[Dungeon] Dungeon/Polyhedron Goes Monthly

[BryonD]

Well, if your group don't mind, you can search for other groups to play other games, including d20 games. Or tell your current group you want to take a break and try something different, like MECHA CRUSADE d20 Modern mini-game for one night, or Genetech. Just one night ... it can't kill them.

My only answer to this is I am just not interested.

You do make a good point, that it is ultimately up to me, not my group, what games I play. But if I was going to go find another group, I would still be more interested in playing CoC or another fully game than any of the mini games I have read in Poly.

But I really don't have the time for that anyway.

 

[BryonD]

When did the price go up?

The oldest issues I was able to put my hands on quickly was 83 (Nov/Dec 2000) and the cover price was $5.99.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

I smell smoke.

Face facts, some people are going to like Poly, some are going to like Dungeon. Personally, I liked the "old" Poly. You know, the Poly before they decided to have d20 mini games in each issue (as each issue).
Polyhedron 148: Raven's bluff material, not all that useful to me, but usable NPC stats. "Terrors of Gothic Earth" some useful, very different monsters. Material set in the "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" rpg. "Elminster's Everwinking Eye" - not all that useful I admit. Followed up with reviews and rpga information.

Polyhedron 152 (Flip side of Dungeon 93) brought us "Thunderball Rally" and such useful headers as "Car-Crazy Chicks!" across the front of Dungeon, undoubtedly making it appealing to female gamers everywhere. This issue included "Legendary Classes" by Wil Upchurch, a 4 page article with some PrC's potentially useful in a fantasy setting-frankly the best written thing about the whole issue even if I don't use it myself. Claim otherwise if you like, nothing in "Thunderball Rally" is useful in a fantasy setting. Could you modify the rules for "chariot races" or some such thing? Possibly, what percentage of people would actually do so?

I am sorry, Poly is just not that useful to me since the change-over.

I am beginning to think Paizo is making decisions for their future without checking their subscriber base and the terms subscribers signed up under. Many of the old Dungeon renewals were for "X years" not "X issues." It is easy to presume that this meant 6 issues per year, but isn't stated. I doubt anyone is going to go to court over a $35 subscription, but some cancellations are almost a sure thing. Will they get new subscriptions to make up for it? Will people come back after airing their anger?

The internet, while vocal, is a minor percentage of rpg game purchasers. Rather, only a minor percentage of rpg game purchasers uses the internet to comment, read reviews, or look up material, etc. for their games. I wouldn't expect Paizo's decisions to be based on internet roar. They have, after all, already cut the idea of a Dragon Annual, despite the fact that my subcription form promises 13 issues a year.

Dungeon is useful for ideas, etc. I am sure to maintain the subscription despite the changes. I would prefer Poly go back to a more useful format, but I don't see that happening. On the other hand, my Dragon subscription is up soon, I haven't seen much improvement and I am honestly considering non-renewal after many, many years of subscribing.

Despite what I feel are some poor decisions on Paizo's part, face facts, they are the only game in town for this material. Sure there are some d20 fanzines and webzines, but none with the popularity or power of Dungeon and Dragon. I just hope they aren't counting on that to keep them afloat.

More jumbled thoughts from someone trying to get his kids off to school...

 

[Erik Mona]

Patrick,

The non-Mini-Game months are going to have a "smorgasboard" style similar to that found in the Polyhedron from more than a year ago. So on that point alone you may find things more worthwhile. Every other month we'll have a Mini-Game, but the other months will cover a wide variety of topics.

--Erik Mona
Editor, Polyhedron

 

[Thomasson]

this has always been the argument for Dungeon. from its very beginning it had several adventures for a low price/ adventure.




to me Poly is worth $0.00. so the added value is not there. i buy or bought DUNGEON for its value in my D&D game. i bought Poly when it was better and had value to my RPG experience. it doesn't apply here. i don't want Poly. i don't need Poly. I think Poly is a waste of good trees.




and it has been dark days ever since. if you think the magazine was not founded on making money. think again.

The initial concept might have been to print a magazine that was profitable, but while DUNGEON was produced by Wizards of the Coast, for a time we were viewed as a marketing vehicle, not expected to show a profit. That changed just a few months before the DUNGEON/POLY merger, resulting in the numbers examination by Wizards that nearly resulted in the magazines' cancellation.

We don't really have numbers on the magazine prior to the Wizards acquisition, due to TSR's "interesting" bookkeeping practices. But with our best hypothetical guesses, there's no way the magazine was profitable (although numbers can always be toyed with to make it appear so).

By the way, none of us here at Paizo felt offended by anyone's comments. We have simply been trying to quell the tide of misinformation and answer as many questions as we are able. I stand by my comment about POLY's usefulness to a D&D game, with a caveat: If you play something along the lines of hard-core Greyhawk or the Realms, with no really wacky campaign elements, I could see how you might think POLY doesn't have anything for you. I would suggest you broaden your horizons a bit. For an example, my D&D campaign now features flying ships (from Spelljammer in issue #92), mutants (from Omega World in issue #94), and I'm thinking about working moreaus (from Genetech in issue #96) in there with the mutants somehow. I still haven't figured out how I can get mechas and '70s racing into D&D, but I'm working on it.

