Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

Felon said:
That should also mean new elements of game design, like tactical feats (from Complete Warrior) and monster classes (from Savage Species), right?

Absolutely.

We'll be using all kinds of new rules items, from flaws to power components to tactical feats to substitution levels etc., etc., etc. We'll also strive to create entirely new rules add-ons from time to time, as a lot of the ones that eventually get added to the game have traditionally first appeared in Dragon. We have no plans to change that.

Felon said:
Well, see now that's discouraging for me, because that means you won't be capitalizng on concepts like tactical feats in Class Acts or monster classes in Winning Races.

See above. Last June, we published an entire article using racial levels that presented all of the metallic dragons in 20-level format. This June, we'll be doing the same for chromatics.

Felon said:
You know, after a long campaign of advertisement, the "new" Dragon format vanished pretty quickly. What's up with that? Taking negative posts on blogs too seriously?

Many of the elements from the #323 "Unleashed" revision remain in the magazine. The most obvious is the new logo and the new visual design of the magazine. Class Acts, which takes up more than 1/10 of the magazine, still remains. The new-format Ecology articles remain. Printing "Bazaar of the Bizarre" (sorry we're not calling it "The Magic Shop" anymore) and Spellcraft every issue still remains.

We've cut "Player Initiative" and whatever that other one-pager was called because I felt the magazine had too many recurring departments (which it did), and those were easy to lose. We've cut "Gaining Prestige" and "Winning Races" as every-month features based on feedback and upon my suspicion that we were putting too many eggs in the "one every month!" basket.

If 80% of your magazine is built solely around providing new rules for stuff people need only sparingly (new races and classes come to mind), you're giving the people who aren't looking for that material every month lots of reasons to stop reading the magazine.

The format I inherited didn't allow for enough experimentation, it didn't allow for enough features, and it was too boring and predictable. Still, a lot of it was really, really good, and we've retained those elements.

The Dragon you'll soon see in issue #330 is a very different magazine than the one you saw in #322. No one ever said the "new" Dragon would spring forth fully formed in the first issue of its relaunch.

In fact, the work of making Dragon better, more interesting, and more "relevant" will never ever stop so long as I am in charge.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I enjoy Dragon and it's contents as there's many times ideas that I could eventually attempt to throw in. How I feel about the articles of course varies month to month, but I so far have been consistently buying issues.

Out of all the regular columns, I would say class acts is very hit and miss, as many times some on the stuff on certain classes are just filler. I would certainly have it that if there isn't anything relevant for a certain class one month, there should be other base classes like marshalls, warlocks and psions in its place then.
 

I used to like the old Class Acts alot, when it was one well thought out prestige class every month. I played an Eldritch Master for a while and thought it was pretty cool. The new class acts seem pretty random to me. It bugs me that they treat the classes so differently. Like, a new arcane spells for wizards, tips on playing your barbarian, and rules for an urban druid or something. Why not give class acts a theme every month, and center the content for each class on that theme? It just seems wierd to give several completely different types of crunch to some classes, and the others nothing but fluff in what is supposed to be a cohesive section.
 

I feel like a broken record as I've posted about this on the Paizo web site and here in various threads, but never got any kind of response from anyone at Paizo:

Are you planning on putting up an online searchable index of articles?

If not, why not?

Bolie IV
 

Yes, it's something we'll do eventually, but there are a number of other higher priority items going on right now.

These include:

1. Building a functioning web store
2. Launching the Age of Worms Adventure Path
3. A major project that will be announced next week.

When all of those things have been accomplished, the index becomes a higher priority. For now it's still in the "wouldn't it be nice" category.

I should mention that all three of the listed items above were in the "wouldn't it be nice" category last year.

We're a relatively small company with a LOT of balls in the air right now. We'll get to the index eventually, but it is not a top priority at the moment.

Everything can't be a top priority at the same time.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
 

warlord said:
What they need to do to fix it is make it more like the old Dragon mags.

This is a huge simplification but the audience has changed since then and the magazine must change along with its audience.

- Ed
 

Rawhide said:
First, let's cover the basics. Dragon has to be about D&D, and it has to mostly be about core D&D (rather than some specific world). All efforts to do anthing else have been met with howls of anger from the existing readership.

I said this in another thread about Dragon, but PLEASE people, don't take labels so seriously!

A few years ago (maybe it was last year), there was a "Dark Sun" section in Dragon, updating some stuff to 3rd Edition. One of the articles talked about Defilers and Preservers. That article was perfect for my campaign, and I don't play Dark Sun. Heck, the author even included little sidebars in the articles to tell you, "Here are some ways you can use this material even if you don't play Dark Sun".

I say, capitalize on the intellectual property that you have access to, Erik, in order to gain some extra promotional punch, but then make sure that the articles aren't so specific that they can't be used in other game worlds. I think that spelling it out in a sidebar or something works, but maybe highlight it a little more for people who are too literal with labels.

I also like the idea of interviews with designers about the mechanics of the game - why certain rules work the way they do. Posts here on ENWorld by SKR and other, and on Monte's boards by Monte himself, are very insightful. A few months ago, Sean talked quite vocally about things like sneak attacking and critical-hitting undead and it was really interesting to see the design principals behind those types of decisions.

