Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[Mercule]

Please, no. No adventures in Dragon. As Erik said, it made sense before Dungeon existed, but not anymore. I already buy one periodical that has adventures in it. I'm not inclined to buy another.

The A-#1 thing that I want to see in Dragon is more articles on how to use the existing rules to better effect. I absolutely loved the old Class Acts that showed how to build a "War Priest of Clangeddin" (or whatever) with the right multiclassing, rather than with a shiny new PrC. Now that I'm oozing PrCs from various orifaces, I'm even more interested in articles that are useful without making my campaign's list of add-ons even longer.

That said, I'm not a fan of the current incarnation of the Class Acts (I think that's the name being used for the monthly class feature). Some of it feels like filler thrown in, just to mark a slot. Some of it is really good, though. Dunno, maybe it's just a matter of finding the groove on that one. Still, I'd rather see something that talked about building characters than twiddling classes.

Another potential improvement would be to open up some of the content. I post most of the options for my campaign on my site, sometimes editted I sometimes not. Non-OGL material Kinda sucks for that. My players aren't going to buy most sourcebooks (or Dragon), anyway. OGC just means that I can legitimately make material available to my group, thus giving me a reason to buy more stuff. I cant say if that rationale holds for a large segment of the universe, but it does for me.

Other random thoughts: the Pazuzzu article was very cool. Not quite enough to sell the issue on its own, but good.

The petit Tarrasque article was a good "padding" since. Definitely not a selling point in itself, but something enjoyable to round things out and a fun read.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but I'm starting to have difficulty telling the meat from the ads when I thumb through. I have no idea why, but many of the articles trip my "ad filter" just bytheir layout, or some such.

 

[Steel_Wind]

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.

First, I don't believe this for even a scintilla of a moment. They *are* online - they just dont happen to be *here*. That I DO accept.

But really, that wasn't the major point of my questioning the relevance of Dragon at all; nor was it based on d20 OGL based products.

It was about the incredible rate that official WotC rulebooks are now being publised at. That is a huge structural change in the pace of crunch now vs the 1st edition era.

Given the huge amount of new officlal material - every bit of which is profiled and advertised in Dragon - the need for more crunch and rule variants in Dragon itself is very different now than it was 20-25 years ago when we got a new official rule book once a year to 18 months.

And that is not an observation that can be dismissed with reference to the Net or if they even know about a given Mongoose/GreenRonin/etc. product.

Of course then know about the massive number of offical WotC D&D rulebooks. They are advertised and promoted heavily in Dragon, after all.

 

[Darrin Drader]

First, I don't believe this for even a scintilla of a moment. They *are* online - they just dont happen to be *here*. That I DO accept.

Of course. I don't know the exact percentage of the population of the US that is online, but I would imagine that its at least 85%, maybe higher.

Given the huge amount of new officlal material - every bit of which is profiled and advertised in Dragon - the need for more crunch and rule variants in Dragon itself is very different now than it was 20-25 years ago when we got a new official rule book once a year to 18 months.

True, but one thing to keep in mind is that those crunch filled books have a very narrow focus. There is a lot of material that might get in one book one year, and then nothing for the next three, material from the book on the planes, but there's a lot more material to be written on those topics. The Planar Handbook just begins to touch upon Sigil, for example, and there might be some specific aspects of Sigil that could be fleshed out or added.

 

[Jdvn1]

Of course. I don't know the exact percentage of the population of the US that is online, but I would imagine that its at least 85%, maybe higher.

Then again, I know tons of gamers who are online, and very few of them go to the Wizards site, much less EN World.

 

[Turjan]

Then again, I know tons of gamers who are online, and very few of them go to the Wizards site, much less EN World.

Very true. Publishers seem to feel the same way, as they obviously don't see much impact from sites like EN World on their number of sales; otherwise it's inexplicable that they don't make efforts to take care of their product representation in their database over here, or some of them ignore this site completely.

But back to to the topic !

I noticed that the last issues of Dragon got more interesting than most of the issues before; I actually read some of the articles . My main problem with stuff in magazines like Dragon is simple logistics; if I, once in a while, remember something cool from Dragon or Dungeon, I face the often insurmountable problem of finding that particular piece of information again. I'm not the very organized type, but, whereas for some reason I don't have problems with remembering things I read in one of my many RPG books, I fail completely with Dungeon or Dragon in this regard. Here I'd appreciate some help .

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I know that what I want is a niche. I want to see the mini games that used to be in Dungeon make their way to Dragon instead. I haven't bought either magazine in a year or so, and haven't bought Dungeon since the mini games stopped. Maybe a survey in one issue asking whether there is enough interest in the mini games to include them in Dragon.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ranger REG]

Another potential improvement would be to open up some of the content. I post most of the options for my campaign on my site, sometimes editted I sometimes not. Non-OGL material Kinda sucks for that. My players aren't going to buy most sourcebooks (or Dragon), anyway. OGC just means that I can legitimately make material available to my group, thus giving me a reason to buy more stuff. I cant say if that rationale holds for a large segment of the universe, but it does for me.

??? ???

The only time OGC is relevant to gamer is when you're going into publishing and distribution business. The "sharing" of information have been going on since before OGL ever come into being, and I'm not talking the Napster definition. I've done my fair share of xeroxing relevant player's material for my group. While I admire the respectfulness of the OGL, this is going beyond cautious.

You are right. That rationale don't really hold for me.

 

[Crothian]

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.

First off, just because the magazine is aimed at players doesn't mean the DM has to allow it right off. Most books these days are aimed at players, and that by no means means a DM does not have to look at them first to see if they fit the game. So, being for players and blindly allowing things in game are not connected.

Dragon has character options, players like characters options. Sure DMs get more characters with the many NPCs but its the players that really put time and effort (in theory) into their characters. Most options allow for the players to think what if? What if I built a character around this class? What if I took this feat and used it with my fighter? etc.

And Dragon is not meant for everyone, it isn't meant for me. I don't get any use out of it and I don't fault Dragon for that. I don't get use out of Dungeon either, and I don't blame Dungeon. There is nothing wrong with not being the target audience for something.

 

[Darrin Drader]

And Dragon is not meant for everyone, it isn't meant for me. I don't get any use out of it and I don't fault Dragon for that. I don't get use out of Dungeon either, and I don't blame Dungeon. There is nothing wrong with not being the target audience for something.

Chatbots don't find a lot of use in printed material.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, I never said that players could never look at Dragon until their GMs said otherwise, but the premise that Dragon is for players is flawed because players don't have a choice of anything from Dragon. Non-core material is unique in that GMs generally have to approve it before the character can choose it. Core material doesn't follow that rule -- I can take Power Attack in any game I want. The GM doesn't have to approve it. It's standard. The GM might throw stuff out, but the default is that core material is already accepted. Lots of players don't bother with Dragon because they know their GMs are loathe to accept it.

Sure, Dragon has character options. I never said otherwise. But it follows the same rule as above. Also, "character options" also fall under the "GM World Building options". And they end up being, in practice, GM World Building options first. (And, by the way, Dungeon has character options too. So it's not a Dragon thing. Dungeon #100 happens to have some very cool PrCs, feats, and races.)

And this is from the viewpoint of a player and GM, and a fan of both magazines. I don't fault either magazine for anything they do, but the cliche is wrong. There's nothing wrong with that, though.