I want to say I *never* bought an issue of Dungeon until Polyhedron was added in, and I still consider the Dungeon half to be "The part of the magazine that was printed upside down and which I don't read." Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I do not like adventures -- I can make up my own.
Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?
- Thread starter Erithtotl
- Start date
Dungeon 100 was probably getting praise because it's all D&D content, and there's synergy between the adventure bits and the non-adventure bits.
From what I've heard, Dragon is all D&D nowadays - is this correct? If true, I think that this raises the question, why is it that Dragon gets to be the exclusive D&D magazine and Dungeon doesn't? Replace half the articles in Dragon with non-D&D d20 material and you'd probably get complaints too...
If Dungeon were to turn into a D&D Adventure/D&D Setting Material magazine (with Living Greyhawk and generic setting material in place of the minigames), I think there'd be a lot less "I'll never use this" thinking.
From what I've heard, Dragon is all D&D nowadays - is this correct? If true, I think that this raises the question, why is it that Dragon gets to be the exclusive D&D magazine and Dungeon doesn't? Replace half the articles in Dragon with non-D&D d20 material and you'd probably get complaints too...
If Dungeon were to turn into a D&D Adventure/D&D Setting Material magazine (with Living Greyhawk and generic setting material in place of the minigames), I think there'd be a lot less "I'll never use this" thinking.
Last edited:
uraniumdragon
Explorer
Probably been said...
... since I haven't read through all of the thread, this may have been said.
I know for me, the material in the Polyhedron section of the magazine has been a great help in the transfer over to the d20 Modern campaign. The Pulp Heroes was a great start, the few that followed were good teasers.
And now, d20 Modern support is what I want more than anything else from Dungeon. I would have no complaint about losing the Polyhedron section, especially the actual RPGA support of which the Poly was designed to be prior to the combination, before becoming the test bed for d20 Modern.
Turn those Poly pages into d20 Modern scenarios, or at least half of the pages, and I will be glad to pay the price of the magazine.
... since I haven't read through all of the thread, this may have been said.
I know for me, the material in the Polyhedron section of the magazine has been a great help in the transfer over to the d20 Modern campaign. The Pulp Heroes was a great start, the few that followed were good teasers.
And now, d20 Modern support is what I want more than anything else from Dungeon. I would have no complaint about losing the Polyhedron section, especially the actual RPGA support of which the Poly was designed to be prior to the combination, before becoming the test bed for d20 Modern.
Turn those Poly pages into d20 Modern scenarios, or at least half of the pages, and I will be glad to pay the price of the magazine.
uraniumdragon
Explorer
Re: Probably been said...
And I failed to say Thanks for the Global Positioning maps. They rock!
uraniumdragon said:
And I failed to say Thanks for the Global Positioning maps. They rock!
re
The reason I don't like Polyhedron is because I only play D&D, so I am only really interested in reading magazines that have D&D applicable content, aka Dragon and Dungeon. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
I refuse to buy a subscription to a magazine that every other month concentrates on content that I will not read or use. I know the other guy who DM's our gaming group decided not to renew his subscription to Dungeon because he doesn't like the addition of Polyhedron either.
Erik,
C'mon now. What were you guys thinking merging magazines with vastly different content aimed at different markets. Polyhedron and Dungeon are not compatible magazines considering their content. If you had mixed Dragon and Dungeon, that would have been understandable. The decision seemed very odd and I didn't understand it, still don't.
I hope Paizo separates the magazine and concentrates on making Dungeon a more applicable magazine. Maybe you guys could include a section on Player tactics when dealing with a dungeon or list of new spells, feats, or prestige classes with applicability for players. I don't know, something that expands the readership.
The reason I don't like Polyhedron is because I only play D&D, so I am only really interested in reading magazines that have D&D applicable content, aka Dragon and Dungeon. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
I refuse to buy a subscription to a magazine that every other month concentrates on content that I will not read or use. I know the other guy who DM's our gaming group decided not to renew his subscription to Dungeon because he doesn't like the addition of Polyhedron either.
Erik,
C'mon now. What were you guys thinking merging magazines with vastly different content aimed at different markets. Polyhedron and Dungeon are not compatible magazines considering their content. If you had mixed Dragon and Dungeon, that would have been understandable. The decision seemed very odd and I didn't understand it, still don't.
I hope Paizo separates the magazine and concentrates on making Dungeon a more applicable magazine. Maybe you guys could include a section on Player tactics when dealing with a dungeon or list of new spells, feats, or prestige classes with applicability for players. I don't know, something that expands the readership.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Thanks for posting, Erik. It's nice to know you're listening to our feedback.
I subscribe to both Dragon and Dungeon. Dungeon happens to be my favorite magazine of the two -- I'm primarily a DM; I have limited prep time so I like to use lots of premade adventures (I find it's quicker and easier to modify than to do it all from scratch), and I just think adventures happen to be fun to read. I may not use every adventure in Dungeon immediately, but the potential remains to use it -- unlike most of the Dragon material that I almost never use, though since it has drifted away from product theme issues and gone to campaign components I think the quality of Dragon has improved, but I digress.
