What do you want to see in the final issue of Dragon?

[Ulrick]

The final issue should be named "The Dragon."

And have the EXACT same format as issue #1 with the artwork, paper, layout, etc. to give young gamers a feel of what older gamers experienced when the magazine first came out.

 

[DM-Rocco]

That would be good so long as they design the system so no one can get below a 10 in any score. No one ever admits to a below-average score when self-statting. It's just like how everyone thinks of themselves as above-average drivers.

[Note: when I say "no one" and "everyone", I'm generalizing. Don't take it literally. There are some people for whom the above statements do not apply. However they do apply to the great majority of people.]

It wasn't one person who came up with the scoring system, we all agreed on how to score it. INT was based on your IQ, as is stated somewhere in one of the AD&D books, STR was based on how much you could dead press (the first version delt with a squat test too and at the time, on a leg press machine I could press over 1,000lbs for 8 reps. Ending up with odd results, we switched it to just a dead press), CON was determined by how far you could run non stop, (one guy got an 18 because he ran a 23 mile marathon and then ran for the cross country team the next day, that was kind of our standard for the highest CON) hmm, I think we had a quiz to determine WIS. What would you do in this situation kind of thing, Dex was a combination of things, there was a juggling portion, which I failed (if left to that I would have a 3 DEX), then a card stacking game and something else I can't remember off hand. I did great on the cards, a little better than average on the other and shameful on juggling. CHR was based on the other players. They all got to vote on what your CHR was and then the scores were averaged.

The system, like any, wasn't perfect, but it worked okay for heros in AD&D. I also did really well, while others I know who took it (and thought them better than me), did worse.

I got the highest STR, Steve got the highest CON and the only 18. Pretty much everyone got mostly 10 or higher (10 being the average human score). There was one guy who got a 7 on DEX, and that was because after letting him take the test many times, we felt sorry for laughing at him

 

[Ranes]

A few wishes...

Dragon

On the cover I'd like to see no cover lines. I'd like the title to incorporate the definite article (ie The Dragon). (Edit: Ulrik, I swear your post wasn't up when I wrote this. Good to see a like mind though!)

Inside, I'd like there to be 3.5 stats for Tenser, Bigby et al (great idea - kudos to the original poster).

No retrospective.

Dungeon (while we're at it)

Cover: no cover lines, art by Erol Otus.

 

[boerngrim]

The previews I've seen both the real and the rumored sound like they are gonna blow the doors off with the last issue!
My greatest wish would be that WoTC had a change of heart and kept it coming, but that's just sappy sentiment.
A Wizards Three article where Ed comes out of hiding and the Three acknowledge him as a peer would be nice, even if it would be a bit silly.
Anything from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
I just think basically it should be an all-out full-on berserker frenzy of gaming!

 

[Zaukrie]

I'd prefer not to have my last few pages of the dragon to be taken up with something that I'll never use in a game, like statting out myself. I just don't see that as anything memorable or interesting or fun.

I want great art, stats on some of THE characters we've never seen, a few really interesting monsters, a cool RP poster-map, the cover should be clear of all the words that we've lived through the last few years that are there to sell the mag, classic articles like monster ecology, bazar of the bizzarre (sp both wrong?), you know, all the things that have made The Dragon worth buying over the years - only out with a bang!

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Oh! A "what's been happening" with Waldorf. I know Greyhawk's The Adventure Begins dropped some tidbit on him. But since Waldorf came to glory in the pages of Dragon it would be perfect for Dragon to have an update on him in those pages.

 

[rgard]

What's the last issue number again?

 

[rgard]

What's the last issue number again?

I found it...issue 359.

In that case, I'd like to see "Next Month in Dragon #360".

 

[Alzrius]

Well, I'd like to see a Demonomicon for Orcus, and maybe Graz'zt too, since both deserve such treatment.

Something about an exotic location on Oerth would be kinda cool too, though I doubt that'll happen, since we already have the Sundered Empire.

I don't really know what I want from the last Dragon, but that's okay, since I have total faith in Erik and the guys.

 

[Mistwell]

Something brokenly powerful. It's the last official D&D Dragon that Piazo has so they need to include something that would not normally get in there.

It would take one paragraph:

"In our full capacity as an official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragons product publisher, we issue the following errata to the existing errata for the "Dungeon Master's Guide v.3.5".

Where it says:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, emplates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Replace with:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
All Dragon magazine and Dungeon magazine issues shall be considered primary sources, as shall the Frequently Asked Questions document, the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, and the Monster Manual.When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook and Dragon Magazine and the FAQ, for example, give all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook or Dragon Magazine, you should assume the Player’s Handbook and/or Dragon Magazine and/or the FAQ is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide and Dragon Magazine and the FAQ is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual and Dungeon Magazine and the FAQ are the primary sources for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Chaos will thereafter reign supreme on the Rules forum