Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?
- Thread starter Steel_Wind
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
BTW,
You don't need to make the gaming industry what it was in the old days to make Dragon more like old Dragon. Nor would doing so necessarily involve "moving backward".
Simply put, people want to be engaged with what they're reading. Rules do not make engaging reading. Examples of societies, people, etc., real or not, can make engaging reading.
For a simple example of how to do "old Dragon" material for the modern era, pick up a back copy of EN World Player's Journal and flip to the "Adventurer's Guide to Surviving Anything" section. Each of these bits starts with a description of an adventure situation from the perspective of a character in that situation. Here's what you find in a mill. Here are some things to consider when fighting in a mill. This part contains no crunch...it's all very, very useful and evocative fluff. Then, there's a quick summary of the rules (i.e., crunch) that allows you to simulate the fluff. Wonderful and witty. The rules are concise, and when you've gotten to them you want to read them.
That is what the old Dragons were like.
RC
You don't need to make the gaming industry what it was in the old days to make Dragon more like old Dragon. Nor would doing so necessarily involve "moving backward".
Simply put, people want to be engaged with what they're reading. Rules do not make engaging reading. Examples of societies, people, etc., real or not, can make engaging reading.
For a simple example of how to do "old Dragon" material for the modern era, pick up a back copy of EN World Player's Journal and flip to the "Adventurer's Guide to Surviving Anything" section. Each of these bits starts with a description of an adventure situation from the perspective of a character in that situation. Here's what you find in a mill. Here are some things to consider when fighting in a mill. This part contains no crunch...it's all very, very useful and evocative fluff. Then, there's a quick summary of the rules (i.e., crunch) that allows you to simulate the fluff. Wonderful and witty. The rules are concise, and when you've gotten to them you want to read them.
That is what the old Dragons were like.
RC
heirodule
First Post
I think Dragon has lost some of its relevance because the D&D game has focussed its attention on a smaller range of areas than previous editions.
You could have a Katharine Kerr article on the logistsics of fantasy armies, because D&D 1e allowed and expected high level PCs to put time and effort into domain management.
D&D3e seems to expect that high level PCs will just be fighting bigger and badder and more earthshattering threats. Even the new Battlefield Advantures book (as it has been presented so far) seems to only handle "what kind of missions do we send the PCs on while battle rages around them", not assuming that the PCs will want to be the main movers and shakers of the battle (that may be a mistaken impression of course)
I think for Dragon to be more revelant, it needs to increase the diversity of the expected roleplaying challneges. Gygax had a survey of the things people though "made for a roleplaying game". It was an extensive list, and might bear fruit for Dragon thinking a bit more outside-the-box.
You could have a Katharine Kerr article on the logistsics of fantasy armies, because D&D 1e allowed and expected high level PCs to put time and effort into domain management.
D&D3e seems to expect that high level PCs will just be fighting bigger and badder and more earthshattering threats. Even the new Battlefield Advantures book (as it has been presented so far) seems to only handle "what kind of missions do we send the PCs on while battle rages around them", not assuming that the PCs will want to be the main movers and shakers of the battle (that may be a mistaken impression of course)
I think for Dragon to be more revelant, it needs to increase the diversity of the expected roleplaying challneges. Gygax had a survey of the things people though "made for a roleplaying game". It was an extensive list, and might bear fruit for Dragon thinking a bit more outside-the-box.
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
I can't emphasize enough how much I agree with the idea that Dragon and Dungeon should really focus on supporting core D&D products and worlds. Perhaps the mainstreaming of good OGC, fitted to the core rules as needed, could be a part of the magazine from time to time.
Maybe this is heresy, but there's an awful lot of stuff on the WotC site in this vein that I'd rather see in Dragon or Dungeon. Like the Dragonshards articles or the short adventure sites. This type of strategy might better serve the readership, if there is any truth to the notion that more people read the magazines than download Wizards' free stuff.
But I'm no editor-in-chief. Maybe, someday, if I'm lucky, I'll be an editorial assistant.
All seriousness aside, though,
issue #329 wasn't an issue for me in the sense that the bulk of it I'll never use in a game. The more flexible format, however, is great. Maybe the Class Acts could grow and shrink as needed, too. Adhereing to a policy of "we gotta have one of these in every issue" just seems like a questionable policy, no mater what "these" are.
And let's not forget that many of us read Dragon for entertainment as much as anything else. The magazines are inexpensive insofar as entertainment value, methinks.
I also fail to see how the current Dragon is so different from the old. New rules? Check. New monsters? Check. New magic items? Check. And more. What's lacking? One can't expect every issue to be a jaw-dropping font of useful game material for every reader. It has been a consistently good read lately, though.
I support the idea of an index, too, just to throw my hat in that ring as a subscriber. It's hard to keep track of what's in four years worth of mags, man.
Dragon is certainly relevant. It may still be filling out its Unleashed lack of a collar, but it seems to be growing in a good direction. Dragon is just a harder beast to tame than cleaning up Dungeon. More variables….