All of the things I mentioned, I think, have fantasy flavor that I can slap right into my campaign, so I have.

If anyone took offense at my comments, my apologies. And no, we don't only want to hear positive feedback. We do like to hear the reasons why those of you who don't like certain things about the magazine feel the way you do. "I don't like it" is okay, but "I don't like it because" is better. Some of our responses might have been off target because we responded with one meaning in mind, while you were trying to say something else entirely.

Let me start that ball rolling: For those of you who don't find any value in POLYHEDRON, why is that? More specifically, what is it about your game that prevents you from mining Mini-Games for useful material? (I'm honestly curious.) Is it a time factor? Is it a flavor issue? Something else entirely?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Let me start that ball rolling: For those of you who don't find any value in POLYHEDRON, why is that? More specifically, what is it about your game that prevents you from mining Mini-Games for useful material? (I'm honestly curious.) Is it a time factor? Is it a flavor issue? Something else entirely?

I should respond as I am one of those who stated outright that Poly had no value to me. Our group games once a week and we play long term established campaigns. There are other factors in my life that prevent more gaming than that so any arguements that I find a second group to try other things with doesn't hold for me.

As for incorporating parts of the mini-games into our campaigns speaking only for myself I perfer more strait fantasy if we are playing D&D (Before 3e the group played Champions) and for at least the next year we will continue to play our existing campaign. When we do switch over to something else in the future it will most likely be to another fully fleshed out game for another long term (Champions or CoC). So to me these mini-games don't get played and for the most part don't contain things that are transferable to what we are playing. Only partialy related I also found little use in the gladiator portion of dragon as well as other mini-campaigns such as Sharanara or Red Sails (Overall Dragon though does provide much useful info).

It is not that there is necesarily (although often it is the case) no use whatsoever in the mini-games, but there is never enough to be of value to me compared to other uses of my money. Given the choice of taking that $42 a year and spending it on mini-games I don't use and are dificult to translate into our campaign or spending it on 1-2 other d20 books I will use because they have more stuff I will use and it is easier to incorporate, this becomes a no-brainer for me.

As for the RPGA news sections I am not a RPGA member nor do I play RPGs when I am at conventions (This is my chance to get in all the other mediums that I don't have a chance to play with my group like boardgames, miniatures, and even TCGs). So for me this portion also holds no use nor will it ever in the forseeable future.

Now if Poly moves to more useful articles (as some have said they used to be in the past) in the 1/3 poly issues then it might make the 2/3 Dungeon 1/3 poly even more valuable to me. This would include the living greyhawk section that used to be in Dragon. It seems though that the plan is for the Mini-Games to be in the 2/3 poly issues and expanded to fill the extra space. For the reasons above this means that those issues will continue to have no value to me, while decreasing the value of the Dungeon portion beyond my acceptable limit for adventures.

A few questions to part with for you in return. What is the Poly subscriber after? Was the choice to devote so much effort to min-games pressure from the readers or mearly an editorial choice? If the readers want min-games then the next question is moot, but did you consider droping the mini-games and going to a monthly 2/3 Dungeon 1/3 Poly 100 page monthly all the time? If you went this way I would buy every issue instead of every other. Why the huge increase in Poly coverage compared to before with little to no increase in the Dungeon coverage? How large (percentages will do) was each portion of the combined readership base before? Is there some evidence that such a lopsided benefit to only one part of you magazine will increase your readership?

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I should respond as I am one of those who stated outright that Poly had no value to me. Our group games once a week and we play long term established campaigns. There are other factors in my life that prevent more gaming than that so any arguements that I find a second group to try other things with doesn't hold for me.

As for incorporating parts of the mini-games into our campaigns speaking only for myself I perfer more strait fantasy if we are playing D&D (Before 3e the group played Champions) and for at least the next year we will continue to play our existing campaign. When we do switch over to something else in the future it will most likely be to another fully fleshed out game for another long term (Champions or CoC).

Brown Jenkin hit it in the head for me. I don't use the Poly part of Dungeon for pretty much the same reason. If I was playing a long term D&D campaign, anything modern is pretty much useless for me. The mini-games are especially useless. They'll get no support from anyone, and most of all, the rest of the group doesn't have Dungeon subscriptions, so if I wanted the rest of the group to have the rules, I'd have to spend a load of time photocopying the rules for them.

Personally, I'd like it if the Polyhedron side was the side that published adventures for existing d20 games that are not D&D. The CoC d20 adventure published last issue was great. I'd like to see M&M adventures, Wheel of Time adventures, d20 Modern adventures, etc. The best thing about adventures is that even if I don't use them word for word, the maps, etc are inspiration for new adventures.

I'll probably let my Dungeon sub continue, but I'll probably think very hard before renewing my subscription.

