Dragon: Best of or Annuals?

[JoeGKushner]

Is there anyone else out there like me who remembers the few times Dragon had an annual issue or a best of issue? I liked the old best of issues because they took a lot of great material and put it into one book, almost like a reference guide. The annuals was good for the most part, but that last one... ugh...

With the 3.5 switch over, maybe some of the earlier 3.0 articles that are still valid could be drawn together into one magazine?

Anyone else want more Dragon out there?

 

[MKMcArtor]

Well, we would certainly love to be able to do something like that. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough time in a day or enough days in a week to put out a thirteenth Dragon every year.

Now, if you could make 36-hour days and 10-day weeks...well...we'd probably just be too exhausted, but at least we'd have enough time.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, we would certainly love to be able to do something like that. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough time in a day or enough days in a week to put out a thirteenth Dragon every year.

Now, if you could make 36-hour days and 10-day weeks...well...we'd probably just be too exhausted, but at least we'd have enough time.

Well, nothing states that a 'best of' for example, has to be done every year. And I know that there have been issues that have been larger with more content, like #300, and I don't recall suddenly having a 36-hour day with 10-day week so obviously some extra work is possible.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Is there anyone else out there like me who remembers the few times Dragon had an annual issue or a best of issue? I liked the old best of issues because they took a lot of great material and put it into one book, almost like a reference guide. The annuals was good for the most part, but that last one... ugh...

With the 3.5 switch over, maybe some of the earlier 3.0 articles that are still valid could be drawn together into one magazine?

Anyone else want more Dragon out there?

I have several of the "Best Of" issues from back in the early/mid 80s, and think that collecting the best articles from 3.0 would be a great idea. Some minor adjustments to bring them up to 3.5 and thats it. It wouldn't have to have lots of new content like the Annuals had, maybe 1 or 2 new articles with 6 or 7 of the best from 3.0, and maybe some of the old cartoons from way-back-when for those of us who remember DragonMirth when it was in black & white.

 

[MKMcArtor]

I have several of the "Best Of" issues from back in the early/mid 80s, and think that collecting the best articles from 3.0 would be a great idea. Some minor adjustments to bring them up to 3.5 and thats it. It wouldn't have to have lots of new content like the Annuals had, maybe 1 or 2 new articles with 6 or 7 of the best from 3.0, and maybe some of the old cartoons from way-back-when for those of us who remember DragonMirth when it was in black & white.

There are those of us at Paizo who would like to see something like this as well.

 

[J_D]

Dragon Annuals numbers 4 and 5 (for 1999 and 2000) were both great, having lots of articles useful in a game. The 2001 annual, though, was a "d20 Special" that was pretty much completely useless and a waste of paper. It was essentially nothing more than a big advertising blurb for various d20 products coming out at the time, and none of the useful-in-game articles of past Annuals. As I recall, it got a strongly negative reaction from a lot of people (I only recall reading of a very few people liking it), and my vague recollection is that the Dragon publishers essentially decided "So that's what they think? Well, we just won't bother with that anymore!"

I think it would be great if the old annuals were to come back (providing Paizo can afford the time and expense) if they are like the Annuals #4 and #5, but if they want to make something like the 2001 "d20 special", then please don't bother.

 

[Dark Psion]

Dragon Annuals were one of the reasons I subscribed in the first place. They were that little extra bonus bit, that has now been mostly repaced by Web Enhancements.

The problem was the D20 special/ Annual 6 2001 that pissed off a lot of readers. It was all "Wheel of Time" material, possibly the worst example of "You HAVE to buy this book!!!" in the history of Dragon Magazine. It produced a lot of negative reaction and someone decided that if the readers don't like THIS annual, let's cancel it all together.

Personally I say Bring it back!!

What should it look like?

It should look like Dragon #315: Campaign Classics.

And a Dungeon Annual should look like Dungeon #112: Maure Castle.

 

[TroyXavier]

Dragon Annual #5 was my favorite. It was incredible. I think only issue #243 of Dragon was more useful to me.

Dragon Annual #6 was just awful.

 

[Treebore]

I liked the Best of's a lot better than the annuals, still have and reference them in fact. I haven't looked at the annuals since I read them the first time.

 

[Alzrius]

Dragon Annuals were one of the reasons I subscribed in the first place. They were that little extra bonus bit, that has now been mostly repaced by Web Enhancements.

The problem was the D20 special/ Annual 6 2001 that pissed off a lot of readers. It was all "Wheel of Time" material, possibly the worst example of "You HAVE to buy this book!!!" in the history of Dragon Magazine. It produced a lot of negative reaction and someone decided that if the readers don't like THIS annual, let's cancel it all together.

As I recall, the decision was made by ex-President of Paizo Johnny Wilson.

What should it look like?

It should look like Dragon #315: Campaign Classics.

I wrote a letter to Paizo about this very idea, and they published it in issue (IIRC) #317. Basically, the editor said the same thing Mike McArtor said here: there just isn't enough time, because doing such an issue would be essentially working on two issues at once, and just working on one is hard enough. It's a pity, but it's certainly understandable.