"I believe the Dragon is now slumping. It has reached a humid level of mediocrity. Each issue is fiercely average, composed with a seeming philosophy that 'one good article, if long enough, will makeup for the banal remainder.' And when the 'big one' fails, the entire issue flags."
You know, I really have found this to be true. The only Dragon issues that I've really enjoyed lately have been the ones with the awesome Demoniomcon articles. Everything else...eh. Forgotten as soon as it's read (or even AS it's read).
Now, if I contrast that with Dungeon where each issue is packed with amazing stuff like Whispering Cairn, Diamond Lake and the Chamber of Antiquities and there's a world of difference. There's still some dross, like Shards of Eberron, but it's in the minority compared to the mass of compelling, sunstantial work.
Class Acts has got to go. The articles are simply not long enough to explore an idea to any meaningful degree. The best ones just get going and have to end. The worst never get started at all and just blather. Most fall unsatisfyingly somewhere in between - the wrong side of average.
I do not feel I would be qualified to judge too many articles themselves as I am not the creative type, but yes, Class acts are the biggest waste of 11 pages in every issue.
I can however analyze at some things from a practical point of view. There is the practical matter of sheer page count. Pre-Paizo page counts were higher and now they are pared back with less pages at higher prices. I expect prices to always go up, but I would think that inflation inflation increased price would keep page count the same. Then, what is going on in advertising? A few of the issues were did not have the big advertising/classified section except for Paizo offerings pages. Then I have to go thru 8+ pages of what Paizo has to offer. Outside advertising keeps costs down. Paying to advertise your own wares does not increase revenue on the magazine, though you might get intagible benefit of having people go to the website.
But right there that is about 20 pages that could be reformatted.
|
I don't know how I missed this thread originally. A few thoughts.
Specifics.Class Acts has got to go. The articles are simply not long enough to explore an idea to any meaningful degree. The best ones just get going and have to end. The worst never get started at all and just blather. Most fall unsatisfyingly somewhere in between - the wrong side of average.
I'd actually like to agree here. I think Class Acts was a good idea, but I don't like the way it has been developed. Most of them are a waste of a page. The good ones are often too short. They also don't support any non-core classes, which is a shame. I'd love to see fewer Class Acts in each issue, but not necessarily fewer pages devoted to it. Instead of one for each base class each month, why not 2-4 classes each month. One or two base classes, and then some "non-core" classes, either from the Complete books, a campaign setting, or the Psionics Handbook. I think the paizo staff should seriously consider trying to get more mileage out of each column, and combine them together. And I adore useful lists. For example, providing a list of bard spells that don't require somatic components is a very nice feature. Any time I become grappled, I can look to that for some quick options. It's even better for wizards.
I believe the Dragon is now slumping. It has reached a humid level of mediocrity. Each issue is fiercely average, composed with a seeming philosophy that “one good article, if long enough, will makeup for the banal remainder.” And when the “big one” fails, the entire issue flags. While usually “one good article” is to be found, even if it is not the “feature,” this hardly makes the magazine a success.
The last issue that I was excited about was issue #301, which came out in 2002. That was an issue that I carried around to gaming with me for months, and I really enjoyed it. There hasn't been a single issue that has been close to that level of quality for me personally. So, I'm somewhat inclined to agree. There are a few articles that I think are kind of interesting, but there hasn't been an issue where I'm amazed. And I guess it hurts that I used to like Dragon best, but I'm firmly in the Dungeon camp at the moment.
I also don't need any campaign specific material. But I will remain a loyal reader regardless of what they choose to include (for the forseeable future at least). Still, I think you're probably right, GVDammerung, that Dragon might be chasing too many "impulse buyers". There are a number of people who will buy the magazine if Forgotten Realms is featured prominently on the cover, but they won't buy an issue if it is not. If too much campaign specific material is featured in Dragon, I might not even read it.
