• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

An Open Letter to Dragon and Dungeon Readers

mythusmage said:
Make Ares a weekly webzine, in the style of Pyramid (Steve Jackson Games). Fresh content, a comic or two, plus news of the d20 industry. Be sure to include a subscriber only discussion forum. Keep it barebones graphics wise and focus on content. And since I'm talking about a d20 Pyramid (:D), make playtest files available to subscribers and hold discussions thereon.

There was a d20 Pyramid... it died.

I would rather they either do a new magazine (unlikely) or even print some stuff like FFG is doing with their line. (unlikely as well) A book dedicated to the minigame's is a good idea, though I haven't had a chance to play with any of the FFG stuff yet.

Oh, and the preview section sounds like a great idea. It'll be good for all those folks that aren't on ENWorld waiting for some retailer to post a copy of the quarterly catalog.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Originally posted by Emirikol:
Will the articles be useful like DMG-style 'helper-applications' or will they be 10 page articles on the ecology of the Flumph (sorry Roger Moore)
Quick hijack: Roger Moore had nothing to do with "The Ecology of the Flumph." If you're looking to blame someone for that, you need to look to Dave Gross, the Dragon editor at the time, and more importantly, to me, for having written it. :D

Point taken, though: You're not looking for articles like "The Ecology of the Flumph" in Dungeon; perfectly understandable.

End hijack. ;)

Johnathan
 

I, as are several of the people here, am particularly disappointed that Poly is disappearing. That was the entire reason I began subscribing to Dungeon, but ever since I began my subscription, Polyhedron content has been steadily decreasing. Since I don't really run pre-written adventures, a magazine with no other content has reasonably less utility than Poly's minigames and D20 updates.

I won't demand that I get my money back, or anything asinine like that...I'll just be a little disappointed. Unless I am thrilled with the new Dungeon, I'll probably just let it lapse at the end of my subscription.

The changes to Dragon are all right, but you seem to stealing a lot of Undefeated's thunder. *shrugs* In general, I think I'll like the changes to Dragon, but Dungeon is more than likely going to be a loss.
 

I think the loss of Poly will encourage other companies to step up. If there's a demand for it (as people demonstrate here), a 3rd party company should have no trouble getting a new magazine started and keeping it going.

Who knows, it might be great for the industry. The existence of Poly may have been too hard to compete with. Also, once d20 Future comes out, there will be a lot more non-fantasy stuff to work with too.

jh
 

Emirikol said:
You make a good point about 'articles' in DUngeon. Perhaps they should focus on more 'chart&quick-flip' sorts of articles instead of a bunch of filler. It's been clear forever that DM's don't like to have to sort through 'filler' to run a scenario, the same is probably true of any type of 'DM-Aide' articles. It will be interesting to see how this whole deal turns out. Will the articles be useful like DMG-style 'helper-applications' or will they be 10 page articles on the ecology of the Flumph (sorry Roger Moore) which are like trying to convert "DUNE" to a role-playing game ;)

Material that would help put together quick adventures would be great to see. Articles have to be brilliant, or focused, to appeal to me any longer. I mean, if I am looking for DM advice, I can just as easily turn here and have a Q/A session. Anything that can be quickly and easily "unbolted" and re-used in a game is good. Yes, almost anything can be "unbolted" from an existing adventure. However, ease of use is the key. Sometimes it can simply be an issue of page formatting, which might not be easy to implement.

On a side note, I liked some of the Ecology articles. Not all of them, but some of them. I also like articles that mix storytelling with game info. I still have my cardboard cutout of a Deck of Many Things from Dragon (what was it, issue 148 or so?). The accompanying article was fun to read. (I also have my issue of Dungeon that came out at the same time with a Deck of Many Things. but, when choosing between color or B/W, I wanted to use color.) On the other hand, some of the Ecology articles were, well, unnecessary.

Emirikol said:
"The Best of" concept is a bad one. If you really want people paying for more of something they already have, have them pay for the SAME ADVENTURES a second time. I'd rather just have them put a 'list' on their website allowing people to VOTE on what adventures were the best (graded according to several criteria and then averaged of course...). Hey, these 5 adventures were the best according to 89 people that say so. Here are the issues, here is the 'back issue order form if you don't already have them... Grading the adventures is something that I did on my Complete Dungeon Index according to what the "Readers" wrote in the Forum/Jail-Mail sections. They had talked about it before, but were expecting people to just write-in. Well, simple 'polls' with 5 or so criteria and an average will be the best way.

