Well, let me be among the first to congratulate you all at Paizo for the new look, and the message boards. Sorry to damper the celebration, but my first post here in the Dragon forum is a complaint. Well maybe that is too strong a word; let’s call it a constructive criticism.
While I generally like the new Dungeon (and I promise to sing its praises, and shortcomings on a post on the corresponding forum), I really disliked the new Dragon. There are various points I dislike, but my general opinion is that it was too simplified, made too much like ANY magazine on subject X… Short articles, really basic, I realize you need to get new readers, and keep the younger crowd attracted to the hobby, but I thought it seemed too far off the beaten path.
Sometimes innovation is good, but in my opinion this was not it. New feats and spells are ok, Ecologies are great, and the deadly sins article was fun, but the rest of the mag really had little to attract me. The news section, all the upcoming attractions and product spotlights were too much. These days most fans get the hot news online and the coverage just seems like cheap sales pitches. This done in small amounts, like before was ok, so many pages devoted to them well, it seemed like a waste.
Something for every class every issue sounds impractical and excessive, and a new race, well do we need more of those. Ok I’m ranting. I’ll give Dragon the benefit of the doubt, I’ve been reading it since number 112 after all, but the first impression was not positive.
However I am sold on Dungeon. I feel like and old cranky DM after writing this (and YES I do realize it is aimed at players now!). Here is hoping it gets better in a couple of issues. I’ll update this when the next issue comes in.
END OF RANT…
Sunglar
My first impression?
Meh.
Granted, there are some improvements including the removal of short fiction (now getting a full magazine treatment in AMAZING STORIES), the launch of one-page tip articles for each core classes, the return of the Ecology column, etc. but it is not enough for me to say "wow." Not even an unenthusiastic "wow."
And ever since you unveiled the new title art for DRAGON and DUNGEON magazine, I'm still not embracing it. One can hope I will be desensitized to it by the end of this year.
While I do find the "Samurai vs. Knight" article interesting, it is apparent the author (or DRAGON editor) decided NOT to reveal the outcome of the duel. Meh.
Oh, and just so you know, I'm still a bit miffed at your decision to cancel POLYHEDRON. For that, you will never win me over completely.
The following are my opinions only.
Following my receipt of the new Dragon magazine I had one thought. “If this is what I can expect from the future of Dragon I will be canceling my subscription.” Interestingly enough, it is the opposite of the new Dungeon. I love the changes to Dungeon, but the changes to Dragon are terrible.
I was extremely disappointed by the alternatives to detect evil; the Samurai vs. Knight article was of no interest or use and how many pages of advertisements do we need in the article? I think the last 10 pages were given over to WoTC books. All one needs to do is browse to their website and all this information is readily available.
I won’t continue. The magazine was disappointing and I hope it was just a hiccup and not the template for future issues.
Well, let me be among the first to congratulate you all at Paizo for the new look, and the message boards... These days most fans get the hot news online and the coverage just seems like cheap sales pitches. This done in small amounts, like before was ok, so many pages devoted to them well, it seemed like a waste.
Thanks!
Since most of the Dragon staff may be slow to respond as they are at Gen Con...
We do indeed hope to have lots of discussion of new products here on these boards. The 16-page "Buyer's Guide" of Wizards' products in the back of issue 323 is a quarterly (every third issue) catalog that Wizards is providing to give a quick snapshot of what products are available, new, and upcoming. Very useful for many (though perhaps not for the extremely Web-active) D&D players. And realize, it's an advertisement -- a very good thing in the magazine business! : )
Robert thanks for the quick reply. I realize Gen Con is a distraction (Oh woe us who cannot go!). I understand the catalog and can live with it. What I disliked more specifically was First Watch. I realize not all you readership is web addicted and needs to see what is coming up but so many pages dedicated to news that are old by now to most people… I don’t know.
I did forget to mention the cover. It was uninspired. Dungeon, great, Dragon… well its shredded paper with a dragon behind it, peek-a-boo!
I am not dropping the magazine; I still have hope and believe it may evolve in this new phase. I am not here to tear down the hard work you guys put into the magazine, I’m here to voice my opinion in the hopes it will be heard.
Have a GREAT day!
Sunglar
Note fist that as I live halfway across the globe I have not yet recieved dragon #323, and that my opinion is solely based on second-hand reviews.
I was disappointed when I first saw what was happening to dragon. My favorite article - dungeoncraft - is being moved to dungeon and in general it seems to be moving more to "crunch" (the kind of stuff you find in S&F, mainly new material) instead of "fluff" (advice, rules ideas, etc.) which I've always preferred. You can find spells, feats, items, classes, even campaign settings online. But quality advice, tips, and ideas is what I prefer to see in a d&d magazine.
