Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DMaple Sep 02, 2010 4:08:21	www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d... So Dragon/Dungeon have gone from decently developed full articles and adventures to smaller bite sized articles, and "encounters" that need less development, and now to half-baked ideas that have little or no development, that won't even get Character Builder support if I find them interesting and want to use them. And this is sold as a good thing? Seems WotC have found a way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you are going to make optional rules make them actually optional, if all the players are using the Character Builder for their character sheets and you introduce an unoffical class or feat that a player/DM want to use how can they use it if there is no support? All the existing stuff published by Dragon/Dungeon and WotC is optional already. A Player can opt to use it or not, the DM can opt to allow it or not. This new unearth arcana stuff you won't be able to opt to use it in the character builder, or adventurer tools, which is why people pay for the D&DI and an invaluable tool for players and DMs. This isn't "It's all experimental, optional, and unofficial." as if that is something cool and exciting. The only thing is, is rushed out (without development) to fill the rapidly thinning content of the magazine and unsupported by the D&DI. Remind me why I'm paying my subscription again?
#2 Style75 Sep 02, 2010 5:49:13	Boo hoo DMaple, don't be such a grouch. I don't see this as "rushing out rapidly thinning content"  but rather giving us DM's and players a chance to participate in the development process of alternative rules and ways of playing. They're putting this stuff out there and if enough feedback comes in it might become official. Or it might get trashed forever. Nothing ventured nothing gained. I am intrigued by this and can't wait to see what kind of goodies fell to the cutting room floor. However, I'm very happy that they're making it unofficial at the beginning. Isn't this what people have been asking for? A chance to Beta-test new material before it becomes canon?
#3 mysticbelmont Sep 02, 2010 7:07:49	DM is correct in that having stuff in the magazine but no in the character builder is quite bothersome. Why not simply mark UA stuff with *UA* on the character sheet? Once again, rather than try to get some balance in the game, Wizards has decided that the DM should be saddled with yet another thing. A lot of UA was for 3.5 was a powergamer/munchkins dream.  The flaws alone were very munchkiny.
#4 DMaple Sep 02, 2010 7:12:37	They're putting this stuff out there and if enough feedback comes in it might become official. And they are collecting this feedback how exactly? Also what are the chances of stuff that isn't supported by the character builder actually getting used in enough games to even be able to provide adequate feedback even if it was collected, pretty slim I imagine. It perhaps wouldn't be so bad if this wasn't used to replace standard content that has been through the development cycle and is supported, but already we can see that this month is thin and tomorrow all we are getting is an unofficial, unsupported article.
#5 asmodeuslore Sep 02, 2010 7:40:12	When I first read this article, I was really excited about it.  Then I came and saw DMaples post (as I'm trying to make a Discussion Thread post, no less :P ) and it kind of brought me down. I love the idea of having an article that has more odd-ball stuff that might not quite be production quality yet.  And I certainly didn't feel like it was somehow cheapening the Dragon Magazine experience for me.  My first thought was that they would be giving me all the same cool stuff I get now, plus this on top of it. Being unsupported doesn't bother me.  Not being in the Character Builder doesn't bother me.  What would bother me is if this is actually going to somehow take away from the more fully developed articles out there.
#6 DMaple Sep 02, 2010 7:55:57	I'm sorry to dampen your excitement with my typical British cynicism.
#7 dustmanexe Sep 02, 2010 8:39:07	I love the idea of having an article that has more odd-ball stuff that might not quite be production quality yet.  And I certainly didn't feel like it was somehow cheapening the Dragon Magazine experience for me.  My first thought was that they would be giving me all the same cool stuff I get now, plus this on top of it. Being unsupported doesn't bother me.  Not being in the Character Builder doesn't bother me.  What would bother me is if this is actually going to somehow take away from the more fully developed articles out there. I agree with all of this. Fortunately, it seems Dragon has plenty of content this month. I have no idea what "PE" stands for, but I'm curious. If I have one wish for this feature beyond that it not impinge on the regular content, then it's that, if there comes an article for gunpowder weapons, that the "gunpowder" have its origins in jeweler's rouge.
#8 sfurtwangler Sep 02, 2010 9:33:36	I must be a cynic too, I read this announcement the same way DMaple did. To me, this is a (small) shift back towards the type of content we got in Dragon magazine back in the 2nd edition era. I really loved the fact that WotC decided to make Dragon content official, and supported in their DDI tools. I'm sad to see any change to that decision, even if its only a few articles a year (although I am expecting at least one a month). It also sounds like it'll be less work for them to create these articles, and lower quality product for us coming out of them. So, although I don't necessarily think the price should go down because of this one change - I don't think I should exactly be thanking them for this new feature.