Game on!

jh

The "Best of" are not geared to appeal to the long-time subscribers. Not unless those articles are so useful that you need them in a quick reference. The "Best of" issues were geared toward the people that are recent additions to the hobby/magazine.

Therein lies the problem. It is an even smaller market than the existing subscriber base. I suspect it is difficult to justify the "Best of" anthology when you know that even fewer people will pick it up than for a regular issue. But, years ago, it was one way that Dragon might have won new subscribers. Nowadays, putting some of the "Best of" content on the website might be much more effective at bringing in new subscribers.

As for a listing of articles point to issues, it is a good idea, to a point. The issues with the best articles are probably the ones with the least backstock as it is. So, it might be a good way for Paizo to eliminate some of the backstock (which is what a company needs to do), but once you have done that the polls now point at articles that you can't buy issues for. You can't very well pull the poll and still keep it as "Best Articles", and you risk creating a level of frustration that might not be helpful.

It would be far better to have a listing of the articles with a brief description for each magazine. Heck, contact one of the people that has compiled these things here on the web/EN World and ask them to use their existing compilation. Heck, offer them a subscription to keep it updated. Post it on the Paizo site and make that the definitive reference for information about the magazine.

One of the problems, as I see it, is that many of us would love to see more trickle out content in the same way that we see small updates to the WotC site. But, Paizo is a smaller company and I suspect they run much tighter and leaner, with a monthly publication schedule. While people that loved Polyhedron would love to see a semi-monthly publication of a minigame, can Paizo realistically put one out? For Free? And would you be willing to fork over money for a mini-game, sight unseen, if they put it as a purchasable option on the site?

Paizo is trying to keep the company healthy. Right now, they are approaching that in the best way they can. Hopefully, these changes will help bring in more customers. As I have said earlier in the thread, I am probably not the core demographic for them right now. It would be great if they could appeal to me and cater to market demands, but that doesn't look to be the case. I don't begrudge that to them because I recognize that my tastes might not reflect what a majority of customers want. My tastes will change, market demands will change, the magazines will change.
 



I know it's been said before, but they deserve to hear it.

Thanks Paizo and crew for your honesty and willing to communicate your intentions to the public as well as taking the time to answer questions and respond to concerns.

Although I will be missing Polyhedron, I look forward to most of the upcoming changes in Dungeon and Dragon. I wish there could be a bit more adventures in Dragon though.

Good Luck.
 

Emirikol said:
I think the loss of Poly will encourage other companies to step up. If there's a demand for it (as people demonstrate here), a 3rd party company should have no trouble getting a new magazine started and keeping it going.

Who knows, it might be great for the industry. The existence of Poly may have been too hard to compete with. Also, once d20 Future comes out, there will be a lot more non-fantasy stuff to work with too.

jh
But that doesn't do a single thing for Star Wars d20 since it isn't OGC.
 

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

We understand that printing OGL content would be helpful for d20 authors and players who like to post campaign info online, but making the content of the magazines open creates more risk than benefits for the magazines. The magazines don't need to print OGL content like a second party d20 producer because we have a special license from Wizards of the Coast. Thus, our decision about OGL content is based on what it might do for the magazines and what Wizards of the Coast wants.

The benefit to the magazines of having open content is that we might pick up a small number of subscriptions or newsstand sales from the folks who refuse to buy the magazine because they like to collect d20 content and post it online for their player's use or because they want to use it in their d20 freelance writing. The risk to the magazine is that someone regularly posts the magaine's contents online shortly after the magazine's release, potentially hurting newstand and subscription sales, and that back issue sales would drop because folks can find the material posted on the web. So we're weighing the potential gain of a few sales against the potential loss of many sales. Good arguments have been made on both sides of the issue, but the end result is that the benefit to the magazines doesn't seem great enough to outweigh our concerns.

Also, Wizards of the Coast owns all the content produced in the magazines (with some exceptions made for certain fiction authors), and Wizards of the Coast often takes game elements from the magazines and puts them in its products. I can't speak to why Wizards of the Coast doesn't produce more open content. I suspect they've analyzed the market and make decisions based on that research. But in any event, they see the magazines as resources, a fact that would be diminished if the content has been posted online or picked up in d20 products. Being a valued and respected resource for Wizards of the Coast is important for the magazines' continued success.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top