If I'm mistaken regarding the fluff vs. crunch change then I apologize and am quite happy, seeing as I extended my subscription for two more years right before I heard about the new dragon.
Issue 323. Not good enough to have a subscription again. Next issue looks promising though.
Peace and smiles :)
j.
I Have been a subscriber to Dragon for the past 3 years and picked it up on a monthly basis for a few years before that. I also plan on subscribing to Dungeon. (when i can figure out a way to fit it into my budget heheh). I just wanted to say that i love both magazines. They have gotten better and better over the years and in my opinion the best is yet to come :) .
Now onto my thoughts on issue # 323. From what i have read so far i have to say i like it. The Samurai vs. Knight article was an interesting read. The only complaint i have is that it is 8 pages with no definative opinion given by the author. Although from what i gathered from the article Mr.Clements seems to favor the Knight but it would have been nice to have him give his own personal opinion on the outcome as i hate to form other people opinions for them :)
The Silicon Sorcery article giving D&D stats for the Chocobo was awesome. I am a huge Final Fantasy fan so this article was a definate treat. I would love to see more Final Fantasy creatures converted to D&D in future articles. Especially the Moogles. I love those little guys heheh.
Wel that is as far as i have gotten with the magazine. I will post more of my thoughts when i have had time to finish reading it.
Personally I wasn't that impressed with the new design, seemed kinda bland IMHO ... I actually posted my thoughts at: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97340&page=3
I've been a subscriber since early 3E, and was a subscriber back in the 1E days, so I've seen alot of changes to Dragon. Since you asked for what we liked and what we didn't, here are my opinions on issue 323.
Cover: I don't care for the new logo. The cover art wasn't as exciting as that of the new Dungeon.
First Watch: A mixed bag. I don't mind previews, but I'd prefer if it was more like the "In the Works" column on WOTC's site, giving some actual excerpts.
Scale Mail: Nice additions with the trivia question. I was devastated to learn that the Campaign Classics issue was not a success, as I thought it was one of the best issues since 3E began.
Player Initiative: This looks like a section I'll be skipping in the future.
Under Command: Although I do not use Miniatures rules, I find this feature to usually be an excellent resource (much like the wonderful Miniatures Handbook) for non-miniatures gaming. I could see incorporating any of these feats into my campaign.
A Novel Approach: I'm really excited about this feature. With so many great fantasy novels out there, this should be an easy column to keep up each issue.
Silicon Sorcery: I always look forward to Silicon Sorcery. Even if I have no interest in the game featured (like Final Fantasy), I can always use a new monster or magic item.
Zogonia, Nodwick, and Dork Tower: No changes here, still consistently entertaining.
Samurai vs Knight: My first reaction to this article...who cares? It was a very well-written article, and the author definitely knows his stuff, but it didn't give me any adventure ideas or other good "fluff" either. That is ten pages I would have rather seen devoted to gaming-related material.
Forgotten Realms - Demon Stone: I'd rather not see CRPG articles in Dragon, unless they have some sort of tie-in to pen-and-paper gaming (like Silicon sorcery). I subscribe to Dragon for pen-and-paper gaming, and pick up other magazines for computer gaming.
Seven Deadly Domains Spells For Sinners: Decent article. The swallow spell seems a bit overpowered, though.
See No Evil - Alternatives to the Detect Evil Spells: Well-written and interesting.
The Ecology of Chokers: Thanks for making Ecology a regular feature again.
Spellcraft: Another welcome regular feature. Well done.
Gaining Prestige: Although I think that there are far too many prestige classes, I realize that some people can't get enough of them. The spirit keeper seemed a bit too similar to the spirit shaman in Complete Divine and the ancestral speaker in Dragon 311.
The Magic Shop: Yet another welcome regular feature. You can't have too many magic items.
Heroic Feats: Not bad, although I really wish Dragon (and other official products) would quit reusing the names of things. Polyglot is already an epic feat, and has been around for several years.
Winning Races: I shudder at the thought of a new playable race in every issue. I think there is already a tremendous glut of unnecessary playable races, especially considering that many monsters now include a level adjustment and the rules for playing monsters are quite simple now. That said, the cyclopeans were at least an original concept, not just another watered-down version of another monster to get a lower ECL.
Class Acts: I found this to be a mixed bag. I'd rather see a few longer articles for a handful of classes than a one-page article for every class in every issue. The thane was interesting, as were the specialst familiars, bardic instruments, and ranger gear, and the new animal tricks was the real highlight for me. The other articles I could do
without.
Player Tips: This is probably a good article for newer players.
Adventurer Tips: Same as player tips. Good for novice players.
Sage Advice: I think that Andy will do a fine job of filling the shoes of Skip. However, I do have a minor nitpick: A 20th-level monk cannot be the recipient of enlarge person, as he is now an outsider, not a humanoid. :)
Coup de Grace: An interesting read.
Buyer's Guide: As long as this remains a bonus section, I don't mind it.
Overall, the new format reminded me of Cosmo or some other massive magazine with tons of tiny three-column articles and lots of white space.
Although my impressions of 323 are more negative than positive, the preview for issue 324 sounds promising.
I'm a bit concerned about the "players first" approach to Dragon, and Dungeon being the magazine for DMs. As both a player and a DM, I look forward to Dragon first and foremost
for new monsters, followed by new rules (like new uses for skills, articles on the planes, underwater adventures, and so on), and gaming advice (like Dungeoncraft). Now it may be true that Dungeon will contain much of this information in the future, but 75% of Dungeon is devoted to adventures, so I wouldn't really be getting much "bang for my buck" if I instead subscribed to Dungeon.
And one last request...bring back the Dragon's Bestiary!
Thanks for listening, and kudos on the site redesign.
|
I've been a subscriber since early 3E, and was a subscriber back in the 1E days, so I've seen alot of changes to Dragon. Since you asked for what we liked and what we didn't, here are my opinions on issue 323.
Cover: I don't care for the new logo. The cover art wasn't as exciting as that of the new Dungeon.
First Watch: A mixed bag. I don't mind previews, but I'd prefer if it was more like the "In the Works" column on WOTC's site, giving some actual excerpts.
Scale Mail: Nice additions with the...
|
|
I've tried posting something twice now. Maybe I overloaded the message length or something. Whatever. Here's my first impression, without the major rants I had before.
When I read "But wait, there's more!" in the From the Editor column, I knew things were going to be bad.
Unfortunately, I was right. I'm gonna test-post this, just so I don't rant on for another 45 minutes of typing before finding out that my message got cancelled again.
--Fleetfang
This is just a test post to see if my last went through already and I just can't see it.
Nope, damn. Too long.
I'm a magazine major, so this will be a long post. I can relate to your advertising woes. Advertisers have magazines by the short hairs guys. We're just luck that Wizards has such a vested interest in Dragon. Notice how the articles in the well (the main features section) are almost completely whole, uninterrupted by advertising. That's really hard to do and still make money. If we have to put up with a quarterly buyer's guide to keep things that way, I say so be it.
That said, I'm really concerned about the new editorial direction. I fear you've trapped yourself into doing around 25 departmental features every month (counting each class in Class Acts as one). Most of the stuff you have come up with for the premier issue wasn't worth our time. Probably 90% of new races aren't worthwile, but you plan to come up with 12 a year? Class Acts might have been okay articles on their own, but together they are a vast wasteland of ELEVEN pages. Eleven pages of soporific layout and fluff too weak to bother with. And I like fluff.
And doing so many departments left room for only four features. Departments are good, but features are the other half of why we buy your magazine. I liked Seven Deadly Domains. See No Evil was alright; it explored an interesting idea. Samuri vs. Knight felt like filler though. It wasn't even written for Dragon, it's been on the web for a while now. Sure, it was probably worth reprinting, but this was supposed to be your big re-vamp issue, and it worries me that you couldn't come up with original content. And finally, although I can see that Demon Stone was relevent enought to the pen and paper game to publish, if you're only going to do four features, PLEASE DON'T WASTE MY TIME WITH A VIDEO GAME.
I'm sorry to be so long-winded, but I love your magazine, and I'm afraid that this new editorial policy will straight-jakcet you and you're going to start churning out articles as worthless as your class acts on paladins every month. That would make me really sad. Please don't print an article on paladins (or anything else) until you have one worth being in Dragon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Phillip Longman
Um, sorry to double post that part. It gave me a message that said it couldn't post. I guess it lied.
Phillip,
I agree with most of your post (except the races ... I liked that ;)). The video game bit on Demon Stone seemed like a big ad personally, though I thought it was a good read to get people interested.
I'm hoping that we see some changes in the format over the next few issues ...
Oh, and just so you know, I'm still a bit miffed at your decision to cancel POLYHEDRON. For that, you will never win me over completely.
<i>Polyhedron</i> was fantastic. Problem was, the market for it has proven too small. For every person that loved it, there were a bunch more that were angry that it was taking up space in <i>Dungeon</i>.
- rob
Um, sorry to double post that part. It gave me a message that said it couldn't post. I guess it lied.
I'm pretty sure I've squashed that bug now.
- rob
|
I've already email you directly on this but I'll chime in here too!
From a graphic design standpoint this is freshman level stuff. Extremely rudimentary. Demos Stone was the only articale that had any meat to it. Whats with all the white space? Its wasting your advertising space and comes off as a corner cutting cop out. For me its very irritating. Maybe now one else cares and would prefer just straight text.
Can your G.A.s post their reasoning behind this design? Or, as I suspect, whoever cooked it up explain what they are going after?
Modern, clean, or what?
-blah
I agree. One of the things I've loved about Dragon since 3E is the willingness to try new things with design. Sure, it may not have always worked, but you didn't see any mainstream magazines using a building cross-section as a ToC. Why has it suddenly dropped back to such basic, boring stuff?
Dragon 323 stank.
I like the idea of Dungeon being DM oriented and Dragon having more player oriented content, but 323 seemed like it was 85% filler. While the upcoming product catalog for WOTC stuff was nice you didn't need to take up 25% of the magazine with it.
Really looked like the Dragon staff mailed it in early on this issue.
Dungeon, on the other hand, was uber cool!!
I'll buy another issue of Dragon at the newsstand before I drop cash to subscribe. It lay there, even now, upon my nightstand, undevoured. Not a good sign ...
----"I hope the content is better than the look"------
Not in issue 323!
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I haven't read the new magazine yet, but my first impressions are:
1) I like that the new cover got rid of the tabloid style text all over....now we can once again see the cover art - just wish this issue's art was more impressive to see. It was great for an ad campaign, but not so great for the cover.
2) Can you please move the D&D miniature stuff to Undefeated? Isn't that what your new magazine is for? I don't play the mini game, and I find that the RPG material presented in the articles on D&D minis is uninspired, as well as doesn't have the same feel/flavor as new material actually written for D&D in the first place.
I'm glad that you guys like the new look. The goal with the magazines (both Dungeon and Dragon) was to update the look to bring them in line with other magazines. One of the key things that has been keeping Dragon and Dungeon as perennial "hobby" magazines (even though millions of people play D&D) is that they did not look like a magazine, and by default, don't attract folks who buy magazines (even though those people play D&D).
We changed the masthead design to liven up the covers. From newsstand distance, the old mastheads were a messy jumble, and very anemic. With the new bold mastheads, we have a lot more freedom to cover up parts of it, use color in a distinct way, and so on, without losing the visibility of the name of the magazine.
For the interiors, we started from the ground up. The body face changed to the much more readable Scala and it's companion sans serif. The old body face for Dragon was Equipoize, which was not at all designed for long amounts of body text, nor was it particularly inviting. Typography should be invisible, otherwise your eye is distracted and your reading comprehension drops.
The new layout of the magazine was created to make reading the magazine fun. By opening up the articles with some white space, we have a lot more freedom. There aren't any less words in the magazine though, so you're not getting short changed. Scala sets much smaller on the body than Equipoize did, so we get more words in less space. That really allowed us to do some fun things with the design, while keeping everything light and easy to read.
The magazine is a living thing though, and we'll keep refining our vision as we go. I hope you'll all enjoy the ride.
Sean Glenn
Art Director Dungeon & Dragon magazines
Contributor
|
I really liked the new look of Dragon, actually. It felt like there was a LOT more content to it, and the content is a lot more interesting to read.
The Samurai versus Knight article was, IMHO, great. It's exactly the kind of piece Dragon used to do back in the day, and is great to see here. This applies double for the ecology article. Good ideas, nice art and it felt like something that was interesting for all involved.
That was our goal with including an article like that. Many of us here started reading Dragon back in the days of 1st edition, and we remembered the articles that weren't actually about the game, but rather helped you understand more completely the real-world inspirations behind it. So, when we were talking about the redesign, this is one of the types of articles we wanted to see come back.
These kinds of articles can also work very well to bridge the gap between D&D players and those around them (friends and family) who don't play. My parents, for example, have a subscription to Dragon even though they don't play the game and they don't really understand what all the game terms mean (yes, I've given them a quick little intro to get them a little bit up to speed). I like to think of articles such as "Knights vs. Samurai" as articles that my parents can read without any outside explanation. :) If you still live with your parents and they don't seem to understand or like your gaming, you can show them articles like that and say, "Look, I'm learning stuff!" ;)
I like the little gamer references and recommendations. This is what I want out of games magazine. And the Conan Knowledge Check? That made me laugh out loud.