I was quite happy with Dungeon as a bimonthly, adventure-only publication. I'm a straight D&D, plain-Jane FR/Greyhawk fantasy kind of guy. I hated the last "d20 Annual", so you can imagine my frustration when Poly got combined with Dungeon. The previous poster hit the nail on the head -- the two magazines seem to fit two mostly different audiences, so it's not surprising that it hasn't been a happy union. I thought from the beginning that Dragon/Poly and Dungeon/LGJ would have been a more appropriate combo, but I do like the fact that Dragon is a purely D&D magazine -- I don't miss the old days when Dragon had only one or two D&D articles and a lot of coerage of other game systems.
Yes, there is a lot in some of the Poly issues that could be ported -- the minigames that I haven't minded have been those with the closest D&D ties (Spider Moon; Incursion -- Du 100 is great!). By and large, though, Poly content is wasted for me -- I have no plans to ever use one of the mini games, as what little gaming time I have is devoted to our D&D campaign (in which, BTW, I ran "The Door From Everywhere" from Du 88 last session, which turned out great -- kudos to the author). Poly may be fun reading, but in a perfect world I'd rather have Dungeon just for D&D adventure related material, and have a separate magazine with a generic d20 focus -- which I might even consider getting if the scope was expanded beyond mini-games.
As it stands I have no plans to drop my subscription; even at the current price I think Dungeon's a good deal, and I'm willing to put up with the lost page count to Poly for the time being if that's the price of keeping Dungeon viable. Monthly or bimonthly doesn't matter to me, so long as the adventure count is 4-6 over a two month period (like Dungeon provided in the pre-Poly days).
If you had to cut costs, though, I wouldn't mind:
- B&W pages or lower quality paper (yes, I know you need them for the news stand).
- Increase the ad count (3-4 add pages between each adventure doesn't bother me).
- Drop the inserts. I think the posters are a waste; the counters are nice but I can do without to save costs.
- Get rid of Downer & Bolt & Quiver -- the only comic I've like in Dungeon is Nodwick.
- I'd rather have a short adventure/side trek than the critical threats or allies -- I'd take one 4-page sidetrek over the 2-3 of those in a current Dungeon.
- Cut back on artwork & maps. Do we need 2 sets of cover art in every issue? It's nice, but why pay for it (especially when the 2d isn't on the cover). Much as I like the high quality maps, I could live with simple monocolor grids if that helps the price point.
As to page counts vs. space -- I'll leave those suggestions to people who know more about publishing. Overall, if Dungeon can't stand alone, I'd prefer the Dungeon/Poly content mix to be about 75%/25%. If the current trend continues, though, and the average Dungeon only contains 1-2 adventures per issue, I'd almost rather see Dungeon die and have those 1-2 adventures be included in a "Dungeon" section in Dragon -- though if that were to occur I can already hear the anguished wails of Dragon subscribers who don't want to pay for that content. Poly at least could then be spun off into a general d20 magazine (as Dragon is to D&D) leaving Dragon/Dungeon pure for D&D/d20 fantasy content -- given the number of d20 ezines running around this might be a viable option.
This is a tough nut to crack -- I don't envy Paizo's position. Based on Dungeon contant pre-issue 96 or so (and given Du 100), if I could only subscribe to one gaming magazine, it would be Dungeon, not Dragon. But when 50% or more of what I'm paying for regularly becomes (current) Poly content, that's when I'm likely to stop purchasing (if we reach a $50/year subscription rate, or $10/issue newstand cost, I won't buy if the Poly content is over 25%). Again, the Poly content might be more palatable to me if it were more general material -- mechanics, etc -- instead of mini-games.
The Dungeon/Poly issue aside, though, I really must compliment Paizo on the quality of their work. The quality of Dungeon submissions and magazine product remains high; I think Dragon is better off now than it was under WOTC. Keep up the good work; I hope you can work something out to keep my favorite gaming magazine viable.
I subscribe to both Dragon and Dungeon. Dungeon happens to be my favorite magazine of the two -- I'm primarily a DM; I have limited prep time so I like to use lots of premade adventures (I find it's quicker and easier to modify than to do it all from scratch), and I just think adventures happen to be fun to read. I may not use every adventure in Dungeon immediately, but the potential remains to use it -- unlike most of the Dragon material that I almost never use, though since it has drifted away from product theme issues and gone to campaign components I think the quality of Dragon has improved, but I digress.
I was quite happy with Dungeon as a bimonthly, adventure-only publication. I'm a straight D&D, plain-Jane FR/Greyhawk fantasy kind of guy. I hated the last "d20 Annual", so you can imagine my frustration when Poly got combined with Dungeon. The previous poster hit the nail on the head -- the two magazines seem to fit two mostly different audiences, so it's not surprising that it hasn't been a happy union. I thought from the beginning that Dragon/Poly and Dungeon/LGJ would have been a more appropriate combo, but I do like the fact that Dragon is a purely D&D magazine -- I don't miss the old days when Dragon had only one or two D&D articles and a lot of coerage of other game systems.
