[Dungeon] Dungeon/Polyhedron Goes Monthly

[Darke]

I agree with Storminator.

And don't come with the story "then crap Poly and just make Dungeon" - even if less ppl buy the double-mag because of the Poly-part it would be surely too many who would now don't buy Dungeon without Poly and Dungeon would become either more expensive on its own or it would dissapear too.

das Darke

 

[BryonD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Dungeon] Dungeon/Polyhedron Goes Monthly

I don't see how you can disagree. I'm saying, simply enough, that the post I quoted could be taken to mean that the magazine is going to be physically smaller to a substantial degree. It will not be. It will, apparently, have less of the content that the poster likes, but it will not be half as big, physically, than it was before. That part needed to be made more clear, because if publishers ar going to have their feet to the fire for something, the critics should have the responsibility to be as clear in their criticism as possible if they want to be taken seriously. The poster made a good, substantial point, but I think that particular element wasn't elucidated enough.

I disagree because I do not at all see that he is claiming the magazine will be smaller. Reading his entire post, in context, it is very clear to me that he sees it in a similar manner to how I do.

He clearly stated at the start of his post that he is talking about "Dungeon content". So I don't see how he could be inferred to be claiming the magazine is actually smaller.

The Poly pages will clearly be there, with text and graphics placed upon them. But they will contain zero content to me. I own quite of few of the hybrid mags to date and have never used a single thing from Poly.

Bottom line, I still strongly disagree and honestly have trouble seeing how you can see your position as exclusive.

Just to be clear, I do not begrudge Pazio their choice. I wish they would choose otherwise, but if (big if there) this thread is any indication, my position is the minority, indicating that Pazio has done the right thing. I posted my opinion earlier because the whole point of this thread was to gather feedback. I replyed to you simply because it seemed to me that you were forcing a very narrow and unfair interpretation of the post you replyed to.

 

[BryonD]

I agree with Storminator.

And don't come with the story "then crap Poly and just make Dungeon" - even if less ppl buy the double-mag because of the Poly-part it would be surely too many who would now don't buy Dungeon without Poly and Dungeon would become either more expensive on its own or it would dissapear too.

das Darke

Can anyone support this? (Pazio? Anyone?)

I recall when Poly and LGJ were their own zines the discussion was adding them into Dungeon and Dragon as a means of keeping them afloat. I never heard anybody say that Dungeon was hurting at the time.

As a matter of fact, that is the only point in the whole deal that I feel ever so slightly screwed over. When the combination was pitched, it was promated as a great new, free bonus for people who liked Dungeon. But it did not take long at all for WoTC to decide that someone else should have to worry about keeping that promise. And that someone else promptly decided to blow it off.

Anyway, Dungeon plugged along through the darker days of late 2e. I have seen nothing to indicate that is was about to crash and burn in the much brighter days of post 3e.

I am not claiming that Poly will drag down Dungeon. But, unless the info I have read is way wrong AND there is a lot of data out there that I have missed going the other way, Dungeon in no way needs Poly.

 

[Ranger REG]

Eat Dung! Poly Rule!

And I say that Poly is in no need of Dung. But I'm still cool with the recent decision

But I'm still cool with the recent decision.

And in case you Dung reader didn't get it, I'm still cool with the recent business decision.

If you don't care about suicidal business move, then you should simply move on and get yourself a safer hobby like stamp collecting. This is business. People will publish or produce their wares to make a living. Now, only few people get to do something that they like and get paid for it: teachers, nurses, even game writers.

(I especially like to to point out that these professions as well as other professions are seriously underpaid.)

Now which would be a better choice for this community: Dung/Poly or no Dung at all?

Personally, I'd rather have options that I can choose NOT to use, than have no option at all.

 

[Erik Mona]

Man, I love the smell of a good "screw Polyhedron" thread. Nothing brightens my day like one of these, I can tell you.

So though you'd probably rather hear it from Johnny Wilson, I'll happily tell you that Poly was added to Dungeon a little over a year ago to save BOTH of the magazines. In fact, Dungeon was very much on the chopping block at the time the suggestion was made. I've little doubt that Poly would have been clipped in those sack-happy days at Wizards of the Coast eventually, but Dungeon definitely had crosshairs on it for a while.

Of course, when this was presented to the Dungeon fans a long time ago, the message was "don't panic, Dungeon readers!" There were, at the time, more Dungeon readers than Polyhedron readers. Poly, which previously had been sent only to subscribers and which most Dungeon readers didn't even know existed, had to be "explained." In the doing of it, we didn't perhaps sell the message of "Dungeon isn't making money" as well as we could have, though I know for a fact that it was said loud and clearly a number of times on this message board and on the Wizards boards.

So, lemme be clear about this:

ERIK MONA: "At the time Polyhedron was combined with Dungeon, neither magazine was making a profit, and both would surely have been dead within a matter of months if they had not been melded together. Adding the Poly subscribers to the Dungeon base helped the overall circulation of Dungeon significantly, and the new d20 System focus of Polyhedron brought a new brand of reader to the magazine. A year later, both magazines are doing better financially, with more people regularly purchasing, reading, and enjoying them than ever before. Truly, it is a great era for the universe."

I believe my brothers Chris Thomasson (Dungeon Editor) and Johnny Wilson (Publisher) will back me up on this, since it's mentioned every twelve minutes or so around the office. It's one of those things we thought we did a better job of telling you guys than we apparently did, but hopefully this post can get the message out loud and clear.

As for why we're taking the magazine monthly now, I'll leave the floor open for Johnny.

Thanks,

Erik Mona

 

[BryonD]

Man, I love the smell of a good "screw Polyhedron" thread. Nothing brightens my day like one of these, I can tell you.

I am really sorry if you see me as saying "Screw Poly". I think I have clearly avoided saying that. Personally, I would prefer not to have it, so I simply will not buy it. I also do not care for the content of Good Housekeeping. If someone requests my opinion of Good Housekeeping, I will tell them that. If they call that me saying "Screw Good Housekeeping", I will think they are being very thin skinned.

If you only desire positive feedback, please make that clear in the request for feedback.

Sorry if I sound hostile, but I found this comment somewhat offensive.

Sincerely, please provide the highest quality material that the widest number of people want to buy. My statements that I will not purchase the currently planned product in no way contradict this sentiment.

So though you'd probably rather hear it from Johnny Wilson, I'll happily tell you that Poly was added to Dungeon a little over a year ago to save BOTH of the magazines. In fact, Dungeon was very much on the chopping block at the time the suggestion was made. I've little doubt that Poly would have been clipped in those sack-happy days at Wizards of the Coast eventually, but Dungeon definitely had crosshairs on it for a while.

Of course, when this was presented to the Dungeon fans a long time ago, the message was "don't panic, Dungeon readers!" There were, at the time, more Dungeon readers than Polyhedron readers. Poly, which previously had been sent only to subscribers and which most Dungeon readers didn't even know existed, had to be "explained." In the doing of it, we didn't perhaps sell the message of "Dungeon isn't making money" as well as we could have, though I know for a fact that it was said loud and clearly a number of times on this message board and on the Wizards boards.

So, lemme be clear about this:

ERIK MONA: "At the time Polyhedron was combined with Dungeon, neither magazine was making a profit, and both would surely have been dead within a matter of months if they had not been melded together. Adding the Poly subscribers to the Dungeon base helped the overall circulation of Dungeon significantly, and the new d20 System focus of Polyhedron brought a new brand of reader to the magazine. A year later, both magazines are doing better financially, with more people regularly purchasing, reading, and enjoying them than ever before. Truly, it is a great era for the universe."

I believe my brothers Chris Thomasson (Dungeon Editor) and Johnny Wilson (Publisher) will back me up on this, since it's mentioned every twelve minutes or so around the office. It's one of those things we thought we did a better job of telling you guys than we apparently did, but hopefully this post can get the message out loud and clear.

As for why we're taking the magazine monthly now, I'll leave the floor open for Johnny.

Thanks,

Erik Mona

OK. If you say so, I'll believe you.

I do not have an archive of quotes or anything, so you'll just have to believe me when I say that I clearly remember numerous posts from people in the know who indicated that Poly and LGJ were the ones needing to be saved? Was LGJ added to Dragon to help save Dragon as well?

 

[Erik Mona]

No. Living Greyhawk Journal was added to Dragon because people liked it and it was a good way of keeping the readers of the world's most popular gaming magazine updated on the world's most popular organized play RPG campaign.

No one in their right mind ever thought that the Journal was going to be profitable. It was born in an era in which the RPGA was not expected to be profitable and was meant to be a benefit to RPGA members who wanted more information on the Network's premiere campaign.