Well, we like the same kinds of things that y'all like as well. Whenever we discover something neat, we want to point it out to our readers so they can also experience all the coolness. The Knowledge Check question was Matthew Sernett's idea, so props to him. :)
I also like the set of articles for each character class. Very nice, even if I don't know if I'd use any of it. It's still a good read.
Well, hopefully you'll be able to find something in one of the upcoming issues that piques your interest. :) With eleven choices every issues, you're bound to eventually find something you like!
Thanks for the feedback!
I was somewhat dissapointed by all of the seeming "white space" in the new look of the magazine, but found most of the content pretty ok.
|
|
SEAN GLENN!
Sooo, uh can you post some of your teams design influences? Websites or mags that led you to use this exciting new fresh paradigm thats so totally awesome.
In particular, can you explain what you mean by this: "The new layout of the magazine was created to make reading the magazine fun. By opening up the articles with some white space, we have a lot more freedom." Sounds like boardroom mumbo jumbo, dontcha think? Arent we past that?
How is white space more 'fun'? what 'freedom' does it give you, besides always being able to meet deadlines?
Dont turn this into a Fox News thing and cherry pick what posts you reply too, either. 80% of the posts gave a thumbs down to the white space layout and the one post you reply to is in the minority of those that actually liked, which I'd love an explanation for.
Anyhows,
just some straight up questions from a Print/Web guy.
Thanks for your time,
|
|
Krail is right. I appreciate the fact that the editorial staff etc is posting replies in this forum, but please don't play the party line. If you guys want our opinions (and by opening up these message boards, that is what you are inviting), then don't IGNORE what the majority of us have to say.
I'm going to try one more time to post what my first impressions were. Hopefully, my connection to the board won't get all fubared...
Let me note that I'm not trying to be beligerent here. I obviously feel strongly about DRAGON, and I want it to be a better magazine. That's the place that I'm coming from in writing all of this.
ISSUE 323.
In my opinion, pound for pound, or rather OUNCE FOR OUNCE, this was one of the worst issues of DRAGON I've read in the past four and a half years that I've been reading it. If not THE worst.
The whole issue seemed to be one big infomercial that started with "But wait, there's more!" and ended with -what?- seventeen pages of ads. And it's not like the catalog (sorry, "BUYER'S GUIDE") told us much of anything that anyone who is going to be picking up DRAGON didn't already know. The First Watch section tells us everything we need to know about what's going to be coming up... And if that isn't enough, in Under Command, we got a sidebar that was such a thinly veiled ad for the MHB that I was struck speechless by it. Next time, perhaps the informative sidebars that are breaking up all of this god-awful white space can have a handy page reference to the 'Buyer's Guide' for the reader's *convenience*. "Don't wait! Act now! Turn to page XX and order it today!" ... gah.
[continued]
|
|
I realize that the catalog is all ad space paid for by WotC, and that it's only going to be there once every three months. But don't try to play it off as an idea that you got from reader suggestions. This is a corporate initiative to sell more stuff. It's not there for my convenience. I never asked for it, I don't want it, and frankly, if the people in the First Watch department are doing their job, it's completely redundant.
Please don't try to pass off advertising as content. In the catalog or in the sidebars scattered throughout the magazine. It would be refreshing to see an unbiased account of new materials that are released. If there's something keeping Paizo from an unbiased review of WotC books, then why not review something published under the d20 license? Mongoose and Malhavoc both release books all the time it seems. Yet I know nothing about whether I should buy them or not. Give us information, not advertising.
White space in the design... White white white. Perhaps the new design is supposed to make us snowblind in preparation for Frostburn's release next month.
It does NOT make an attractive magazine. If the layout people learned that it makes words easier to read and therefore content easier to process, that's fine. But it does NOT make for a better magazine. I don't know of anyone who has been so distracted by colorful graphics or the old font (which I really didn't realize I liked so much until it was gone) that they've had trouble comprehending what an article is about. Bring back the graphics and the color. We need it. Artwork sparks our imaginations and makes articles MORE comprehensible, more memorable, and -yes, I believe- more accessible to new readers.
An example: Two kids, Albert and Bernie have never played D&D before. Albert picks up issue 322 because he sees some creepy guy looking at him. Flipping through it, he sees dark castles of shadow, adventurers exploring a cave by torchlight, pages that look like they're out of old tomes, and creepy characters in long robes. Bernie picks up issue 323 and also flips through it. He sees for the most part black text on a stark, clear, clean field of white, a two-page picture of a Samurai and a knight, what looks like a lot of products that are coming out, some plastic minis on a white field, a big article on a video game, and a catalog, which is oddly more colorful than 90% of the rest of the magazine.