#9 noxinfernus Sep 02, 2010 9:54:57	There are numerous websites that offer 3rd party optional rules / features to add to your game. Some of these offerings (licenced for sale & free) are really very good, some is not, but all of which is unsupported by WotC.  One would think that if something makes it to this new feature article, there must have been at least a murmur of excitment about the idea in the Wizards office. Though unsupported, the content will still be chosen over a boatload of submissions that they will/do receive. I would tend to carefully examine and consider unofficial content ideas being used in my game from an official source (such as Dragon Magazine), before looking to 3rd party publisher and private offerings.... The Caveat: ... so long as the addition of this article on optional content doesn't harm the quality of the existing official content of the Magazine.
#10 frothsof Sep 02, 2010 10:13:13	I agree with all of this. Fortunately, it seems Dragon has plenty of content this month. I have no idea what "PE" stands for, but I'm curious. player essentials is the most likely explanation, unfortunately
#11 drnick Sep 02, 2010 10:24:31	I don't need to be interested in every single article in a paper magazine before I buy it. Just saying.
#12 kilpatds Sep 02, 2010 11:19:30	If they used this as an excuse to publish more player-provided crunch articles (reducing their review costs for the Dragon crunch), and then put that crunch in the builder (but not turned on by default in the default campaign setting file), then I'd be all for it.  Please.  The amount of useful material has been horrid of late, and unlike NoxInfernus, I don't see this month being any better. If they use the space to add "crazy" ideas, wide sweeping house rules that can't be implemented in the builder because it's too much conditional code, I'd understand.   I'll still unsubscribe, but it will be cool to see what they come up with, and I'd likely buy the the compiled book. If they use it to just reduce the amount of work the character builder team has to do, by simply tagging otherwise perfectly normal articles with the UA tag (and thus not having to add them in), then I'll laugh, and wonder who next next owner of the D&D brand will be, once WotC sells it off.
#13 fjw70 Sep 02, 2010 12:11:05	I a very interested in this.  I really hope it is't just a bunch of feats and powers (we have tons of those already).  I hope it is really cool stuff. This gets Dragon back to it's roots of cool and crazy stuff to make your game unique.
#14 ignis_fatuus Sep 02, 2010 12:29:05	I would be very enthousiastic about this if: The low amount of articles this month wouldn't already have made me worried. Things that are easily added to the CB/compendium like items/feats/powers/PPs/etc. would be added, but would turn on the houseruled sign.
#15 Huscarl Sep 02, 2010 12:50:38	I can expand slightly on the editorial. PE on the calendar stands for Player Essentials. There are quite a few reasons for slotting things into UA, but the big one is the one laid out in the editorial. 4E places rigid mechanical requirements on material, and the character builder software adds even more. Anything which breaks that template can't be official. There are, however, all sorts of ideas floating around (or not yet formed) that are exciting and fascinating but don't fit the template. It's not that we're saying simply, "we're not sure about this, so don't put it in the character builder." Some of what we want to present stretches or pierces the 4E envelope to the point that it can't be placed in the character builder; the database can't accomodate material in such an unusual form. Some of it breaks the power curve (up or down) to the point where turning it loose would cause havoc, yet it has lots of potential for exciting play if it's kept properly sequestered. Some of it, like tomorrow's Curses article, is so story-oriented that calling it "official" doesn't make sense; either it's not really rules in the first place, or it calls for so much tailoring to each DM's campaign that there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Steve
#16 kilpatds Sep 02, 2010 13:24:36	If they use the space to add "crazy" ideas, wide sweeping house rules that can't be implemented in the builder because it's too much conditional code, I'd understand.   I'll still unsubscribe, but it will be cool to see what they come up with, and I'd likely buy the the compiled book. There are quite a few reasons for slotting things into UA, but the big one is the one laid out in the editorial. 4E places rigid mechanical requirements on material, and the character builder software adds even more. Anything which breaks that template can't be official. There are, however, all sorts of ideas floating around (or not yet formed) that are exciting and fascinating but don't fit the template. It's not that we're saying simply, "we're not sure about this, so don't put it in the character builder." Some of what we want to present stretches or pierces the 4E envelope to the point that it can't be placed in the character builder; the database can't accomodate material in such an unusual form Nifty.  If you compile the better ones from a year into a Dragon Annual style book, I'll likely buy it. Now, um ... any comments about the perceived lackluster state of Dragon for the last 3 months?
