Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brown Jenkin" data-source="post: 593515" data-attributes="member: 2572">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?</blockquote>

Verification