# Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?



## Erithtotl (May 28, 2003)

I have to say issue #99 is the worst issue of Dungeon I've ever seen (admittedly, I've only been buying it off the newsstand for the last two and a half years or so).

One adventure?  ONE?  And at 26 pages (including ads, maps, etc) its not exceptionly long for Dungeon.  It really is just 4 or 5 short (4 room/encounter) side-treks LOOSELY tied together with a plot.  It's not badly written, and some of the encounters are interesting, but its nothing spectacular.

And thats it.  One adventure.  No side-treks.  A couple critical threats and a couple maps.

Then we get half the issue filled with Polyhedron and a ridiciulous D20 minigame based on such classics as Scooby Doo.

When Polyhedron was just %15-%20 max the total content of Dungeon, I looked at it as an added bonus.  It was sometimes fun to read, but since I just play D&D, its not real useful.  

But now half the product I'm buying is being eaten up by this thing I don't want?  And even though the magazine is HALF the size of the bi-monthly issues (including the aforementioned %50 Polyhedron content), it's only a dollar less, amounting to a %75 price increase!

I always thought Dungeon was one of the great (and only) values available to D&D gamers.  Usually you got 3 or 4 (sometimes 5) QUALITY adventures for only $7-$8.  For the same content, I would have gladly paid $10 if they'd asked.  But now, assuming an average of 1.5 adventures per issue, I'm looking at $14 for 3 adventures, and I have to buy two issues with a large amount of content that I don't really want (but didn't mind when it didn't effect the quality of the rest of the magazine).

I realize that Dungeon and Polyhedron have been struggling lately.  But I can only think this latest move is a huge mistake that will spell disaster for both publications.


----------



## bwgwl (May 28, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Erithtotl
> Then we get half the issue filled with Polyhedron and a ridiciulous D20 minigame based on such classics as Scooby Doo.*



FWIW, i think _Hijinks_ is one of the best d20 games published to date, by anyone. definitely worth the price of admission. yes, the Dungeon side of things was a little scant this issue, but that's not what i bought the magazine for.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2003)

I think it's great. Content every month instead of every two months, fantastic mini-games and a slew of ideas. Well worth my money.

They may need to jigger the balance a little, though! Make sure you let Paizo know how you feel (although they'll probably be reading this thread.)


----------



## roytheodd (May 28, 2003)

Erithtotl said:
			
		

> *One adventure?  ONE?  And at 26 pages (including ads, maps, etc) its not exceptionly long for Dungeon.  It really is just 4 or 5 short (4 room/encounter) side-treks LOOSELY tied together with a plot.  It's not badly written, and some of the encounters are interesting, but its nothing spectacular.
> 
> And thats it.  One adventure.  No side-treks.  A couple critical threats and a couple maps. *




It sounds like MTV and how they're really anything but Music Television.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (May 28, 2003)

Erithtotl said:
			
		

> *I have to say issue #99 is the worst issue of Dungeon I've ever seen (admittedly, I've only been buying it off the newsstand for the last two and a half years or so).
> 
> When Polyhedron was just %15-%20 max the total content of Dungeon, I looked at it as an added bonus.  It was sometimes fun to read, but since I just play D&D, its not real useful.
> 
> ...




Do you read the Dungeons you purchase?  Every other month the lead magazine switches.  The month you're complaining of is a "Polyhedron" month.  If you don't like mini-games skip the odd months.  The Dungeon months have MORE adventures than they used to.

Of course if you're skipping Poly you're really cutting yourself short.  Hijinks was perhaps the best mini-game yet.  It looks like great fun and a really inventive application of the exisiting rules.

Heck, this month it's ALL usable D&D crunchy goodness.  The lich queen package has a huge collection of generally applicable feats.  Some I'm not to certain on....(Improved Combat Reflexes?  ewww...)


----------



## Olive (May 28, 2003)

i likedthe one adventure tho... trying to decide whether to rip off the idea now and make my own adventure for the PCs t their current level, or whether to leave it and run is more or less as is when it becomes time...


----------



## Erithtotl (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?*



> Do you read the Dungeons you purchase?  Every other month the lead magazine switches.  The month you're complaining of is a "Polyhedron" month.  If you don't like mini-games skip the odd months.




I should ask you the same question.  Issue #98 was the first of the so called flip-flopping issues.   In that one, 40 pages were devoted to Polyhedron, 60 to Dungeon.  So, on the 'good' weeks I'm still getting %40 Polyhedron content (vs. the %20-%30 or so when the magazine was bi-monthly).  



> "The Dungeon months have MORE adventures than they used to."




Absolutely, utterly incorrect.  As pointed out below, issue #98 had 3 adventures and a sidetrek.  Issue #99 had 1 adventure and 2 sidetreks.

Issue #97, the last bi-monthly issue (page counts approximate):
120 pages of Dungeon
60 pages of Polyhedron
3 full-length adventures, including 'Life's Bazaar, which was massive (nearly double the length of the adventure in issue #99)
1 side trek.

Total cost: $7.99 (4 cents per page, 6.6 cents per Dungeon page)

Issue #98 + Issue #99
100 pages of Dungeon (60 + 40)
100 pages of Polyhedron (40 + 60)
2 full length adventures (1 + 1)
2 side treks (2 + 0)

Total cost: $13.98 (7 cents per page, 14 cents per Dungeon page)

For those of us who read Dungeon for DUNGEONS, not only are we getting less content (even divided over two issues) but we're paying over TWICE as much for that content.



> Of course if you're skipping Poly you're really cutting yourself short.  Hijinks was perhaps the best mini-game yet.  It looks like great fun and a really inventive application of the exisiting rules.




I actually don't mind Polyhedron.  But its not why I buy the magazine.  I don't play other games.  Not because I hate them but because I have a job and a life and don't have time to play more than one.  It was fine when it was a subordinate publication, but now its eating up half of the space, and at increased cost, it's becoming very disappointing.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2003)

Perhaps you're best off buying every other month on the newsstand, or splitting your subscription with a friend who likes the mini-games?  That may help, I dunno.

Issue #100 is, in fact, all crunch. If you haven't seen it yet, you'll probably be pleased.


----------



## SoulsFury (May 28, 2003)

I can't decide if I'm gonna renew my subscription. I think it depends on if they send me my #97 I requested since for some reason they skipped it.

Nik


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 28, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *They may need to jigger the balance a little, though! Make sure you let Paizo know how you feel (although they'll probably be reading this thread.) *




I stopped purchasing a few months back when this whole issue first came up. As a non-user of poly I also had issues with the cost per page increase of Dungeon and was willing to pay $10 an issue for Dungeon to survive. Pazio responded that this was a neccesary action so that they could sell more add space by having a higher subscription number, additionally there was a 50% overlap of dual subscribers and that people enjoyed the mini-games. What made me stop purchasing though in addition to its lower cost benefit analysis for me was Pazio's statement that if we don't like what they are doing with the magazine then we shouldn't buy it. Oh and they also suggested that we should stop our whining about how they run thier buisness. Oh well one long time reader lost but they don't seam to care so neither do I.


----------



## Erithtotl (May 28, 2003)

Also, did you notice that in issue #99 they only printed positive letters, and none remarking on the changeover to the new format?  Sure, its their right to print whatever letters they want, but it stikes me as  a bit odd since every other issue of Dungeon has always included a mix of constructive criticism and praise in the letters section.


----------



## BryonD (May 28, 2003)

I have to agree.

I'm just waiting out my old subscription.  

Paying a lot more for the same amount of Dungeon does not fly with me.

I know some people like mini-games for a one-night thing or whatever.  Change of pace and all that.  But not me.  The mini-games fall into two general categories.  Ones like the WWII one, that are cool, but I'd rather play a WWII game, not a mini-game.  And "Zoinks!!!!  I got tricked into paying for THIS?"

Dungeon in general has also seemed to be off the mark lately.  I do not have any guess if the Poly connection is relevant or coincedence there.  Oh Well.

I have liked the little Global Positioning maps.


----------



## Tortoise (May 28, 2003)

I have to chime in on the side of those disappointed with the quality and quantity of Dungeon lately. While I didn't mind a little Polyhedron content when they first began to include it, I feel it has become too much of the magazine.

I ask Paizo to either include Polyhedron in a different magazine (please, not Dragon, something else) and return Dungeon to just being Dungeon, or to cut way back on the Polyhedron content.

Since Chris Perkins left as editor it seems the magazine has moved steadily away from being Dungeon and more toward being Polyghedron. The quality of the material has also dropped somewhat, especially of late.

Unless something changes very soon I plan to ride out my subscription and then not bother to renew.


----------



## caudor (May 28, 2003)

I guess I'll chime in.  I honestly think the content is really good stuff.  Have you seen issue 100?  I perceive no problems with quality at all.

About the only thing I don't get excited over is the mini-games, but that's just my preference.  My son likes them so it all works out well.

Overall, I think they are doing an excellent job.  I certainly won't be letting my subscription expire.


----------



## LGodamus (May 28, 2003)

I think alot of these complainst will silence when issue 100 is widely available...it is a very good issue...but you cant please all the people all the time, eh?


----------



## Jaws (May 28, 2003)

*Dungeon 100 / Polyhedron 159*

If you have a subscription, you get a Special Dungeon Subscriber Section during the months that Poly has the spotlight. The one in #99 was 15 pages long. That way both sides were even.

Issue #100 is a biggee. I just got it this morning in the mail. Around 40 pages for Poly, and over 114 pages for Dungeon.

There is a nice article called "100 issues of Dungeon Magazine". The current editor should take to heart what an ex-editor had to say. Dave Gross brings up the importance of a good map. I love maps and most of the cartography in Dungeon is good to excellent. 

But lately, some have been poor or too small. I like to have a separate copy available. I liked when it was still published by WotC. Most of the time, they had online maps for more than one adventure per issue. And if they didn't, they didn't come out to bad when I copied them.

I want Paizo to have better cartographers and maps and all of them available online.


Peace and smiles 

Jaws


----------



## beta-ray (May 28, 2003)

Funny, I am the complete opposite... I guess not much of a surprise. I would rather keep the Poly and dump the dungeon.... *shrug*


----------



## jdavis (May 28, 2003)

98 was good, I skipped 99 and I have hope for 100. Not every issue appeals to me, that's why I just buy them off the rack. It doesn't take a minute to flip through and see if they have anything that appeals to me, I do the same thing with Dragon. They can't all be great.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 28, 2003)

I love the new direction of Dungeon/Polyhedron.

I like the monthly flip/flop nature of one month being more Dungeon and one month being more Polyhedron.

Although, I will never use the Hijinks mini-game, it was fun to read and gave me several interesting ideas for a future D20 Modern game so I didn't really have that much of a problem with it.

However, I have to say that issue 100 is AWESOME!  This one issue is easily worth the price of my entire subscription for the year!

I have always loved the Githyanki and have always loved to use them as villains.  Githyanki, along with the Drow and others fill a great niche in my fantasy campaigns.  That of the evil military organization bent on world or planar conquest.  Arcane "Nazis", if you will.

Anyway, thank you Paizo for giving me such a great issue of both Dunegon and Polyhedron!  Those Githyanki prestige classes, weapons, etc. will keep my players on guard for years to come!


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 28, 2003)

I'll be honest. I've been a major advocate of Paizo since taking over the magazine. I think most of the changes they've made have been good, either from a business perspective or the perspective of someone who just enjoys the content. In keeping with the honesty, issue 99 wasn't my favorite issue of all time. I didn't love the mini-game like I've loved the others in the past. I have a subscription, so it isn't like I can choose not to buy one I don't like.

On the other hand, I normally love the mini-games. I also normally like the adventures they run, and I do think the format change is cool. A monthly dose of Dungeon beats a magazine of the same size as one of these bimonthly ones. I will be resubscribing based on the fact that it normally is worth every cent spent on it, and then some. I can forgive an off-month. I can also understand why the last 1 or 2 before a major milestone might not be so great. They have to save the cool stuff for the big milestone.

Which brings us to issue 100. This is quite possibly the best issue of Dungeon ever. My good friend Flame returns (finally and again) in Old Embers Never Die. We have Incursion, which is one of the coolest things to hit both mags in a while. Actually CP told me about it months ago, so it wasn't a surprise when I saw the buildup for it, but its still cool nonetheless, and then we have a number of other cool features, including the "mini-game," which is effectively closer to a 40 page write-up on the githyanki. Lets also note that this issue is the same size as the magazine was before it went monthly, and still only $6.99.

All in all, I have no room to complain and am very pleased with the magazine overall.


----------



## Iron_Chef (May 28, 2003)

Issue #99 gets my vote also as one of the worst issues ever. Completely useless for me. Didn't buy it. On the other hand, issue #100 sounds like it will have some good stuff in it. I don't buy Dungeon regularly because most of it is unusable to me, including Poly and now LGJ. After #99 sucking so bad, I was worried that the new monthly format would ruin the magazine. I haven't seen #100 yet, but am planning on buying it for "Woe To Mistledale", the only thing that sounds interesting (and is of immediate use IMC).

On a sidenote, the last issue of Dragon was also IMO one of the worst ever. Another all boring Dragon-themed issue? Ugh. How often do dragons get used in most games? They are not only cliche but good for TPKs as well. I don't use them except once in a blue moon. I far prefer wyverns, dracolisks, etc., instead.


----------



## Southern Oracle (May 28, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *On a sidenote, the last issue of Dragon was also IMO one of the worst ever. Another all boring Dragon-themed issue? Ugh. How often do dragons get used in most games? They are not only cliche but good for TPKs as well. I don't use them except once in a blue moon. I far prefer wyverns, dracolisks, etc., instead. *




The June issue of _Dragon_ always features dragons...it's the anniversary issue.  As for the prevalence of dragons in one's campaign, I don't see as how it applied to this issue.  *One* article assumed dragons were fairly common in a campaign -- "Heavy Gear," the one discussing dragon equipment.  Both the "Dragon Magic" and "Dweomered Dragon Scales" articles could be used in campaigns that never have the appearance of dragons...simply assume the spells and magic items are from a time long past before dragons became extinct or left the Material Plane.

In fact, those three articles were the only ones that actually dealt with dragons in the issue, and the last two were only tangential.  Other articles dealt with dwarves, illithids, psionics, other monsters, magical weather, the 3.5 revision, combat tactics, computer game conversions...

I can accept that you might not have liked issue #308, but it wasn't all about dragons, and there was useful information on other topics.


----------



## satori01 (May 28, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *
> On a sidenote, the last issue of Dragon was also IMO one of the worst ever. Another all boring Dragon-themed issue? Ugh. How often do dragons get used in most games? They are not only cliche but good for TPKs as well. I don't use them except once in a blue moon. I far prefer wyverns, dracolisks, etc., instead. *




Hmm the your right Iron_Chef it is a cliche that a magazine called, Dragon, the monthly magazine for the last 20 or so years for the game Dungeons and Dragons, would dare to have an article about Dragons. I mean dragons, who wants them and what place do they have in Fantasy, now Were-Donkeys, that is the new hot thing.. Were-Donkeys, invest now!



(no offense meant Iron_Chef, just some good natured teasing, and you have my mea maxima culpas if any offense is taken)


----------



## Silver Moon (May 28, 2003)

I just looked through my copy of Dungeon #99, and am very pleased.   I'm not sure how the above posters can say it has only one full-length dungeon in it, as both "Quadripartie" and "Fish Story" both look like full dungeons to me.   I really liked the look of "Fish Story" and plan to run it with my group at some point in the next year.    Also in this issue were two great "Map of Mystery" diagrams of a Monastery and a Temple, which could be inserted into almost any campaign.   Similarly the Poly side had two maps, of a Large Metropolitan Bank and a Downtown Night Club.  Given the popularity of D20 Modern I'd say those were well worth printing.   Furthermore, everyone should take a really good look at the Night Club (page #35) Change the cars in the parking lot to horse-drawn carriages, and you could drop this building into almost any D&D campaign as a tavern for bards.   I agree with PirateCat, this magaizine is still a great bargain for the money.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 28, 2003)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> *I just looked through my copy of Dungeon #99, and am very pleased.   I'm not sure how the above posters can say it has only one full-length dungeon in it, as both "Quadripartie" and "Fish Story" both look like full dungeons to me.  *




Note that "Fish Story" is only available to subscribers - which is one of the changes that I'm not exceptionally happy about.

J


----------



## Olive (May 28, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Note that "Fish Story" is only available to subscribers - which is one of the changes that I'm not exceptionally happy about.
> 
> J *




Add me to the list of slightly irritated people on that matter...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2003)

As a subscriber, I'm immesely amused that you're irritated.  

Not only do I get it cheaper, delivered to my door, but I get more stuff too!


----------



## Psion (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?*



			
				bwgwl said:
			
		

> *
> FWIW, i think Hijinks is one of the best d20 games published to date, by anyone.*




FWIW, I think it's an amusing spin on the d20 system, but once all is said and done, it's largely useless. I'll never play it and don't know anyone locally who would.


----------



## Morrow (May 28, 2003)

Getting back to Dungeon #99, is Quadripartie any good?  Does it include nifty new Far Realms information, or is it just a monster bash that happens to include an alienist?

Morrow


----------



## Celtavian (May 28, 2003)

*Re*

Wow, I only buy _Dungeon_ magazine for the dungeons. I don't like the other stuff in the magazine. I don't care for Polyhedron. I haven't found a single issue of Polyhedron I like in the past year or so.

I wonder why _Dungeon_ can't carry itself. I always thought the magazine was popular. I know it is with our gaming group. We never bother with Polyhedron, but _Dungeon_ has always been a well-used magazine.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 28, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *As a subscriber, I'm immesely amused that you're irritated.
> 
> Not only do I get it cheaper, delivered to my door, but I get more stuff too!  *




Not all of us buy every issue - or want to - so the only thing the 'subscriber only' features do is lose sales from those of us who would have bought it on the newsstand.

After all, you'd have subscribed even if it was the same magazine on the shelves, right?

J


----------



## Ranes (May 28, 2003)

*IMO*

I'll never play Hijinks but I did laugh reading it.

As a DM whose cartographical skills are laughable, I am always on the lookout for recyclable, quality maps, especially downloadable ones (I add my voice to the earlier call for Paizo to get them on the web more quickly, please). However, the 'maps of mystery' in 99 left me a little disappointed. For every axis of symmetry in a map, you halve the value of the map.

I'd have to give Quadripartite nil for Far Realm niftiness but it looks like it would work and those encounters are colourful.


----------



## Enceladus (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *Wow, I only buy Dungeon magazine for the dungeons. I don't like the other stuff in the magazine. I don't care for Polyhedron. I haven't found a single issue of Polyhedron I like in the past year or so.
> 
> I wonder why Dungeon can't carry itself. I always thought the magazine was popular. I know it is with our gaming group. We never bother with Polyhedron, but Dungeon has always been a well-used magazine. *





While I buy Dungeon mag I haven't read a single polyhedron aritcle. I think its a waste of ink.



IMHO.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> After all, you'd have subscribed even if it was the same magazine on the shelves, right?
> *




Actually, I was a subscriber long before they switched to monthly; I'm just happy they threw me the additional bone -- I don't particularly care for Poly, and am kind of disappointed with what appears to be increasing Poly content.  It wouldn't bother me to give that adventure to non-subscibers, though.

Issue 99 wasn't particularly exciting, but some issues are just like that.  Issue 100 sounds great -- mine hasn't come yet.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 28, 2003)

I'm a subscriber, and also a "Poly is a waste of ink" person. Those mini-games are absolutely useless, and I'd never spend my (very valuable) time playing a one-off of Josie & the Pussycats. Gack.

However, if Poly can start loading itself with more maps (*lots* more maps) of anything and everything (modern, sci-fi, fantasy, or otherwise) I'll begin to warm up to it. The map of the bank, for example, was great. I'd like to see floorplans of banks, office buildings, space stations, space colonies, aircraft carriers, submarines, battleships, etc. (I don't play d20 Modern or Star Wars, but maps can be adapted to any set of rules, obviously. As well, maps are tough and time-consuming to make - which makes them even more valuable.)

As to the subscription bonus - fantastic idea. With the new format change, I'd probably not subscribe to it (instead buying the Dungeon-heavy issues once every two months). The subscriber bonus adventure keeps me subscribing.


----------



## tmaaas (May 28, 2003)

I recently subscribed to Dungeon, and therefore wasn't spoiled by the larger bi-monthly issues (at least for long--I did receive a few).

So far I am very pleased, and consider it well worth the money. In particular, I'm enjoying the Adventure Path series and look forward to seeing it resume in #102. 

But even on the 'off' months, there has been a lot of useful material. The full-color maps are very useful (and I may even use some of the Polyhedron ones some day, if I ever get to T20). And I like the Critical Threats and new 'NPC' regular features. These can save a lot of time.


----------



## alsih2o (May 28, 2003)

does anyone know if oyu cna subscribe online? getting one off a newstand involves driving for 5 hours


----------



## Fanog (May 28, 2003)

Just to toss in my opinion: Paizo has lost me as well, since switching to Monthly. 

I've never used anything from Poly, so those pages are wasted on me. With that first monthly issue, I got less pages of adventure than the month before and (hear this!) it was actually MORE expensive than the last bi-monthly issue I bought. Paizo probably isn't too blame for that, but some joker at the importer is.  

Subscription isn't an option, living in Europe, so those 'freebie' adventures are lost for me, as well.

All in all, it just isn't worth it anymore. I'm really sorry to see a good magazine turned into something that isn't worth it for me. 

Fanog


----------



## Krug (May 28, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> Which brings us to issue 100. This is quite possibly the best issue of Dungeon ever. My good friend Flame returns (finally and again) in Old Embers Never Die. We have Incursion, which is one of the coolest things to hit both mags in a while. Actually CP told me about it months ago, so it wasn't a surprise when I saw the buildup for it, but its still cool nonetheless, and then we have a number of other cool features, including the "mini-game," which is effectively closer to a 40 page write-up on the githyanki. Lets also note that this issue is the same size as the magazine was before it went monthly, and still only $6.99.
> 
> All in all, I have no room to complain and am very pleased with the magazine overall. *




I got to agree. Dungeon #100 is the best issue ever. Great stuff on the Githyanki.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 28, 2003)

I've greatly enjoyed Dungeon since Polyhedron was added, and I think the monthly schedule has been an interesting experiment. I think I'm starting to like it.

I LOVE the minigames, by the way. My time is too valuable not to have fun with stuff like this.


