Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shade" data-source="post: 3482969" data-attributes="member: 287">What I'd most like to see:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The continued support of "dead" campaign settings.  The Campaign Classics issues were always among my favorites (and apparently were top sellers)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The continuation of the Demonomicon articles...but only if James Jacobs writes them (unless he chooses to pass the torch)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The continued mix of new monsters and updated monsters from past editions.  MMIII had only a small handful of monsters from past editions, and MMIV had none.  There are still a great number of classic creatures out there that can easily go toe-to-toe with many of the new ones presented in the books listed earlier (quickling anyone?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The retention of the current talent pool of the magazines.  I hope you'll keep accepting the bulk of the articles from the slush pile, rather than doling out assignments to in-house staff.  There's plenty of cross-pollination now between WotC and Paizo contributers, but I'd hate to lose some of the up-and-comers because they didn't go through the WotC mailroom.  I think the fierce competition is a large reason both magazines have been in a golden age lately.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Keep working in all the wonderful Easter Eggs, updating villains and locales from D&D's rich past, and so on.  Nostalgia is a powerful force for us veteran gamers, and really no detriment to new gamers who may never even realize what they're seeing has come before.</li> </ul>What I don't want to see (and will factor into what I'm willing to pay):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Software to do the "heavy lifting".   I have no interest in character generators, monster generators, online tabletops, etc.   I understand the desire for these by some folks, but I'd rather see it as a separate service so those of us who just want to keep subscribing to what we've got now in the magazines don't have to pay for additional unwanted content.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Greater focus on Eberron and Forgotten Realms.  One of the main reasons I subscribed to Dungeon after years of picking and choosing issues was the strong focus on the core/generic setting.  I think the current ratio of support for these settings in Dragon and Dungeon are about as much as I'd tolerate.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More "how to" articles on playing the game.  As a veteran gamer, I have no use for these articles.  I appreciate that folks new to the game need some help, but that's probably best served in the free portion of your web content (as it is now).  Dragon and Dungeon haven't focused much on entry gamers, other than the occasional Class Acts with handy reference sheets.</li> </ul>Basically, I'd like to keep subscribing to Dragon and Dungeon with the content they've been providing for the past few years.  If I have to get them online, then so be it.  But much loss of any of that content to make room for interactive aids or how-to articles will probably send my gaming dollar elsewhere.Thanks for asking, and listening.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification