47,220. What is that?

[Erik Mona]

It's also interesting to note that the RPGNet thread has a different tone because, apparently, many of the posters over there have not even looked at the magazine in years. Too many prestige classes and feats? Really?

That criticism (as one poster over there pointed out) was accurate two or three years ago, but it doesn't even come close these days.

--Erik

 

[Treebore]

All I can say is that, like I said over at RPG.net, that the last 3 issues are the first I have bought in 2 to 3 years. I will probably buy one or two more issues off the newstand to be sure, but if I stay as pleased as I have been with the content of 349, 350, and 351 I will do a 3 year subscription again.

I may run a C&C game, but D20 3E material is just as useful to me as any other edition of D&D. Even Prestige Classes, because they may become a full class in my campaign if I like the concept enough to do so.

I think feats are so over done that they aren't really original anymore. However I did like the "flavor" feats for the various settings in Dragon 351. Still not original, but at least a "conceptual thought" I may not have come up with on my own.

I probably should clarify how I am defining "original". Most feats I see "created" are so obvious that I could have come up with them on my own, as needed by the direction of my campaign and of the characters in the campaign. So when I consider them so obvious I don't give them the label of original.

I have seen a fair number of feats I consider original, my favorites being in Complete Arcane, but most I see as a space filler.

So I am guessing, based especially on issue 351, feats I will see most often in Dragon will be flavor feats, to help a particular concept have more color, uniqueness, etc... So if that is going to be the reason behind most feats in Dragon I will probably like them over all.

I have also found, due mostly to my experiences with Dungeon, that even though I don't like Eberron, the adventures, and the Sorceror article in Dragon, have some cool ideas/concepts that I actually want to incorporate in my Erde camapign.

Since my main reason for reading Dungeon, and probably Dragon once again, is to get ideas I would probably never think of myself. To keep my game fresh and my players unable to "predict" my games direction or plans.

So the bottom line is that I will probably (definitely if 352 and 353 continue to be as good) be a Dragon subscriber once again.

All because ENWorlders told me about the Igwilv string of articles and how good they were.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I can't speak specifically to the claim about the annuals. All I know is that they cost a lot more than they brought in. I was merely a lowly editorial monkey when that change was made (it was decided upon during the WotC days immediately after the last annual, though, of that I'm sure).

I think the issue wasn't so much the annual itself, but the fact that it was a part of the promised package that was not included. I don't know if any compensation was offered to those that subscribed under the "13 issues a year" plan or not.

The magazine was never "halved" in size. Dungeon was made a monthly as opposed to a bi-monthly magazine at no additional cost to subscribers. This resulted in fewer pages per issue, but more pages over the same period of time.

Again, I don't know, but those that subscribed for a year (of 6 issues), were they given a year (12 issues) or half a year (6 issues) when the change occured. To really debate the point would require an actual "content page count" rather than total page count.

I appreciate your sentiment and can't argue with your experience, but Paizo always tries to deal fairly with its customers, and your assertion that the company is "shadey" is offensive and inaccurate.

Neither of the issues above are an issue for me, so I just inserted a bit of devils advocate. I have however never heard of any problems from Paizo when someone cancled and asked for a refund.


My only real problems are that things run in "paths" and when a path gets boring, the magazine is still on that path. I also find that complaints are quite often stifled by overzealous defenders and this has resulted in a lot of little stuff that I dislike getting glossed over in a rush of bashing.


I hate all the 4e talk, but sometimes games need to reboot. I think magazines should be continually advancing and changing so as to keep material fresh. For me, lately, the magazines have been boring, though quality.

 

[Glyfair]

I can't speak specifically to the claim about the annuals. All I know is that they cost a lot more than they brought in. I was merely a lowly editorial monkey when that change was made (it was decided upon during the WotC days immediately after the last annual, though, of that I'm sure).

While I certainly can't speak to the internal politics of the time, I do remember the discussions between the last Dragon Annual (the d20 Special) and the announcement of the discontinuation.

There were a lot of complaints about the d20 Special (a lot focusing on reused material from 3rd parties). The publisher (Johnny someone?) said it sold very well on the stands, and seemed to dismiss the complaints. Other comments from him that, IIRC, touched on both on some people's comments about the d20 Annual and the cancellation gave a strong "you didn't like this, then we'll take out Annual and go home" vibe to them. That may not have been accurate, or intended, but that's how it came across and I'm not the only one that noticed it.

That, coupled with their decision not to publish Dragon annuals even though they advertised them on the subscription forms convinced me that Paizo is a bit too shadey to get my business.