----------



## Mr. Lobo (May 28, 2003)

As far as I'm concerned the end has already occurred. As soon as Paizo bumped up the price from $5.99 to $7.99 for newstand price that was it for me.

And no, I'm not going to promise my money ahead of time for product I haven't seen so screw subscriptions. I would have been so pissed at myself if I would have subscribed. Their current product is not what I want.

Besides, there are so many user contributions (FREE) on the web that finding full adventures, adventure seeds, or throwing one together very quickly is fairly easy.

Mr. Lobo


----------



## Belen (May 28, 2003)

I agree with the original poster.  Dragon and Dungeon are expensive enough.  The last two dungeons that I have purchased have been bad.  The adventures are mediocre.  Yeah, they weren't that great before, but you use to have a few to choose from.  Now they're horrible.

I never wanted a subscription to Polyhedron in the first place.  It was fine when it came with your RPGA membership, but now I have to PAY for a bunch of material that I do not want and cannot use in my game.

I still buy Dragon as it remains good.  But Dungeon is atrocious, overpriced and with little bang for the buck.

Dave


----------



## d12 (May 28, 2003)

I've been an infrequent collector of Dungeon going back to the last days of 2nd edition.  The magazine has generally improved in quality during that time.  I enjoyed issue #99 a lot.


----------



## King_Stannis (May 28, 2003)

Hey, I thought issue #99 was the best of all-time. Of course I may be a bit biased, as I penned one of the critical threats...


----------



## jujutsunerd (May 28, 2003)

Fanog said:
			
		

> *Subscription isn't an option, living in Europe, so those 'freebie' adventures are lost for me, as well.*




Um. That's news to me. I'm a european too, and I'm subscribing from the US. (The dual Dragon/Dungeon subscription.) When I totaled the costs, it turned out to be about the same price as buying them at the local gaming store (~$7.5 per issue with my discount) and a *lot* cheaper than buying them at a newsstand (~$14 per issue.)

The subscriber section in Dungeon was a nice bonus too.

/Jonas


----------



## SneakyB (May 28, 2003)

Count me amongst the masses who are getting really put-off by Dungeon.  For me, Issue #99 was pure garbage.  Although I will never use the content in Poly, I renewed the subscription several months ago for the Dungeon content.  I'm sad to say that after this subscription period is over, I absolutely will NOT be renewing unless some things change.  

The crux of the matter is that we have seen the price of the magazine increase by ~33%, go monthly, reduce overall page content and on top of all of that flip-flop between content mix.  If 40% and alternately 60% of the content is completely useless to me, then I can see no reason to pay for such a subscription.   For me, I suspect that after the end of my subscription, I will evaluate purchasing the magazine using the same criteria I do for gaming products, which is pretty stringent.   

Additionally, it seems to me as if everyone that writes in to the editor with a letter that negatively comments on the mix, pricing, etc. gets shot down rather rudely with statements such as the following:

"You pay more now, but you still get more adventure material for your gaming dollar than buying nearly any module off the store rack. "

This USED to be the case.  I disagree that you get more adventure material.  IMO, the quantity and the quality of the content has gone downhill since Paizo took over.  This does NOT include issue #100, but let's all keep in mind here that this is a special, anniversary issue and doesn't follow the norms of the other issues.

There's no right or wrong answer or mix here, but I think that Paizo is really frustrating people with their apparent unwillingness to listen to its customer base.  Kudos are published as "Hey, we're doing great", but complaints are quickly shot down.

Just my 2 cp,

Dan


----------



## Artimoff (May 28, 2003)

I violently rip the taint of Poli from my Dungeon every month. And then burn it.  

I can't stand the thing. When my subscription ends, that's it. I can spend my money elsewhere and get better product.


----------



## King_Stannis (May 28, 2003)

Personally, I like some of the D20 mini-games. My friends and I had a great time doing a "one-shot" game of "Thunderball Rally". Yeah, some of them are hit and miss.  Seriously, I think they should cut down one or two of the mini-games and spend those issues supporting previous ones - either with adventures or other material. That way the games aren't just orphans, doomed to live out their waning lives in obscurity. 

I heartily disagree about the quality of the adventures. While I can't use all of the adventures as written, I can use a good deal of them either in whole or piecemeal (NPC's from one, maps from another, etc.).  So in a sense it is still a very good value to me. 

As for them publishing negative letters and then *gasp* defending their efforts, well, what would you have them do?  Some of you are saying that you think the quality is crap. Well, okay, but they beg to differ. Are they supposed to say "right you are!" when someone blasts them in a letter?

As with anything like this, you need to vote with your wallet. If enough people drop their subscriptions, then Paizo will know they have a serious problem. As for me, I'm still gonna subscribe because I like the magazine and I think it's a good value despite some "hit and miss" issues.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dungeon #99 - Is the end near?*



			
				bwgwl said:
			
		

> *FWIW, i think Hijinks is one of the best d20 games published to date, by anyone. definitely worth the price of admission. yes, the Dungeon side of things was a little scant this issue, but that's not what i bought the magazine for. *



For me it was too incomplete. Hijinks is the world of Josie and The Pussycats: where's Alexander and Alexandria? How do you have a story about a band without ROADIES?!? Sheesh! At least the remembered to allow Handle Animal (I think) to let you speak with aliens, one of my favorite Melody feats.


----------



## bwgwl (May 28, 2003)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *I never wanted a subscription to Polyhedron in the first place.  It was fine when it came with your RPGA membership, but now I have to PAY for a bunch of material that I do not want and cannot use in my game.*



hmmm... i say the same thing about the Dungeon side. i've never used one of their adventures in any campaign of mine, and i most likely never will.

the Polyhedron mini-games are the _only_ reason i buy the magazine.

i guess you can't please everyone.


----------



## Seule (May 28, 2003)

Hijinx has the same utility as most mini-games for me: something to run at cons.  The perfect one-off game, provide some characters and off you go!  It actually seems better than most mini games for that purpose, as I like running silly games at conventions.

  --Seule


----------



## LGodamus (May 28, 2003)

some people are saying they can get tons of free adventures of the net, so there is no point in payin for dungeon. For me though, while you can get adventures of the net, 95% of them either have horrible editing, are very low quality, or simply have so many errors they may as well not even be d20. So in effect when I pay for dungeon I pay for convinience.. the convenience of not having to sift through the mountains of garbage on the net , and the convenience of it being dropped on my doorstep in a nice little package with art and in a magazine format that is easy to take to my game....


----------



## Lazybones (May 28, 2003)

I've never run a mini-game and probably never will.  Some were interesting to read (e.g. Omega World), but most were just curiosities that I browsed when I was done with the _Dungeon_ content.  I admit I thought that the entire concept for the hijinx mini-game was pretty stupid. 

I let my subscription expire when I found out about the coming change.  I didn't mind getting Poly as a supplemental that took up 20% of the overal mag, but I don't want to get an issue that's 60% Poly.  I still feel that overall the product is a decent purchase, but I can't see wasting money on content that I will never really use.  

And the subscribers-only "bonus" material is clearly an effective marketing tactic, based on the other comments here, but I can't help but feel a bit cynical at being manipulated into getting that undesired content.  Otherwise, I'd just buy the odd-month Dungeon-centric issues; now I'll probably just buy 1 or 2 exceptional issues and forget about the rest.  

Unless they separate the magazines (unlikely) or offer a partial subscription offer (every-other month, to get the Dungeon-centric issues only), I think that my days as a Dungeon subscriber are done.


----------



## Thomasson (May 28, 2003)

Erithtotl said:
			
		

> *Also, did you notice that in issue #99 they only printed positive letters, and none remarking on the changeover to the new format?  Sure, its their right to print whatever letters they want, but it stikes me as  a bit odd since every other issue of Dungeon has always included a mix of constructive criticism and praise in the letters section. *




I've been unwilling to comment on a lot of the other complaints I've been reading about Dungeon lately, in this and other threads. The fact is, I've come to accept that we can only do the best we can, and we're never going to please everyone. Never. 

However, I find this comment personally offensive. The implication that we would slant our letters to make ourselves look better is insulting. That sort of behavior would be unethical, in my opinion, and the allegation is out of line. You might be unhappy with the magazine; please, feel free to send your comments to us directly if it appeals to you. But please refrain from this sort of bashing. When you make this sort of comment, you're directing it, intentionally or not, at the staff, not the product. 

To clear up this little "misunderstanding," here's how we select the letters we print: 

Is the topic interesting? If the letter is in regards to a topic that's already been beaten to death in "Prison Mail," we're unlikely to print it. We'll still read the letter and keep track of general opinions, but most folks don't want to read about whether vile content should be in the magazine, for example, month after month after month. Occasionally, we'll see a letter on an old topic with a new view. That's why we printed a new letter on the vile debate in issue #99. But mostly, once people start rehashing old viewpoints, it's time to let the debate out of the magazine.

Is the letter coherent? If we can't understand what point the letter is attempting to communicate, it's likely our readership won't, either. 

Does the letter have something to do with a recent issue? These are our favorites, good or bad. If a letter addresses something specific from a recent issue, we'll likely print it if it isn't too long. If it addresses an editorial, it allows us to strike up a dialogue with the reader. That's cool too. 

Finally, is it polite? If someone writes us a letter of complaint but drops lots of F-bombs or calls us buttheads repeatedly, we're not going to print it, especially since we typically get enough constructively critical letters to print that don't need these. Also, we don't end up looking like jerks for printing these letters; the authors do. And we don't like to do that to people who probably shot their mouth off in the heat of the moment. 

As for issue #99, most of the letters came in on the heels of #97, a very popular issue. The fact is, it was a rare case of not getting any critical comments that month we could print. Implying that we're manipulating our letters to get good press couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## dsfriii (May 28, 2003)

*Changes to Dungeon*



> The fact is, I've come to accept that we can only do the best we can, and we're never going to please everyone. Never.




And I do not expect you to please everyone.  But I think there is a very, very large minority of Dungeon Fans that feel that your product has gone down hill, and your organization really does not seem to be listening to this section of customers.  There seems to be an aditude of you company that we will just have to deal with your changes and we should shut-up and deal with it.

Well I as a member of this community has had enough.  I have been loyal buy Dungeon (off the rack) for the past couple years and I was looking forward to your organization's take over of the company and to see the magazine improve.  I was getting ready to subscribe, but the past couple issues have left me felt like I was robbed by your company.  

So I guess I will inform your organization in the best way I can of my displeasure, by voting with my wallet and choosing not to purchase the magazine.


----------



## Jody Butt (May 28, 2003)

The end has come. Issue 99 was the last straw. 

Dungeon used to be a great periodical devoted to the Dungeons and Dragons game. Now, we get 60% polyhedron content every other month . . . with crap like Hijinks! Hijinks, for the love of all that is holy! Is this for 10 year old girls, or what?! I wouldn't be caught dead reading this prepubescent garbage in public. 

No more Dungeon for me.


----------



## bwgwl (May 29, 2003)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> *Hijinks, for the love of all that is holy! Is this for 10 year old girls, or what?!*



anything that brings more people into gaming, whether they're ten years old, female, or both, seems like a good thing in my book.


----------



## Jody Butt (May 29, 2003)

bwgwl said:
			
		

> *
> anything that brings more people into gaming, whether they're ten years old, female, or both, seems like a good thing in my book.  *




Keep the 10 year old girls over there, and the adults over here.  Don't mix them.  If I go to the theatre to watch "Requiem for a Dream", I don't want to see "Bambi" instead.


----------



## Silver Moon (May 29, 2003)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> *Keep the 10 year old girls over there, and the adults over here.  Don't mix them.  If I go to the theatre to watch "Requiem for a Dream", I don't want to see "Bambi" instead. *



Actually, my 10 year old daughter has been helping me with my weekly Dungeons & Dragons game for the past year.  She helps me design rooms, create NPC's, develop new magic items, and plot adventures.   While she is far too young to actually play in our adult group, and I always give her an age-appropriate version of what happened in the game, I would not make the assumption that this game cannot also be for her.   I will probably be starting a group for her and her friends in the very near future.


----------



## senodam (May 29, 2003)

#99 was actually one of my favourite issues- Quadripartite being possibly the second Dungeon adventure to see use in my game since the the dawn of 3e. As for Hijinks, well look at it like this- don't most of us bemoan the lack of nice new ideas in the D20 market? As far as I recall Erik Mona has always promised us originality, and IMO Hijinks was certainly that. 

 P.s- Hope nobody sees me as being all unpleasant and rude here..I always seem to come off wrong in my posts  Peace.


----------



## am181d (May 29, 2003)

I also buy DUNGEON for the POLY mini-games.  I thought #99 was great.  (A side benefit: One's opinion of HIJINX is a pretty good litmus test for whether I'd enjoy gaming with them.)  

If I'm bitter about anything, it's that I just finished a long running adventure that involved the Githyanki invading my campaign world, about a week ago.  Talk about bad timing...

My advice to people who don't like the current split of POLY and DUNGEON:  cancel your subscriptions if you have 'em, and pick up the issues that have a more favorable content split.  

I wasn't wild about #97 (no mini-game), and there will probably be a few "off-POLY" issues that I don't buy.  Such is life.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (May 29, 2003)

SneakyB said:
			
		

> *Count me amongst the masses who are getting really put-off by Dungeon...  I absolutely will NOT be renewing unless some things change.
> 
> If 40% and alternately 60% of the content is completely useless to me, then I can see no reason to pay for such a subscription...   I will evaluate purchasing the magazine using the same criteria I do for gaming products, which is pretty stringent.
> 
> Additionally, it seems to me as if everyone that writes in to the editor with a letter that negatively comments on the mix, pricing, etc. gets shot down rather rudely...  *




(Emphasis added)

I agree.  I think that, although I can recall _two_ of the poly mini-games being something that I'd like to see a little more added onto (preferably in future issues), such as the Pulp Era one and the Mutants of the Apocolypse one, I don't see why they don't do more on those cool settings in further issues rather than handing us this scooby doo crap.  I don't subscribe to Dungeon right now, and I'm glad, especially when I read the derogatory, deriding, overly-sensitive, verbal-kick-in-the-crotch that they so smugly enjoy giving to their concerned fans.


----------



## Corinth (May 29, 2003)

I must disagree.  The wide variety of subject matter seen in the mini-games is very important to the development of the hobby because it shows both skeptical gamers and designers just what d20 can do.  _Hijinx_ is very much the sort of thing that ought to become the norm in the RPG development community: small mini-games that take their one Big Idea, make it playable and not require a brand-new rulebook (etc.) because it doesn't need one.

Some of you may not thing this to be a big deal.  You don't hang out on places like RPG Net, where the whole issue of d20 RPG development (and the massive misconceptions surrounding d20) is a major part of the constant politicking that goes on there.  It's nice to know that _Dungeon_ has its die-hard fans that show a great deal of concern for it, but there's more to what's going on in the hobby and _Polyhedron_ is on the forefront of the push to maximize d20's penetration amongst both hobbiests and game designers.  The fruits of this struggle are found in the FLGS: the conversions of L5R, CoC, _7th Sea_, _Gamma World_, B5 (soon), _Judge Dredd_ (it had a non-d20 version), Conan, Lone Wolf, _Diablo II_ (however poorly), _Warcraft III_ (soon), _Stargate SG-1_ (soon), _Fading Suns_, _Traveller_, _Deadlands_ (no matter PEG's attempt to deliberately make a piss-poor conversion) and _Star Wars_.  More games included d20 conversion notes.  Why?  Part of it--a big part--goes to the minigames showing players and designers what you can do with d20; that the games are fun, enjoyable games in their own right is just frosting on the cake.

For all this and more, I'm glad to have _Polyhedron_ as the flip side to _Dungeon_.


----------



## rounser (May 29, 2003)

> The wide variety of subject matter seen in the mini-games is very important to the development of the hobby because it shows both skeptical gamers and designers just what d20 can do.



Some of us don't really care _at all_ about multigenre d20, and wouldn't be disappointed if it disappeared tomorrow so long as D&D endured.  As for caring what the forum denizens of RPG.net think...well, I'm trying to stifle a chuckle.


----------



## Johnny Wilson (May 30, 2003)

Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!

I know that many of you are feeling the pain of the change in Dungeon/Polyhedron and Polyhedron/Dungeon. Let me just explain what we were smoking for a few lines.

First of all, fulfillment houses charge a minimum fee for handling magazine subscription lists--even when they aren't shipping the magazines or making very many changes to the files (they also charge by the phone call and email for making those changes, but that is a different story). As a result, we were taking a significant hit every month on Dungeon/Polyhedron that wasn't helping our expense ledger and wasn't helping our readers. Worse than that, we were taking the hit in months when we received NO revenue but we had the expense, anyway. So, it seemed logical to go monthly so we could spread out that liability and remove a little of the pain by having some revenue in every month.

Now, some have asked why we didn't just split the magazines and have two bi-monthlies. Gee, then we'd have TWO monthly maintenance fees and ONE with no revenue every month. So, that wasn't a good solution.

Second, when I was Group Publisher at Wizards of the Coast, I was told to either kill Dungeon or kill Polyhedron. WotC had decided that we couldn't afford to publish both magazines. Yet, I believed and my staff believed that we could avoid those dire ends by combining the two magazines and selling them at a higher price. We had hoped that the combination of the two would provide for a higher paid circulation and would, in turn, attract more ads. Since the combined paid circulation was still 10,000 paid circulation below Dragon, most advertisers who could only advertise in one magazine opted for Dragon. The extra two dollars per copy was nice, but we only collected 90 cents of that and the print and paper billings were eating it up pretty quickly in returns. PLUS, the art and editorial bills were still the same as trying to fill two magazines.

At first, it looked like we were succeeding, but as we began to tally up the final numbers on Dungeon #93 and #94, we realized that we were breaking even on better selling issues and losing money on poor selling issues. This time, as president of Paizo, I was confronted with the same decision I had faced as group publisher at WotC. I either had to kill Dungeon or Polyhedron or both in order to keep my business from going down a slippery slope. The grand experiment we had started at Wizards of the Coast was failing. What could I do?

Here's what I thought I could do. I thought I could drop page count if I dropped the price by a dollar. I knew that sales would drop slightly on the newsstand with smaller issues and was using the 45 cents we were making on that extra dollar to ameliorate the lost sales tied to a smaller book. In the meantime, we would save money in postage, printing and paper per issue and that would be a net gain that could let us keep both magazines.

Our distributor didn't want us to drop the price. With astonishing foresight they told me that the readers would not notice the price decrease and unless the page count stayed the same, they would protest, anyway. I said that I had to reduce the page count and if I was going to reduce the page count, I was not about to keep the price the same. I might not cover all of the change, but I would at least give something back to the readers.

For subscribers, I extended the subscriptions of everyone who had two issues or more remaining (as of January 30, 2003) by an additional two issues. Those who had six or more remaining received four additional issues on their subscriptions. Those who had 12 or more issues remaining received six additional issues on their subscriptions. I know that this doesn't entirely even things out on the change, but instead of being the greedy bastard I've been portrayed as on these message boards, I was actually trying to ease a transition and give something back to the subscribers, even as I changed the product.

In addition, we give the subscribers an additional 16 pages in every issue where Polyhedron pages outnumber Dungeon pages. We receive no additional income for this, but we thought it was the right thing to do. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? But the messageboards say we are ambitious and lo, they are honorable men (and women).

Even though we had already scheduled tons of coverage for Dungeon #100, I held the price at $6.99--even though it is basically at the $7.99 size. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? But many of you have said we were greedy (and unethical and arrogant) and lo, you are honorable men (and women).

The truth is that I still think Dungeon/Polyhedron is a terrific buy at $6.99. I defy you to find that many full-color pages of adventure at that price. Yet, I have also heard what you are all saying. The good thing about the magazine business is that it is always changing. Every issue is a new product. SO, I'll make a deal with you. IF Dungeon/Polyhedron is still viable by Origins and GenCon time, I will listen to you all at the Paizo at the Mike conferences. At that time, I will discuss options with you and see what you think about other approaches we can try.

I will be away from Paizo doing volunteer work for the next 11 days, but I wanted to let all of you know that the arrogant powers at Paizo really do listen to what you have to say. In spite of those who claim that Dungeon has gone downhill, I can assure you that our efforts in creating the Adventure Path and in using the best talent available to write these adventures is part of our commitment to publishing a high quality Dungeon/Polyhedron with every issue. I know some of you wish I would just kill one or the other magazine and make things easy, but I'm not Solomon and I'm not sure I could make the right decision.

Sincerely,
Dr. Johnny L. Wilson
President, Paizo Publishing, LLC
Fat Greedy Bastard of All That's Evil in Publishing


----------



## Silver Moon (May 30, 2003)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Please do not misinterpret the criticism of a small number of your  readers as being representative of all current recipients of your magazine.   I for one greatly appreciate your continued efforts to provide an excellent and entertaining magazine.   If sales drop significantly as a result of the format changes then you may want to reconsider some of them, however, until that happens I would encourage you to continue with the present experiment.   I have always enjoyed your magazine and am pleased to be receiving the subscription now on a monthly basis.

Sincerely,
SilverMoon


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 30, 2003)

Thanks for responding, Johnny.

I for one may dislike Poly, but if that's the price of keeping Dungeon, my subscription will stand.


----------



## MerricB (May 30, 2003)

Thank you for your reply, Dr Wilson.

It really seems that the situation financially is extremely dire for Dungeon magazine - the constraints you are working under are... well, words fail me.

Good luck for the future, however. I'd hate to see Dungeon disappear - as much as I expect others would hate to see Polyhedron go. I've been very excited by how the Adventure Path is progressing, and I hope that you will be able to bring it to its ultimate conclusion.

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (May 30, 2003)

> I either had to kill Dungeon or Polyhedron or both in order to keep my business from going down a slippery slope. The grand experiment we had started at Wizards of the Coast was failing. What could I do?



We now have bits of Star Wars, Living Greyhawk, comics and d20 minigames cohabiting Dungeon.  I think Dungeon subscribers are reacting badly because when it was all adventures they could see themselves using basically everything in every issue (despite the occasional whinge about campaign setting-specific adventures), whereas these days it's becoming a bit of a lucky dip as to whether you'll ever use a good deal of the magazine, ala Dragon.  This "lucky dip of content" thing is one of the reasons why I never buy Dragon.

