[Dragon] Differences Now and Then?

[Eridanis]

I think the years 1999-2002 rivalled the "golden age" of Dragon, which for me was issue 60 through 110 or so. Quality and quantity of content were at a very high level. I remember well the last year or so before TSR's disintegration, and Dragon was rarely worth the paper it was printed on. We've come a long way since then.

The past few months of Dragon have come down from that plateau for me. Change is good, most of the time, but I'm not sure yet if these changes for the best; but I've renewed for another year, and we'll see how it goes. They're earned my trust to keep with them for a bit longer- though if we see another issue 300-type debacle, I may be gone. (The vile crud didn't bother me as much as the three pages of lip service to Dragon's past, and nothing else to mark the milestone. Bad articles I can ignore.)

I didn't vote in the poll, becuase my opinion really isn't represented, but there you are.

C'mon, March! (ENworld Player's Journal! I hope it's good!)

 

[WayneLigon]

I remember well the last year or so before TSR's disintegration, and Dragon was rarely worth the paper it was printed on. We've come a long way since then.

I have a memory like swiss cheese, but I do remember that I was generally unimpressed with Dragon around that time. How unimpressed was my realization upon the return to publication after what? 8 months? I hadn't noticed it had been gone. :/

Generally I like the Dragon and almost always have.

I do wish there was a generalist print magazine of the same length and quality, covering everything else, though. I'd like to read some Mutants and Masterminds articles, or about Blue Planet, or Champions, or Exalted, or...

 

[Henry]

Now I have a question, and one that I've been meaning to ask: I have heard, more than once from different posters that Dragon used to be great, and now is not. I can certainly understand that. What I'm curious about is when WAS it great, exactly? Can you point to an issue or a run where it served your needs best? I ask this not in facetiousness, but in all honesty. I suspect that the answer will be that you want something different out of the magazine than I do, ultimately.

To answer this (Praise the Maker for the Dragon Archive!!!!) The best run was pretty much anything from about issue #50 to issue #100. In particular, the kinds of articles I refer to were such gems as Ed Greenwood's Ecology articles, "Be aware, take care" by Lew Pulsipher, the articles on gemstones and the purported magical properties, the articles on how to run games in other rules sets, such as the first article ever on modern day gaming in D&D by Ed Greenwood (an extension of Gary's Boot hill conversions), the articles by (I think) Roger Moore on the Top Secret game, and articles which took lesser known portions of D&D and fleshed them out in a way that was not necessarily rules heavy.

I think Dragon is heading in the right direction with the magazine since it changed to Paizo's hands. "Campaign Components" was the kind of thing I used to see in Dragon ALL the TIME from #50 to #100. From the period of #100 to about #150, it gradually shifted, with less focus on fleshing out elements, and adding rules-heavy articles that were little more than enticements to try the newest thing in TSR's stable.

 

[Henry]

I think the years 1999-2002 rivalled the "golden age" of Dragon, which for me was issue 60 through 110 or so.

and again I say:



If you refer to the issues of Dragon Magazine 60 to 110, they were produced back in the late 70's to early 1980's. in 1999, they were on issue #260 or so. Is the early 80's run what you refer to or something else?

 

[WizarDru]

I think you misunderstood him, Henry. I believe he's saying that the 1999-2002 run was AS GOOD AS the "golden period" of issues 60-110 or so. That is, that issue 264-298 or so were as good as those earlier issue, in his opinion.

 

[KDLadage]

My answer was that I preferred the old days.

In all honesty, however, this is not what it should have been. I just know what else fits how I feel. This should not be taken as a mark against Dragon. Dragon, in and of itself, is a fine magazine that I will continue to read and enjoy for many years to come. It is not the changes in Dragon that make it so that I prefer the "Golden Age" of Dragon so much more -- it is I that have changed.