Now, since LG is pretty much 98% of what the RPGA does as an entity, we're moving it into the RPGA magazine, where a lot of people have argued that it belongs, anyway.

--Erik

 

[HellHound]

Honestly Erik, I've heard it said about two dozen times from you and other staffers in the ex-periodicals dept that Dungeon was only just saved by doubling it up with Poly.

In fact, this comes up almost once every other month when someone posts to the forums of some message board or another with their complaint about either the latest issue of Dungeon or the latest issue of Polyhedron.

But it seems the nay-sayers don't want to hear it, and don't ever register it. Even when you come in to set the record straight.

Edit: I meant to say "many of the nay-sayers". My bad. And I'm in particular aiming this at the ones who bring it up tiem after time on the boards

Instead of damning Poly, they should be praising it. Even if they don't like it. Praise Poly, or say goodbye to Dungeon.

EDIT: sorry for the mistype, I didn't mean to make this any nastier. Very much my bad.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Man, I love the smell of a good "screw Polyhedron" thread. Nothing brightens my day like one of these, I can tell you.

Well, its no secret that I'm firmly in Paizo's camp with regards to the magazines, so what I'm about to say probably won't come as any great surprise to anyone.

I remember the days when Polyhedron was a poorly designed 2 color cover (3 if you count the white) magazine, with very thin content on the inside. Back in those days I had no way of ever making it to any of the conventions and they weren't about to sanction my home games, so I let the subscription to the RPGA and Polyhedron slip without much thought.

Then I a couple years ago I started working as a contractor at WotC and I was reintroduced to Polyhedron. The difference in quality was amazing, and from what everybody there told me, that was mainly due to the work of Erik. The paper thin 2 color covers were replaced with full color glossy covers, the interior was gorgeous, and there was tons of useful content in there. In many ways it was like a mini-Dragon magazine. It was an injustice that it was offered only to RPGA members.

Then came the merge with Dungeon, where the quality RPGA stuff was being maintained, but in it too were mini-games! Written by RPG R&D, these have been jaunts into alternate settings with just the right amount of rules content to make the systems workable. Sure, there was a lot left to be fleshed out, but once the core mechanics are settled, everything else becomes variations on a theme. What's more is that these have actually been extremely GOOD! I think Pulp D20 was a 60 page mini-game, and others have weighed in at about 40 pages each. These have covered genres that WotC was otherwise unwilling to explore in that business climate. If you don't have a need for mini-games for your group now, how could you possibly say that you will never have a need for them? Maybe you can use them as a one-off sometime, or even as the basis for an entire campaign.

Now, not only do we get to keep the mini-games, but we'll also get a monthly dose of them, and we'll also get adventures for Star Wars and other the other mini-games. I personally think that unless the only thing in D20 land you play is D&D in its strictest form, this combination will be an incredible revision of the magazine.

So to sum up my lengthy post, Erik Mona should be applauded for his largely unseen accomplishments and dedication. Hopefully people can go into this new era with an open mind. So far the magazine team has yet to disappoint me (OK... maybe with the exception of Dragon issue 300, but I won't rant about that), and I look forward to seeing this magazine in my mailbox every month.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly Erik, I've heard it said about two dozen times from you and other staffers in the ex-periodicals dept that Dungeon was only just saved by doubling it up with Poly.

In fact, this comes up almost once every other month when someone posts to the forums of some message board or another with their complaint about either the latest issue of Dungeon or the latest issue of Polyhedron.

Well, appently you have better contact with the ex-periodicals dept than I do.

But it seems the nay-sayers don't want to hear it, and don't ever register it. Even when you come in to set the record straight.

Excuse me? When he "set the record straight" the very first thing I said "Then I will believe you." How is that not registering?

And why do I get called a nay-sayer when I give feedback that was requested? Again, is only postive feedback desired? Is there some great moral error in not being interested in Polyhedron.

Instead of damning Poly, they should be praising it. Even if they don't like it. Praise Poly, or say goodbye to Dungeon.

When did I damn Poly? I simply said I do not want it. Extreme mischaracterizations of my position do not contribute to anything.
If the only way Poly can save Dungeon is by upping the cost to 233% of what it was for the same amount of Dungeon product, then it is already say goodbye to Dungeon.

So why force me to choose between praising and damning Poly when all I really want to do is say "Gee, I sure wish I could have Dungeon the way it was?" Apparently, the answer to that is, "Well, you can't." OK. To bad for me.