Good day, gentlemen. Has anyone noticed a striking change in Dragon magazine?

[MarauderX]

Let the flames leap higher

I got back into gaming after about 9 years OoC, and had some preconceived notions about how things might be with 3.0 and the whole of D&D when I got back into it. Some things were disappointing, some are much cooler, and some are just different. I was pretty close to getting a subscription but decided against it as I wasn't enjoying the mag as much as I had in the past compared to all the sourcebooks I was reading.

Is Dragon worse? Nah, not IMO, it's just different. I take what I want and leave the rest, and for my game I don't think I need it although it is referenced quite a bit. And as far as the quibble about artwork, layout, design, whatever was intended to be griped about, give it a rest. Perhaps we are getting of an age where flashy commercial slogans are just annoying and don't really care if it sells more units or not. Besides, to get pictures for my campaign I look on the internet first to get what I want; look at the Arts forum for some good unblemished material.

 

[Tsyr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good day, gentlemen. Has anyone noticed a striking change in Dragon magazine?

I'd replace ... "vague" with "well-referenced".

And yet, somehow, you didn't know who made up Paizo, or who's 'fault' the current state of the Magazine is...

 

[coyote6]

OT

Of the three sample covers linked, I liked the last one; the second one was okay, but somehow off; the first was nicely rendered, but utterly cliche -- I didn't like it.

I'd agree that Dragon has had better covers in the past than the last few; just not those three.

Of course, Dragon also likely had covers that were cheaper, both absolutely and proportionately. Good art is pretty expensive, and good artists that can hit deadlines and aren't booked up are probably tough to find. Plus, it's probably faster to do a character study than a big action scene.

(Heck, there are plenty of d20 books with covers that are worse, or at least no better, than Dragon's, and one supposes that a book with twice or more the cover cost could probably afford to spend more.)

As for the cover copy, I don't like it much; but it is pretty much standard magazine practice, so I'm not surprised (I blame FHM/Maxim/Cosmo/etc.).

Perhaps Paizo should try a more restrained cover copy style for an issue or two; since so many mags do the hype-hype-hype bit now, maybe something quieter will stand out more. Or maybe not; but it might be worth an experiment or two.

 

[King_Stannis]

I'd have to say that I think Dragon is different now. As a DM, I started to find out the magazine's utility was dwindling over the years. This is due to the fact that quite bit of the articles are aimed at players now. The ones aimed at DM's specifically weren't enough to hold my interest - or subscription.

That's not to say it's bad, as someone pointed out - just different. It did lead me to rediscover Dungeon, however, for which I was grateful.

 

[EricNoah]

Folks, we're done discussing Zogg's first attempt at starting this discussion, ok? Let's just focus on the issue at hand please. Thanks,

 

[blackshirt5]

They aren't discussing Zogg's first thread as much as the barely contained seething rudeness of the first post of THIS thread.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I've been reading Dragon since single-digits, and the only complaints I have about the current iterations are the same complaints I'd levy against a number of other magazines.

There is a trend in publishing (I blame 'Wired' ) towards making magazine content into some sort of forum for artistic expression, to the point of making it hard to read. They seem to forget that the art should complement the text, not overshadow it.

I'm especially sick of the light-colored-text on a dark-colored-background style. I find it almost impossible to read, especially on glossy magazine paper.

Content-wise, I'm still pretty happy with it, although I for one would not be sad to see the pure fiction (as opposed to flavor / setting articles) disappear completely.

 

[Henry]

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

Nope, must be just you.

Seriously, while I can respect that you don't enjoy the mag likeyou used to, I'm finding it highly enjoyable, ESPECIALLY since Paizo took over. The Campaign Components feature they introduced, as well as bringing back Dungeoncraft, have been very useful to me in pointing out things that slip by me in my weekly crusade to have fun. Swashbuckling, gladiatorial games, all of these elements that many skip over in their D&D games, I find enthusiasm to add them in.

And what happened to the SHORT STORIES?!

Still there - and presented by authors more famous than the Magazine EVER had a draw to.

The cool, reserved font?

reserved can be nice, but not all the time. I would personally like it if they could vary the font by what type of article it was - more wild fonts for barbarian and druid articles, more conservative fonts for articles on wizards and sorcerers, etc.

The "sage advice"?

Still there, last I checked about two months ago.

...what happened to the beauty, the class?

Still there, IMO, but changed from its previous form. Some find beauty in familiarity and conservatism, but it doesn't mean it's worthless to shake things up and see what falls out. Like new readers. Yes, old readers sometimes fall out, too, but it's worth the risk sometimes.

I'm enjoying it, but I'm sorry to hear that it's not doing as much for you as it used to. Have you e-mailed or written (better) Paizo to exoress your disapproval? One handwritten letter is often worth a thousand irate e-mails.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Dragon has fallen a long way. Back in the 80's and early 90's I bought the mag even if I wasn't playing D&D at the time. They had a small amount of coverage of other games and they had interesting articles. Now when I read the cover I get the image of a Monster Truck Rally announcer, "This ISSUE...ISSUE...issue! MORE NINJA PRESTIGE CLASSES...CLASSES...classes!" It looks like a video game mag cover. But that's just the cover, the content doesn't suit me much anymore.

Plus..I need more feats and PRC's like a hole in the head.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I remember the exact same sentiment being expressed back in the the early days. I' ve been buying Dragon since #39. And periodically people say things are worse than they used to be, it's human nature. It happens with Dragon every 50 or so issues like clockwork. In 5 years, people will be saying how great Dragon was in '03, why can't it be that way anymore?

The baseball players aren't as good as the ones when they were kids.

The music was better; the rivers were cleaner; the soda tasted better; the movies were smarter, and so on and so on.

Everyone's first memories of any thing are always better.

In the case of Dragon there's a second thing at work: When you first got Dragon, you probably didn't have a whole lot of gaming experience, so all the ideas seemed new and exciting. Now after many years of gaming you find that the ideas are no longer new and exciting.

Guess what? They weren't new and exciting the first time around, either - they were just new and exciting to you. As you gain experience and knowledge as a gamer, it's only natural that you'll find that Dragon is less and less of a must-buy item. I certainly haven't subscribed to it since issue #100 or so. I pick and choose the issues I buy.

However, I realize that it is a change within myself more so than a change in the magazine (not to say there have been no changes in the magazine, far from it).

As for the covers, I'm guessing part of that is economically based. Dragon is not a cash cow by any means, and certainly there are no blue-blooded investors trying to milk gamers for cash. As others have noted, the magazines are owned now by the same people who ran them before, trying their best to keep alive a tradition we have all enjoyed for 25 years.

As an aside, I will also note that Paizo tends to really put their foot in it each and every time they open their mouths to defend themselves.