Why _DON'T_ You Buy Dragon Magazine?

[The Shaman]

I absolutely adore Dungeon now.

And thank you for waving a big middle-finger at all of use who bought Dungeon/Polyhedron. You've reinforced why I do not, and will not, buy your products.

I've rarely used anything from Dungeon, but I use material from Polyhedron all the time, in both my fantasy and Modern games - I've created whole campaign-settings off Polyhedron mini-games.

There was more creativity and spirit in those handful of pages six times a year than in any dozen issues of Dragon. I'm sorry that you don't get that.

 

[devilish]

Hi Erik,

Loyal subscriber now but not enthused -- here's what I miss and what I've
loved about Dragon in the past:

What I love, from the crunch side, is raw mechanics - useful and useless:

--remember the stuff in the Dragon Annuals -- rules and formula for the damage a character takes from being picked up by an ogre , thrown 30 feet in the air, over a cliff; his velocity, d6 damage, etc.
-- How to tell, through stats, whether your dice are flawed
--Size, weight and damage for 100's of golems (and their formula) -- like a wax golem. All in one article instead of monster supplements
-- Ecologies for their 2e-version of Monster Advancement
--Right before 3E, Dragon had an issue on how to rewrite/customize spells: "Change a spell from Target -> AreaOfEffect = 1 Spell Level"

On the fluff side:

-- Random Elf Name/Tavern Name/etc. generators
-- The whole Devil/Satan/Nine Hells articles
-- Ecologies for their flavor, alterations, and different ways to look at creatures (like a mini Libris Mortis/Draconomicon, but for Otyughs!)

And, though some may disagree, the *whole* "Book Of Vile Darkness" issue .... some
of the spells in there gave me nightmares and would love to see grittier issues.
Sure, it was a product tie-in -- but it had good stuff, moreso than other product tie-ins.

Oh, forgot -- I *hated* the "Samurai v." article in the first "New and Improved" issues that
came out this year. Lots of pomp and circumstance and no conclusion -- that
almost made me cancel my 10 year+ record of subscribing. Hate Hate hate !!!!

Thanks for listening to all of us,

-D

PS And to repeat everyone else, Kudos on what you've done
to Dungeon -- no comments necessary.

 

[RodneyThompson]

4) Class Acts. Good idea, poor in execution. Perhaps you can narrow it down to four arch-types, like WotC did for their "Complete" Series. That would give you two pages for each focus (warrior, divine, arcane, and adventurer) and three pages for a new 20 level class. With more space, you can get a little more depth on a subject.

I'm a little late jumping in on this one, but wouldn't you get tired of a new "core" class every issue just like everyone's getting tired of new prestige classes? Besides, a core class is supposed to be relatively generic, with the prestige classes being more specific. Can you come up with 12 new core classes that are really distinct from one another? How about 24? 36? The idea is to create columns that will last for years without the need for drastic format changes. Such changes are one of the reasons why I suspect some readers claim they feel Dragon has no mission statement, as it were.

That said, I am intrigued by reducing Class Acts down to the four archetypes, though if that were to happen I would suggest doubling the page/word count for each archetype. Class Acts seems to go on forever when I'm flipping through the pages, but I wouldn't mind as much if they were longer articles.

Look for the "Bazaar of the Bizarre" title to return within the next two issues.

Simply excellent. We're kickin' it old school.

 

[PJ-Mason]

While I agree that the issue was pretty bad, I just don't get this sort of thing.

No, i can see where Teflon Billy is coming from. The Dark Sun issue was an absolute joke for Dark Sun fans. It was also an insult to those who were supposedly the "official" source for Dark Sun material. Those Dark Sun articles in Dragon showed a lack of repsect and/or knowledge for the setting.

Now that Erik is in charge, i expect him to make sure that setting specific articles that are written in Dragon from now on, are given the care and passion he would expect for a Greyhawk article!

 

[Belen]

And thank you for waving a big middle-finger at all of use who bought Dungeon/Polyhedron. You've reinforced why I do not, and will not, buy your products.

I've rarely used anything from Dungeon, but I use material from Polyhedron all the time, in both my fantasy and Modern games - I've created whole campaign-settings off Polyhedron mini-games.

There was more creativity and spirit in those handful of pages six times a year than in any dozen issues of Dragon. I'm sorry that you don't get that.

Dude, Eric was the editor of Poly, was responsible for the Dungeon/Poly merger, and was the person foremost behind the mini-games.

Now, Eric and I had our differences about Poly and whether it should have been included in Dungeon, but I'll bet it is safe to say that discountuing Poly was probably something that ripped a big hole in his heart.

As your pretty new here, I felt that you should know that. Poly would still be around if it had not cheesed off the Dungeon base. Eric did everything he could to save it except letting both mags die.

 

[Veander]

I used to subscribe, but I stopped a couple years ago because I was nearly a year behind on reading and the subscription cost was just $30 I couple use on something else. However, about 6 months after, I wanted to rejoin, but I couldn't get a discount to save my life. It's now been too long and the price is even gone UP! Heh, give me a discount and I am one of those folks who even if he isn't getting a deal, will feel great if it appears like one. I am the kind of buyer who picks up a majority of his d20 products second-hand on ebay, so maybe that's the root of all this - I'm cheap. I am constantly looking for one of those magazine sites to offer Dragon at a discount, but to no avail.

