[Dragon] Differences Now and Then?
- Thread starter WizarDru
- Start date
trentonjoe
Explorer
WizarDru said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Ruined
Explorer
I voted that I like the issues now, but didn't pay much attention to them earlier. Yeah, some of my crew avidly picked up issues back in the mid-to-late eighties, but at that point you could have said "Hey, here's an empty box with the AD&D logo on it!" and my group would have bought it.
For me, the revival of interest in the magazine is directly tied to 3rd ed. I used to complain extensively about the rules set for 2nd edition, and the last thing I wanted to do was pick up a magazine with more info about that. Plus, I ran Planescape, and as per the norm, it received precious little treatment.
Now though, I love the rules set, and I don't mind picking up issues that expand rules or show good examples of things to do. The previews are good to look at, and I'm eager to get my hands on the latest issue for the Martin prelude. I'm happy with how Dragon is now.
For me, the revival of interest in the magazine is directly tied to 3rd ed. I used to complain extensively about the rules set for 2nd edition, and the last thing I wanted to do was pick up a magazine with more info about that. Plus, I ran Planescape, and as per the norm, it received precious little treatment.
Now though, I love the rules set, and I don't mind picking up issues that expand rules or show good examples of things to do. The previews are good to look at, and I'm eager to get my hands on the latest issue for the Martin prelude. I'm happy with how Dragon is now.
BiggusGeekus@Work
Community Supporter
I also believe there was a golden period in the 60-110 range.
That being said, the magazine has effectively split. During the golden period you'd get modules and very wide variety of articles. Now we have Dungeon and the Star Wars magazine (I forget what that one's called). So you're not going to get an offbeat article like the infamous "Treasonus Jive that will Keep You Alive", because Paranoia isn't ever going to get covered in Dragon.
The newer issues aren't bad, they're just more focused and that focus is tight.
That being said, the magazine has effectively split. During the golden period you'd get modules and very wide variety of articles. Now we have Dungeon and the Star Wars magazine (I forget what that one's called). So you're not going to get an offbeat article like the infamous "Treasonus Jive that will Keep You Alive", because Paranoia isn't ever going to get covered in Dragon.
The newer issues aren't bad, they're just more focused and that focus is tight.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I really liked the magazine in the 1980's, and a little way into the 1990's. It was at it's peak during the Ares years. I had something I could use EVERY month for my Marvel Superheroes game. Add in the occasional Gamma World or Star Trek article and I was set. I fondly remember a long article about how to run a Star Trek campaign back when, I really loved stuff like that. That particular article wan't even in Ares. It was just one of the articles. The Ecology of the Stirge, the gemstone article that I still use every session, etc. I started reading Dragon again with 287...and the increasingly heavy use of themes got very annoying. Each month the mag was an ad for the new Wizards book, and since I had no plans on buying stuff like the Stronghold Builders book or the new FR Drow module I liked each issue less and less. But the promise of something good in the LGJ kept me buying, some of it blew IMO. More Prestige classes...ugh. But on the other hand you had the Spinecastle article, the index for the LGG, the two articles on Death Knights, and some other stuff that I found useful. Now that is gone. It's in Dungeon so I have to pay for a bunch of modules I will never run and some D20 mini games I could care less about. So I'm probably done with both mags. Don't get me started on the covers...man they used to be great!
Endur
First Post
Golden Age: issues 1 to 63
Personally, I think the Golden Age of Dragon ended around issue 63. The only article from issue 60+ that I can remember saying "COOL" about was issue 63's Barbarian.
The early issues of Dragon had a lot of cool stuff. The Ninja class, Witches (anyone remember the Secret Witch and her various uber magic items), "how heavy is my golem", rumors of troop movements from the Greyhawk campaign, Wormy + Fineous, conversions of mythological creatures, new spells, etc.
Issue 50 had some great Dragon variant rules. Many of the early issues had a module or an entire game. Issue 46 (or maybe 47) had an entire pulp heroes role playing game in it.