If subscribers were honest with themselves, they'd probably realise that they read rather than play most of most issues (as indicated by past survey results), and Polyhedron wouldn't seem such bad value, but it's the concept of one day being able to use something that matters.   That's probably why there's a culture clash - for those who like D&D adventures, Dungeon mag's been too good for too long, and the concept of paying for pages which you'll probably never use in a game _and can't ever see yourself using in a game_ is putting an end to what Dungeon subscribers took for granted...or, at least, that's my take on it, and pretty much the way I feel about it currently.


----------



## Blister (May 30, 2003)

*response*

Nice letter.  I, for one, don't hate Poly attached to Dungeon.  What I do resent is your massive cut on content for Dungeon.  Monthly is great.  Really nice.  The 1 adventure per issue is not nice, and you know that Dungeon, while run by WOTC, ran 4 to 5 adventures per magazine.  I understand your financial concern, but why not continue to produce Dungeon in the mold of #100 (4 adventures + Poly) and charge $7.99 staying bimonthly, rather than go monthly, have only 1 adventure per magazine and still raise the price? You can't possibly imagine how much of a rip-off that looks like to regular subscribers.  Going from 4 to 5 adventures every other month for $7.99 to 2 (MAYBE 3) adventures every other month for $13.98?  You cut your content by 50% and almost raised your price by 100%.  What made you think your subscribers would take that?


----------



## The Sigil (May 30, 2003)

Johnny Wilson said:
			
		

> *Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!
> 
> {snip}
> 
> ...



*
Thank you for 'splainin' yourself, Johnny.

But I'll throw one complaint into the hat that has nothing to do with business decisions such as this...

Did we really need a comic that depicts someone flipping the bird?  It's this kind of thing that I perceive as lowering the value of Dungeon... to be honest, the comic has, to me, been a complete and utter waste of space.  Not funny, not useful, not even well-drawn, and, well, tasteless and offensive to boot.

Now, I found Hijinks as useless as the next person, but I can see that some people enjoy one-offs.  Heck, I've enjoyed one-offs in the past.  So that's not an issue to me.  For me, it's a larger issue with Paizo going for the cheap shock, the low-brow humor, the tasteless gag, and abandoning any pretension of what I consider a professional standard in printing.  And I'm pretty sure I'm in the MINORITY on that one, but it is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I will let you run your business as you feel you need to, and I will continue to vote with my wallet.  Dungeon - and Dragon - have long since become something that I not only find unusable, but that I find pandering to the lowest common denominator and offensive.  And again, I'm in the minority, but it's my opinion - take it for what it's worth (1/Nth of your revenue stream, where N is the number of subscribers).

--The Sigil*


----------



## Blister (May 30, 2003)

*EDITED*

_EDIT - Blister, we don't abide by posters posting personal insults and flames to other posters here.

Henry Link_


----------



## Blister (May 30, 2003)

*Letter*


----------



## rounser (May 30, 2003)

> So, exactly how many letters did you publish in your magazine criticizing the recent change Thomasson? Oh, that would be none. So, yeah, it's pretty evident that you are slanting.



He said there were none they could print.  I don't really see that as slanting.  If this issue's as apparently slanted as you say, there'll be a printable reaction to that, just as there was to the anti-vile letters.


> Sending around Paizo personnell to do damage control looks pretty pathetic as well.



Eh.  That's not fair either.  You want the silent treatment instead?  Condemning them for explaining their reasoning and defending their decisions isn't manners.


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2003)

First of all, I want to tone things down a little bit. I haven't read much of this thread yet, but two things are immediately clear, and need to be corrected.



Point #1: Paizo is welcome at these boards, and the posters are welcome to both praise and critique their practices here. We offered this as a forum for them to directly interact with their listeners. HOWEVER, it doesn't give people free reign to insult Paizo staff personally. Let's cease the personal fire right now.

Point #2: Mr. Wilson and company understand quite well that not all the potential readers and existing ones as well like the changes they have made. But they do listen, and they react to the market. So if posters want to make a point, it needs to be from facts, or it needs to be from personal preference. Veiled responses of "You are killing off Dragon or Dungeon with your practices" won't do a whole lot to persuade anyone.

Let's please keep it civil, because if there's one thing I encourage here, it's healthy discussion. Healthy discussion does not come from insults or slander.

Thanks to all.

Henry Link
Moderator


----------



## MerricB (May 30, 2003)

If I may, a few thoughts on Dungeon and how it is useful to me.

I run two D&D campaigns. I often use modules that I've purchased - recently quite a few have come from Dungeon magazine and have been excellent.

The value of the Polyhedron material is questionable for me, but that doesn't bother me that much - some of the minigames have nice ideas that I may use at some point in the future. So, I don't mind Polyhedron, and I love the Living Greyhawk section.

However, the fact that Polyhedron is in Dungeon magazine gives me an immediate problem. It wasn't hard before for my players to resist buying the magazine. It is more difficult now - and any issue that a player in my games picks up makes using the adventures therein extremely difficult.

This, incidentally, displays part of the problem Dungeon has with circulation - it is very much a DM's only magazine in concept. Thus, not that useful for 80% of D&D gamers, pulling a figure out of thin air.  

Once Polyhedron got merged with it, that focus disappeared, and the usefulness of Dungeon as a source of adventures also dropped, because I could no longer assume my players wouldn't buy the magazine.

So, for myself, I have a situation where both the Polyhedron and Dungeon material is valuable, but the inclusion of the Polyhedron material in the same magazine as has the Dungeon magazine makes the whole less valuable than it was before.

Do I think there is an easy, good solution to this that will satisfy everyone? No, I don't. I am very glad that I don't have to make that decision.

Cheers!


----------



## zoroaster100 (May 30, 2003)

I have to say I've been very pleased with Dragon for the most part.  They usually have at least a couple of articles that I find useful and/or interesting.

I think Dungeon's Adventure Path adventures (2 so far) have been pretty excellent in thoroughness of preparation.  But I don't have any use for Polyhedron taking up half of my Dungeon subscription.  Issue 100 is an exception in that it had content relevant to D&D with new creatures and feats for Githyanki.  So I was pleased with this last Dungeon/Polyhedron issue, but I was happier when I could have just Dungeon.

I am planning to keep my Dragon subscription for the forseeable future.  But I'll reconsider my Dungeon subscription when it expires in December depending on how their adventures are doing in quality and depending on subscription price.


----------



## Olive (May 30, 2003)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> *But I don't have any use for Polyhedron taking up half of my Dungeon subscription.  Issue 100 is an exception in that it had content relevant to D&D with new creatures and feats for Githyanki. *




What about the Living Greyhawk Journal stuff that's now going to be in Poly?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 30, 2003)

The claim keeps being made that Dungeon is the best value for your adventure dollar. I had posted something similar to this a few months ago. This is updated to include some info I didn’t include then or guessed at.  I am still estimating some things and if anyone wants to provide more info about issues 98 and 100 I will update appropriately. Dungeon is still the best value but now the difference is closing. The price per adventure page has gone from less than half of a module to equal to the cheaper mega-adventures while the small Dungeon issues for non-subscribers are more than the mega-adventures but still somewhat less than the small adventures. I have no idea how much advertising revenue impacts the price per page compared to individual adventures so the actual values from a publisher’s point of view may be different. This is just a look at per page of adventure, if you value the Poly side then its value is still even higher. My personal opinions as to its value to me can be found after the breakdown.

----------------------

WotC

The Sunless Citadel: B&W
The Forge of Fury: B&W
The Speaker in Dreams: B&W
The Standing Stone: B&W
Heart of Nightfang Spire: B&W
Deep Horizon: B&W
32 pages + Inside Front Cover + Inside Back Cover =34 pages @ $9.95 = $0.293/page

Lord of the Iron Fortress: B&W
Bastion of Broken Souls: B&W
48 pages + Inside Front Cover + Inside Back Cover =50 pages @ $9.95 = $0.199/page

Into the Dragon’s Lair: B&W
96 pages @ $17.95 = $0.187/page

City of the Spider Queen: Color
175 pages/176 pages @ $29.95 = $0.171/page (+1 page of ads)

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil: B&W with Color Maps
206 pages/208 pages @ $29.95 = $0.145/page (+2 pages of ads)



Malhavoc Press

The Banewarrens: B&W
127 pages/128 pages @ $17.95 = $0.141/page (+1 page of ads)



Goodman Games

Idylls of the Rat King: B&W
32 pages + Inside Front Cover + Inside Back Cover =34 pages @ $11.00 = $0.324/page



Dungeon

Issue 93: Color
79 pages/113 pages @ $5.99 = $0.076/page

Issue 95: Color
76 pages/100 pages @ $7.99 = $0.105/page

Issue 96: Color
80 pages/97 pages @ $7.99 = $0.100/page

Issue 97: Color
116 pages/131 pages @ $7.99 = $0.069/page

Issue 98: Color (Did not purchase, estimate from information posted)
50 pages/60 pages @ $6.99 = $0.140/page

Issue 99: Color (Did not purchase, estimate from information posted with subscription bonus)
45 pages/55 pages @ $6.99 = $0.155/page

Issue 99: Color (Did not purchase, estimate from information posted without subscription bonus)
30 pages/40 pages @ $6.99 = $0.233/page

Issue 100: Color (Did not purchase, estimate from information posted)
80 pages/100 pages @ $6.99 = $0.087/page

----------------------


{Personal Opinion}
Does anyone else remember when Dungeon was uncontroversial and did not have former readers mad at it? You may not have purchased it but that was due to not wanting adventures rather than editorial decisions.

I have no use for Poly so I only care about Dungeon personally. I didn’t mind the Poly content as long as it didn’t interfere with my Dungeon content. I stopped buying at 97 since the value to me was now close enough that I decided that the amount of stuff I don’t want (any collection of several unknown articles/adventures will often contain parts I am not interested in) made the value for my dollar better spent on individual adventures that I want. I stated in previous threads that I was willing to go up to $10 for an issue for a continuation of the 94-97 format. This would come out to:

Proposed Dungeon: Color 
80 pages/100 pages @ $9.99 = $0.125/page

I am curious as to  Johnny Wilson’s comment “IF Dungeon/Polyhedron is still viable by Origins and GenCon time, I will listen to you all at the Paizo at the Mike conferences. “ Does this mean that Dungeon/Poly are not out of the woods even with the format change? What if Dungeon is not viable in 2 months? This will give it 4-5 issues at new format, while it was only 4 issues at old format higher prices before further changes were needed.  Even more so if Dungeon/Poly is not viable at Origins/GenCon shouldn’t Mr. Wilson want input from his readers on what they want/will accept in order to make Dungeon viable, rather than making another editorial decision without input. Apparently the decisions made so far without input have not worked so well, so if Dungeon/Poly is not viable by Origins/GenCon what makes him think that ignoring the readers again will work better this time?
{End Personal Opinion}


----------



## Al'Kelhar (May 30, 2003)

I have been reading Dungeon magazine since the very first, although until only this month have survived on borrowing from a friend and purchasing the odd magazine at my FLGS very occasionally.

However, (a) I kept realising that there were concepts and maps in Dungeon that I could use in my own campaign, but never had them to hand because I'd returned them to my frined (who lives 4 hours away); and (b) my friend refused to renew his subscription on the basis of cost.

So I decided to subscribe myself (https://subscribe.pcspublink.com/magazine/Paiz/subscribeForm.asp?track=JDNGN3&pub=DNGN&term=12).  Now, for all you people in the US complaining about how much it costs *you* to buy Dungeon, you've got to be kidding.  I'd love to pay US$6.99 per issue.  At my FLGS, a Dungeon costs AU$17.00, i.e. on current exchange rates of AU$1 = US$0.65, US$11.05.  When I subscribed it cost me $US99.00 for 12 issues, or in my terms, approx AU$152.00 (i.e. AU$12.67 or US$8.23 per issue).  Naturally, this includes postage and handling.

I received my first Dungeon, #100, yesterday - *by air mail!*  Here I was, reading about all the "3.5E goodies" in issue #100 on En World, thinking "a few more weeks, and I'll have it in my hot little hands", fully expecting it to arrive on some container ship several weeks after you guys get it in the US.  Full marks to Paizo's shippers for choosing the fastest - and most expensive - way to get it to me.

Now, I've read most of Dungeon #100, and decided that there's little in there I can use.  I too only play D&D, so generally Polyhedron is useless to me - but I knew and accepted that when I subscribed, *because even if I can't use it, I can read it*.  This little fact seems to have escaped the majority of the whingers.  For me, Dungeon has always been about ideas.  I never use straight Dungeon adventures in my own campaigns - in fact, I've never even used an mildly modified Dungeon adventure in my own campaign.  However, I relatively frequently use plots, maps, _ideas_ from Dungeon.  So, you buy a Dungeon in which there's not alot you can use.  But you had to read it to find that out, and in the process, all of that "useless" material got into your head, and somewhere, somehow, along with all the other "useless" material in your head, it'll coalesce into something meaningful and useful.  Just like the stuff from all those moronic SF and fantasy novels you keep reading.

Furthermore, what other magazines do you read and subscribe to?  How much of them is "useless" to you?  Do you bitch about how you couldn't possibly make all those dishes in the cooking magazine?  Couldn't ever hope to drive, let alone buy, any of those cars in the motoring magazine?  Get off your frikkin' horses, and look at the world from the common man's perspective (which is a bit rich coming from me, 'cos I _can_ afford to subscribe to Dungeon, even from Australia, and have the readies to buy all of the 3.5E books the day they come out - in Australia (that's AU$60 per book, you whingers in the US)).

For the record, I don't like Dungeon #100 - IMHO it's one of the worst I've read.  The adventures are linear and consist solely of combat and traps.  But just by *reading* the damn thing, I consider the AU$12.67 I spent on it, worth it.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Squidibus (May 30, 2003)

While I'm not sure about the cost of Dungeon versus other types of adventures, I must admit that #99 is the least useful I have recieved. The high level adventure made some good reading but was otherwise useless, and I'm growing quite fond of the 'Downer' comic, but the minigame...

Urghl.


However, 100 made me very happy that I have a subscription. The Polyhedron information perfectly complimented the high level Dungeon adventure, though it'll be a looong time before I have a chance to run that. The other adventures made were also quite good, and I liked having a Forgotten Realms adventure next to very interesting 'Ally' columns, a planar adventure, an interesting critical threat or two, and some generic adventure fodder.

...And Downer finally stabbed that whiny Lloth worshipper.


----------



## SemperJase (May 30, 2003)

I love posts like Johnny Wilson's. But then, I'm a business junky too. Its great to see behind the curtain and get a glimpse of the reasons for their decisions. Mr. Wilson, need an apprentice?

I don't care for the price increase, but I'm not mad at that. I realize that a profit needs to be made. The price increase was necessary to continue to publish these magazines. The opposition Paizo has to the price increase is made even worse when they publish for a demographic (gamers) who want everything to be free (in some cases even the internet access they use to pirate copyrighted material). 

Don't waste your brain power wishing for the old days of WotC publishing the mags. WotC didn't want to publish them anymore. Essentially, it seems Paizo "saved" these magazines. Johnny Wison took a chance the WotC was no longer willing to take.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (May 30, 2003)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *The opposition Paizo has to the price increase is made even worse when they publish for a demographic (gamers) who want everything to be free (in some cases even the internet access they use to pirate copyrighted material).
> *




Love that "want everything to be free" bit!  So true!

How many times have I heard the "I want the 3.5E books to be free to those of us who've bought the 3E books".  What frikkin' planet are these people on?  So, you rock up to your local automotive dealer and say, "Look, I bought this [insert model of car here], um, 3 years ago, and now I want a new [same model of car].  The new one's free, right, 'cos I paid for this one?".  Or, more likely for the demographic and IQ we're talking about, "Hey, I bought Doom a few years back, but the graphics are a bit clunky, and I'm getting a bit bored of it, and now I'd like to play Doom II.  But since I bought Doom, Doom II's free, right?"  "Hey, I bought these jeans last year, but they've faded, and I've put on a bit of weight now, so they don't fit, and I'd like a new pair.  But the new pair's free, right, cos' I bought the last pair."  Got a theme going here?

Cheers, (I want everyting to be free, 'cos I bought one before, somewhere, some time ago, I'm sure of it) Al'Kelhar


----------



## caudor (May 30, 2003)

Johnny Wilson said:
			
		

> *Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!*




This may come across as a little cheesy, but I'm being honest so what the heck.  

I sensed from your response that you might have felt a sting when reading some of the posts here, and even though some were certainly out of line (hence the admin response), it appears you reached the conclusion that this thread was all about bashing your work or your efforts.  I admit that my thin-skinned self would have to pause a time or two to refocus.

However, if you go back to re-read some posts, you may notice that many of them (including mine) are actually positive.  If you focus only on what is brown, without also soaking in the green, the experience you take away will only be brown.  Please don't just take away the brown from us.  

In contrast to your opening line, please also know that you and your staff are objects of respect and admiration.  Why?  Because at least from where I'm sitting, you folks have managed to accomplish things that some of us can only aspire to do...things like becoming the President of a successful publisher, or becoming a published author or artist or editor.  On top of that, your work is excellent...even if you can't please everyone.  Hey, not even the most powerful deities of our fantasy worlds manage to win over everyone.

Since my wisdom is only about a 5, I probably should not be spewing advice.  Nevertheless, I do hope you will see there is actually some green tucked in around those brown spots.


----------



## Iron_Chef (May 30, 2003)

Seems strange (and by strange, I mean condescending) to me that Johnny Wilson said "IF Dungeon/Polyhedron is still viable by Origins and GenCon time, I will listen to you all at the Paizo at the Mike conferences. At that time, I will discuss options with you and see what you think about other approaches we can try."

This statement to me implies two things:

1) The magazine may cease to be published prior to, or aproximately coinciding with, Origins/GenCon due to continued poor sales; and/or

2) Opinions expressed by readers and members of messageboards will not be considered as valuable or desirable harbingers of change; only "elite" attendees of the aforementioned conventions (a tiny but vocal minority of gamers to be sure) may suggest changes to the magazine and have them be considered. If this is the case, it certainly sounds aliennating to the majority of the readership, to put it lightly. I, for one, was offended by his (admittedly perceived) arrogance and dismissive attitude towards criticism of his publication and his company's failure to give the readership what it wants, let alone reassure us that our opinions matter and positive change is indeed in the works.

Granted, this is taking his remarks very literally, and perhaps not as he intended. Of course, this being cyberspace, I have no way of knowing what he meant unless he posts again and clarifies his position.  

However, whatever he meant, it seems to me to be extremely short-sighted to delay any consideration of addressing changes to the magazine by any length of time unless there is no point in doing so; e.g, if the magazine will cease to be published this year anyway, and any energy put into changing it won't save a sinking ship, so why bother?

Polyhedron should be immediately and permanently jettisoned/scuttled along with Living Greyhawk Journal. These features not only have limited appeal, but reduce the number (and quality, if recent isues are any judge) of the D&D adventures, which is the primary reason most people buy the magazine, and was the magazine's sole original focus which readers (DMs) have come to rely upon since its inception in the late 80s. What I do know is, the level of "hit or miss" usefulness we have always seen and grumbled about in Dragon is unacceptable when it comes to Dungeon. Dungeon should be what it always has been: a reasonably priced source for D&D adventures. We don't need full color glossy paper; we just need creative adventures we can use. Nearly all the best issues were in the old B&W 1e/2e days. Now we get pretty pictures on fancy paper but the level of writing has fallen with few exceptions (the first 3e issue, the drow cover issue and the white half-dragon cover issue being the only ones that really delivered high quality over multiple adventures in the same issue). 

The increased cover price is too high as well; I stopped buying every other magazine I ever had any interest in when prices went over $5 each... Dragon and Dungeon being the sole exceptions (however, I'm much pickier now and won't buy every issue because they are so expensive and usually have extremely limited usefulness). 

TBH, I predict that Dungeon will go under within a year, with Dragon staying on life-support for another couple. This is based on pure gut instinct, not any kind of insider knowledge. I don't see how they can continue to publish drek and make money.

I would be in favor of combining Dragon and Dungeon into one mega-magazine ($7.99 cover), however, dropping all the awful comics and fiction and concentrating on what the magazines should be about: D&D rules expansions/clarifications and adventures. They could even keep the awful flip-flop cover design that drives me nuts, lol. Just give us useful crunchy bits and adventures. If we want bunches of comics, we can buy Dork Tower or KotD from Kenzer (putting these in Dragon is akin to free full page ads for Kenzer in my mind); if we want crummy third-rate sword and sorcery fiction, we can buy the latest WoTC or R.A. Salvatore novel.

That's what I think, anyway. YMMV.


----------



## Sholari (May 30, 2003)

I appreciate Mr. Wilson's response and can definitely sympathize with his attempts to make the two magazines profitable.  However, I've been buying Dungeon since issue #8 and get the magazine for detailed, complex adventures that are easily portable to any D&D campaign.  Sidetreks and maps of mystery I have the time to create on my own, so I generally do not find these particularly value-added.  Anything else is interesting but largely irrelevant for me as a consumer.  As a result I'll most likely be dropping my subscription and switch to the occasional purchase at a hobby shop if there is an adventure that I find is particularly strong.  At the same time I don't mind spending even double the price if there are at least three quality adventures.  I feel a little guilty about doing this, but at a certain point of disatisfaction I have to vote with my pocketbook.

Here are a couple suggestions which may or may not be useful (but hey a little brainstorming can sometimes help)...

- Split Dungeon and Polyhedren into two seperate, bi-monthly magazines and offer a price bundling discount for people who subscribe to two or three of the magazines.  That way people who don't like Poly don't have to subscribe to it and people who like both can subscribe to both with a nice bonus.  Besides what example is there out there of two magazines bundled into one besides Dungeon and Polyhedren that have suceeded.  A magazine's focus is important... bundled magazines are creative but not industry standard for a reason.

- Have a back section for reviews specifically of upcoming modules offered in the next couple months or an in-depth plot synopsis (similar to what appears in the first couple pages of most adventures).  Who better to purchase these things than those who buy Dungeon Magazine.   Certify the quality of stuff out there on the net, in pdf format, and done by game publishers.  This might attract more module purchasers to the magazine and make it more attractive to advertisers.

- Offer a 4 page section for a game manufacturer to buy space for a setting specific mini-adventure.  It might be a way for them to hook new people into their campaign world.  It also offers an RPG group a way to test out a new game world without having to invest a lot of money in it.  Perhaps the quality of this mini-adventure would  be higher because their incentive would be to showcase their game world in the most positive light.

