Does anybody happen to know what Dragon magazine's circulation numbers looked like at their highest (probably in the 80s?) versus where they are now? Are the numbers currently on an upswing, or a downswing?
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the state of the hobby. Is it really shrinking? Will it soon die? That sort of thing. It's got me a bit depressed. I'm hoping that some numbers will give me some hope. Perhaps it's not as bad as it seems?
Thanks!
I can't speak to the Magazine, but my understanding is that the hobby in general is still doing good business. I have heard numbers from 5-20 million as the RPGers in the US, and even only a fraction buying a lot of books is good for the industry. I have heard it is essentially holding strong, not neccessarily growing exponetially, but remaining at the same rate.
There's no way that RPG's would ever die!! I think that even Dragon or Dungeon would probably go the way of PDF distribution to cut costs if things ever got too bad in the circulation Dept. The printing costs must be an enormous part of the expense of both magazines and is probably why Undefeated and Amazing Stories went south.
RPG's were a boom industry in the eighties, a fad. They were made all the more appealing when D&D was labeled as satanic because it was something 'underground'.
There's going to be a decline in numbers as some of the players from the eighties boom forget about their hobbies ect. But the game is getting a healthy dose of new gamers. I think the decline will slow, and maybe even level out.
I think Dragon and Dungeon's big problem is that they're not getting any visibility. Most places that sell dragon have it way low and in the corner. I didn't know my FLGS carried dragon untill I looked for it. I had played D&D for two years before I even heard of Dragon, and that's because the wizard's web page mentioned it. With more exposure on the web that they're now getting, dragon and dungeon might get more readers.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
When I went through the entire archive a year ago in preparation for the Dragon Compendium, I spent a fair amount of time hunting down the "statement of ownership" in each year's issue. This proved fairly difficult, since they're often hidden and relatively small, and they don't always fall in the same place each year. Frankly, I suspect that they weren't completed for several of the years I couldn't find, but it is possible that I missed a few issues here and there.
That said, the numbers I have suggest that the "high water" mark for Dragon was 118,000 paid circulation (subscribers + newsstand), which happened in 1984. It's possible that 1983 had slightly higher numbers, but I was unable to locate the statement of ownership for that year. By contrast, the paid circulation for 1982 was 60,387 and the paid circulation for 1985 was 107,200.
Starting somewhere around 1991 (I'm missing that year), Something Terrible happens. The total paid circulation goes down by at least 5,000 every year, until we're sitting ugly at 31,056 in 1999, on the eve of third edition.
As of #327, the last time we published the statement of ownership, total paid circulation was at 62,725. My guess is that that number will be higher next year, but I'd have to look at a lot of data before I could say that for sure.
Here's a rough breakdown of the subscriber numbers, pulled from various years more or less at random:
Year Subscribers
1977 1,164 (the first year for which I have data)
1982 19,029
1984 36,974 (high)
1992 23,685
1999 13,224
2004 18,851
My guess is that total subscriber numbers went down from 2004's quoted numbers slightly, but that they've been rising a bit over the last couple months.
Using these numbers as a barometer of the "health" of the industry as a whole is dangerous business, because they don't always even accurately state the "health" of Dragon's publisher. It's likewise difficult to use the numbers as a barometer of the total player population, because I've seen a company take "a couple years off" when it comes to sending out subscription reminders or doing deals with magazine distributors, and it can have a huge impact on the total sales and subscriber numbers. The players are presumably still out there, but they ain't buying Dragon. Likewise, I have heard numerous times from numerous sources that the numbers quoted by TSR in the 80s and 90s were more often reflections of total print run rather than total number of copies distributed, which suggests that the earlier numbers should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
"Using these numbers as a barometer of the 'health' of the industry as a whole is dangerous business, because they don't always even accurately state the "health" of Dragon's publisher."
I thought it might be better than nothing. I'm pretty sure magazine have to publish this information by law, and most RPG companies don't have to publish sales figures and profit reports and such. It's hard to look at a handy chart to see in a glace how well the hobby is doing. In any case, the upswing is good news, I suppose.
I am not predicting but would not be surprised to see:
(1) Dragon and Dungeon fold for a time, publish at a reduced schedule, go entirely electronic, merge or alternate months;
(2) D&D (Wotc/Hasbro) publish only 3 or 4 paper and pencil products in a year or shutter entirely for a period of time, while novels and video games become the more frequent products;
(3) Wotc/Hasbro massively cut down their attendance at/sponsorship of Gencon and other conventions; and
(4) The number of non-Wotc publishers and FLGS' shrink to near insignificance.
