http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=217100
There is lots of discussion on how to improve Dragon here, but I thought you all might be interested in a lengthy discussion from another board with some new viewpoints on the issue.
"But I was fond of Dragon back when TSR did it and it included other games."
"For me it would have to go back to the way it was under TSR and cover more than just D&D/D20."
"Maybe they can have more coverage of non-WotC d20/OGL fantasy games and sourcebooks."
"Roger Moores early 1990's style Dragon with reviews, book reviews, a minatures column and articles on other games."
"I want Dragon to break away from being the WotC house organ. Yes, this will never happen. I know. Scream all you want. But it would be so sweet each month: a couple of D&D rules articles, Eberron cultural notes, some Iron Heroes NPC's, a village for Conan, a Talislanta d20 review. All of these are fantasy, so they'd fall within Dragon's sphere of coverage."
"And I would also like to see more non-D&D stuff, even if it's just extended to include D20 and OGL games."
"Dragon would have to be something besides a D&D "house organ" to get me to read it again. Provide articles for other companies' games. The occasional minigame. Reviews and the like."
"IMHO, most of the truly excellent d20/OGL material out there is published by companies other than WotC, and since it isn't covered in Dragon, I don't have any interest in the magazine."
"Old school Dragon provided material for just about every rpg - and many a sophisticated boardgame - through the mid-80s. While I certainly understand the ecomonic reasoning behind the D&D only focus, it makes me yearn for the old days."
"I also would like to see them cover all of d20, not just WotC stuff."
"Branch-out beyond D&D again. It's is painful to see a mag that used to have real vision in the form of a wider perspective on the hobby than just TSR's house games be dumbed-down into a mere house organ. ... Reviews. Many of non-d20 games."
"More OGL/D20 stuff beyond D&D... like Spycraft 2.0 or Testament. Actual non-D20 stuff... like Dying Earth or Nobilis."
I think I'm seeing a trend here.
I mostly agree; the main focus of Dragon should always be D&D, but letting in some content -- in particular reviews (and not just blurbs) -- addressing other d20 products would be great.
Heck, maybe they could even re-hire some of the same reviewers they used before. I know for sure that at least one, Allen Varney, is still in the "biz."
But limiting anything to d20 is still an overly-narrow view of this great hobby of ours. Gamers can always use encouragement to branch out beyond their back yards and really try something new. If it wasn't for Dragon reviews, I might never have known about such diverse games as Vampire, Toon, Paranoia, and Amber. I can't be the only one who brings the same sense of adventure and thirst for the exciting and unknown that he takes into the dungeon along on his pursuit of great new games, as well, can I? :)
I am shocked that the rpg.net crowd wants more than just D&D in the magazine.
You'd get a similar response if you asked about Dragon at an automobile review site. "I think it should have more stuff about cars," the posters would say.
--Erik
Don't forget, Eric, RPG.Net loves D&D, too. There are a few vocal detractors, but just about everybody there will profess a great amount of affection for at least one version of D&D. Plus, every game has vocal detractors at RPG.Net. The couple dorks who dump in every HERO or Exalted thread don't reflect the majority anymore than the D&D detractors do.
The RPG.Net crowd just don't limit their conceptions of what an RPG is to D&D. There's nothing wrong with that.
Your implication that D&D is no more closely-related to other RPGs than it is to automobiles also comes off as a very divisive statement. Especially when what a lot of people are bemoaning is that Dragon used to be about acknowleging the hobby as a whole and bringing gamers together. It wasn't just an isolationist "One Game to Rule Them All" outpost.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The RPG.Net crowd just don't limit their conceptions of what an RPG is to D&D. There's nothing wrong with that.
There _is_ something wrong with that. The vast majority of our audience wants only D&D in the magazine, and freaks out any time we try anything else. I'm not sure if it would have been that way when Roger Moore was running the show, but there was no Internet back then, so it's difficult to say for sure.
Don't forget. I'm the guy who edited Polyhedron. We included a different mini-game in every issue, lots of industry news, etc. And the RPG.net crowd absolutely adored it. Some posters are still mourning Polyhedron in that thread.
The problem is, the number of people who appreciated the quirkiness of Polyhedron is dwarfed by the number of people who hated its intrusion into a "D&D only" magazine. If we had made Polyhedron part of Dragon (and hence "taken away" more D&D content), the uprising would have been catastrophic.
--Erik
The RPG.Net crowd just don't limit their conceptions of what an RPG is to D&D. There's nothing wrong with that.
There _is_ something wrong with that. The vast majority of our audience wants only D&D in the magazine, and freaks out any time we try anything else. I'm not sure if it would have been that way when Roger Moore was running the show, but there was no Internet back then, so it's difficult to say for sure.
Don't forget. I'm the guy who edited Polyhedron. We included a different mini-game in every issue, lots of industry news, etc. And the RPG.net crowd absolutely adored it. Some posters are still mourning Polyhedron in that thread.
The problem is, the number of people who appreciated the quirkiness of Polyhedron is dwarfed by the number of people who hated its intrusion into a "D&D only" magazine. If we had made Polyhedron part of Dragon (and hence "taken away" more D&D content), the uprising would have been catastrophic.
--Erik
Well, I said before, I think it's a matter of degree. Polyhedron games were gigantic. Limiting "quirky" content to 1/10th the length would still satisfy the people looking for more diverse content, but not at the expense of filling half the pages with stuff anyone hates.
