Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?

[Iron_Chef]

consider how Anthony Valterra is perceived versus Johnny Wilson. AV had a terrible press release for the BoEF, but his handling of the event afterwords left everyone calm, if not in agreement. [/i][/size]

Apparently, I was one of the few people not offended by AV's BoEF press release, or who welcomed the content with open arms (not the same thing as "I've gotta buy it!" but I think there's a niche for this product and will give it a look through if I see it on the shelf).

TANGENT:
I'm a big (but generally silent) supporter of "mature content" like BoEF, Vile, Nymphology, GUCK, etc. I'm mostly silent on the subjects because A) The official material like BoVD/unofficial material like AEG's EVIL isn't really "vile" enough for my taste, and B) The GUCK and Mongoose's pdf Nymphology are largely juvenile and useless aside from a few spells fit for use outside the bedroom and, of course, pregnancy rules...

My opinions, mind you. I think Vile and Erotic d20 development should continue (and wouldn't mind seeing them combined!), but most of it simply does nothing for me except to raise an eyebrow and maybe elicit a snicker or two (often directed at the authors, not the content).

 

[BryonD]

WizarDru,

Sorry I got your name wrong.

Yeah, I don't like Poly and you do. But beyond that we appear to agree.

I certainly do not mind the merger, I just will not fund it.

You nailed my view, the burden IS on Paizo.

When customers complain rudely, they are being unprofessional. But, hey, they are not speaking as professionals.

When Paizo responds rudely, they show themselves the be unprofessional. And they are supposed to be professionals. Yes, it is a double standard. Life is tough. Life is tougher is you want people to give you their money.

 

[Iron_Chef]

WizarDru,

Yes, it is a double standard. Life is tough. Life is tougher is you want people to give you their money.

Sad but true.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Well Iron Chef, I wish I could give you the full break down of the costs of the Drekken's Rest, but unfortunately I have long since deleted the files. I think I decided that there wasn't much point in preserving the files for posterity when I upgraded to a new computer about a year ago.

Anyway, I can help you out a little. In Dragon 298 the editors responded to a pretty favorable letter written about the article in which they were asked about the missing costs. What they put was Subtotal: 665,150 gp. Total 866,400 gp. I would have to go back and figure them out from scratch if I were to give the more specific costs, and unfortunately I don;t have enough time for that. Hopefully the small amount of information I can supply will be sufficient.

I think I did take the time to figure them all out, but there is a slight chance I'm mistaken. I know I did the ones that appeared in the magazine.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Any info is better than none. Much obliged! At least now I can figure out whether it's affordable or not at a glance. I'll mark a note in the margins of the article for future reference. Thanks!!!

PS: Is the subtotal the amount before factoring in walls, and the total with all walls included?

 

[LightPhoenix]

I actually read through five and half pages of this thread before I started skimming, so I apologize if I say something that was already said.

First, the idea of seperating Dungeon/Poly or killing Poly is not going to work. Neither magazine was working on it's own, even under WotC - after all, they didn't say "axe Poly", they said "axe either". Obviously neither one of them was viable from a revenue standpoint. Seperate them, and you'll see both of them perish in a short time, IMO.

I think that there's a lot of potential in both Dungeon and Poly which isn't being utilized. I don't want a magazine that's just adventures - that's too narrow a scope for a magazine, especially one of this nature. I think they should take a look at the subscription and sales rates, and decide how to divvy up pages that way. If the subscription rates were (made up) 9k Dungeon and 1k Poly, then I say definitely cut back Poly - make it a 90/10 split. But without hard numbers, I really couldn't say what a fair split would be.

I actually think some of the articles from Dragon about world-building and DMing should go in Dungeon - especially if it's thought of as a DM's magazine. I think there needs to be a lot more generic stuff - the idea about outlining a town was great, and I think there needs to be more along those same lines, from both Poly and Dungeon.

On the Dungeon side, I think that setting-specific stuff needs to be toned down within the adventure, but perhaps expanded in a sidebar. For instance, you have a generic pirate adventure - now how can you tailor it to Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms? That way, you please people looking for any of generic, GH, or FR stuff. I also think there definitely needs to be more of an emphasis on how you can take the core books and use them in innovative and creative ways. Dragon is for new stuff. Dungeon should be for getting the most out of the core books in your adventures.

As for Poly - there needs to be first and foremost support for the major d20 settings that WotC puts out. I would say at least an even split between Star Wars, D20 Modern, and new material. I would favor something more along the lines of 35/45/20 respectively, but that's just me. Again it depends on sales statistics, though I wouldn't devote any more than 25% of Poly to new stuff. Mini-games are fine, and can be interesting if they're good. Keep supporting the good ones, screw the bad ones. One thing I definitely wouldn't mind seeing is how you might be able to use non-RPG sources to enrich your games. For example, there's all sorts of information on how solar systems might look - positions of planets around various types of stars and such. Why not include an article like that, that will be useful to people playing in space settings? It wouldn't have to be long, and could work as a good filler in slow months, I think.