Maybe this is heresy, but there's an awful lot of stuff on the WotC site in this vein that I'd rather see in Dragon or Dungeon. Like the Dragonshards articles or the short adventure sites. This type of strategy might better serve the readership, if there is any truth to the notion that more people read the magazines than download Wizards' free stuff.
But I'm no editor-in-chief. Maybe, someday, if I'm lucky, I'll be an editorial assistant.
All seriousness aside, though,
issue #329 wasn't an issue for me in the sense that the bulk of it I'll never use in a game. The more flexible format, however, is great. Maybe the Class Acts could grow and shrink as needed, too. Adhereing to a policy of "we gotta have one of these in every issue" just seems like a questionable policy, no mater what "these" are.And let's not forget that many of us read Dragon for entertainment as much as anything else. The magazines are inexpensive insofar as entertainment value, methinks.
I also fail to see how the current Dragon is so different from the old. New rules? Check. New monsters? Check. New magic items? Check. And more. What's lacking? One can't expect every issue to be a jaw-dropping font of useful game material for every reader. It has been a consistently good read lately, though.
I support the idea of an index, too, just to throw my hat in that ring as a subscriber. It's hard to keep track of what's in four years worth of mags, man.
Dragon is certainly relevant. It may still be filling out its Unleashed lack of a collar, but it seems to be growing in a good direction. Dragon is just a harder beast to tame than cleaning up Dungeon. More variables….
freebfrost
Explorer
Erik Mona said:
And here I thought that Paizo was a professional company in the business world... because out here EVERYTHING is the top priority all of the time!
You guys should know that by now.
Raven Crowking
First Post
heirodule said:
I absolutely agree with this.
From a rules standpoint, the OGL allows WotC to focus on a single area of campaign play. If you look at something like the old Star Wars Gamer that Paizo published, there were a wide variety of articles that allowed you to do lots of neat things in that universe.
RC
rogueattorney
Adventurer
In ancient times (10 to 15 years ago) there was a gaming magazine called Dragon. It tended to focus on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but reliably had 2 or 3 articles on other games every month - from other role-playing games like Call of Cthulhu or Gamma World, to Avalon Hill board games and miniature games. There were reviews of both TSR and non-TSR products. There were reviews of computer games.
Seemingly all of a sudden, the magazine shifted to focussing entirely on 2e AD&D. If you were not a fan of AD&D2 (I wasn't) then the magazaine lost all interest to you. To this date, there is a glaring hole in the market for a general gaming magazine. KotDT remains primarily a comic book. Troll Lords The Crusader is on issue #2 and isn't available at your FLGS. Is there one out there I don't know about?
The single easiest way for Dragon to get my attention again is to start covering some non-WotC products. Even a monthly review column would probably get me to take a peak.
R.A.
Seemingly all of a sudden, the magazine shifted to focussing entirely on 2e AD&D. If you were not a fan of AD&D2 (I wasn't) then the magazaine lost all interest to you. To this date, there is a glaring hole in the market for a general gaming magazine. KotDT remains primarily a comic book. Troll Lords The Crusader is on issue #2 and isn't available at your FLGS. Is there one out there I don't know about?
The single easiest way for Dragon to get my attention again is to start covering some non-WotC products. Even a monthly review column would probably get me to take a peak.
R.A.
rogueattorney said:
The following magazines all had something in common, in that they tried to fill that "glaring hole":
White Wolf
Inphobia
d8
Troll
Valkyrie
Shadis
Campaign
Gaming Frontiers
Polyhedron
Vortext
QUIZ: What do all of these magazines have in common now?
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
Steel_Wind
Legend
They have several things in common:
1 - none of them are published anymore;
2 - none of them were the official magazine of D&D;
3 - none of them are Dragon, a magazine with a circulation which vastly exceeds all of its competitors, combined;
4- none of them had an established advertiser and subscriber base (Polyhedron excepted, but that was a special case as you well know);
5- none of them had a distribution system which reaches both the newstand as well as the hobby games trade (Polyhedron's short lived bonding as part of Dungeon, excepted.)
In short - while I appreciate your point, that is a false analogy Erik.
One last point on Polyhedron: To compare even cursory coverage and review of D&D D20 products from non-WotC sources as being equivalent to Polyhedron is being neither fair nor balanced.
1 - none of them are published anymore;
2 - none of them were the official magazine of D&D;
3 - none of them are Dragon, a magazine with a circulation which vastly exceeds all of its competitors, combined;
4- none of them had an established advertiser and subscriber base (Polyhedron excepted, but that was a special case as you well know);
5- none of them had a distribution system which reaches both the newstand as well as the hobby games trade (Polyhedron's short lived bonding as part of Dungeon, excepted.)
In short - while I appreciate your point, that is a false analogy Erik.
One last point on Polyhedron: To compare even cursory coverage and review of D&D D20 products from non-WotC sources as being equivalent to Polyhedron is being neither fair nor balanced.
Last edited:
