My "Best of the Dragon"

[Olaf the Stout]

Just dropping in to let you guys know that I'm monitoring this thread. I've just taken over as Dragon's editor-in-chief, and it's extremely helpful to read your posts about the magazine. Any feedback you have on where the magazine's been or where it seems to be going is most helpful, and very much appreciated.

Thanks.

Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon

Hi Eric. Since you are taking the time to read this thread I may as well give you some usefull feedback. When I get home tonight I'll go through my collection to help me remember what types of articles I liked/didn't like, found useful/less than useful, etc and post it here on this thread to let you know.

Off the top of my head I would have to say that I disliked/found least useful the "Silicon Sorcery" section. Almost every time I got a new issue I would read the 2 or 3 pages devoted to the section and feel at the end of it that I either got nothing new out of the article or that it really didn't fit the fantasy flavour of D&D that well.

The minatures section was another area that I did particularly like. I have nothing against the D&D minatures game, or any minatures game for that matter. I have played them before and quite like them. However I do not think that they should be a regular feature in Dragon. The minatures game, while closely related to the D&D RPG is not the same thing. I do not know the demographics of your readership but I imagine that the majority of your readers buy Dragon for the roleplaying material. As such if you cannot make the minatures article more useful to the people like myself who want roleplaying material it is the equivalent to missing pages.

The more articles, or even worse regular features, that are in Dragon that I do not find useful, the less likely I will be to buy the issue.

Conversely I, like most people from what I hear, am extremly happy to the changes made to Dungeon. I was not unhappy with the format before. (I wasn't thrilled about Poly.) However now I think that the whole magazine, from cover to cover, is useful to me. I love the little locations or situations that can be dropped into anywhere. The only thing I would like to see is the return of Side Treks. I love them because I find that I can use them to bridge between adventures, generate ideas for a full blown adventure or just to give me something to fall back on when the party took an unexpected direction. Please consider bringing them back.

As promised I will post more about Dragon when I get home.

Thanks.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Psion]

Off the top of my head I would have to say that I disliked/found least useful the "Silicon Sorcery" section. Almost every time I got a new issue I would read the 2 or 3 pages devoted to the section and feel at the end of it that I either got nothing new out of the article or that it really didn't fit the fantasy flavour of D&D that well.

As a counterpoint, Silicon Sorcery is one that I always make sure to check out. Not because I play many electronic RPGs, because I don't. Rather because it seems sometimes that the accepted style of D&D has gotten into something of a rut, and the different style of some of the games that Silicon Sorcery translates help the author "think outside the box" and add something a little bit different than the norm.

The minatures section was another area that I did particularly like.

That, on the other hand, I heartily agree with. I know some people who like it, but really have to wonder if the presumption of the appeal of the minis game is much less than the attention it receives in Dragon would indicate, and most mini-buyers are buying them for D&D.

 

[shady]

As a counterpoint, Silicon Sorcery is one that I always make sure to check out. Not because I play many electronic RPGs, because I don't. Rather because it seems sometimes that the accepted style of D&D has gotten into something of a rut, and the different style of some of the games that Silicon Sorcery translates help the author "think outside the box" and add something a little bit different than the norm.

That's an interesting position, since I think most CRPGs are well inside the box - i.e. they exhibit less backstory and less imagination than most genuine P&P setting stuff. If you that's what you want, why not have a "thinking outside the box" column with, say, a new setting every month which exhibits some strong new ideas. WotC had the setting competition that raised how many new settings? 1000? There must be enough great and innovative settings in there to sustain Dragon through a year or so.

 

[shady]

As a separate point, the part of White Dwarf I always go straight to is the battle report, which basically takes you through a play session on one of their (admittedly different) games. It's a good way of picking up rules issues and campaign ideas, and typically v entertaining ...

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I dropped my subscription when Dennis Cramer told me to*. Not because he told me to--because it was finally knocked into my head that 3E was here to stay, and Dragon was no longer for me.

(I've gone back to 1E.)



*On the old WotC forums. After I complained about the gruesomeness of his Bloody Halfling illustration.

You sir are a person of high character. I commend you. That issue and the "sealed" issues were the reason I let my sub lapse.