However, some campaign specific material works because it is generally of high quality. I think the City Article on Crymmer (sp?) works even for home brew campaigns. Developing a location to drop into a game is a useful feature. Considering Dungeon's recent "Backdrop" articles, it might seem like a good fit with Dungeon. I don't see any reason to make all such articles Realms specific, but more fleshed out "pieces" of a game world will likely find a way into my game.
I think some of your suggestions have merit, and I hope they'll consider it. I don't know if the Dragon I want can be sustained in a user-submission based format. I wonder if the magazine could be "request based", with reader submissions rounding out the magazine.
I for one am hoping for some improvements. I recently gave Dragon a 4 star rating on Amazon.com, but there is a huge difference between four and five stars, and I have to say I think Dragon is slipping dangerously close to three.
|
I really like the direction Dragon went lately.
I don’t really care for the lenght of the articles as long as they’re contentful and don’t contain nearly useless charts or similar page-fillers (this didn’t happen lately but i remember something like this from early 300-issues).
A lenghty article is a great way to go in depth and to focus on unusual but interesting aspects and not only scratch surfaces.
The Far Realm- article and the recent installments of the Demonomicon are great examples for using these opportunities in a right way.
I loved the description of Fraz-Urb’luus realm and would never have expected something like this.
Regarding the class-acts i have to agree with GVDammerung.
I think the limitation to one page per class robs it of a lot of potential.
Does there have to be a class-act for every class in every issue?
Maybe the concept could be changed a little so that there’d be the possibility to feature articles with a little more depth.
I also found recently that many class-acts are not limited to one class only and are quite generic.
Maybe it would be possible to limit the number of class acts to five per issue with a good mix of one-pagers and longer articles, of generic and class-specific stuff. As long as every class gets its treatment regular this could be a way to make the concept a little more interesting.
I’d also like to see the return of Campaign Components. I found this a great concept with a lot of potential.
More ‘Cities Of The Planes’ would be cool too because i really loved the two articles that have been published.
But regarding the recent run of ‘Cities Of The Realms’ i guess we won’t get to see further installments of the series in the near future.
Maybe it is possible to continue ‘Cities Of The Planes’ sometimes next year. I’d still be interested.
What i really cannot understand is the whole generic vs. specific setting-discussion.
In my twenty years of GMing i can’t remember using published stuff that i didn’t modify in some way to suit my game.
And i don’t even play in a published setting.
I find every article in Dragon more or less generic and i can’t understand readers that seem to be scared off by the mentioning of a specific setting-name like FR or Eberron.
I find useful stuff in nearly every article, be it a new spell, an adventure hook or similar stuff.
RPG, in my opinion, always requires a little work and fantasy by the GMs themselves.
I never expected Dragon to deliver me stuff i can use on the fly without having to change something.
If you’re looking for something like this, you’ll be disappointed for sure.
The magazine has thousands of readers with an endless variety of opinions of what’s cool and what they like in their game and it’s absolutly impossible to suit the needs of everyone.
If people would reduce their expectations towards the magazine a little, they’d find that there’s something in there for everyone.
If i can’t find useable crunchy stuff in an article it often just fuels my imagination to create something myself.
And when i’m disappointed by a, in my opinion, poorly thought-out article, it kicks my imagination towards creating something that i like more.
You can get inspiration out of nearly everything in there.
For example, i won’t use Crimmor in my game, not even the map ‘cause i always draw them myself, but there are some ideas or names in there i could use in my own game sometimes.
So this article is useful to me and not a useless waste of space like many readers complained.
Even stuff from Eberron which really hasn’t anything in common with my campaign has been useful to me in a certain way.
I think every article can be generic in some way if people take some time and think about what they like in there.
Alright, i’ll stop rambling now.
I want to say thanks to the people at both magazines for their courage to try new stuff and for delivering quality work.
Greetings from germany.
A lenghty article is a great way to go in depth and to focus on unusual but interesting aspects and not only scratch surfaces.
The Far Realm- article and the recent installments of the Demonomicon are great examples for using these opportunities in a right way
i will agree completely with this assessment. there are some really good articles being turned out in the medium to long sizes. i get a lot of inspiration from these articles, regardless of 'setting' or 'realm'...