Does it really matter that the text is easier to read or that the articles might be scientifically proven to be more easily understood? Albert's imagination has been sparked. He's more likely to read the magazine, to buy it, and maybe learn more about Dungeons & Dragons. And Bernie? Well, Bernie's already moved on over to the comic book rack to find something that's more interesting to look at.
I don't know if your boys in marketing have numbers that contradict this or not, but all this revamping in the look, making it "more accessible" to someone who doesn't play D&D...
You don't need to dumb it down for the readers. If you do, you'll only wind up alienating your core audience. In an attempt to draw in new readers, you'll alienate the people who care about this hobby and really want DRAGON to be THEIR SOURCE for new D&D information and material every month.
I think Albert and Bernie are the exception to a general rule.
Suzy Browser at the local Borders Bookstore probably isn't going to pick up a DRAGON and buy it any more than I would glance twice at Yu-Gi-Oh the Magazine. I don't play the game; I'm not going to buy the magazine. I think the best way to draw in new readers is to put out the best dang gamer magazine on the shelves. Then gamers like me will tell my friends how awesome the latest issues have been and how they should pick it up too. Random people in an airport bookstore are more likely to buy Amazing Fantasy than a magazine that is attached to a game that they do not play.
[continued again]
|
|
Don't alienate your core audience of dedicated D&D gamers in an attempt to court beginners or people who have never played (or maybe even heard of) D&D before. If all that DRAGON offers are the basics that dedicated players already know, then what reason do dedicated gamers have to continue buying it every month?
This hard-core "please the masses" marketing revamp brings me to my next point. It seems like the whole idea of putting eleven different micro-columns in Class Acts every issue is another attempt to put something in for everyone. I can understand the desire to appeal to the masses...
But I think you need to ask, at what point are we getting declining returns from this style of content?
To me, it's akin to firing a shotgun at a dart board in the hopes of hitting the bull's eye. Sure, you've got a good chance of hitting it, but what's the point? The dart board has been blown to smithereens in the process!
Sure, perhaps once a month, you'll have one reader say "wow, those new Animal Tricks really made the issue for me," but at what cost? I certainly wasn't impressed with the Class Acts.... the articles were far too short. There's just not much that an author can do with one page. There were ideas that would have been much better if fleshed out in even just two or three more pages each.
Why not do Class Acts on a rotation? Month 1: Rogues, Paladins, Wizards, and Druids. Month 2: Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. Month 3: Socerers, Clerics, Fighters, and Rangers. Then repeat.
The funny thing is that even with specialized theme issues, there used to be such detail that readers could find something to use pretty much every month anyway. By trying to hit everything in such a shallow way, that probably isn't going to happen as often. And -no offense to the poster who said that the Druid tricks made the issue for him- a one page article is not going to "make the issue" for most people.
As a design side note, I'm wondering if every month we're going to be looking forward to seeing the same four year old stock art for the Iconic characters on these eleven pages of Class Acts. If you thought it was Unleashed and exciting now, wait until 5 months down the line when you're trying to track down the one useful page you saw in Class Acts for the Sorcerer... Was it in issue 275 or 276? Who knows? the page looks exactly the same every month!
Please don't do this.
So I've touched on the short micro articles. Now I turn to the Samurai vs. Knight feature article... This just made me angry. In my mind, it rivals the whitewashed ideas in that Art of War article that was printed a year or two ago.
Ten pages. TEN. Devoted to a long series of hypothetical situations and variables that the author would inevitably throw out, almost as soon as he brought them up. Ten pages of text that led to six words. "The better fighter wins the fight." Great. We could have had a whole lot more white space in the magazine if we'd deleted the entire article except for that sentence. At least I wouldn't have wasted so much time reading to the completely senseless conclusion.
Ten pages that might otherwise have been used to flesh out the ideas in Class Acts. Or give us more magic items. Or give CoupdeGrace some room to actually SAY something. I was interested in the idea of how a book comes to print, but there really wasn't room to say much more than "Well these guys come up with some ideas, then they pass it to these other guys to test it out, and then this other list of people edit it." Not very enlightening. This kind of thing deserves a series of articles akin to the old DungeonCraft articles. If something is worth telling, take the time AND GIVE THE AUTHORS THE SPACE to tell it to us correctly. In the detail it deserves.
Let me reiterate: DRAGON is the official D&D magazine. Stick to D&D. If I wanted a fantasy genre magazine, I'd pick up a fantasy genre magazine. If I want a video-game magazine, I'll pick up a video game magazine.
