Players 1, DMs 1
by Chris Youngs
Dragon and Dungeon have been ticking along for many years now, with only a few editorial direction changes to speak of, most of them to do with D&D edition changes. Dungeon has traditionally offered D&D adventures, while Dragon has been the place to go for all sorts of DM- and player-focused articles related to the D&D game. As someone who recently passed the ten-year benchmark working on D&D (most of it on these magazines), I'm very respectful of the magazines' legacy, as is the rest of Wizards of the Coast. Even with the transition to a digital format, the content -- and more important to this discussion, where it lived -- remained the same.
Discuss it here.
Now hopefully the Dragon content stays high.
For myself, I'm not totally for this; I've always seen Dungeon as the adventure magazine and Dragon as a potpourri of information for everyone. But that’s me.
Bel
as for DM not lookin in Dragon? not likely, DM are always looking to stay more informed on character option than their characters
in the '80 when I buyed the magazines, I always took Dragon and almost never Dungeon... now I read Dungeon only when it's compiled and a few DM advice articles....
if you put Ecologies and other monster articles in Dungeon I will go there so much often
Personally, this is probably going to get me to actually read Dungeon. Although I'm really curious as tow hat this is going to do to the page count. I mean most of the articles in Dragon right now(well the ones I read closely anyways) seem like they will be moving to Dungeon. So will they be cutting down on the number of adventures or increasing the expected page count per month? I guess we'll just have to see.
Direct quote from his editorial:
"What this does not mean is a reduction in the overall volume of content each month. If anything, we'll be bringing you more exclusive content as a D&D Insider."
However, this does not tell us all page count up or down (or sidways). But it does lend itself to inference of an actual increase in page number. As long as the articles stay quality I would say this is a good thing.
Direct quote from his editorial:
"What this does not mean is a reduction in the overall volume of content each month. If anything, we'll be bringing you more exclusive content as a D&D Insider."
However, this does not tell us all page count up or down (or sidways). But it does lend itself to inference of an actual increase in page number. As long as the articles stay quality I would say this is a good thing.
Bleh I read it yesterday and didn't bother rereading before posting my thoughts.
However I should point out that the comment is in reference to the total offerings, so if they cut Dungeon down to 2 adventures, added all the DM content from Dragon to Dungeon, and then added in new player content to Dragon of equal page count as the stuff moved there would probably be a net increase between the two magazines. *shrugs* I'm just curious as to how things are going to break down.
Of course, I don't care that much, since I grab both each month anyways.
The only problem with this I have is the proposed putting Ecology articles in Dungeon. Now, the Ecology of Sharns obviously is meant for DMs, but Ecology of Dragonborn and Ecology of Devas are blatantly PC articles. So hopefully they'll do a case by case assignment.
Of course, I don't care that much, since I grab both each month anyways.
I bet that they are going to have it so that Ecologies no longer carry player material. Instead they will have the player "ecologies" covered in "Playing (insert race)".
I bet that they are going to have it so that Ecologies no longer carry player material. Instead they will have the player "ecologies" covered in "Playing (insert race)".
And likely have companion Bestiaries in the same month's Dungeon.
I bet that they are going to have it so that Ecologies no longer carry player material. Instead they will have the player "ecologies" covered in "Playing (insert race)".
I found Ecology of the Sharn to be rather misleading. Unless I'm mistaken, all the other "Ecology of X" articles have been player oriented and mostly indistinguishable from the "Playing X" articles (the difference usually amounting to "Ecology of X" = details and expanded options for PC race and "Playing X" = how to use monster race as a PC race).
Personally I'd rather see "Ecology of X" remain the title for PC articles, as I find "Playing X" to be a rather bland title. For me the DM equivalent articles already have a good title scheme with "Creature Incarnations: X".
I found Ecology of the Sharn to be rather misleading. Unless I'm mistaken, all the other "Ecology of X" articles have been player oriented and mostly indistinguishable from the "Playing X" articles (the difference usually amounting to "Ecology of X" = details and expanded options for PC race and "Playing X" = how to use monster race as a PC race).
Personally I'd rather see "Ecology of X" remain the title for PC articles, as I find "Playing X" to be a rather bland title. For me the DM equivalent articles already have a good title scheme with "Creature Incarnations: X".