The occassional top secret adventure or marvel super heroes game was ok. The modules were ok, but the new games were usually more imaginative than the modules and more fun.
Tom
Personally, I think the Golden Age of Dragon ended around issue 63. The only article from issue 60+ that I can remember saying "COOL" about was issue 63's Barbarian.
The early issues of Dragon had a lot of cool stuff. The Ninja class, Witches (anyone remember the Secret Witch and her various uber magic items), "how heavy is my golem", rumors of troop movements from the Greyhawk campaign, Wormy + Fineous, conversions of mythological creatures, new spells, etc.
Issue 50 had some great Dragon variant rules. Many of the early issues had a module or an entire game. Issue 46 (or maybe 47) had an entire pulp heroes role playing game in it.
The occassional top secret adventure or marvel super heroes game was ok. The modules were ok, but the new games were usually more imaginative than the modules and more fun.
Tom
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I'll weigh in here - for me, the Dragon of the late '70s and early '80s had a lot of excellent material in it.
And I especially enjoyed Dragon from about Issue 274 to 290. Why?
How to Create a Feat - includes examples, tips, "metagame thinking" and so on.
How to Create a Monster - ditto
How to Create a Prestige Class
How to Design a Weapon
How to Design a Spell...
Well, you get the idea. In other words, all of the "behind the curtain" stuff that really should have gone into the DMG in the first place.
Other stuff:
"Better Living Through Alchemy" - Expands on the uses of an existing skill. Also great for low-level campaigns before you want to give out magic items but still want to wow the PCs.
Dwarves, Halflings, Gnome, Half-Orcs, Elves - the "race issues" (pardon the pun) dealing with the default culture, language, viewpoints, and so forth. Not too useful for a vet like myself, but invaluable for "newbies" like some of the guys I gamed with.
The Ecology of the Darkmantle, Sheet Ghoul, etc. These give you the "why and how" a creature exists, not just the stats. As a DM, I appreciate knowing the monster's motivation.
The early prestige classes were nice when PrCs weren't so thick on the ground as examples, though now they are all but unneeded.
These days, Dragon lacks these "flesh out your world" articles and instead has "optional rules" to replace the ones in the core books. Not bad, I guess, but I don't want "optional rules." I don't want to replace rules I already have. I want to get new rules for areas where there aren't rules yet (bardic music is still woefully unexplored in WotC/Dragon).
I guess what I really want to see more articles that complement and expand on my existing stuff, rather than articles that are trying to replace it. Does that make sense? I don't need new gladiator rules or swashbuckling rules or other such silliness (new feats to emulate this are okay where no such mechanic exists - such as a Feat that lets you use a wall as a flanker for instance)... I already have the core rules which handle such things fine. I prefer Prestige Races. I prefer zombie/skeleton/mummy templates rather than basic creatures from the MM (to add flexibility - not the same as "replacing"). I want rules for weaponst that advance along with your character (all of the above have been done in Dragon and I liked that).
I REALLY want mass combat rules. I want underwater combat rules. I want rules for ruling a kingdom (a la the old Companion Set). I want rules for seige engines vs. structures. IOW, I want stuff that isn't covered under the existing system. Not an alt.gladiator or alt.swordfighter or what have you when I already have a fighter w/feats. I certainly don't want "more evil" and "yet more evil" and "still yet more evil" (see Dragon 300).
I want GENERIC, not WORLD-SPECIFIC material. I don't want more "economy of the Realms" - I do want "simulating economies." I don't want "NPCs of the Realms" - I want "how to run generic NPCs." I certainly don't want fiction. This is a fantasy GAMING magazine, not a fantasy FICTION magazine. There can be fiction but it should be *directly* tied to the gaming (e.g., "Ecology of..." is good but not "Bob's Adventures in Faerun").
--The Sigil
And I especially enjoyed Dragon from about Issue 274 to 290. Why?
