Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[Mouseferatu]

And now, for a more substantive contribution...

I've seen the quality of Dragon skyrocket in the last several months. I believe the magazine is, at this very moment, the best it's been since 3E came out--and possibly for a while before that.

Are there still things I'd like to see changed? Of course. But I don't understand people who can't see the changes in just the past few months; to me, it's the difference between night and day.

(I feel the need to add something as an aside. Given how often I've chimed in about recent Dragons, I'm afraid people may get the idea that I have a problem with Matt Sernett, the previous editor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I'm just wrapping up a project for WotC on which he was the project developer, and working with him as been almost entirely a positive experience, one that I'd happily repeat. The fact is simply that his vision of Dragon doesn't match mine. Doesn't mean his was wrong and mine right, and it doesn't mean I think any less of him as a developer or an editor. It means only that, in this particular arena, my tastes more closely match Erik's.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey! No fair editing while I'm making fun of you!!

 

[Erik Mona]

>>>
(I hate the "new player race/core class a month")
>>>

To be clear, neither of these things are a part of the magazine anymore. To see where the magazine is headed, pay less attention to issues 323 and 324 and more attention to issues 329 and 330.

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

 

[Schmoe]

I'm primarily a DM, and I subscribe to Dragon but not Dungeon. I don't have any problems coming up with adventures, and I prefer to write my own. I've bought several issues of Dungeon, and while some of the adventures are very cool, none would fit in campaign. Dragon, on the other hand, is chock full of interesting articles that give me ideas to help me expand and focus my campaign world. The article on Mesopatamian gods was brilliant, for example, not only because it had some interesting and compelling portfolios, but because of the level of detail that was given things like "Typical Quests." Those are elements that I can incorporate into my own world to make the priesthoods seem more distinctive in a way that is tangible to the players. Quite simply, the variety of articles in Dragon are a great stimulus for my creativity, both in world-building and adventure design, and enjoy reading most of them. Granted, many of the articles don't interest me in general, but nearly all of them have some nugget of inspiration.

The quality of the articles is much higher than you will find on the internet, and that, for me, is worth the price of subscription.

 

[Jdvn1]

Heh, kind of goes against that "Dungeon's for GMs, Dragon's for players" cliche.

 

[Schmoe]

While I'm providing the encouraging counter-argument, I'd also like to say how much I enjoyed the article on Pazuzu. My current campaign has a very heavy demonic influence, and the article provided a wealth of ideas for making demons more sinister and terrifying in ways that are not combat-related. I really hope to see more of these in the future.

 

[Schmoe]

Heh, kind of goes against that "Dungeon's for GMs, Dragon's for players" cliche.

It seems to me that the difference between Dungeon and Dragon is that of scope. Dungeon seems targetted at a very narrow audience - those looking for adventures or adventure ideas. Dragon is much more general and therefore, I would assume, appeals to a much broader audience. There are a great many DM's who are looking for more than just adventures.

 

[Jdvn1]

Very true. The "Dungeon's for GMs, Dragon's for players" thing never sat quite right with me -- I don't know of any GM that would blindly allow any material without looking at it first. So, at least, the GM has to like it too, before the player can use it. Seems like it's really, "Dungeon's for adventures, Dragon's for world-building." Seems more accurate.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It's been pointed out many times, but I'll say it again: the number of gamers online are a very small percentage of the total number of gamers. Publishers have said this repeatedly, and I see no reason to doubt them. I know plenty of gamers who aren't aware of EN World, for example, and have never gone to the internet for game info at all. Dragon is very relevant for many of those gamers. Sometimes I think gamers who are online become, and I mean no offense in saying this, myopic. They see the gaming world in terms of the internet, and can't see beyond it. Sure, we're inundated with up-to-date info and material, but we're a tiny minority. It's easy for us to see Dragon as outdated. But for everyone of us, there are, what, 5 or 10 gamers who are not on the internet, and I'm sure Dragon seems dandy to them.

This doesn't mean Dragon can't be improved. Everything can be improved. Some of the ideas being tossed around here are plenty interesting. I just think that it should be kept in mind that we gamers who are online may not be the best to judge how to improve the magazine for its readership at large.

 

[Evilhalfling]

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.

Wow, Katherine Kerr wrote that article? I used it dozens of times, and I have reread her Neyvn
series many times as well. I should really pay more attention to who writes these things.

The latest dragon issues ... well some good articals, some bad. I usually only buy something after I have read through it and adopted pieces into my game. Examples Monk fighting styles 310 and Ebon Maw. Ill prolly get some just for the Demon Price articals, if one strikes me the right way.