|
One of the published letters in this month's Dragon suggested that the format be defined more rigidly to include at least four "features" every month, including one Eberron feature, one Forgotten Realm Feature, and two "generic" features.
Erik has asked that we, the readers, give our opinion on this suggestion, and presumably our reasons.
My personal response follows.
I'd dislike a change in format along those lines. While I do have concerns about the current format of Dragon, none of them will be assuaged by the inclusion of more "setting specific" material. I'll attempt to "isolate" each concern in a clearly labeled point.
1) Any rigid definition of features destroys the flexibility that the editors would otherwise have to give us the best content available. One of my biggest complaints about the current format of Dragon is the Class Acts section, which, while good, suffers for being rigidly defined regarding which classes will be covered and how many pages each will receive. A more flexible magazine wherein the best content available each month (particularly if it supports an overarching theme) is provided should be better than one that includes sub-par content in order to fulfill a arbitrarily defined "necessary level" of content.
1A) While I understand that the included content may not be sub-par, I do think that putting the best material forward (regardless of setting) is the best strategy overall.
2) Forgotten Realms and Eberron may be the only two campaign settings supported at the present time, but they are not the only campaign settings readers use and love. Mystara, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Darksun, Spell Jammer and ESPECIALLY Greyhawk are all popular among a segment of the readership, in addition to fans of the Realms and Eberron. While I have no data regarding the relative numbers of readers using or favoring an alternate setting, my instinct tells me they are a large group. An occassional article in support of a "current" campaign world isn't a problem, but every feature that is "specific" to a campaign world is by definition, unsuitable to a "generic" world, or unlikely to be useable by a fan of any of the other established settings or a homebrew. So, most readers won't mind an occassional Forgotten Realms article, or even an occassional Ravenloft article, but featuring "current" game worlds as half the features of the magazine is probably a little much. Personally, I'd like to see each campaign setting get no more than 3-4 articles dedicated to it each year since I much prefer the "generic" articles.
3) Every reader has the right to expect that the content is "mostly" useful to that reader. Now, the definition of what that means may vary from reader to reader, some wanting 60% content useful to their game, and others satisfied with 15% or less. Some want everything "ready" and others accept the fact that some changes are likely to be inevitable. A generic article can include information to make it adaptable to the established worlds (like the MMIII does for creatures), usually with very little effort. However, removing "specifics" from a setting and then applying them to a generic (or alternate) world is usually much more difficult. Thus, generic articles are more useful to more readers than most "campaign specific" articles can ever hope to be.
4) I've played in most of the campaign settings, including Ravenloft, DarkSun, ForgottenRealms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Mystarra, and Greyhawk, often for years at a time. I've been playing the game for close to 20 years. However, at the moment I'm not using any of them. I think that D&D players do well to experiment with different worlds, but ultimately, that reduces the benefits of "specific" articles, as they can only be used well in that campaign setting. For the most dedicated players (particularly those playing multiple games) they may move from world to world in the course of a week. Thus, the articles will not benefit them as fully.
5) I'm generally selfish in regard to the content of the magazine, and as I said in #4, I'm not using any of those worlds at the moment. I can apply generic articles to any of those worlds at a moment's notice, but not so much with the specific information. I'd prefer to have more content that I can use.
Just as an aside, I think this month's magazine was stronger than most. The inclusion of James Jacobs article alone makes this one worth buying, but the rest of the content was fairly so-so in my opinion. I'm currently a subscriber, but I'm leaning toward not resubscribing in another 14 months, depending on whether the magazine "changes" in ways I like, or ways I dislike. Generally, my overall feeling is that the magazine is "fragmented" without a clear vision. The different departments don't often work well together, and they should. Why was there no class acts on "ghost hunting equipment", or something like that? I'd prefer each issue to feel like it has "continuity", building off of the previous content and mutally supporting itself. Thus, if I want to have information on "ghosts and ghosthunting", I'll know to go to #336. As it is, it has a lot of things in it.
And that's what I have to say on that.
i will object strongly to any rigid format, and agree that flexibility is the key. now, *aiming* at a suggested format is not a problem at all.
Personally, I'm against rigid content;
I use Greyhawk exclusively; I've never DMed any other setting in 25+ years. If I knew for a fact that 25% to 50% of every issue I subscribed to was going to be 'effectively useless' or required modification to suit my needs, I would be dissuaded to purchase it.
Of course, generic adventures would require modification to "flavor" it to suit the needs of the setting its in, but if there is a standardized method to achieve it (sidebars, etc.), the process would be simpler for all and no adventure would arrive DOA due to the setting it is in.
M
No one game setting deserves a monthy column. Period. That is too much. No one setting is used by a majority of gamers and that alone is reason enough. All monthly features should be written for a general audience, or else too much of every magazine becomes too little useful for too many.
While as of today I still have not received the latest issue (curse you Post Office!) I would like to comment on your observations, DeadDM.
1) Any rigid definition of features destroys the flexibility that the editors would otherwise have to give us the best content available.
I completely agree with you here. I think that, because of the inherent differences in content between Dungeon and Dragon, a fixed format works well for the former but not for the latter.
Removing "specifics" from a setting and then applying them to a generic (or alternate) world is usually much more difficult. Thus, generic articles are more useful to more readers than most "campaign specific" articles can ever hope to be. Personally, I'd like to see each campaign setting get no more than 3-4 articles dedicated to it each year since I much prefer the "generic" articles.
