{DRAGON] Will there be a DRAGON Annual this year?

[PatrickLawinger]

This is looking like a real flame war brewing.

Anyway, I keep copies of all orders. Last time I re-upped I paid for "13 issues a year." I have it documented, what is Paizo going to do about it? I am sure they don't have to do anything, but if other people used the same order form I did, it looks like those people paid for 13 issues a year. Easy enough, I suppose to tack on an additional issue to their subscription, although I don't see a cost savings there. I guess it would probably be a savings in that they won't have to do that for everyone.

I have the latest Dragon right here on the desk. I can't say there is a great deal in it that is useful to me. This entire year has been pretty poor in that way. I have been hoping Paizo would pull out of the dive (my opinion, of course) and I am giving them some time. Lag time between collections of articles, themes, etc. is pretty long in the publishing industry.

Right now I consider the Dungeon/Poly subscription to be very worth my money. I am seriously considering not renewing Dragon when that comes up again in about 2 years, but who knows. However, Paizo is correct in presuming that decision won't have anything to do with a Dragon annual. Right now though, people have been disappointed with Dragon lately, the lack of an annual is just going to make many of them feel more frustrated. For those that resubscribe yearly it could be a breaking point.

As far as the quality of last year's annual, well, it was decent quality work, I just don't think they hit their target audience well. I know I felt it was nothing more than a large advertisement. If you miss your target audience you should expect that audience to complain (sometimes bitterly). Throwing your hands up in frustration and saying "I quit" is one solution I suppose. I, on the other hand, would try to do a better job on the next one.

Something like 10% or less of Gamers use the internet for gaming related websites and information. I know avid gamer computer jocks who NEVER use the internet for anything gaming related. Complaints on a message board, even this one, carry little weight. A majority of a magazines sales are subscriptions. If you purchase your magazine at a store your most detailed complaint on a message board or by email is going to fall on deaf ears, after all, what proof do they have you actually bought the magazine? A written letter is usually read, especially if it comes from a subscriber. People that take their time to create a clearly written letter, put it on paper, and use a postage stamp to get it to its destination are generally serious about their complaints. People on message boards tend to simply rant.

Enough for now ...

 

[JeffB]

Well said Patrick. I agree 100%.

Dropping the Annual because of the number of complaints they got via the internet at best would be a secondary or tertiary motive, and honestly I find it darn near insulting to be thrown that "explanation".

At any rate, I voted with my dollars and let my subs for Dragon & Dungeon lapse. Now before anyone gets thier knickers in a twist, it's not because of the annual issue, but because of the "dive" that Dragon is in (as Patrick put it). The 1st year of the 3E issues was pretty good overall, but then it just well..lost most of it's appeal AFAIC. Dungeon I like overall, but rarely do I find stuff I would run as whole, and the parts I do use, just don't hold enough value to keep me putting out the cash for the majority of the magazine which is adventures I won't use.

I think the Annual is a really cool issue and have looked forward to it the past few years. I've enjoyed every one, even parts of the D20 special, but the D20 special overall was a poor effort. I seem to recall a pretty big article of stats for the animals of the WOT setting. I like the WOT game, but that was a really bad idea for a rather large article.

I'll thumb through them both here and there and see if Piazzo can get their $#@T together over the next year or so, and re-assess the situation.

my 2 lunars....

 

[Vocenoctum]

For me, they're ascending. The Tainted was a very good thing, and the swashbuckler's before it. Vile was ... blah, but hopefully the reduction of tied issues will improve that.

I don't plan on canceling Dragon over an annual, so I'm overall good with what I'm getting for my dollars. (Considering how much I've wasted on other products that will never have anything useful. At least Dragon has pretty pictures

 

[Emiricol]

I'm mostly ticked they dared claim the decision to simultaneously raise rates and lower issues advertised per year was due to complaints about a "free" issue that sold twice as well as normal. Puh-leeze. Business is business and I respect that, and I respect their right to make as much money as possible, but it is bad PR to use such a lame excuse.

Plus Dragon isn't USA Today - they are an official publication for a hobby, and thus have a wee bit of responsibility to those of us who plug our money down for the magazine. I feel they've done *okay* in that regard, which is better than most such publications.