At the same time, I think the online support of paper and pencil RPGs may explode, chiefly by "affiliated" fan websites that become "semi-professional," perhaps charging a "user fee" that would be paid to the IP holder who would help defray server costs in turn.
I'm just guessing/imagining here so if your guess is better or different than mine, don't have a cow.
Uuurrrrrgggghhaah!!
... Oh, he's so Meautiful!I'd have to say that I am bullish (get it? -- Insert groan here -- ) about the D&D pen and paper game. Here's why:
a) D&D has been doing a brisk business since 3rd edition came out. Don't ask me to back this up, but there is lots of evidence out there.
b) D&D is one helluva brand. A strong brand is something the suits know they can profit handsomely from, with licensing in other industries (video games, novels, movies, etc.) The tabletop game supports the brand.
Which is not to say that none of your scenarios could come true.
Wild speculation,
-rob
Which is not to say that none of your scenarios could come true.
Wild speculation,
-rob
Don't worry, Rob. I promise to keep spending the gross national product of a small country on all the upcoming D&D products.
Pen and paper? That's for hangman, man.
|
::snip::These numbers are sobbering.
[Last 3 post attempts eaten by Paizo site]
It looks like they all ended up there eventually. Perhaps.
It might be a time-out session. I've found that if I have multiple paizo windows open (usually Dragon and Dungeon) I feel like I time out faster, but it might just be that I take longer to move from session to session.
Anyway, the numbers are sobering as well as "sobbering".
Well....since rediscovering D&D through 3rd edition (we were still gaming, just not D&D) late last year, I have spent about $400 on gaming products. My wife doesn't mind 'cuz she plays too. Three new people (one 30 something and two teenagers) are now ardent gamers because of my revival...
How about a marketing campaign aimed at bringing more old time gamers back? Since "I" re-discovered D&D so to say, all my old gaming friends have bought the PH, some the DMG, and some the MM. I don't know if any of them subscribe to Dragon or Dungeon, but I don't think they do.
I think the hobby had its peak, but many of us old time gamers are still pretty young and we'll be playing D&D and spending money on D&D related stuff, including subscriptions (with more income available--heck, I make 12x as much money as when I was 19)...for a long time to come.
Like I said earlier in another thread---D&D shall be played in many nursing homes in a few decades.... "Bridge" "I think not, Mabel" "Let's play D&D and then listen to Judas Priest!" "Hold on, let me get my dentures first, you guys can't understand me when I DM without my dentures!"
Okay, I'll stop now :-)
Dungeon needs work, of course, but I'm not understanding your sense of urgency. Didn't Erik post that the numbers are up since the 90s and will probably go up again?
Kobold Press
|
I can speak to the first half of the "Death Spiral", from 1991 to 1995, when I was at TSR. The loss of circulation during that period is not at all surprising, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means.
Things to consider:
1) Competition for Gamers. Vampire: the Masquerade picked up a lot of gamers in the early nineties, and shipped in 1991. Magic: the Gathering took everyone's lunch money from 1993 until 1998. For the first time, Dragon was facing serious competition from White Wolf and Wizards of the Coast.
At the time, it was TSR policy that neither of these trends in the industry could be reported on or discussed. So readers turned elsewhere.
2) Rise of The Internet. While TSR staffers were eager participants in AOL, bulletin boards, and the Web, it was company policy that no D&D materials
The Paizo site is a glorious thing. Dragon and Dungeon lost eyeballs to the fan sites and the Internet for years during the 90s.
3) Business Failure. TSR went bankrupt in 1995, ceasing publication for many months. Only the WotC buyout saved Dragon from ceasing publication entirely.
That's three likely causes for the circulation decline. I could probably make a case for one or two more, but (as Erik points out) it's not necessarily true that magazine numbers reflect the state of the hobby or industry as a whole.
Sometimes, it just reflects the state of the publisher, while the action is somewhere else.
How about a marketing campaign aimed at bringing more old time gamers back? *snip*
See Dungeon #126, WOTC's "Basement Elf" ad. Someone out there has been reading your mind.
Josh,
I'll look for it...thanks!
"How about a marketing campaign aimed at bringing more old time gamers back?"