#17 Mirtek Sep 02, 2010 14:10:10	My first thought was that they would be giving me all the same cool stuff I get now, plus this on top of it. Being unsupported doesn't bother me.  Not being in the Character Builder doesn't bother me.  What would bother me is if this is actually going to somehow take away from the more fully developed articles out there. The more fully developed articles were already getting shorter and less fully developed, this is just a great way for WotC to make creating the issues even cheaper Fortunately, it seems Dragon has plenty of content this month. What? The current content table is one of the most sparse in a long time
#18 dustmanexe Sep 02, 2010 14:23:41	Fortunately, it seems Dragon has plenty of content this month. What? The current content table is one of the most sparse in a long time It seems sparse, yeah, but a high proportion of Dragon's articles have my interest piqued (granted, I'm judging by the minimalist calendar), and I'm expecting a metric ton of content to enter the Character Builder. Psionic Power and the Dark Sun books are all due for inclusion, right? So, when I say plenty, I don't mean it in the sense of great abundance; just that I'm tentatively quite satisfied.
#19 kilpatds Sep 02, 2010 14:48:09	Last month there were around 35 pages of articles I cared about, out of 103 pages of Dragon.  The average article that I cared about was around 4 pages. This month, we've already seen one relevant article.  It was 3 pages.  I'm assuming PE: Wizards will be more preview, and PE: Assassin will be interesting (because Assassins are not in Essentials yet).  Assuming the Curses, Shadar-Kai, genasi, PE: Assassin, Mul, and Staff Fighter articles average 4 pages, we're looking at 27 pages of content. 27 pages.  Is that what you're sending $10 on?  Let's say the PE: Assassin article is one of those 11 page things, that puts us up to 32 pages.  Woot.  And the Curses article won't even have any real player content, and should probably be a Dungeon article.  (I can't check the TOC, because the TOC hasn't been created yet). And since they focus is now more fluff articles, out of the 4 pages of the average article, expect at most 1 page of interesting game elements.  So 3 feats and 2 powers, or 1 PP, or 2 feats and a background.  So really, this is past "thin".  This is "transparent" I know the problem isn't what's coming in... I've written enough pitches and gotten exactly zero responses.  (And know others who have written a large number of pitches).  It's something else.  And it's not to my taste....
#20 Style75 Sep 02, 2010 18:52:31	Last month there were around 35 pages of articles I cared about, out of 103 pages of Dragon.  The average article that I cared about was around 4 pages.  I, on the other hand, thought that issue 390 was great. I read it beginning to end and enjoyed it completely. And since they focus is now more fluff articles, out of the 4 pages of the average article, expect at most 1 page of interesting game elements.  So 3 feats and 2 powers, or 1 PP, or 2 feats and a background.  So really, this is past "thin".  This is "transparent"  I love the fluff. A little more crunch would be nice, but the increase in fluff is a welcome change from the almost crunch only articles that were coming out in the past. Lots and lots of people were on these forums complaining that Dragon was crunch only and was in desperate need of more fluff. Now that we've got it, people are complaining about it.  I think this shows you can't please everyone.   I know the problem isn't what's coming in... I've written enough pitches and gotten exactly zero responses.  (And know others who have written a large number of pitches). I work in the publishing industry and zero response is the norm. Submission editors usually have desks piled a mile high (or inboxes completely clogged) with pitches of one form or another. They're always overworked, often underpaid, and very very busy. The only time I know of submission editors contacting rejected authors is when their article is so very close to be accepted that some form of rewrite might get it through. But that's pretty rare. My advice to you is to not give up and keep submitting. Try lots of different styles and vary your content. From month to month, editors are often looking for particular types of stories to balance out the other stories from the in-house writers. A lot of it is the luck of having the right article submitted on the month that they're looking for just that type of story.
#21 kilpatds Sep 02, 2010 19:43:38	I, on the other hand, thought that issue 390 was great. I read it beginning to end and enjoyed it completely. We have different tastes.  If your taste is more common among their customer base, they'll do fine.  If mine is, they're going to have problems.  I'm not the only one who's started complaining, so I'd guess my tastes are not ... uncommon.  But we'll see. I work in the publishing industry and zero response is the norm. I know.  I don't have a problem with the lack of response.  I've just seen people say "well, if you don't see articles you want, you should submit them."  I have.  So that's not WHY I'm not seeing articles I want.  For whatever reason, they've decided to not publish the types of articles I want....