I'd also like to see a return to the "Campaign Components" articles, but again, I guess you'd need huge caveats and sidebars for those people who see the name "Knights" or "Swashbucklers" and think to themselves, "I don't use Knights in my game". The rules for Honor in the Campaign Components: Knights would work perfectly for a Samurai game, for example. Somehow there needs to be more work done to make people understand that they can just tweak this material, change the name, and drop it into their own games.

Overall, I'm very happy with my subscription to Dragon. As I said in the other thread, I don't use everything I read in it, but I always find something useful, insightful, or thought-provoking, and that's worth the price.
 

Steel_Wind said:
But a lot has changed since that golden age. From my perspective:

1Dragon is no longer a meaningful source of gaming news. Like all print publications, the timeliness of “news” in print has been made nigh impossible by the Internet.


In the early days of rpgs, Dragon wasn't much of a news source, either. One of the best things about early Dragon was the articles that focused not on (1) new rules or (2) a published campaign world, but rather (3) devising your own campaign world, or some part of that world. Sure, sometimes these articles contained a fair bit of "crunch," but they were mostly advice on how to use existing "crunch" to get a desired effect. Even the articles that were crunch-heavy (Toxins of Cerilon, for example) contained a lot of "fluff" that made the crunch flavorful. Early Dragon was evocative, and I believe that it is this quality that the current magazine lacks.

I don't know how many people here remember when Greyhawk was the only "official" D&D world. In those days, writers were forced to use their own campaign worlds as examples. Ed Greenwood introduced us to the Forgetten Realms by discussing how he created its pantheon, by showcasing creatures he invented, and by writing about campaign design. We were introduced to a lot of other worlds, including the aforementioned Cerilon, simply because the writers were DMs, and they used the perspective of their creations in their articles. Their personalities showed through. The personalities of their worlds showed through. It was great.

The fiction was rougher, but it was also written by gamers, and frequently had bits that could be transported directly into a campaign. In one case, an article gave Traveller stats to the things that appeared in a sf story. It was a lot less polished. And it was a lot cooler.

That feeling of evocative settings is what I want back. I can't possibly be alone, because the EN World Gamer contains a lot of "old feel" material, and Golden City Comics sells at least three copies of EN World Gamer per copy of Dragon magazine sold.

I don't need new prestige classes every issue. What would be cool, though, is an article that looks at how to select which prestige classes are right for a campaign setting, and how to introduce them effectively. I don't need new feats for barbarians every time I turn around, but I would really appreciate an in-depth look at real-world and/or fantasy world barbarian cultures. You get the idea.



2- Dragon is no longer a place where gamers “come together”. I’m not sure this was ever true as its pretty hard to “come together” while reading a magazine where the info flows only one way for the most part. Whatever the case, to the extent this was true – again – the Internet has replaced it. To be blunt, ENWorld, RPG.net and the Wizards forums have replaced that element and it's gone for good.


Bring back "Forum". It was like the "Dragon Mail" column, but better. Message boards are nice, but sometimes it's good to have an editor decide which "posts" are worth bringing attention to.



A– non-fiction: There is only so much non-fiction you can do of a gaming nature before it becomes a re-tread of an article done long ago. Near as I can tell – they are into the third or fourth retreads in some cases at this stage.



Over the years, Dragon has run dozens of articles on how to design a campaign world, but all of these articles have come from very different perspectives, and all have been unique offerings. If they did a "Best of Dragon: Designing Your Campaign World" volume, I would buy it in a heartbeat.



B- Fiction: maybe some people enjoy this – but I don’t really read the fiction very often.

C- Magic Items: Bazaar of the Bizarre remains very useful. But it isn’t enough to persuade me to bring this to the cashier every month.

D – The New Character Class Pages: This really does not appeal very much to me at all. Sounded nice in theory – has not worked well in practice. Ditch it Erik.

E- Sage Advice: Interesting, sure. But WotC puts it up on its website for free. Why am I buying this?



You know what I keep thinking? These features are attempts to force the reader to buy new books/update campaign settings to new editions in order to make the magazine useful. When I look at the older Dragon magazine, I find ideas and advice that are relevant to any edition of the game and, frequently, to any game system. Okay, this wasn't always the case (especially the system portability), but it was the case often enough that I suspect Dragon was originally about role-playing, and is currently about rules.

Fix that, and I predict sales will rise.



RC
 

Crothian said:
Has Dragon ever said about how many subscribers they have? It'd be interesting to see how those numbers compare to past years.

Crothian, once a year Dragon publishes a statement in the magazine that states what the subsciber base number is, how many magazines sold, etc. It's a "statement of publication" or some such name, and I'm not sure but I think it's required by law for a publication to post it yearly. I would check your most recent Dragon Mags and see if it's in there. It's a duplication of the form that they fill out and submit.
 

Rawhide said:
Then, paizo needs an electornic version of the magazine which only subscribers have access to. A pdf version at minimum, but a searchable archive is better. when your subscription runs out, so does your access.



Sure. Just be prepared to say "Adios" to your magazine rack sales.


RC
 

Remove ads

Top