On another thread Erik said something along the lines of, "Don't kiss our collective asses when giving feedback, just be honest. We can take it." I paraphrase, but that was the gist.
So in the spirit of giving honest feedback, I decided to go through the third edition Dragons I have with me and pick out my top fave/least fave article from each issue. I've tried to give reasons for my preferences; especially with my least-favorites, it's not that I don't like the author's writing style or hate their guts, it's merely the kind of article I didn't find useful or appropriate. Nothing against you talented guys and gals.
I tried to refrain from saying, "I didn't like this article because I hate First Watch" or whatever. Not liking an article because I don't like the feature doesn't help you guys get better. So I refrained from that as much as possible. Maybe I'll do a feature breakdown in another post.
On with the show...
Medesha's Top Picks
299: Tough call between "Wizard's Toy Box" (Christopher Coyle) and "Oath and Order" (Bruce Cordell). The former because it combined flavor and mechanics in a solid, useful article accompanied by cool artwork on a readable background (readable by me, anyway). The latter because it afforded options for non-good characters, something rather rare, accompanied by creative flavor and good mechanics. I think the cleverness of "Wizard's Toy Box" tips the balance in its favor.
On a related note, what ever happened to those cut-out monster tokens? So useful!
314: All the elemental organizations were nice, but I particlarly liked "Dust to Dust" (Ari Marmell). First off, GREAT opening pic. I feel like I'm about to get squished. Then we have a few sections of fluff, some spells, some descriptive magic items, all broken up with bite-sized sidebars. Very nice.
315: "Birthright: Bloodlines for D&D 3.5" (Ed Stark). Gotta put my vote in for Birthright articles. Yay! Having trouble judging this issue because it's a "special" one. I'll give props to "Taladas" (James Jacobs) because I didn't even know what Taladas was, but the teaser ("Angry dead gnomes and sinister walking sharks") lured me in, the content kept me reading, the PrCs made me go, "Cool!" and the shark man picture made me giggle.
316: "Smoke and Mirrors" (Mike Mearls, back when he was calling himself Michael). Divinations are so tricky, and can "wreck" a game so fast. This article was useful and insightful and even had some fun fiction at the beginning. I didn't even mind the lack of crunch.
317: Toss-up between "Faiths of Faerun: Red Knight" (Travis Stout) because she's my favorite FR god and "Body of Knowledge" (Andrew M. Scott) because he has a cool name, and because the artwork was great, the concepts were interesting, and the abilities were fascinating. In the end I give it to Red Knight because a) it managed to explore the character concept of a devoted follower without resorting to a PrC and b) Cerebrex, the neural-mage of "Body of Knowledge," sounds vaguely like a medicine I'd see a cheesy commercial on tv for. Probably accompanied by pictures of kittens playing in a field. "Ask your doctor if Cerebrex is right for you." Ahem. I kid; I really did like that article. I just liked Red Knight a shade better.
320: The Big Anniversary Issue. "Dragon PCs" (Mike McArtor) was really great. Useful, fun (who wouldn't want to play a dragon?) and accompanied by cool art. But I have to give props to "The Teamwork Pool" (Mike Mearls) as well because it's just such a great idea. I like the article because it introduces a new mechanic that's not too complicated and that's designed to enhance the team experience. Great idea.
323: The Big Change Issue. My favorite article: "Seven Deadly Domains" (Hal Maclean). Again, flavor, mechanics, great artwork, and it blurred the line between shiny good heroes and black-hatted villains (particularly the "Playing A Sinner" sidebar). Hands down, the best article of that issue.
324: Great cover. My favorite article in this issue is "Exorcising Equipment"(by, um...Robert...J...Hahn? Ok, don't use this font again.) First, the pun is cool. Second, new equipment that isn't all magic items. Yay for Craft DCs! Third, a teeny new monster for fun. Fourth, a cool sidebar on RP stuff (Other Useful Undead-Fighting Gear). Fifth, neatly packed into a two-page spread for easy reference. I love this article.
