drnuncheon
Explorer
Psion said:
You mean the issue I pointed to earlier in the post as a good example?
Not saying that you were sending mixed signals - saying that the readership as a whole is sending them.
J
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Dragon Bashing- Why is it en vogue?
- Thread starter d20Dwarf
- Start date
Not saying that you were sending mixed signals - saying that the readership as a whole is sending them.
J
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I've always found the defense of "we cant' release much OGC" rather hollow, to be honest. All of the text of Green Ronin's early Freeport products were 100% Open Game Content. With the exception of Oathbound, I believe all of the text in all Bastion Press products has been 100% Open Game Content. And yet these two companies seem to be cited as "success stories" in the industry - not as companies who are collapsing due to people taking their content.ColonelHardisson said:
Do it well the first time, and people will have no reason to go anywhere else for content.
--The Sigil
Shard O'Glase
First Post
I want in every single freakin issue a poster map of a different locaiton with the nice square grid. Basically tons of generic maps, forest, river with bridge, tavern, mountain pass, etc.
I'm lazy and I hate using my crap art skills to try and display the terain on my map.
I'm lazy and I hate using my crap art skills to try and display the terain on my map.
Arnwyn
First Post
I am not one of those that "hate" Dragon. However, there are some things I don't like:d20Dwarf said:
- fiction. I never, ever read fiction in Dragon. I'm sure it's good, I am just not interested in it one bit.
- covers. Everything from the awful ad copy to the boring character pictures. (Not worried about "cheese" - just that they're boring.) Where's the background? I have *never* been inspired by character art - I want to see backgrounds/terrain/landscapes thrown into the mix.
- entire DM's advice section. That whole portion can go the way of the dodo and I would be quite happy. (I'm sure it's useful for others, but this post is about I like/don't like.)
- Silicon Sorcery? Thanks, but no thanks.
I would like to see:
- more rules for things that were not covered in the main rulebooks. As The Sigil pointed out, there are *still* no good rules for running kingdoms, mass combat, etc. (More things like the vehicle rules and underwater adventuring would be good. Too bad the underwater adventuring rules were pretty bad - rules were far less harsh than they should have been.)
- keep at least one Greyhawk and one FR article in each issue. Anything by Ed Greenwood is good, IMO.
- update older campaign settings. Every now and then, an AQ, SJ, or PS article would be good (I hate Dark Sun).
- ease up on the themes. And if there is no theme, don't call the issue anything (for example, that one issue should not have been called "Mercenaries").
- ease up on feats, prestige classes, spells, and magic items. We have a million of these, and don't need much more. Don't do away with them altogether, but twice a year is more than enough.
- more location articles - with MAPS! That planar location article was very good, but the lack of maps for it was appalling. For the love of pete, make the article actually useful!
- I've got a thing for new monsters (but that probably fits in with "enough already"! Maybe update older 1e/2e monsters, but don't duplicate anything in the ToH, of course).
Edit: should finish my sentences...
Last edited:
Sir Whiskers
First Post
D20, I think you'll find almost no one "hates" Dragon - maybe it seems that way sometimes because people are more likely to post when they're being critical about something (and boards like this one can sometimes allow the minority to drown out the rest).
As for the question you pose, I'd like to approach it from a slightly different perspective: Why is the Dragon doing some things I don't like?
1. Covers. Okay, someone at the magazine had an artistic vision that said make the covers look like the enquirer. Interesting once or twice, but enough is enough. Do they really think these covers enhance sales? Unless they are afraid of upsetting a significant portion of their readership, why not change the style to something with a bit more class?
2. Art - especially the covers. I'm not generally offended by most of the art in the Dragon, even the covers. What offends me is that such art is being published because they think it will make me more likely to buy the magazine. I really hate it when I think a vendor is treating me as a rube, and that's how this feels. The "vile" issue was even worse - I felt as if it was designed for and by juveniles. Why is Dragon continuing to do this stuff, when it so clearly offends so many?
I remember when Johnny Wilson was the editor of Computer Gaming World and his mantra was that the reader should always be treated with respect. That readers are intelligent, thougtful individuals who will appreciate intelligent, thoughtful content. I've since stopped subscribing to CGW because they've forgotten this lesson. I'd like to see Mr. Wilson bring more of it to the Dragon - I still have hope that he will.
