I'd like to believe that, but I just don't see them publishing something with a modern-day or sci-fi slant, for example. Perhaps not even a "meta-genre" like horror unless it was in a D&D fantasy context. Something on very specific subgenre like comic book superheroics? Seems even more unlikely.
I think it would also take more than me sending in an article (something I would so love to do, but am handicapped by my totally lack of interest in and knowledge of the current D&D rules set). I think such articles would have to be actively requested and solicited.
There are some really talented and creative folks on the RPG.Net forums, for example, including a lot of pro and semi-pro game designers. I'd bet that if the Dragon staff were to post there requesting submissions with the only guidelines being maximum word counts and subject matter that relates to any facet of gaming today, there would be a deluge of incredible submissions. I think a large segment of the hobby would bend over backwards for a magazine that would publish the occasional non-D&D-related article.
But now I'm just daydreaming. :)
I'd like to believe that, but I just don't see them publishing something with a modern-day or sci-fi slant, for example. Perhaps not even a "meta-genre" like horror unless it was in a D&D fantasy context. Something on very specific subgenre like comic book superheroics? Seems even more unlikely.
This actually ties into a current "theme" of books coming from WotC. This month released "Heroes of Battle." As I recall, there's a "Heroes of Horror" slated for the future, and a few others as well.
Amazon.com link to Heroes of Horror (I'd link directly the WotC catalog, but the site is blocked at my office ;) )
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I should note that the Polyhedron mini-games covered much of the genre territory you mention, Yamo. They were very popular with some readers, and very unpopular with others. One of the unfortunate byproducts of an "all-D&D" focus over the course of the last decade or so is that most of our readers are rabidly against anything without a concrete tie to D&D.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
In all fairness, Erik, the mini-games were also friggin' HUGE. At least relative to a normal five or six page article. There was never a point in Dragon's history where Dungeons & Dragons wasn't the focus of the magazine by a wide margin, but people didn't seem to mind the occasional non-fantasy or non-D&D gaming article that much if it was well-done and not an entire magazine unto itself.
It's a matter of scale, you know?
What's most disappointing to me is that for awhile there, the magazine seemed to be a testing ground for material that would eventually see a "hardcover" release later from WotC. And now, Paizo proactically refuses to acknowledge any of the material from a lot of these releases (Mr. Mona's statement re: not seeing any of the Class Acts devoted to any of the twelve new core classes from the 'Complete...' books and so on). (I was surprised to see so much space devoted to the warlock in the latest issue's 'Sage' column, actually . . . )
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
We've got nothing against the new material in the Wizards books. My campaign features, for example, a scout and a ninja, both of which appear in a "Complete" book. We all like the warlock.
We'll periodically provide support for these classes, but I want to keep Class Acts, in the main, focused on the core classes.
Wizards continues to republish material that frist saw print in Dragon. The newly released "Champions of Ruin," for example, included spells from James Jacobs's "Tvash-Prull's Symphony" article in #328. I have no reason to expect this trend to change.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
I gotta admit, I could seriously do without the silicon sorcery section. For the most part it's pretty much useless to me. Does anyone else find a use for it?
On the idea of "meatiness", I would say that recent issues have been very meaty. Lot's of good stuff in there. I've been able to find at least one thing in every issue in the past year to add into my campaign. I don't think I could ask for anything more than that really.
One thing that does disturb me though is seeing lengthy articles devoted to products which are pretty removed from core. Take the recent Kenku ecology. It's very well written. Interesting take on a critter that's been around for, well forever. However, it's so much bird cage lining for me since they didn't bother to give me the updated stats for Kenku. I'm not about to go and buy yet another monster manual just so I can use an article from Dragon, no matter how interesting it is. How difficult would it have been to get permission to publish the OGL information for Kenku? A simple stat block entry would have turned this article from, "Hmm, that's interesting." to "Hey, great, a new race for my urban campaign!"
Since I don't think I'm going to see Ecology articles based on Asaatthi or Vengaurak, I don't think it's out of line to not expect lengthy articles advertising recent WOTC publications.
I gotta admit, I could seriously do without the silicon sorcery section. For the most part it's pretty much useless to me. Does anyone else find a use for it?
I don't know. I rather like the idea of having a chocobo for a paladin's special mount. "Wark."
GGG
Actually, I'd forgotten about the Chokobo thing. I actually used that one for a "horse" race session in my campaign. Oops, I guess I do read it. Heh. My bad.
I don't know. I rather like the idea of having a chocobo for a paladin's special mount. "Wark."
GGG
I'm with you there. I really think it'd be a fun thing to toss into a Eberron campaign. There ARE magebred animals already. A magebred Chocobo would be really fun IMO. "I feel the need, the need for SPEED!"
I started being able to afford my own Dragons when issue #48 came out. It was magic.
I then collected every Dragon back to 25 and few earlier issues. Got on board subscribing with Dungeon when it first came out, have all the issues.
I also have all of the Strategic Reviews. Bought them for a buck a piece.
Well bully for me.