Regarding the class-acts i have to agree with GVDammerung.
I think the limitation to one page per class robs it of a lot of potential.
Does there have to be a class-act for every class in every issue?
Maybe have just two 'class-act' articles a month, with thier length expanded into the spaces left by the single-pages evaporating?
More ‘Cities Of The Planes’ would be cool too because i really loved the two articles that have been published.
But regarding the recent run of ‘Cities Of The Realms’ i guess we won’t get to see further installments of the series in the near future.
Maybe it is possible to continue ‘Cities Of The Planes’ sometimes next year. I’d still be interested.
cities of *any* kind are valuable.
i don't understand the reaction to Crimmor's write up, either. Greenwood will get long-winded in prose, but his magazine articles (because of the limitations forced on them) tend to be much leaner and cleaner. while Crimmor was a little flowery in description for me, it was still a solid example of good setting development.
my USD $0.02: Paizo has really opened themselves to a unique vector of feedback with the forums on the website. i just hope they have the stomach to wade thru it all without becoming demoralized.
What i really cannot understand is the whole generic vs. specific setting-discussion.
In my twenty years of GMing i can’t remember using published stuff that i didn’t modify in some way to suit my game.
ditto - spoon-feeding gets old. however, inspiration does not.
i'll agree with the initial thought in this thread; Dragon is not at the same place as Dungeon with regards to quality. however, i don't believe it will take all that much effort to make it shine as brightly as Dungeon.
my recommendations:
- consolidate the class-acts stuff into fewer, longer class-acts articles
- keep focusing on those articles which provide real content, regardless of setting (if it's an Eberron article, it's an Eberron article - the rest of us will adapt).
- take posts in these forums with a grain of salt. if they didn't care, it would be quiet. too quiet.
Maybe have just two 'class-act' articles a month, with thier length expanded into the spaces left by the single-pages evaporating?
I actually like the class acts and like them in the magazine. Now I don't like them all, every issue, but I can usually find a good idea in there. I wouldn't mind at all if the articles were merged into fewer but longer articles of the same sort. I don't feel that I need to see an article for each core class in every issue.
Rooster
Wow, many thought-provoking posts here.
I've only time for a few quick thoughts:
1) Yes, take these postings with a grain of salt; overall Erik & company have done a great job and I believe even the most regular complainers care deep down.
That being said (wink) :
2) Reduce the Class Acts to half. Feature half the classes one issue and the "missed" classes the next (lest we get the "Dragon favors Druids over Rangers!" compaints next!) -- but cut them down. Let's make room for 1 or 2 more medium-size articles so Dragon doesn't seem so loop-sided.
3) Bring back detailed reviews of non-WotC products. I loved the old Dragon reviews in the past (such as Lester Smith's comparison of Shapeshifters, Wiz-War, et al. in #189 or Swan's "Horror on the Orient Express" review in #185 -- that was good reading) and miss them. In this OGL era Wizards shouldn't feel threatened by Dragon speaking about other publishers' products (most of which Paizo advertises anyway).
Web reviews are admittedly plentiful but often uneven or biased, and I'd love to see well-written reviews by industry professionals of products by Necromancer, Troll Lords, Goodman Games, Malhavok Press, etc., to help me sail through the ever-expanding d20 ocean.
Just my 2 bits.
Think of an article you'd like to see in Dragon.
How's abouts sending in a proposal?
- rob
"Think of an article you'd like to see in Dragon.
How's abouts sending in a proposal?"
I would love to...
...but I don't use WotC's D&D rules and I'm not willing to learn them to the degree that would be neccessary to do them justice in an article.
It's too bad...
Creative Director
|
Good advice, I suppose, but what does this have to do with the price of green groceries? In this thread, I think we are speaking of what could/should/might make for a better Dragon generally. A single article will not a better Dragon make in this context.
A single article is the start. Dragon and Dungeon have always been magazines shaped in part by the readers. One article won't change much, but a dozen good articles will.