3. Tie-ins. I'm a bit ambivalent here since, as someone else already said, material I find useless, someone else loves. That said, tie-in's should consist of new material, not essentially web enhancements. And to be new, I think the material needs to be published later - the only folks writing tie-in material are the original authors/playtesters of the product - printing lead times require this. What's so wrong about doing a Manual of the Planes tie-in now, with material that's been submitted since the book came out? The only hold-up I can see is if Dragon just doesn't have enough quality material on a particular subject. Also, why do tie-in's always have to WOTC products? How about something dealing with Scarred Lands, Mutants and Masterminds, etc.?
4. Lack of novelty. Joshua Dyal already mentioned this one. I'm just wondering if the lack of newness to the contents is because we've all been around too long, because 3E has been out long enough for the novelty to wear off, or because Dragon's been around so long that they've done most topics to death. Or is it because the Dragon isn't receiving the same quality and quantity of submissions? I've heard a few ideas floated for products that I thought would make great Dragon articles. If this is the case, what can Dragon do, if anything, to improve this?
Just to balance what I've written above (which is focused on the negative) - Dragon has always been THE resource for DnD gaming. The first issue I owned was #6. It's had its ups and downs over the years, but it is still the only real option for those of us who want what the Dragon offers - material that helps us improve our games. So I hope anyone from Dragon reading this thread takes our comments as *constructive* criticism, understanding that our complaints mostly spring from the very high expectations we place on them.
And the fact that a customer is never completely satisfied...
As for the question you pose, I'd like to approach it from a slightly different perspective: Why is the Dragon doing some things I don't like?
1. Covers. Okay, someone at the magazine had an artistic vision that said make the covers look like the enquirer. Interesting once or twice, but enough is enough. Do they really think these covers enhance sales? Unless they are afraid of upsetting a significant portion of their readership, why not change the style to something with a bit more class?
2. Art - especially the covers. I'm not generally offended by most of the art in the Dragon, even the covers. What offends me is that such art is being published because they think it will make me more likely to buy the magazine. I really hate it when I think a vendor is treating me as a rube, and that's how this feels. The "vile" issue was even worse - I felt as if it was designed for and by juveniles. Why is Dragon continuing to do this stuff, when it so clearly offends so many?
I remember when Johnny Wilson was the editor of Computer Gaming World and his mantra was that the reader should always be treated with respect. That readers are intelligent, thougtful individuals who will appreciate intelligent, thoughtful content. I've since stopped subscribing to CGW because they've forgotten this lesson. I'd like to see Mr. Wilson bring more of it to the Dragon - I still have hope that he will.
3. Tie-ins. I'm a bit ambivalent here since, as someone else already said, material I find useless, someone else loves. That said, tie-in's should consist of new material, not essentially web enhancements. And to be new, I think the material needs to be published later - the only folks writing tie-in material are the original authors/playtesters of the product - printing lead times require this. What's so wrong about doing a Manual of the Planes tie-in now, with material that's been submitted since the book came out? The only hold-up I can see is if Dragon just doesn't have enough quality material on a particular subject. Also, why do tie-in's always have to WOTC products? How about something dealing with Scarred Lands, Mutants and Masterminds, etc.?
4. Lack of novelty. Joshua Dyal already mentioned this one. I'm just wondering if the lack of newness to the contents is because we've all been around too long, because 3E has been out long enough for the novelty to wear off, or because Dragon's been around so long that they've done most topics to death. Or is it because the Dragon isn't receiving the same quality and quantity of submissions? I've heard a few ideas floated for products that I thought would make great Dragon articles. If this is the case, what can Dragon do, if anything, to improve this?
Just to balance what I've written above (which is focused on the negative) - Dragon has always been THE resource for DnD gaming. The first issue I owned was #6. It's had its ups and downs over the years, but it is still the only real option for those of us who want what the Dragon offers - material that helps us improve our games. So I hope anyone from Dragon reading this thread takes our comments as *constructive* criticism, understanding that our complaints mostly spring from the very high expectations we place on them.
And the fact that a customer is never completely satisfied...
Last edited:
Samnell
Explorer
Re: Re: Dragon Bashing- Why is it en vogue?