Here I have to disagree. As a reader of Dragon who doesn't actually play D&D, I am in no position to offer my insight about how useful campaign-specific articles are to a gamer or DM. I know for a fact, however, that I am not the only person who buys Dragon for my own reading enjoyment. Along those lines, I often find that campaign-specific articles (regardless of the setting, I like them all) have much more flavor to them and are more exciting to read. I imagine that many gamers who are actually playing (unlike me) appreciate this flavor as well. In any case, 3-4 campaign-specific articles a year is far too few, in my opinion. If the articles that were "removed" (so to speak) were replaced by generic content, I think that the magazine would become that much more boring.
All in all, however, I thought that your post raised a lot of important issues facing the magazine in its current state. Plus, you argued your point very cogently. :)
I agree whole-heartedly with DeadDMWalking, the Dragon issues that managed a thematic cohesion have always been the most enjoyable issues.
Dragon is just a bit fragmented now and I think DeadDM makes a good point when he says it would be more than nice to be able to know exactly which issue dealt with the Abyssal Planes (or what have you) rather than having to search through 20 issues going, "I swear it was in one these issues."
|
|
In any case, 3-4 campaign-specific articles a year is far too few, in my opinion. If the articles that were "removed" (so to speak) were replaced by generic content, I think that the magazine would become that much more boring.
Just to be clear, I did say 3-4 articles for each campaign setting. Thus, three or four Eberron articles each year, as well as 3-4 Forgotten Realms articles each year, and perhaps a few other campaign settings that don't have much support (Greyhawk, et al). Of course, they've basically indicated that they'll provide one article each year for most campaign settings in a special "alternate worlds" issue, or I think they have.
Perhaps I should have said I'd prefer to see somewhere around 1 campaign specific feature every other issue...
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Dragon is just a bit fragmented now and I think DeadDM makes a good point when he says it would be more than nice to be able to know exactly which issue dealt with the Abyssal Planes (or what have you) rather than having to search through 20 issues going, "I swear it was in one these issues."
Short of running an Abyssal article in every issue, how do we achieve that?
--Erik
I think that there should be no rigid guidelines, but just flexible ones, like ensuring that an Eberron or FR article is run on a almost regular schedule. Say, for example, each was run 4 times a year. One year could have 5, one 6, and one 3. I would be fine with that. Just keep the flexibility! Otherwise, you might end up choosing sub-par articles to meet your "quota".
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I just used Abyssal planes as an example. I think Dragon kicks major butt, don't get me wrong, I use it constantly and always, never fail, find something interesting to use, but, I find that I get near orgasmically overjoyed when I see an issue that sticks to a theme and runs with it, it just tickles me.
I think that is what a lot of readers of Dragon are saying when they are calling it fragmented; Dragon can at times seem a little mealpiece, a little like a jumbled attic filled with interesting treasures rather than a gleaming shop with a big sign outside the door that says, "Todd's Scroll Emporium" or "Oranimus's Incredible Musuem of Shadow Artifacts".
You might feel that you'll end up pushing yourself into a corner if an issue comes out with a theme that nobody cares about yet there are simple solutions to such a problem:
1. It is okay to pick broad themes, (like the "evil" issue or the "creature" issue. You don't have to narrow yourself down, thereby reaching a wider audience.
2. From experience, even things that I haven't been interest in (like the celestial planes) have suddenly caught my eye and imagination because they have been detailed in a creative way. Count on the fact that all it takes is good articles and it really doesn't matter what they are about, as long as they are creative and imaginative.
Here are a few examples:
Recently you ran the alchemist's fire article which was a really fun read. It would have been that much better had you included an Alchemist prestige class or alchemically powered magic items or a focus article on the Craft(Alchemy) skill(etc., etc.). And then, just as DeadDM said, Class Acts might have had an alchemical theme where you show how every class can benefit from alchemy or alchemical items.
Also, you occasionally run Demonicon articles, why not make the whole issue thematically based around that article? Include demon hunting weapons, classes, maybe a couple shops that might either be rund by demons or run for demons(etc., etc.).
It just seems like the potential is there to make Dragon this incredible resource for deeply exploring a few aspects of the game rather than being a pretty good resource for scraping the surface of many, many aspects of the game.
That is what I would like to see.
...like messageboard postings, not material of lasting worth...
You got somethin' 'gainst those 'boards, man? :)
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I had an idea some time ago that may go with this topic.
How about a monthly feature for campaign worlds, and have the subject of the feature rotate each month. Maybe a three or four page article to discuss whatever topic for a specific campaign world.
For example, one month there would be an Eberron article, the next one Greyhawk, then one for Forgotten Realms. You might even be able to include a side bar for suggestions for use in other campaigns, if needed. Effectively you would have four articles a year about each campaign world.
Or you could even rotate in a fourth "rotating" campaign world to occasionally bring in an article about Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Al Qadim, or something else that is near and dear to various gamers.
I have to admit that I'm a Greyhawk fan, but I've found useful information here and there from other settings that I've introduced to my campaigns... like a Spelljammer ship or a "lost" Kender. I've also have included a side quest that brought the party members to a different campaign world, like d20 Modern's Urban Arcana.