Alright. I have other things to say, but I think this is more than enough to get y'all started.
Please don't ignore our voices. DRAGON hasn't always been a great magazine, but in the last few years, I feel like it has done a fine job bringing pen-and-paper gamers new content, both crunch and fluff, information about new releases, and events happening in the gaming community. But the "unleashed" version feels like a very large step backward.
I've been reading since issue 260 (not counting a year or two back in the early 90s). I'm going to ride this through for about two more issues. But if things continue as they are, and we see no sign of change on the horizon, and the good people in charge of the magazine continue to ignore the comments that we, their readers, have to say, then #325 would probably be a nice round number to end my collection at. I love reading about D&D and getting new information every month, but honestly, if issue 323 is an indication of what DRAGON will be offering in the future, NOT buying it would be one of the easiest things I've ever done.
Please remember that this has all come from a reader who wants DRAGON to be the best magazine that it can be. To everyone who read all the way through this novella, thanks for reading. If you agree with me, please speak up. And if you don't, please put me in my place.
Thanks again,
Fleetfang
|
Contributor
|
Hi Mike,
Just wanted to say thanks for the new Handle Animal tricks. That one page made the whole issue for me.
Thanks Todd!
It was fun to work on. :)
Hopefully you'll also find future druid class acts just as useful. There are some pretty sweet ones coming up (I love druids, in case you couldn't tell). ;) Oh, and of course, there are pretty sweet class acts articles for all the classes--even a few that almost made me want to play the classes I don't like! ;D
Mike
|
Contributor
|
Krail is right. I appreciate the fact that the editorial staff etc is posting replies in this forum, but please don't play the party line. If you guys want our opinions (and by opening up these message boards, that is what you are inviting), then don't IGNORE what the majority of us have to say.
Hi Fleetfang,
Thanks for posting! We don't ignore anything anyone ever writes to us. We love the game and the magazine as much as you do, and we want to do what we can to make it better for as many people as we can (while staying within our limitations). :)
So if we don't respond to a negative post, it isn't because we don't value your opinion (we can't fix what we don't know is broken, after all), but it's because there's sometimes not really anything for us to say. If someone doesn't like an issue of the magazine, all we can really say is "Sorry you didn't like that one. Hopefully you'll like this next one." :)
In my opinion, pound for pound, or rather OUNCE FOR OUNCE, this was one of the worst issues of DRAGON I've read in the past four and a half years that I've been reading it. If not THE worst.
It pains us to hear you didn't like that one (it was fun to work on). :( Hopefully you'll like 324 better (it was also fun to work on). :)
Please don't try to pass off advertising as content. In the catalog or in the sidebars scattered throughout the magazine. It would be refreshing to see an unbiased account of new materials that are released. If there's something keeping Paizo from an unbiased review of WotC books, then why not review something published under the d20 license? Mongoose and Malhavoc both release books all the time it seems. Yet I know nothing about whether I should buy them or not. Give us information, not advertising.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean as passing off advertising as content. One of our goals with the new Dragon is to bring together all D&D players in a nice happy family of gamers (but with super-heavy emphasis on the traditionalist pen-and-paper roleplayers). One way to do that is to show you tidbits of other versions of the game, such as sneak previews of miniatures from upcoming sets. :)
Dragon used to have reviews of books and other RPGs and whatnot, but they were unpopular. Besides, the internet now provides that sort of service much better than we could. :) As far as covering 3rd party materials, again, the internet can serve you much better than we ever could. :)
(A bunch of stuff...)
Fleetfang,
Thanks again for your feedback. I know the Dragon staff worked hard integrating customer suggestions into the current incarnation of the magazine and will continue to do so.
Of course, reasonable people can and obviously do disagree about most everything and any project certainly won't please all the people all the time. But we'll keep trying! : )
I'm happy to address some of the comments here.
White Space
Dragon is not InQuest. Or Realms of Fantasy. Or Maxim. Or any other magazine. It has elements similar to those, but InQuest is full of reviews, and we have some reviews. Realms of Fantasy is all short stories. We have articles that run the length of a short story. Maxim is full of tiny tidbits you can read while doing your, um... business. Dragon has small bits in the front matter, and back end of the magazine.
In order to address all of these vastly different kinds of articles, and keep a visually interesting magazine (without it becoming a chaotic morass of "where do I look now, where do I look now!"), we opted to use white space to open up magazine, to make it feel less crowed, and make it an easier read. Those department articles needed to look very different from the features, so we opened it with a large title and white space on the left. This is the signal that the article is beginning.