My own failure to renew my subscriptions came after a similiar issue. They announced online that they were discontinuing the subscriber exclusive content about the same time my subscription was up for renewal. However, for a couple of months after the annoucement. their subscription notices were touting that as a reason to subscribe. If you push something as a reason to subscribe, you should follow through until those who subscribed because of that subscriptions would have lapsed. Otherwise it's very close to "bait and switch" (buy this magazine because their is exclusive subscriber content. Oops, we don't have that).

Whether it was a bad thing to begin with wasn't the issue. The issue was that they were promising even after they had cancelled it.

Note that I've since renewed my subscriptions, even if I have quibbles with the some of the editorial decisions (for example, the Adventure Paths dominate Dungeon magazine too much).

 

[Glyfair]

Again, I don't know, but those that subscribed for a year (of 6 issues), were they given a year (12 issues) or half a year (6 issues) when the change occured. To really debate the point would require an actual "content page count" rather than total page count.

I think a lot of the halving comments I've heard from Dungeon subscribers who felt forced to give half their magazine to another magazine (Polyhedron) that they had no interest in. I didn't mind myself, since I liked some of those mini-d20 games a lot. Even so, I really only liked about 1 in 4 or so (Josie and the Pussycats d20?, was there a cry for that ).

 

[Treebore]

I was one of the subscribers that ended up liking the polyhedron content, for the most part. There were exceptions (such as Josie and the Pussycats), but there are things I don't like in every magazine I buy. ITs an unusual day when I get one of my magazines and like every article/piece of content it has.

 

[Master of the Game]

I can't speak specifically to the claim about the annuals. All I know is that they cost a lot more than they brought in. I was merely a lowly editorial monkey when that change was made (it was decided upon during the WotC days immediately after the last annual, though, of that I'm sure).

Regardless of the reason behind it, I still paid for something that I never received. If you went into a retail store and bought 13 books, but after they charged you for them they said,
"Sorry, but we're just not making enough money off that 13th book, so we're not going to give it to you." Would you go back?

The magazine was never "halved" in size. Dungeon was made a monthly as opposed to a bi-monthly magazine at no additional cost to subscribers. This resulted in fewer pages per issue, but more pages over the same period of time.

Which might be reasonable if they had given us content based on the length of time, but what they did was say that 3 years equals 18 issues, so now you get a year and a half of issues at half the page count.

I appreciate your sentiment and can't argue with your experience, but Paizo always tries to deal fairly with its customers, and your assertion that the company is "shady" is offensive and inaccurate.

Funny, I found Paizo's behavior to be offensive and dishonest. Especially since complaints were answered with, "Too bad if you don't like it, we can't make everyone happy." If anything is inaccurate, I would say that would be your characterization of the Dungeon complaint. Since the page count was indeed halved, and it doesn't matter if it would be the same content over time, if you weren't giving us the same amount of time we paid for.

 

[Erik Mona]

As I recall (and a quick google search attests), Johnny extended all existing Dungeon subscriptions by two months at no additional cost when the magazine went monthly. The cover price also dropped a dollar at the time, which admittedly had limited impact on existing subscribers but certainly affected folks buying the magazine off the newsstands.

The decision to discontinue the annual was made while the magazines were at Wizards of the Coast, not Paizo.

Either way, both of these issues are four to five years old now, and three publishers ago. I understand why a customer might hold a grudge for that long, but from the perspective of Paizo's current publisher, such a judgment seems unreasonably harsh.

--Erik

 

[Vocenoctum]

Either way, both of these issues are four to five years old now, and three publishers ago. I understand why a customer might hold a grudge for that long, but from the perspective of Paizo's current publisher, such a judgment seems unreasonably harsh.
--Erik

From my perspective, Paizo was formed from the folks that ran the magazines for WotC/Hasbro and are basically the same organization, though in charge of themselves rather than working under WotC. That may be totally inaccurate, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks that either. I'm not sure about "three publishers" though, do you mean Editorial Staff as publishers?

Merry Christmas!

 

[Agamon]

I appreciate your sentiment and can't argue with your experience, but Paizo always tries to deal fairly with its customers, and your assertion that the company is "shadey" is offensive and inaccurate.

LOL! No kidding. As far as RPG companies go, Paizo is as far away from shady as I've seen. Just for starters, customer service is what a non-jaded person might expect or hope for from a given company. Which is to say, it's light-years above and beyond what is offered by anyone else I've ever dealt with, rpg or not. Not to mention the top notch quality of the product.

You guys need to a section on your site to sell clues, because apparently some people are in need of one.