- Partner with an appropriate company to create a module mini-catalog back section with titles that typically do not generate enough demand to apear in small hobby shops.   Agree to take a percentage of all revenues generated this way.  The partner company could keep inventory costs low and offer a wider selection relative to hobby shops who have greater inventory risk.  The downside to this is it may create channel conflict with larger gaming retailers but this could be mitigated by using different versions for the subscription-base vs. the retail-purchased magazines.

- Promote your own pdf retailing website to compete with RPG Now.  Use this site to resell individual adventures that have been out of print for a year or so.  (Same concept as movies which later go to video followed by TV).  Use your magazine to promote the website by having add-ons adventures that can be downloaded from the website.  If you don't want to compete with RPG now then just resell some of your old material there.

- Offer a retail store directory where retailers could mention any special events or promotions which might drive traffic to their stores.

- Bundle your Dungeon, Polyhedren, and Dragon advertising into packages.  For instance you could offer free unsold Dungeon advertising to boost your Dragon advertising as a deal closer to advertisers.  Magazines and TV channels have used this strategy quite effectively.  Also, the problem with a double-sided magazine is you are giving up your most valuable advertising space.  The back cover is prime real estate.

Anyway, for whatever they are worth just a couple far-feteched ideas.


----------



## Corinth (May 30, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *Some of us don't really care at all about multigenre d20, and wouldn't be disappointed if it disappeared tomorrow so long as D&D endured.  As for caring what the forum denizens of RPG.net think...well, I'm trying to stifle a chuckle.  *



Don't laugh.  Many folks that design and sell games post there, and more of them lurk there.  You may be one of the millions of D&D-only gamers, but you're not alone in this hobby.  Anything that can make the hobby as a whole better is a good thing, and that means doing all that can be done to make d20 the go-to choice for RPG design.


----------



## Guacamole (May 30, 2003)

*let me get this straight...*

Dungeon/Polyhedron is in a bit of a financial spot.  One of the reasons it seems to be in a bit of a financial spot is the increased cost of printing in full color, and the inclusion of polyhedron material.   This is a problem because it has alienated part of the subscription base.  So, instead of trying to win back the subscription base, you decide to do the same thing that continues to alienate your traditional subscriber base until GenCon and hope it lasts?  Is this not a business? 

I personally like the polyhedron stuff and plan on using much of it (pulp, modern horror, Spell jammer, etc.).  However it doesn't seem reasonable to loose the entire magazine because of the commitment to a fraction of it.  If polyhedron is going to flush dungeon then get rid of poly, or atleast make sure the content is useable to joe-average gamer.   I know it puts constraints on the artistic endeavors of writers and hampers the expansion of d20 markets (not that I know of anyone who got into d20 by reading an issue of poly), but shoot, if you gotta be profitable, you gotta make it profitable.   JMO...

sincerely
chunky green dip


----------



## The Sigil (May 30, 2003)

*Suggestions, nto just criticism*

Here is exactly what I want from Dungeon.  They're my opinions, and only my own, but rather than just offer criticism, I'll offer suggestions, too.

Suggestion #1: Stop thinking of Dungeon and Dragon as Magazines in the sense that you think of Time or Newsweek or Csomo.  Dungeon and Dragon are NOT, repeat, are NOT "conventional magazines" and need not position themselves as such.  They are niche products, meant to appeal to gamers who are, on the whole, already familiar with the product.  New subscribers will, in virtual certainty in each case, be drawn from the ranks of existing gamers, not the public at large.  I would suggest that over 99% of the Dragon/Dungeon readership gets into Dragon/Dungeon because they're already into D&D - they don't get into D&D because they're into Dragon/Dungeon.

Suggestion #2: With this in mind, the first thing that ought to go - at least in Dungeon - is full color.  As gamers, we don't expect much outside of the core rulebooks to be done in color.  It's a nice bonus, but we're used to B&W.  We don't feel ripped off by it.  If you feel like the maps deserve color, maybe put them in an insert section - I prefer clean, uncluttered B&W maps, myself, but I know some people prefer color with lots of flash (and thereby cluttered, IMO).  But the maps are a neutral decision, IMO. Color or BW are fine with me.  But the rest of the magazine doesn't need it - I don't pick up Module X from Company Y and expect a full-color interior.  This alone will drop costs immensely.

Suggestion #3: Lose the Glossy Paper and for heaven's sake, lose the page borders!  I use the margins in my adventures to note my own little changes, or note what the adventurers have done, etc.  IMO, a little white space in the margins of an adventure is a good thing.  It lets me customize things for my campaign.  And losing the glossy paper lets me write in pencil for later erasure... and cuts costs.

Suggestion #4: Cut the ads down a touch... and cut Polyhedron down to as little of the content as possible.  I am going to hazard a guess here, but my guess is that the vast majority of your *paid* subscriber revenue base upon merging the two magazines came from Dungeon, not Polyhedron.  If I'm wrong here, ignore this suggestion.  But focus on the Dungeon aspect, not the Polyhedron aspect of the magazine if this is indeed the case... don't go for an overall 50/50 split (60/40 alternating each month averages to 50/50); instead, aim for a 75/25 Dungeon/Poly split (and that may be too heavy on the Poly).  Cut the comics.  Cut anything "cute."  This is DUNGEON - we want DUNGEONS (and adventures in general, but anything that is not an adventure or directly related to one is pretty much worthless IMO).

Swapping from full-color, glossy, bordered paper to B&W, no border, regular paper will drive your cost down considerably (I figure that B&W interior art will be cheaper than Full Color interior art, too - which drives production costs down even further).  

Above all: remember, *you're not really in the Magazine business with Dungeon* - you're really in the "3 or 4 adventure modules per month" business - you just happen to have a core of subscribers who are those who will buy your offerings each month - treat Dungeon as such (i.e., not "magazine" but "module-producing company").

If you consider the above changes, you're much more likely to make a product that (a) has significantly higher profit margins due to lowered production costs, (b) will return the focus of the periodical to Dungeons, (c) add little "value added" things that gamers don't usually consciously notice (e.g., the "notes in the margin") - and that you probably don't always realize are in fact value-adders (remember, adding too much actually can drive down value; cutting away excess stuff can in fact be a value-added feature) and (d) appeals to me personally. 

--The Sigil


----------



## King_Stannis (May 30, 2003)

Actually, for all the carping you've done Sigil, those aren't bad suggestion. Except for cutting down the Ads - that's how they help recoup the cost of producing the mag - I can't see that happening.


----------



## bushfire (May 30, 2003)

I just want to agree with Sigil.

The "prettier" Dungeon has gotten over the past couple years the less useful it has become to me. And this is from someone who has been subscribed since #7.


----------



## dsfriii (May 30, 2003)

*Sad....*



> Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!




I hope this was not directed to some of the posters that were trying to express their issues they are having with your product (Dungeon).  I really, really like your product (Dungeon) and I was willing to pay the $8 for your book every 2 months.  Now I did not use everything, but there was enough that I could use that made the magazine a value to me.  But now you are asking me to pay $14 every two months with less product I could use.  


I do not hate you or anyone of your staff, but I am a very dissatisfied customer.  Am I asking you to bend over backwards to please me? No.  But I wish you would address those people that are telling you nicely our displeasure in the same way that you would want to be addressed if you were the customer...


----------



## BryonD (May 30, 2003)

*Re: Sad....*



			
				dsfriii said:
			
		

> * I do not hate you or anyone of your staff, but I am a very dissatisfied customer.  Am I asking you to bend over backwards to please me? No.  But I wish you would address those people that are telling you nicely our displeasure in the same way that you would want to be addressed if you were the customer... *




I'll second this.

I mean, even to the complainers that are over the top in their dissent, a more professional response would be better received.

Add in that Pazio seems to lump everyone who complains in any way into a single category of "haters" and it becomes hard to be sympathetic.


----------



## Lazybones (May 30, 2003)

Sigil's comments articulated my sentiments precisely.  I subscribed in the early days (approx. issues #8-25), and found the old "style" much more useful and appealing than the current "flashy" presentation laden with added bits that aren't core to _Dungeon's_ original mission.  

And I don't hate the mag or anyone associated with it, nor do I share the feelings of the more... aggressive posters on this issue.  I just don't like the way that the magazine has evolved.


----------



## SneakyB (May 30, 2003)

I also agree with damn near everything The Sigil said.  The only thing that I can't see happening is the reduction in Ads.  Fine, well and good, they have to cover their costs somehow and I don't mind the ads so much.

The suggestions to change paper type, cut down on color artwork and reduce the page count for Poly are all great ideas, IMNSHO.  While there seems to be an even mix of people who read it for Poly, I would suspect that the majority *subscribed* for the content in Dungeon.  Reduction in quality AND quantity is what disturbs me.  Yes, there have been some very well-written and thought-out adventures of late, but these are quickly becoming the exception, not the norm.  The addition of what I would consider "filler" is contributing to perceptions regarding quality and quantity.  An occassional critical threat or two does no harm, but when every single issue has 2 AND the page count for Poly fluctuates between 40 and 60 pages every month, this lowers the utility of this magazine.  And I would put forth that no one is reading this magazine for the sake of an interesting read.  Both Dungeon AND Poly readers are doing so to obtain content for use in their games.  Once again, my not-so-humble opinion.

My comments are not intended to "slam" any individual or the magazine itself.  I've enjoyed the content of the magazine for years, but now find myself seeing a lack of useful content.  Coupled with the price increase, I'm beginning to see it as a poor return on my investment.  I would suggest that Caesar stop, listen and heed our concerns, lest he find that Dungeon/Poly no longer remain viable (which it sounds as if is the case anyway).  Failure to do so *forces* us to vote with our wallets, which is the last thing that we want to do.   

--Dan


----------



## dsfriii (May 30, 2003)

*Re: Re: Sad....*



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll second this.
> 
> ...




Thank you BryonD, I forgot to include the over top dissenters.  

I am hoping I can get a response from Pazio.  I really, really want to continue to buy the magazine, but it is getting harder and harder to justify.  I really hope they listen....


----------



## Nikchick (May 30, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Thank you for your reply, Dr Wilson.
> 
> It really seems that the situation financially is extremely dire for Dungeon magazine - the constraints you are working under are... well, words fail me.
> *




I'm glad Johnny responded to this thread.  What he laid out here regarding the Dungeon/Polyhedron are not entirely unique to Paizo.  They're the same conditions and constraints faced by every game publisher out there.  It's a credit to everyone at Paizo that Dungeon Magazine continues to exist at all.  I'm constantly amazed at the quality of work these guys are putting out.  The Paizo staff are the best in the business, and I firmly believe that if they can't make a viable D&D/D20 magazine, no one can.  (As someone who had stints with both White Wolf Magazine and Adventures Unlimited Magazine, I feel well qualified to say that.)

Just wanted to pop in and give a little love and support to the Paizo folks in general and Johnny Wilson in specific.  It doesn't get any better, Paizo is the cream of the crop.

Nicole


----------



## dsfriii (May 30, 2003)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> *
> Just wanted to pop in and give a little love and support to the Paizo folks in general and Johnny Wilson in specific.  It doesn't get any better, Paizo is the cream of the crop.
> 
> Nicole *




Once again some of us that do have issues with Dungeon do not hate the company.  but we love the magazine and we are concerned in the way it is heading.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 30, 2003)

Johnny is right to some degree. A more civil and articulate expression of what we want is needed, not just complaints about what is wrong. So here goes nothing.


Look at your core mission, what is the purpose of Dungeon magazine. I have always as a customer viewed it as providing adventures and adventure ideas to the D&D community for a great price. I have not had an issue so much with quality, although I will admit that I don't like every adventure but then I don't expect to as long as I like most of them. The issue that is coming up for me though is quantity which is related by price to whether it is a value or not. When the magazine starts providing adventures for the same price per page of adventures as non-advertising supported supplements then I have to start thinking about what to spend my money on when I would rather support your magazine as the obvious best value. 


The question then becomes for me what cost saving measures am I willing to accept to achieve that. As a prospective customer who wants to purchase your product again I am willing to do without some of the extras such as color and glossy paper. If its an issue of keeping the magazine running then by all means feel free to go back to the old B&W days. As for ads I don't mind them and understand the need for them. I would be perfectly willing to have a magazine with 50% ad space as long as the content is still there. You have pointed out that smaller circulation results in some advertisers choosing only to purchase in the larger Dragon. Is it possible to bundle ad space in Dragon/Dungeon with a discount so that like airlines a seat sold at half price is better than the seat not being sold at all. Another issue you raised with having separate magazines was that the mailhouse/distributor charged you monthly whether you were monthly or not. How about separate monthly magazines then. You could charge 4.99 a month for 40 pages of adventures + as many ad pages as you can sell (plus you get the coveted back cover to sell again). This would give us as many pages of adventures as we are getting now but at price that is between the 94-97 rate and the current 98-100 rate. Poly could also be sold separately on a monthly basis for 4.99 as well and advertising could still be bundled. While this may result in slight loss of subscription revenues compared to the joint issues (you previously stated in another thread that the subscriber bases were about equal with a 50% overlap) you may end up with a larger subscription base as Dungeon and Poly readers both start getting a magazine that is focused on what they want. Combine this with going back to Black and white non-glossy and there may be a profit again. 

Another thing I would suggest is something that the company I work for does on a bi-yearly basis with its magazine. Include a readership survey in an upcoming issue. It will cost some money but it will help determine what your readership really wants. Do they want larger or smaller adventures. Is color important to them. Is the reader mail important. Do they want dungeon crawls or non-linear town adventures or both. What are their demographics. All sorts of questions can be asked and proper decisions can be made off of it. While some reasonable suggestions and possible problems can be gleaned from the internet and its self selected sample on the message boards it is only with a true readership survey that you can get a real representative sample of how all your readers really feel. If this is done and the majority of readers want something that I don't care for that is fine with me, but decisions about the future of the magazine should be based on what the readers really want.


----------



## The Sigil (May 30, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Actually, for all the carping you've done Sigil, those aren't bad suggestion. Except for cutting down the Ads - that's how they help recoup the cost of producing the mag - I can't see that happening. *



I do carp a lot, because I haven't seen much evidence to indicate Paizo is listening to me, but I think it's also definitely worth the effort to point out in a relatively nice manner where I think things can be improved.

I don't carp because I hate Dungeon or Paizo or Johnny.  I carp because I think, "come on, guys, I *know* you can do better.... because I've seen you do better and I liked it when you were doing that."  It's not a negative thing done just to be negative, it's negativity born out of disappointment in (as I see it) a failure on their part to live up to the great potential they have.

Since that hasn't worked, I figure I'll try some positive critiques... maybe they'll respond to that better than when I'm grousing at them. 

When I make a carping comment, that's why... because I expect better from Paizo... and I expect better because I know they have the capacity to do better and I hate to see their awesome potential wasted.

--The Sigil


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2003)

Count me as another one who would like to draw attention to The Sigil's suggestions above. You have echoed my sentiments about Dungeon Mag *exactly*. (However, if you keep the same relative number of ads that you do now, I'm okay with that - I'm willing to compromise!)

As The Sigil noted above, the concept that you are not in the magazine business, but in the adventures-for-D&D business is fundemental in making the changes that at least a few of us here would prefer. I, too, would be happy with black and white, no glossy paper, and *heavy* reduction in Poly (ads are fine).

I buy Dungeon for Dungeon. And, as suggested above, I submit that virtually all of your original paid subscribers from before the merge were Dungeon subscribers as well, and bought Dungeon for Dungeon. (It certainly should be no surprise to people that there is an outcry about the inclusion of Poly.)


----------



## Blister (May 31, 2003)

*Paizo*


----------



## rounser (May 31, 2003)

> Don't laugh. Many folks that design and sell games post there, and more of them lurk there. You may be one of the millions of D&D-only gamers, but you're not alone in this hobby.



I'd rather not buy content I don't want or use so that some designers or publishers somewhere can feel better about joining the brave new world of multigenre d20.


> Anything that can make the hobby as a whole better is a good thing, and that means doing all that can be done to make d20 the go-to choice for RPG design.



I really don't care about most of the RPG hobby beyond D&D, which is the game I play.  I also don't think D&D is much affected by the fortunes of these other games; rather, it seems to be the other way round.


----------



## Corinth (May 31, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *I'd rather not buy content I don't want or use so that some designers or publishers somewhere can feel better about joining the brave new world of multigenre d20.*



You don't get to make that call.  The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are.  There's more to this hobby than D&D, and there are plenty of D&D players that play other RPGs.  This does count the game designers, from whom D&D directly benefits via the work that they in their products- their best efforts become part of D&D.


> *I really don't care about most of the RPG hobby beyond D&D, which is the game I play.  I also don't think D&D is much affected by the fortunes of these other games; rather, it seems to be the other way round. *



Really?  Check again.  Here's what you've received from the rest of the hobby:

A unified task resolution mechanic.  (Too many games to mention them all.)
A unified XP progression chart.  (Rolemaster)
The PHB-centric marketing model.  (GURPS)
Templates (Many; GURPS is notable for its use)
Prestige Classes (Traveller & Twilight 2000, via advanced schools; RuneQuest; Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)
Weighted attibute values in game balance (GURPS)
Feats (Feng Shui)
The planar traits in MOTP (TORG)
The myriad of magic item qualities, above what was in previous editions.  (Rolemaster, Palladium)
Everything dealing with OA  (Bushido, L5R, Sengoku)
Everything involved D&DG (The Primal Order, Aria)
The incorporation of classed monsters as a standard feature (Rolemaster, Palladium)
A martial arts system that actually works (Feng Shui, Sengoku, Bushido, L5R, Palladium, GURPS)
A vehicle combat system that actually works (Car Wars, GURPS, Heavy Gear)
A scaling system that actually works (Mekton II/Zeta, Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles)
Standardized stat blocks for PCs and NPCs alike (Palladium)
Any magic use other than the usual dungeon stuff (Ars Magica, RuneQuest)
D&D isn't an innovative game.  It doesn't need to be.  It's strength is that it uses its position as the top dog of the hobby to cherry pick the best ideas that come from the massive pool of other RPGs and incorporate those best-of-the-best concepts into the game.  All that's happened with d20 is the accelleration of this process.  To  on the other RPGs in the hobby is to cut off your nose to spite your face; you're biting the hands that design the future rules of D&D, the same hands that will take the game that you love and make it better than it is now sometime down the road.  The past makes it clear that this is the case.


----------



## rounser (May 31, 2003)

> You don't get to make that call.



Nonsense.  I vote with my wallet.


> The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are.



What has this got to do with whether I want the content or not?  If I was a satisfied Dungeon subscriber before and not now, then I'll simply stop subscribing.

Honestly, some folks *just don't care* about non-D&D d20 stuff.  I'm surprised you find that such a difficult concept to grasp.


> There's more to this hobby than D&D, and there are plenty of D&D players that play other RPGs. This does count the game designers, from whom D&D directly benefits via the work that they in their products- their best efforts become part of D&D.



All of which has nothing to do with whether I should buy content I don't want to read and won't use which has been introduced into Dungeon.


> Really? Check again. Here's what you've received from the rest of the hobby:
> 
> A unified task resolution mechanic. (Too many games to mention them all.)
> 
> ...



All of which has nothing to do with whether I want multigenre stuff which I don't use in Dungeon.  The industry can look after itself - it doesn't need forced progressiveness by buying and analysing game material that you never use.  No wonder you love RPG.net - that seems to be their favourite pastime over there.


> D&D isn't an innovative game.



Bollocks.  There's far more to RPG innovation than mere game mechanics - why am I not surprised you're hoeing this particular row?


> It doesn't need to be. It's strength is that it uses its position as the top dog of the hobby to cherry pick the best ideas that come from the massive pool of other RPGs and incorporate those best-of-the-best concepts into the game. All that's happened with d20 is the accelleration of this process. To  on the other RPGs in the hobby is to cut off your nose to spite your face; you're biting the hands that design the future rules of D&D, the same hands that will take the game that you love and make it better than it is now sometime down the road. The past makes it clear that this is the case.



All of which is irrelevant, because D&D can take care of itself.

I think you severely overestimate the amount of mechanics-based innovation in RPGs.  Skill based systems are so obvious that they're as old as D&D itself - Arneson used one!  Universal resolution mechanics don't require rocket science to reinvent from first principles either.  Besides, this is not the point - I don't care about these other games because I don't play them, and I don't care for multigenre d20 stuff in Dungeon because I don't use that either.  It's not my duty to buy stuff I won't use, and I'm not betraying D&D by doing so - that argument is nonsense.  I'll leave the buying of material that you never use to the chinstrokers and daydreamers.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 31, 2003)

You know, I really hope all this moaning and complaining by people who are unwilling to let go of the (troubled) past and mistakes made by TSR (T$R) won't result in the cancellation of Polyhedron. Before this integration of the two mags, I was a very loyal Dungeon subscriber. I mean why wouldn't I be? There's great stuff there. With a little work, even the 2nd edition stuff can ba hauled out, dusted off, and reused under 3rd edition. Sure, the stat blocks won't work, but that's why you check it for balance issues before actually trying to run it. In effect, what you are getting out of the old stuff is all the fluff since the crunch no longer interfaces with our current platform.

Polyhedron is great stuff. Pulp D20 was the first game that started to reformat things for a modern RPG. Using that alone, there is enough to take the ball and run into a D20 Modern or future setting. But then D20 Modern was released and ended up having major differences from pulp. So now, if we want, we have two sources we can draw on to run something different. The more the rules are tweked to fit a unique genre, the more optional rules there are to choose from to get just the right game to make each individual happy. I know a lot of people who decided that they wanted a more gritty and hard hitting D&D game, so they adopted the Wound/Vitality system from Star Wars into their D&D game. Of course this doesn't even address those people that actually want to run one of these mini-games. I have used much of this material in my games (Omega World & Spelljammer), and I'm glad it was published.

This approach benefitted Star Wars with Star Wars Gamer magazine by giving us all the space combat system we wanted, which was incorporated into the Revised Edition.

OK, so maybe you don't want so many pages devoted to what is essentially experimentation. I guess Dragon must be a really bad idea then, since virtually all of its content can be categorized as fluff or optional and experiemental rules.

The bottom line is that a business decision had to me made. It was made. I think the mag is better for it. If it absolutely comes down to a decision between going B&W and losing it altogether, then I guess it should go B&W, but in doing so, I firmly believe that the loss of the polish of the magazine will drive away a lot of the newer subscribers who have come to expect this. Lets not forget that despite the money issues, according to everything we've been told, subscriptions went through the roof as soon as 3E was released.

So my vote goes to leaving things as they are now. I like getting a new Dungeon every month and I enjoy the Poly section.


