I miss the pretty pages

[RFisher]

For me the issues are content & that the design doesn't get in the way of the content.

As long as the design/art doesn't get in the way of the content, I'd seldom complain about it. It's subjective. Praise it if you like it. Keep quite otherwise. That's my philo...wait...that's the philosophy I'd like to live by.

 

[thepriz]

Pretty pages are unprofessional. Read time, Newsweek, Jet, Ebony, people,.

I disagree. Just because someone puts art in a magazine does not make it unprofessional. Dragon should not even be compared to these magazines. The audience is not the same. I felt that Dragon was done very professionally and now it just does not grab attention (which in turn will not help get new subscribers).

How many of those are totally black with white text etc. Combine the art back ground with glossy pages, I have skipped entire articles because the background made the text hard to read.
Jasper shakes JD. Grabs is long handle pewter spoon and looks at Dire Bear. Interest and artistic text and background. I'm forty it hurts us eyes.

As far as the typeface goes, the old one was larger and should be easier on those old eyes. I don't have a problem with the black text on white background but I don't see the problem with adding a watermark to the background, decorating the boarders, or adding pictures in between the text.

 

[thepriz]

Good! Haven't seen it yet, but I like bringing selected photocopies of Dragon to sessions instead of entire magazines... hence, black-on-white = good.
Rav

Well, there is another reson watermarks are good. Now you will have all those people canceling there subscriptions because they can just photocopy what they want.

 

[thepriz]

FWIW, count me among those that like the "clean" new design. A lot. And among those who like that Dungeon is back to being Dungeon and has dropped Poly.

Only one thing now keeps me from re-subscribing: the whole s-bomb and f-bomb fiasco back around the issues when they published a snippet of Martin's story. Their attitude towards the criticism that accompanied (not just ignoring it, but "putting down" the "close-minded folks" {my term, not their exact words} who dared even raise the issue) along with the decision to maintain a policy which would today leave those words in an issue of the magazines means I will not be going back to Paizo until I see an apology and policy change that they will at least keep their language as clean as Time, Newsweek, and similar "respectable" magazines. I don't consider myself too picky; I don't like seeing a--, b-tch, and similar, but I can tolerate them; however, I draw the line at inviting "s-bombs" and "f-bombs" into my home. Until Paizo guarantees me that I won't see those words if I invite their magazine into my home, I can't in good conscience subscribe.

So, IMO Paizo has taken HUGE strides in the right direction, I'm just waiting for the one last little step that will let me welcome them back with open arms.

--The Sigil

Wow, which issue is that? I must have missed this. I would be very upset also if I saw this in Dragon.

 

[thepriz]

Praise it if you like it. Keep quite otherwise.

I think this is a very communistic thing to say. Only give your opinion if it is the same as yours. Well, it is a good thing I live in a country where I have the right to say what I want to say. Paizo did ask for opinions.

 

[redkobold]

I find the white a little plain myself. Perhaps some middleground between what it is now and the watermarked pages.

The first page of all of the articles is especially bare however with the expanded margins. My first impression (though irrational) was that I was being cheated of content. I would like to see image borders, sidebars, or even "thumbnail" sketches relating to the article in the margins.

While we are on it, I also miss plain black line art from before both magazines went to full color. I would like to see some line art graphics in articles again if it is graphicly appropriate. I recall an issue of Dungeon right after it went to all color that had images of the pencil sketches of the illustrator. I think it was the Robin Hood Campaign adventure. That was very nice. As an artist, I like to see some of the process, and some of the rougher concepts pictures and let my mind fill in the blanks. For me it is more evocative, like a black and white photo versus a color photo.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[TDRandall]

Hmm, I don't remember anything like that happening around issue 307 (Westeros and George RR Martin Exclusive), but I'm not surprised after the venom that accompanied my 15 minutes of fame. (Perhaps that is was Sigil IS referring to.)

The issue for THAT was #275 (2000 - September?), the one with the orc paladin and the nice big blazing words "Warriors Kick A--" with the real word in place, of course. I asked on the Wizards messageboards the question "was it REALLY necessary to use that word on the cover?" My main point of issue was its placement on the front. My kids were becoming interested in roleplaying, but that issue never made it to their hands. In fact, that issue never saw the light of day after coming in from the mailbox since previous issues had already rocked the boat with associates from other spheres of life. I wanted Dragon to keep the higher standard rather than even starting down the slippery slope. Now, I don't enjoy reading it either insde the magazine or anywhere else for that matter, but can understand its use if used for story ... artistry? ... purposes at appropriate, intense times.

Still, from the overwhelming outraged response on that board to my question/suggestions you would have thought I was a condemning, right-wing fundamentalist, repressive, totalitarian, red-necked, prudish, censuring bigot. I can assure you, I'm only half of those things - or less, depending on who you talk to.

They put my original post in a magazine one or two issues after that, along with a couple of the "refutations" and what I remember as a rather ambiguous response on their part (but perhaps I'm repressing). It hadn't happened again as far as I can remember, although there do seem to have been more instances of courser language showing up inside recently - and seems like some back cover ads have been questionable in this regard too?

IIRC, they said they were trying to target teens at that particular time, and it wasn't anything they haven't heard before. True, but does that make it right? Draw them up with wit and intelligence rather then wallowing in the sludge with them! But teens generally don't have the cash to shell out like 20 and 30-somethings that are the main financial backbone of the industry (my impressions).

I did suggest a follow-up if that's what they really wanted to do. Something like placing a Dire Wolf defending her pups in a den and laying big words across it "What a B----!" Technically true, but OH so offensive! (Even if you can hear THAT word on TV frequently enough these days.) I'm just glad they didn't take me up on it, and haven't tried the trick again since.

Now that I've said that you just watch. In the next couple of issues....

OK - enough diatribe! I know I went from being informative as originally planned to either boring some or risking another war beginning on the subject. (NOT my intent - just reliving and sharing. Honest!)

 

[Patlin]

I find the white a little plain myself. Perhaps some middleground between what it is now and the watermarked pages.

That would be good. I like Dragon, and I'm not seriously objecting to the white pages. I'll enjoy the articles with or without artwork of any kind. The white just seems a little too stark and business like to me... I want something different from Dragon than I would want from the New York Times.

 

[RFisher]

I think this is a very communistic thing to say. Only give your opinion if it is the same as yours. Well, it is a good thing I live in a country where I have the right to say what I want to say. Paizo did ask for opinions.

"Communistic"? You're talking about liberty, not economics. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose...

I never said anyone didn't have the right to say what they want.

Let me put it this way: As a reader, I don't find feel its productive to complain about art & design. Since art & design is subjective, it can't please everyone. Indeed, it's unlikely to even please a majority.

So, a publisher prints a magazine. 60% of the readership complains about the art & design. Next month they change it & a different 60% of the readership complains about the art & design. Next month they change it again & yet a different 60% of the readership complains about art & design.

Sure, go ahead & complain about art & design all you want. If you're interested in trying to make the magazine better, though, I suggest that there is more productive feedback to be given than that the art just didn't float your boat.

 

[rpace]

I think this is a very communistic thing to say.

Dude -- not to defend Communism, but if you're going to slag off on something (that should be slagged off on), at least slag it properly.

It was a very dictatorial thing to say or, because of the wondrous influx of so-called "free-speech-zones", a very Bushian thing to say.

Communism is more of an oppression by the majority sort of thing.

~Richard