The chances of a new magaizne starting up now here at Paizo are 0%. Anything's possible in the future, of course, but there's a LOT more to starting a magainze than just having a stack of editorial content, especailly when that proposed content might already have a prospective home in Dragon or Dungeon.
I don't mean to be facetious, but surely all magazines are primarily composed of what the editor's like? I think -if I understand your point correctly- you are trying to say that Dragon's content should be based upon what the fans want right?
So then maybe we should discuss if the current content actually is what the readers want (which is presumably the point of this thread).
From my perspective, I switched over from a "browse and maybe, if I liked what I saw, buy" reader to a subscriber because of the rumors of the relaunch. The many departments, with the promise of something for everyone seemed like a good idea to me. As the song says, you can't always get what you want, but maybe, if there's enough stuff in each issue you'll always get something.
Personally I was leery of the giant articles when they started to appear, but so far they've all been quite good (gotta love those Demonomicons :) ). The fact that they tend to contain lots of secondary material related to the main theme also makes sure there's a little something for everyone.
I'm only one reader among many so I don't think it's possible to get a magazine that perfectly suits my needs all the time. For instance, I rather liked "Player's Tips" and "Adventurer Tricks" but apparently lots of others didn't so they got chopped.
My favorite articles in the last year or so have both been "advicey", offering up new ways to use the existing rules (both by Mike Mearls I believe). One on fighting in the dark (Who's afraid of the Dark) and the other on clever ways to use equipment found in the PHB (Bedrolls and Bells? something like that :)).
So I would advocate a balanced approach, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, rather then tilting the magazine too far towards the taste of one particular type of gamer.
Your submission guidelines are antiquated and inefficient. You need to SOLICIT very SPECIFIC types of articles. You need to rewrite the submission guidelines to say other than - “Tell us what you’d like to write.” They should say that but also - “Here’s some things we’d like to see” with a web address for an updated article “want list.” Plan issues in advance and look to fill the article slots with themed articles that you have explicitly solicited as such.
Not to be picky, but Dragon does solicit specific types of articles to fill slots with particular themes, and they do plan issues in advance. They just don't solicit such articles from untried freelancers. I can't speak for the others, but once I had some publishing credits with Dragon I found they would occasionally contact me (and, I'm sure, other reliable freelancers) with specific requests.
If Dragon posted a "wants" thread, they'd be flooded with dozens if not hundreds of submissions for just one article they want. Far better to let occasional writers submit whatever they want and solicit particular articles from whatever freelancer they feel would do the best job.
-Amber S.
You make some good points, GV. However, Dragon already has a system in place like you illustrate. Freelancers submit queries, not complete articles.
However, the "wants list" still would create problems in that the Dragon editors already struggle to keep up with the number of queries they receive. Implementing a system where they regularly get dozens or hundreds of copies of essentially the same query from dozens or hundreds of freelancers they've never heard of greatly increases their workload while diminishing returns. After all, the less work they have to do weeding out multiple queries, the more time they have to edit the magazine.
I may have also given the mistaken impression that only hard-core tried and true freelancers get assignments, when the reality is much more flexible. I only had one article published in Dragon and one article accepted but not published when I was solicited for particular articles. So it's not that you have to have dozens of writing credits under your belt, just that you have to have proven you can write your name in the dirt with a stick.
In addition, the editors often update freelancers on the states of their queries (i.e. "we've got lots of ranger articles but not many for arcane spellcasters.") so that we can pitch our queries accordingly.
In addition, I must disagree that inertia means nothing will ever change. Since its new release last year, Dragon has undergone significant changes based mostly on reader feedback. The creation of this website alone has influenced the magazine in countless ways. And it continues to change - I think people will be pleased and surprised with some of the future issues this year.
Obviously I like Dragon the way it is, but I'm very mellow. Hope you find some of this "behind the scenes" stuff interesting. I applaud you for speaking your mind about what you like and what you'd like to see.
-Amber S.