325: "Myths of the Shadow" by Rahul Kanakia. I loved this Spellcraft because it had a good and interesting "backstory" that it revealed in the text of the spells. And there weren't 500 million spells, just enough to be interesting. And there was a spell called shock and awe, and that's hot.
326: "Down the Drain" (Chris DeKalb and Jacob Steinmann). First off, fantastic art and title. Creature From the Black Lagoon, anyone? Yeah, that was spot on. The article's scope was broad enough to fit most games (unlike samurais or half-elemental races, few DMs have to ask themselves, "Am I going to use sewers in my campaign?"). The article itself was well-written with a mix of history, architectural knowledge, game crunch (feats and magic items), and adventure seeds. And at 5 1/2 pages of text, it wasn't overwhelming. Pretty much a perfect article.
327: "With Friends Like These" (Joshua Cole). A long, interesting buildup followed by easily digestable units of utility. No crunch, but highly useful. I really liked it. A shame you had to put that ugly Statement of Ownership right at the end.
328: "Ecology of the Will-o'-Wisp" (Amber E. Scott). Ok, I wasn't going to do any of my own articles, but what can I say? It was my favorite, it's the article I'm the most proud of. Um, buy more by me.
329: "Demonomicon of Igwilv: Pazuzu" (James Jacobs). Maybe a touch too long, but so interesting I can forgive it for its length. Fun article, good layout, lots of little crunch bits. Yay! Also I love the cover of this issue.
331 "The Point of Pole Arms" (by Ari Marmell, Jason B., and everyone else). New weapons, new feats, an explanation of a weapon I'd always found confusing, and a neat 5 pages. I like this one. I have to mention "Ecology of Green Hags" too, by F. Wes Schneider. Really interesting backgrounds and little tidbits about Green Hags I'd never thought of.
332: "Cutting Up the Dragon" (Andrew Coleman) almost made my list because of its utility, layout, and tie in to a previous Dragon article ("Power Components"; that was a nice touch). But I have to withdraw top marks because of the eye-bleeding background (stop doing that!) "Chromatic Dragons" (Mike McArtor) sneaks into the lead because a) chromatic dragons are cool, and b) the artwork was great and really brought the article together.
333: I liked "Scale Mail" because the Koga wrote in. After that, the issue was a series of near-misses for me. "The Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Fraz-Urb'luu" (James Jacobs) was fabulously interesting but too much. First off, Fraz-Urb'luu is a silly name. I know, you didn't pick it, but I kept reading "Fraz-U" as "Frau", and it's hard to take a demon prince seriously when you're picturing him as a German governess. And the article was too long. An epic stat block AND artifact AND PrC AND new monster AND a map? How much detail do we need on Frau Urbluu? It was just overwhelming.
"Noble Born" (Keith Baker) had the opposite problem. Keith took a great idea and made it into a great, useful, and inspiring article, but as the old lady said, where's the crunch? One feat just didn't seem like enough. I'd have preferred 2-5 new feats to balance out the great fluff.
"Relics of Faerun" (George Swan) - yay! FR relics are cool. But I didn't like the artwork, and the messy background was way too distracting. I like textured backgrounds, but not ink splotches, please. I know, I know, you're working on it.
335: My copy of #335 is autographed by Troy Taylor. :-D Weirdly enough, I have to mention First Watch (by everyone) this month, because I loved the format. Being able to scan across the top line for a fascinating cover, then drop my gaze to read the bite-sized bit of info, was great. Well done.
Medesha's Thanks But No Thanks Picks
299: Michael John Tresca did a fantastic job with his "Knights" article. The level of detail and the balance between fluff and crunch was great. But it's just too much. Too much to read and absorb in one sitting, too much detail unless you're running a knights campaign, too much on one subject to make the magazine a "must-buy." I don't think there have been Campaign Components in a while, and I think that was a wise decision.