All told, though, I like the magazine itself. If I have any true gripe, it is 1) Snarfquest is gone, and 2) the cover art has gone downhill. It has been a long time since I felt like tacking a cover to the wall in my home office. #1 is about 9/10ths of the Orc Pie, with #2 being the other 1/10.

Sure much of it is advertorial for WotC products, but they are after all the core of D&D, and Paizo has said they'll include more generally interesting information.

And, even being semi-commercial, the content is pretty good. The above examples are wonderful - Tainted, Knights&Paladins, Swashbucker. To that list I'd add their Castles add-ons; the Drow articles on sociology and Lolth's tests; the Birthright Light (oops, that's supposed to be "World Building" from the April issue ) and the rules for Honor Points ("damn I wish we had a Bard with us!!").

Yep, I think it is doing well, considering it is under new management (and these things always take time to settle themselves.)

 

[Dr. Zauberei]

I may be misreading myself but . . .

I'm pretty darn sure that NOWHERE does Wilson or anyone else in the know say that INTERNET response prompted his decision to cancel the Annuals. It was simply "reader response". Which to me means mostly snail mail and email, not message board response. But this was pointed out already, but the complainers tend to ignore what doesn't fit into their negative little paradigm.

Someone else pointed out above this thread is pretty much at the flashpoint before flame war. No one here is going to change their mind about how they feel. So, I'm done.

 

[Emiricol]

'Bout time. And yep you are misreading - he didn't say what sort of responses did it (nor did my or the last several posts), regardless of your opinion what that means. All he said was that people complained. And it is still a crock. Dragon still raised their rates and decreased their frequency at the same time.

And if subscribers don't like something the publisher is doing, well, the subscribers are the customers and they SHOULD let them know. Constructively. The rabid, foam-at-the-mouth whiners are pretty much ignored anyway.

And I STILL like the magazine despite threads like this one, and as long as the articles are useful I'll STILL pay for it.

Bah, this whole thread is silly.

 

[Dark Psion]

Well working in retail as I do, One thing that has been drilled into my head is; "No customer is to leave to store angry". You find a way to make them happy even if they did break the item by misusing it, if they think you are an ACE hardware and you are a True Value, or the sale was three months ago.

One rule of retail is: Make a customer happy and they will tell two people, make them angry and the will tell two hundred. Also, unlike magazines, we are dependant on our customers coming back as often as possible, not just once a year.

I apologise for being angry with my above post, but having an 87 year old lady drive her car through your greenhouse can do that to a guy and well, Sorry Johnny is was you or her (say it with me "Must not hit the customers")

Maybe someone above was right, that it was better when Dragon didn't focus on the special gifts and just focused on being the best RPG magazine out there.

(And BTW, she's fine and luckily I don't work on Monday)

 

[Darrin Drader]

One rule of retail is: Make a customer happy and they will tell two people, make them angry and the will tell two hundred. Also, unlike magazines, we are dependant on our customers coming back as often as possible, not just once a year.

More and more retailers don't go by this rule. It leads to massive numbers of bad business decisions which leads to lost profits, customers telling 200 of their friends that they can take advantage of a companies good faith, and eventually going out of business. Now if that company is paying 5 cents for something they sell for $1 then they are turning the kind of profit where they can afford to throw product away. I've worked for 2 companies that have literally put themselves out of business by being too customer friendly. They were both well-liked and should have been successful. It was pathetic, and I hated having to look for work after they went belly up.

What does this have to do with Dragon? Well, nothing really, except that this customer is always right attitude has helped make this whole society into a bunch of lazy whiners that need to start taking responsibilities for the choices that they make. If a customer buys the wrong mattress, they should not get an unlimited number of exchanges at the companies expense until they're happy (or their money back after their 3rd mattress if they can't find a way to be happy). If the customer buys the wrong type of light bulb then they should have brought the original one to the store when trying to replace it. In a perfect world, returns would only be allowed if the item and the packaging being returned were in perfect resellable condition. If the customer doesn't try the free trial of an online game that has a no refunds policy, then puts money into it and then decides they don't want to play it, they shouldn't throw a fit because they can't get their money back and they definitely shouldn't threaten legal action. There's an awesome website dedicated to this at the following URL: http://www.customerssuck.com/


OK, rant switch moving into the "off" position. As people who have an opinion of Dragon or Dungeon, why don't we try offering the staff things we would like to see more of rather than things we would like to see less of. Are we all happy with each issue consisting of spells, feats, prestige classes, and magic items? I know those things are some of the more challenging things to design, but what should be in the magazine instead that would make people happier? And what kind of covers would we prefer to see?

