Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?

[Arnwyn]

Count me as another one who would like to draw attention to The Sigil's suggestions above. You have echoed my sentiments about Dungeon Mag *exactly*. (However, if you keep the same relative number of ads that you do now, I'm okay with that - I'm willing to compromise!)

As The Sigil noted above, the concept that you are not in the magazine business, but in the adventures-for-D&D business is fundemental in making the changes that at least a few of us here would prefer. I, too, would be happy with black and white, no glossy paper, and *heavy* reduction in Poly (ads are fine).

I buy Dungeon for Dungeon. And, as suggested above, I submit that virtually all of your original paid subscribers from before the merge were Dungeon subscribers as well, and bought Dungeon for Dungeon. (It certainly should be no surprise to people that there is an outcry about the inclusion of Poly.)

 

[Blister]

Paizo

---

 

[rounser]

Don't laugh. Many folks that design and sell games post there, and more of them lurk there. You may be one of the millions of D&D-only gamers, but you're not alone in this hobby.

I'd rather not buy content I don't want or use so that some designers or publishers somewhere can feel better about joining the brave new world of multigenre d20.

Anything that can make the hobby as a whole better is a good thing, and that means doing all that can be done to make d20 the go-to choice for RPG design.

I really don't care about most of the RPG hobby beyond D&D, which is the game I play. I also don't think D&D is much affected by the fortunes of these other games; rather, it seems to be the other way round.

 

[Corinth]

I'd rather not buy content I don't want or use so that some designers or publishers somewhere can feel better about joining the brave new world of multigenre d20.

You don't get to make that call. The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are. There's more to this hobby than D&D, and there are plenty of D&D players that play other RPGs. This does count the game designers, from whom D&D directly benefits via the work that they in their products- their best efforts become part of D&D.

I really don't care about most of the RPG hobby beyond D&D, which is the game I play. I also don't think D&D is much affected by the fortunes of these other games; rather, it seems to be the other way round.

Really? Check again. Here's what you've received from the rest of the hobby:

• A unified task resolution mechanic. (Too many games to mention them all.)
• A unified XP progression chart. (Rolemaster)
• The PHB-centric marketing model. (GURPS)
• Templates (Many; GURPS is notable for its use)
• Prestige Classes (Traveller & Twilight 2000, via advanced schools; RuneQuest; Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
• Weighted attibute values in game balance (GURPS)
• Feats (Feng Shui)
• The planar traits in MOTP (TORG)
• The myriad of magic item qualities, above what was in previous editions. (Rolemaster, Palladium)
• Everything dealing with OA (Bushido, L5R, Sengoku)
• Everything involved D&DG (The Primal Order, Aria)
• The incorporation of classed monsters as a standard feature (Rolemaster, Palladium)
• A martial arts system that actually works (Feng Shui, Sengoku, Bushido, L5R, Palladium, GURPS)
• A vehicle combat system that actually works (Car Wars, GURPS, Heavy Gear)
• A scaling system that actually works (Mekton II/Zeta, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles)
• Standardized stat blocks for PCs and NPCs alike (Palladium)
• Any magic use other than the usual dungeon stuff (Ars Magica, RuneQuest)

D&D isn't an innovative game. It doesn't need to be. It's strength is that it uses its position as the top dog of the hobby to cherry pick the best ideas that come from the massive pool of other RPGs and incorporate those best-of-the-best concepts into the game. All that's happened with d20 is the accelleration of this process. To on the other RPGs in the hobby is to cut off your nose to spite your face; you're biting the hands that design the future rules of D&D, the same hands that will take the game that you love and make it better than it is now sometime down the road. The past makes it clear that this is the case.

 

[rounser]

You don't get to make that call.

Nonsense. I vote with my wallet.

The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are.

What has this got to do with whether I want the content or not? If I was a satisfied Dungeon subscriber before and not now, then I'll simply stop subscribing.

Honestly, some folks just don't care about non-D&D d20 stuff. I'm surprised you find that such a difficult concept to grasp.