Some people hate white space because they feel like it should be filled with text. Those folks also seem to think that the designers (or editors) are somehow "stealing" content away from them. This is simply not the case. The articles are not shorter, they are in fact just as long as before. We changed typefaces to increase readability, and in doing so, chose a typeface that is more compact, giving us more bang for our buck, so we could pull all the design tricks we needed to, in order to make the magazine more accessible.
The Catalog
The Wizards' catalog seems to have bothered a lot of folks (again, those who didn't care, or liked it, are probably not posting about it - I assume that those who liked and use the catalog are not on the internet consistently, checking for new release news on Wizards' website). I know that some of you feel as though we could have used that space for something else. Let me pull back the curtain a bit for you. The magazine works in 16 page blocks. That's the way it gets printed. When WotC approached us about the catalog, we knew we would only do it if we could add 16 pages to the magazine, making sure we weren't taking any space away from the rest of the articles. Without that section, issue 323 would have been 16 pages shorter. The folks who wanted to be updated about WotC's releases got 16 free pages to keep them updated. Those of you who didn't want a catalog got 16 pages that were free and that you don't have to read. No one stole anything from you.
The Masthead
Some people have said it's "retro." It's not. The design is based on letterforms from the late 19th century England, which in turn were inspired by calligraphy from several centuries before, including uncial designs. It was chosen to give us a bold, solid logo, one which stood up against other magazines on the newsstand, which is where the magazines have the most trouble being seen, and gives us the most potential new customers. Without new customers and new subscribers, the magazine cannot continue.
However, we are not looking to bring non-gamers into the hobby with the magazine. Our audience is being expanded to include those who have picked up the PHB, the DMG, and have played a couple games (or haven't had a chance to yet). These folks don't know that Dragon and Dungeon exist. In it's prior incarnation, Dragon didn't serve the interests of these folks very well (and there are hundreds of thousands of these potential readers, and those folks could very well be the people you will game with at Gen Con, or at your FLGS). We need the magazine to reach out to them, and a big part of that is having a design that stands out on the shelves, that is easy to read and access, and is full of cool information, useful to a wide variety of players. That includes covering cool D&D video games, cool books, and having articles that show off cool ways to play D&D.
That being said though, we know that you guys, the current readers and current subscribers, need to be engaged with the magazine as well. It's a tough mix of demographics to serve, and I'm sure there will be a few bumps and hiccups along the way.
Sean Glenn
Art Director Dragon and Dungeon magazines
|
|
Robert and Mike,
Thanks for the replies. In retrospect, even with my disclaimers, the all caps on "worst" was a bit harsh. My APOLOGIES. :)
But like I said, I've come to look forward to each month's DRAGON hitting the store shelves, and I really liked what was going on with it, especially the last couple issues. That, and the fact that DUNGEON was likely one of the BEST issues ever, I guess I had raised the bar unbelieveably high for you guys. Consider it a friendly challenge.
By the way, I didn't want to dilute my massively-massive post's points, but I really enjoyed the return of the ECOLOGY feature. That kind of thing is always, and will always be, good content. Also, the SEE NO EVIL and the SEVEN DEADLY DOMAINS articles were also quite well done. In fact, they could have made a good couple of cornerstones for an issue based on Sin. I like the idea of Themes for each issue. It makes it far easier to reference articles later. Hopefully that'll re-emerge in the coming months.
I'll be around for a while still. Nope, ya haven't heard the last from me, heh heh... ;) You can bet I'll let you know what I'm thinking in the future.
With high hopes,
--FF
|
Contributor
|
I'll be around for a while still. Nope, ya haven't heard the last from me, heh heh... ;) You can bet I'll let you know what I'm thinking in the future.
With high hopes,
--FF
Thanks! :) We look forward to more honest opinions in the future. It helps us make better magazines when we know what our readers like. :)
|
Contributor
|
Right,
One further thing to add. I actually was interested in the WotC buyer's guide at the end. I understand that you need ads to keep publishing, so one concentrated block is better than split up articles in my mind.
That said, I think I do have to call you on content not being shorted because of the inclusion. I seem to recall the magazine running roughly 112 pages per issue for the last little while, with ads scattered throughout. This issue ended at page 94 (96??) before the WotC supplement and there were still ads in the rest of the magazine.
Cheers :-)
I'm sure Wizards of the Coast will be glad to hear you like the buyer's guide. :)
Just to clarify: Dragon is usually 108 pages or so. The buyer's guide begins on page 113 and is 16 pages long, with one more one-page column after it. :)