Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[Erik Mona]

I am convinced that the solution is something other than more adventures. Dungeon has that ground covered quite well. When there was no such thing as Dungeon, it made sense to stuff adventures in Dragon. Now? Not so much.

_Part_ of the answer is embracing the elements of D&D that other companies and websites cannot touch. That means official expansion of Eberron, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and the Great Wheel cosmology.

Part of it means more in-depth and insightful previews of upcoming products and trends than most web sites are prepared (or able) to provide.

Part of it means realizing that a lot of us have been around the block a few times, and have been paying attention to the game and the magazine for more than a decade.

Part of it also means realizing that a lot of the readers have _not_ been around that long. Repeating topics covered in earlier issues isn't so good when it's been done in recent memory, but just because Katherine Kerr wrote an excellent article about an army traveling on its stomach in the 1980s doesn't immediately take articles about army maintenance off the editorial agenda forevermore.

Part of it simply involves printing better articles.

As for the list of Steel Wind's un-favorite articles, half of them have already been put out of their misery. Don't expect a lot more new classes or races from the magazine. You rightly point out that the world is choking in such things already. We'll include some new feats and prestige classes from time to time, but only when surrounded by compelling ideas that just beg to be used in your campaign.

I will tame this Dragon. I'm pretty pleased with what we've done with Dungeon, but you have to understand that it was a process that took the better part of a year to achieve. By those standards, the work on Dragon has only just begun.

Stick around a while. I can say with some authority that it'll be worth it.

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

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I stopped buying Dragon b/c I simply wasn't using the material that I would find in it. I always had the feeling that it wasn't play tested and, as such, wasn't very official. I also got the feeling that the magazine was simply rehashing things over and over again, albeit in different rules editions.

I dunno, Dragon just doesn't do it for me anymore. I used to like the old fiction stories and the articles written by the D&D design legends, but a lot of them have moved on to their own projects now. And I think that the internet has replaced a lot of Dragon's usefulness.

But I LOVE the revised Dungeon. Even if I never get to run a single adventure, they're still great for mining ideas and make for great reading!

 

[Steel_Wind]

You see...I have seen this repeated often - and I'm not buying into it at all.

How does a magazine that features "rules" get to be for players?

Is everyone else as baffled by this as I am? Am I the only DM in town who makes the rules? All you young whippernsapper DMs allow the PCs to make the rules?

Allowing the PCs to make the campaign now too? Since when is a new campaign setting a player directed article?

Sorry. I've read the spin. I've seen "the Dragon for players; Dungeon for DMs" party line back during the realauch. Problem is, it just does not bear up to the most cursory scrutiny at all.

More to the point, Erik Mona has said that he does *not* intend Dragon to be just for players. And it does nothing to address the fact that "rules" is something we just don't need Dragon for anymore. We have more crunch, offical and unoffical than we can use.

Well. It can be for players. It can be for DMs. It can be for one-legged shetland ponies into consensual bondage for all I care.

Right now - it isn't for me. And the anecdotal evidence on ENworld lately is that it isn't for a lot of other people here, either.

edit: Ok Erik. I await the changes. You improved Dungeon for the most part, so I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

[Darrin Drader]

You see...I have seen this repeated often - and I'm not buying into it at all.

- snip -

Sorry. I've read the spin. I've seen "the Dragon for players; Dungeon for DMs" party line back during the realauch. Problem is, it just does not bear up to the most cursory scrutiny at all.

- snip -

Well. It can be for players. It can be for DMs. It can be for one-legged shetland ponies into consensual bondage for all I care.

Right now - it isn't for me. And the anecdotal evidence on ENworld lately is that it isn't for a lot of other people here, either.

So I'm a little confused by your intentions in starting this thread. Did you start this thread to start a discussion about the merits of Dragon and possibly to offer some suggestions on how Dragon could be better, or is this just another "Lets trash Dragon" thread? Looks to me like another passive agressive attempt to illustrate your "intellectual superiority" by making a professional grade publication look bad. I'm out of this discussion.

 

[Steel_Wind]

So I'm a little confused by your intentions in starting this thread. Did you start this thread to start a discussion about the merits of Dragon and possibly to offer some suggestions on how Dragon could be better, or is this just another "Lets trash Dragon" thread?

No, it was a thread made to suggest ways of making Gaming's Old Grey Lady better. And most of all, to point out that the excess of official and unofficial crunch from a plethora of sources, together with the immediacy of the Internet has resulted in a structural change in the marketplace which makes the old - and even the current - incarnation of Dragon very questionable in its relevance.