314: "Channeling the Elements" (Spencer Kornhaber). Nothing at all wrong with the writing or the mechanics, but 4 PrCs in 6 pages is just not enough room to do them justice. I like crunch, yes, but fluff is important too. Balance! I need to know the whys and wherefores behind a piece of crunch to appreciate it fully (and it makes it easier to understand it, and thus easier to work into my game).
315: "Greyhawk: Regional Feats of Oerth" (Erik Mona). So I've whined a bit about lack of crunch in some articles, but jeeze Louise, four solid pages of feats with one slim sidebar to break it up? My eyes! It's way too much. Sorry, Erik.
316: "Under Command: Mushroom Archery." Most Under Command sections are adaptable to regular D&D games. This one, not so much. The mushroom tile map was nice, though.
317: "Xenophilia: 4 New Exotic Races" (Dean Poisso). Great art, great concepts, solid, well-balanced article. But races are just too much work to incorporate into a setting, even homebrew. Of all the campaign components that require work to integrate, races take SO much more effort than, say, PrCs or spells. 4 new races in one issue was over the top.
320: "Sage Advice", because Skip Williams kept running with the "you can't use natural weapons in a flurry" even though I hate that rule. Ok, ok, constructive feedback. "Dragon Kingdoms" by Mike Mearls (my author for favorite article this issue, heh). It was nice, but not overwhelming. There was no, "Wow, I'd never thought of that!" moment, and the two solid pages of text (56-57) made my eyes hurt. Possibly a few extra pages and some crunch sidebars wouuld have livened it up.
323: The Big Change Issue. "Samurai vs. Knight" (John Clements). Like "Knights", this article was overwhelming in its detail, methodical (often exhaustive) research, and focus. But this wasn't a game article, it was a history lesson, and unless you cared about the subject in the first place, it was just too much to absorb. Plus, a two page art spread?! It's beautiful, I don't deny it, but totally unnecessary. I know you don't do that anymore, but don't do it again (unless it's a hot medusa chick).
324: "Magic Traps" (Joshua Cole). The writing is fine but the subject is mundane. Nothing here caught my interest, I'm sorry to say. And I know you're not doing it anymore, but can I just say I'm glad you've moved away from the utilitarian "oodles of white space" look? Thank you.
325: "Artifacts of the Pharaohs" (Kevin Hamilton). Too short! Loved the items but there was not enough backstory. I want to hear cute tales and interesting tidbits about the originals.
326: Umm...can I say "Under Command" cause I don't play the miniatures game? Seriously, there wasn't anything I really disliked about this issue. Except maybe that the cover was too dark.
327: "Tomb Raider" (Kyla Ward). A wealth of information that was hard to absorb because it wasn't translated into game terms. Even a paragraph at the end of each section going, "In your game, this could mean blah blah blah" would have made it more palatable.
328: "The Roman Legionnaire" (Troy Taylor. Ack! Sorry,Troy!) But the article underwhelmed me. I suppose the equipment list is useful if you're making a character in a hurry. There was barely any historical information, which might have been interesting. The stat recommendations were somewhat obvious. It needed a few more pages, or a reordering of priorities, or both.
329: "Mesopotamian Mythos" (David Schwartz). Good article, very interesting. But did we need writeups on ALL the gods? 11 pages, two of them full art, seemed a little much. I would have liked it more if it focused on 3-5 gods, giving a more detailed writeup of each, with a bit of crunch tied to each section.
331: There was nothing I really disliked in this isse.
332: "Where Did You Go To College?" (John E. Ling Jr.) Who is this hack? Seriously, don't hire him again. You'll only encourage him.
:-p
333: Nothing I threw out outright in this issue.
335: "New Olamn Bard College" (Elaine Cunningham). I love FR, and the article was well written, but...I dunno. There was no crunch, first of all. It was so "heavy", second of all - I like FR and play in it, but some of the history was totally incomprehensible to me. Not my favorite piece.
---
Well, there you go. Honest feedback, no ass-kissing. Make of it what you will!
Hope these boards don't filter out "ass."
-Amber S.
Amber,
You realize what you started is probably going to give DeadDMWalking and some others carpal tunnel syndrome.....
