Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[der_kluge]

I'm hoping Erik can lend some credence to this claim, which I've seen numerous times. "Rules, feats, spells, etc, introduced in Dragon are not playtested." I've not yet seen anyone from Dragon actually say this. Perhaps if it is indeed true, it's something that can be remedied by Paizo in the future, but if it is a false accusation, I would like to see Erik or someone else from Dragon or Paizo refute it.

Wasn't the first edition Cavalier from Dragon? If so, that thing was broken horribly, IIRC.

 

[bolie]

Index

Dragon would be much more useful to me with a good, complete index of feats, magic items, monsters, classes, races, etc...

Dragondex is nice, but I would like to see something with more flexible searching.

I would use Dragon more if I could more easily go back and find what I wanted to use after the fact.

Other than that, I've liked a lot of the articles. I look for info in Dragon that is too specialized or too "small" to warrant inclusion in a book.

The article with Grendel, his mother, and the Firedrake is cool. It gives three monsters who can be used to provide some variety. They are kind of unique and will be new to players. They can be used together or separately.

Bolie IV

 

[kenobi65]

Wasn't the first edition Cavalier from Dragon? If so, that thing was broken horribly, IIRC.

Yup, it originally appeared in Dragon, then a revised version appared in Unearthed Arcana (the 1985 version). Both were, of course, written by Gary Gygax, so you can blame the Colonel for the brokenness.

 

[diaglo]

I'm hoping Erik can lend some credence to this claim, which I've seen numerous times. "Rules, feats, spells, etc, introduced in Dragon are not playtested." I've not yet seen anyone from Dragon actually say this. Perhaps if it is indeed true, it's something that can be remedied by Paizo in the future, but if it is a false accusation, I would like to see Erik or someone else from Dragon or Paizo refute it.

what BU posted is the way it has always been. from The Strategic Review, The Dragon, and Dragon Magazine.

the point of having in Dragon was to playtest with your group.

 

[Odhanan]

I think Dragon (and Dungeon) are still relevant... to D&D. Not to roleplaying games as a hobby. Maybe some general articles like the dungeoncraft columns of Monte Cook can be relevant to all roleplaying games - how to create NPCs and make them look alive, how to populate a bar/tavern, etc - but they are definitively the exception as compared to the rule of D&D-only material.

I like Dragon, and love Dungeon. Because I am a D&D fan. A Vampire the Requiem fan that wouldn't happen to be interested in D&D, however, wouldn't find the magazines as appealing, I guess. Some would even think they are ridiculous (and some do).

I find more useful stuff in Dungeon personally. I am not interested in articles of the type Knight vs. Samurai, fiction, etc. I want a toolbox of stuff I can use practically in my game. But I'm not the only reader of the magazine. I understand and accept this.

I gave up on the "news" aspect. Dragon is owned by Wizards. Aside of the ads you see in the magazine, all that is in the magazine is implicitely "wizards approved". Doesn't mean the guys working at Dragon are traitors, suck etc... they are doing their job, and a very good job, I might add. I'm just saying that Dragon is not the place to find complete and objective information about the RPG hobby.

My two copper coins in the conversation.

 

[DaveMage]

I think the word you're looking for is "google fu". As in "Kung Fu". Foo is something completely different.

Um...it was a homage to D&D's Foo creatures?


I stand corrected.

 

[Erik Mona]

I'm hoping Erik can lend some credence to this claim, which I've seen numerous times. "Rules, feats, spells, etc, introduced in Dragon are not playtested." I've not yet seen anyone from Dragon actually say this. Perhaps if it is indeed true, it's something that can be remedied by Paizo in the future, but if it is a false accusation, I would like to see Erik or someone else from Dragon or Paizo refute it.

Each and every Dragon article goes through a rigorous development process to iron out the kinks. This involves at least three professional game designers/editors discussing the rules item in question (be it a feat, prestige class, etc.), coming at the "problem" from numerous different points of view. Then the article in question goes through a couple weeks of editing, occasionally resulting in additional changes. Finally, the entire magazine is sent to Wizards of the Coast, who spends several days looking over the rules and bouncing them around the creative minds over there.

Sometimes, this involves formal playtesting, but more often it involves "workshopping" and discussion. The editors on these magazines know their stuff.

This is a very, very rigorous process. Both Paizo and Wizards of the Coast put a lot of value in the "100% Official Dungeons & Dragons" label on our cover. Sometimes we'll miss something, but it's got to get through at least four trained professionals before that happens, and it's also got to get past the rigorous screen of WotC.

I don't want to say that the "Dragon is unbalanced" criticism is completely without validity (like I said, mistakes can sneak in), but short of playtesting the rules in an ongoing campaign I'm not sure what additional steps could be taken to ensure rules balance.

Dragon takes rules balance very seriously.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon Magazine

 

[TerraDave]

Yup, it (cavalier) originally appeared in Dragon, then a revised version appared in Unearthed Arcana (the 1985 version). Both were, of course, written by Gary Gygax, so you can blame the Colonel for the brokenness.

The original Barbarian was also in Dragon, another class with "balance issues". I remember there something like a 3 year period where people would say they wanted to play a barbarian, and I didn't know what they where talking about. But I figured it out.

 

[diaglo]

Yup, it originally appeared in Dragon, then a revised version appared in Unearthed Arcana (the 1985 version). Both were, of course, written by Gary Gygax, so you can blame the Colonel for the brokenness.

i do. i still maintain:

he wrote the UA for his powergaming scions.

 

[TerraDave]

back in the day (basically issue 100 and earlier) Dragon was the main official source of rules and Greyhawk info and also had adventures, minigames, good reviews of games and fantasy and sci-fi fiction--including critical reviews of TSR products, some good art, yes some memorable ads, and all those other articles. It was the main national "forum" for the game.

Those days are long gone. But #329 was a big improvement, and hopefully the sign of things to come.