I think that has been the only ecology article since the magazine went digital that has focused on a non-player race. However the history of the article series is one that mostly focuses on non player characters. Here's a list of past ones that I found:
Drider - issue 312
Salamander - issue 314
Dark Ones - issue 322
Chokers - issue 323
Night Hags - issue 324
Duergar - issue 325
Rakshasa - issue 326
Grimlocks - issue 327
Will-o'-wisp - issue 328
Kenkus - issue 329
Chuul - issue 330
Green Hags - issue 331
Kobold - issue 332
Behir - issue 333
Kraken - issue 334
Lizardfolk - issue 335
Spawn of Kyuss - issue 336
Draconian - issue 339
I think that has been the only ecology article since the magazine went digital that has focused on a non-player race. However the history of the article series is one that mostly focuses on non player characters. Here's a list of past ones that I found:
Interesting to know, however, I've only been reading since the 4e issues started so I can't say that history means that much to me.
Much like how Dungeon being an adventure resource with Dragon being a catch-all for every thing else doesn't mean much to me. I've found having all that DM and PC content mixed together to be rather strange given the rest of the 4e model, also, adventures only seems far too narrow a topic for a monthly magazine. I'm looking forward to the new dichotomy.
I hope that the "Ecology of X" remains the title for expanded racially information/options, and even that it takes over for the nearly identical "Playing X", but if it goes the other way no biggie. These are both just titles, it's the articles themselves that I care about.
In addition, in as much as there's "fluff" in Dragon, it's typically been of a far lower quality than what appears in the Dungeon adventures. Personally I've found the flavour and setting material across all of 4th Ed to be pretty sub-par, compared to the non-Wizards competition, and until such time as the level of quality amps up it's not something that contributes to the value-for-money I get from D&DI.
It's not much of a deal - I can ignore the "ecology" articles and suchlike as easily in Dungeon as I could in Dragon - but personally I see the layout as less intuitive now, rather than more.
I've not seen Dungeon as the DM side and Dragon as the player side. I've seen Dungeon as a home for high-quality adventures and scenarios, with Dragon as a home for all the unbalanced un-playtested crap that Wizards isn't game to publish in hardcopy yet.
Perhaps you missed the part where Dragon is now published in house at WotC, and that everthing released through Dragon is playtested by the exact same people who playtest the books.
It's not much of a deal - I can ignore the "ecology" articles and suchlike as easily in Dungeon as I could in Dragon - but personally I see the layout as less intuitive now, rather than more.
Players read Dragon, DMs read Dungeon; how much more intuitive could it be. Also, in case you missed the boat, separation of Player and DM resources has been 4e publishing policy from day one. [INDENT]PLAYER RESOURCES: Player's Handbook, Adventurers Vault, Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Martial Power, Player's Handbook 2, Arcane Power
DM RESOURCES: Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Draconomicon, Open Grave, Dungeon Delve, Monster Manual 2[/INDENT] Even the minis are now being divided into player and DM specific lines. The only Official WotC product other than Dragon that has blurred the lines between Player and DM resource is Manual of the Planes, and it caught a lot of flack for doing so.
The dichotomy all makes so much sense. DMs shouldn't have to wade through feats, races, classes, and other character options while searching for new monsters and traps/hazards to build their latest dungeons, and the same applies in reverse.
I fail to see how the Ecology of X articles remotely belong in Dungeon, given that they're completely based around playing a certain race yourself, at least until the Sharn.
I wouldn't mind the Demonomicon and similar articles moving, though. To be honest they've never been really interesting to me as a player, when compared to the ecologies, playtests, etc.
I fail to see how the Ecology of X articles remotely belong in Dungeon, given that they're completely based around playing a certain race yourself, at least until the Sharn.
Which is why there have monster stat blocks in every single one of them and all of the Ecology articles prior to the digital conversion were for monsters?
Which is why there have monster stat blocks in every single one of them and all of the Ecology articles prior to the digital conversion were for monsters?
...Obviously I'm talking about those centered around player races.
...Obviously I'm talking about those centered around player races.
So 2 Ecology articles that happened to be about player races, and included a couple of feats as a result are to redefine an article series with at least 19 articles focused on primarily monster races? And it should be mentioned that all of the player race articles included monsters as well such as the Dragonborn Commandent, Dragonborn Elementalist, Genasi Flamechaser, Genasi Stormmaster, and Genasi Tempest. As such it cannot be said that the entirity of the articles were based around playing the race(unless we include DMs controlling NPCs in "playing the races").