I might not be interested in reading an entire Dragon magazine dedicated to a campaign world that I'm not really "into," but an article in each issue wouldn't be too much information to put me into overload and want to avoid it altogether.
Faraer, I had forgotten about that, but yeah, I read all of the Princess Arc articles, and not once did I play in Mystara. Even when I first DMed D&D (Maroon Box Basic Set), I didn't use the Known World.
So yes, you can enjoy things that don't apply to a setting that you are using.
That having been said, I think that trying to make sure there are articles about Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, is great, but trying to say that there will be one in each magazine isn't the best policy. Having a goal of X number of articles might be good.
But then again, how big an article are we talking about? If its a page or two of updates based on the timeline moving forward in the novels, that shouldn't do much to take up space, but if we have a 5-6 page article about each campaign setting in each issue, it might be difficult to juggle.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I guess I was thinking about something like a five-page article for both the Forgotten Realms and Eberron, each exploring some aspect of that world with a fair amount of depth, some cool art, and perhaps a map or two. The topics would shift with the issue (a city one month, a look at a religion another, etc.), but I am strongly tempted to tie them to the issue's theme in some manner or another when possible. All of these would ideally have something in them that could be used by general D&D players.
"Greyhawk" articles would be standard features, and wouldn't fit into this context.
I'm not sure it's a good idea, and the magazine would have to be restructured somewhat to make it work (Class Acts will already be shrinking in January), but it is something I'm toying with in my notebooks.
--Erik
Just to be clear, I did say 3-4 articles for each campaign setting.
I stand corrected. Sorry for the misunderstanding, DeadDM.
And Faraer, that is exactly how I feel. Well put!
|
|
I think the editors and authors should surprise the readers. I'm fine with an Eberron article or Releams article every other month or maybe a yearly FR issue to go with the lost campaigns, dragons and horror themed issues each year. I still think April issue should have some humor themed articles in it :) I liked the stats for jelly baby monsters and pizza golems in one of the 3.0 april issues :)
keep up the fantastic work Erik.
I started getting Dragon montly when 3.0 premeried. I didnt' play much 2e so I didnt get the issues monthly for a while until I got my subscription. But issues since you've taken over have been great. At first I didnt like Class Acts but now I'm starting to warm up to them. I'm waiting eagerly for issues 336 and 337!
Mike McKeown
As usual I haven't actually seen issue #336 yet, so I haven't actually read the question posed. But just to make sure I've got the gist.
In the last year or so Dragon has decided that making sure every issue includes features like:
-Winning Races
-Heroic Feats
-Adventurer's Tricks
-Player's Tips
-Gaining Prestige
-Under Command
-etc, etc
Is a bad idea because it puts too much of a straitjacket on the magazine, aroses lots of angry rumblings from the readership and a host of other reasons.
But... In the next year or so making sure every issue adheres to the formula of:
-2 "generic" articles
-1 FR article
-and 1 Eberron article
Is a good idea because...?
Like I said, I haven't read the relevent letter response so I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it.
|
|
I happen to be at home, and I figured I might as well copy directly Azual's suggestion and Erik's relevant response.
...but I think that instead of printing whole issues for one setting, you could rather just print one Forgotten Realms, one Eberron, and two general articles for everyone's use. That way everyone will be happy every issue.
...I think it's pretty fair to say that no matter what, not everyone is going to be happy with every issue. Your point about #335 is well taken, however, and readers should not expect to see another issue so closely tied to a specific setting in the near future. We're toying with the possibility of always including one article for each of the currently supported campaign settings in every issue, however, and would be interested in hearing reader feedback on the idea.
I still think that as a general policy, one setting specific article each month is more than I'd be interested in seeing. If it is a good article, and it ties well with the issue's theme and it has useful information that can be used by those not using the setting, I wouldn't mind much.
But, I don't like the idea of trying to include even one setting specific article each issue, and two is just too many.
Well, I will say this. There is a difference between making sure every issue has a "winning races" or a prestige class and having a setting specific article in that that particular FR article may be a prestige class, or an NPC write up, or a spellbook, or magic items, or about a city, etc. So there is inherantly more flexibility in just blocking off an article on a specific campaign setting.
i think it would be good to have *one* setting-specific article each issue, and the setting would shift between all the ones available. we already have the Campaign Classics in December devoted to setting-specific material.
As usual I haven't actually seen issue #336 yet, so I haven't actually read the question posed. But just to make sure I've got the gist.
In the last year or so Dragon has decided that making sure every issue includes features like:
-Winning Races
-Heroic Feats
-Adventurer's Tricks
-Player's Tips
-Gaining Prestige
-Under Command
-etc, etcIs a bad idea because it puts too much of a straitjacket on the magazine, aroses lots of angry rumblings from the readership and a host of other reasons.
But... In the next year or so making sure every issue adheres to the formula of:
-2 "generic" articles
-1 FR article
-and 1 Eberron articleIs a good idea because...?
Like I said, I haven't read the relevent letter response so I'm curious as to the reasoning behind it.
A very, very good point. Why not just print the best articles you get?
Because if one month you only get decent Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Greyhawk/Whateveria articles, the people who don't use those campaign settings write in or post on your message board complaining?
