Dragon - to renew or not to renew
- Thread starter Elodan
- Start date
DragonLancer
Hero
Its nothing personal, its just that I don't find Dragon as useful as it used to be.
DungeonmasterCal
First Post
I love Dragon, and despite the sometimes spotty problems I have receiving my issues from time to time, I plan to continue subscribing. I don't use everything in them, but I find the crunch too irresistible to put down. Dungeon, on the other hand, I bought off the shelf fairly regularly when it first appeared, but stopped about 1990. Since 3e, I've bought a half dozen issues for the Polyhedron side of it. When Polyhedron was dropped, I stopped buying the mag. I have never run a published adventure to completion, as my players always seem to lose interest in them. They have always preferred my homebrew games, so Dragon gets more use than Dungeon ever would from me.
Last edited:
DragonLancer
Hero
Turjan said:Well, this is a bit vague. Less useful than 10 years ago? Less useful than one year ago?
I cannot say much about the former, but I'd definitely disagree with the latter. Nowadays, I even read it again, which is more than can be said about one year ago.
I buy occasional issues when it looks like there is an article or topic that interests me, and since I also spend far too much time in my FLGS (usually doing the owner a favour and covering holidays and nessecary days off) I get to check out the issues when they come in.
Times change and people's tastes vary, and for me Dragon magazine isn't what it was 10-15 years ago. The nature of the magazine has changed (understandably) with each edition but since the release of 3rd edition I've not found the magazine to be worth a subscription. Buying individual issues, yes.
JediSoth
Voice Over Artist & Author
I've been getting Dragon since issue #124. Since 3rd edition came out, I've only used one article in it: the one on levelled weapons. I still find it an entertaining read though, so much so that I've subscribed to Dungeon now too (which before, with the adventure-only format, I didn't find nearly as useful, particularly in the several year stretch when I had no one with whom to play).
Do I need them? Nah. Not really. I DM once every other week on average, so I have WAY more material than I'll ever use before we see a 4th, or even 5th edition of D&D. But, I feel like I've ALWAYS gotten Dragon, certainly, I can't remember when I got that subscription, it was sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. Maybe that makes me a collector.
JediSoth
Do I need them? Nah. Not really. I DM once every other week on average, so I have WAY more material than I'll ever use before we see a 4th, or even 5th edition of D&D. But, I feel like I've ALWAYS gotten Dragon, certainly, I can't remember when I got that subscription, it was sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. Maybe that makes me a collector.
JediSoth
JoeBlank
Explorer
I'm enjoying Dragon and Dungeon, and will continue to subscribe.
There is something cool about a magazine subscription that you can't replicate any other way. Remember when your favorite show used to come on television, and you looked forward to it, and the anticipation built, and then the time came? We don't get that sort of feeling much these days, with VCRs and Tivo, and television series coming out on DVD. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it is a different feeling when I am in control of when I watch a show or movie.
The same goes for gaming purchases. I no longer buy anything the day it is released. I wait and read reviews, talk to friends, look for the product at a reasonable price. Even then, by the time I finally get it I can be a little let down. But with a subscription to Dragon and Dungeon I don't think, plan ahead, or really anticipate much. On some random happy day I come home to find a new magazine chock full of stuff about D&D, right there in my mailbox.
And content-wise, I always get my money's worth.
There is something cool about a magazine subscription that you can't replicate any other way. Remember when your favorite show used to come on television, and you looked forward to it, and the anticipation built, and then the time came? We don't get that sort of feeling much these days, with VCRs and Tivo, and television series coming out on DVD. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it is a different feeling when I am in control of when I watch a show or movie.
The same goes for gaming purchases. I no longer buy anything the day it is released. I wait and read reviews, talk to friends, look for the product at a reasonable price. Even then, by the time I finally get it I can be a little let down. But with a subscription to Dragon and Dungeon I don't think, plan ahead, or really anticipate much. On some random happy day I come home to find a new magazine chock full of stuff about D&D, right there in my mailbox.
And content-wise, I always get my money's worth.
smootrk
First Post
Regardless of usefulness, I enjoy reading Dragon (& Dungeon) magazines. The $3 or so an issue is still less than a Starbuck's or a movie outing ($10 avg with snacks), and I get to keep the issue and use the contents occasionally in my game. It helps me to keep my creativity going, even if I don't use every feat, PRC, or other topic contained within it.
Just keep the value/cost ratio in mind, and compare this to other ways you may or may not spend the money otherwise.
Just keep the value/cost ratio in mind, and compare this to other ways you may or may not spend the money otherwise.
GVDammerung
First Post
The Dragon has no rhyme and then less reason to purchase it, whether by subscription or on the newsstand. The Dragon’s content, with some notable exceptions, is aimless; there is no sense of an identity to the magazine as it once enjoyed.
The exception to the listlessness are the “hot shot” articles - the Demonomicon entries, the Far Realms etc. These are big articles looking to grab the readers attention and while they do that and do it well, they cannot disguise or cover for the remaining content which pales by such a stark comparison. Too much of the “other” content beyond the “hot shots” seems disjointed or scattered, as if the idea was only half completed or a first draft - there is no better illustration than the “Class Acts,” which either never get going or have to stop just as they have gotten underway.