I dunno. I think that will please those of us who play(ed) the older editions and are currently still reading the mags, but at the same time I feel that WotC's D&D has already penetrated as deeply into the hobby's consciousness as it can. I think that every old-school D&D fan that can be "converted" to the current incarnation of the rules has been. The ones that are still playing TSR's D&D or AD&D or even HackMaster or Castles & Crusades have delberately chosen to give WotC's efforts a pass and I don't think marketing can change that. Only actually reimagining D&D into something much simpler and closer to its roots for the next edition could accomplish that and I can't see that happening, sadly.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
It looks like they all ended up there eventually. Perhaps.
It might be a time-out session. I've found that if I have multiple paizo windows open (usually Dragon and Dungeon) I feel like I time out faster, but it might just be that I take longer to move from session to session.
The messageboards barfed up a little bit about the time you were posting, and posts kind of went into limbo for a few minutes.
-Vic.
.
Give Erik some credit for Dragon as well. The Demonomicon is arguably the most well-received series of articles in Dragon since 3E debuted.
While the Class Acts linger on, Erik reigned-in some of the other features that shouldn't have been monthly: Winning Races, Heroic Feats, Gaining Prestige, etc.
While Erik's been at the helm, the covers have returned to evocative scenes rather than just a closeup of some individual each month.
I've personally found the last couple of ecologies (namely, kraken and kobold) to be much better than the last ten to twenty.
The polearms article, IMHO, was fantastic. As was the Monsters of Arabia in this month's issue.
Granted, there is still room for improvement, but overall I definitely think the magazine is stronger than it was a year ago.
The first step, I think, is to retire Class Acts. Thereafter, synergistic support for the "Big Article" will come along (e.g., Pazuzu article supported by the Kenku article). By itself, and especially with Class Acts remaining, I do not think the "Big Article" strategy will do more than trend upward and plateau based on what the "Big Article" happens to be. What is needed is not this constant "pumping up" to a plateau but sustainable growth, IMO. That means (1) supported "Big Articles," (2) a "Big Article" strategic plan (that it appears is already in place to a degree with different kinds of "Big Articles"), and (3) growth of the remaining content.
While, because of the way the "Big Article" strategy interacts poorly with Class Acts, that is, I think, an immediate focus of discussion, once Class Acts are retired, and the "Big Articles" are set for synergistic support, there will remain the "undiscovered country" of the remaining content.
I may be biased, but I love the class acts section and the new format of Dragon. In fact, I had been away from Dragon and Dungeon both for quite some time (I was a sporadic reader at best) until the new formats came out. I began collecting again with the advent of those issues, and was inspired enough to begin submitting.
After I get my issue in the mail and excitedly unwrap it while doing the dance of joy, I first read the editorial, letters and first watch, and then do a flip through. That’s about all of the time I have in the morning when the mail comes. Throughout the day I read the short articles (class acts) one at a time as the chance presents itself. Then, at night I begin reading the longer articles. I really don’t understand why so many people have a beef with shorter articles; they contrast nicely with the longer articles, and provide the issue with variety. Also, I think the class acts are cool because every class gets treated in every issue. It seems that I integrate ideas from the class acts into my characters more than I do the feature articles (which is not to say that I don’t enjoy the feature articles; I love them as well).
Like I said earlier in another thread---D&D shall be played in many nursing homes in a few decades.... "Bridge" "I think not, Mabel" "Let's play D&D and then listen to Judas Priest!" "Hold on, let me get my dentures first, you guys can't understand me when I DM without my dentures!"
Okay, I'll stop now :-)
Awesome! I think that when this happens there will also be a hell of a lot more visitors at the nursing home. ;)
“Grandpa, can I have a vorpal sword?”
“No Jimmy, you’ll poke your eye out, and if you roll a natural 20 your head will fall off. Now go get grandpa a Mountain Dew.”
It might be a time-out session. I've found that if I have multiple paizo windows open (usually Dragon and Dungeon) I feel like I time out faster
true.
When you start composing a message your timeout goes up. When you go somewhere else, your timeout returns to normal (10 minutes, if memory serves).
Okay. Now, I'm sort of depressed.
Two thoughts immediately occur:
1 - I think the hobby is in deeper "do-do" than I had imagined and I think it more likely my postulates may come to pass or something like that, which does not please me;
2 - I think Dragon has little time to "play along" with the "relaunch" which is not doing as well as Dungeon's relaunch. See Dragon Reborn thread.
Cheer up, GVD!
Personally, I fail to see how anyone could interpret the numbers Erik shared as a negative. Yeah, it's a small market, but it's been worse.
T'sall good!
Rob
|
|
Damn the time-out error. It discourages well-thought out, carefully researched and lucidly presented replies. Of course, I'm on to it, and I copied all my text before hitting reply, and this time, I didn't foolishly copy anything else until I presetned my post.
