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

[jasper]

HMM I like the first cover you link to but other two I rate as average.
However I have the mag off and on for over 20 years. I have notice that a two to three year cycle exist. Year one articles for beginners, etc going to late year 2 or 3 where either the articles are too simple which make me wonder if the articles are for people who haven't even read the core books, or so far out there i would never enclude it imc. Good example the 309 with all the invasion articles.
I have also notice which covers you like are generally set by the year you started reading the mag.

However I do wish that the publishers:
1: Spare the ink. It is nice to read black on white print. Occasionally it interesting for different color backgrounds but not every issue every page.
2. Spare the Slick paper. Slick paper is okay for the covers but why inside. Your not going against Time or Cosmo.
3. Silly Sidebars. Sidebars are ok if you don't over use them.

Questions
1. Can the cover price be held or reduce if you go with less glossy paper, ink, colored pages ?
2. Can a small yearly index be include in small font at the end of publishing year?

 

[Painfully]

Is the Dragon covers all this thread is about? I've commented on their covers in past threads already. Their bland portrait-style of covers in particular just don't create any emotion for me. But in that same old thread people would write that Elmore's style was thankfully gone. Huh?

Maybe there is a slight protest against the typical chainmail bikini thing. Not all his paintings had a "boob-factor" involved. The guy did great fantasy paintings that showed people what "real" monsters might look like next to real-looking characters. The man brought fantasy to life.

Paizo is too cheap to pay for more than simple portraits. Okay. That's their decision. But if people really buy magazines based on the cover art and articles, well, let's just say their article coverage isn't improving.

--

Oh, and in all my years of reading dragon, if I read the short stories it was purely by accident. I remember one very old story written by Ben Bova. But that's the only one that I can even remember.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

But in that same old thread people would write that Elmore's style was thankfully gone. Huh?

Hey, I never cared for Elmore. Of the three covers Zogg links to, only the first appeals to me. There were a fair number of clunker covers from back then. And when you consider the interior art, the quality level seems much higher to me now than back then (leaving aside the issue of layout/design).

Paizo is too cheap to pay for more than simple portraits. Okay. That's their decision. But if people really buy magazines based on the cover art and articles, well, let's just say their article coverage isn't improving.

I think they have realized that although neato covers might be great, people really want articles they can use, and that they need to "advertise" those articles in some manner on the cover. It may not be ideal, but I think it's probably a defensible choice.

 

[Gizzard]

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.

You know, I also blame Wired for this trend! Lol.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Its the way the magazine business has been for, what, 10 years now? (Which means I find it funny that the original poster should link to covers from the pre-Wired era and claim they are better without acknowledging the change in the entire magazine business over that time!)

One thing that is interesting though, is that nowdays I associate aggressive, flashy layouts with magazines aimed at younger readerships. Along with the "in-your-face" editorial style.

So, do people feel that Dragon is trying to skew their readership a bit younger or do you think that the art direction is just something like "let's put some jazz into these covers"?

 

[dagger]

I like most of the 3e covers. *shrug*

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'm with ya on Elmore. His work defined fantasy art for me. Elmore's pictures drew me into the fantasy world it represented and sent my imagination flying. His picture at the front of the old 2nd ed AD&D PHB always served to draw me right into the book and involve me in the worlds of fantasy D&D could create.

And I agree, I'm not a fan of the new Dragon covers. The classic covers had more of that wonderful fantasy art (by other amazing artists besides Elmore, like Brom and so forth) that really set the "D&D mood". As far as the content is concerned though, the mag has always been hit or miss for me. Not long before 3.0 came out, Dragon had its share of uninspiring articles and some of the internal art wasn't so great. But it also had a lot of great info too (I'm thinking of Ray Winninger's [sp?] Dungeoncraft articles, amongst others). From what I've seen, the post-3.0 Dragons have been at least as good content-wise as in the old days, and have provided a lot of great stuff. Really, the content is not always going to appeal to everyone, but I'd say overall it's pretty good. Now they just need to fix them covers.

 

[diaglo]

the rivers were cleaner; the soda tasted better;

on these two points they are right. the rivers were cleaner. and the soda tasted better. the soda also had real cocaine in it.

 

[der_kluge]

You know, I guess I would challenge any who think Dragon is bad, to list out what they think they'd do to fix it.

So, Zogg, if Paizo made you editor of Dragon tomorrow, what steps would you take to ensure that Dragon returned to its former glory?

I mean, you claim you hate the magazine, now offer solutions on what needs to be changed.

As a side note, I've always been really fond of this cover:
http://www.rpgunited.com/mag/dm174.html

One of the best covers, ever, IMHO.

I think Zogg, in his not so politically correct approach, points out that some people don't like the magazine. It's not a new discussion, just a more abrupt one. Turning inward, I find that I don't care much for Dragon myself, though I have a subscription to it. I'm afraid to let the subscription lapse, since I'm still holding on to that thread of hope that some issue, at some point will actually have something in it that I find useful. It hasn't happened yet. I usually read each new issue in about an hours time, and then toss them aside.

I get zero use from all the crunchy bits for one of three reasons: I don't like them, it's not OGC, and it's not campaign independent. In terms of crunchy bits - fix those problems, and I'll probably be more excited about some of the crunchy bits.

That said, I do like the GM discussion articles, the Sage Advice, and even Gary's article. I would like to see more meta-game discussions, and maybe articles from the writers about the creation process, and why they chose to do certain things over other things. I think those things would make it more worthwhile.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

For me, Dragon's halycon days were in the #80-#120 range. But as someone once said, "the golden age of science fiction is twelve".

Anyway....

* hard to read: Anyone rememer the Ares section? Now THAT was hard to read! Still, fancy backgrounds do not make for fun reading.

* Content: hey, at least we're no longer re-hashing lists of familiars every four issues. Ugh. But I think that some of the "loss" is that in days of yore, Dragon was more inclined to cover other games. Now if you do that, people yell their heads off. For some reason people feel a need to have every single article apply directly to their game. That's only going to lead to generic fantasy and lists of feats and PrCs. What would be wrong with the occasional d20 Modern article or even Weird West? Dragon used to do this kind of stuff all the time.

* Product Reviews: I agree with Eric Noah in that I think the web has supplanted the direct need for such columns. But they'd be a step above filler. There's plenty of d20 companies out there. Why not review even one d20 product an issue? One of ENWorld's staff reviewers would be sublime for this post.

* Covers: the art I don't mind, but the "12 Ways to Behold your Beholder" text is annoying. However, I'm resigned to the fact that this seems pandemic in magazine publishing. I blame society.

* Zogg: EN World can be oversensitive and politically correct at times. I don't see how that's harmful overall, but if it really bugs you, take a gander over at rpg.net. Those guys pull absolutely no punches and it may have the edge you are looking for.

 

[BlackMoria]

I am just mentioning in passing that if people are upset with the text and balloons marring the appreciation of the art on the cover of Dragon, that there is a full page of the front cover art without the ugly text and balloons inside the magazine.

Of course, don't let that interrupt the 'brawl' that this thread has become......

I will be in the corner sipping my ale and cheering on the others while dodging the flung furniture.