Another Dragon #300 thread - kill the tie-ins

[RobNJ]

You are B&M'ing about people B&Ming...how funny.

No, I'm not complaining because people are complaining. I'm addressing how they're complaining. Acting as though they have a voice beyond their own, and just generally being unfair and overly-eager-for-failure.

And I coudl care less about what RobNJ thinks or his "rebuttal"

Now that is irony. You're taking pains to make sure everyone knows you don't care . . . rather seems like caring.

BTW, the article WAS useless to me.

But this is exactly my point. "Useless to me," is fine. Acting like everyone knows it's a piece of crap? Not so much.

 

[Default Name Player]

I agree there are people like this- too many people that have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to any corporation.

However- there are others, like myself, who have legitimate concerns about Dragon magazine.

I just hope this trend and attitude does not extend itself to the WOTC rpg books.

?

Dragon isn't part of WoTC anymore. Making that leap from #2 to #3 only reinforces point #1.

 

[JeffB]

To address your "comments" more directly...

First of all, you will see “IMO”in my post. HINT: That means: IN MY OPINION. That means I only speak for myself

As I said before “Useless”. And I mean it. To me the article is useless. I don’t get any use out of it the article in question: hence the term useless. I used the proper terminolgy to describe how I felt about the article.

Re: Themed Issues: Your opinion ,and mine. So, I’m supposed to bow down and say “OK, you win”? Puh..leez.

Re: Themed issues: Guess what? If you put out a themed issue that has a large amount of content that is not really “Core “ to the game, like say Building Castles. And you devote A LOT of space to it…that takes up room for other articles…and those articles may or may not be more useful to folks who don’t care about building castles. So either you have a good chance at satisfying more readers by being varied in your presentation, or you just ignore them. I think the former choice would be better overall for everyone in the long run.

“Lenient” was not the right choice of words..perhaps “I can understand” ..Is that more to your liking?

RE: Political BS. It’s A GAMING mag. It had to do with one person’s political view (the publisher in this case) that was only remotely tied to gaming. He was trying to make a Political statement. He can go buy some ad time on TV or start up a “I feel Sorry For Criminals” newspaper if he feels the need to educate people…don’t waste my time and my money, with personal political editorial.

P.S.. The "I don't care" phrase was simply an attempt at trying to sound as ridiculous as you did.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Dragon isn't part of WoTC anymore. Making that leap from #2 to #3 only reinforces point #1.

1) I suggest you read some of my old posts if you think I am anti-corporation. I am pro-corporation, and stand up for many of WOTC's work.

2) The trend I was alluding to began while Dragon was under WOTC.

3) On Monte Cook's board- he discussed how the people in charge of BoVD wanted him to "vile it up" or something along those lines.

I have legitimate reasons for my concerns.

FD

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I don't see how this is possible, given that someone from Dragon publicly copped to its being a marketing gimmick right here, I believe.

I apologize for not being clear- those were conclusion I gathered from his comments on Gaming Report.

I will edit my post to make that clear.

FD

 

[RobNJ]

I apologize for not being clear- those were conclusion I gathered from his comments on Gaming Report.

I will edit my post to make that clear.

FD

No, I understood what you meant, but he's made it clear elsewhere that they knew this was a marketing thing. If he gives you an impression in one place and flat out says something in another (unless you haven't read both), why does what he said in that Gaming Report repost of his comments matter?

 

[The Sigil]

Sigil - Personally, it's hard to see from your POV because it's only been negative - and mainly negative - so far. And nope, the problem is not because it's a negative view, but because the view is overly skewed in one direction. Pointedly, is there anything about Dragon that you DO like to give and idea of where they might be moving in the right direction in your eyes? Specific articles on what they've "done right"? In your Dragon thread, you made mention of the way Dragon use to be, but to be honest that taints too much of nostaglia.

Fair enough. I thought I had mentioned some of the articles I liked in the other thread, but perhaps not.

I enjoyed the "How to Design a Monster" article. Ditto for How To Design a Prestige Class. Feat. Basically, the stuff that helped me "pre-balance" my own new creations.

I enjoyed the "Rays" article - with different Metamagic Feats for Ray spells - taking a simple mechanic like spell area and playing with it a bit.

I enjoyed the article about familiars. I enjoyed the article about "levelled weapons." I enjoyed "Better Living through Alchemy."

Those are mostly "crunchy bits" and "how to do crunchy bits" articles, but I found them quite helpful. Especially the "how to do crunchy bits stuff."

Second, what kind of campaign are you running and what information are you looking for for? Specifically?

I run a homebrew. I am looking for ways - with game mechanics - to add flavor and spice to different areas of the world - maybe the alchemist in this city specializes in "instant water." Maybe the PCs find a wizard willing to teach them how to use the "Touch to Ray" Feat. And so on. Little campaign-generic "twists" to make them feel like their characters actually live in a diverse world.

Fourth, ever consider that you've "outgrown" the magazine format, and that sourcebooks/web info is the only way to go for you? Maybe you want more in-depth information that the magazine format can't really provide?

That is possible, too - though I wish that Dragon would expand its coverage - maybe offer reviews/peeks of other d20 stuff - so I can discover a product I might have otherwise overlooked. But I think Dragon has had a useful place with in-depth articles in a series of 3 or 4 issues, each building on the previous issue, and I don't know why they couldn't do that again.

Gaming Frontiers isn't perfect, an the price is a bit steep, but it's also part of the "d20" magazine I am looking for because it offers you little snippets to whet your appetite. I would like Dragon to offer me not just "snippets" but some short, fully-developed ideas (say, a six-page spread on Rogue skills and alternate uses), too. Neither one is perfect - some sort of mix of the two would be nice.

--The Sigil

 

[Furn_Darkside]

why does what he said in that Gaming Report repost of his comments matter?

It mattered because he is a representative of a product to which I was subscribed.

His letter made it clear that Dragon magazine is no longer for me.

FD

 

[blahbleh]

Sorry to butt in. This is my first post after lurking for a year.

I've gotten concerned over the tone of certain posts that seem to have pushed past opinion to almost-self-righteousness. The message seems to be "I am offended by this (book or article) and therefore I am morally superior to you. Be as angry as me or you're a bad person." I'd like to think that this is not the intent of the posters. Anyway, I just needed to get this off my chest before it eats me up inside.

Blahbleh

 

[Default Name Player]

1) I suggest you read some of my old posts if you think I am anti-corporation. I am pro-corporation, and stand up for many of WOTC's work.

Um...when did I ever say, or even imply, that you were anti-corporation? My comments were in regards to WoTC and Dragon only.

I have legitimate reasons for my concerns.

I wasn't commenting on your concerns, since your concerns are clearly your own.

However, what I am concerned is that this trend of yours seems to be spreading all over the place based on very loose premises (ie a "vile it up conversation", despite the fact that Monte won out in the end, plus that the Book of Vile Darkness isn't even about it). Again, it's not the "trend" that I'm iffy about, but the loose associations from point A to point B that you're connecting.

In the end, it's your perogrative on how you spend your dollars, so be it.