"You realize what you started is probably going to give DeadDMWalking and some others carpal tunnel syndrome....."
LOL.
Oh, and nicely done Amber.
Amber,
You realize what you started is probably going to give DeadDMWalking and some others carpal tunnel syndrome.....
Curses, my clever plot has been revealed!
:-D
Amber S.
Well I wasn't a subscriber to Dungeon for a lot of years (nor Dragon, actually, but I seem to pick them up somehow). So I only have 8 or 9 issues, but next time I get a chance I'll go through them and pick out my faves and least-faves.
:-)
-Amber S.
(P.S. It was nice to meet you at GenCon this year, Vic!)
|
Why would her reviews give me carpal tunnel syndrome? She's welcome to her opinions. I've written a couple of "exhaustive" reviews of particular issues, but I don't feel compelled to agree or disagree with Amber, particularly because she didn't ask for such feedback.
I like Dungeon very much. I've often liked Dragon. At the moment I think it could be stronger, but we just came off an issue that was entirely Forgotten Realms (not cool!) and I think they have some room for improvement.
After careful thought, I'll lay out what suggestions I think are appropriate for addressing the issues I feel need improvement. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Or is it the constantly trying to convince everyone that I'm right, and willingness to argue every point? Maybe that is it....
332: "Where Did You Go To College?" (John E. Ling Jr.) Who is this hack? Seriously, don't hire him again. You'll only encourage him.
* sobs uncontrollably *
Why would her reviews give me carpal tunnel syndrome?
Or is it the constantly trying to convince everyone that I'm right, and willingness to argue every point? Maybe that is it....
You have often made very good points. You love a good discussion and are very articulate at defending your position. I figured you'd critique Amber's critique at length, as is your style, since you have been very vocal at letting the Dragon staff know what you feel is wrong with their magazine.
I made a little joke at your expense, as you have posted some lengthy critiques of Dragon in the past. I meant no offense.
I actually thought it meant it would inspire DeadDMWalking to do the same, since he usually gives such detailed reviews of individual issues. Not that he would disagree with me, but that he would want to do his own review of the last 30 issues or so.
Just goes to show you can't assume anything on the 'net...
-Amber
I actually thought it meant it would inspire DeadDMWalking to do the same, since he usually gives such detailed reviews of individual issues. Not that he would disagree with me, but that he would want to do his own review of the last 30 issues or so.
Just goes to show you can't assume anything on the 'net...
-Amber
True, I really did not mean to offend him. I have been critical of his comments in the past, but I've also agreed with him on more than one occasion. These boards would not be the same without honest opinion from ALL sides, positive and negative.
Amber:
I think your list – well done, by the way -- illustrates the difficulties an editorial team has in building a strong magazine from month to month. Assembling interesting, well-written pieces is one thing. Being able to bring it all together so that it satisfies reader expectations on several levels is quite another.
Just consider this particular magazine’s audience – mostly roleplayers and DMs -- which is hardly the most diverse population in the world. Even so, you are going to run into a wide range of tastes and expectations.
For instance, there were three issues in which you cited articles that you thought were top pics, compared to those that fell short, where I am of the complete opposite opinion. (I’m judging using only my personal interest in the article’s subject matter, not its quality of writing.) The ones I disagree with you on were:
325: Artifacts of the Pharaohs /Myths of shadow.
Artifacts was tightly written, packed with goodies that have already made it into my game. I really didn’t need the back story you felt was missing. Myths, though clever, had limited utility in the kinds of games I run/play in.
237: Tomb Raider /With Friends Like These.
Tomb Raider takes a player into the ins and outs of grave pursuits, and I didn’t need it translated into game terms. Friends didn’t give me much of a buzz either way.
329: Mesopotamian Myths/Pazuzu.
This one I know I am in the minority on. I geek over stuff on Mesopotamian/Babylonian myths. I wish I’d written it myself, but looking back, I could not have done so thorough a job as David did. Demon-themed pieces do next to nothing for me, even though I’m well aware of their overall popularity.
