Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Menexenus" data-source="post: 1689374" data-attributes="member: 8951">StyleHi Erik.&nbsp; I am a subscriber to Dragon and an occasional buyer of Dungeon.&nbsp; After reading all the praise that the new format has received, I had to check it out.&nbsp; So I picked up a copy.&nbsp; I have only had time to page through it.&nbsp; So all of these opinions are based purely on the style of the mag, not the content.Although I liked the occasional attention paid to the Star Wars RPG in Polyhedron, overall the demise of Polyhedron is probably a good thing.&nbsp; So, for me, this aspect of the change is a plus.I'm a big Wayne Reynolds fan, so I definitely liked the uncluttered cover (words at the bottom).&nbsp; However, I must say that I find the font you used for the title somewhat bland.&nbsp; I think I prefer the old one.&nbsp; But a lot of other people seem to like it.&nbsp; (I keep hearing the word &quot;nostalgic&quot;.&nbsp; Guess I haven't been around long enough to appreciate the nostalgia.)&nbsp; Still, I prefer the edgier type-face to the new, cleaner one.But here's what I really felt the need to write to you about:&nbsp; I really think the *style* of the interior has suffered tremendously.&nbsp; In the old format, I liked the way you gave the modules the same margins found in the Player's Handbook.&nbsp; Not only was it familiar and stylish, but it also gave that extra &quot;official&quot; feel to the magazine.&nbsp; It also seems to me that there was a lot more *art* in the old format than there is in the new format.&nbsp; I paged through this issue and an older issue (#105) looking at the art contained within the adventures, and the difference was noticeable!&nbsp; Obviously, having something to show players can be very valuable when running an adventure.&nbsp; Art also helps set the mood for the DM.&nbsp; So I was disappointed when I saw that the Thirteen Cages adventure contained only 2 pieces of very mediocre art which was cut up and re-used over and over again.&nbsp; (I'm not counting cartography as art.)&nbsp; I also miss the big icons you used to put at the front of every adventure that proclaimed in a hard-to-miss way the type of dungeon, the level of the dungeon, and the campaign setting.&nbsp; I found that icon to be quite valuable as I was thumbing through the magazine looking for just the right thing to throw at my players.Now I know I'm going to get flamed by people insisting that I should judge the new format by its content, not its style.&nbsp; And I agree that content is the most important thing in a magazine like Dungeon.&nbsp; But still, the style of a magazine adds that little extra umph of excitement.&nbsp; I'm concerned that the interior of the new format of Dungeon suffers from a lack of style.&nbsp; Or at least, the style of the old format was superior to the style of the new format.Erik, please do what you can to revive the *style* of the old Dungeon format, while maintaining the *content* of the new format.&nbsp; If you can do this, you'll have me (and others) hooked for a long time to come!Respectfully yours,-Menexenus</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Menexenus, post: 1689374, member: 8951"] [b]Style[/b] Hi Erik. I am a subscriber to Dragon and an occasional buyer of Dungeon. After reading all the praise that the new format has received, I had to check it out. So I picked up a copy. I have only had time to page through it. So all of these opinions are based purely on the style of the mag, not the content. Although I liked the occasional attention paid to the Star Wars RPG in Polyhedron, overall the demise of Polyhedron is probably a good thing. So, for me, this aspect of the change is a plus. I'm a big Wayne Reynolds fan, so I definitely liked the uncluttered cover (words at the bottom). However, I must say that I find the font you used for the title somewhat bland. I think I prefer the old one. But a lot of other people seem to like it. (I keep hearing the word "nostalgic". Guess I haven't been around long enough to appreciate the nostalgia.) Still, I prefer the edgier type-face to the new, cleaner one. But here's what I really felt the need to write to you about: I really think the *style* of the interior has suffered tremendously. In the old format, I liked the way you gave the modules the same margins found in the Player's Handbook. Not only was it familiar and stylish, but it also gave that extra "official" feel to the magazine. It also seems to me that there was a lot more *art* in the old format than there is in the new format. I paged through this issue and an older issue (#105) looking at the art contained within the adventures, and the difference was noticeable! Obviously, having something to show players can be very valuable when running an adventure. Art also helps set the mood for the DM. So I was disappointed when I saw that the Thirteen Cages adventure contained only 2 pieces of very mediocre art which was cut up and re-used over and over again. (I'm not counting cartography as art.) I also miss the big icons you used to put at the front of every adventure that proclaimed in a hard-to-miss way the type of dungeon, the level of the dungeon, and the campaign setting. I found that icon to be quite valuable as I was thumbing through the magazine looking for just the right thing to throw at my players. Now I know I'm going to get flamed by people insisting that I should judge the new format by its content, not its style. And I agree that content is the most important thing in a magazine like Dungeon. But still, the style of a magazine adds that little extra umph of excitement. I'm concerned that the interior of the new format of Dungeon suffers from a lack of style. Or at least, the style of the old format was superior to the style of the new format. Erik, please do what you can to revive the *style* of the old Dungeon format, while maintaining the *content* of the new format. If you can do this, you'll have me (and others) hooked for a long time to come! Respectfully yours, -Menexenus [/QUOTE]

Verification