Yes, there is a lot in some of the Poly issues that could be ported -- the minigames that I haven't minded have been those with the closest D&D ties (Spider Moon; Incursion -- Du 100 is great!). By and large, though, Poly content is wasted for me -- I have no plans to ever use one of the mini games, as what little gaming time I have is devoted to our D&D campaign (in which, BTW, I ran "The Door From Everywhere" from Du 88 last session, which turned out great -- kudos to the author). Poly may be fun reading, but in a perfect world I'd rather have Dungeon just for D&D adventure related material, and have a separate magazine with a generic d20 focus -- which I might even consider getting if the scope was expanded beyond mini-games.
As it stands I have no plans to drop my subscription; even at the current price I think Dungeon's a good deal, and I'm willing to put up with the lost page count to Poly for the time being if that's the price of keeping Dungeon viable. Monthly or bimonthly doesn't matter to me, so long as the adventure count is 4-6 over a two month period (like Dungeon provided in the pre-Poly days).
If you had to cut costs, though, I wouldn't mind:
- B&W pages or lower quality paper (yes, I know you need them for the news stand).
- Increase the ad count (3-4 add pages between each adventure doesn't bother me).
- Drop the inserts. I think the posters are a waste; the counters are nice but I can do without to save costs.
- Get rid of Downer & Bolt & Quiver -- the only comic I've like in Dungeon is Nodwick.
- I'd rather have a short adventure/side trek than the critical threats or allies -- I'd take one 4-page sidetrek over the 2-3 of those in a current Dungeon.
- Cut back on artwork & maps. Do we need 2 sets of cover art in every issue? It's nice, but why pay for it (especially when the 2d isn't on the cover). Much as I like the high quality maps, I could live with simple monocolor grids if that helps the price point.
As to page counts vs. space -- I'll leave those suggestions to people who know more about publishing. Overall, if Dungeon can't stand alone, I'd prefer the Dungeon/Poly content mix to be about 75%/25%. If the current trend continues, though, and the average Dungeon only contains 1-2 adventures per issue, I'd almost rather see Dungeon die and have those 1-2 adventures be included in a "Dungeon" section in Dragon -- though if that were to occur I can already hear the anguished wails of Dragon subscribers who don't want to pay for that content. Poly at least could then be spun off into a general d20 magazine (as Dragon is to D&D) leaving Dragon/Dungeon pure for D&D/d20 fantasy content -- given the number of d20 ezines running around this might be a viable option.
This is a tough nut to crack -- I don't envy Paizo's position. Based on Dungeon contant pre-issue 96 or so (and given Du 100), if I could only subscribe to one gaming magazine, it would be Dungeon, not Dragon. But when 50% or more of what I'm paying for regularly becomes (current) Poly content, that's when I'm likely to stop purchasing (if we reach a $50/year subscription rate, or $10/issue newstand cost, I won't buy if the Poly content is over 25%). Again, the Poly content might be more palatable to me if it were more general material -- mechanics, etc -- instead of mini-games.
The Dungeon/Poly issue aside, though, I really must compliment Paizo on the quality of their work. The quality of Dungeon submissions and magazine product remains high; I think Dragon is better off now than it was under WOTC. Keep up the good work; I hope you can work something out to keep my favorite gaming magazine viable.
Last edited:
Belen
Legend
The true strength of Dungeon lies in its usefulness for busy or inexperienced GMs. Those of us who have little time during the week love Dungeon because we can whip it out and have an adventure ready for game night with very little work.
Inexperienced GMs need it to learn how to craft adventures and encounters that will be fun and challenging.
Neither group has the time to read polyhedron. And when the dungeon content suffers, then it becomes less of a "buy." Busy people don;t have the time for mini-games.
Poly really is only useful for those people who have time to run a multitude of campaigns and spend hours reading d20 material. And when you read this thread, you find that while many lovers of Poly enjoyed READING scooby-doo, not many mentioned that they'd use it.
If you have to keep Poly, then please reduce it to 25-30% of the magazine. Those of us with jobs and familes have no time to read material useless for our camapigns.
If anything, you should convert the poly material to adventures. Have an adventure for d20 modern with the attendant special rules, PrCs etc. That would be a far better use of the space and help those running those types of campaigns.
Dave
Inexperienced GMs need it to learn how to craft adventures and encounters that will be fun and challenging.
Neither group has the time to read polyhedron. And when the dungeon content suffers, then it becomes less of a "buy." Busy people don;t have the time for mini-games.
Poly really is only useful for those people who have time to run a multitude of campaigns and spend hours reading d20 material. And when you read this thread, you find that while many lovers of Poly enjoyed READING scooby-doo, not many mentioned that they'd use it.
If you have to keep Poly, then please reduce it to 25-30% of the magazine. Those of us with jobs and familes have no time to read material useless for our camapigns.
If anything, you should convert the poly material to adventures. Have an adventure for d20 modern with the attendant special rules, PrCs etc. That would be a far better use of the space and help those running those types of campaigns.
Dave
Similar Threads