;-)
Erik, I would love to hear your ideas about Starmantle from the Realms. My campaign is based from there but i need some help fleshing it out. City maps and background would be awesome. kellador71@yahoo.com
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
In the last year or so Dragon has decided that making sure every issue includes features like:
-Winning Races
-Heroic Feats
-Adventurer's Tricks
-Player's Tips
-Gaining Prestige
-Under Command
-etc, etcIs a bad idea because it puts too much of a straitjacket on the magazine, aroses lots of angry rumblings from the readership and a host of other reasons.
The most important reason is that the published examples of those articles were seldom very good. No one likes a magazine choked with crap and filler, and I've got the numbers to prove it.
But... In the next year or so making sure every issue adheres to the formula of:
-2 "generic" articles
-1 FR article
-and 1 Eberron articleIs a good idea because...?
I never proposed the quotas listed above. That came from this thread. Having two campaign setting articles in each issue does not limit the rest of the magazine to two features. I think that would be a very bad approach. The bulk of the magazine needs to be aimed at the general readership, which is to say those folks who play D&D in their own worlds. No matter what happens, the majority of the magazine will be "generic" as long as I'm associated with it. #335 is a bit of an exception, but that is a special case due to the big Waterdeep releases, and I reserve the right to publish exceptions every so often. Call it editorial prerogative.
If providing an Eberron article every month encourages Eberron fans to pick up the magazine every month without alienating the readers who do not play in Eberron campaigns, the magazine gets more readers, more budget, probably eventually more pages, etc. The trick is to try to pull off a win-win that ultimately brings more people to the magazine.
I am not convinced that including a FR and Eberron article in each issue is a way to do that, but I'm also not convinced that it isn't.
--Erik
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Why not just print the best articles you get?
We're doing that now, and the results are merely satisfying. I'm 100% convinced, based on my experience with Dungeon, that forethought and planning are the best ways to improve a magazine. Saying "let's do an Eberron article every month" doesn't just mean "let's make sure to pull the least-crappy Eberron article off the slush pile." It means planning a year's worth of content in advance, probably in synch with each issue's theme, and then soliciting specific articles from trustworthy authors (Keith Baker, certainly, but others too).
Compare an issue of Dungeon in, say, the mid-90s to issue #124. All of the content in the latter issue was planned out months in advance, and each article in that magazine was solicited specifically for the issue (with the Shards of Eberron article more a special conversion of an existing tournament module). My understanding is that in the mid-90s, Dungeon was much more likely to just publish whatever cool adventure happened to have floated to the top of the pile. I think, in general, the readers respond better to the more "tightly scripted" issues. We just hit our ninth consecutive month of subscriber increases in Dungeon, which is a phenomenal record I've not seen matched since I started attending periodicals meetings at WotC in 1999. That hasn't been the case with Dragon, and I'm trying to figure out why.
But planned content does not mean "just grab whatever comes in."
--Erik
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Erik, I would love to hear your ideas about Starmantle from the Realms. My campaign is based from there but i need some help fleshing it out. City maps and background would be awesome. kellador71@yahoo.com
I hate to break the illusion that I am the world's biggest D&D geek, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about Starmantle. I don't even know if it's a location or a person.
Some Dragon editor. Harumph!
--Erik
We're doing that now, and the results are merely satisfying. I'm 100% convinced, based on my experience with Dungeon, that forethought and planning are the best ways to improve a magazine. Saying "let's do an Eberron article every month" doesn't just mean "let's make sure to pull the least-crappy Eberron article off the slush pile." It means planning a year's worth of content in advance, probably in synch with each issue's theme, and then soliciting specific articles from trustworthy authors (Keith Baker, certainly, but others too).
Compare an issue of Dungeon in, say, the mid-90s to issue #124. All of the content in the latter issue was planned out months in advance, and each article in that magazine was solicited specifically for the issue (with the Shards of Eberron article more a special conversion of an existing tournament module). My understanding is that in the mid-90s, Dungeon was much more likely to just publish whatever cool adventure happened to have floated to the top of the pile. I think, in general, the readers respond better to the more "tightly scripted" issues. We just hit our ninth consecutive month of subscriber increases in Dungeon, which is a phenomenal record I've not seen matched since I started attending periodicals meetings at WotC in 1999. That hasn't been the case with Dragon, and I'm trying to figure out why.
But planned content does not mean "just grab whatever comes in."
--Erik
I suppose. I would still be inclined to repeat my fundamental objection, though: "No one setting is used by a majority of gamers..."
If you could show me that 51% of Dragon subscribers are using Eberron, than I would say that such a column is clearly justified, but I very much doubt that 51% of the readership is using any one setting. Even 15%-20% would be shocking to me if proven. Monthly features should be for all D&Ders. Occasional features are the prefect venue for specific settings.
I very much second the notion of a rotating setting column. Maybe Eberron one month and Forgotten Realms the next with a varying "oddball" (Mystara, Dark Sun, etc) thrown in every third or fourth month.
Of course, my ultimate fantasy is to just spin-off "Campaign Classics" into another magazine entirely... :)
|
|
We're doing that now, and the results are merely satisfying. I'm 100% convinced, based on my experience with Dungeon, that forethought and planning are the best ways to improve a magazine.... I think, in general, the readers respond better to the more "tightly scripted" issues. We just hit our ninth consecutive month of subscriber increases in Dungeon, which is a phenomenal record I've not seen matched since I started attending periodicals meetings at WotC in 1999. That hasn't been the case with Dragon, and I'm trying to figure out why.