Wanna bet?
--Erik
Nope. Everything is hated by someone. I'm talking about minimizing disgruntlement for one camp and increasing satisfaction for another. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a zero-sum game.
Your implication that D&D is no more closely-related to other RPGs than it is to automobiles also comes off as a very divisive statement. Especially when what a lot of people are bemoaning is that Dragon used to be about acknowleging the hobby as a whole and bringing gamers together. It wasn't just an isolationist "One Game to Rule Them All" outpost.
Simply including articles about a specific D&D world rouses such controversary and debate that at times I'm expecting Ken Burns to do a documentary on it... :)
("At times Ah do believe this terrible war shall nevah end.")
I can't even imagine what would happen if the magazine started printing stuff from other games. But I would expect blood on the floor.
Your implication that D&D is no more closely-related to other RPGs than it is to automobiles also comes off as a very divisive statement. Especially when what a lot of people are bemoaning is that Dragon used to be about acknowleging the hobby as a whole and bringing gamers together. It wasn't just an isolationist "One Game to Rule Them All" outpost.Simply including articles about a specific D&D world rouses such controversary and debate that at times I'm expecting Ken Burns to do a documentary on it... :)
("At times Ah do believe this terrible war shall nevah end.")
I can't even imagine what would happen if the magazine started printing stuff from other games. But I would expect blood on the floor.
But it was done for decades! I can't believe that there was such a constant firestorm of harsh criticism that whole time.
The readers were fine with it in the 70s, fine with it in the 80s, fine with it in the 90s, but now the universe will explode if you even attempt it? Highly doubtful.
I still maintain that the backlash against Polyhedron was primarily against the hugeness of Polyhedron.
|
Yamo, I'm totally going to have to disagree with you here. If Dragon were to include non-D&D material in any part of the magazine we would be witness to an uprising of hatred and despair unseen ever before on these boards. Its the opinions of the paying customers that count the most. I'm not sure how many people in that RPG.net thread are customers but I do know that a majority of the people on THESE boards are.
Yamo, I'm totally going to have to disagree with you here. If Dragon were to include non-D&D material in any part of the magazine we would be witness to an uprising of hatred and despair unseen ever before on these boards. Its the opinions of the paying customers that count the most. I'm not sure how many people in that RPG.net thread are customers but I do know that a majority of the people on THESE boards are.
Why did it work fine for twenty years, then? Are gamers today really so much more narrow-minded? Or is a vocal minority spoiling it for everyone?
Yamo, I'm totally going to have to disagree with you here. If Dragon were to include non-D&D material in any part of the magazine we would be witness to an uprising of hatred and despair unseen ever before on these boards.
Such as First Watch? ;)
Yamo, I'm totally going to have to disagree with you here. If Dragon were to include non-D&D material in any part of the magazine we would be witness to an uprising of hatred and despair unseen ever before on these boards.Such as First Watch? ;)
Most. Not all. GURPS, Vampire, Call of Cthulhu all had multiple articles devoted to them back in the day. It doesn't take a lot to demonstrate an awareness of the hobby.
I guess it's the difference in perception between a magazine that acknowledges that D&D is just one of many great RPGa versus one that either doesn't acknowledge that other RPGs exist or doesn't believe that they matter. Dragon used to be of the latter mindset for many, many years, but now is of the former, which is depressingly-narrow and repellent to me.
Why did it work fine for twenty years, then? Are gamers today really so much more narrow-minded? Or is a vocal minority spoiling it for everyone?
Spoiling what? Spoiling the fact that the people who don't read Dragon won't get the content they want? Spoiling the fact that there isn't a magazine geared towards other RPGs?
And why label people narrow-minded because they enjoy D&D above other RPGs?
I speak with absolutely no authority when I say that I don't think that adding non-Wizards of the Coast or non-d20 material into Dragon will either increase sales or make it a better magazine. I subscribe to Dragon because it is a D&D magazine, not a D&D/GURPS/Hackmaster/LARP/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Weirdness magazine.
I think that if there were a market for such a magazine, someone that's *not* Wizards of the Coast (Steve Jackson, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight Games, Mongoose, etc.) would have jumped on it by now. The fact that there is no such magazine leads me to believe that such a magazine would not be as lucrative a business as it might seem to be.
There have been articles lately that have the feel of some of the older magazines, but those articles weren't always well received. Again, speaking with absolutely no authority, I think that it may be due to the fact that D&D isn't the game that it was 30, 20, or even 10 years ago, and to make Dragon what is was back then isn't the way to make Dragon more popular with gamers or in sales.
I can't say that I'm satisfied with everything in every issue of Dragon over the past five years. I *can* say that there have been complete issues that I really didn't care for at all. But I also know (through reading the boards or letters to the editor) that the issues that I really didn't care for are someone else's favorites.
Lisa, Erik, James, and the others involved in creating and maintaining the creative vision for Dragon have taken risks over the past years to make Dragon better, and they are constantly searching for ways to improve. All I can say is that I appreciate their efforts, and I'll be along for the course.
To add my 2C. Dragon should include 100% D&D. Now for a side note. Erik, you and your team are doing an excellent job. #336 is awesome. I am still frothing at the mouth over James Jacobs' "Not For The Living".
|
While I've been playing role-playing games for a long time, Dragon never had a focus on "non-D&D" games. Most of those that did receive even limited coverage were owned by TSR, but that still isn't the point. Since D&D 3.0 was released, (or perhaps, when White Wolf began with Mage) there was a renaissance in the gaming world that has culminated in the release of numerous competing products.