So 2 Ecology articles that happened to be about player races, and included a couple of feats as a result are to redefine an article series with at least 19 articles focused on primarily monster races?
It can when when there has been a large influx of new readers with the 4e, many of whom have never read any of the older articles.
I can sympathies with your, change can suck, but monsters already have "Creature Incarnations: X" they don't also need "Ecology of X". Granted races also have "Playing X". So really it comes down to a choice three names to be divided among too sources. For me I want to see the player resource be called "Ecology of X" with the DM resource aspects of those articles being ported over to "Creature Incarnation: X".
It can when when there has been a large influx of new readers with the 4e, many of whom have never read any of the older articles.
I can sympathies with your, change can suck, but monsters already have "Creature Incarnations: X" they don't also need "Ecology of X". Granted races also have "Playing X". So really it comes down to a choice three names to be divided among too sources. For me I want to see the player resource be called "Ecology of X" with the DM resource aspects of those articles being ported over to "Creature Incarnation: X".
Why are you sympathizing with me? It is implied that ecologies are being ported over to Dungeon meaning they aren't being considered as player material. So I'm not the one who has to adjust.That said, if they're looking at changes to the e-zines, they might want to update the submissions guidelines (a year out of date at the moment) and get some sort of system in place to actually respond to queries. If a much smaller operation like Kobold Quarterly can respond to queries in a timely fashion, but WotC just lets you assume after sixty days of dead silence that you should go away and not bother, it doesn't speak well for WotC wanting to cultivate a pool of freelance talent like Dragon and Dungeon have since their earliest days done.
Not quite the issue. I wasn't so much sympathizing with the reality of the situation, which until the actual new dichotomy kicks in cannot be confirmed one way or the other (only speculated upon). More so I was talking about change in general. For you the ecologies becoming an exclusive player resource would be change, for me having them revert to a DM resource is change.
So 2 Ecology articles that happened to be about player races, and included a couple of feats as a result are to redefine an article series with at least 19 articles focused on primarily monster races? And it should be mentioned that all of the player race articles included monsters as well such as the Dragonborn Commandent, Dragonborn Elementalist, Genasi Flamechaser, Genasi Stormmaster, and Genasi Tempest. As such it cannot be said that the entirity of the articles were based around playing the race(unless we include DMs controlling NPCs in "playing the races").
Actually, it's 3 out of 4 articles in the 4e Dragon, which frankly is not the same Dragon that came before, numbering aside. The new Dragon should not be beholden to the way the old was done.
Bleh I read it yesterday and didn't bother rereading before posting my thoughts.
However I should point out that the comment is in reference to the total offerings, so if they cut Dungeon down to 2 adventures, added all the DM content from Dragon to Dungeon, and then added in new player content to Dragon of equal page count as the stuff moved there would probably be a net increase between the two magazines. *shrugs* I'm just curious as to how things are going to break down.
Sadly, as it turns out, even though they say that there will not be a reduction in volume of content, this month sees the lowest page count on Dungeon. And it is a significant drop in volume of content since it's at least a 20% reduction from Dungeon 159 (the lowest until now).
Sadly, as it turns out, even though they say that there will not be a reduction in volume of content, this month sees the lowest page count on Dungeon. And it is a significant drop in volume of content since it's at least a 20% reduction from Dungeon 159 (the lowest until now).
Ummm they haven't started the new set up yet, so there can't have been a reduction of content because of it yet.
My pessimism is kicking in.
I like RPGA playable feats and powers, and so far last month we only got the monk. I'd like to see at least 2 articles a month with new playable content (Hybrid stuff dosn't count, because it's not rpga legal yet).
Right now I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth (though I really like the character builder, but it dosn't seem like we're getting much new content for it). The announcement that Dragon would be for players pleased me, but I don't see that happening yet.
I can sympathize with your guys eagerness to see these changes come as soon as possible (since they sound like excellent changes), but 'pessimism' and 'annoyance'? The change was only announced one issue ago, with them clearly stating it would be a few months before it kicked in. I don't think any complaints on that front are really warranted.
Direct quote from his editorial:
"What this does not mean is a reduction in the overall volume of content each month. If anything, we'll be bringing you more exclusive content as a D&D Insider."
It's a real shame that the issue he said this in was one of the thinnest yet (especially if you remove the non-exclusive preview stuff). Dungeon was a shadow of it's usual content.