Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 768811" data-attributes="member: 6941">D20, I think you'll find almost no one "hates" Dragon - maybe it seems that way sometimes because people are more likely to post when they're being critical about something (and boards like this one can sometimes allow the minority to drown out the rest).As for the question you pose, I'd like to approach it from a slightly different perspective: Why is the Dragon doing some things I don't like?1. Covers. Okay, someone at the magazine had an artistic vision that said make the covers look like the enquirer. Interesting once or twice, but enough is enough. Do they really think these covers enhance sales? Unless they are afraid of upsetting a significant portion of their readership, why not change the style to something with a bit more class?2. Art - especially the covers. I'm not generally offended by most of the art in the Dragon, even the covers. What offends me is that such art is being published because they think it will make me more likely to buy the magazine. I really hate it when I think a vendor is treating me as a rube, and that's how this feels. The "vile" issue was even worse - I felt as if it was designed for and by juveniles. Why is Dragon continuing to do this stuff, when it so clearly offends so many?I remember when Johnny Wilson was the editor of Computer Gaming World and his mantra was that the reader should always be treated with respect. That readers are intelligent, thougtful individuals who will appreciate intelligent, thoughtful content. I've since stopped subscribing to CGW because they've forgotten this lesson. I'd like to see Mr. Wilson bring more of it to the Dragon - I still have hope that he will.3. Tie-ins. I'm a bit ambivalent here since, as someone else already said, material I find useless, someone else loves. That said, tie-in's should consist of new material, not essentially web enhancements. And to be new, I think the material needs to be published later - the only folks writing tie-in material are the original authors/playtesters of the product - printing lead times require this. What's so wrong about doing a Manual of the Planes tie-in now, with material that's been submitted since the book came out? The only hold-up I can see is if Dragon just doesn't have enough quality material on a particular subject. Also, why do tie-in's always have to WOTC products? How about something dealing with Scarred Lands, Mutants and Masterminds, etc.?4. Lack of novelty. Joshua Dyal already mentioned this one. I'm just wondering if the lack of newness to the contents is because we've all been around too long, because 3E has been out long enough for the novelty to wear off, or because Dragon's been around so long that they've done most topics to death. Or is it because the Dragon isn't receiving the same quality and quantity of submissions? I've heard a few ideas floated for products that I thought would make great Dragon articles. If this is the case, what can Dragon do, if anything, to improve this?Just to balance what I've written above (which is focused on the negative) - Dragon has always been THE resource for DnD gaming. The first issue I owned was #6. It's had its ups and downs over the years, but it is still the only real option for those of us who want what the Dragon offers - material that helps us improve our games. So I hope anyone from Dragon reading this thread takes our comments as *constructive* criticism, understanding that our complaints mostly spring from the very high expectations we place on them.And the fact that a customer is never completely satisfied...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></blockquote>

Verification