alphabet ogham was used to inscribe on stones or small sticks. They were usually just markers or headstones and things of the like but a Druid with scribe scroll could be made more interesting by having scrolls with ogham symbols on them instead, no real affect on the game, just a thing for looks and to help set them apart from arcane spellcasters and the more clerical types.
I had this crazy theory in line with the thoughts of a few others. D&D is fantasy, A giant spider couldn't even support it's own weight. "Vermin" of most varieties like almost every critter in D&D simply cannot exist in our world and shouldn't be expected to. Though I would love to see a Conjurer summon up a Fiendish Giant Spider that just collapsed in on itself or some Huge Moths that can't do anything just fall out of the sky but the fact is they aren't real or even close to it. They are fodder for players and handy sources for poisonous glands and venom sacs. I have all sorts of ridiculous bugs that some of the cultures in my setting hunt or even farm as food. None of them could exist and none of them are real. When was the last time anyone has seen a wasp fire a magic missle?
I've been pleased by most of the covers of both magazines. I usually enjoyed whatever was attacking me or posing on the cover. I rarely used it for...well...anything but I liked it none-the-less. As for text, it gives you an idea of what's inside which helps but the same can be done by simply opening it (provided it's not in a bag). I favor the more ornate font used for the titles over this bland block lettering but it hardly matters. A little variety on the covers would be nice. People ultimately buy the magazines for their content but sometimes are just a turn off. An elderly wizard with a cliché pointy hat and pink magic just doesn't seem very current somehow. I would have likely expected his name to be Zordaz or some such 1970's movie reject name. The dragons themselves may get tiring...but let's face it...the magazine is called Dragon. All in all, I'm happy to see anything that doesn't look like it came from a fantasy B movie.
Now that would actually be very handy. How-to's on how to use Photoshop (which seems to be the staple software for visuals) would be very handy and unconventional as well. I'd find that much more useful than half of the stuff in Dungeon which I always read and never actually use. |