I believe the Dragon is now slumping. It has reached a humid level of mediocrity. Each issue is fiercely average, composed with a seeming philosophy that “one good article, if long enough, will makeup for the banal remainder.”
I would generally agree with you here. What I find interesting though is I strongly disagree with some of your specifics as to why. See below...
And when the “big one” fails, the entire issue flags. While usually “one good article” is to be found, even if it is not the “feature,” this hardly makes the magazine a success.
My problem is there hasn't been an article in a long time that does much for me at all. The closest would be the demonomicon articles, which are a good read but likely will never see use in any game I run. (mind, a good read is a success in my mind).
Class Acts has got to go. The articles are simply not long enough to explore an idea to any meaningful degree. The best ones just get going and have to end. The worst never get started at all and just blather. Most fall unsatisfyingly somewhere in between - the wrong side of average.
I couldn't disagree more. As a player AND a GM I find these far and away the most used items in Dungeon. There are those I don't care for and seem filler, but I consistently find that I turn to this section first when I open Dungeon these days (the exception being the recent Worm Food articles since I am very fond of the adventure paths).
If the ecology of X is going to be run, a companion article should also run. Best example - Pazuzu lead and the Kenku followed. Excellent. Same principle needs to apply when the ecology is more in the lead or co-lead position.
I would agree here. Tying the issue together with a theme can make that issue more useful to those who decide to use it. Conversly I suppose would be the fact that someone choosing NOT to use it would find more useless.
That said I like the idea that an issue could be something I could build a campaign around. I think few people disagree that the Incursion issue was one of the best Dragons ever released, and that is exactly what it did. Would be a good theme to shoot for.
As for removal of campaign material I would also whole-heartedly disagree. I am a big FR fan but I like to read the others as well, it gives me ideas on things I can steal and implement in my games. Generic material is often too generic to have the sharp interesting ideas.
Add onto this that FR was born in Dragon and I feel it really has more of home in Dragon than even in it's own books. I am glad to see it have it's own success, but that is because of what Dragon did. They are bedfellows for better or worse, and in this case I feel it is definately for the better.
Sean Mahoney
2) Submission guidelines were updated last August. I realize that's not as recent as you'd like, but is an update since the release of 3E.
3) Class Acts was originally 11 articles a month; now it is 12 due to repeated requests for non-core class articles.
Just sayin'.
I let my subscription lapse about a year ago. Why? Because it was either too generic (yes, there most definitely is such a thing!) or too much Eberron. And yes, I am a definite FR enthusiast--enjoyed a bit of Ravenloft from time-to-time as well. I picked up #334 and was very pleased. As soon as #335 hits the stands (which should have been yesterday...sigh) it will be mine as well. Should it be FR exclusively? No. But, with FR novels repeatedly finding their way to the best-seller lists, it should get more attention than it has in the last year or two (and "Cities of the Realms" is a great start!). Maybe I'll renew my subscription...
Ed Greenwood and Paizo: KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! (Yes, I am "shouting" so I can be heard over all the detractors!).
3) Class Acts was originally 11 articles a month; now it is 12 due to repeated requests for non-core class articles.Or will be soon, anyway. :)
I've got this great idea for an article on mute ninjas... :)
Surely there's a massive demand to fill that particular niche?
As a reader I enjoy the Class Acts articles. Some of the articles are campaign specific and I can see how that could be a problem. My reccomendation would be to feature generic classes and give ideas of how they can be adapted to each campiagn setting or just run a couple of class acts that were from different settings in each issue. I've always adapted any material I've needed and since I run a planescape campaign. I end up encountering and dealing with adventures from every setting including my own "homebrew" settings. I will agree with early comments that I would enjoy seeing more planar cities. Because this saves me the time of creating cities and there various histories. I don't agree with eliminating all the campiagn specific material. I think it would be a big mistake and alienate a majority of your fan base.
|
|
I still have about 1 1/2 years on my subscription, so I'm not rushing to cancel it. However, at this point, I'm not really considering renewing my Dragon subscription. There are things I like, but I don't think I'm getting more from the magazine than I can produce myself at this point.
