Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JeffB" data-source="post: 376913" data-attributes="member: 518">I find the LGJ much less useful these days. I don't mean to  hurt someones feelings, but that's the way I see it. I have alot of respect for Erik and love his work, but I also know he's been constrained in doing the kind, amount and frequency of GH work  he'd like to. The stand-alone mag was very good..I'd like to see that kind of variety again. Since it's been put in Dragon I feel the quality of material has lessened.I understand the how the LGJ is supposed to support the campaign, but you don't have to give away major plotlines or spoil things for the campaign players either. History, rumors, lore, creation Myths, etc has no big effect on the  that goings on in the LGH campaign (which is mostly 4 hour H&S Dungeon adventures at Cons)Nope , because they didn't take up the amount of space the themed issues do on such matters.  The article on the RoSP was a few pages, in a non-themed issue (as was the RttToEE article you mentioned). SOME product tie-ins are fine with me...not issues that revolve around the theme and take up a goodly portion of the mag. Go look at some of the old GH and Mystara articles from the late 190's to the early 200's. They took up about 4 to 8 pages. I'll cede to your point on the Psionics issue simply because I sold off my 3E dragon collection a few months ago (tells you how much I think of them) and my recollection is apparently wrong in that case.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...I think Dragon is a shadow of it's fomer self. The first year after 3E arrived was pretty good after a few years of dissapointment inthe last years of 2E, but since last summer it's been overall very poor, IMO of course. #300 was just the cherry on top. I'm just voicing my opinion here on the subject at hand, I'm not saying you have to agree, nor am I asking for an argument.  I don't consider my opinion based  on "nostalgia" either, but on USEFUL gaming material (to me, obviously). It seems that many folks equate NEW with BETTER and I don't agree. QUANTITY does not equal QUALITY either. If I'm getting more pages of stuff that I think is "crap",  AND I'm paying more money for it, it really doesn't matter, do it? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />BTW...I'm curious if those sub numbers are up because of the new edition or because the mag is better? Can we get figures on the rise in subs just prior to and at 2E' and 1E's release?What about 2 years after theirr respective releases? And are these numbers also based on percentages of people who actually play the game AND also subscribe? Seems to me that there are MANY more folks in the hobby now than when 200 and 100 were released. So the proportion of people who play D&D and also sub vs. those who play and don't sub is more important, not the actual numbers Mr. Wilson speaks of, AFAIC.</blockquote>

Verification