An Open Letter to Dragon and Dungeon Readers

[DaveMage]

I know it has been said before in the thread, but I *really* want to thank the Paizo folks for not only contributing to the thread, but for their responses to those that disagree with the changes.

It's quite bold of you to do that, and I think you are handling it in a very professional manner.

Kudos to all.

 

[MrCharm]

Thanks!

Paizo Guys,

Thanks for the information, and your dedication in making sure we all understand the situation.

I think one thing remains unanswered: Why can't most, if not all game mechanic content in Dragon/Dungeon be OGL?


Thanks, in advance for the answer.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Lastly, the implication that this change is a result of louder voices is questionable. The reasoning clearly stated that the magazine LOST READERSHIP. If they were bringing in more money, they would keep doing it, regardless of who was screaming or how loud.

Poly may get to live on its own in the new version of ENWorld magazine. Best of luck to the effort.

My opinion, but it was something like this:
Dungeon got Poly added/ Poly got Dungeon added.
Neither side was happy, but Poly folks sighed and continued enjoying their excellent content and putting up with Dungeon.
Dungeon guys canceled subscriptions because they weren't getting enough Dungeon.

Now, Poly folks will leave the magazine en masse, and we'll see if the dungeon fella's return in sufficient numbers to balance that out. I think you might also see some fence sitters like myself that liked BOTH, some of them will also leave as the content they've come to love is gone.

So, in short, Poly readers put up with the split issues, but Dungeon readers didn't. Dungeon readers were more vocal because of that, while most "pro-poly" folks simply said "we like it as is" and the vast majority probably never sent in info. You'll see more complainer's than content customers in any situation.

As I said, I'll buy the magazine based on what I see in the magazine. I don't buy it for "D&D content" or "Poly content" but for content I can use and enjoy.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Why can't most, if not all game mechanic content in Dragon/Dungeon be OGL?

It was mentioned that they didn't see a need for it, but in addition, I'd say because some day Wizards may use some of the material. They've done it before, and will most likely make some stuff OGL, but it's usually for a specific reason.

Heck, are any of the licensed products (Kalamar, Ravenloft, Gamma World) OGL?

 

[BryonD]

My opinion, but it was something like this:
Dungeon got Poly added/ Poly got Dungeon added.

Fair enough.

Was POLY ever a "real" magazine in the same manner as Dungeon? I thought it was a RGPA benefit before joining Dungeon.

What subscriptions did Poly people have to cancel?

 

[Keith F Strohm]

I know it has been said before in the thread, but I *really* want to thank the Paizo folks for not only contributing to the thread, but for their responses to those that disagree with the changes.

It's quite bold of you to do that, and I think you are handling it in a very professional manner.

Kudos to all.

DaveMage,

Thanks for your kind words. Being as open and honest as I can be is something I did when we announced the launch D&D 3rd Edition and it's sort of stuck with me throughout my career.

Lisa Stevens feels the same way, and Erik and Matt have always been willing to "peel back the layers" and give you guys the truth.

It is nice to get positive responses because of it. That's really not why we do it, but it's nice nonetheless.

Keith Strohm
Vice President
Paizo Publishing, LLC

 

[EricNoah]

This is a tough situation for everyone. There's no solution that can please everyone, unfortunately.

My own experience has been that Dragon has been used less by me in recent years; we've gone so far in the "toolbox" direction over the past few years that it often seems like a magazine full of gadgets with little connect between them. Sometimes I do get some interesting material (new critters are better than new classes).

Dungeon has always been entertaining -- I love seeing the pieces put together, and I love maps and illustrations. Poly was interesting even though I never used any of it -- it was a valiant effort. I will be interested to see how Dungeon develops as the DM's magazine because usually that's the sort of material I find interesting.

 

[jaerdaph]

Content removed after a good night's sleep.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Fair enough.

Was POLY ever a "real" magazine in the same manner as Dungeon? I thought it was a RGPA benefit before joining Dungeon.

What subscriptions did Poly people have to cancel?

I believe it was the Official RGPA magazine, yeah.
For myself, I never subbed to either magazine individually, I bought them as a combo. The variety meant there was usually something (on one or both sides) that I liked.

 

[Samothdm]

Keith, I asked a question on Page 5 but it seemed to have gotten buried in my "pro-Wil Wheaton" post.

Anyway, since Dragon is now just player material and Dungeon is just for DMs, but about articles like "Campaign Components" (such as Knights, Swashbucklers, Spies) that had content for both players and DMs? How will these articles be handled in the future? They are one of my favorites and I always read them when they're in the magazine.

I'll also add that I'd like to see more OGC in Dragon. I've never really understood why Wizards started the license and then almost never contributes to it (with the exception of Unearthed Arcana and of course the SRD).

Thanks for answering all of the posts and criticisms. I'm not happy with a lot of the changes you've mentioned, but given how often Dragon has changed over the years since I've been reading (around issue #72), I expect that it will change again in the next few years anyway.

On another note, someone up above needs to switch to decaf.