In 1985 we could talk about the handful of RPGs available, but now there are dozens if not hundreds. d20 might be a big "subcategory", but it certainly isn't exhaustive.
Trying to appeal to readers of "all games" is a recipe for disaster. I want the magazine to be as much for me as possible. Since I mostly play D&D, I want mostly D&D. If there is non-D&D content, I'd like it in the form of reviews, since nothing else is likely to interest me.
Of course, I've made my points on the other thread as well.
|
I tend to agree that Dragon wouldn't be well served by branching out to other systems. I love other games (Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS spring to the fore-front, but I think that Dragon would be wasting their resources on a loosing battle if they were to try pushing out from there. I agree with Hal... the amount of vitrol generated on the messageboard atomsphere alone would be rapidly approaching unbearable.
I'll say what I've said before. My buyer's dollar is what's speaking for me, and overall, I consider my money on Dragon well spent.
I think the most obvious response would be for some other publisher to create D20 specific, or RPG general magazine with content similar to Polyhedron. The fact that no one has I think should be an indicator of the risk v. rewards of the magazine industry.
Obviously if the current magazines weren't doing as well as they are perhaps they would look at changing things up to increase circulation and sales.
"And why label people narrow-minded because they enjoy D&D above other RPGs?"
You're misunderstanding. The mindset of individual readers isn't the issue. The "mindset" of the magazine is. It seems to have been the philosophy of the fine editors that led Dragon through its period of greatest success that a good game was a good game and a good game article was a good game article and that both deserved space in Dragon (a magazine devoted to delivering the best to gamers). It's true that I, personally, think that this sort of philosophy is very enlightened and very inclusive and that Dragon todays needs more of it. I'm just idealistic, I guess. I don't like to see the mag be so isolationist and so willing to ignore gamers in favor of D&Ders. That sort of change is clearly the sort that foments stagnation and eventual degeneration to me. With all the great games out there, I just don't think it's intellectually-healthy for Dragon to shut its eyes and cover its ears and chant "Lalalalala I can't hear you." Especially when it used to be eagerly pointing these things out to readers and saying "Hey, look at this!" in the form of its reviews and articles. I'm clearly not the only one who prefers a Dragon that expands its readers horizons than one that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the horizon exists.
And I've yet to hear one good answer as to why this sort of approach was acceptable for the mag's first twenty years, but not good enough for now.
"And why label people narrow-minded because they enjoy D&D above other RPGs?"
You're misunderstanding. The mindset of individual readers isn't the issue. The "mindset" of the magazine is. It seems to have been the philosophy of the fine editors that led Dragon through its period of greatest success that a good game was a good game and a good game article was a good game article and that both deserved space in Dragon (a magazine devoted to delivering the best to gamers). It's true that I, personally, think that this sort of philosophy is very enlightened and very inclusive and that Dragon todays needs more of it. I'm just idealistic, I guess. I don't like to see the mag be so isolationist and so willing to ignore gamers in favor of D&Ders. That sort of change is clearly the sort that foments stagnation and eventual degeneration to me. With all the great games out there, I just don't think it's intellectually-healthy for Dragon to shut its eyes and cover its ears and chant "Lalalalala I can't hear you." Especially when it used to be eagerly pointing these things out to readers and saying "Hey, look at this!" in the form of its reviews and articles. I'm clearly not the only one who prefers a Dragon that expands its readers horizons than one that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the horizon exists.
And I've yet to hear one good answer as to why this sort of approach was acceptable for the mag's first twenty years, but not good enough for now.
I'm with you on this one Yamo. A good game article is a good game article. I've pulled from the pages of Dragon costumed supervillains, spy equipment, gear from Paranoia, my love of Dr. Who, and for about a year or so dragons, from 3 or 4 four different games non-TSR games during "Operation Dragon". It gave me a million ideas for a million different games many times with articles that never featured a single new rule, feat or prestige class. All in all I can't remember a trird party article taking more than six pages of space. They seemed to be spread thinly enough that I never lost the white toast taste of D&D. Personally I think the shift toward a mechanics heavy open source code has damaged the creativity of the a good portion of the game industry. I guess the question is do people actually crave D&D so bad that's all they want or is just that it's been the only game in town for so long that that's all the market knows about. If its the latter then perhaps that might be the reason why gamer demographics seem to peak at about thirty instead of twelve where the peak for the hobby really belongs. It makes me wonder what the average age of the RPG.net posters are?
Obviously I am not sitting in "hobby central", but still the reason I never got into AD&D and yet had a subscription to Dragon when I was younger but don't now was because AD&D (and no offense - this is the mind of twelve to twentysomething me at work here) was the game that "old farts with battle mats, and kids with psionic paladins played".
Perhaps I am not typical. I have no favored setting beyond the one I cobbled together from the modules of my youth and maps in the blue Expert box. D&D was not my first game (nor particularly my favorite even in version 3.x). To my mind the recent "demon prince" articles are popular because their usefulness stretches beyond Fraz's stats and the fact that he takes up 9 adjacent squares on a map. Frazzie (what our gang calls him when he comes over for coneys and drinks), could be used anywhere. I know what his crib looks like, I know what his posse looks like and if I want to I can scare the hell out of my Sabbat pack with him or introduce him to a supernatural horror game or have his realm be a small pocket universe all set to be visited by The Farscape crew, Arthur Dent, Adam Strange and Romana. New d20 rules unless they are tied to a good set of fluff (like "Noble Born" by Keith Baker) just don't tickle my funny bone as I have already seen enough broken rules in hardcover form. "Unique settings, interesting characters, compelling stories" that's what I would replace the "100% Official Content" blurb with.
GGG
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
>>>
With all the great games out there, I just don't think it's intellectually-healthy for Dragon to shut its eyes and cover its ears and chant "Lalalalala I can't hear you."
>>>
This is so obviously not how the Dragon staff reacts to criticism that it's repellant.
The reasons it "worked" 20 years ago but "doesn't work" now are manifold. The industry as a whole was much different then than it is now. The hobby distribution business was much more diverse, and "full service" game and hobby stores were far more common than they are now.
Further, the sum total of RPG books published in, say, 1986 is probably similar to the total number of official D&D books published last year. It is a different marketplace. The "pure" fans of D&D have become much more entrenched in their crabbiness and in their orthodoxy.
I suspect very, very strongly that if the Internet had been around in the mid-80s, the Dragon staff at the time would be getting exactly the same kind of feedback. Plus lots of requests for web supplements. ;)
The RPG "industry" beyond D&D has proven time and time again that it cannot sustain a print magazine of its own. The list of dead magazines that have tried the "general interest" approach is probably longer than the list of dead d20 publishers, which is considerable.
D&D fans come to Dragon for D&D coverage, and always have. I concede that a small percentage of potential readers would be enthused by wider coverage of more obscure games, but the core readership (which outnumbers these generalists) would be enraged, and I'm not in the business of enraging our readers.
Underwhelming them at times, sure, but not enraging them.
Work proceeds apace.
--Erik
Let me clarify my earlier comment, seeing as I might have begun a firestorm.
As I said, I "mostly" agree. I don't think mixing in some d20 reviews now and again would hurt much. If 40% of the mag covered articles on non-D&D systems, yes, but I'm not advocating that, just occasionally reviewing other products (many of which help strengthen the D&D line by covering things WotC won't). Nothing more.
I completely believe Erik in what he says about the Internet & folks complaining, and it's unfortunate. These very boards are both a blessing and curse, something I'm fairly sure Erik knows full well by now. The Internet has given gamers (including me at times) an easy place to complain, so I'm sure change of nearly any sort would be met with complaints, unfortunately. It's getting to the point where every time a FR or Eberron piece or what-have-you runs, someone complains, but I don't envision articles of that nature disppearing any time soon.
(I've already stated numerous times that I think Erik & company are doing a fine job & have their hearts in the right place, so I won't belabor that here. First & foremost, I'm a fan of both magazines. I'm offering humble suggestions, not trying to be derisive.)
That being said, I just can't believe that an occasional in-depth review of one of Monte Cook's alternate handbooks, a Goodman Games' module, or a Necromancer sourcebook (to name a few quick examples) wouldn't prove useful or interesting to many readers (nor do I see it provoking such a firestorm of protest). First Watch already touches on this, but has been derided in the past as being too "light" or ad-like. Would expanding some of these capsules be so wrong?
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It absolutely wouldn't be "so wrong," and is in fact something we're seriously considering, and have been considering since well before this thread.
Lastly, please don't take a snarky post from me as a request for a bunch of "atta boys" from the readership. Praise and criticism go along with the editor hat, so it ain't no thing when someone posts a cold prickly to the message boards.
We can take it, I assure you.
--Erik
that a good game was a good game and a good game article was a good game article and that both deserved space in Dragon (a magazine devoted to delivering the best to gamers).
It's true that I, personally, think that this sort of philosophy is very enlightened and very inclusive and that Dragon today needs more of it.
Meanwhile, I personally, think that this philosophy is outdated and unrealistic. Regardless of what our personal opinions are about the various 3rd-party gaming products, the fact remains that the core audience of Dragon is universally interested in only one game: Dungeons & Dragons.
I'm just idealistic, I guess. I don't like to see the mag be so isolationist and so willing to ignore gamers in favor of D&Ders. That sort of change is clearly the sort that foments stagnation and eventual degeneration to me.
I wouldn't call that idealistic, I would call it misinformed. Clearly you have a vastly different view of the "ideal" Dragon than both the staff of the magazine (of which, I hasten to add, I am NOT a member) and the vast majority of its current readership, (as evidenced by the other posters to this thread and elsewhere). Spreading out coverage to other 3rd-party gamers would only serve to further dilute the content that already covers an incredibly broad topic, and further frustrate an already extremely fickle audience.
By attempting to reach every gamer (as you suggest) Dragon would only lose the attention of the people who keep the magazine in business. As Erik mentioned above, trying to run a magazine targeted at d20 and OGL players is problematic at best, and suicidal at worst.
Furthermore, claiming that the current policy leads to stagnation and degeneration is little more than idle speculation. I see no reason why the magazine cannot continue to provide the insightful and creative D&D content that it always has. If there is a limit to the number of new and interesting topics to cover in D&D, I don’t see it.
With all the great games out there, I just don't think it's intellectually-healthy for Dragon to shut its eyes and cover its ears and chant "Lalalalala I can't hear you."
Finally, I don't think it improves your case or your reputation on these messageboards to draw insulting caricatures of the Dragon staff.
|
Director of Games
|
With all the great games out there, I just don't think it's intellectually-healthy for Dragon to shut its eyes and cover its ears and chant "Lalalalala I can't hear you."Finally, I don't think it improves your case or your reputation on these messageboards to draw insulting caricatures of the Dragon staff.
Agreed.. we can draw those ourself.
In response to much of this thread... Dragon magazine cannot be a slave to all masters. As has been mentioned before, by numerous respected posters on this thread, that has been tried before and not with great results. While covering other games in depth in the magazine may have worked 20 years ago when Dragon was the only source for industry news, these days, others (namely the web) can do it faster and in a more responisive manner than we every could. The end result is a magazine that is diluted and less relevant. I think we will stick to what we do best, and what "time and time again" the readership has demanded, and that is D&D.
Agreed.. we can draw those ourself.
In response to much of this thread... Dragon magazine cannot be a slave to all masters. As has been mentioned before, by numerous respected posters on this thread, that has been tried before and not with great results. While covering other games in depth in the magazine may have worked 20 years ago when Dragon was the only source for industry news, these days, others (namely the web) can do it faster and in a more responisive manner than we every could. The end result is a magazine that is diluted and less relevant. I think we will stick to what we do best, and what "time and time again" the readership has demanded, and that is D&D.
Bearing no disrespect to the honorable Yamo and his merry supporters. It's been 30 years of Dragon for me and during those first two decades the only thing I disliked about the magazine was the inclusion of non D&D specific articles.
As Jason said, there are now other sources for all those other RPG products.
I am one of the majority, or so I believe. I only want to read D&D in Dragon. What's more I like staying with official products, veering away from any brilliant thing Monte Cook does unless he does it for WoTC. I'm an unpaid corporate lackey.
"Lack. Lack." See?!
Certainly this is short sighted of me but make those faces of mockery. I can't see them anyway what with this short sight o' mine.
When I was in my teens I took a job helping to teach young students at a nearby kung-fu school which taught this mish mash that wasn't actually official kung-fu. Sure their students walked out into the world a bit tougher but I never would have studied at a non sanctioned school. I proffer no right or wrong here. It's a personal preference.
"What kind of kung-fu do you study?"
"Oh, five animals, of course, the wushu. Trained a little with Grandmaster Al Thomas too. Learned some buddojuijitsu with him. Yourself?"
"Raging cockaroach style, yo. Da bomb, fresh from Yonkers, New York, son."
"Oo, sounds exotic."
"Trace back to shaolin, son!"
Which one of these folks won't get invited to the 2005 Fu-Fest?
I know, I know. Way to go around the block to get at a weak point only forget it in the store. I'm goin' back to sleep.
The mindset of individual readers isn't the issue. The "mindset" of the magazine is.
Okay, I see where you're coming from.
I think that the problem I have that makes my point of view so different than yours is that I never considered Dragon to be a "gamer's magazine." I've always thought of it as a D&D mag. Even when there were articles about other RPGs, I never paid much notice to them.
My favorite articles, the ones that I look back on and remember the best, include the Orbs of Dragonkind and a fighter variant called Duh Jock. (I actually ran a Jock from 1st to 6th level in a short campaign in '87. When my family moved that summer, one of my friends said "I'll miss playing with your Jock... er... you know what I mean." Some of the best fun I've had with a character!)
Nowadays I so rarely play anything but D&D, I appreciate that Dragon is geared towards D&D and little else. Even as it is, Dragon magazine in its various formats has at times included so much rules variations, PrCs, campaign setting related information, and player options that I'd never be able to use all of my favorite stuff, let alone all of the information that is easily used in my campaigns.
That leaves a ton of information that will never be used in any of my games, as a DM. And often it's like pulling teeth to get a DM to let me use something from Dragon as a player. So adding non-Wizards of the Coast, especially non-d20, articles into the magazine will only add that much more stuff that I won't be able to easily use in my game.
I'm anxious to see if Erik's idea about "themed issues," presenting a basic theme for the magazine with supporting articles for specific use in different campaign settings as well as information for any campaign setting will ever come to fruition. I can see how that would be beneficial to a person like me.
Having said all of that... I would have loved for Fantasy Flight Games in particular to have published a magazine to support all of their outstaning d20 products: an article about the travelling masters in their "Path of the" series of books, a campaign setting for some of the races in Mythic Races, or an adventure featuring rules in the Seafarer's Handbook.
I would not stop subscribing to Dragon if they started to include these types of things... afterall, I never stopped buying Dungeon with or without Polyhedron. But if I started to find that a good percentage of Dragon no longer pertained to Wizards of the Coast-sanctioned D&D, I'd have to see how it affects the magazine's usefulness in my ever-expanding library of reference materials.
This is so obviously not how the Dragon staff reacts to criticism that it's repellant.
Man, my comments are just being interpreted in the worst possible light today. Bummer.
Let me clarify: This wasn't meant as a commentary on how the Dragon editorial staff responds to customer feedback, but a commentary on how I, as a reader, percieve the magazine's attitude toward the rest of the hobby (that is, steadfast denial that such a thing matters, if it even exists).
This all stems from the fact that Dragon really did so much to enrich my viewpoint on RPGs over the years; what they were and what they could be. Whan Amber Diceless, the first published RPG to not use dice, cards or any other randomizers, was published back in 1992, I found out about it when Dragon ran not one, but two excited reviews on this revolutionary new game in issue 182.
Nowadays, with the growth of the internet and "indie" RPGs, there are revolutionary games like this coming down the pike all the time. Sorceror, My Life With Master, The Pool, Dogs in the Vineyard, InSpecters and so on are pushing the envelope of what the medium is capable of. We have games with multiple GMs, games with no GMs, games where everyone is a GM.
In addition to games that expand the definition of what an RPG is, we also have traditional games of tremendous craftsmanship and imagination. Secret of Zir'An, Burning Wheel, Exalted, Savage Worlds, Transhuman Space, Warhammer, etc. The list goes on and on.
And where is Dragon in all of this? Completely silent. The bottom line is that it's no longer even trying to get its readership excited about new and amazing games. Where there used to be active celebration of gaming as a hobby and gaming as an ever-changing art form, there is now not even awareness of such.
I'm hardly the only one saying this. It seems like every former (as opposed to current) Dragon subscriber I've spoken to agrees. Rather than betting the whole farm on current subscribers, it seems much more reasonable to me to take their feedback into account, but to also heed the words of readers who have been disgruntled into dropping the mag over the years, especially when one condition keeps cropping up again and again and again whenever the question of what would it would take to get them back in the fold is raised. Maybe you'll lose 1000 current subscribers and gain back 2000 old ones? Who knows? Stranger things have certainly happened. Look how many gamers online will claim that the new D&D brought them back into the game after AD&D 2nd Edition.
A real review column with three or four in-depth reviews of new RPG products (and maybe some capsule reviews at the end) would go a long way to break out of this vacuum.
Man, my comments are just being interpreted in the worst possible light today. Bummer.
Maybe if your avatar didn't stick his tongue out at everyone... ;)
It happens. I think that everyone here respects your opinion. If I played other RPGs more often, I'd probably jump on your bandwagon.
And who knows... maybe we will see the introduction of some other RPGs in the future of Dragon.
Yamo, with all due respect, I was waiting for your last reply because its exacly where I though you were going to go with this. You seem to want "enlightened" and to be playing RPGs with an eye toward the artistic and the avante gaurd, to be cutting edge, to expand our horizons. The fact of the matter is that most of us play D&D to relax and have fun. While I love my hobby, the fact of the matter is, I go to church to have deep spiritual growth, I go to my gaming group to have fun and forget about my boss or rising gas prices, or whatever else might be distressing in the real world.
I respect what you want to do with roleplaying, but the fact of the matter is that you are not representitive of the general gaming public, so its unlikely anything mainstream is ever going to line up to complely please you. And as a side note, every once in a while when I read about people needing to be "in" on the latest trends and expanding their horizons, I get this feeling like I am being told that I am somehow "backwards" for sticking to a system that I am used to and comfortable with. I got this same feeling from time to time in those vaunted articles from yesteryear. Occaisionally those non D&D articles seemed to start off more or less taking a shot at traditional D&D to make the case for their game, and immediately that would turn me off.
The fact of the matter is that most of us...
I think that you mean what you say, and there's nothing wrong with any of your sentiments, but I have also observed that every gamer likes to think that he's representative of "most of us." But as the song says, it ain't neccessarily so.
As I said, there are clearly many, many former Dragon readers and subscribers out there. They bought and read the magazine before, but they don't anymore. If you ask them why, they consistently cite the same few reasons. To quote from a post in that RPG.Net thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4588040&postcount=52):
"So the magazine goes D&D Only - loss of readers
THe magazine goes mechanics heavy - loss of readers
The magazine goes all faction-like (greyhawk, FR, Ebbs) - loss of readers
Dragon Magazine has been turned into a niche within a niche product. I hope they are getting new readers at the rate they lost the old ones."
I hope so, too. But even if they are, I don't see why it's not worthwhile to not try to lure some of those old ones back.
I'm one of those people who likes the fact that Dragon and Dungeon are "all D&D." I'd say at least 98% of the gaming I do is D&D. I get to play some d20 Modern once in a while (a bit more lately since I joined a play-by-post game). Once a year (at GenCon) I get to play one game of Mutants and Masterminds. Otherwise, I play D&D.
Why? Frankly, I don't have the time to learn new games. I barely keep up with D&D. Add into that the fact that not only would *I* have to find the time to learn a new game, but so would everybody else in my group. We work - some of us more than one job. We have families - most of us with kids. We have other commitments (see the previous point about kids). We all know D&D, so we all play D&D. It allows us to maximize our gaming time.
Now that said... It really depends what you're talking about, how much space it requires, and how often it runs. I like 3rd party D&D products, so obviously reviews about them would be useful to me personally. Reviews of other d20 products not directly D&D could be useful, too. If it comes across as being interesting enough, I can certainly rip off some of the best ideas and drop them into my D&D game. If you want to review non-d20 games... meh - I wouldn't begrudge that sort of article appearing once in a while, as long as it were short (2-3 pages tops) and honest.
Instead of reviews, though, if you're talking about full fledged articles -- well, no thanks. Especially if you're talking about articles about non-d20 games such as Vampire, Werewolf, etc. It just wouldn't have any use to me at all.
* tosses his 2 pennies into the collection basket *
From one who read Dragon when it was more than just D&D, I prefer it the way it is. All D&D, all the time.
Thank you.
A lot of good commentary and counter-commentary here. All good food for thought.
"It really depends what you're talking about, how much space it requires, and how often it runs. I like 3rd party D&D products, so obviously reviews about them would be useful to me personally. Reviews of other d20 products not directly D&D could be useful, too. If it comes across as being interesting enough, I can certainly rip off some of the best ideas and drop them into my D&D game. If you want to review non-d20 games... meh - I wouldn't begrudge that sort of article appearing once in a while, as long as it were short (2-3 pages tops) and honest."
Zherog hits on exactly what I was trying to suggest here. A mag half full of articles on Vampire et al. doesn't do me much good either. But honest reviews written by experienced industry professionals that help me wade through the sea of 3rd party products would be most welcome (to me at least).
I personally wouldn't freak if occasionally -- like 1 short article every other issue -- an article covered a 3rd party system *closely linked* to D&D, such as Iron Heroes. (I'm sure the many posters that said in other threads that they could get ideas from any Dungeon adventure regardless of setting could likewise glean something from these, if they don't use the product in question.) But that's icing on the cake, and admittedly icing that might give some heartburn. Dragon is about D&D, first and foremost, and I believe the content must remain 90%+ D&D or the readership will indeed revolt.
Some detailed, objective reviews, such as those the old Dragon was known for, is what I'd really like to see. And yes, I realize that reviews can be found on the Web, and some are actually well-written, but it's not the same (after all, new spells and prestige classes can be found on the Web easily enough, but Dragon still runs those).
The emphasis, of course, is on *honest* reviews ... or why bother. I remember a point when Dragon routinely reviewed TSR products and those products rarely were rated below a "4" on their 1-6 dice scale. Perhaps this could be credited to TSR putting out nothing but winners at the time, but if memory serves that was not always the case.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
In addition to games that expand the definition of what an RPG is, we also have traditional games of tremendous craftsmanship and imagination. Secret of Zir'An, Burning Wheel, Exalted, Savage Worlds, Transhuman Space, Warhammer, etc. The list goes on and on.And where is Dragon in all of this? Completely silent. The bottom line is that it's no longer even trying to get its readership excited about new and amazing games. Where there used to be active celebration of gaming as a hobby and gaming as an ever-changing art form, there is now not even awareness of such.
It's too bad this forum has a language filter, because there's really only one word that forms an appropriate response. It has 8 letters and starts with "B."
You may or may not like the First Watch section. That's cool. Whatever. But we _do_ cover games other than D&D in the magazine, and we have done that more consistently in the year since we introduced First Watch to the magazine than in the three years prior to the introduction of the section. One could argue that more depth is required, akin to what you would get in a full review, and I don't disagree.
But let's be honest, here.
324: Dundjinni mapping software
326: Tact-Tiles
326: The Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc)
326: Dungeon Stamps
327: Battle Box (Fiery Dragon)
327: DriveThru RPG (where a lot of innovative little games are available)
327: Hybrid (Rackham)
328: Alea Tools
328: Grave Robbers from Outer Space (ZMan Games)
328: Ravenloft, Gamma World (White Wolf/Arthaus)
328: Fantasy Architecture (Hirstarts)
328: Anime Super Chess (Bandai)
329: Grimtooth's Traps (Necromancer)
329: Dungeon Stamps (again)
329: Arcana Evolved (Malhavoc)
329: Iron Kingdoms (Privateer)
330: Steel Squire
330: Hamunaptra (Green Ronin)
330: Arkham Horror (Fantasy Flight)
330: Chunky Dungeons (WorldWorks Games)
330: Munchkin (Steve Jackson)
331: Midnight Syndicate CDs
331: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd Edition)
332: The Book of Roguish Luck (Malhavoc)
332: Nin-Gonost (Adiken)
332: Monsternomicon (Privateer)
333: Iron Lore (Malhavoc)
333: Tekumel (Guardians of Order)
333: A Game of Thrones (Guardians of Order)
334: Mage: The Awakening (White Wolf)
334: Axis and Allies (Wizards of the Coast)
334: Ptolus Campaign Setting (Malhavoc)
335: Northern Crown (Atlas)
335: Descent (Fantasy Flight)
335: Freeport Trilogy (Green Ronin)
335: Mammoth Dungeons
335: Exalted (White Wolf)
335: Mystic Blocks
336: World of Darkness: Chicago (White Wolf)
336: MidEvil (Twilight Creations)
336: Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition (Green Ronin)
336: Wilderlands Boxed Set (Necromancer)
336: Horrific (Laughing Pan)
336: Flip Mat (Steel Squire)
336: Den of Evil (Dwarven Forge)
A few of those are accessories or card games, but the point remains. The magazine does not "ignore" the hobby at large in any way, shape, or form. As for "innovative" games from the Forge, if they really made such a big impact outside their insular online community (and some of them certainly can), why hasn't anyone pitched a First Watch story about them? We've run pieces on cool little products people are selling off their personal website, so it's not so much an issue of size. We spend our time looking for cool new products. We're not always going to agree on what qualifies, or look in the same places. But we are looking.
--Erik
Being the editor largely responsible for what shows up in First Watch I'm constantly on the lookout for cool stuff our readership might be interested in. The stable of reporters I regularly use to write these are also instrumental in finding a variety of new books, games, accessories, art, etc. to populate these pages. Among these writers, however, you won’t notice the name Marco Polo and no one is out there wandering the four corners looking for secret riches from far off and obscure lands.
Largely, the companies and folks who get covered in First Watch with the most regularity are the people who won’t let their products be ignored (Green Ronin, White Wolf, Fantasy Flight Games, Dwarven Forge, etc). These don’t need to be big companies either, persistent little guys putting out solid, innovative products like Green Dragon Studios (http://www.greendragonstudio.com/), Alea Tools (http://www.aleatools.com/), and Steel Sqwire (http://www.steelsqwire.com/) also see regular coverage. While we have our feelers out to a wide variety of companies and I trust my reporters to find cool stuff, the easiest way to get something into First Watch is to shoot a message over to dragon@paizo.com and simply say, “Hi! We’d like to tell you about what we’re doing,” and we’ll see where things go from there.
In all honesty though, as Erik shows above, right now First Watch looks cooler and is covering a wider range of quality games, gamer stuff, and industry news than ever before. We’re always looking for more, though, and are happy to hear from all corners of the gaming community, so feel free to give us a yell.
It's too bad this forum has a language filter, because there's really only one word that forms an appropriate response. It has 8 letters and starts with "B."
No worries. Just use the Q-Bert method and call me a #*@^&. I don't mind.
You may or may not like the First Watch section. That's cool. Whatever.
This is a good point, although it's more accurate to say that I routinely forget it exists. On that, I stand corrected.
But we _do_ cover games other than D&D in the magazine, and we have done that more consistently in the year since we introduced First Watch to the magazine than in the three years prior to the introduction of the section. One could argue that more depth is required, akin to what you would get in a full review, and I don't disagree.
I guess I'm so focused on this idea that I tend to overlook other efforts.
In all honesty though, as Erik shows above, right now First Watch looks cooler...
Now that you mention it, the appearence of this feature has changed for the better recently.
It's too bad this forum has a language filter, because there's really only one word that forms an appropriate response. It has 8 letters and starts with "B."
Beehives? What does that have to do with the discussion?
:P
330: Steel Squire
...and Steel Sqwire (http://www.steelsqwire.com/)
On a barely related note... I purchased the entire set of their templates at GenCon. I only stopped to look at them because I saw the review in First Watch. These templates kick so much ass - they make adjudicating Area of Effect spells so much easier...
|
Contributor
|
I don't see a problem with excluding material that focuses on other RPGs. I mean, all those other games out there are simply mechanics (like D&D). A concept remains the same no matter how its used. I frequently apply the material from Dragon and Dungeon into other game-systems, as I also pull material from newspapers, books, movies, and stuff that happens to me on the subway. For a veteran gamer, the system conversions shouldn't matter, nor should the aesthetic. Just cause the article says the "wizard casts magic missle" doesn't mean you can't read it as "corporate computer geek fires a Tech-9 with lazer sighting".
|
|
It's too bad this forum has a language filter, because there's really only one word that forms an appropriate response. It has 8 letters and starts with "B."
I always find just using the exclamation point to be a nice way around the language filter. For example, if our Wereplatypus had used the exclamation point in his "Wierdest Gamer" post, we would have know he played with a man named D!ck instead of Dick. Language...it's fun and funny.
My husband bought me the Steel Sqwire AoE templates for my birthday. (What can I say, he's not traditionally romantic, but he knows what I like.)
-Amber S.
I don't see a problem with excluding material that focuses on other RPGs. I mean, all those other games out there are simply mechanics (like D&D). A concept remains the same no matter how its used. I frequently apply the material from Dragon and Dungeon into other game-systems, as I also pull material from newspapers, books, movies, and stuff that happens to me on the subway. For a veteran gamer, the system conversions shouldn't matter, nor should the aesthetic. Just cause the article says the "wizard casts magic missle" doesn't mean you can't read it as "corporate computer geek fires a Tech-9 with lazer sighting".
Absolutely!! That's what I have been talking about on numerous threads. The final edit is always the GM's responsiblity. Heck, with a few days work, I could convert the SCAP into a d20 modern game!! Who couldn't use the James Jacob's article on hauntings in a d20 future game? Haunted spaceships! Cool!
I miss Polyhedron and I would not mind non-D&D articles in Dragon at all, but just because they're not there, doesn't mean the D&D only content is totally useless in another game system. Maybe we all have gotten caught up by the mechanics of the game too much, as was mentioned earlier.
As far as using non-game resources to inspire my game? All the time, for as long as I have been gaming...history books, TV shows, newspapers, heck whatever...try it, you'll like it.
My personal favorite non-gaming inspirational source (and also mentioned before)--Military History Magazine
Back before I had a wife, 2 kids, 4 pets, and a demanding career, I had time to dabble in more RPGs, although D&D was always the heavyweight. The friends I play with are the same way, we don't have time for anything besides D&D.
Therefore, I don't want anything in my Dragon magazine but D&D. I'm already on the fence about renewing my Dragon subscription and shifting the magazine to non-exclusive D&D content, I'm afraid, would seal the deal for me and I would just stick to Dungeon magazine.
Furthermore, as another poster said, my friends and I like to relax when we game. We're not looking for artistic expression, we just want to have fun with a game system we're comfortable with.
I give a hearty "NAY" to the inclusion of non-D&D content in Dragon magazine.
Back when I was a teenager I'd never played D&D (except in one of those schools tournaments, which is a story for another day), but was involved in a Marvel Superheroes Campaign that went on to last about 3 years ... back then, there were articles on Marvel Superheroes in Dragon - I'd flick through them, often find that they would have been useful for my game, then put the magazine back on the shelf, because hey, why spend 3 pounds on a magazine with 5 pages about *my* game and the entirety of the rest of the pages about something I never played.
Just sayin' is all.