#22 Kerrus Sep 03, 2010 10:43:39	There is a difference between "We would like to see a bit more fluff" and "SACRIFICE ALL CONTENT IN EXCHANGE FOR FLUFF. FIVE PAGE ARTICLES, HALF A PAGE OF FLUFF. ELEVEN PAGES OF FLUFF, NO ACTUAL CONTENT/SUPPORT!"- the latter is what we're seeing. A perfect example of fluff balanced with content is the Races of the Wild (Humans) article we got a while back. It had interesting fluff, cool feats/powers/options, and was pretty well balanced. I enjoy when an article has well written fluff, but for every article that does, there's something like the Drow Article we had last month (3.5 pages of fluff, half a page of content) that has kinda boring repetitive fluff. I don't need to hear about how drow are still evil, conniving backstabbers, or how wizards are still ivory tower knowledge collegiates. What I want to hear is about new stuff- fluff that doesn't just reprise the same old party line. An article that is just a repeat of the races descriptory text from the PHBs  *cough* WR_Changelings *cough*, or an article that gives us five pages of text on how halflings are short, or how dragonborn look like dragons.... isn't the sort of thing I'm paying for, and it certainly isn't the sort of thing Dragon's supposed to provide. It seems that when they decided to do more fluff, they missed the underlying sentiment, and just decided to do all fluff with the minimal amount of content required- and that isn't what we wanted either.
#23 asmodeuslore Sep 03, 2010 12:12:38	You guys may be starting to stray slightly off topic here.  I can see how the announcement of a UA column might add more fodder for one side or the other about the quality of the magazine, but the quality of the magazine doesn't have anything to do with the Editorial itself. I'd like to request that if you want to discuss the quality of the magazines overall, how to improve that quality, or ratios of fluff to crunch, you start a seperate thread, or chime in on one of the threads that already exist for that purpose.  Any commentary on the editorial itself are still more than welcome here. @DMaple - I'm interested to see what you will post in the discussion thread for the actual UA: Curses! article that came out today.
#24 Artifact Sep 03, 2010 21:04:42	The CB held articles to a particular format.  Unearthed Arcana style articles will give Dragon/Dungeon a chance to color outside the lines.   Dragon was at its best when it was 'out there' in my opinion.  Before the internet, Dragon was the place to go for errata but it was also the place to see the (original) anti-paladin, stuff we'd never see in the official game (not until much later at least).  The Forum even resembled these boards ;), with readers writing back 'n' forth on hot button topics. I'm excited by the news ;).  This is just the sorta thing to shake things up, something needed for a while.  /\ Art
#25 mysticbelmont Sep 03, 2010 22:14:48	We may even see stuff like how to handle a campaign post level 30. That would be awesome.
#26 frothsof Sep 03, 2010 22:23:55	meh, the curses are just player punishment. if i got cursed in a game id put my finger in my cheek and make a popping sound and roll my eyes
#27 ricksouth Sep 04, 2010 4:38:52	Unearthed Arcana is a great idea, there must be lots of good ideas that would never see the light of day otherwise. I have just read the curses article and its brilliant. Having said that, there is a certain level of scepticism floating around. This is because of the perception of a drop in quality, put that right and great new ideas like this will receive a much better reception.
#28 Artifact Sep 04, 2010 12:52:15	I don't see Unearthed Arcana as a drop in quality although some might I guess.  The good news is that the UA stuff will be clearly labeled as such.  So, its easy to identify right up front (and overlook if alternative rules aren't your thing).  Seems there's always been a question about exactly how 'official' Dragon content is. At one point, the mags even described themselves as %100 Official (or some such).  This should help clarify.  Dragon is official content (ready to be ported to the CB and RC) with the exception of the UA stuff. /\ Art
#29 GMforPowergamers Sep 04, 2010 14:57:40	meh, the curses are just player punishment. if i got cursed in a game id put my finger in my cheek and make a popping sound and roll my eyes um do you also do this when you take damage, have a condtion applied to you, or catch a desisses?  is there something that makes this more of a punishment then those? in general I am going to get alot of use out of this in my 4e Dresden game... these now will be death curses..