----------



## Krug (May 31, 2003)

I agree with most of The Sigil's points. I think Paizo has to do away with some of the interior colour pages in Dungeon, and yes, seperate Polyhedron magazine. Frankly, the strongest supplements to me are the Githyanki stuff in #100 and Spelljammer. The rest hardly register a blip. 

If they don't want to put out a separate magazine, then turn to PDF distribution of some of these 'mini-games'. Or go the cheapass games method; highly playable, low cost. innovative games which subscribers receive once every quarter. 

Dungeon 'died' before but was resurrected, and yes, it's one of the best values in the market. Hopefully Wilson will put together a good plan to ensure the magazine's survival.


----------



## rounser (May 31, 2003)

> . I guess Dragon must be a really bad idea then, since virtually all of its content can be categorized as fluff or optional and experiemental rules.



Bingo.  That's exactly how I view Dragon, and also why I don't subscribe to it, and never have.  Dungeon has been "Dragon-ised", which I guess was inevitable - the format of a magazine purely devoted to modules was a bit too good to be true.


----------



## Blister (May 31, 2003)

*What?*

"The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are. "

How in the world can you know this?  Do you keep a running total on your home computer with access to the Paizo database? And aparently they might have ruled against this initially, but they're doing some serious backpeddling now. 

The "professionals" made that call and got a tremendous backlash, so much so that they came out posting explanations.  You think JW came out and made that post over a minority of letters?  I don't think so.  It looks very much like Paizo is reeling from a huge backlash of negative feedback, and it's pretty sickening all the sympathy their trying to garner, and how many people are stepping in going "poor little Paizo publishing, being picked on by the meanie badie posters."

It should be apparent those "mean posters" really like Dungeon and are appalled by what Paizo tried to do to the magazine.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 31, 2003)

*Re: What?*



			
				Blister said:
			
		

> *"The professionals make that call, and they ruled against you because there are thousand of subscribers--more than dissenters, really--that like things as they are. "
> 
> How in the world can you know this?  Do you keep a running total on your home computer with access to the Paizo database? And aparently they might have ruled against this initially, but they're doing some serious backpeddling now. *




How do I know this? Well, I don't work in the Paizo offices, so I guess I kind of have to take their word on it. And yes, they are the professionals and make the decisions because it's their business. They are the ones with their business riding on the success or failure of the magazine. If they end up making some people mad in order to turn a profit and preserve their livelihood, then that's just the way it is. 

Complaining about it is like walking into a grocery store and complaining about the price of milk. Of course if everyone complains about the price of milk and stops buying it from that store, then the store needs to rethink things. If this is what is happening at Paizo, then fine. Do what needs to be done to stay in business and keep the gaming goodness coming my way.



> *"It looks very much like Paizo is reeling from a huge backlash of negative feedback, and it's pretty sickening all the sympathy their trying to garner, and how many people are stepping in going "poor little Paizo publishing, being picked on by the meanie badie posters."*




I think that this remark could be applied regardless of what they actually had to say. In fact, it is just as possible that they decided that it would be better to maintain communication with the people that care enough about the magazine to bother commenting in the first place. Again, looking back at TSR, how often did the business people and designers bother to interract with the public? About the only time it happened was at the conventions when they were essentially hawking their wares. Maybe rather than damning them for speaking up, you should actually consider what they have to say.


----------



## bwgwl (May 31, 2003)

i wouldn't mind seeing Poly separated from Dungeon -- it'd mean i could get the d20 mini-games i want without having to buy a bunch of useless adventures i'll never use.

however, i just don't think that's going to happen. i don't think either is quite strong enough to stand on it's own, so that's why we've got the split-issue thing going on right now.


----------



## beta-ray (May 31, 2003)

I remember when I was in intermediate school and being really into collecting comics. So much so I'd bad them and not want people to touch them. I would buy multiple copies, etc.

One day I realized that I really loved comics for what fun they brought me. Nowadays it might horrify people but I just toss around all the comics I buy. I love to read them and they entertain me but I don't really put them on a pedestal anymore.

Some of the responses here remind me of those days when I took comics too seriously. I buy the gaming stuff (whether I use them or not) to entertain me. If it doesn't, so be it. There seems to be some wounded feelings from people who have somehow been hurt. Frankly I don't see any of the Paizo represented responses as condescending (then again, I am one of those that have no use for Dungeon but like Poly)... Is it really worth the bulging vein in the neck?

*shrug*


----------



## Maggan (May 31, 2003)

*Come GenCon...*



> This statement to me implies two things:
> 
> 1) The magazine may cease to be published prior to, or aproximately coinciding with, Origins/GenCon due to continued poor sales; and/or
> 
> 2) Opinions expressed by readers and members of messageboards will not be considered as valuable or desirable harbingers of change; only "elite" attendees of the aforementioned conventions (a tiny but vocal minority of gamers to be sure) may suggest changes to the magazine and have them be considered. If this is the case, it certainly sounds aliennating to the majority of the readership, to put it lightly. I, for one, was offended by his (admittedly perceived) arrogance and dismissive attitude towards criticism of his publication and his company's failure to give the readership what it wants, let alone reassure us that our opinions matter and positive change is indeed in the works.




Or it might mean that Paizo has a plan that says it needs to get Dungeon/Polyhedron financially viable fast, or their money runs out, and they have to stop publishing Dungeon. And that the time frame is to try up until GenCon to see if it works.

Why set GenCon as a milestone? Maybe, just maybe, it is because they will be going there with thousands and thousands of other gamers,  and would like to also talk to people face to face when discussing the fate of Dungeon, rather than just through a message board.

I don't feel that he implied that they only talk to the "elite" by discussiong this at GenCon.

I got the feeling he actually likes to talk to people, and hear what they are saying in an open and massively interactive 3d environment (GenCon), in addition to reading stuff on the boards. Since he posted here, he is obviously reading what is being posted here. So what's so bad about discussing things at GenCon?

On a sidenote, Chris Thommassen got slammed by someone for posting here, and Johnny Wilson gets a lot of grief (admittedly, he can be a bit... enthusiastic), so it's not as if all of us are making them feel welcome here. There eill probably be less of that at GenCon, since most people (including me) are more civil when off the internet.

As to my opinions on Dungeon/Polyhedron:

1. I don't like the flip side thing.
2. I would like to see Dungeon and Polyhedron as separate magazines.
3. That thing about subscribers getting more content... I don't like it (but of course, it worked, because I just subscribed again. Still don't like it)
4. That new comic... I don't like it. I don't like Bolt&Quiver either.
5. Like the layout.
6. Like the adventures.
7. Find the minigames interesting, although not uselful more than once in a blue moon.

That's about it.

Cheers!

M.


----------



## Sketchpad (May 31, 2003)

I'm part of the rare encampment of using both Dungeon & Poly ... and honestly I don't completely know where all the aggression is coming from.  Are we getting adventures?  Yup.  Are we getting extra info for other games?  Yup.  Now I can hear it already "I only care about D&D" and that's great   But, first off, the magazine isn't made for just D&D.  Secondly, we get D&D every month now ... which is better than waiting every other month.  Sure, it's less content every other month, but in some ways, how's that different then what we had before?  I mean, honestly gang, if you want a magazine bi-monthly that concentrates on D&D, just buy the mag every other month. 
I love the new format personally.  The extra d20 Modern info and Star Wars info is great!  I've been hoping they'd do something to support the Star Wars game more since Star Wars Gamer bit the dust, and finally I got some   And the funny thing is, I know I'm not alone in this.  I realize that the bulk of the people here are strictly D&D players, but to be honest folks, there are more players out there ... and Dragon is all D&D.  
For those long-time collectors, perhaps you remember Dragon's Ares section?  It used to have sci-fi/superhero rules in it ... and people didn't complain about that ... in fact, there were some issues that gulped up a horde of the magazine with lilttle D&D content ... and people didn't complain about that either  
I commend Chris & Johnny for giving us the info and responding to a thread about their great magazine.  And as far as the art heavy content of Dungeon, and Dragon for that matter, I love it.  Speaking as a Graphic Designer, I find the layout and graphics to be appealing and interesting, giving the magazine a unique feel.  Sure, Dungeon & Dragon aren't Time or Newsweek ... but in some ways they are ... they're the lead trade magazines for the role-playing community.  For many years they've been an example and showcase for other companies, indie writers and freelance artists.  That's something that shouldn't be forgotten easily


----------



## am181d (May 31, 2003)

I'm a POLYHEDRON reader.  I never bought an issue of DUNGEON before they added POLY, and have no intention of buying a DUNGEON without POLY.  I am, it seems pretty clearly, in the minority, but I'm presumably not alone either.


----------



## UniversalMonster (May 31, 2003)

What I wouldn't mind (yeah, yeah, like you care.  )

I wouldn't mind if Polyhedron became a reader-supported contribution-based web-feature pdf thingy. Polyhedron is always interesting, but I don't really use it. And I'm an RPGA guy. I'd like Polyhedron to feature more OGC from established third party publishers. I'd like to see Oathbound articles from Bastion, for example, and maybe a "Fiend-Lair of the Month" from Green Ronin, and something weird from Mongoose.  

I wouldn't mind if Dungeon dropped the slick paper and color illustration interiors. If this just barely covered costs, than fine. If this somehow more than covered costs, then I'd like more adventures stuffed in there. And I wouldn't mind more "old school" modules either.. just plain maps and a keyed matrix like the old dungeon modules (B1, B2, U1). Yeah, I know it's primitive, but I've been in serious retro mode lately. I want to see more Castle Greyhawk (100+ levels of keyed maps) and Blackmoor type dungeons, rather than the 1-2 session adventures featured in most modern d20 adventures. 

Alright. Have to go take my kids to the doctor.


----------



## Maggan (May 31, 2003)

*Re: Suggestions, nto just criticism*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> Suggestion #2: With this in mind, the first thing that ought to go - at least in Dungeon - is full color.  As gamers, we don't expect much outside of the core rulebooks to be done in color.  It's a nice bonus, but we're used to B&W.  We don't feel ripped off by it.  If you feel like the maps deserve color, maybe put them in an insert section - I prefer clean, uncluttered B&W maps, myself, but I know some people prefer color with lots of flash (and thereby cluttered, IMO).  But the maps are a neutral decision, IMO. Color or BW are fine with me.  But the rest of the magazine doesn't need it - I don't pick up Module X from Company Y and expect a full-color interior.  This alone will drop costs immensely.
> *




Great suggestions! But the one about color, I must contend. A black&white Dungeon would most certainly die on the newsstand, in a world where color is king.

For most magazine buyers (and gamers) color is perceived as an indication of quality, and even though Dungeon is not a magazine to you, it is to the channel where it is distirbuted, and to the customers that pick it up at those channels.

And I think moving to B&W interrior would kill Dungeon as a magazine. As if it aint a magazine, it might lose the distribution channel, and therefore a lot of sales.

At least that's what I think would happen, with nothing but experience from similar experiments in Sweden in the rpg area and in comics.

My suggestion is to lose the inserts/pullouts. That would save some money, and I would not miss them one bit.

Cheers!

M.


----------



## Ravellion (May 31, 2003)

I love Dungeon and find Polyhedron amusing, but altogether usless. I don't buy a magazine to finance a d20 publicity stunt. Some games are interesting though, and might give them a one shot. The disillusionment that Issue #99 brought upon me ("I only get this _one_ adventure, which is basically 4 critical threats patched together.") made Dungeon from a "The new Dungeon is here, let's get that!", to "The new Dungeon is here... what is in it _exactly_?".

This is most likely going to sell them a few less magazines. I thought about subscribing but I move around a lot and the problems with European subscribers in the past make me weary.

Besides, the cost of the Magazine is for me something like $10-11 USD. I can easily get a published adventure for that, without adverts cutting the adventure up and usually slightly more pages as well (compared to issue 99)... The paper and printing quality can be nice (I like maps and illustrations to my adventures), but if there is only one adventure in Dungeon which is less than 32 pages... you have lost a sale... the value for money is jsut not there unless the polyhedron side is very appealing to me.

I also don't understand the mechanics of the subscriber bonus adventure. It takes time and money to get the adventures up to standard, and then you don't give it to a large part of your buying public! What a waste of hard work for what is basically meant as something to make subscribers feel better! You make subscribers feel better by giving them a good magazine, and perhaps a promotional freebie every now and then. If this is a permanent thing (1 adventure every odd numbered issue, 2 if you subscribe), with the motivation to make me subscribe, it has failed. Instead it makes me antagonistic.

Johnny Wilson seems to be a very capable financial manager, with a good sense of business economics and a heart for the magazines. However, he seems to be lacking in the marketing department, and should probably get someone else to do the PR as well, as his writing style is considered to be offensive by many, including me... even though I know (or assume at least) he doesn't mean to offend.

I'll surely buy Issue 100 as it arrives here, but 101 will be given a miss if it is one adventure only.

Rav


----------



## Ghostwind (May 31, 2003)

Something I don't believe anyone has addressed is the fact that those complaining here may very well be in the minority of the big picture, which is something we will never know for sure. The fact of the matter is that internet-based comments or reviews have been statistically shown to have no effect or very little effect on overall sales. It would take something on a bigger scale (such as a massive letter campaign) to cause a shift in policy. 

Paizo clearly has a business plan concerning Dungeon and whether that plan is successful remains to be seen. From the sounds of Mr. Wilson's post, the business viability of Dungeon may very well be in question. While I do not have access to subscription numbers, it sounds like Dragon is clearly an overwhelming leader in subscriptions and that Paizo may very well be looking at discontinuing Dungeon to use that money towards Dragon and its operations. From a business standpoint, this makes good economic sense. If you are loosing money, cut your losses and focus on the one that is making money.

I, personally, get limited use out of Dungeon. Due to limited playing time, it typically gets scanned and thrown on the shelf to be mined for ideas at a later date when I might get more time to play. Truth be told, if it was gone, I wouldn't miss it. There are plenty of other resources at my command, including my own skills.

Perhaps instead of being extremely critical of either Dungeon or Polyhedron, one should consider what it would be like if both magazines were merged with Dragon. Consider the idea of having two or three adventures included in every issue of Dragon with the typical Polyhedron content appearing every three months. Increase the page count size of Dragon, raise the price a bit to allow for the increased printing costs, go back to black & white printing rather than full color and suddenly you've got the best of everything rolled into one magazine. Economically, this may be a direction that Paizo should consider in an effort to calm the masses and find a compromise that works (mostly) everyone.


----------



## Magestrike (May 31, 2003)

*Agree with Sigil...yet again*

I always seem to chime in after Sigil and agree with what he has to say.  But then again, when he has good ideas, I just have to.  

A friend of mine the other day before our regular D&D session said he picked up the latest issue of Dungeon magazine, because he hadnt bought one in a while.  After reading through it, he didnt think very highly of it to say the least.  The biggest issue he had with it goes along with something that Sigil said, and I think honestly is a huge issue.  Why is it color in the first place?

Like my friend said, "back in the day" Dungeon was B&W, fairly thick, and contained lots and lots of really great stuff that could be used as is, or tweaked or just plain gutted and used by DMs everywhere.  It was easy to make notes in, either directly in the adventures or in the margins, because of the paper it was printed on.  There wasnt a lot of flash and glitz, but there didnt need to be.  It was purely a venue for DMs to grab great adventures or ideas from, at an affordable price.  Why exactly did it ever change from that format?

I dunno..maybe I and my friends are just jaded or mixed up or something.  But it seems to me that if you are going to publish a magazine thats primary goal is to provide ideas and adventures to DMs and players, shouldnt this be done in such a way that it is actually able to be used by those players and DMs, and include the most "bang for the buck".  It just seems that it has gotten away from the core mission it has always had.

Just my two cents though, for what its worth.

Thank you.

Mage


----------



## Artimoff (May 31, 2003)

*Cancel the damned thing and add 20 pages to each Dragon. Put the damn adventures in there.*







P.S. I subscribe to both and *Hate *  Poly so much I will not re-up my subscription if it's still in the mag.


----------



## Sholari (May 31, 2003)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> *The fact of the matter is that internet-based comments or reviews have been statistically shown to have no effect or very little effect on overall sales.  *




Who really knows whether the disappointed Dungeon customers on this website form a representative sample of the Dungeon subscriber base?  However, there is always the old adage that for every customer that takes the time to complain there are seven more than customers that walk away silent, and I've seen a lot of people that aren't very pleased with the direction Dungeon has been going in.

At the very least they probably should do a little market research to see what the consumer base really does want out of a Dungeon magazine.  My guess is there are two very disparate groups of consumers (pro-Dungeon vs. pro-Poly) that a being forced together with some subset (maybe 30%) that finds value in both magazines.  They aren't going to know this until they find out a little more about their consumers through more extensive research.

Assuming that Dungeon magazine is a type of product the ACE matrix is a useful tool for unlocking the full spectrum of relevant product attributes. It can be purchased here on the Internet...

http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=96305

Once they have broken down the product into relevant product attributes, they should use a statistical technique known as conjoint analysis to evaluate which product features are more important to their consumers and which product features are less important.  Conjoint evaluates what tradeoffs consumers make between product attributes and boils product features down to rating points that can be compared to each other.  In other words, it might help to determine whether full color is more important to magazine purchaser than quantity and quality of content.  It can also help with pricing, determinging price sensitivity, and determining properly categorizing customers.  They can probably find some PhD student good enough in statistics who could volunteer to help them out with this.  An overview of conjoint analysis can be found here...

http://www.surveysite.com/newsite/docs/conjoint-tutor.html

Anyway, those are my two cents.  I hope at the very least this might help a little to make better business decisions.


----------



## NPC (May 31, 2003)

After hearing that _Dungeon_ might not be viable, I'll say that I'd gladly pay more for Dungeon/Poly, probably upwards of a buck or two per issue.

I also like the idea of publishing _Dungeon_ on the web in PDF format.  That would cut costs dramatically.


----------



## coyote6 (May 31, 2003)

Publishing Dungeon on the web would cut printing costs, but it would also likely kill advertising revenue. Companies aren't going to pay as much to advertise in a PDF magazine as a print mag. It would also force a reduction in price (I certainly wouldn't pay the current rate for a PDF magazine). Less income would mean less money to pay contributors, which would in turn mean lower quality, which would lead to less sales (which also would mean even less advertising money, if any).  

I suspect it would be non-viable; at best, Dungeon would survive as an amateur magazine, not unlike the many that already exist (which, IME&O, rarely manage to be as good as a fair issue of Dungeon). 

Some random musings:

- Multiple people have suggested splitting Dungeon and Poly, even after Johnny Wilson explained why that isn't feasible. Why is that?

- From what publishers have said, Art Counts when it comes to sales, so there are undoubtably people that would drop Dungeon if it went back to B&W. I don't know how big a percentage of sales go through bookstores & the like, but it may be that going B&W would lead to those sales disappearing (because the stores or their distributors wouldn't pick up the mag at all). So that might not save that much money, overall.

- Historically, as I understand it, adventures don't make a lot of money, at least not as much as sourcebooks. The most obvious reason for this is simple numbers: adventures are bought & used by GMs, and there are fewer GMs than there are players. D&D 3e presumes 1 GM for four players; that means that the potential audience for any one adventure is 1/5th the size of the pool that might buy a new sourcebook or core rule book. 

The same factor applies to Dungeon. Unfortunately, the set of possible buyers may be too small for an adventure magazine to survive on. 

- Combining Dungeon & Dragon -- well, that might make a bit more sense, but it would engender at least as much bitching as the current setup. People who don't like Dragon would complain about having Dragon in their Dungeon; people who don't like Dungeon would complain about the Dungeon in their Dragon; and people who like both would still complain, because there would be less Dragon than before, and probably not as much Dungeon, either. (And wait 'til the theme issues include theme adventures. Verily, the wailing will be heard on Olympus. )

D20 Weekly just closed up shop; it may be that Dungeon (and Dragon) may inevitably share the same fate.


----------



## NPC (May 31, 2003)

Yeah, you make some great points.  I wonder how much of _Dungeon's_ revenue comes from advertising?  Could they afford to take the advertising hit if they reduced their printing costs significantly?

If they did go the web/PDF route, then they might gain some advertising revenue from website ad space, though not too much I would imagine.

Then you have the whole problem of printing PDF's.  That can get expensive if you want to print in color.

I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## Maggan (May 31, 2003)

*Color vs B&W*

A couple of things...

1. Dropping color would most certainly alienate companies wanting to place ads in Dungeon/Poly. Drop the color, and you also drop all ads for computer games and such. They aren't likely to produce separate B&W ads just for Dungeon.

2. I think many want to separate Dungeon and Poly, just to feel that they have one magazine to focus on. Even though it might not be a viable business proposition, I would like them to be separate magazines, because... well, because I would like them to. i'd probably buy both, but then it would be my own choice. That's it, I think, at least for me.

3. Combining Dragon, Dungeon and Poly and creating a powerhouse RPG mag, probably wouldn't work. The success of Dragon is it's focus on D&D, and extensions to D&D. And the fact that most of it is a good read for players and DMs. And adding Dungeon content to Dragon would not make Dungeon readers happy, because then they would probably only get the one adventure every month, at the same time as Dragon readers would be unhappy because there would be 20 pages they couldn't read. And adding Poly content would make Dragon readers unhappy because it aint D&D. So we're not likely to see a combination of Dragon/Dungeon/Poly that will solve the preceived problems adressed in this thread. Although they might pull it off if they made Dungeon into a bimonthly feature in Dragon, and Poly into a quarterly bonus magazine. 

4. Business analysis. Paizo has access to the best tool to analyze the success of the changes made: sales data. This way, they can see if the changes they make are bad or not, and if they are having the desired effect. I would gladly give someones elses left arm to see that data, and I hope Paizo puts it to good use.

5. In six months we will know who was right. Because then we will see if this really is the end for Dungeon. And then the critics can post links to their posts saying "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!". If the end for Dungeon is not here in six months, this was just another of many "this is the end for X" threads, and probably not the last. And then we can start arguing about why Dungeon died, or as it may be, why it didn't die.

Cheers!

M.


----------



## Beazel (May 31, 2003)

*2 cents*

I have been a subscriber since Dragon #60. This puts me before the time of Dungeon, so I have gotten that since #1.

I consider the two issues of Dungeon I get now across any two months to be the equivalent of one "old issue" of Dungeon since that's how often I used to get it.

