Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2092827" data-attributes="member: 18280">While it is clear that there is a difference of opinion here, if this is a &quot;Dragon-bashing&quot; thread, it is fairly light bashing.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It seems to me more likely that some people are hoping to influence the editor of Dragon to make the magazine more closely approximate the periodical they'd like to purchase.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that.&nbsp; Some might go a bit overboard, but people are people, and again, this is pretty mild as far as bashing goes.Some people offered some pretty concrete ideas as to what they'd like.&nbsp; I agree that it would be helpful if more people included a better idea of what they like, and dislike (specifically), from the current format.&nbsp; Were I the editor, I know that I would appreciate constructive comments.Again, I have nearly every issue of Dragon since double-digits, although many are packed away now.&nbsp; Some of the ones I am missing have &quot;gone missing&quot;; i.e., been loaned to friends who moved, or simply been lost over my own changes of address.&nbsp; I still get Dragon every month, and recently I have been getting Dungeon, too (the first time I have regularly picked it up since 1st Ed). I don't think the ideas of having more generically useful articles, and keeping the 3.5 focus, are mutually exclusive.&nbsp; The only thing required is trying to include more &quot;fluff&quot; with the &quot;crunch&quot; .... or dare I say more &quot;meat&quot; with the &quot;bones&quot;?RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2092827, member: 18280"] While it is clear that there is a difference of opinion here, if this is a "Dragon-bashing" thread, it is fairly light bashing. ;) It seems to me more likely that some people are hoping to influence the editor of Dragon to make the magazine more closely approximate the periodical they'd like to purchase. Nothing wrong with that. Some might go a bit overboard, but people are people, and again, this is pretty mild as far as bashing goes. Some people offered some pretty concrete ideas as to what they'd like. I agree that it would be helpful if more people included a better idea of what they like, and dislike (specifically), from the current format. Were I the editor, I know that I would appreciate constructive comments. Again, I have nearly every issue of Dragon since double-digits, although many are packed away now. Some of the ones I am missing have "gone missing"; i.e., been loaned to friends who moved, or simply been lost over my own changes of address. I still get Dragon every month, and recently I have been getting Dungeon, too (the first time I have regularly picked it up since 1st Ed). I don't think the ideas of having more generically useful articles, and keeping the 3.5 focus, are mutually exclusive. The only thing required is trying to include more "fluff" with the "crunch" .... or dare I say more "meat" with the "bones"? RC [/QUOTE]

Verification