Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2607613" data-attributes="member: 33060">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.</blockquote>

Verification