#82 - 91 pages (this is MY page count, which stops at the last page of the last of the adventure content) with 4 adventures, 3 of which were top notch

#83 - 94 pages with 5 adventures, only 4 were useful

#84 - 144 pages with 5 adventures, all superb, especially The Harowing (one of the best Dungeon adventures of all time), and Demonclaw, and The Dying of Light -- overall maybe the best Dungeon ever RE: content quality

#85 - 95 pages with 3 adv (2 of them really good) and 1 side trek

#86 - 111 pages with 4 worthless adv; page count jump, quality DIP!

#87 - 134 pages with 5 adv, including the superb adv Glacier Season; plus a CD of 2 adv (albeit not so good)

#88 - 107 pages with 4 adv, 2 of them pretty good

#89 - 104 pages with 5 adv including the great Headless

#90 - my issue is suddenly bulky, for Poly is on the scene. I don't like Poly. It's worthless. I have never gotten anything useful from it. It wastes my time. The Dungeon side is all I care about, and that has 104 pages with 4 imaginative adv and 1 crit threat. The inclusion of Poly was overall not an issue. (heh pun)

#91 - 109 pages with 4 adv (including the always lovable Challenge of Champions), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks. It was pretty meaty, though overall not the best material I have seen.

#92 - 106 pages with 3 adv (including the great Razing of Redshore, and Interlopers of Ruun-Khazai), plus 1 crit threat and 1 side trek

#93 - 100 pages with 3 adv (including the good Storm Lord's Keep), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek

#92  - 92 pages with 4 adv (one really good), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek; page count dip again -- seems like the days of #86-#93 are over; we are back to pre-#86 counts

#95 - 97 pages with 3 adv (including the not-so-mature-it-needed-to-be-sealed Porphyry House Horror), 2 crit threats, and 1 side trek

#96 - 88 pages (huh?) with 3 lame adventures, 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; what happened to my Dungeon? Where was the quality... the pages...? This is THREE lame issue in a row; six months of dribble.

#97 - 115 pages with 3 adv (including the start of Shackled City - GREAT IDEA), 1 crit threat, and 1 side trek; ok, this was a better 2 months than last issue

And now we must combine issue to truly compare them. I would not mind receiving 1/2 the content twice as often.

#98/99 - 128 pages with 3 adv (including Shackled City #2), 2 crit threats, and 2 side treks

The first pair don't seem so bad, and that's all we have to go on. #100 is a special case, not to be repeated any time soon. I'll skip comparisons to that one.

In summary, I think it's possible I am receiving 1/2 the content of the previous year but twice as often, so I am ok with my Dungeon subscription for now. Then again, I wish it were the quality and quantity of the #84 and #87 days, with 5 imaginative adventures each. I have not been affected by any price changes, and you have to expect inflation over time anyway. I wish Poly were killed though if that would lower the price. As I said, Poly's worthless.

So... here is what you do...

*Kill Poly.
*Lower the price.
*Set the page count (by MY standards, stated above) to 60-ish per issue
*Publish 2 adventures per issue.
*Publish one of the following per issue:
...*1 side trek and 1 crit threat
...*2 critical threats
*1 map of mystery.
*Keep the full-page artwork that faces each adventure. Art is often as good as content to me.
*Include "aids" more often then you do now (I scan them and print them with a color printer, as more and more readers/DMs probably do these days)

--Bob


----------



## baseballfury (May 31, 2003)

I like Dungeon/Poly the way it is. I like the fact that it's color, I love the mini games, and I would be very disappointed if Poly was killed. 

I don't feel that I absolutely must use everything in the magazine or it's "useless." Will I run Spelljammer from that mini game? No, probably not, but it was a good read and I might pull some ideas out of it. Same goes for Dungeon. I mean really, how many of you guys bitching about Poly run every single adventure in Dungeon?


----------



## pogre (Jun 1, 2003)

I wish _Dungeon_ was viable just as a D&D adventure magazine, but clearly it is not. A magazine useful only to DMs is going to be tough to sell on the scale of _Dragon_.

If Poly saves _Dungeon_ then old timers like me can just treat it as a big advertisement to generate more revenue.

There are limits to what I will suffer to get a few good adventures out of _Dungeon_, but I can honestly say Paizo is no where near it.

It does help when they explain their situation. They don't have to do that, and I appreciate it.

It seems like D&D itself is losing some steam - it's only natural secondary products like _Dungeon_ would suffer some as well. I hope 3.5 reinvigorates the whole scene.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 1, 2003)

Ghostwind said:
			
		

> * Consider the idea of having two or three adventures included in every issue of Dragon with the typical Polyhedron content appearing every three months. Increase the page count size of Dragon, raise the price a bit to allow for the increased printing costs, go back to black & white printing rather than full color and suddenly you've got the best of everything rolled into one magazine. Economically, this may be a direction that Paizo should consider in an effort to calm the masses and find a compromise that works (mostly) everyone. *




Yes, that'd stop me getting Dragon, no doubt.

I buy Dungeon magazine because it gives me adventures. In the past year, I've used several adventures and sidetreks from its pages, and have been very happy with it.

If those adventures are presented in a magazine my players will buy, then they are of no use to me.

Cheers!


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 1, 2003)

*Dungeon/Polyhedron*

Not really sure how I should go about this if I want to preserve my skin, and what little reputation I may enjoy.

I think that you might be able to safely put me into the pile marked "shallow" or at least "middle-ground". I really enjoy the more aesthetic side of the magazine, and some issues I have bought just for this reason (the Harrowing, my first 3e Dungeon was one of these, but I really lucked out that it was great on contect too). 
I might (and probably am) be blowing smoke here, but it seems that the problem with Dungeon/Polyhedron is that it is *WARNING: Analogy Alert!* something like the couple in a movie that wants to get a divorce. Both people/magazines want something different, and they are stuck living under a single roof/publication. I *think* that what we need is to do something like really make the two magazines into a single couple. So here is what I think. Scrap the whole Dungeon/Polyhedron name, and just go with Dungeon. Have 2 solid adventures and possibly a side-trek or similiar feature per issue. Instead of having a mini-setting in every issue, make it into a Campaign Path type thing (lame name I know, but we all recognize the idea), in which you have a build up of 2-3 issues detailing a setting, and then for the finale you replace the setting material with an adventure for that setting. 
Suddenly I am willing to admit to myself that I am pandering pretty much totally to the Dungeon side of this argument, but since the mini-setting is like half of Polyhedron, is anything else really all that more important?
Anyway, scrap the cartoons, and I could care less about most of the other Poly stuff, though if the features were to pop up once in a while, rather than every issue, it might not be so bad. 
As I was saying before, I certainly have a shallow side when it comes to the glamour side of the magazine... *but* while I could live with going back to black and white, the artwork would need to be just as good as it is now. Lots of definition. As for the glossy paper... unless it makes some sort of difference as to how good the artwork is, I could live without it, *sniff*. I do think the artwork would have to be consistently top notch though for the appeal to still hold. 
Anyway, please don't hate me because I am stupid (well, inarticulate and inobservant anyway, hehehe... ). 

-Kaodi


----------



## buzz (Jun 1, 2003)

*Thumbs up for Dungeon*

For the record, I'd like to state that I thnk _Dungeon/Polyhedron_ is totally worth it, and that _Hijinx_ was one of the most creative and enjoyable-to-read minigames I've seen in Poly for a long time. As a musician who used to play clubs pretty regularly, they nailed a lot of aspects of being in a band... not to mention being in an animated cartoon. 

(Honestly, I'm probably one of the few people who looks forward to the Poly side more than the Dungeon side.)


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 1, 2003)

I just wanted to chime in to say that I'm completely happy with the direction the magazines have taken. I like getting them monthly, and I think the new Adventure Path series is great. _Polyhedron_ is better than ever, since I still remember back when it was full of RPGA material, and now it has really inspired mini-games.

I think Paizo has done a really good job, and they deserve praise for making sure the magazines stay with us. I'm a subscriber, and I plan to remain one indefinately. I have no complaints, and no suggestions, because to me, things are going quite well, and thats enough for me.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 1, 2003)

I really see little reason for the color/glossy pages.  Obviously ads will be less important if the color and quality paper is done away with. (not to say there should be no ads, but less ads for a less-expensive to make product is okay).

I liked Poly when it was an RPGA mouthpiece/Dragon's little brother.  I don't have much use for it anymore.  d20 mini-games might have their place, but it's not in Dungeon.  Plus, with Hijinx, we can see the idea barrel runing low, so changing course on the Poly side is about due.

So, what I'd like to see done is: keep it monthly, get rid of the color/glossy pages, keep Poly, but turn it into what it was in #100; RPGA stuff and material relevant to the Dungeon side, and make the price whatever is needed to keep it afloat.  If it provides a couple adventures per month plus the side treks, crit threats, and maps of mystery, people will buy it.  In other words, take the magazine back from aestheitically pleasing to utilitarian.  I cherish my old 1E/2E Dungeons, they're the best part of my gaming collection.


----------



## TeaBee (Jun 1, 2003)

I haven't read this whole thread, I just saw that it has a bunch of people bashing Dungeon/Poly, and felt like posting.

I've been a subscriber to Dungeon (and then Poly) and Dragon since about 6 months or so into 3rd edition. I plan to renew both subscriptions when they run out.

Dungeon: I like the new circle thingies that say Forgotten Realms/Any Setting, Mid Level/Low Level, Dungeon/Wilderness. I like the Critical Threats and the new Agents & Allies features as well. I love the counters. 

Poly: I love all the mini-games. I love the Living Greyhawk Journal. I love the Star Wars content. I liked seeing Call of Cthulu content. I hate not having the flip Poly cover, as a subscriber (If I had to choose one, I'd want the Poly Cover). I hate that the mini-games never have character sheets, when they ALWAYS should.

Dragon: I don't like that I can't think of any parts of a Dragon issue I look forward to (past ones were Class Acts and LGJ). I like setting specific articles like the recent Cormyr prestige classes (if they have a Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or other specific setting slant, I find an article much more useful than a genric one. Generic is what I can get from other d20 companies, and often do). I like that some issues have had counters, though I prefer the cardboard pullouts of Dungeon to them being on a normal page or a poster.  

Miscelanious: I don't like that my last issues of Dragon and Dungeon/Poly came to me very damaged (not anything to do with Paizo, I guess) and had to be replaced. I don't like that there aren't message boards on the Paizo website. I like the web enhancements (though I'd like to see more Poly ones).

Personally, if I was going to cancel one of the three mags, it would be Dragon.  I mean, a year from now what good are those 3.5 preview articles?  One thing I could think of adding that would interest me is fiction that includes relevant "crunchy bits" at the end, like Star Wars Gamer did. Just some NPC stats would greatly increase the usefulness of the fiction to me. Also, fiction set in WotC properties would be prefered (Forgotten Realms, Greyhwak, Ravenloft, DragonLance, etc.). What else would I do to make me enjoy Dragon? I don't know, and I guess it dosen't matter because it sells well.

My biggest complaint about Polyhedron is that I can't get enough of it. I wish there was LGJ and SW in each issue.  

I absolutely love Poly. That's why I don't post much on the subject. Content people don't feel the need to tell others how content they are. I want Paizo to know that these are coments from someone who supports them by subscribing, not someone who used to buy issues off the news stands. 

I think there's more people out there who like Poly, like me, they just aren't as vocal as the "rip-Poly-out-and-burn-it" people. 

As a whole, Dungeon has only gotten better. The Poly "half" is great, and the Dungeon side has only improved with things like Critical Threats. What a great magazine!


----------



## KenM (Jun 1, 2003)

I have been picking up Dungeon for awhile at my FLGS. I don't like the fact that Pazio is starting to do "subsriber only" adventures. I feel I'm not getting a full magaizne when they do that, and I can't support my FLGS if I subscribe.  I hate the fact that Poly. is included. The statement from the person from Pazio said that He does not know what one to kill, well Poly is just an "add on" IMO. Bring back the old Dungeon, thats what people want. Make Poly an e-zine or something like that.


----------



## RichGreen (Jun 1, 2003)

*my views*

Hi,

I've been buying Dungeon on and off since issue 4, and have bought every 3e issue. When I first heard Poly was being added to Dungeon, I wasn't exactly thrilled. However,  nine or so issues on, I've liked a lot of it and think it deserves to stay. Note that although I've played many different RPGs over the 23 years I've been gaming, I've played D&D almost exclusively since 3e. 

The Good Stuff 

- News, interviews & reviews of d20 products and companies.
- Shadow Chasers, Pulp Heroes, Spelljammer (excellent!), Thunderball Rally & Hijinx mini-games. I haven't played any of them, but enjoyed reading them.
- Delta Green adventure
- Improved Initiative - d20 content from d20 publishers such as FFG. More of this would be good!
- Global Positioning Maps
- Living Greyhawk Journal -- The Bright Desert article was superb and I would like to see the rest of Oerth covered in similar articles seeing as Greyhawk fans are never going to get any further support from WotC.

The Dodgy Stuff

- Godlike -- OK, but took up four valuable pages.
- Downer, Bolt & Quiver -- not funny. Downer also takes up 2 or 3 pages that could be used for something else.

The Dungeon content since 3e has been great -- some excellent adventures (Headless, Razing of Redshore, Storm Giant's Keep, the Adventure Path series), Critical Threats, nice colour maps, the counters etc.

However, since the magazine has gone monthly, I've been somewhat shocked (like a lot of others) by the drop in page count for Dungeon and the number of adventures, the main reason I buy the magazine.  I'm not a subscriber any more (after the debacle surrounding UK subscriptions) so don't get the bonus subscriber adventure. I was pretty shocked that issue 99 had only one adventure in it!

My suggestions:

1. Get rid of Downer & use the pages for something else (see Good Stuff above)

2. Put the long adventures in the "Dungeon month" when there is no mini-game  in Poly. Run shorter adventures in the "Poly month". There should be a minimum of three adventures per issue. 

3. Keep Critical Threats and Maps of Mystery to one of each max in Poly month to make room for more adventures. Run two of these in the Dungeon month.

4. Continue with Living Greyhawk articles like Zeif (in the stand alone LGG) and The Bright Desert.

5. Consider doing some more old D&D settings as minigames -- how about Al-Qadim/Arabian Adventures or Dark Sun? 

6. Post some of the maps from the adventures on the website as WotC did. Put a password in the magazine if you want to restrict this to Dungeon buyers. 

7. Do the same with the counters.

8. Conduct a reader survey!

Overall, I think the Paizo team are doing a good job and have improved the magazine. I look forward to getting each issue -- the stuff above would help
improve the situation since the magazine went monthly.

Cheers


Richard


----------



## KenM (Jun 1, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *As a subscriber, I'm immesely amused that you're irritated.
> 
> Not only do I get it cheaper, delivered to my door, but I get more stuff too!  *




  Yes and by subscribing, your FLGS suffers. I don't like "subscriber only" content either.


----------



## Wasteland Knight (Jun 1, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Seriously, I think they should cut down one or two of the mini-games and spend those issues supporting previous ones - either with adventures or other material. That way the games aren't just orphans, doomed to live out their waning lives in obscurity.
> *




I agree 100% with King Stannis on this point.  Maybe make the follow on part additional material and then a nice starting adventure with lots of room for expansion into a campaign.


----------



## Wasteland Knight (Jun 1, 2003)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *Seriously, I think they should cut down one or two of the mini-games and spend those issues supporting previous ones - either with adventures or other material. That way the games aren't just orphans, doomed to live out their waning lives in obscurity.
> *




I agree 100% with King Stannis on this point.  Maybe make the follow on part additional material and then a nice starting adventure with lots of room for expansion into a campaign.


----------



## Randeth (Jun 1, 2003)

I have to drop a quick comment here in support of the new format. I like both Dungeon and Poly now. My favorite parts are the d20 Mini-Games but I also get plenty of use from the adventures. I would much rather see it continue in it's current state than see one or the other disappear. Keep up the good work Paizo. Not everyone hates the new direction.


----------



## Randeth (Jun 1, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Add me to the list of slightly irritated people on that matter... *




And me as well. I try very hard to support my local game store instead of buying a subscription. Now there is some Dungeon content I can't buy even though I want to. Bad move Paizo. I like the new format but don't leave non-subscribers out any more.


----------



## Randeth (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: my views*



			
				RichGreen said:
			
		

> *Hi,
> 
> The Dodgy Stuff
> 
> ...




I have to agree strongly here. I have never really liked cartoons (or fiction) in Dungeon (or Dragon). With Dungeon in such a tight spot I definitely think they should go away to help make space for more game-able content.


----------



## ThomasBJJ (Jun 1, 2003)

My suggestions:

- For the newsstand (non-subscription issues), get rid of the Polyhedron flip side cover. Sell that as ad space. Save the money that would have been spent on the cover artwork.
- If posters and counters cost alot of extra money, limit them to every-other month, or even 4 times a year (or less if neccessary).

A typical year of Dungeon/Polyhedron:

Dungeon Magazine/ Polyhedron
116 pages (same as issue #99)
$6.99

SCHEDULE:
Jan  
Feb Poly web-enhancement
Mar
Apr Poly Mini-game / Dungeon web-enhancement
May
Jun Poly web-enhancement
Jul
Aug Poly Mini-game / Dungeon web-enhancement
Sep
Oct Poly web-enhancement
Nov
Dec Poly Mini-game / Dungeon web-enhancement

--Dungeon - Regular Features = Editorial, Adventures, Side Trecks, Critical Threats, Maps of Mystery, Agents & Allies.
[*Note: limit "Prison Mail" to 1 page, get rid of it altogether, or have it be a monthly website-only feature. Limit the "Previews" section to a side-bar on the editorial page.]

--Polyhedron - Regular Features =  Living Greyhawk, D20 news, Release Roundup [*this could be relegated to a monthly web-based article, or eliminated altogether], one page of comics ("Downer"), one or two short articles (covering D20 Modern, or a previous Mini-game). 

Page Breakdown: Usually Dungeon= 106 pgs. / Poly 10 pgs.
Page counts could vary for Polyhedron from issue to issue from 1 to 5 pages. Dungeon should never drop below 100 pgs. per issue except on the Apr, Aug, Dec "Mini-game" issues.


JANUARY - 116 Pages
--Dungeon(106 pages) Regular Features.  
--Polyhedron (10 pages) Regular Features.

FEBRUARY - 116 Pages 
--Dungeon (103 pages) Regular Features. 
--Polyhedron (13 pages) Regular Features. [Bonus Web-enhancement for a previous Mini-game on website]

MARCH - 116 Pages 
--Dungeon (106 pages) Regular Features. 
--Polyhedron (10 pages) Regular Features.

APRIL - 116 Pages 
--Dungeon (84 pages) Regular Features. [BONUS Dungeon Adventure available for download on website]  
--Polyhedron (32 pages) Mini Game, some regular features in abreviated form (space permitting). 

MAY - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (106 pages) Regular Features.
--Polyhedron (10 pages) Regular Features.

JUNE - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (103 pages) Regular Features.
--Polyhedron (13 pages) Regular Features. [BONUS web-enhancement for a previous Mini-Game on website]

JULY - 116 Pages
--Dungeon  (106 pages) Regular Features. 
--Polyhedron (10 pages) Regular Features.

AUG - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (84 pages) Regular Features. [BONUS Dungeon Adventure available on website].
--Polyhedron (32 pages) Mini-Game, some regular features in abreviated form (space permitting)

SEPTEMBER - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (106 pages) Regular Features.
--Polyhedron (10 pages) Regular Features.

OCTOBER - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (103 pages) Regular Features.
--Polyhedron (13 pages) Regular Features. [Bouns web-enhancement for a previous Mini-game on webite]

 NOVEMBER - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (106 pages) Regular Features.
--Polyhedron (103 pages) Regular Features.

DECEMBER - 116 Pages
--Dungeon (84 pages) Regular Features. [Bonus Dungeon Adventure available on website]
--Polyhedron (32 pages)  Mini-game, some regular features in abreviated form (space permitting)

 I believe that this would please the majority of readers. IMO, most want more Dungeon & less Poly.  
 The Polyhedron fans would still get 3 full Mini-Games a year, 3 web-enhancements for the Mini-games, and support articles thru the year.
 The Dungeon fans would get an acceptible majority of the content almost every issue, and a free web-enhancement adventure on each of the three months where Polyhedron jumps to 32 pages.
 The web-enhancement adventures could later be published in a Dungeon Annual (free to subscribers), or a select few could be put into Dragon Magazine. (Just reduce the "Scale Mail", "Previews", and do without the fiction for that issue, there should be plenty of room.) It would give Dragon readers who dont buy Dungeon a chance to see what they are missing, and Dungeon readers a chance to get a nice print copy of the adventure if they so choose.

 I look at Dungeon mag & Dragon mag both as "niche" magazines, and I expect to pay a little higher price for them because they do not appeal to the masses. Dungeon more so than Dragon. I think $6.99 is a good price. $7.99 may be just a little too much for many people. 
 Maybe offer a REALLY good subscription deal for people who subscribe to BOTH Dungeon and Dragon mags. Altrnately, offer some 6 issue subscriptions to Dungeon, the same way you did for Dragon, for people who want to test it out.

Thomas


----------



## Blister (Jun 2, 2003)

*I'll be damned*

I'll be damned.  That sounds like . . . . .a compromise.  Increase Dungeon to something even resembling what it was with 4-5 adventures per issue?  Leave in Poly, whatever, don't care.  Poly is o.k., but not really interested in it.  I'll live with it.  

_________________________________________
--Dungeon - Regular Features = Editorial, Adventures, Side Trecks, Critical Threats, Maps of Mystery, Agents & Allies.
______________________________________________

I could really do without Critical Threats and Agents and Allies.  To me it's just so much slop and takes room away from adventures.  Stuff like that is in Dragon, not Dungeon.



______________________________________________
The Dungeon fans would get an acceptible majority of the content almost every issue, and a free web-enhancement adventure on each of the three months where Polyhedron jumps to 32 pages.
The web-enhancement adventures could later be published in a Dungeon Annual (free to subscribers), or a select few could be put into Dragon Magazine. 
_____________________________________________

Do this and you can have my money back.


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 2, 2003)

*Re*

Is Johnny Wilson serious?

_Dungeon_ magazine doesn't stand on its own two feet? I love this magazine. I don't even give _Polyhedron_ a second look. I just grumble and ignore the magazine. I didn't think many people at all played those stupid mini-games or cared about anything other than the adventures.