But planned content does not mean "just grab whatever comes in."
--Erik
I have a feeling about the nature of this issue, and it took a long time to really develop into a "concrete" sense of what was lacking. In my personal opinion, it is a strong theme issue. The best issues, in my opinion, are situated around issue #300. Looking at the spines of these magazines, I can see why.
#298 - Drow, #299 - Knights & Paladins, #301 - Swashbucklers, #303 Gladiators, #304 - Mercenaries. Skipping a bit, Issue #333 - Demonomicon: Fraz-Rub'Luu - Relics of the Realms - Noble PCs - Scary Spells - Ecology of the Behir.
#333 may have had good content (as do most of the issues) but considering Dragon reader's high standads (however you choose to spin that - it can be quite negative) it may not be enough. Good content can be found from all manner of d20 publishers. Usually when we choose to buy a book or resource, it is because it features something that we think is really cool. I have a friend that will buy just about anything that features Necromancers. I have another friend that will purchase just about anything featuring Samurai.
Now, obviously these don't necessarily work well together, but I think most buyers like having a useful resource when they get through the magazine. And part of useful content is knowing where to find the information I want.
I'm not playing a druid right now. A year from now, am I going to be able to remember that Vile feats for evil druids was a class acts in the October 2005 issue? There's a good chance that I can't. And while a resource like the DragonDex is better than nothing, it really isn't that good. It isn't searchable to any sophisticated degree. For example, if I don't remember the article title, or the feat names in question, I can't really begin looking for it. If it even broke feats out by type (since I'm sure there aren't that many vile feats in Dragon) that would be a huge step in the right direction.
Now, back on topic. We have all these great articles, and they're not being used in our games because we can't find them when we want them.
Having a theme is not the only solution, obviously. Having a paizo maintained searchable database would alleviate many of these problems. But, in all honesty I'm going to guess that producing a "theme" issue is easier on your end then even contemplating the resource I'm talking about. And I think in general it would be better received as well.
Now, not every article has to be tied into the overarching theme, but there is certainly room for improvement on that front.
Let's take a serious look at Issue #336 now. It's the October issue, and you don't have to put yourself out to guess that the issue is going to have a horror theme. Looking at the spine what do I see? "Birth of the Dead - Hauntings - Bandits in the Path of Flame - Spells of the Demonomicon - Ecology of the Spawn of Kyuss.
For a horror theme we've got three articles that sound like they fit. Birth of the Dead, Hauntings and an Undead Ecology all sound like horror related articles. The Demonomicon - maybe at a stretch. Bandits of the Path of Flame? - There is some screaming and "horror"... but still a stretch.
So, if this is a horror themed issue, where is the horror? More than half the "features" don't really include it. Looking in the "familiars" it gets even worse. Wormfood is about fun places to go in Greyhawk. Bazaar of the Bizarre is okay - it sticks to the horror theme, but silicon sorcery - I wouldn't say it is that horrible, particularly for a CR 18 creature...
And starting on 98 we have Class Acts. Now, this is the "end" of the magazine. The last thing you're going to leave your reader with. The bard, druid, and wizard class acts could probably be considered to fit the horror theme. The others don't.
A magazine is a lot like music (or any number of things, say a movie). Pacing is important. Development is important. And a conclusion is important. Throughout, though, it has to remain enjoyable.
What would I change to create more of a "punch"? I'd definitely rework the class acts section. October would have been a great month to feature a "Falling Paladin" for the Paladin - whether it was blackguard or just reasons a Paladin might feel justified from turning from the "straight and narrow." With horror and undead being so closely related, I'd probably provide an advice column for rogues fighting creatures that aren't subject to sneak attack. There are feats that a rogue might consider just for those situations in which their most potent form of attack is lost, and it would fit in this month's issue perfectly.
I'd also have probably done something different with barbarians - maybe taking a look at the history of cannabilism as practiced on a societal level (rather than by isolated peoples about to starve, a la the Donner Party) like in certain Polynesian tribes, etc. I'd probably feature information on how evil clerics can "fit into" society. Some advice, perhaps, for how a cleric of Erythnul (or whatever), might be able to adventure in a town without say, slaughtering everybody he meets on a dark corner....
Now, I wouldn't normally suggest such a "dark" magazine, but this is the October "Horror" issue. There was a lot more that you could have done to create a creepy, spooky tone that leaves us jittering, or thinking to ourselves "we have to include more horror in our games."
The sad part is, James Jacobs article did that for me, but that feeling was gone by the time I got into "Bandits on the Path of Flame".
Dungeon has had more success because it has offered us what we've said we wanted (3-4 adventures covering a range of levels), and the quality has been consistenly high. Dragon has been a little more erratic. One way to be consistenly high is to choose a theme (whether broad or narrow), and see if you can't get 85%+ of your articles to support that theme, at least generally.
I'm very pleased with Dungeon right now, but I keep expecting Dragon to be as good. That might seem an unfair expectation (you're being punished for doing a better job with one magazine) but that's the nature of the beast. I'm not entirely satisfied with the product because every time I read it, I think to myself "it's okay, but it would have been so much better if they had done it this way."