 

[sawbones]

I have to say, the main reason I started buying Dungeon was because of the inclusion of Poly. I was very selective about Dung. previously, but with the addition of Poly I usually found something in either Poly or Dungeon that made my purchase worthwhile, whether it was a mini-game, stuff I could rip from the mini-game, an adventure or stuff I could rip from an adventure. With the 2/3 Dung and 1/3 Poly I see the potential for even more goodies to be ripped (I also see this as another place that useful rules may find a home)

Honestly I am glad that Dungeon/Poly has become an outlet for more non-DnD D20 stuff, I think 1.5 magazines overall is lots for DnD leaving the other .5 for all the other D20 options.

I suppose there are those who won/t buy because they want all poly or all dung. But I believe that those numbers may well be covered for by those who find the combination magazine to be a better option than the loss of essentially Dungeon and Poly both.

I know I would be less inclined to buy Dungeon without Poly, and I doubt that Poly would float on it's own.

PS, I would just as soon see the price decrease and pitch colour from the magazine, but maybe I'm just a heretic.

Grant Kinsley MD

 

[Darrin Drader]

PS, I would just as soon see the price decrease and pitch colour from the magazine, but maybe I'm just a heretic.

Grant Kinsley MD

If it was between that and no magazine at all, I would take it as long as a slight price decrease came with it. Overall though, I love the current format.

 

[DDK]

Hmm... first, let me just state that I mean no offence to any of the posters here with what I'm about to say.

What I've seen in this thread, is a lot of guesswork, based on conjecture. Doing all these little math exercises when you don't have the full story is about as useful as pouring water on ice with the intention of getting more ice.

One of the posts, in particular, made me realize just how out of touch people were with reality. In response to the price increase, proof was raised as follows:

The oldest issues I was able to put my hands on quickly was 83 (Nov/Dec 2000) and the cover price was $5.99.

I honestly mean no offence, Bryon, but that was 20 years ago. The fact that the price hasn't incraesed significantly (a dollar or two is not a significant increase) is a credit to Paizo. 20 years of inflation have only resulted in a net increase of $1 on the cover price, yet the quality of the magazine physically, not to mention the contents, increasing quite dramatically. The magazine as it is now is at the upper end of quality as far as printing is concerned. 20 years ago, it was at the bottom end of quality.

From a consumer's point of view, I can understand the frustration and confusion and even anger. I've found that the RPG community can be incredibily demanding and harsh in it's criticisms though.

The more and more I delve into the publishing aspect of the hobby, in a long, slow effort to learn all I can, the more and more I see it from the publishers point of view. Dragon and Dungeon have had a strange, odyssean journey throughout the years however now they are in the hands of a professional publisher who's profit margins are on the line. One has to expect business decisions to occassionally conflict or override some fans preferences.

I stopped picking up Dragon and Dungeon magazines when, IIRC, Kim Mohan took over. Even though the physical quality and production of the magazine had a dramatic jump, I just didn't like the style. That, and 2nd ed. was falling very quickly out of favour with me. But when 3rd ed. came around, I started looking at the mags again and noted a huge increase in overall quality and style. Since Paizo took over production, I haven't noticed any decrease in quality regardless of the fact that it has gone from a marketing tool that was expected to, at best, break even, to a product of a publishing company that has to make a profit.

That alone indicates that Paizo cares a great deal about the fans. To maintain that quality has had to have meant sacrifices made at Paizo. And here I see again a genuine effort to maintain quality whilst making the magazine viable.

So whilst I can understand how people could be upset at change, what I can't understand is SOME peoples vehemence with which they criticise the changes. At the very least, Paizo deserves CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. What that means, is that along with your gripes, you provide reasons for those gripes and ways in which you could be satisfied. Some have done that, but others have simply criticized and bitched and whinged like... well, I won't go there.

On the matter of Polyhedron, I can't honestly answer one way or another, having not seen an issue. However on the topic of Erik Mona, I'd like to say one or two things. As a recent addition to the legions of Greyhawk fanatics, I've delved into a history replete with fan based works dedicated to the restoration or at least life-support of the setting. Among the most active of the 'higher ups', was Erik Mona, who it would seem from all I've garnered, devoted a lot of time and effort into keeping the setting alive for the many fans around the world. Some even say he's the sole person responsible for the rebirth of the setting and it's subsequent popularity as a 'Living' campaign. Whether true or not, I don't know, but what I do know is that he has exhibited nothing short of excellence in his devotion to the setting and the materials he has produced for it, whether as a fan or a professional.

Therefore, I can only assume that as the editor of Polyhedron, that quality shines through there as well. So to the naysayers of Poly, I would say give it a second chance, look over it with fresh, unglazed eyes and take into account that not only is this material produced to gain your money, but it is produced by people who genuinely care about the hobby and you as a fan.

And no, I'm not a Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron, Johnny or Erik fanboy (as Erik can yet attest since I've argued with him online, lol). I just call it like I see it.