I recently sent in some scalemail encouraging Dragon to give it a rest with the featured character on the cover and start giving us fantastic landscapes, battle scenes, and monsters on the cover. What would you prefer to see?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

OK, rant switch moving into the "off" position. As people who have an opinion of Dragon or Dungeon, why don't we try offering the staff things we would like to see more of rather than things we would like to see less of. Are we all happy with each issue consisting of spells, feats, prestige classes, and magic items? I know those things are some of the more challenging things to design, but what should be in the magazine instead that would make people happier? And what kind of covers would we prefer to see?

I recently sent in some scalemail encouraging Dragon to give it a rest with the featured character on the cover and start giving us fantastic landscapes, battle scenes, and monsters on the cover. What would you prefer to see?

What I've expressed repeatedly on this thread is my frustration with the feeling that such feedback goes by with little or no acknowledgement, while the negative stuff gets all the attention. I've often detailed what I like in Dragon and Dungeon, and what I would like to see more of. When the d20 Special appeared, I made sure to point out what I liked about it - only to now read that the people who make the magazine only seemed to hear complaints about it. I'm all for doing exactly what you are espousing, but I'd like to know that such feedback holds more weight than the negative. Right now I'm unsure of that.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I'd like to know that such feedback holds more weight than the negative. Right now I'm unsure of that.

I suspect it's impossible for the people at Paizo to tell you that positive feedback "carries more weight" than negative, and actually I'm not even sure it should. If one person tells you an article was great, and 113 tell you it was worse than having a dead skunk mailed to them, which opinion should they listen to?

I haven't had anything published in Dragon in a year or so (since the d20 special in fact - the big article on animals in the WOT that so few people seemed to like), and I don't have anything under consideration right now, so I feel only mildly biased in my opinions, and I want to make sure those biases are out in the open. I like the people at Paizo, I consider some of them friends, and I certainly plan on selling them more stuff in the future. So feel free to keep that in mind when reading the following comments.

Magazine publishing is a brutal business. TSR had Dragon as a way to increase sales of D&D products, so it didn't really matter if it made a profit by itself. WotC moved away from that thinking and pushed for the magazines to make money on their own. The periodical staff did some heroic late-night work trying to figure out what players wanted, how to increase circulation, cut costs, and raise advertising money.

I read some of the comments they get to work with, and it’s a tough act pull off. Most people tend to scream for D&D-only content, but with lots of variety, but make sure it meets my immediate gaming needs, but don't just write articles that tie in to new products.

That means different things to different people. If the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook just came out, is an article on real-world castles too tied- in to it, or not D&D enough? All the staff can do is guess, and use the best articles they've got. (And that's another thing, these magazines are writer-driven. Don't like the articles they have? Write some of your own. And I don't mean that in a put-up or shut-up way, I acknowledge you can have a legit opinion on writing without being a good writer. I'm just saying if no one writes an interesting article about D&D that doesn't involve feats, spells or prestige class, Dragon can't publish one.)

Now, things are even more profit driven, I suspect, and with good reason. Paizo -isn't- WotC, and they must make money on the magazines alone, since they don't have any other products. And yeah, that probably means they have to raise prices while cutting services. Inflation is real folks, and no matter how good a deal you got on the magazine before because its parent company -could- lose money on it, Paizo can't. WotC isn't willing top publish the thing anymore. I suspect the massive support D&D receives from 3rd party publishers means they don't -have- to have Dragon anymore, so they're not going to leap in and save it if Paizo goes under. So Paizo has to make money to justify keeping the things in print.

