Another Dragon #300 thread - kill the tie-ins

[SemperJase]

Wait, don't hit that lock thread button.
This isn't about ethics or morality of 'vile' content.

What I'm thinking now is that issue #300 should have been a landmark issue. Thinking back to issue #200 it seemed more of a big deal that they hit that issue.

Now with 300 they have one article about the evolution of the magazine, then devote the rest of it to a product tie-in.

Instead of the heavy product tie-in, why didn't the publisher go with a more general overview? Get a big name fiction writer to do a short story. A guest article by some big names: Cook, Greenwood, even Hickman!

So we get a crummy product tie-in for 75% of the mag. Aim higher, don't go for an issue that will be irrelevant when the next product comes out, but one that will be looked at as a standard for the next 100 issues.

Wait, oh no. What if that IS the standard for the next 100 issues?

 

[rackabello]

Don't have Dragon 300 yet, so I can't judge its merits. From what I've read about its contents, it certainly sounds like the product tie-in made it a less memorable centenary issue than 100 & 200.

However, I think it's the reliance on themed issues that is at fault more than the product tie-ins. If less of the magazine was taken up by thematic articles there'd be a much greater chance of finding useful material each month. The depth of coverage is wonderful when a theme fires your imagination or dovetails with your campaign, but I'm not convinced it outweighs the disappointment when a theme fails to connect. When the theme relates to a product you aren't interested in, the problem is exacerbated.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I agree that issue 300 should have been more of an event - forego the tie-in articles, expand the page count, and try to give us a taste of what is to come. I have to admit disappointment in this issue, which should have been so much more.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I think my mailman was offended by the vile-content, because he saw fit to not deliver it until yesterday, and he wadded it into a ball first. So much for the "special collectors issue".

 

[Bendris Noulg]

However, I think it's the reliance on themed issues that is at fault more than the product tie-ins. If less of the magazine was taken up by thematic articles there'd be a much greater chance of finding useful material each month. The depth of coverage is wonderful when a theme fires your imagination or dovetails with your campaign, but I'm not convinced it outweighs the disappointment when a theme fails to connect.

I'd say this is only partially true; Over the years (going back to issue 59, plus the Archive and a few GenCon purchases to get my favorites), I've found myself able to return to the issues later, either for another campaign or in order to put together a special adventure that's quite divergent from a current campaign's general themes.

Except for the April issues; Some of those are just useless.

I think my mailman was offended by the vile-content, because he saw fit to not deliver it until yesterday, and he wadded it into a ball first. So much for the "special collectors issue".

Ouch.

 

[JeffB]

Wait, don't hit that lock thread button.
This isn't about ethics or morality of 'vile' content.

What I'm thinking now is that issue #300 should have been a landmark issue. Thinking back to issue #200 it seemed more of a big deal that they hit that issue.

Now with 300 they have one article about the evolution of the magazine, then devote the rest of it to a product tie-in.

Instead of the heavy product tie-in, why didn't the publisher go with a more general overview? Get a big name fiction writer to do a short story. A guest article by some big names: Cook, Greenwood, even Hickman!

So we get a crummy product tie-in for 75% of the mag. Aim higher, don't go for an issue that will be irrelevant when the next product comes out, but one that will be looked at as a standard for the next 100 issues.

Wait, oh no. What if that IS the standard for the next 100 issues?

Amen!

(since I've typed my A off about the very same things you are saying here in other #300 threads, I don't feel the need to elaborate )

 

[Tuerny]

I think my mailman was offended by the vile-content, because he saw fit to not deliver it until yesterday, and he wadded it into a ball first. So much for the "special collectors issue".

Yeah, when I got mine it was all beat up as well...

The front pages are barely hanging onto the spine now.

 

[feeb]

Edit: Due to moot content, and saving personal embarassment!

Dragon lives!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Dragon is just a large advert for WOTC. It's days as a great roleplaying resource are far behind it.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Except for the April issues; Some of those are just useless.

Oh, I dunno...my favorite article ever was the "Random Damage Table." With entries like "Roll every die you own for damage," "Roll every die within ten feet for damage," "Your character smells smoke; his left arm is on fire. Roll 6d6 damage," and my personal fave...

"Your character cuts himself shaving. Roll 10d10 damage and consult limb-loss subtable."