I find it hard to believe that _Dungeon_ doesn't sell much better than _Polyhedron_. I really do. I would love to hear the numbers on sales for both magazines. I was always of the opinion that they added _Polyhedron_ to _Dungeon_ to save the magazine from cancellation because someone at the publishers liked it.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jun 2, 2003)

Folks,

We at Paizo are reading this thread with great interest, and are very interested in coming up with some kind of solution that pleases the greatest number of people. Despite Johnny's comment regarding waiting until Gen Con to get feedback, Dungeon Editor Chris Thomasson and I are reading this thread every day, and undoubtedly some of the things said here will work their way into our thinking for the magazine's immediate future.

So don't worry about Paizo catering only to the "convention elite," or whatever the charge was back on page 3. Johnny's a publisher, and has all sorts of publisher tasks to keep him busy until the summer. Chris and I are the ones who make the magazine happen, and we're definitely listening.

Well, ok, I admit that I'm no longer listening to posts that start "flush Polyhedron down the toilet" or "I hate the worthless Polyhedron," but I'm sure Chris has got those posts covered, and I'd like to think I've absorbed the gist of those opinions.

In the interest of keeping this thread as constructive as possible, I'd like to mention a number of things that people may or may not know, to give you some idea of the limitations we're under and what we can do to make sure that both Dungeon and Polyhedron survive for a long time to come.

1) "Make it black and white!" This is _not_ going to happen, as much as it would please many of our readers. We understand why some of you would prefer uncoated paper (for easy margin scribbling) and black and white maps (for easy copying). But it's not going to happen for two reasons. Color interiors make for greater newsstand "lift," which is to say color gets us more impulse buys at the newsstand--buys that we need in order for the magazine to be successful. Also, as someone noted earlier in this thread, advertisers won't give the time of day to a black and white magazine. But why do we want ads in our magazine? Isn't that part of the problem, you say?

2) "Lower ad pages." I get a sense, from reading this thread, that some of you look at ad pages as an intrusion on your gaming "product," and that the magazine would be better off without them. While I agree with you from an asthetic point of view, Dungeon/Polyhedron (like nearly all magazines) _needs_ ads to survive. Generally, the fewer ads a magazine has, the less healthy it is. Take a look at InStyle or Maxim. Those magazines are LOADED with ads (and much more lucrative ads than the likes we get), and actually have fewer content pages than ad pages. That's actually quite standard in the magazine industry.

Now, I'm not saying that we want the magazines to be so dominated by ads that the ads choke out the content, but we would be very happy with more ads in the magazine, because it would mean the company (and hence the magazines we publish) are healthy and strong. When that happens, we can pay our writers and artists better, can get more staffers to produce more pages, etc., etc., etc. Our current assumption accounts for about 15 pages of ads per issue. If we get more than that, we often will add pages to the magazine, so those pages don't often crowd out "content," so to speak.

3) "Put Poly on the Web!" While the Internet is a great tool, it's not yet a viable publishing venue for a magazine of our type. This is not going to happen. If Poly gets pulled from Dungeon, it will be to give it its own magazine or to kill it.

Lastly, it's been said numerous times, but it must be said again. The reason WotC merged Dungeon and Polyhedron was that _neither_ magazine was particularly healthy, and our publisher (Johnny Wilson) believed that by combining the magazines, both together would appeal to a wider audience than either alone. So "killing" Poly or Dungeon isn't a great answer, because we'd be cutting loose a big audience either way. The magazines' numbers improved when we combined them, and got better when we raised the price to $7.99 a few months ago.

Paizo's managment decided to speed up the magazine's production in order to bring in a more constant flow of revenue. In the bizarre world of magazine distrubution, it's better to be a monthly than a bimonthly publisher, because it's easier to cover distribution costs with the former than with the latter. 

From my personal point of view, it appears as though the move to a monthly magazine may have been a mistake, especially when the Poly content outpaces the Dungeon content and especially when the Dungeon side only has one adventure. I'm not yet sure how we go about "fixing" the problem to make long-time Dungeon readers content without utterly shafting Polyhedron fans (and make no mistake, suggestions that Poly becomes a 10-page section or a web enhancement do exactly that), but it's something that'll occupy a large amount of our time over the next few months.

It's my hope that we have some kind of solution by Gen Con, when Johnny throws the question to the audience. Monitoring this thread is a great way to get suggestions that might get us closer to our goal, so I'd like to thank everyone who has posted constructive advice here. We're definitely listening, and we'll be listening in the weeks and months to come.

Thanks,

Erik


----------



## SneakyB (Jun 2, 2003)

Thank You, Erik, for taking the time and responding to our concerns in a clear, concise, and in my mind, a more civil manner and tone than that taken earlier.  

I think that many of us who don't like Poly are not necessarily clamoring for it to go away, but don't want to see content in Dungeon sacrificed for the sake of getting a "balanced" mix.  IMO, the bottom line here is that many of us have relied on Dungeon for a nice mixture of differing adventures.  When the content is cut from typically 3-4 adventures per issue to 1 or 2, we express our dissatisfaction.  To have said dissatisfaction summarily ignored (at least that's how many have taken Johnny's comments) just adds insult to injury.

I'm perfectly fine with a 'flippy' between Dungeon/Poly if that's what has to be done.  What I'm not fine with is paying $7.99 per issue for a magazine that, at most, is going to give me 1-2 adventures with the other 40-60% devoted to content I will never use.  This is not to disparage others who do, merely to point out that many (per what I see as a majority of the posts) see it as I do.

Having climbed on my soapbox about it, I'll say this.  Heed your customers.  Praise upon praise has been heaped upon you for the contents of #100.  If all issues were of like this, I doubt you would hear anywhere near the number of complaints that have been raised so far.  This just proves that Paizo is capable of such great stuff.  

Number 99, however, again IMO, was complete and utter crap.  One adventure (2 for subscribers if you count 16 pages as a decent adventure) is just not worth $7.99 to me.  I had every intention of writing in to the Editor on it, but came across this posting and chose to air my grievances here. 

Keep up the good work, please don't put out content of the caliber of #99, use #100 as a guide to a good mix for your readers.

Once again, my 2cp, which, at the rate I've been tossing them about, is about to break me.

--Dan


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 2, 2003)

Thanks Erik for that great reply. I would like to respond to the three points you made. 

1. B&W vs. Color: While many like the old B&W days and for notation and copying purposes would like to return to that, others like myself were looking at cost savings alternatives. If this won't offset enough for lost sales then its fine with me if you don't do it. 

2. Fewer ads: I can only remember 1 request for fewer ads. While I certainly prefer fewer ads I understand that you need the ads. So as you said if they don't reduce content put in as many as you can sell. If they don't reduce content as far as I am concearned 50%-70% ads is fine with me, just please don't break up individual articles/adventures any more than is Absolutely neccesary. 

3. Reducing Poly: While I am one of those who personaly dosn't care for the current Poly I am not neccesarily opposed to it. As a Dungeon supporter though I don't like it when the magazine is 60% Poly and there is only 1 adventure. While 10 pages may be to small does it realy need 100 every other month combined when it used to have 40. I think part of the Dungeon outrage is that for Dungeon readers all that we got was a price hike while Poly was getting massive more amounts of space. 

My biggest issue with Poly not being useful to me are the mini-games I will NEVER use (Hijinks, cough). The Living Greyhawk Journal I found interesting and useful in Dragon and inclusion of Star Wars, WoT and CoC material could also be fun to read on a regular basis, as they don't get coverage elsewhere. Are there realy enough ideas for 6 mini-games a year though or could we get by with only maybe 2.


----------



## Daeinar (Jun 2, 2003)

Well, now that Erik has made clear that writing something her is not futile...

Over the past few days I have talked to several friends and fellow players about the whole Dragon/Dungeon thing. The conclusion was, so far, that Dungeon has -at least for a majority of the people I talked to, myself included- become less helpful and thus less worth buying.

First of all, I really have to praise the magazine for providing invaluable aid over the close to 3 years spent DMing a 3E campaign.
Many adventures out of Dungeon have actually folded out into a full campaign, and since the player's keep coming back, I guess that speaks for itself.

However, great as Dungeon is, one very important thing is the fact that I always bought Dungeon because of the adventures. Nothing else. I am not in favor of critical threats, as any decent DM can work those out rather quickly, nor am I particularly fond of the new comics (and not even the new standard D&D layout...).
I do not have much use for Poly, but it's a fun read now and then, and I wouldn't mind if it was there, if only it's presence would not substract from the quality of Dungeon.

The Adventure Path certainly was a great idea. The two adventures available are superb, and I started a whole new campaign just to run "Life's Bazaar".

However, that is not going to make me buy each and every issue of Dungeon - something I used to do a while back.

But then I really got something out of it.  I was even close to subscribing (and I am from Europe, if that does say anything), but the drastically reduced amount in quantity kept me from doing so.
Subscribing would perhaps save me 10 bucks a year, but then again, if I don't subscribe, at least I don't have to pay for something I don't want.

And as I pointed out above, I know quite a few people who feel the same.

Daeinar


----------



## Lizard (Jun 2, 2003)

I want to say I *never* bought an issue of Dungeon until Polyhedron was added in, and I still consider the Dungeon half to be "The part of the magazine that was printed upside down and which I don't read." Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I do not like adventures -- I can make up my own.


----------



## rounser (Jun 2, 2003)

Dungeon 100 was probably getting praise because it's all D&D content, and there's synergy between the adventure bits and the non-adventure bits.  

From what I've heard, Dragon is all D&D nowadays - is this correct?  If true, I think that this raises the question, why is it that Dragon gets to be the exclusive D&D magazine and Dungeon doesn't?  Replace half the articles in Dragon with non-D&D d20 material and you'd probably get complaints too...

If Dungeon were to turn into a D&D Adventure/D&D Setting Material magazine (with Living Greyhawk and generic setting material in place of the minigames), I think there'd be a lot less "I'll never use this" thinking.


----------



## uraniumdragon (Jun 3, 2003)

*Probably been said...*

... since I haven't read through all of the thread, this may have been said.

I know for me, the material in the Polyhedron section of the magazine has been a great help in the transfer over to the d20 Modern campaign. The Pulp Heroes was a great start, the few that followed were good teasers.

And now, d20 Modern support is what I want more than anything else from Dungeon. I would have no complaint about losing the Polyhedron section, especially the actual RPGA support of which the Poly was designed to be prior to the combination, before becoming the test bed for d20 Modern.

Turn those Poly pages into d20 Modern scenarios, or at least half of the pages, and I will be glad to pay the price of the magazine.


----------



## uraniumdragon (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: Probably been said...*



			
				uraniumdragon said:
			
		

> *Turn those Poly pages into d20 Modern scenarios, or at least half of the pages, and I will be glad to pay the price of the magazine. *




And I failed to say Thanks for the Global Positioning maps. They rock!


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 3, 2003)

*re*

The reason I don't like _Polyhedron_ is because I only play D&D, so I am only really interested in reading magazines that have D&D applicable content, aka _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.

I refuse to buy a subscription to a magazine that every other month concentrates on content that I will not read or use. I know the other guy who DM's our gaming group decided not to renew his subscription to _Dungeon_ because he doesn't like the addition of _Polyhedron_ either.

Erik,

C'mon now. What were you guys thinking merging magazines with vastly different content aimed at different markets. _Polyhedron_ and _Dungeon_ are not compatible magazines considering their content. If you had mixed _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_, that would have been understandable. The decision seemed very odd and I didn't understand it, still don't. 

I hope Paizo separates the magazine and concentrates on making _Dungeon_ a more applicable magazine. Maybe you guys could include a section on Player tactics when dealing with a dungeon or list of new spells, feats, or prestige classes with applicability for players. I don't know, something that expands the readership.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 3, 2003)

Thanks for posting, Erik.  It's nice to know you're listening to our feedback.

I subscribe to both Dragon and Dungeon.  Dungeon happens to be my favorite magazine of the two -- I'm primarily a DM; I have limited prep time so I like to use lots of premade adventures (I find it's quicker and easier to modify than to do it all from scratch), and I just think adventures happen to be fun to read.  I may not use every adventure in Dungeon immediately, but the potential remains to use it -- unlike most of the Dragon material that I almost never use, though since it has drifted away from product theme issues and gone to campaign components I think the quality of Dragon has improved, but I digress.

I was quite happy with Dungeon as a bimonthly, adventure-only publication.  I'm a straight D&D, plain-Jane FR/Greyhawk fantasy kind of guy.  I hated the last "d20 Annual", so you can imagine my frustration when Poly got combined with Dungeon.  The previous poster hit the nail on the head -- the two magazines seem to fit two mostly different audiences, so it's not surprising that it hasn't been a happy union.  I thought from the beginning that Dragon/Poly and Dungeon/LGJ would have been a more appropriate combo, but I do like the fact that Dragon is a purely D&D magazine -- I don't miss the old days when Dragon had only one or two D&D articles and a lot of coerage of other game systems.

Yes, there is a lot in some of the Poly issues that could be ported -- the minigames that I haven't minded have been those with the closest D&D ties (Spider Moon; Incursion -- Du 100 is great!).  By and large, though, Poly content is wasted for me -- I have no plans to ever use one of the mini games, as what little gaming time I have is devoted to our D&D campaign (in which, BTW, I ran "The Door From Everywhere" from Du 88 last session, which turned out great -- kudos to the author).  Poly may be fun reading, but in a perfect world I'd rather have Dungeon just for D&D adventure related material, and have a separate magazine with a generic d20 focus -- which I might even consider getting if the scope was expanded beyond mini-games.

As it stands I have no plans to drop my subscription; even at the current price I think Dungeon's a good deal, and I'm willing to put up with the lost page count to Poly for the time being if that's the price of keeping Dungeon viable.  Monthly or bimonthly doesn't matter to me, so long as the adventure count is 4-6 over a two month period (like Dungeon provided in the pre-Poly days).

If you had to cut costs, though, I wouldn't mind:

- B&W pages or lower quality paper (yes, I know you need them for the news stand).
- Increase the ad count (3-4 add pages between each adventure doesn't bother me).
- Drop the inserts.  I think the posters are a waste; the counters are nice but I can do without to save costs.
- Get rid of Downer & Bolt & Quiver -- the only comic I've like in Dungeon is Nodwick.
- I'd rather have a short adventure/side trek than the critical threats or allies -- I'd take one 4-page sidetrek over the 2-3 of those in a current Dungeon.
- Cut back on artwork & maps.  Do we need 2 sets of cover art in every issue?  It's nice, but why pay for it (especially when the 2d isn't on the cover).  Much as I like the high quality maps, I could live with simple monocolor grids if that helps the price point.

As to page counts vs. space -- I'll leave those suggestions to people who know more about publishing.  Overall, if Dungeon can't stand alone, I'd prefer the Dungeon/Poly content mix to be about 75%/25%.  If the current trend continues, though, and the average Dungeon only contains 1-2 adventures per issue, I'd almost rather see Dungeon die and have those 1-2 adventures be included in a "Dungeon" section in Dragon -- though if that were to occur I can already hear the anguished wails of Dragon subscribers who don't want to pay for that content.  Poly at least could then be spun off into a general d20 magazine (as Dragon is to D&D) leaving Dragon/Dungeon pure for D&D/d20 fantasy content -- given the number of d20 ezines running around this might be a viable option.

This is a tough nut to crack -- I don't envy Paizo's position.  Based on Dungeon contant pre-issue 96 or so (and given Du 100), if I could only subscribe to one gaming magazine, it would be Dungeon, not Dragon.  But when 50% or more of what I'm paying for regularly becomes (current) Poly content, that's when I'm likely to stop purchasing (if we reach a $50/year subscription rate, or $10/issue newstand cost, I won't buy if the Poly content is over 25%).  Again, the Poly content might be more palatable to me if it were more general material -- mechanics, etc -- instead of mini-games.

The Dungeon/Poly issue aside, though, I really must compliment Paizo on the quality of their work.  The quality of Dungeon submissions and magazine product remains high; I think Dragon is better off now than it was under WOTC.  Keep up the good work; I hope you can work something out to keep my favorite gaming magazine viable.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2003)

Thomasson said:
			
		

> *Finally, is it polite? If someone writes us a letter of complaint but drops lots of F-bombs or calls us buttheads repeatedly, we're not going to print it,....
> 
> 
> ....The fact is, it was a rare case of not getting any critical comments that month we could print. Implying that we're manipulating our letters to get good press couldn't be further from the truth. *





that's why none of my letters ever get printed.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2003)

Johnny Wilson said:
			
		

> *Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!
> 
> I know that many of you are feeling the pain of the change in Dungeon/Polyhedron and Polyhedron/Dungeon. Let me just explain what we were smoking for a few lines...
> 
> ...




so you have been getting my letters.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2003)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> *...Well, ok, I admit that I'm no longer listening to posts that start "flush Polyhedron down the toilet" or "I hate the worthless Polyhedron," but I'm sure Chris has got those posts covered, and I'd like to think I've absorbed the gist of those opinions.
> 
> In the interest of keeping this thread as constructive as possible, *




well, my suggestions to include other better editions of the game keep falling on deaf ears too. 

but it doesn't mean i won't continue my campaign to get you to change.


----------



## Belen (Jun 3, 2003)

The true strength of Dungeon lies in its usefulness for busy or inexperienced GMs.  Those of us who have little time during the week love Dungeon because we can whip it out and have an adventure ready for game night with very little work.

Inexperienced GMs need it to learn how to craft adventures and encounters that will be fun and challenging.

Neither group has the time to read polyhedron.  And when the dungeon content suffers, then it becomes less of a "buy."  Busy people don;t have the time for mini-games.

Poly really is only useful for those people who have time to run a multitude of campaigns and spend hours reading d20 material.  And when you read this thread, you find that while many lovers of Poly enjoyed READING scooby-doo, not many mentioned that they'd use it.

If you have to keep Poly, then please reduce it to 25-30% of the magazine.  Those of us with jobs and familes have no time to read material useless for our camapigns.

If anything, you should convert the poly material to adventures.  Have an adventure for d20 modern with the attendant special rules, PrCs etc.  That would be a far better use of the space and help those running those types of campaigns.

Dave


----------



## diaglo (Jun 3, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> *...I have no plans to ever use one of the mini games, as what little gaming time I have is devoted to our D&D campaign (in which, BTW, I ran "The Door From Everywhere" from Du 88 last session, which turned out great -- kudos to the author)...*




i credit the DM not Roger E. Moore aka James Bond for the enjoyment.


----------



## Guacamole (Jun 3, 2003)

*The B&W issue...I don't buy it...*

If I recall correctly from looking at my stacks of oop dungeons from the late nineties, the magazine had a clean-cut black and white look, but still was able to come up with full color adds.  So I don't buy it when people say "the magazines gotta be in color for the ads."  It doesn't add up. 

With respect to newstand issues, has the magazine ever been an impulse-off-the-newstand buy?  When I first bought dungeon it was because I knew what I was doing, and if I ever buy it, its based on content, not flashiness of presentation.  That's just me though- I'm sure there are people who do buy product based on placement and color.  

I think part of the problem then, is that the magazine becomes something that it never was- in trying to broaden its appeal it becomes watered down from the original content.  I think that's what frustrates people who have been long-time supporters of the magazine.  I personally would rather see more adds to pay for more dungeon content rather than fewer adds and have the magazine tank because it has to be made into some sort of hybrid to attract off-the-shelf buys, which I'm doubtful are working anyway because we know now that the magazine is in some dire straights.  

Maybe the best thing to do would be to make Dungeon magazine the PDF.  If that got content back to its original quality and levels I think it would be worth it.  If that happened I would never read poly.  Its something I read for being in dungeon, not because I would seek it out and read it anyway.   

fwiw
guacamole


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 3, 2003)

Hi, Erik.  Nice to see you again.

Let me be clear: I like both magazines, and I like the way they are.  I enjoy Polyhedron, especially the mini-games...and I love Downer and Bolt & Quiver.  It's not a waste of space, IMHO.  I may not use Hijinx, but I like to read it...and it's a great example/lesson of how to apply the d20 system to some very un-D&D applications.

I enjoy Dungeon on multiple levels, too.  I like *the ads*.  You heard that right...I like the ads.  I enjoy seeing ads for new gaming products, like miniatures, supplements and the like.  I like that the magazine is in color, and provides me more value monthly than I get from some supplements I buy.  I enjoy the quality of the writing, and I like the people who write it.  Johnny Wilson is not the BBEG to me, and while he and I may not see eye-to-eye all the time, I think the magazine has prospered under his control.

I think Erik Mona is one of the best folks working in the field right now, and I'm glad we have him, Herr Thommasson and a host of talented professionals working towards bringing us enjoyable content that I, in turn, grant to my players.  I think that Dungeon, which I hadn't picked up until post-3e, has only generally improved (with the occasional speed bump).  I think Dragon got a little weak just prior to the switchover to Paizo...but by issue 300, the content had gotten quite good (particularly 299 and 301).

Do what you need to do to keep the magazines running, IMHO.


----------



## Ghostwind (Jun 3, 2003)

Erik, thanks for weighing in. The fact that Dungeon and Poly will never be separated into two individual magazines is certainly a sticking point with much of the community here. Your points outlined shows that, while you are listening to the complaints, there are parameters that will not be changed. The magazine will always be color due to the need to attract more advertisers and there is a likelihood that there may even be an increase in the number of ads. This rigidity, while understandable from a business standpoint, may fuel even greater dissent in the long run.

If you look at the major components that seem to be the source of conflict: Dungeon content, Poly content, LG Journal, and Star Wars material, you see the largest complaints (at least here) fall into a Dungeon vs. Poly mentality. Since the material that makes up the Star Wars and LG Journal sections have more to do with general gaming than actual adventuring, why not move them to Dragon? In my humble opinion, this would be a better themed fit. It appears that there is a mindset that Dragon cannot be touched and that any modifications must only be to Dungeon. I hope this is a misconception. General gaming articles belong in a magazine devoted to gaming articles. Doing this, would allow more space for Dungeon adventures and yet still allow room for Poly and its mini-games.

I agree with the opinion that the current comics should be dropped in Dungeon. Again, in my opinion, if humor must be inserted, it should be done with small strips of single to three panels only that could fit at the bottom of a page or in a spot position. Keep the big humor stuff restricted to Dragon.

It is clear that some alterations in the format must be made and you are certainly stuck in a no-win scenario. If you took a look at using your strongest asset (Dragon) to assist in further modifying the format of Dungeon/Poly then perhaps it would not be so necessary to strongly consider cancelling Dungeon.