Moreover, I thought New Olamn Bard College (335) was one of the strongest-written features to appear in the past year. It described a mini-setting with detail and flavor – the kind of description that will either inspire a player to incorporate it into their background or give a DM something to lift when describing it the people around the table. Either way, it brought a setting to life in a way that is rarely done.
Now, who is right? Which view represents a sizeable portion of the audience? How does an editor evaluate this kind of input? In looking back, what diminished or heightened a particular article’s effectiveness? Did the art enhance or detract from the piece? Was the article too long? Was it too short?
One thing we certainly agree on, though, is the strength of Hal’s “7 Deadly Domains.” Not only was it the best article of the issue, I think it holds up as one of the best pieces to appear in Dragon since the magazine was reformatted/redesigned. It has broad appeal (bringing into focus something even non-gamers can relate to, the 7 Deadly Sins), and applies solid game mechanics to it with good, flavorful writing. It brings all the elements together. It’s the kind of writing all us who are contributing articles should aspire to.
I don't have the writing credentials that Amber has, but I'll throw in a little feedback as well. This, of course, is not meant to be an all-inclusive review of everything that I liked, didn't like, or used in my game.
Liked:
319: License to Kill and Covert Ops, by Evan Michael Jackson, and Cloak & Dagger by Eric Cagle and Evan Michael Jackson. Great art. Great presentation. Very easy to read and follow from begining to end. There's not one thing in particular that I want to point out... it's really the three articles together that really made this issue stand out.
329: Mesopotamian Mythos, by David Schwartz. I was (and still am) deeply disappointed by the 3rd Ed. Deities and Demigods. 223 pages with four pantheons?!? The AD&D one was 128 pages and had 15 mythos (more if you got the *other* version). I guess the extra fluff in the 3rd Ed is nice, I suppose, but what I wanted (and want more of from Dragon, can you bring in the Celtic mythos next?) is the down and dirty of many pantheons. If I want more background information on each of the deities, I can look on-line or go to the library. I loved everything about this article; it is exactly what I want from Dragon magazine. Plus, Amber's on the front cover! :) (And the back cover wasn't too bad, either.)
330: Coming Home, by Matt Forbeck. I really liked this fiction, the intro into Marked for Death. This short story, as a stand alone, brought meaning to "you can never go home" for those that used to live in Cyre. As a tie-in to his novel, it would have been enough for me to buy the magazine just to complete Marked for Death. More short stories like this (can you get Patrick Weekes, please? I miss him from Amazing Stories) would be great.
331: Alchemical Charms, by Yury Pavlotsky. I've been reading a series called The Edge Chronicles. Among the things that I wanted to try to bring into D&D from those books were the use of charms, items hung on a necklace for protection against something. But I wan't happy with my tinkering with the magic item creation methods to bring it into my game. I loved this article because it succeeded where I failed, and it introduced a new line of thinking for me to use when creating "magic" items.
334: Dreams of Arabia, by Wolfgang Baur. Until 3rd Ed came out I only owned two campaign settings: Greyhawk and Al Qadim. I loved Al Qadim, and I really enjoyed this article. And who doesn't love flying monkeys? But let's not forget, a Zogonia/Downer crossover! (Good job, Tony... you rock!)
Didn't like: (Please, no hard feelings... I'm really not a bad guy, and I did enjoy reading your articles, I just didn't really agree with parts.)
327: This is going to sound really petty, but it actually really bugged me. Over several issues, there were two ads for Cloud Kingdom Games' Riddle Books: one would have a riddle, the second would have the answer. Well, this issue, and others, had the wrong answer to the riddle. I hope that Cloud Kingdom got some money back on their advertising.
331: A Novel Approach: The Spiderwick Chonicles, by Shelly Baur. The article was too short to be able to capture what I loved most about the books: a world of D&D monsters where the people refused to acknowledge them. This idea works great for d20 Modern's Urban Arcana (which these novels most closely resemble, in D&D game world terms), but I would have liked to have seen much more in how to create a D&D campaign like this out of a campaign world like Greyhawk or Eberron.