How to Create a Feat - includes examples, tips, "metagame thinking" and so on.
How to Create a Monster - ditto
How to Create a Prestige Class
How to Design a Weapon
How to Design a Spell...
Well, you get the idea. In other words, all of the "behind the curtain" stuff that really should have gone into the DMG in the first place.
Other stuff:
"Better Living Through Alchemy" - Expands on the uses of an existing skill. Also great for low-level campaigns before you want to give out magic items but still want to wow the PCs.
Dwarves, Halflings, Gnome, Half-Orcs, Elves - the "race issues" (pardon the pun) dealing with the default culture, language, viewpoints, and so forth. Not too useful for a vet like myself, but invaluable for "newbies" like some of the guys I gamed with.
The Ecology of the Darkmantle, Sheet Ghoul, etc. These give you the "why and how" a creature exists, not just the stats. As a DM, I appreciate knowing the monster's motivation.
The early prestige classes were nice when PrCs weren't so thick on the ground as examples, though now they are all but unneeded.
These days, Dragon lacks these "flesh out your world" articles and instead has "optional rules" to replace the ones in the core books. Not bad, I guess, but I don't want "optional rules." I don't want to replace rules I already have. I want to get new rules for areas where there aren't rules yet (bardic music is still woefully unexplored in WotC/Dragon).
I guess what I really want to see more articles that complement and expand on my existing stuff, rather than articles that are trying to replace it. Does that make sense? I don't need new gladiator rules or swashbuckling rules or other such silliness (new feats to emulate this are okay where no such mechanic exists - such as a Feat that lets you use a wall as a flanker for instance)... I already have the core rules which handle such things fine. I prefer Prestige Races. I prefer zombie/skeleton/mummy templates rather than basic creatures from the MM (to add flexibility - not the same as "replacing"). I want rules for weaponst that advance along with your character (all of the above have been done in Dragon and I liked that).
I REALLY want mass combat rules. I want underwater combat rules. I want rules for ruling a kingdom (a la the old Companion Set). I want rules for seige engines vs. structures. IOW, I want stuff that isn't covered under the existing system. Not an alt.gladiator or alt.swordfighter or what have you when I already have a fighter w/feats. I certainly don't want "more evil" and "yet more evil" and "still yet more evil" (see Dragon 300).
I want GENERIC, not WORLD-SPECIFIC material. I don't want more "economy of the Realms" - I do want "simulating economies." I don't want "NPCs of the Realms" - I want "how to run generic NPCs." I certainly don't want fiction. This is a fantasy GAMING magazine, not a fantasy FICTION magazine. There can be fiction but it should be *directly* tied to the gaming (e.g., "Ecology of..." is good but not "Bob's Adventures in Faerun").
--The Sigil
WizarDru
Adventurer
Interesting. Prior to yesterday evening, the "like old and new about the same" option had a sizeable lead, where the now the "old over new" and "old, hate new" appears to hold equal sway.
For myself, I tend to agree that there was a golden period of sorts back in the day, but that owed as much to my doe-eyed youth and the relative "newness" of D&D as much as it did to the magazine's overall quality. I think the magazine is slicker today, and offers great quality, but is still somewhat uneven. I think the first yeard-and-a-half after 3E was released was generally very good. I think, within a couple of months, we'll be back there again. I LOVE the campaign components segments, and many of the articles are just great ideas. Once they get a better feel for what they're doing, I expect Paizo to shine pretty nicely.
For myself, I tend to agree that there was a golden period of sorts back in the day, but that owed as much to my doe-eyed youth and the relative "newness" of D&D as much as it did to the magazine's overall quality. I think the magazine is slicker today, and offers great quality, but is still somewhat uneven. I think the first yeard-and-a-half after 3E was released was generally very good. I think, within a couple of months, we'll be back there again. I LOVE the campaign components segments, and many of the articles are just great ideas. Once they get a better feel for what they're doing, I expect Paizo to shine pretty nicely.