 

[bloodydrake]

Here is My problem with the price changes from the Canadian prices and one of the real reasons people are upset that I know. You can look below at the history of the last 12 issues I have.

issue-------Cost -----Pages dungeon----Pages poly
85----------8.99----------96---------------0
86----------8.99----------128-------------0
89----------8.99----------114-------------0
91----------8.99----------116------------64
93----------8.99----------112------------66
94----------9.99----------94--------------62
95----------9.99----------98--------------66
96----------9.99----------89--------------67
97----------9.99----------115------------64
98/99------19.98----------115------------88

Averaging about 100pages of dungeon every other month some shorter some longer. This is understandable . page count can’t always dictate the adventures you have.

At Sept 2002 a 1dollar increase in cost a few issues after poly had been incorporated.
Honestly I didn’t find that to bad really to me poly was worth the extra buck. And for all the poly fans Dungeon is probably worth a getting with their poly for a buck.
So overall I see this as a fair compromise of how to combine both subscribers into one mag.

Now the switch to monthly is where things just get out of control. The price DOUBLED! For the exact same dungeon content and an increase in poly content of about 25%!
Now I understand the American price was nocked down 1dollar a month going back to basically 2 bucks cheaper every 2 months.. WHY was the Canadian price left up at 9.99???

This has been a real sore spot for me especially with issues like 99 where its basically 10 dollars for one 20page module.. i could have paid 13bucks for a full blown commercial retail module instead. Very hard to swallow.

Now the other big issue is why has the poly content thru 2 issues increased and the dungeon content stayed the same? I can almost guaranty you that if that extra 24 pages of poly in 98/99 had been dedicated to another dungeon adventure the majority of the feelings of being ripped off or extremely disappointed wouldn’t be.

When was the decision made to increase poly content and not dungeon content and honestly why? I don’t mind poly but I don’t want more of it per say.

As far as poly content, I’d like to see more d20 and ogl modules and less minigames.
Give me some more COC,Bablyon5,Everquest,D20 modules and supplements to support the other d20 games I play and I’d be happier then an endless stream of minigames that seem to just showcase d20’s ability to diversify.

I think looking at this all unless you increase the quantity of Dungeon content per month the practically doubling of cost is just not justifiable to the average customer and the magazines percentages need to be adjusted back to a 70/30ratio.
Take that 24 pages and put it towards dungeons and add a few more.
80pages per month of dungeon and 34pages of poly each month would work for me.

 

[Silver Moon]

Wow, I'm amazed that this thread is still going on. I read through Dungeon #100 last night, and was once again very pleased by the content. It was fun to see a story with good old Flame from issue #1's "Into the Fire" and issue #17's "From the Ashes". Both of those were among the best stories every printed in the magazine, and worthy of a trilogy. I was just disappointed to see that it was by the same author as the original two.

I was also very pleased with "Beast of Burden". While there may have been some similarities with the module from #97, I saw enough distinct differences as well. I for one had no interest in running the story from #97, but am anxious to use the new one.

On the Poly. side, the whole Githyaki bit was entertaining. It is great to see an entire culture fleshed out for an underused race. Furthermore, the content does not have to be limited to that particular race, as the various character classes and background presented here for the Githyaki could be easily modified for dozens of other humanoid monster races.

And once again I liked the random map of the Fast Food Restaurant. I don't really see how all the posters saying that non D&D material is useless can so easily discount the current popularity of the D20 Modern game, the sales of which should warrant the inclusion of a few pages in every issue.

And one correction, an earlier poster said that the older issues of the Magazine were all D&D. I recall that there was an excellent Marvel Superheroes module very early on, set in the mansion of the X-Men's enemies The Hellfire Club. I believe that there were a few modules for other game systems as well.

 

[rounser]

And one correction, an earlier poster said that the older issues of the Magazine were all D&D. I recall that there was an excellent Marvel Superheroes module very early on, set in the mansion of the X-Men's enemies The Hellfire Club. I believe that there were a few modules for other game systems as well.

Yeah, and there was a Top Secret SI one in on of those issues too. These were experiments that got a negative response, IIRC.

 

[Silver Moon]

Yeah, and there was a Top Secret SI one in on of those issues too. These were experiments that got a negative response, IIRC.

Well, I for one enjoyed the Marvel module. I was a fan of both the comic and gaming system. I never got to actually run it as a Marvel game, but did later adapt the Hellfire Mansion for a regular D&D game.

One other thing I enjoyed about Dungeon #100 was the look back by the various editors, as I enjoyed the parallel piece in Dragon #300. I think that special anniversary issues are helped by pieces like this.