Other articles, seem to exist in a vacuum. Certainly, there is much less synergy between articles than there has been in the past. This is not to say that every article must be part of a tight “theme issue” but something needs to make the whole greater than the mere sum of the parts. Part of the problem may well be that other d20 products, open content, has eclipsed the Dragon, but at the same time some articles seem to be written as if only Wotc were still producing product for D&D. While Dragon may be compelled not to mention d20 works, authors should have a greater familiarity with what is out there and write like it, not like no one has ever written anything but Wotc.
A Dragon subscription is a good deal versus the newsstand. On average, I find at least one good article per issue. But I rarely find two, let alone more. I will not subscribe then and ratify and editorial policy that seems to find “good enough” to be “good enough.”
The comparison between Dragon and Dungeon highlights the Dragon’s difficulties in finding itself. Dungeon is a tight product. Of course, Dungeon is also easier to make tight. Dragon poses the more difficult challenge and to date the editorial staff have, in this customer’s opinion, failed to fully engage that challenge. The “hot shot” strategy is essentially a variety of “bait and switch.” The new wrinkle is the Age of Worms tie-in, whereby Dragon attempts to pose as relevant to Dungeon and thus hitch its wagon to that star. This suggests a lack of better ideas - “give’em one big ‘hot shot’ article and then tie-in to Dungeon, and let the rest of Dragon content be ‘filler.’“
The Dragon has been, and I would argue remains, the “magazine of record” for the hobby. It has, however, become increasingly hard to justify the purchase. How long can you “hot shot” the magazine? Is attempting to make, by some degree, the Dragon an appendage of Dungeon a wise growth strategy? At some point, “habit” or “loyalty” and “tolerance” for only one good article an issue may grow more than thin.
Individual Dragon articles, unless they are exceptional, tend to be ephemeral - they hold your attention for a moment but then you stop using the content or never get around to using it. IMO, Dragon articles have worked best when they (1) go places not previously visited (much harder in a d20 environment) and (2) work with other Dragon content published simultaneously (theme issues), previously in the past 12 months or will do so going forward. This suggests to me the need for an article acquisition strategy more than the traditional - “you tell us what you want to write and we will tell you yes or no.” It suggests to me a need to refine the submission guidelines to guide submissions more in line with editorial direction - while yet allowing for “you propose” style submissions.
Dragon, however, doesn’t want to hear much of it. And so Dragon becomes an increasingly, for me, marginal purchase.
The exception to the listlessness are the “hot shot” articles - the Demonomicon entries, the Far Realms etc. These are big articles looking to grab the readers attention and while they do that and do it well, they cannot disguise or cover for the remaining content which pales by such a stark comparison. Too much of the “other” content beyond the “hot shots” seems disjointed or scattered, as if the idea was only half completed or a first draft - there is no better illustration than the “Class Acts,” which either never get going or have to stop just as they have gotten underway.
Other articles, seem to exist in a vacuum. Certainly, there is much less synergy between articles than there has been in the past. This is not to say that every article must be part of a tight “theme issue” but something needs to make the whole greater than the mere sum of the parts. Part of the problem may well be that other d20 products, open content, has eclipsed the Dragon, but at the same time some articles seem to be written as if only Wotc were still producing product for D&D. While Dragon may be compelled not to mention d20 works, authors should have a greater familiarity with what is out there and write like it, not like no one has ever written anything but Wotc.
A Dragon subscription is a good deal versus the newsstand. On average, I find at least one good article per issue. But I rarely find two, let alone more. I will not subscribe then and ratify and editorial policy that seems to find “good enough” to be “good enough.”
The comparison between Dragon and Dungeon highlights the Dragon’s difficulties in finding itself. Dungeon is a tight product. Of course, Dungeon is also easier to make tight. Dragon poses the more difficult challenge and to date the editorial staff have, in this customer’s opinion, failed to fully engage that challenge. The “hot shot” strategy is essentially a variety of “bait and switch.” The new wrinkle is the Age of Worms tie-in, whereby Dragon attempts to pose as relevant to Dungeon and thus hitch its wagon to that star. This suggests a lack of better ideas - “give’em one big ‘hot shot’ article and then tie-in to Dungeon, and let the rest of Dragon content be ‘filler.’“
The Dragon has been, and I would argue remains, the “magazine of record” for the hobby. It has, however, become increasingly hard to justify the purchase. How long can you “hot shot” the magazine? Is attempting to make, by some degree, the Dragon an appendage of Dungeon a wise growth strategy? At some point, “habit” or “loyalty” and “tolerance” for only one good article an issue may grow more than thin.
Individual Dragon articles, unless they are exceptional, tend to be ephemeral - they hold your attention for a moment but then you stop using the content or never get around to using it. IMO, Dragon articles have worked best when they (1) go places not previously visited (much harder in a d20 environment) and (2) work with other Dragon content published simultaneously (theme issues), previously in the past 12 months or will do so going forward. This suggests to me the need for an article acquisition strategy more than the traditional - “you tell us what you want to write and we will tell you yes or no.” It suggests to me a need to refine the submission guidelines to guide submissions more in line with editorial direction - while yet allowing for “you propose” style submissions.
Dragon, however, doesn’t want to hear much of it. And so Dragon becomes an increasingly, for me, marginal purchase.
Similar Threads
