Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6114848" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 314: December 2003part 1/983 (108) pages: For the 5th issue in a row, they continue to skim shallowly off the top of topics. The elements? You could have a whole issue devoted to each of the main 4, plus probably a couple more on the para and quasi ones if you asked for appropriate submissions. Will I find this smorgasboard any more satisfying than nibbling at 5-6 classes or monsters in one sitting? Or am I going to have to wait for a change in staff before things start to improve again? Let's hope, as per the usual. Scan Quality: Moderate, unindexed, ad-free scan. In this issue:Wyrms turn: Our editorial this month is basically them trying to figure out how best to promote the new D&D minis game. With one scrapped variant under their belt, they'd really like to do better this time. What can they give us, how can they tweak the format so we're more likely to buy the game, or at least not complain that it's a waste of space in a magazine that should be all D&D, all the time? It's another reminder that they've found themselves becoming gradually more boxed in as time goes on, and need to push back if they want to have a decent range of material to write about, and not repeat themselves in just a couple of years time, and I hope they can hold onto the minis game for at least as long as Chainmail. Wargaming was an interesting part of the magazine for a fair bit of it's history, and maybe it could be again. They just need to find something that gets a decent amount of uptake from the readers. Scale Mail: Our first four(!) letters are all about an annoying insert right in the middle of the Blackguards article. The necessity of taking filthy lucre should not make you forget proper formatting. Since they now have a full-time advertising guy again, they hope this mistake won't be repeated any time soon. Another irritating mistake they made, and had to own up too, is attributing the wrong name to the wrong letter. People absolutely haaaaaaaate that. They also left a few small but crucial things out of the celestial monster progressions in issue 312. Working with material from another department that hasn't been through the full editing pass itself is a risky business, and this time, the dice rolled snake-eyes. Rather more far reaching is a complaint that since Dungeon ate Polyhedron, the split focus means we're getting fewer adventures, and the ones we do get are smaller and of lower quality. They need to get back to their roots and do what the magazine was originally created for. Since I know that they do wind up scrapping Polyhedron for good next year, it's obvious that they're listening too and thinking very hard about this particular problem. I wonder if I'll ever get round to reviewing that process first hand, and if I'll feel the same way. Similarly, we have a complaint that the latest issues of Dragon are shallow and full of filler, which I quite agree with. The writers are going for the easy options to meet deadlines too often. The cavalcade of complaints continues with two more about things misplaced or delayed to the issue after. They are not having a good time at the moment, are they. Even Roger wasn't getting picked apart this viciously in his early years. Still, they are managing to please a few people, as they end with one unreservedly positive letter. Whether they're actually part of the silent majority remains to be seen.</blockquote>

Verification