I'm not a magazine editor, and while I have a much higher opinion of myself and my abilities than is healthy, I shouldn't walk away from a magazine with that feeling.
Now, I don't want to pick on Class Acts because I really think it is a good idea, but I don't think it has been performing well. With the number of articles each month, though, it seems likely that they'll fail to support the same theme without being redundant. That's one of the reasons why featuring fewer each month (but in more detail) might be better. Still, featuring all of them can still work - a broad theme provides plenty of angles to work - as I hope my above explanation shows.
Every month I want a magazine that ends with me setting it down and saying "Wow". That used to happen when I was a kid. I'm harder to impress now, but I think you can do it. It won't be easy, but when has running Dragon ever been easy? If this staff can't do it, then it can't be done. But you're close. You're so close I can taste it. But I won't keep sitting around waiting for you to "find" it. When you do, I'll come back, but they say the only vote that counts is with your dollar. I don't want to withhold my subscription, but that's the only leverage I have.
So, I'm not saying that "I'll resubscribe no matter what you do" anymore. I'll be a little more picky than that. I'll say instead that I want to resubscribe. I want you to convince me to stay. I'll happily pay whatever the cost of the magazine is as long as I'm getting something I consider to be of high quality.
And I'm passionate about this issue. Dragon can be great. I don't think featuring more "campaign specific" articles is the way to do it. If they're done well I won't complain - but I don't want you looking to that as the "silver bullet" to bring in more subscribers. It won't work with me, and it may drive me away.
Rather than looking at increasing setting specific content, I think you'd do better to see about organizing the theme of the magazine a little more "tightly". I think it will have the desired effect without possibly alienating a large segment of the gaming population.
And since it is late and I've been talking too long (and I'm sure this post will be lost to the void), I'll call it a night.
I know I have already been branded a FR "cultist" but the more I think of what Erik has said and what I remember of my youth and buying Dragon Magazine, I can remember when there were Mystra articles every month, FR articles every month, and yet the magazine still seemed to have tons of new and interesting stuff in it every month. I think it key is to see if it can be pulled off in an organized and quality manner.
I know there are a lot of gamers on this board that wouldn't agree, but I also know for example there are a lot of members of Candlekeep.com, for example, that have stopped buying Dragon because they felt that Dragon abandoned them when they went "non specific campaign articles" especially when they then proceeded to run Eberron articles to hype the new setting.
|
|
Will someone please explain, then, how an article is any less useable in your world when it's in a named setting rather than one the reader knows nothing about, because I just don't see it and the case hasn't been made.
Your question is difficult to answer without the use of specifics or examples, but I'll do my best.
If something is "campaign specific" it isn't enough to simply slap a world title on it. You could go through the magazine and put "Forgotten Realms" or "Eberron" or "Greyhawk" in big letters across the top, but it wouldn't make it actually setting specific. So, to respond to your question, we have to understand what separates a "campaign specific" article from a generic article. Obviously they are different, right?
A campaign specific article draws on the history and unique elements of that world. The more complex the interaction between an article and the world, the more difficult it is to remove.
For example, a druid is a common feature of the game. An article featuring druids can be very general, but it can become more specific. If the article focuses on druids in a jungle setting, it is less likely to be useable by everybody, since not every campaign includes jungle dwelling druids. If the druids also worship snakes and have a close relationship to Yuan-Ti, it is even less "adaptable". If it is expected that they're deeply involved with an artifact in a world it is less adaptable still.
In order to use something, you have to remove or change the elements that don't fit. In the above "thumbnail" example, it is easier to take a group of druids and adapt them to a jungle environment and add a relationship to Yuan-Ti and the presence of an artifact than it is to remove them. Obviously if a grop of druids has an artifact, much of the article is going to be built around what effect it has on them - it's an artifact, and it is going to change them. If you can't take the artifact (say, it's a relic of a God you don't use, and you don't even have anything similar) you'll really have to work hard to use the druids.
And that's the basic nature of it. Adding details to a core idea is generally easy, but once they've been added, it is harder to remove them and go back to a "default" version that can then be modified to your game world. In essence, if the "generic" version is provided, everybody needs to "adapt" it to their world, requiring a single step. If it is campaign specific, 10% of the readers (or so) can drop it directly into their campaign without any modifications or consideration, while the other 90% have to work much harder to change it to their world (first by removing the non-transferrable components and then adding in the necessary campaign specific references).
Now, not all articles are bad. The Crimmor article is a fairly good choice for a "campaign specific" article because the city could be dropped into most other campaigns without serious modification. Most campaigns feature cities of some size, and while some DMs might change the architecture, etc, it is basically ready to use "as is" in any campaign. An article, say, on a bard college in Waterdeep is harder. It featured Forgotten Realm specific prestige classes and assumptions about political interactions between the bard college and the surrounding community. Using that college "somehwere else" involves rewriting everything about how it relates to the surrounding city, and quite likely changing all of the prestige class information.
Now, articles like that might be okay on occassion (since they really aren't useful to people who don't use that campaign setting) because they can still inspire, and some readers will enjoy it, but if every article were like that (or even a sizeable portion), it would be a serious detriment to my choice of whether to buy the magazine or not.
I never proposed the quotas listed above. That came from this thread. Having two campaign setting articles in each issue does not limit the rest of the magazine to two features.But... In the next year or so making sure every issue adheres to the formula of:
-2 "generic" articles
-1 FR article
-and 1 Eberron articleIs a good idea because...?