 

[Psion]

That's an interesting position, since I think most CRPGs are well inside the box - i.e. they exhibit less backstory and less imagination than most genuine P&P setting stuff.

But that's a different comparison entirely than the one I was making, which was different flavors of D&D/d20.

Further, it's not really setting elements I am speaking if. It's more crunchy stuff. Core d20 stuff tends to be pretty formulaic. Not things like "synergistic spellbooks."

If you that's what you want, why not have a "thinking outside the box" column with, say, a new setting every month which exhibits some strong new ideas.

Because I suspect the utility of that would be rather low. How quickly can you use new settings? Not very. How quickly can you use certain interesting and unique setting elements? Much quicker.

 

[Shade]

Silicon Sorcery is one of my favorite recurring articles. I thought the Aelfborn is what the half-elf should've been, and I'll use them in place of half-elves in my next campaign. The golems from Neverwinter Nights were all useful (particularly the Glyph Guardian template). I plan to use one of the set items from the Heroes of Might and Magic article, and I've played an orc blademaster from the Warcraft article. Good stuff.

I agree that Under Command should include RPG elements as well as miniatures info. Some of the columns have included feats and items useful outside of miniatures play.

And I find the new ecology articles to be far less useful than the old "complete with footnotes" articles. Taking the players' perspective rather than the DMs has really limited their usefulness. I really don't need to read something along the lines of "bring fire, because trolls are vulnerable" or "magical protection against cold is useful against frost worms".

It's a shame that the hobby can't support a third magazine geared towards newbies, so the pages of Dragon aren't wasted for experience players with the bulk of the articles in the last three issues.

 

[Richards]

Originally posted by Shade:

And I find the new ecology articles to be far less useful than the old "complete with footnotes" articles. Taking the players' perspective rather than the DMs has really limited their usefulness.

I'd like to echo this sentiment in the strongest possible way.

Johnathan

 

[Henry]

WotC had the setting competition that raised how many new settings? 1000? There must be enough great and innovative settings in there to sustain Dragon through a year or so.

More like 10,000, but since they don't own the ideas in the submissions, the point is kinda moot.

The thing I like the most is the introduction of the low-crunch short articles (or perhaps I should say, "use existing crunch") that re-interpret things in new ways, or give you ideas to use. Dungeon's article on black market and eccentric market dealers was neat to see, and gave me some ideas I would not have had otherwise (like the guy who keeps live deathtraps in his museum. )

 

[Eremite]

I dropped my subscription when Dennis Cramer told me to*. (snip) *On the old WotC forums. After I complained about the gruesomeness of his Bloody Halfling illustration.

For me, the problem with Cramer (aka Crabapple) illustrations is not their gruesomeness but the sheer lack of talent that he possesses (normally I would include "IMO" but I'm not aware of any who would leap to his defence). A single illustration from him can undo 1,000 of the most creative words....

Back on topic, one of the things that would make Dragon more useful for me would be if there were a decent online index that could be sorted by, frex, monster, PrC, feat, spell etc.... In the past I have attempted my own but I lost it when my PC recently died.

I would also throw my "vote" behind the Ebon Maw article: it was outstanding and will no doubt shape a lot of my next campaign. As an article for DMs, I suppose this is the sort of thing that will be in future issues of Dungeon rather than Dragon?

I also prefer the older style Ecology of... articles, especially those by the previous poster, Johnathan Richards.

I may be in a minority these days, but I prefer DMing in the Forgotten Realms so I do look forward to FR articles particularly those related to the religions of FR. I also really appreciate Greyhawk material, such as the revisiting of the Vault of the Drow last year (IIRC), and also enjoy stuff for Eberron.

I would like to see more articles on planar sites like the city of Balefire from issue 322 (Darkness) as well as more unique planar BBEGs like the previously mentioned Ebon Maw.

I'm not so sure that I want to see any more feats and prestige classes but perhaps Paizo could post corrections of some of WotC's more egregious design errors (perhaps a whole new take on the Book of Exalted Deeds/Erroneous Design, frex).

I can't comment on any issues more recent than 322 because, as an international subscriber, I am three issues behind everybody else, including my FLGS. I wonder, Erik, is this ever going to change? I still don't understand how, in the 21st Century, there can be a class of mail that is slower than the clipper ships of the 19th Century....