There are certainly a few articles that I find interesting, and if it were free, I'd like to keep getting it. Still, I get the distinct feeling the magazine has "fragmented". Twelve pages of 1/2 page articles that tend to repeat, lose their focus, and poorly cover their intended target are a major reason I perceive the fragmentation of the magazine. I like Class Acts. I just don't like what we've been getting. Four three page class acts would be better than 1 page class acts. Especially when some of the Class Acts can cover a wide variety of classes (like martial classes, or spell casting classes) or require extreme expenditures of cross class skills. A typical Dwarf Fighter gets two skill points each level, and 8 at 1st. In order to qualify for any of the recent perform based enhancements, they must use every skill point for 11 levels to qualify if I'm doing my math correctly.
I look to Dragon for material I can use. It hasn't been providing that consistently enough. There are good elements, but the "total package" is lacking.
While I enjoy the idea of ecology articles, the recent Lizard Folk article left me cold. I seem to recall an article intrducing two sub-species now in the MMIII that seemed to provide a better level of information in the society.
If I had one suggestion, it would be to go back to the "theme" issues. I still say that Issue #301 was better than any of the issues following. That's three years ago. Personally, I think the best issue should always be the one I read most recently. Perhaps consistent improvement is an unattainable goal, but it should be the goal. I'm starting to get a strong feeling that on the Dragon side, that isn't even something the staff is willing to consider.
Stay the course, if that is what you want. In 17 issues I'll be disembarking unless things change for the better.
If I had one suggestion, it would be to go back to the "theme" issues. I still say that Issue #301 was better than any of the issues following.
Could you expand a little upon what you mean by theme issues? I was under the impression that many/most issues still were themed around particular topics. For instance, 328 dealt with PC races didn't it?
(I'm fuzzy on numbers, just ask the tax people :) so if I got the issue wrong my appologies)
And I know three or four issues a year are geared towards perennial themes like dragons and horror.
BTW, as the fellow who wrote those "Cultured Combatants" articles I see your point. But sometimes it's nice to give a PC a reward for taking a less then optimal skill array even if just to encourage them to try out some unconventional characters. A fighter schooled in the courtly graces who strums on his lute when not flailing about with his sword seems like a neat idea. Yeah, a lot of them could -and probably in most campaigns will- work with bards, or fighter/bards (and many other combos), but slanting the article specifically to bards just seemed too easy.
Sure, there's a certain logic in giving new feats for wizards tied to Spellcraft or Concentration, just like you could do Knowledge (religion) for clerics, Survival for rangers or Disable Device for rogues. Pretty much every member of the class has ranks in those critical skills, just like every bard would have ranks in Perform. But there's lots of those sorts of feats out there already so why not a few for the less obvious character designs?
I guess it's more of an esthetic thing for me. All of my most memorable characters have been a little bit quirky, druids with allergies, clerics who got blamed their gods for every little set back and, yeah, fighters who dreamed of standing on stage and basking in the warm glow of an appreciative audience.
As for removal of campaign material I would also whole-heartedly disagree. I am a big FR fan but I like to read the others as well, it gives me ideas on things I can steal and implement in my games. Generic material is often too generic to have the sharp interesting ideas.
That is exactly how I feel - I've just never been able state it as articulately as this. Please, please don't get rid of campaign-specific material!
|
|
I'm not sure that I can articulate what I mean about theme issues as well as I'd like, but I'll try, first by looking at the most recent Dragon I have, Issue #335. Now, I had been warned that there was going to be a lot of "Forgotten Realms" content. I don't mind that. I generally think most campaign specific materials can inspire ideas in my campaign as well or better than generic materials. It might be slightly harder to change, but overall, that isn't a problem. Presentation can make it even harder, so if I have one complaint about Forgotten Realms material, that is it.