Okayfine! Like I said, I haven't received the issue or read the letter and its response, which is why I asked for the clarification (since the idea of four articles/issue didn't make any sense at all to me :) ). Now on the subject of campaign specific material.
I know others have already suggested this notion or something similar but I do like the notion of creating a familiar that follows a three issue cycle of FR, Eberron and then one of the "dead campaigns". That would give us the 4 FR/Eberron articles per year many seem to prefer and also offer up some room for the nostalgia factor. Though that might conflict with the campaign classics that is becoming a regular issue.
This would allow you to set down mandatory criteria in the writer's guidelines (include an "adapting to other campaigns" sidebar and the like) and hopefully cut down on the ill feelings between the factions...
336? Good grief, I'm still waiting for 335. Just got 334 last week. Bloody overseas mail.
Anyway, I don't see a real problem with what Erik Mona is saying. I too remember the Voyage of the Princess Arc articles, and, despite not using the Known World at all, I still really liked the articles and quite often found ideas to borrow into my game.
Having the ability to script out a year's worth of magazines beforehand certainly would make the mag more professional. Being able to tap particular authors, give them a deadline and work from there cannot be a bad idea compared to working month to month and hoping that something "Clicks".
IMHO, this is a great idea. Even if the articles aren't terribly useful to me right now, the could be in the future. Crimoor was bloody fantastic, even if it's not terribly useful to me right now. If that's an example of a setting specific article, then, by all means, gimme more.
|
|
One of the problems with slapping a name on an otherwise generic article is the tendency to pad the wordcount with useless information. Basically, many "specific" articles get away from their subject and discuss the world in general and how this aspect relates to the larger world.
That is wasted information for each person that doesn't use that campaign setting. Making that information as brief as possible and putting it in a sidebar makes the information just as useful for those in the setting, but doesn't detract from the feature by "situating it" properly.
And I hated the "Elminster's Guide to the Realms" articles. I didn't like the art, and I didn't like the locations, and I didn't like the descriptions. I didn't find them something I could use in my game, or a particularly engaging starting point for my own creation - at least, not for the most part.
Some people will hate anything that is setting specific. I'm not in that camp, but I still prefer generics.
Wow. A lot of stuff that I want to respond to:
Dragon has been a little more erratic. One way to be consistenly high is to choose a theme (whether broad or narrow), and see if you can't get 85%+ of your articles to support that theme, at least generally.
While I would love it if Dragon had more themed issues, you have to keep in mind that Paizo is limited to the articles that are submitted. Short of asking writers wholesale for articles themed around each individual issue (which, if I remember correctly, Paizo has already said would be impractical), there is simply no way to make an issue as chock-full of themed articles as you seem to want.
About campaign-specific material, I would like to reiterate my belief that said material, regardless of the campaign setting, is generally more exciting and, most importantly, inspirational than "generic" articles. I think Faraer put it best when he (or she?) wrote:
I think that just as in fiction, it's not the basic ideas that count here but their development and execution, and pieces with nothing but basic ideas and no depth are far too simplistic to be worthwhile. In the course of detailing the idea, an article gives many more ideas, each of which has the chance to inspire the reader. Further, being set in relatively well known worlds helps the reader to interpret the piece for their campaign.
Finally (and I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything), I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with your belief, DeadDMWalking, that applying a campaign setting to a generic article results in "the tendency to pad the wordcount with useless information." I often find that such information is a source of inspiration itself, or, at the very least, adds flavor that a rule-crunchy but otherwise boring article lacks.
I DM in the Forgotten Realms, so naturally I prefer articles that are FR specific. However, I personally have never been put off by the fact that some idea in the magazines is specific to a non-FR campaign. I just adapt as necessary. Since we were asked to note our preferences, I like the current way the magazines are "themed". I don't need a specific schedule of FR, Eberron, or other content. My only strong preference is that the quality stays as good as it usually is.
I am not a huge fan of the 'Class Acts' section and would prefer a bit more flexibility in that area for Critical Threats, more fiction, more maps of mystery, or whatever.
I am not a huge fan of the 'Class Acts' section and would prefer a bit more flexibility in that area for Critical Threats, more fiction, more maps of mystery, or whatever.
Class acts are in an entirely different magazine from Critical Threats and Maps of Mystery. Somehow, I don't think making room in one magazine adds space to the other. ;)
My understanding is that in the mid-90s, Dungeon was much more likely to just publish whatever cool adventure happened to have floated to the top of the pile. I think, in general, the readers respond better to the more "tightly scripted" issues. We just hit our ninth consecutive month of subscriber increases in Dungeon, which is a phenomenal record I've not seen matched since I started attending periodicals meetings at WotC in 1999. That hasn't been the case with Dragon, and I'm trying to figure out why.
--Erik
I think I know why. . . check out how fast the Age of Worms section of the messageboards has hit 5K posts. People post thread after thread that simply ask if anyone has read the lastest installment yet. Plus, should I mention how many signed in 10 times a day just to check on AoW Overload? I admit that I did.
The point is, players and DMs really, really LOVE the idea of a 10-12 part adventure that takes characters from 1st to 20th level. The buzz is tremendous, and I have to admit that Dungeon only popped onto my radar because of Shackled City's introduction.