Consider: in the issues of the old days, back when I was a young pup, when I got Dragon Magazine it was with a wide-eyed wonder that something new and special was about to be bestowed upon me. I was in awe, not only of the things they wrote, but of the sheer depth of my own imagination. Exploring that depth, with the occasional side-journey into the imagination of Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax, was a self-rewarding and absolutely fantastic voyage. I can still remember certain articles that piqued my interest. Sadly, I do not have the CD or the old mags any longer; but I can still see them in front of me now, as much as if they were still in my hands.

A Plethora of Paladins.

Good Hits and Bad Misses.

The Ecology of... (which, in my mind, was read with the voice of Leonard Nimoy)

The Quasar Dragon (and that best of all April Fools Issues).

It is not as if Dragon has not written better articles in the intervening years since I read these. It is that I have never been that young, excited and felt as though I were apart of something quite so special as I did back then. Getting older, my games have improved -- they have gotten bolder, more adult themed (meaning that I have tackled things like AIDS and sexuality, religion and religious upheaval, racism, and so forth). But as a player, none have matched the sheer joy that I, as a pre-teen, had of rolling the "20" when I most needed it. Thus, in comparison, the shift I have in my thoughts and feelings when I read Dragon today is not thae same as those that I had back as a 12-year-old. I do not know of any adult that can match the joy of such simple pleasures from their childhood.

 

[diaglo]

Dragon was best when it had a "The" in front. before issue 37

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

I'd say that Dragon's best period was when I was in high school- 1996-2000. The books published at the time were so light on "crunchy bits" (except the Player's Option series, which I devoured with glee) that Dragon filled a void. Not only that, I got more campaign ideas out of there, and learned more about DMing...

Ever since 3e began, Dragon, while it hasn't gone down in quality (in my opinion), has seemed less useful to me. The new sourcebooks are chock-full of the same material that I used to look to Dragon for- and with the d20 liscense, there is now a glut of material to work with. Dragon merely seems superfluous. Between the sourcebooks now available and web sites such as ENWorld, I feel no need for it anymore.

However, I do continue to buy Dungeon religiously. That magazine has NOT decreased in usefulness, considering the shoddy work done on most adventure modules on the market (WotC's, Necromancer's, and Malhavoc's adventures are still top-quality though). I look at the huge number of adventure modules released in the 80's (an average of 12-15 a year), and wonder why we don't see that many anymore- it's because Dungeon has filled that gap.

I'm worried though about Dungeon/Polyhedron going monthy... couldn't they alternate months, doing a 100-120 page magazine for each every other month, rather than combining the two? I find some of the Polyhedron mini-games interesting, but I've never run one, and probably never will. I also notice the decreasing number of adventures in the magazine- there used to be 5-6 an issue, now there are generally only 4- and, probably 2-3 in the monthly edition.

I haven't whined about 3.5 (I like the changes, and need to get new books anyway- mine are falling to pieces), but the changes Paizo is making to Dungeon are ticking me off.

(Also, will anyone ever put out Dungeon ESD's? I really want to get my hands on some early issues...)

 

[Eridanis]

I think you misunderstood him, Henry. I believe he's saying that the 1999-2002 run was AS GOOD AS the "golden period" of issues 60-110 or so. That is, that issue 264-298 or so were as good as those earlier issue, in his opinion.

That's exactly what I meant. Sorry 'bout the confusion. I just couldn't rememeber offhand what issue numbers were in that time span, so I switched references.

 

[Eridanis]

I have a memory like swiss cheese, but I do remember that I was generally unimpressed with Dragon around that time. How unimpressed was my realization upon the return to publication after what? 8 months? I hadn't noticed it had been gone. :/

LOL! I thought I was the only one that happened to. I was going through my geek closet that spring (my apartment at the time being long on linen closets and short on bookshelves, so my game books went in to the closet) and realizing I hadn't seen DRAGON in several months. I chalked it up to pre-wedding jitters at the time.

Makes me thankful again that Peter Adkinson, Ryan Dancey and WotC stepped up to the plate and made some decisons that were more emotionally reasonable than economically reasonable, and saved our game.