It's the one thing guaranteed to kill all interest in Dragon for me, so I'm hoping you're right about it being a pipe dream. Excepting cheesecake covers and one notable moment of poor taste my only objection to Dragon since the launch of 3e has been that there aren't any more "Secret Life of..." articles. I loved those things.
The Sigil said:
It's the one thing guaranteed to kill all interest in Dragon for me, so I'm hoping you're right about it being a pipe dream. Excepting cheesecake covers and one notable moment of poor taste my only objection to Dragon since the launch of 3e has been that there aren't any more "Secret Life of..." articles. I loved those things.
I'm not a hater, but I don't buy Dragon anymore either. I haven't since shortly after the release of 3E. It just didn't offer me anything. Not that it went bad, but my needs were not being met.
Instead of a point by point listing of things (much of what is said above) I'll try to sum it up into a notion.
I don't need a bunch of new widgets. Dragon has traditionally offered up a lot of cool widgets. New spells, monsters, magic items, prestiege classes, Gods, etc.
I need to explore the nuances of the game as it is. The relationship between the rules that you don't immediately notice. Deep articles (almost technical) about advetnure design. How to really build a great encounter. How to test ideas before your players see them. How to develop different styles within a camaign. How to understand the differences between designing an adventure/arc for a one shot night, convention game, or extended campaign. I'd like to see a lot of grit on how to use the game system to the fullest, and how to bend it in interesting ways.
Monte Cook does that kind of stuff, but we don't explore what he's doing at the design level. We look at all the widgets that result and admire his great skill in crafting.
D&D/D20 has always been a tool that you use to shape your entertainment with. No matter what edition you use. The trend for product or magazine articles has always been focused on giving you new widgets to shape with. Any mention of how to shape, or how to add in little flourishes to the design has mostly been very light and surface level and pointed toward the new DM's and players out there.
I want to dig into the guts of the system and watch the heart beat, so I can understand the animal better. I'd gladly pay good dollar to see that in any form.
Instead of a point by point listing of things (much of what is said above) I'll try to sum it up into a notion.
I don't need a bunch of new widgets. Dragon has traditionally offered up a lot of cool widgets. New spells, monsters, magic items, prestiege classes, Gods, etc.
I need to explore the nuances of the game as it is. The relationship between the rules that you don't immediately notice. Deep articles (almost technical) about advetnure design. How to really build a great encounter. How to test ideas before your players see them. How to develop different styles within a camaign. How to understand the differences between designing an adventure/arc for a one shot night, convention game, or extended campaign. I'd like to see a lot of grit on how to use the game system to the fullest, and how to bend it in interesting ways.
Monte Cook does that kind of stuff, but we don't explore what he's doing at the design level. We look at all the widgets that result and admire his great skill in crafting.
D&D/D20 has always been a tool that you use to shape your entertainment with. No matter what edition you use. The trend for product or magazine articles has always been focused on giving you new widgets to shape with. Any mention of how to shape, or how to add in little flourishes to the design has mostly been very light and surface level and pointed toward the new DM's and players out there.
I want to dig into the guts of the system and watch the heart beat, so I can understand the animal better. I'd gladly pay good dollar to see that in any form.
Savage Wombat
Hero
Well, I've been reading Dragon magazine from the eighties, and one thing I've definitely noticed:
No matter when you look, you'll always find people complaining that the magazine wasn't as good as it used to be.
At least ENWorlders have demonstrated themselves actually able to articulate their criticisms.
To add my .02:
1) Personally, I don't see what's so bad about this latest cover. It doesn't look that "cheesecake"-ish to me - especially compared to that long-ago issue with the naked woman on the tombstone. Caused a bit of comment, that one.
2) I do think the covers have gotten too heavy in the contents listings, and not very helpful ones at that. The Dragon covers that were best were detailed art pieces, with beautiful backgrounds as well as striking foreground figures. Now that's being lost, replaced with issue hype.
3) I'm having trouble articulating this thought, but we'll see. Anyway: it was a good thing that Dragon has been providing ideas and materials for new gamers and new GMs. That said, I think they go too far with this. For example, an article suggesting "apply the half-elemental template to fiends" is clever, but extremely obvious to long-term gamers. When an article such as that takes up a lot of pagecount as well, by including detailed stat blocks for said creatures, it begins to wear.