And, most importantly,
Used in my game:
I'm running an Age of Worms Campaign, so I can say that I will most likely use all of the Wormfood articles. Thanks for these ones. Are any of them going to be bigger... as in something as big as the Backdrop articles?
303: The Gladiator Arena map. I actually bought three issues of this magazine, just to make sure that two of my friends that DM regularly would have that map. I am also going to try to use Glory and Triumph, by Dean Poisso, for extra encounters in my Age of Worms campaign.
310: Specialist Fighters, by Clifford Horrowitz. A player in my first Shackled City Campaign ran a dual-wielding, multi-throwing dagger Kensai. Extremely cool.
313: Strange Bedfellows, by Wade Nudson. One of my players in my Age of Worms campaign is a half-doppleganger.
There's more, of course. These are the ones that stand out for me.
Troy - Yep, absolutely. My purpose in making this list was twofold.
1) To tell the Dragon guys what I liked and didn't. Of course they're never going to please everybody. But who are they going to please more often - the people who tell them what they liked/didn't like, or the people who stay silent and vaguely hope that the editors will get it right this month? Exactly. :-)
2) To tell the Dragon guys what I thought they were doing right/wrong. The editors don't have absolute control over what the writers write, but they certainly influence it. By saying I like a balance of fluff & crunch, they can guide their writers in that direction (assuming they give a hoot about what I think, which I like to think they do. Cuz I'm cute). In addition, there were a few articles I mentioned where the content was fine but the editorial decisions made it difficult for me to enjoy (i.e. layouts, backgrounds, presentation). That they can control, so I feel it's important to speak up.
3) To poke a little fun at my bestest friend ever, Z. :-p
I also thought it would be fun for us to go, "You liked that? I hated it!" Which we're already doing. :-D
Plus, Amber's on the front cover! :)
Tee hee!
|
|
[True, I really did not mean to offend him. I have been critical of his comments in the past, but I've also agreed with him on more than one occasion. These boards would not be the same without honest opinion from ALL sides, positive and negative.
I'm not offended. I'm very thick skinned, and very slow to anger. I might say "This made me angry" and what I really mean is "When I thought about the intent, it seemed it was designed to insult me, so I felt I should respond as though it had succeeded because to do otherwise would be to encourage additional insults..." Or something like that.
Anyway, since people have asked, I'll mention a couple of things from memory...
In all of those issues (at least, those that included it), my least favorite feature was UnderCommand.
I tried to refrain from saying, "I didn't like this article because I hate First Watch" or whatever. Not liking an article because I don't like the feature doesn't help you guys get better. So I refrained from that as much as possible. Maybe I'll do a feature breakdown in another post.
Now, perhaps I should avoid dumping on a department, but I think in this case it deserves it, and the criticism I have could be applied to other included articles. UnderCommand featured support for a game other than D&D. It doesn't even try to convince us that they're the same (but they're not). People who play D&D probably don't play the minis game and vice versa (though I suppose there must be a few who do). Nothing against miniature wargaming (I've played Warhammer 40k & Necromunda) but this magazine should be about Dungeons and Dragons, a role-playing game, not about a miniatures game that happens to be owned by the same company.
I don't really care for the fiction that has been included. I didn't like the Eberron fiction, and I didn't like the Realms fiction. It isn't that I don't like fiction - I do. I've been forced to think about this a lot, and I've finally decided that I just don't like "D&D fiction". I mean, there are exceptions - I liked Margaret Weis/Tracy Hickman's Dragonlance novels, but that's about it. There is fiction in Dragon I've liked, but the only example I can think of off the top of my head was found within the first dozen issues. It was the continuing story of a wizarding family (that in some ways reminds me of Harry Potter, but obviously, it came first). I remember the main character's uncle went to ancient Arabia to capture Aladdin's lamp, but it turned out that the lamp was simply his magic wand (with a light spell cast upon it). He was forced to use his magic to help Aladdin (a lazy layabout) after Aladdin used the wand on him. That was a good story (maybe someone else can mention the title and author. Now, I know that it doesn't actually have significance to a D&D game, but it did get me thinking. Gaming fiction usally doesn't. Since I'm comfortable saying "only game related materials" I'd be okay with the loss of all fiction. Erik has said that isn't going to happen, but many of the D&D fiction stories strike me as similar, and weak in the same areas. I just don't care for it.