There's more to this hobby than D&D, and there are plenty of D&D players that play other RPGs. This does count the game designers, from whom D&D directly benefits via the work that they in their products- their best efforts become part of D&D.

All of which has nothing to do with whether I should buy content I don't want to read and won't use which has been introduced into Dungeon.

Really? Check again. Here's what you've received from the rest of the hobby:

A unified task resolution mechanic. (Too many games to mention them all.)

A unified XP progression chart. (Rolemaster)

The PHB-centric marketing model. (GURPS)

Templates (Many; GURPS is notable for its use)

Prestige Classes (Traveller & Twilight 2000, via advanced schools; RuneQuest; Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)

Weighted attibute values in game balance (GURPS)

Feats (Feng Shui)

The planar traits in MOTP (TORG)

The myriad of magic item qualities, above what was in previous editions. (Rolemaster, Palladium)

Everything dealing with OA (Bushido, L5R, Sengoku)

Everything involved D&DG (The Primal Order, Aria)

The incorporation of classed monsters as a standard feature (Rolemaster, Palladium)

A martial arts system that actually works (Feng Shui, Sengoku, Bushido, L5R, Palladium, GURPS)

A vehicle combat system that actually works (Car Wars, GURPS, Heavy Gear)

A scaling system that actually works (Mekton II/Zeta, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles)

Standardized stat blocks for PCs and NPCs alike (Palladium)

Any magic use other than the usual dungeon stuff (Ars Magica, RuneQuest)

All of which has nothing to do with whether I want multigenre stuff which I don't use in Dungeon. The industry can look after itself - it doesn't need forced progressiveness by buying and analysing game material that you never use. No wonder you love RPG.net - that seems to be their favourite pastime over there.

D&D isn't an innovative game.

Bollocks. There's far more to RPG innovation than mere game mechanics - why am I not surprised you're hoeing this particular row?

It doesn't need to be. It's strength is that it uses its position as the top dog of the hobby to cherry pick the best ideas that come from the massive pool of other RPGs and incorporate those best-of-the-best concepts into the game. All that's happened with d20 is the accelleration of this process. To on the other RPGs in the hobby is to cut off your nose to spite your face; you're biting the hands that design the future rules of D&D, the same hands that will take the game that you love and make it better than it is now sometime down the road. The past makes it clear that this is the case.

All of which is irrelevant, because D&D can take care of itself.

I think you severely overestimate the amount of mechanics-based innovation in RPGs. Skill based systems are so obvious that they're as old as D&D itself - Arneson used one! Universal resolution mechanics don't require rocket science to reinvent from first principles either. Besides, this is not the point - I don't care about these other games because I don't play them, and I don't care for multigenre d20 stuff in Dungeon because I don't use that either. It's not my duty to buy stuff I won't use, and I'm not betraying D&D by doing so - that argument is nonsense. I'll leave the buying of material that you never use to the chinstrokers and daydreamers.

 

[Darrin Drader]

You know, I really hope all this moaning and complaining by people who are unwilling to let go of the (troubled) past and mistakes made by TSR (T$R) won't result in the cancellation of Polyhedron. Before this integration of the two mags, I was a very loyal Dungeon subscriber. I mean why wouldn't I be? There's great stuff there. With a little work, even the 2nd edition stuff can ba hauled out, dusted off, and reused under 3rd edition. Sure, the stat blocks won't work, but that's why you check it for balance issues before actually trying to run it. In effect, what you are getting out of the old stuff is all the fluff since the crunch no longer interfaces with our current platform.

Polyhedron is great stuff. Pulp D20 was the first game that started to reformat things for a modern RPG. Using that alone, there is enough to take the ball and run into a D20 Modern or future setting. But then D20 Modern was released and ended up having major differences from pulp. So now, if we want, we have two sources we can draw on to run something different. The more the rules are tweked to fit a unique genre, the more optional rules there are to choose from to get just the right game to make each individual happy. I know a lot of people who decided that they wanted a more gritty and hard hitting D&D game, so they adopted the Wound/Vitality system from Star Wars into their D&D game. Of course this doesn't even address those people that actually want to run one of these mini-games. I have used much of this material in my games (Omega World & Spelljammer), and I'm glad it was published.