Enough of Dragon's readers have been gamers for twenty years, that they don't want to read articles every month that don't contribute anything new to their worldview. We've had detailed threads here on ENWorld about things like building a real-world economy, or the ramifications of Raise Dead on the world economy, that would make interesting Dragon articles. They wouldn't be for the casual, Diablo-style gamers, but they'd be a change of pace. Give me something for my word count other than long repetetive stat blocks.
Of course, this requires people to actually submit these articles, but you did ask what I wanted to see.
4) I enjoy the comics you include thoroughly. Although I think Phil is going through the motions a bit. But if Aaron Williams asks you for more money, pay him - he conveys the true spirit of D&D, with all its virtues and faults, better than anyone. And he's a better artist than the guys at KoDT.
5) I agree the themes have been overdone in the past. If you don't, for example, like Drow very much, then having three articles of "drow magic" and "drow weapons" following a long ecology article, coupled with a horde of drow NPCs - we've used up almost two-thirds the issue, and none of it useful to you. Theme issues were better served by, say, the Halloween issue, with all sorts of various spooky things, but not all on one topic.
6) I liked the silly April issues. I think people who complain haven't seen some of the really hysterical ones from the old days. Who out there remembers the adventure "Nogard", or the Wandering Damage Table?
7) I don't read the fiction as a rule, but I've done so in the past enough that I think it should be included. But it's not mandatory, and I'd like it to be short, and excellent.
8) Personally, I don't care for articles that are nothing but "here's the write-up I did for these monsters from XXX computer game" - the fact that these seem to come along every issue makes it worse.
All right, I feel that's enough for now.
No matter when you look, you'll always find people complaining that the magazine wasn't as good as it used to be.
At least ENWorlders have demonstrated themselves actually able to articulate their criticisms.
To add my .02:
1) Personally, I don't see what's so bad about this latest cover. It doesn't look that "cheesecake"-ish to me - especially compared to that long-ago issue with the naked woman on the tombstone. Caused a bit of comment, that one.
2) I do think the covers have gotten too heavy in the contents listings, and not very helpful ones at that. The Dragon covers that were best were detailed art pieces, with beautiful backgrounds as well as striking foreground figures. Now that's being lost, replaced with issue hype.
3) I'm having trouble articulating this thought, but we'll see. Anyway: it was a good thing that Dragon has been providing ideas and materials for new gamers and new GMs. That said, I think they go too far with this. For example, an article suggesting "apply the half-elemental template to fiends" is clever, but extremely obvious to long-term gamers. When an article such as that takes up a lot of pagecount as well, by including detailed stat blocks for said creatures, it begins to wear.
Enough of Dragon's readers have been gamers for twenty years, that they don't want to read articles every month that don't contribute anything new to their worldview. We've had detailed threads here on ENWorld about things like building a real-world economy, or the ramifications of Raise Dead on the world economy, that would make interesting Dragon articles. They wouldn't be for the casual, Diablo-style gamers, but they'd be a change of pace. Give me something for my word count other than long repetetive stat blocks.
Of course, this requires people to actually submit these articles, but you did ask what I wanted to see.
4) I enjoy the comics you include thoroughly. Although I think Phil is going through the motions a bit. But if Aaron Williams asks you for more money, pay him - he conveys the true spirit of D&D, with all its virtues and faults, better than anyone. And he's a better artist than the guys at KoDT.
5) I agree the themes have been overdone in the past. If you don't, for example, like Drow very much, then having three articles of "drow magic" and "drow weapons" following a long ecology article, coupled with a horde of drow NPCs - we've used up almost two-thirds the issue, and none of it useful to you. Theme issues were better served by, say, the Halloween issue, with all sorts of various spooky things, but not all on one topic.
6) I liked the silly April issues. I think people who complain haven't seen some of the really hysterical ones from the old days. Who out there remembers the adventure "Nogard", or the Wandering Damage Table?
7) I don't read the fiction as a rule, but I've done so in the past enough that I think it should be included. But it's not mandatory, and I'd like it to be short, and excellent.
8) Personally, I don't care for articles that are nothing but "here's the write-up I did for these monsters from XXX computer game" - the fact that these seem to come along every issue makes it worse.
All right, I feel that's enough for now.
Similar Threads