I'm guessing it is Issue #209, but I hated the "knight vs. samurai article". It was very repetitive, and it never answered the question that it posed. Which would win in a straight up fight? By the time it was over I was hoping they'd team up against the author and ride away into the sunset together. Yes, there is a little homicidal fiend lurking deep within my psyche. Apologies.
I'd like to disagree with Medesha about First Watch in Issue #335. Or rather, I'd agree that the format is better, but there are still problems - and I'm actually thinking of issue #336. On page 16 the third item is under a picture for "Race Series". What does the description say?
"The leather bound Special Edition Dungeon Master's Guide (v.3.5 of course) looks sumptuous enough to make any DM feel special. Matching the Special Edition Player's Handbook, it features gilt edges, embossing, and a handy ribbon bookmark. This edition contains all the lastest errata compiled from wizards.com plus some corrections not found elsewhere. Also releasing this month is the Races Series Gift Set, packaging the Complete set (Races of Destiny, Races of Stone, and Races of the Wild) inside one slip-covered box, giving you everything you need to know about all the core races of D&D and including a special 4-page D&D character sheet."
The picture doesn't match half the article. I don't care about the Races books. I specifically decided that I don't want to buy them for any amount of money. Nothing against Wizards of the Coast, but I don't want them, and I don't care to learn more about them. However, this article featured information about a completely different product and I nearly failed to realize. I really think that they could have gotten separate columns, and smaller columns as well. I like the 4 on a page layout better than the 3 on a page anyway...
I wasn't much fond of 335. For me there were several features trying to establish the position as my least favorite. It included fiction, an interview, and information about a bard college (very setting specific, too) that I'm not going to use. Virtually nothing in the features was useful game material. If I had to organize it, my least favorite was the fiction, next was Ed's interview, and next was the bard college article...
So, in summary, I want stuff that I can use in my game. Or at least tries to be "game useful". If it is my fault I can't use it, I won't complain. A nice mix of fluff and crunch is good in every article. And a feature should attempt to accomplish what it purports to do.
But the best article in any of these issues was James Jacob's Haunted Places in #336.
It wasn't intended as an insult either. I just meant that a thread titled "massive Dragon review" was sure to elicit a lengthy response from you, which might cause carpal tunnel syndrome (intended as not so subtle sarcasm considering your past record). Oh well, I failed my Diplomacy roll. Please note that I paid you a compliment as well.
...and to stay on topic--I was not all that pleased with Dragon a while back, but all the criticism (mostly by people other than DeadDM) caused me to resubscribe in protest so that I could make my own decision.
What I found is that the magazine is about as useful to me now as it was when I first subscribed (for a year) back in 1982-83. I find a few things in each issue that I can use directly and many things that could kick-start my fertile imagination if I was stuck for an adventure idea. Considering the price of gaming products nowadays, that's not really a bad deal at all. If something pops up that I really don't like, I'll mention it, but overall I'm fairly pleased with the magazine. Class Acts is my least favorite column, but I have used material from there as well, so it's not like it's totally worthless.
I like to think I'm a creative person (I hope I am, anyway; that's what they pay me for). But just because I can do something doesn't mean I always want to do it. I can bake bread too but I usually buy it at the supermarket.
What I mean is, if I read a particularly interesting and well-written piece of fluff, I enjoy having it supplemented with a piece of crunch. For example, let's say I read an excellent 500-page section on how to roleplay a cursed PC (or something, I just pulled that out of a hat). Once I finish reading it and going, "Uh-huh, cool, yay!, oh I like that", I like to see something - a new feat, a mechanic for determining curses, a template, whatever - that helps me incorporate that fluff into my game. I like the balance. It does some of the work for me, and even if it's not perfect, it a) inspires me should I decide to create my own fluff/crunch - at least I know how not to do it!, and b) gives me something to modify (it's easier to tweak fluff/crunch than make it up out of thin air.
