So New Dragon kinda up...

[Bagpuss]

The PDF looks like they just printed from the web browser to PDF. There does not appear to have been any attempt to make it look like a professional document.

It's not even well printed. For instance, the black and white picture of the early edition Death Knight at the start of the section labeled "Monster Evolution" is cropped along the bottom in the PDF.

I must say, I'm very disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing the online content, but this just doesn't impress me.

If you want to see no effort look at the first Dragon article PDF, that has the images going across pages.

So they have made some attempt with this PDF by cropping the images.

 

[Bagpuss]

Dragon - So New Dragon kinda up...

The ecology of the Death Knight.

It was up on Monday that's the second article.

 

[humble minion]

How about the reams of forums where players/readers can actively engage the creators?

To be honest, I haven't looked at the new Dragon forums, so it's entirely possible that this is where the editorial staff intend to address issues like this and I just don't know about it. But there's a certain gravitas in a formal letters-to-the-editor section that a forum post doesn't have, in my personal opinion. (Yes, I'm a dinosaur of the print media age!) When you publish a dissenting letter in your magazine, alongside your own articles, you're giving it recognition and weight, and showing that you've taken the opinion seriously. But everyone knows that nothing's stopping any old irrational and/or illiterate chimp from scribbling on a messageboard (case in point, this post!)

 

[Jack of Shadows]

Well,

I'm ticked that they had to put in all the spoilers about Vanthus Vanderboren. I've now had to ask my players not to read the article.

Beyond that it seems at first blush to be about the same as any other web article WotC has posted in the past. So far not worth the price of admission (when that price goes into effect at least).

Jack.

 

[hexgrid]

How about the reams of forums where players/readers can actively engage the creators?

I'd enjoy a monthly selection of some of the more interesting posts. The whole point of a magazine is that's it's content is selected and edited by the editors (well, maybe not the whole point.)

Another, more modern option would be to allow comments attached directly to the articles themselves.

 

[Bagpuss]

I'm ticked that they had to put in all the spoilers about ******. I've now had to ask my players not to read the article.

Which immediately tells them there is a Death Knight in the campaign, and you can bet they put two and two together. Still you get his whole life story there. It's not the sort of error I would have expected with Paizo at the helm, very disappointed, considering I thought this was an improvement on the earlier article.

That's zero for two now.

 

[blargney the second]

I'm nonplussed so far. Not by the content, but by the presentation. The print magazine was sexy... this is just frumpy. The chastity belt on the PDF isn't helping matters.

 

[kenmarable]

The ecology of the Death Knight.

Not bad but it doesn't knock me out or make me want to subscribe. There needs to be more effort at making the PDF look better too. The white space at the bottom of the last page for example.

The PDF looks like they just printed from the web browser to PDF. There does not appear to have been any attempt to make it look like a professional document.

It's not even well printed. For instance, the black and white picture of the early edition Death Knight at the start of the section labeled "Monster Evolution" is cropped along the bottom in the PDF.

I must say, I'm very disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing the online content, but this just doesn't impress me.

I'm nonplussed so far. Not by the content, but by the presentation. The print magazine was sexy... this is just frumpy. The chastity belt on the PDF isn't helping matters.

Are we talking about the "download this article" link?

That isn't the "real pdf" version. They've said that would be compiled at the end of the month. That is just the exact same function that has been on the site for years now. They have had a printer-friendly version which is the same html just with the surrounding site "chrome" removed so you only have the content itself. The "download the article" is just the printer-friendly html spit into a pdf document. Those are very old functions that have been on the site for years and are still hooked up (browse around the 3.5 archives to see for yourself).

So I wouldn't read anything into how the pdf compilation of the entire issue will look like. If that is just taking the html and spitting it into a pdf, then, yeah, that's incredibly lame. However, Chris Thomasson has talked about the effort they are putting into the layout and graphic design of the PDF here. So, no, they aren't just dumping the html into a pdf and calling it done. This is just the same old function that has been there for ages and not representative of how the PDF of the entire issue will look in the least.

Cropping issues and all that jazz are just a matter of the current automated pdf function they have built in. I'm sure it's just some component that is fed html from the database and regurgiates a pdf document. No cropping, layout, or manual effort at all. The compilation at the end of the month will be properly laid out and formatted and hopefully look snazzy and be as cool as they say it will be.

 

[blargney the second]

I really hope you're right, Ken!

 

[Bagpuss]

I noticed they have updated the article to put spoiler reveal tags round the Savage Tide campaign stuff, that's really good and really quick of them.