I guess I was trying to explain why Dragon was having a very hard time in persuading me to buy it.

Your response amounted to - *it's not meant for you* - and was not entirely helpful. While I readily admit it was a company line that was touted at the relaunch - it is one I never understood at all.

And I still don't.

 

[kenobi65]

No, it was a thread made to suggest ways of making Gaming's Old Grey Lady better. And most of all, to point out that the excess of official and unofficial crunch from a plethora of sources, together with the immediacy of the Internet has resulted in a structural change in the marketplace which makes the old - and even the current - incarnation of Dragon very questionable in its relevance.

....to you, and folks like you.

As Darren pointed out, it's very likely that an awful lot of D&D players aren't visiting ENWorld, aren't downloading the FAQ from wizards.com, aren't even *aware* of non-WotC d20 products. For *them*, Dragon may well be every bit as relevant today as it was to you when you first discovered it.

Even with everything Erik's planning to do, it *still* may not make Dragon a relevant periodical for you anymore. That may just be the way it is.

 

[Ibram]

I was a pretty big fan of Dragon for a few years, but nowadays it just doenst seem to hold anything for me (I hate the "new player race/core class a month") every now and again it has something I like (the most recient issue for example has lots of stuff I like, saving the fact that Grendals CR was low). For a while the good issues outnumbered the bad, but now it seems more miss then hit... I serilously doubt I'll renew this August.

 

[Darrin Drader]

OK, I lied, so I'm back, but only because I appreciated your response, and I'm not really that much of a hothead.

No, it was a thread made to suggest ways of making Gaming's Old Grey Lady better. And most of all, to point out that the excess of official and unofficial crunch from a plethora of sources, together with the immediacy of the Internet has resulted in a structural change in the marketplace which makes the old - and even the current - incarnation of Dragon very questionable in its relevance.

Nobody is saying that Dragon can't get better. I'm not saying that, Erik isn't saying that, and everyone should agree that improvement in any publication can only be a good thing. To address your second point, the structural change the marketplace because of the Internet isn't really as dramatic as many people here seem to think.

Your response amounted to - *it's not meant for you* - and was not entirely helpful.

All I'm saying is that as a DM, I also find Dungeon of greater value, so I'm not completely disagreeing with the points you make in your first post. As a DM, you are likely to want setting information, adventures, story ideas, monsters, NPCs, and general advice on running a game. Dungeon supplies all of these things.

Dragon covers the setting material, story ideas, and a few select items on the above list when appropriate, but the majority of it focuses on things that are helpful to players, like feats, magic items (which admittedly can also be useful as treasure for DMs), and general interest material.

Going through the most recent issue of Dragon that I have, #329, I find an article on the beasts of Beowulf. Here we find new monsters. As a DM, I can use those. I may or may not use them in the context they are presented, but monsters are useful.

Mesopotamian Gods is useful to both DMs and players. The gods are useful if you want to use them as the deity's for a new campaign, or possibly a section of your campaign world. As a player, it is a good article because it provides you with some new choices of gods for your character to worship, each with their own domains and favored weapons. If the DM runs an anything goes campaign, there are some options here, both in terms of character background and crunch.

The article on the Petit Tarrasque is kind of a general interest article. A lot of people wonder where their favorite monsters fit into real-world mytholgy - this article is for them.

The Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Pazuzu gives DMs a great article on the denizens of the lower planes and a major article. Plus this article is an interesting read. This falls under general interest and useful to DMs category.

The ecology of the Kenku is another general interest article. DMs are going to be interested because it gives additional background material on these creatures while players and fantasy enthusiasts may find it an interesting read.

Stuff of Legends is a Bazaar of the Bizarre article, so its equally useful to DMs and players for obvious reasons.

Marked for Death previews a book and provides both useful setting material and a new spell that ties in with the book.

Sage advice is useful for those people who don't go online, and the rest of the magazine is Class acts, which is definitely geared towards players.

While I readily admit it was a company line that was touted at the relaunch - it is one I never understood at all.

Maybe instead of saying that it "is for the player," a better statement is that it "is for the general D&D playing public." The material in this magazine may not be as useful for a DM, and it may not be immediately useful, but it may be interesting to all players.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Going through the most recent issue of Dragon that I have, #329, I find an article on the breasts of Beowulf. (Emphasis added.)

Ah, yes. The infamous Dragon swimsuit issue.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack, but I couldn't resist.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Ah, yes. The infamous Dragon swimsuit issue.

I have no idea what you're talking about.