Basically, my games are a mix of mechanics and roleplaying. I'm not a pure IDRPer or a dedicated hack n' slasher. I'm in the middle. I like my articles to be in the middle too.
This goes for fluff as well. A feat by itself in the middle of the page doesn't do me as much good as a feat with a little touch of fluff, even a few sentences, to help me set it in my games.
Again, this is how I play and what I find useful, which is why I started this thread. :) And if crunch is truly superfluous, I don't mind its exclusion. Like Mike Mearls' "Smoke and Mirrors," one of my favorites pics.
Reading over my likes/dislikes, I see a pattern. I like to see a balance of crunch/fluff, I like articles that aren't too long (a 2-page spread for straightforward articles and 5-6 pages for more complex ones seems to be my preference). I like sidebars and artwork to break up the text, I like textured backgrounds but not messy or overly complicated ones, and I favor few subjects covered in detail over a lot of general subjects.
DeadDMWalking: I agree that we should let Dragon know if we love or hate a particular feature - I have strong opinions on Under Command, fiction, etc. I just didn't think it would be appropriate in the scope of this post. I mean, if every one of my "dislikes" was, "Hated Under Command, Hated Under Command, Hated Under Command," then all it tells them is I hated Under Command. But if I ignore the features I dislike and pass judgement on the other articles in those 30 issues, it tells them 30 things I dislike. And vice-versa for the likes.
-Amber S.
DeadDMWalking: I did not mean to offend either, and I took farewell2kings' joke in a light-hearted way -- meaning that if Amber, who usually keeps her comments on the short side, wrote a long piece, one could only imagine the lengthy essays coming from some of our regular writers. I always enjoy reading your comments, and met no offense. (And besides, you have the best avatar!)
I'll submit my own missive on Dragon articles when I get the energy, but I'm bushed and will have to torture everyone w/ my comments another day...
Bravo, Amber! I enjoied your reviews. A balance of crunch and fluff is my personal preference too. While there were a few places I didn't quite agree with you, it is easier to just "let it go" if the arguement is thought out and articulate. Therefore I have no reason to argue with you, at the moment. :P
By the way, I see that you had a healthy 3 pieces published in the most recent issue (#335). Congrates! I especially enjoied the Ecology of the Lizardfolk; it of course had that balanced mixture of crunch/fluff. I look forward to your future submissions.
And to the rest of the 'regular gang' whom I see both here on the message boards, and within the pages of Dragon, I enjoy your articles as well, and look forward to more.
Even though I'm jumping into this thread late, I will just say that I agree with Amber on most of her picks. 335s New Olamn article was boring and heavy, 323s Knight vs Samuari article was probably paid by the word, etc. However, I will pipe in saying that I like Cities of the Realm:Crimmor alot. It is probably the most useful thing in the past 20-ish issues(for me).
WaterdhavianFlapjack
|
However, I will pipe in saying that I like Cities of the Realm:Crimmor alot. It is probably the most useful thing in the past 20-ish issues(for me).
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I liked it as well.
I'm not a big fan of setting-specific material, but of course Crimmor can be dropped in almost anywhere.
They can do a city every issue as far as I'm concerned, or at least until I've managed to steal one for each of my campiagn world's major cities.
I liked it as well.
I'm not a big fan of setting-specific material, but of course Crimmor can be dropped in almost anywhere.
They can do a city every issue as far as I'm concerned, or at least until I've managed to steal one for each of my campiagn world's major cities.
Kinda strange, but it alone caused me to buy the FRCS and jump into FR. I had read alot of FR novels, but never thought I would use it in a campaign.
Mwahahahah!! Time to kill me olde PCs. Mwahahahaah!WaterdhavianFlapjack