Could Dragon ever get a feature in its pages that generates that particular brand of excitement? Probably not. . . but I DO remember a few people saying that they were subscribing to Dragon because of the Wormfood crossover articles!
On the other hand, here's an idea . . . maybe Paizo could come up with thier own unique campaign setting. . . pieces of it introduced each month for a year. In Month #1, you introduce the base classes in a long feature article. . . then Month #2 you do a Map overview and basic history, Month #3 is a list of Prestige Classes, Month #4 is a new spell school with a big batch of spells, and so on, until after a year's worth of articles, you have an entire campaign book in the pages of the mag. . . then you could also use Dungeon for a couple of crossover aventures in the new setting. Then a hardcover.
If it's really good, maybe it could generate that same excitement. Heck - maybe AP 4 or AP 5 can be set in the new campaign world. If it's not popular, well. . .it's only 20-25 pages per issue. . . what do you think?
Mr. Wereplatypus...I think you are on to something! This is genius, not only is it genius but my wallet just flew out of my pants, eager to spew forth its money for such a thing. Now I know that all the editors of Dragon have a real crush on Greyhawk, and don't get me wrong, they have made me a believer, but I would love to see a fresh, shiny new campaign setting wrought by the same people who bring us the quality articles now present in Dragon.
DeadDMWalking left a pretty long post up above (wish I could quote it but I don't know how to create that snazzy grey box with "DeadDMWalking wrote"). I agree whole heartedly with your summation of themes and how the cohesiveness of the magazine is also the draw of the magazine.
Someone said that it would be too difficult to do themes because you would have to be soliciting articles but I ask, how did they do it before so well? Why is the darkness issue (#322) so tight and put together and thematically binding? Was it magic? Did the articles on darkness just accidentally get put together in the same issue? Did the editors slap their foreheads and say, "Dang! That worked out pretty nice fer an accident!"
I know that's not what happened. They planned. They planned and they might just have solicted. But gawd! That was a good issue! And honestly, I couldn't really tell you which individual articles were even that great in it (besides 'The City of Lanterns', that kicked some major butt), all I can remember is that it fit so tightly in its theme that it became instantly usable in any campaign that uses darkness (i.e. every campaign). Not only that, what campaign doesn't have the shadow plane in some way or form in their campaign? There are golldang spells that refer to the plane for Pete's sake!
So, in summation, we have a good magazine with internal organs and flesh and pretty eyes and nice fresh breath but no skeleton.
Give a good magazine a spine and it becomes great.
|
|
Just to teach people how to quote, it is very easy.
You begin with the "[" character. Next goes the command, in this case "quote="
Now, this is the tricky part. The above "" get dropped so you have [quote=, but when you put the person's name, it actually goes in quotes.
So, when I write it out it looks like [quote="DeadDMWalking"
The last thing I do is put the "]" on it. Now, I think those will show up correctly, but the only thing missing in the above is the end bracket.
Alright, let me try:
DeadDMWalking Wrote:
""Just to teach people how to quote, it is very easy.""
Nope...
DeadDMWalking left a pretty long post up above (wish I could quote it but I don't know how to create that snazzy grey box with "DeadDMWalking wrote").
Click on the "reply" button above the message you want to quote once you've signed in. It took me a while to figure that out too :)
On the other hand, here's an idea . . . maybe Paizo could come up with thier own unique campaign setting. . . pieces of it introduced each month for a year. In Month #1, you introduce the base classes in a long feature article. . . then Month #2 you do a Map overview and basic history, Month #3 is a list of Prestige Classes, Month #4 is a new spell school with a big batch of spells, and so on, until after a year's worth of articles, you have an entire campaign book in the pages of the mag. . . then you could also use Dungeon for a couple of crossover aventures in the new setting. Then a hardcover.
If it's really good, maybe it could generate that same excitement. Heck...
Hey! That's an interesting idea! :)
You could tie it into the themes of given issues pretty easily too. e.g. The October issue traditionally deals with undead so that's the perfect time to present new undead monsters/rules/lore tailored for that campaign world.
The caveat would be to make sure that anything produced is easily to convert to other settings (mandatory "In your Campaign" sidebars).
The other caveat being that this just might be the final push that sends one or more of the editors into some kind of catatonic state :)
Of course, since as I recall you're the guru of that "thousand adventures" thread there's a simple solution...
Start a "Dragon Campaigns" thread and see what happens :) It might be interesting to try and design a campaign collaboratively.
DeadDMWalking left a pretty long post up above (wish I could quote it but I don't know how to create that snazzy grey box with "DeadDMWalking wrote").Click on the "reply" button above the message you want to quote once you've signed in. It took me a while to figure that out too :)
Yep, that's the easiest. And if you do that, you'll see the necessary codes. But if you want to type them yourself, it's not difficult once you get the pattern right.
Here's the pieces, in order, no spaces:
- an open square bracket (the key just to the right of the letter P on most keyboards)
- the word quote
- an equals sign
- a double quote (")
- the name you want to appear (which doesn't have to match the user's actual name)
- another double quote
- a close square bracket
After that, you type or paste the text you want. When that's done, you need to close the quote with the following:
- an open square bracket
- a slash (/)
- the word quote
- a close square bracket
See - simple. :P