Dragon #344

[Nightfall]

Was there a reason you couldn't use Dalamar this time around, Erik? I'm just curious since I did like Wizard's Three but without Dalamar, lacked the umph it usually had.

 

[rowport]

...I don't expect to publish this much fiction in a given issue in the future.

Hmm... well, since I always sing my praise to you Paizo folks when I love your stuff, I should let you know when I think you fell down. I was very disappointed in this issue, especially since as an 'extra-special sauce' issue I thought it would be among the best. The disproportionate 'fluff' to 'crunch' ratio was overwheming to me. Yawn. Not only did it include three fiction pieces (two of which were... quite bad, frankly) but even the majority of the feature articles were entirely text. The Dreadhold could have been interesting, but should be in Dungeon, and without the supporting details (like prisoner stats, adventure ideas, or maps!) is not terribly useful IMO. The GenCon 'preview' was... predictable... at best. Class Acts was great (as always) but was not enough to save the issue- especially an oversized one.

Eh. Sorry, Erik. :\

 

[Nightfall]

Row,

Some times they have off days my friend.

 

[rowport]

Row,

Some times they have off days my friend.

Oh, sure! No issue can be perfect. I am not too angsty about it, really. I just thought I would post some feedback. Since I am mostly thrilled with Dragon (and for the most part Dungeon as well) I normally have nothing but good things to say (well, except for about "The Portent". Blech). This time, I was not thrilled.

If I had liked the Greenwood and/or Gygax articles/fiction more, maybe that would have helped. But, even if they were good- and they were lousy!- there was way too much fiction in one issue. That was exacerbated by lack of crunch in the other feature articles as well. Since Dragon is particularly good about finding the fluff/crunch balance most months, I found it surprising and notable that this one was so skewed.

 

[Richards]

I still say I enjoyed the monster hunters' style of ecology articles a lot more than the dry versions we get now (and, no, that is not contradictory to what I said above).

And I'm standing by, with Monster Hunters "Ecology" articles both written and planned out in my head, should the editorial-decision-pendulum ever swing back the other way.

Johnathan

 

[Alzrius]

We can only hope that day will come soon. I miss those articles, and their narrative style. They were a great blend of fluff and crunch, as opposed to the rather dry Ecology articles we have now.

 

[Erik Mona]

While I love Johnathan's work in general (Challenge of Champions is always a joy), the "hokey-jokey" nature of those Ecologies was Just Too Much, in my opinion, and they won't be returning in the short term.

Sorry, guys.

--Erik

 

[BOZ]

well, the ones that didn't star the Monster Hunters were less silly...

 

[Zaukrie]

Erik, thanks for supplying the reason, I appreciate your interaction

I was not opposed to the 3 pieces of fiction, per se, it was rather the quality of Ed's story. While perfectly in tone with some of the other ones, it did nothing for me.

Indeed, it was waaaaaaaaaaay to hokey jokey for me.

 

[GrayLinnorm]

I judt got my copy today. I like the new dragons (and the spells in the Wizards Three article). Unfortunately, the Elysian Dragons by Age table leaves off the great wyrm category! Could somebody please post the missing info, because I would really like to use this guy!