So, what was the theme of Issue #335? Forgotten Realms? There were four articles related to that. However, one was fiction (and generally, I've considered all fiction published in Dragon crap since about Issue #10), and one was an interview with Ed Greenwood. That really leaves only two articles that are "Realms Specific Game Material". And both dealt with bards. I wouldn't consider that sufficient breadth to consider it a Forgotten Realms Theme Issue. Perhaps Bards in the Forgotten Realms? That's a little too specific. Something more general would be better.
Now, the other two articles that jump out at me are the Ecology of the Lizardfolk and the Bazaar of the Bizarre. There was a nice synergy between those two, but this certainly wasn't a lizardman theme issue. Those two don't tie in to the Forgotten Realms theme we had with the other articles, so that increases my impression of "fragmentation".
Now, Hal, about your article - I actually don't dislike it. I think there is an interesting concept there. However, it is not designed for fighters, and I think you know that. If the magazine is going to publish a Class Act and say "This is for Fighters", it really ought to be for fighters. Your article actually provides a great example of what I'm talking about. That was part two of a two part series. Now, in terms of page space, only 1/2 of that page is actual text. That means it took two pages to present one page of material. I would have rather seen your article presented as a single class act with an extra full page of information explaining how to make it work.
Obviously taking a level or two in bard could make it work. What about a feat that makes Perform a class skill for you? That would have been perfect. There was room for expansion, so on the one hand the article didn't go far enough, and on the other hand, it went too far because the idea wasn't practical the way it was presented. It was a good idea, but the treatment was poor. That isn't your fault, but as an expanded Class Acts, your article would have fit the theme nicely, and helped people get more from the other articles.
I suppose I would have themed this as a bardic issue. Your class acts would have been perfect for a martial bard, or using bardic "abilities" for non-bards. A recent class act that focused on religious bards might be appropriate instead for clerics. Perform is certainly an important skill if the game world is real. I'm currently playing a character in a norse campaign, and I've invested a number of skills in perform: epic because I think that it is an appropriate skill. I had to give up ride, but that is the sacrifice that a skill poor class has to make.
Now, core classes can make a decent theme, but I'd love to see a few "stretches". How about an issue themed around cinematics? Making the game "visually interesting". It could have articles on how to describe your attacks, etc.
Those are some of the kinds of things I'd like to see. But the most important thing is that the theme is clear and the vast majority of the articles support that theme. The class acts just seem a random bit to close out the magazine. They're completely unrelated to what came before.
I like class acts, but they need a serious overhaul. I've thought about this long and hard, and I don't think it will take long for others to start coming to the same conclusion. They may not have thought about it the way I have, so it may take them longer, but I consider it inevitable.
Maybe I'm wrong. It is always a possibility, but I'm usually pretty certain I'm right.
I haven't received issue #335 yet so I can't comment on it specifically. But there does seem to be a slight jump in your comments from "it needs a theme" to "I don't like the theme or at least the approach taking". Which I think you will agree are two different points (if I'm misinterpreting you my appologies).
Personally I like themes too. Not just for the ways they stimulate my own imagination but also because it makes it easier to find a particular article! Once your pile of magazines gets large enough that becomes a consideration :)
So, what was the theme of Issue #335? Forgotten Realms? There were four articles related to that. However, one was fiction (and generally, I've considered all fiction published in Dragon crap since about Issue #10), and one was an interview with Ed Greenwood. That really leaves only two articles that are "Realms Specific Game Material". And both dealt with bards. I wouldn't consider that sufficient breadth to consider it a Forgotten Realms Theme Issue. Perhaps Bards in the Forgotten Realms? That's a little too specific. Something more general would be better.
Now, Hal, about your article - I actually don't dislike it. I think there is an interesting concept there. However, it is not designed for fighters, and I think you know that.
Thank you :)
As I already said, part of the goal of the article was to get readers thinking about fighters in new ways by presenting feats (the essential fighter class trait) tied to a non-class skill (Perform). Yup, I suspect that a lot of them will find their ways onto the character sheets of bards, fighter/bards and other class combos as well as pure fighters.