And let's talk about value. My copy of Dragon 301 is 114 pages long. Just to be ridiculously conservative, let's say only ½ of that is game material. that's 57 pages. Assuming 12 issue a year, that's 684 pages of game material. What does a subscription cost? Let's round it up to $40. you find me a game book with 684 pages of game material for $40.

Okay, maybe you can't use all the game material (heck, if circulation is only 10,000 copies, I'd be amazed if anyone could find a single article 10,000 gamers would agree was useful). Of course, I find most game books aren't 100% useful, but let's ignore that. If I think of Dragon as a game book, I'd like to get around 200 pages out of that price, if production values and such are good. So if 1 in 3 articles is good, I get 228 pages, which is like getting a hardback that's 1005 good material.

Oh, and they have those counters. At 1 sheet per issue, that's 12 sheets of counters. Yeah, I've paid $12 for about that much before. Okay, that's a bonus.

Oh, and there's the art. I've paid -more- than $40 for fantasy art books with less quality art than I find in the interior of Dragon. (I -love- the illos on pages 30, 32 and 41 of issue 301. I could start a whole campaign based on those illos.)

And if its not worth it to you after all that, then vote with your dollars and don't buy it. But look hard at the value before you do that. because on top of everything elves, Dragon does give me Sage Advise and Dungeoncraft, and a lot of other things I can't get anywhere else.

No one at Paizo is happy about axing the annual, I'm sure. But if you work on something and get mostly negative feedback, it doesn't make sense to do it again. Johnny is annoyed because subscribers were overwhelmingly negative about the d20 special, but it sold well on newsstands. But newsstands aren't where most of his money comes from, so he has to listen to subscribers. The time and effort that would have been spent on getting out an issue 13 can now be spent on improving the core magazine (and it is a -big- deal to try to put out 2 issues in the same month. It doubles everyone's workload for a chunk of the year, and Johnny likes his employees too much to do that to them if the product they sweat over isn't well received).

Okay, some of you are upset that you subscribed for 13 issues and now get 12. I get that. Of course, I've had magazines get cancelled, and been told there's no way to get my money back. That happens sometimes. That's the risk you take for getting 47% off the cover price. So, in my opinion, just decide if the magazine is still worth it to you, and renew or not.

You want to talk mark-up? When WotC published the magazine, I got copies free, as a courtesy. When Paizo took over, they didn’t offer to send me stuff for free anymore. I immediately coughed up the money for subscriptions to everything. In my opinion, I'd be a sucker not to.

The people at Paizo may make decisions you don't like. I'm not suggesting they're perfect, or that people shouldn't feel free to voice their opinion. heck, my opinion is no more valuable than anyone else’s. But I don't believe Johnny, Jesse, or anyone else is trying to pu8ll one over on the fans, or cheat consumers, or bluff their way out of some secret reason to cancel the annual. It was a business decision, based on income and resources. Things like this happen when you change publishers.

My $.02
Owen K.C. Stephens




PS: I just don’t get not feeling the d20 Special was a good idea. This is an aside, unrelated to the above rant, but what part of that magazine isn’t relevant to D&D?

Deep Ones? No conversion needed.
Spectral hunters? No conversion needed.
Ryan Dancey on D20? Explains where all this d20 stuff came from. No game stats, true, but -ll- about our game.
All’s fair? It’s about adapting thing to D&D.
Pattern Weavers? Okay, you need WoT for their magic, but if you just give them 1st level Wiz/Sor spells instead you have easy, ready-to use NPCs complete with illos. But my names on that one, so I may be biased.
Beasts of the WoT? Change the word “Defense” to “AC”, and they’re D&D animals. Beasts in many cases. Great for druids, wilderness encounters.., again, I may be biased.
Gfirswt look, Dragonstar? ‘Sheen were popular, but spellware enhancements aren’t?
Back talon Ss’ressen? They -are- for D&D!
Black Riders? Yep, D&D.
Firearms in Freeport? Well, Freeport isn’t a GURPS book, so this must be D&D.
Mini adventure review? Well, those are D&D mini adventures, and I certainly appreciated knowing how good they were )or weren’t). But some poeple don’t like reviews. But these certainly were D&D reviews.

I mean it’s not like the magazine was about Star Wars and Spycraft!
Oh well, but my other $.02