 

[The Shaman]

Dude, Eric was the editor of Poly, was responsible for the Dungeon/Poly merger, and was the person foremost behind the mini-games.

Now, Eric and I had our differences about Poly and whether it should have been included in Dungeon, but I'll bet it is safe to say that discountuing Poly was probably something that ripped a big hole in his heart.

As your pretty new here, I felt that you should know that. Poly would still be around if it had not cheesed off the Dungeon base. Eric did everything he could to save it except letting both mags die.

I really do appreciate that information - please pardon my ignorant noobness. Erik's comment about "adoring" the new Dungeon format certainly doesn't reflect that bit of history.

I was thinking about this more after I posted earlier. One of the complaints that keeps coming up over and over again is the emphasis on crunch and the lack of fluff in Dragon - the irony to me is that's exactly what Polyhedron offered in spades. The city setting for Pulp Heroes, the article on crafting races for Iron Lords of Jupiter, the Department-7 "field manual" for d20 Modern, much of the "Living Greyhawk" material, and a couple of Star Wars articles whose specifics escape me all spring to mind - they were exactly the sort of campaign-building and -inspiring material that page after page of posts on this thread say is missing in Dragon.

Poly material crossed over into virtually any genre:

• I'm using material from Spelljammer, Pulp Heroes, and Iron Lords of Jupiter mini-games for my retro-Future space opera campaign
• Pulp Heroes material is also inspiring a new Modern/Past campaign setting I'm working on
• GeneTech is a huge part of my present Modern campaign
• Spelljammer and Iron Lords... each inspired adventures for my last D&D game
• I used weapons and equipment from V for Victory for yet another Modern campaign, and may use some of it again for a new one
• I created a couple of Scooby-Doo-like adventures using the much-maligned and reviled HiJinx for my nieces, and it inspired both a PC and NPCs for my Modern game

Poly was not just a tool box for me - it was the entire Snap-On tool set in the big red rolling cabinets. While whiny D&D players complained that there weren't enough adventures - since two full-length adventures and assorted side quests and venues every two months just isn't enough apparently for GMs unwilling or unable to homebrew - they were completely missing all the things they could do with what was in those pages they ignored.

Please forgive my heat over this subject - Poly renewed my love of gaming after WotC and 3.x nearly killed it, and in my opinion some of the best, leanest, and most consistenly inspired work in RPGs appeared in those pages. If Dragon was half as good, it might just become worth looking at again.

 

[francisca]

Hey Erik-

Another idea occured to me. I'd like to see a monthly spotlight on a gaming group. I'd like to see what other groups running established campaigns are doing and how they do it. Specifically, I'd like to hear about:
- non-core material they use, how it is working out for them, how they integrated it into their game, and if they had to to tweak any of it.
- interesting houserules including how/why they came up with them and their relative satisfaction with them.
- what game aids are they using? What minis? What battlemats? What software, if any? What terrain? Props? Do people use Worldworks or Dwarven Forge stuff? What about stuff that they created for their own use?
- What do DMs do outside of the game to move it along? Messageboards? E-mail? Websites?
- etc... I just want to hear what other groups are doing, what works, what doesn't work for them, and why.

I think a 2/3 to 1 page spotlight like this would be neat. I think it would be handy resource for new DMs especially, and us old graybeards might actually pick up a good idea as well.

Now, lots of you are reading this and saying, dude, I just check ENWorld for that stuff. Good. So do I. Dragon in a 65K+ circulation magazine, however. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't frequent boards such as this that could benefit from it.

 

[Azul]

And, though some may disagree, the *whole* "Book Of Vile Darkness" issue .... some
of the spells in there gave me nightmares and would love to see grittier issues.
Sure, it was a product tie-in -- but it had good stuff, moreso than other product tie-ins.

You know, the "Book of Vile Darkness" issue was the only product tie-in that I have ever liked. Some bits were good and others great (esp. the spells). Unlike the other tie-ins, that one took chances and had some distinct flavour. Most of all, it was material strong enough to stand on its own merit. I was actually a bit dissappointed that the actual book was far more bland than the Dragon magazine material. A book of "vile darkness" should be vile. Ultimate evil isn't pretty. It should make your skin crawl.

 

[mmadsen]

I would buy Dragon if it had more articles examining historical or contemporay cultures, social structures and institutions and how they may be interpreted in various game worlds (high, low, pulp, etc). I would also like articles on how different aspects of the rules can interact with each other to create different types of fluff (high, low, political, etc).

I would buy that magazine in a heartbeat.

My favorite articles from earlier Dragon's (which I used to buy religiously) were discussions about the alignment system, or how war affects the country-side, or how an Order of knights would operate, or what's happening at a monastery over the course of a day/year. I suppose I don't want to read historical texts but like potted versions with lots of hooks.

I never collected Dragon, but it sounds like I would've enjoyed some of those old articles.