Which is cool to me :)
Personally I like CAs that can apply to more then one class since it increases their portability within the campaign. For instance, I wouldn't object to a bard using Knowstones. Yes, I know that's not exactly a fair comparison, both bards and sorcerers cast spells in substantially the same way making it a much easier cognitive leap then the Perform/bonus feats concept of "Cultured Combatants".
To use one of my CAs (as opposed to dragging poor Joshua Cole into it :) ) as an example instead, I wrote "Vision Quests" a while back now for barbarians. However, I would not object to a ranger, druid or character from any appropriately savage background taking the feat and going on a vision quest.
To sum it up, as a reader and a writer I like CAs that push the envelope in some way, offering new rules, new ideas or encouraging readers to think differently about their characters. One of the great traits of the short format is that you can try things that would never make it through the screen of a longer article. It's sort of like a laboratory allowing you to experiment with ideas. I think Mike (the editor in charge CAs) called it the "Unearthed Arcana" section of Dragon.
However, that being said, I see your point and I will keep it in mind when dreaming up ideas for future articles. I've got two in the next issue for instance that hopefully you will find more in keeping with the traditional concept of the classes they represent.
I do appreciate the feedback :). In my book anyone who takes the time out of his or her life to present a well reasoned commentary (and avoiding any of the nastiness that seems so common in this virtual age) deserves an equally well reasoned and respectful response.
Hopefully I met your expectations since you certainly met mine :)
Hal
|
|
The class acts section specifically bothers me with the current format.
We both know that it is going to be 12 pages long in the very near future. Each page includes a large title, and an iconic picture, leaving slightly less than 2/3 of a page for the actual article.
I like articles that are appropriate for many classes. Since you're the author of the vision quest Class Act and have already mentioned it is appropriate for any "wild" background, I'd like to agree.
That would have made a perfect class act for druids, barbarians and rangers. Expand it to three pages (eliminating the duplicated titles and illustrations) and I'd probably be happy. Fewer class acts that do a better job explaining how multiple classes can use it would suit me fine.
You see, with the Vision Quest, it was billed as "for barbarians". It was "straitjacketed" into a slot that it doesn't quite fit. The concept is broader than the current Class Acts format allows.
Any article you write (or anyone else, for that matter) must be designated as "for" a class. The best class acts are not actually "for" a class, so why try to pretend that they are? If they're usable for multiple classes, sell them that way.
There are two issues at hand. One is that some classes aren't getting good representation because the articles they present are not specific to the class. It is called an article for one specific class, but that specific class may not even get as much use out of it as another core class.
The other issue is that these general articles aren't doing a good job of illustrating how other classes can benefit from it.
Personally, I'd like to see fewer class acts each month, but just a little more depth. Rather then locking it into a single page format, allow it to be a little more "organic". Say, allow 8 pages total, and run three or four class acts each month. Then, instead of splitting an article into two issues, put it in one. Maybe fighters get three pages in one issue (but it also explains how other classes can benefit from it) and druids get one (but it is fairly druid specific). It is a balancing act, but I think it would be better than the current "every class gets one page whether we've got anything good or not, and even if two articles we print are for the same class, we'll label one differently so no one gets left out".
So, that's my suggestion.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
While I really like a lot of what's come out of Class Acts over the course of the last year, everyone (including us) agrees that the section needs some tinkering and nudging. We're in the process of deciding exactly what that means, but I suspect there's a way to please people who want more oddball stuff and who want the section to dominate fewer pages of the magazine.
Stay tuned.
--Erik
|
|
I'll keep watching and waiting. I'm sure that if you recognize a problem, it will be solved. I was under the mistaken impression that the staff wanted to deny the section needs improvement.
I'm certain it is popular, and I can see why. Still, it can be better. I'm glad your people are working on that.
I finally found #335 and I wasn't disappointed! A FR theme and more than one article on bards! Considering the lack of coverage bards get in dragon--not to mention the FRs, until recently--you can bet I'll be gobbling up every word for a while longer....EXCELLENT work, gentlemen.
Nice to see that your listening, Erik.
WaterdhavianFlapjack