Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vocenoctum" data-source="post: 1073476" data-attributes="member: 2477">I'll throw something in here. The thing is, there was a Poly magazine and a Dungeon magazine. When content on both sides was being reduced, Dungeon Only folks were screaming about getting ripped off, but Poly Only people were saying "I like Poly" and such.Now, it's not an even split. The Dungeon only folks have got the advantage in page count now. So some of the Poly folks are complaining.Meanwhile, the Dungeon Only folks are still saying Dungeon Only.So, while I don't agree with REG, I can see the point. If Dungeon DID completely drop Poly, and then went out of print as a Dungeon Only publication, maybe that would get the point across. Neither of the magazine's could survive on their own.I think the real problem is that Wizards made such a large point that they were adding Poly to Dungeon. In reality they were merging two magazines as one. The fact that it was billed as Dungeon primarily, and the Poly subscribers were "given Dungeon" subscriptions made the perception deeper.So, that said, I like both. I'd like to see both. I'd like to see the front cover alternate between Dungeon style and Polyhedron style, with the other cover inside, but don't know if that's work.Percentage of content could be determined by survey's to show what percentage of the audience wants X, but I'm of the mind that (as EM said) it should be dictated by the content available.</blockquote>