I may be biased, but I love the class acts section and the new format of Dragon. In fact, I had been away from Dragon and Dungeon both for quite some time (I was a sporadic reader at best) until the new formats came out. I began collecting again with the advent of those issues, and was inspired enough to begin submitting.
...
Also, I think the class acts are cool because every class gets treated in every issue. It seems that I integrate ideas from the class acts into my characters...
I know this thread isn't supposed to be about class acts, but I don't want to create a new thread to discuss that particular subject, and it is at least related to the ongoing discussion. I'm personally of the opinion that class acts are a good idea, but they aren't being done well. I personally think that instead of treating each class to a one page article each month, they should go a little more in-depth and cover fewer classes. I'm moving on July 30th, so I don't have easy access to most of my magazines. However, I have issue #333 available, since I happened to show it to a friend who is going to run the Age of Wyrms Adventure Path.
Of the eleven articles in each issue, some of them are not particularly class specific. Looking at #333, the barbarian article features three feats, two of which are available to any character class. A full half of the article is devoted to the three feats, so the description of the 'environs' available gets short shrift. The 'artic' envrionment features three sentences of descriptive text, and one explaining that the feat detailed is available to characters from such an environment. The 'Plains' features two sentences of flavor and two sentences that repeat the description of the appropriate feat. Underground does best with four sentences of text before using one sentence to explain that the feat is available. Of course, several of those sentences were "duh" statements. "Not only dwarves live underground." I don't need a Monster Manual to tell me that.
I personally feel this article would have been better choosing one environment and trying to explain the type of society that could fit there. A general suggestion to build a barbaric society based upon the Inuit does very little if the DM doesn't know what the Inuit are like. I personally feel I'm better acquainted with pre-Columbian New World societies than most, and I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than about six factoids on the Inuit. Without a written language they didn't leave much of a record of their existence. The oldest record of their presence that I'm aware of comes from the Viking settlers of Greenland. A longer or more focused treatment would have yielded more fruit.
The class features on Bards actually develops a single idea "Temple-Serving Bards", and does a fair job with it. Although each description is brief, it does include a feat that takes up only 1/8 of the page, rather than 1/2. Still, there is some overlap - using musical ability for the benefit of the church is described in three different ways, as a cantor, organist, or bugle corps. Those could easily have been combined together and an explanation that there are numerous roles for musicians in temples. Since those are the most obvious uses, the diplomat, dramatist and librarian could have gotten more space. I'm not going to say anything about the interpretive dancers...
The Rage Cleric article works for me. It presents a variant class, and neither requires more space, nor "fills" space uselessly. Still, related support material could have been used if the cleric were only going to be featured three times each year. "Variant Holy Symbols" for "rage" related domains might work there, etc. It wouldn't have to be a lot of extra support material, but I'm imagining that it could be "broadened" a bit, without requiring the use of any one part.
The "Mounted Druid" article presents an interesting idea, but the fact is it is difficult to implement well. First of all, mounted combat is generally very feat intensive (at least, if you want to be good at it). Replacing a capable animal companion with an effective mount also usually requires a "less powerful" mount as far as natural attacks are concerned. The druid will be forced to concentrate while riding, and will be less capable of casting spells once they've engaged opponents in melee, unless they acquire such feats. Now, that doesn't mean that the article is bad. Quite the contrary. It just shows that the article is incomplete. How am I as a player going to make a mounted druid work for me? This is a perfect example of an article that needed two or three pages to explain how to make it work. Obviously the druid is a feat poor class compared to some melee classes, and many of those feats will be needed for spell-casting or wild-shaping abilities (or both, like Natural Spell). Once a druid begins wild-shaping, what forms should they choose to still maintain the benefits of mounted combat? So, I think that this article might be considered a failure because it suggests an idea, but doesn't explain how it is best achieved.
The Fighter Class Act features the use of the perform skill. In all honesty, I think this would have been more appropriate for the bard class. A fighter does not have access to Perform as a class skill, and with their notorious low intelligence, it will be unlikely they'll have enough skill points to purchase ranks in perform as a general rule. A typical fighter (Int 10)must put every skill point into perform for 5 levels in order to qualify for Master of Mockery. And considering that each of the perform skills requires a different (type) the fighter can only acquire one such feat. Personally, I think this class act should have been featured as a general article describing new uses for skills. It could have covered each of the different perform skills and provided all of these feats. Since they aren't really fighter specific, they don't need to be covered in that class act. Heck, the monk makes a better choice for some of these, since perform is a class skill for them.
Monks in the City also does little to feature the class in question. Half the article talks about the advantages of having a bard in social situtations. A monk actually has a wide variety of skills that would make them well-suited to social interaction without the need to include a bard. Although Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Constitution are all important for a monk, a social monk can probably sacrifice one or two of these for a high charisma. Both Diplomacy and Sense Motive are class skills, leaving gather information and bluff as the two most important social skills they lack. Still, with four skill points each level, they can take those as cross-class skills and still do relatively well. There are also magic items that can come to the rescue. Or at least, I thought they were. Apparently "glibness" is no longer available as an elixir, and as a spell with "personal" target, it cannot be made into a potion. Still, a skill increasing item is only bonus squared x 100, so 900 gp can provide a +3 bonus to those skills.
The Paladin's Preferred Prayers doesn't really make a strong case for any of its suggestions, nor does it break any new ground. Spell combinations might be useful, but there really aren't many of those available. Very few paladins I've encountered use their full allotment of spells each day, but that may be in large part to the necessity of a cleric in D&D. The Paladin gets very few spells that the cleric does not, so generally the Paladin prepares "utility spells" so the cleric has those slots open for better "combat" spells.
Ranger Lore, in my opinion, is a waste of a page. It says things like "Knowledge (nature) won't identify the exact paths or passes in a tangled wilderness of craggy peaks and brooding forests, but it can tell a ranger what signs betray the presence of those paths and what dangers might await the party along them". The reason that isn't useful is that such information is never provided to the DM. A clever DM can decide that a knowledge (nature) check will reveal the presence of claw marks on a tree, and even allow the Ranger to tell the difference between those caused by a grizzly bear or an owlbear. But, such use of the skill will be infrequent in most cases because the DM hadn't considered the relevance of any such material. In the "Finding Resources" it lists DCs for determining the presence of items that again, the DM doesn't know. This would certainly work better if it included lists of potentially useful plants or a reference to a Dragon that featured such items (which apparently hasn't been featured in a long time).
The Rogue Class Act is also not strictly for rogues, though the organization does heavily favor them. Still, there isn't much information on using the organization in a campaign. I can't imagine many players reading this and saying to me "I want my rogue to be a member of the Unseen Sisters".
Knowstones provides something new to the game, and it does work for Sorcerers only, so I can't complain. The question is whether it is balanced or not. The table of knowstones is quite long, I don't think each level needed a spell as an example. Rather they should have provided the information about cost and XP to create like the DMG, along with information about components. One line could have replaced three lines of text and the entire table.
The flaws for wizards work equally well for Sorcerers, and even bards, and some work for anyone. This also repeats the text about flaws found in Unearthed Arcana. I can't imagine that is a good use of a paragraph. It might need explanation, but a footnote should describe it. Perhaps, "Flaws were introduced in Unearthed Arcana, allowing a character to take up to two flaws at 1st level. For each flaw you take, your character may take an additional feat."
So, in short, the class acts does need improvement. Some of them could be really good with ties in to a feature article. But most importantly, we need articles that expand the game world. An article on "fantasy plants" both good and bad would be great. Then if a ranger rolls a good "knowledge (nature)" I can describe the "Blood Red Sanguinea Sylvestris" that has roots that act as a natural anti-toxin.
|
|
In all that typing, I forgot to make my actual suggestion.
I think they should do a class act for three core classes each month, and one "non-core" class. This could be an NPC class (the commoner April Fool's was priceless), a Complete class, or a Psionic Class, or even a campaign specific class (Artificer, etc). This would mean that in the course of 12 issues (1 year) 36 core classes would be covered, or each class would be covered ~3 1/3 times. Twelve non-core classes would be featured (which would work out to one for each of the Complete Classes, I believe). It doesn't have to be a hard and fast formula, but I think it would be better than the current system, with a large number of pages devoted to the section, and too much "loss" in repeated text.
For example, over the 11 page spread of the Class Acts, 2 1/3 pages are devoted to the "Class Name" & icon along the left border. Almost 2 pages are devoted to "article titles". That leaves just 6 2/3 pages of text in an 11-page section of the magazine. That's not an ideal ratio of content per page.
|
I have points that I both agree and disagree in regards to the "Class Acts", DeadDM...
First, let me say that I think both of your suggestions are really good (not hitting every class every issue, give some face time to NPC or non-core classes, and ESPECIALLY not useing so much space for the title elements...valuable space that could be used for content!!).
But one part that I do disagree with you on is that they should be solely utilizable for the class being covered. The Barbarian Class Act that you pointed out is a good example of that (if short-changed by the brevity of the content). Certainly there are other classes that have access to the feats being offered...there are a range of class types living in the marginal reaches of the world(s) to which they could apply, but when you think of these regions, far removed from civilization's mores and structure, the barbarian class is probably the one most associated.
Basically, I think that Class Acts is a good ground for fermenting ideas that help players break away from the "I'm the fighter, I kill things", "I'm the cleric, I heal things", "I'm the druid, I shall frollic in nature" blinders that they sometimes develope.
Just my pair of coppers.
And I really like your two suggestions!
Personally, I like Class Acts, which is why I've written a number of them. They're the first parts of the magazine I read each month, and (since I'm a DM) I often find interesting ideas to apply to my never ending, ever growing legion of NPCs to help make them a little bit more memorable. Not every idea works for me each month, but that's no reason to chop out the section. Likely some of the ones that work for me won't work for someone else and vice versa, meaning it's a matter of taste as opposed to quality.
As a writer I also enjoy the challenge of fitting a workable idea into 700 words (and I don't always succeed, which is why some of them end up as two parters :) ). I've already pitched several ideas to Mike that he suggested would work better as features and I've dutifully passed them on to Jason for his input. Hopefully a few of those will see print at some point.
(BTW, just in case there's anyone looking to start some kind of "you're biased because..." fight, I suspect that if the editors adopted a "less but longer" CA format I would still find ways to slip in a few articles here and there :) )
As a writer I also enjoy the challenge of fitting a workable idea into 700 words (and I don't always succeed, which is why some of them end up as two parters :) ). I've already pitched several ideas to Mike that he suggested would work better as features and I've dutifully passed them on to Jason for his input. Hopefully a few of those will see print at some point.(BTW, just in case there's anyone looking to start some kind of "you're biased because..." fight, I suspect that if the editors adopted a "less but longer" CA format I would still find ways to slip in a few articles here and there :) )
I know what you mean. If they decided to make Critical Threats longer or shorter, as a writer I'd adapt. As for Class Acts... I can see both sides here. Most class act articles I either love or hate. But the fact that I love many of them tells me that the length isn't a quality problem, but a taste. Would I like longer class acts articles if there were fewer of them? Perhaps, but I'd be concerned about balancing the content - making sure that the person who loves druids doesn't lose out. Also, I think Class Acts is one of the ways they make sure everyone has something in the magazine. As long as you play a CORE class, you're covered... there is at least one article of potential use to you, even if it is short.
my $.02
- Ashavan
|
|
But one part that I do disagree with you on is that they should be solely utilizable for the class being covered.
...
Basically, I think that Class Acts is a good ground for fermenting ideas that help players break away from the "I'm the fighter, I kill things", "I'm the cleric, I heal things", "I'm the druid, I shall frollic in nature" blinders that they sometimes develope.
Just my pair of coppers.
Actually, I agree with you, here. I think that a longer "more inclusive" class acts might be better. Basically, in the issue I was looking at, the barbarian didn't get a class act. Maybe it was slightly more aimed at barbarians than other classes, but it wasn't specific. The fighter, I feel, also got very little. The whole mechanic focused on a skill that is not a class skill for them. The monk also suffered from getting a "travel with a bard" article.
If they're going to insist on doing 11 class acts each month, then each one should be devoted to a class. In the month I was looking at, I would have combined the monk and the bard into one single class act, focusing on how they can complement each other, etc.
I think it isn't a problem if a class act is usable by more than one class, but why "sell" it as designed for one class when it isn't?
For example, I thought the Ranger Class Act would be a good candidate for expansion, listing types of plants they might discover through the use of that skill. However, knowledge (nature) is a class skill for bards, druids, ranger, and wizard. Each of those classes could benefit from knowing the useful benefits of plants in a particular region, and each one might have a different, related mechanic based on their knowledge check. It could be used to discover poisons, antidotes, and spell components, to name a few. Some plants might be useful simply as "food additives" such as peppercorns.
So, generally the class acts bill themselves as "exclusive" for a particular class, but they're really more general then that. I don't mind general, but there is probably no reason to give 1 page to each of the eleven classes when you're not being specific.
For example, I would consider an article on "plants" a "druid feature", counting as one of the 3 druid articles that would appear that year. However, this would be fairly general, making druid a good canidate to receive a fourth article in the year.
Does that explanation make more sense?
Josh,
I'll look for it...thanks!
Found it....cool...