This approach benefitted Star Wars with Star Wars Gamer magazine by giving us all the space combat system we wanted, which was incorporated into the Revised Edition.

OK, so maybe you don't want so many pages devoted to what is essentially experimentation. I guess Dragon must be a really bad idea then, since virtually all of its content can be categorized as fluff or optional and experiemental rules.

The bottom line is that a business decision had to me made. It was made. I think the mag is better for it. If it absolutely comes down to a decision between going B&W and losing it altogether, then I guess it should go B&W, but in doing so, I firmly believe that the loss of the polish of the magazine will drive away a lot of the newer subscribers who have come to expect this. Lets not forget that despite the money issues, according to everything we've been told, subscriptions went through the roof as soon as 3E was released.

So my vote goes to leaving things as they are now. I like getting a new Dungeon every month and I enjoy the Poly section.

 

[Krug]

I agree with most of The Sigil's points. I think Paizo has to do away with some of the interior colour pages in Dungeon, and yes, seperate Polyhedron magazine. Frankly, the strongest supplements to me are the Githyanki stuff in #100 and Spelljammer. The rest hardly register a blip.

If they don't want to put out a separate magazine, then turn to PDF distribution of some of these 'mini-games'. Or go the cheapass games method; highly playable, low cost. innovative games which subscribers receive once every quarter.

Dungeon 'died' before but was resurrected, and yes, it's one of the best values in the market. Hopefully Wilson will put together a good plan to ensure the magazine's survival.

 

[rounser]

. I guess Dragon must be a really bad idea then, since virtually all of its content can be categorized as fluff or optional and experiemental rules.

Bingo. That's exactly how I view Dragon, and also why I don't subscribe to it, and never have. Dungeon has been "Dragon-ised", which I guess was inevitable - the format of a magazine purely devoted to modules was a bit too good to be true.

 

[Blister]

What?

"The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are. "

How in the world can you know this? Do you keep a running total on your home computer with access to the Paizo database? And aparently they might have ruled against this initially, but they're doing some serious backpeddling now.

The "professionals" made that call and got a tremendous backlash, so much so that they came out posting explanations. You think JW came out and made that post over a minority of letters? I don't think so. It looks very much like Paizo is reeling from a huge backlash of negative feedback, and it's pretty sickening all the sympathy their trying to garner, and how many people are stepping in going "poor little Paizo publishing, being picked on by the meanie badie posters."

It should be apparent those "mean posters" really like Dungeon and are appalled by what Paizo tried to do to the magazine.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Re: What?

"The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are. "

How in the world can you know this? Do you keep a running total on your home computer with access to the Paizo database? And aparently they might have ruled against this initially, but they're doing some serious backpeddling now.

How do I know this? Well, I don't work in the Paizo offices, so I guess I kind of have to take their word on it. And yes, they are the professionals and make the decisions because it's their business. They are the ones with their business riding on the success or failure of the magazine. If they end up making some people mad in order to turn a profit and preserve their livelihood, then that's just the way it is.

Complaining about it is like walking into a grocery store and complaining about the price of milk. Of course if everyone complains about the price of milk and stops buying it from that store, then the store needs to rethink things. If this is what is happening at Paizo, then fine. Do what needs to be done to stay in business and keep the gaming goodness coming my way.

"It looks very much like Paizo is reeling from a huge backlash of negative feedback, and it's pretty sickening all the sympathy their trying to garner, and how many people are stepping in going "poor little Paizo publishing, being picked on by the meanie badie posters."

I think that this remark could be applied regardless of what they actually had to say. In fact, it is just as possible that they decided that it would be better to maintain communication with the people that care enough about the magazine to bother commenting in the first place. Again, looking back at TSR, how often did the business people and designers bother to interract with the public? About the only time it happened was at the conventions when they were essentially hawking their wares. Maybe rather than damning them for speaking up, you should actually consider what they have to say.