On a separate note, *IF* the decision to cancel Dungeon does come to pass, I assume you will have a realistic plan in place beforehand to handle existing subscribers and their concerns (unlike what happened when the decision to go monthly was announced and the confusion that was spawned as a result). I would suggest the options of:
1. A refund equal to the amount of the existing subscription.
2. Transfer of subscription to Dragon magazine with the addition of a single bonus issue as a way of saying thank you for the support.
3. Extension of an existing Dragon subscription by the time remaining on the former Dungeon subscription plus the additional bonus issue.

Perhaps this should be an option now for anyone who is upset with the current format of Dungeon? Why not allow customers who are dissatisfied with Dungeon to transfer their existing subscription to Dragon or use it to extend their current Dragon extension? Seems like a plausible alternative to me.


----------



## ashton (Jun 3, 2003)

I have Dungeon since issue 27.  I've always enjoyed reading it and used many of the adventures.  Unfortunately the quality and usefullness of the magazine have dropped a lot lately. The issues in the 80's range were off and on good to not so good. The 90's were just plain bad. So I no longer buy the magazine and if things dont change I certainly will not in the future. 

Personally I like Polyhedron and got it when I was a RPGA-member. The two magazines are however not really compatible. Combined with the downward trend in content quality the fusion has not been good for Dungeon magazine.

What I wonder is what Paizos is trying to do. Is their main aim to produce a quality magazine for an established audience or to make a flashy but not so good magazine for an as wide as possible public?


----------



## Sholari (Jun 4, 2003)

My guess is what Paizo is trying to do by combining Dungeon to Poly is to employ a bundling strategy, where the products are negtively correlated.  Theoretically, by employing a bundling strategy they can increase sales while decrease their distribution costs.  By choosing two magazines that have very different audiences the value each of the "two" audiences' places on the magazine is negatively correlated, which under some conditions is supposed have a bigger impact.  My guess would be this is why eliminating bundling is not an option.  Because, they figure some of the original Dungeon audience will be upset by the bundling but there will be enough extra revenue to make up for this.

Here is an explanation of this technique I found off the Internet so I can not take credit for it myself...

"Consider two magazines, A and B, say "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine." Suppose that among one million potential customers, book A is valued at $1 by 100,000, at $2 by another 100,000, and so on, up to $10 by 100,000, and suppose the same distribution of valuations applies to book B. Suppose further that the valuations of the two books are independent.  Thus there are about 10,000 customers who value book A at $3 and simultaneously book B at $5, and similarly about 10,000 customers who place values $9 and $2 on A and B, respectively.  Under these conditions, if the publisher is to sell these books separately, revenue will be maximized when the price of each is set at $5.  About 600,000 people will purchase each book, for total revenue from sales of both books of $6,000,000.  (This maximum is not unique, as the same revenue can be achieved by pricing each book at $6, in which case about 500,000 people will buy each.) However, if the two books are sold together, revenue can be made much higher.  Since there are 10,000 people who value the bundle at $2 (exactly the 10,000 who value each book at $1), while there are 90,000 who value it at $10, a short calculation shows that the revenue-maximizing price is $9.  At the price of $9 per bundle, 720,000 people will purchase it, for total revenue of $6,480,000, exactly 8% higher than if the books were sold separately.  Since profits would be the revenues minus the fixed costs of producing the books, they would increase much more dramatically."

My argument is there is probably enough of the Dungeon audience who place no value on the Poly magazine that the bundling strategy is no longer effective.  This second example would be more applicable and is the reason why so many people are disatisfied.

"What weakens the case for bundling is that most people have no
interest in most goods.  In the example of the books "Dungeon Magazine" and "Polyhedron Magazine," a more realistic assessment might be that in a population of 1,000,000, each book would be valued at zero by 90% of the population, with 10,000 valuing it at $1, 10,000 at $2, and so on.  If the 100,000 people who do place a positive value on book A are distributed independently of those who value book B at $1 or more, then there would be only 10,000 people who place positive values on both A and B. Bundling under these conditions would not produce much benefit."

Dungeon is for game master who needs to save time and Polyhedron is for gamers that like to experiment with different d20 game, two very different audiences.  Even looking at real world examples why don’t publishers force bundle Scientific American with Seventeen magazine or Boy’s Life with Modern Maturity?  Theoretically, the strong negative correlation between the two examples would mean that that bundling would increase sales yet I don’t think these audiences would stand for this.  Imagine kids being forced to buy magazines articles for the 50+ crowd.   Why does bundling work so well for bundling Microsoft Word with Microsoft Excel?  The big difference is most of the initial cost is in development.  There is very little cost after the software has been developed.  In other words, you do not have to sacrifice on the quality of Microsoft Word to include Microsoft Excel, because most of the money has been spent regardless of whether you bundle or not.  Unfortunately, in bundling Dungeon and Polyhedron this is not the case or we would have more than just one adventure per issue.  Anyway, I think my tab is up to 4 cents at this point, so I will end here.  

Source: The bumpy road of electronic commerce, Andrew Odlyzko, AT&T Labs - Research, Preliminary version, August 9, 1996


----------



## diaglo (Jun 4, 2003)

wow. 19 posts of the same thing. now that is bundling.


----------



## Guacamole (Jun 4, 2003)

*not worthy, not worthy....*

Shoot...I can do double posts from time to time but shoot, that was mighty.  Wow.....


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2003)

Sholari's persistent, I'll proclaim for all to see. 

BIIIIIG WORD OF WARNING - 

If you aren't sure your post is getting through after the first two or three times, save it to a word processor or notepad, and wait for a while.

Chances are, you are doing this very thing - it's posting, but your confirmation is not returning.


----------



## Erithtotl (Jun 4, 2003)

Wow, I go away for a couple days and my thread has grown into a monster!

Ironically, I think I am less extreme than most, in that I don't hate Poly so much I think it should be destroyed, and I don't think the quality of adventures has dropped THAT much.  Ironically, though, one I did have a problem was the first Adventure Path one, which I thought was horribly balanced for a 1st level party (a 1st level party, with that kind of opposition, and a tight time limit, I imagine would get wiped out very quickly, but then again, I didn't play it).

My big question to the Dungeon guys, why SO MUCH Poly.  Thats the part I just don't get.  If the magazine went monthly, and poly was 20-30 pages each month out of a 100, I doubt we'd be getting this debate.  I think even the people who don't like Poly could deal with that.  When was the decision made to make it an equal partnership with Dungeon?  Poly has always been a niche product.  The only people you'd lose by doing that split would be some of the ones who read Dungeon ONLY for Poly.  Everyone else would be pretty satisfied.   

Additionally, you could actually make Poly even more specific, and move the Living Greyhawk stuff and other D&D supplements to Dragon (that is, after all, whats its for, D&D articles and supplements).   Leaving Poly only for general non-D&D d20 support.

Anyway, I'd be really curious as to hearing the rationale behind why Dungeon was split %50-%50 rather than continuing the previous trend of 70-30.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 5, 2003)

Wow,  there have been so many people who have echoed how I feel about Poly... and even have given suggestions that I would have made.

While I certainly dislike Poly, I do not need it to entirely disappear. To be honest, I think that Poly has a lot of potential. For example, the issues that fit with D&D (Spelljammer, Incursion) were great, and I was very pleased with my issue of Poly. The rest, though, were pretty lousy, since they could not be inserted at all (not without a *lot* of work, and I subscribe to Dungeon because - as a poster noted above - I have a busy life).

As another poster noted - why so much Poly? You all know as much as I do the size of Poly before the merge - this tiny little thing that went out to a (relatively) small number of those in the RPGA. I have a seriously hard time believing that the number of subscribers to Poly were even close to that for Dungeon. So, why 50/50 Dungeon/Poly content?

I would be willing to compromise, and have 75/25 Dungeon/Poly. 25 pages of Poly per month doesn't seem so bad - and if it had the utility of Spelljammer or Incursion, then I would be *happy* to get Poly along with my Dungeon.

But, as long as you publish things with absolutely no utility in Poly (*cough*Hijinx*cough*), then I think you will see a lot of disgruntled subscribers.

Edit: Oh, yeah - just so you know, I *love* those "Global Positioning" maps in Poly. More maps! Of any kind! Office towers, apartment blocks, bars/nightclubs, stores, even Space Habitats, asteroid/moon bases, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. Maps are time-consuming and often complicated to make - please include more of them! (See? Useful Poly.)


----------



## Ravellion (Jun 5, 2003)

Global Positioning is pretty darn cool, and very useful if I ever get a _D20modern_ campaign running (which is reasonably likely).

Anyway, I picked up Dungeon #100 today! Very good issue indeed! Impressed me quite a bit. The one thing that didn't appeal to me was next issues preview. One adventure.

Simply put, that has to be a very big and very useful adventure for me to buy that. Most likely, I'll skim it in the shop instead of buying the new Dungeon on sight like I usually do (did?).

Avoiding this issue is more than likely saving me more money than subscribing ever would have. Since it is a 13th level FR adventure, it has one very minor strike against it already (I use Greyhawk, so standard deity references are a bonus to me for instance). However, if the magazine cannot survive being bought by me (and many other people?) on only a bimonthly basis, that would be a shame. However, I can't accept paying £6 for a product I won't use. 

Just letting you guys at Dungeon know! Nice to hear that you are listening.


----------



## TeaBee (Jun 5, 2003)

*Hmm*

What if you published Dungeon/Poly with 100% Dungeon content one month and 100% Poly content the next? Offer people "half" subscriptions and everyone is happy.

Now this obviously can't be true, because it seems so simple and logical. Someone tell me _why_ it's not true.

I know two issues (no pun intended) were:

The cost of printing two separate magazines.
The cost of printing bi-monthly.

Doesn't this, in a weird way, solve this? One monthly magazine, that's actually two bi-monthly ones?


----------



## Sholari (Jun 5, 2003)

Hey, I just wanted to apologize to everyone for the nineteen posts.   That was me hitting the button repeatedly before I had to run to work and thinking none of the attempts had gone through.  I'll take the royal dumbass award for that one.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 5, 2003)

I got #100 today and, "Woe To Mistledale" aside (the sole reason I bought it and the sole intelligent, creative adventure in the issue), the issue is completely worthless/useless (that goes double for Poly). Lame, lame adventures... 

LAME! The "Beast Of Burden" adventure is just a variation on the Iron Man (forget the title) adventure from #97 (the giant shogun warrior of Heironeous thing run by the evil gnome wizard in the Ming The Merciless costume). This new one isn't even as good as that, replacing the giant robot with a giant dinosaur with buildings on top of it. One of the worst ideas I've ever seen. 

LAME! "The Lich Queen's Beloved", IMO, is never going to be used by most gamers as it's not only too high level, it's basically impossible to pull off unless you're Epic Level. Maybe I can use the maps for something else, but that's about it. 

LAME! "Flame" is no good, either. Do we really need another adventure with a dragon as the main villain? It's so cliche it hurts. 

LAME! Poly is, of course, as unusable and unwelcome as always (PULP HEROES excepted), but better than last month's miserable Jabberjaw/Josie mini-game "Hijinks". What were they thinking? 

LAME! The Critical Threats are always dumb, and this issue serves up more than the usual number. A rotten feature that adds nothing to the magazine except to waste space. 

OVERALL: The 180 pages are only "value added" if they don't suck, LOL. I appreciate Paizo keeping #100's price down, but I still feel ripped-off when I only get about 20 pages of usable content in an issue. That's about twice as much as an "adventure booster" from AEG for only a couple extra pages. Paizo is not winning me over with continued inferior quality content like this.

MY PREDICTION: Dungeon will cease publication within six months to a year, possibly being folded over into DUNGEON as a "flippy" format.


----------



## glass (Jun 5, 2003)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Note that "Fish Story" is only available to subscribers - which is one of the changes that I'm not exceptionally happy about.
> 
> *




Just imagine how happy you would be if you lived in the UK and COULDN'T have a subscription.

At least not without paying a small fortune (in dollars) to have the magizine individually shipped from the US.

glass.


----------



## glass (Jun 5, 2003)

*Re: Hmm*



			
				TeaBee said:
			
		

> *What if you published Dungeon/Poly with 100% Dungeon content one month and 100% Poly content the next? Offer people "half" subscriptions and everyone is happy.
> ...
> The cost of printing two separate magazines.
> The cost of printing bi-monthly.
> *




It wasn't the cost of printing bi-monthly, it was the cost of running a bymonthly subscription system.

ISTM that by your plan, they are running TWO bi-monthly subscription systems, and a monthly one. Hardly an improvement.

glass.


----------



## King_Stannis (Jun 5, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> LAME! The "Beast Of Burden" adventure is just a variation on the Iron Man (forget the title) adventure from #97 (the giant shogun warrior of Heironeous thing run by the evil gnome wizard in the Ming The Merciless costume). This new one isn't even as good as that, replacing the giant robot with a giant dinosaur with buildings on top of it. One of the worst ideas I've ever seen...




I happened to think it was a pretty cool adventure, and hope that I can work it in at some point IMC.



> _Originally posted by Iron_Chef _
> 
> LAME! "The Lich Queen's Beloved", IMO, is never going to be used by most gamers as it's not only too high level, it's basically impossible to pull off unless you're Epic Level. Maybe I can use the maps for something else, but that's about it.




Not sure about this. You may be right about the level issue, but it's still a solid adventure. I'm sure many folks will be able to use this - even if it has to be scaled back some.



> _Originally posted by Iron_Chef _
> 
> LAME! "Flame" is no good, either. Do we really need another adventure with a dragon as the main villain? It's so cliche it hurts.




This is a special dragon that hearkens back to the first issues of the magazine. Many folks probably enjoyed it. I most likely won't be using it proper, though I can probably find elements that I can use. 





> _Originally posted by Iron_Chef _
> 
> LAME! The Critical Threats are always dumb, and this issue serves up more than the usual number. A rotten feature that adds nothing to the magazine except to waste space.




 I beg to differ. They are of great utility to me and many folks I'll wager.




> _Originally posted by Iron_Chef _
> 
> MY PREDICTION: Dungeon will cease publication within six months to a year, possibly being folded over into DUNGEON as a "flippy" format.




Based on the bitterness of your comments I wonder if it's a prediction or a hope?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 5, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *LAME! "The Lich Queen's Beloved", IMO, is never going to be used by most gamers as it's not only too high level, it's basically impossible to pull off unless you're Epic Level. Maybe I can use the maps for something else, but that's about it. *



So your suggestion is to never include high-level adventures/support in Dungeon? Nice try.


----------



## tmaaas (Jun 5, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> LAME! The "Beast Of Burden" adventure is just a variation on the Iron Man (forget the title) adventure from #97 (the giant shogun warrior of Heironeous thing run by the evil gnome wizard in the Ming The Merciless costume). This new one isn't even as good as that, replacing the giant robot with a giant dinosaur with buildings on top of it. One of the worst ideas I've ever seen.




Just goes to show that tastes differ; this was my favorite adventure in the issue. No, I won't use it exactly as written (I plan on having roving groups of nomads riding these things), but I will use it.

Also, I like the Critical Threats and new NPCs column.

With any issue I suspect you'll find people who both love it and hate it. Overall, #100 has been highly praised, but not by everybody (as Iron_Chef shows, and his opinions are as valid as any other individual's).

Conversely, Issue #99, which many people lambasted, still has its supporters who enjoyed it very much.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 5, 2003)

What I find humorous is that a lot of the problems that people are having with Dungeon are the same problems I am having with 3.5. A lot of people are dumping Dungeon, but justify the same marketing tactics for 3.5? Very curious.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 5, 2003)

Treebore said:
			
		

> *What I find humorous is that a lot of the problems that people are having with Dungeon are the same problems I am having with 3.5. A lot of people are dumping Dungeon, but justify the same marketing tactics for 3.5? Very curious. *




3.5 contains 50% content that is unrelated to what I am purchaing it for, increasing the price from the previous version to pay for this 50% unrelated content. I was not aware of that. Does that mean we will be getting Hijinks as part of 3.5 as well.


----------



## Numion (Jun 5, 2003)

Treebore said:
			
		

> *What I find humorous is that a lot of the problems that people are having with Dungeon are the same problems I am having with 3.5. A lot of people are dumping Dungeon, but justify the same marketing tactics for 3.5? Very curious. *




What are you saying? That the 3.5e books will come with World of Darkness books on the back?


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 5, 2003)

tmaaas said:
			
		

> *
> With any issue I suspect you'll find people who both love it and hate it. Overall, #100 has been highly praised, but not by everybody (as Iron_Chef shows, and his opinions are as valid as any other individual's).
> *




Maybe I was a *little* over the top   in my lambasting of issue #100, but I'm glad you see my points, even if you don't agree with them. I just get upset paying for stuff I can't use, and particularly stuff I think isn't very clever.

I don't think Giant robots and Godzillas are a part of most typical D&D games, either, which is why I question their repeated inclusion in recent issues. To me, they are part of the "video game" power escalation of 3e that is most unpleasant and quite frankly, something I find disturbing as an "old schooler"... A one-time special feature on kaiju (in Dragon) and one adventure (Dungeon #97) using similar themes is okay, but this is getting ridiculous, especially when the two adventures (Iron Man and Beast Of Burden) are practically carbon copies of each other. Maybe an adventure where you must build Mecha-Tarrasque to battle the real Tarrasque is next?  

The problem with high level adventures is that they are less useful than most low to mid level ones. I don't object to high level adventures per se (except bad ones), but I do object to ones where the PCs are expected to slay gods (or near gods in the case of the lich queen). Again, this is disturbing from an old school mentality like mine, and part of the video game/power escalation of 3e. IMO, it would have been much more reasonable to derail the Lich Queen's plans (for invasion or something more trivial), then to assassinate her in her own palace surrounded by tons of loyal bodyguards... It just seems highly unlikely that such a mission could ever succeed, and the ramifications of the PCs succeeding are so dangerously unbalancing to the power scale of the game and world that no one, mortal or immortal, is safe. Not the kind of game I'd want to participate in, but again, some people like this sort of thing. But how useful is it to the majority of DUNGEON readers except as a curiosity piece never to be used?

I think an ideal mix of adventures would contain the following (here I'm trying to be helpful rather than "bitter" as someone else suggested):

1. Two low level adventures (1-3)
2. Two mid-level adventures (4-8)
3. One high level adventure (9-12 is my idea of "high")

Run higher level adventures (13-up) every other issue.

Make an effort to publish political and other role-playing encouraging adventures instead of just hack-n-slash dungeon crawls at least once every other issue.

Limit dragon villains and uber "save the world" epics to once or twice a year.

Things to be removed: Critical Threats, all comics, LGJ and Poly.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 5, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *I think an ideal mix of adventures would contain the following (here I'm trying to be helpful rather than "bitter" as someone else suggested):
> 
> 1. Two low level adventures (1-3)
> 2. Two mid-level adventures (4-8)
> ...




I like these ideas except for the bit about removing Poly. Poly should stay!

I especially like the idea of including the occasional political adventures. I think this is something relatively absent in 3E. Since the mag is monthly now, I don't mind seeing the "save the world" epics a little more often - say once every 2 or 3 months would be fine.

I could take or leave critical threats. Some of the ideas are very cool, but by the time I could use something like that, the issue is so old that I have forgotten about it. I wouldn't mind seeing comics go from Dungeon. I rather like the idea of keeping them in Dragon.


----------



## Andy_Collins (Jun 6, 2003)

*Dungeon + Polyhedron = Delicious!*

I love Dungeon.

* The adventures meet or exceed the highest quality you can find in the industry. The editors' rules expertise is extraordinary, ensuring that I'll rarely if ever be forced to rewrite a stat block or encounter because the author didn't know how the game worked.

* The adventures consistently present a variety of topics and themes far beyond what any single designer (or DM) could create. Any adventure I can't use today is one that I might be able to use next month, or next campaign. I go back to old issues of Dungeon on a regular basis, looking for adventures or ideas to mine for my current campaigns.

* The "bite-sized" features--Critical Threats, Maps of Mystery, Side Treks-- are even more versatile than the adventures, since they rarely require any significant adjustment to fit into my campaigns. I sometimes wish that the opponents featured in the Critical Threats entries were even more unique, but I chalk that up to the editors still finding their way with the feature.


I love Polyhedron.

* The mini-games, frankly, are one of the best things to happen to the gaming industry in years. They expose readers to a staggering variety of ideas without requiring a significant up-front investment, and push the d20 system in ways that many couldn't even conceive of when the whole OGL thing started up. Issue #99's "Hijinx" is one of the cleverest things written for d20 in the rules' 3-year lifespan, and is a must-read for anyone even vaguely interested in game design (and don't fool yourself--*every* DM has at least a passing interest in game design, because that's what house rules are). Even if you'll "never play" any of these games (and really, who can say that for certain), every one has at least a couple of intriguing ideas that can fit into a variety of other games (Omega World's reserve point system, for instance, can easily be swiped for a low-magic D&D game).

* The other d20 system support in Polyhedron is still finding its footing, but has the potential of eventually turning the magazine into the "Dragon" of the d20 system. Is it there yet? Of course not, and it'd be foolish to push this particular hatchling out of the nest before it gets comfortable with its wings. But if anything can make Polyhedron viable as its own independent mag, it'll be its ability to support a wide range of d20-system players.  (Personally, I'd put LGJ back into Dragon, since that's the magazine that most average D&D players are drawn to, but I understand that the historical affiliation between Poly and the RPGA membership is probably a tough one to sever.)


So chalk me up as another supporter of the combined package. I'm willing to suspend judgment of the new monthly format for a few more issues, but I have faith that the editors of these magazines will continue to work diligently to present their readers with the best magazines that they can.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 6, 2003)

*Re: Dungeon + Polyhedron = Delicious!*

G'day, Andy!



			
				Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> *(Personally, I'd put LGJ back into Dragon, since that's the magazine that most average D&D players are drawn to, but I understand that the historical affiliation between Poly and the RPGA membership is probably a tough one to sever.)*




I think this actually has more to do with Erik Mona being the editor of Polyhedron and of the LGJ, and finding the two deadlines of Dragon and Dungeon to be very difficult to handle - thus having both Poly & the LGJ in the one magazine made things much easier for him.

Otherwise, some good points. I'm being drawn back to supporting the combined package. 

I'm getting the impression that the main thing that would make people happier is a bit more Dungeon in each issue... but that might just be my own preferences talking.

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Jun 6, 2003)

> Personally, I'd put LGJ back into Dragon, since that's the magazine that most average D&D players are drawn to



Disagree with you on the sentiment of that...if anything, Dragon has provided far more support in the past (but not in recent years) for non-D&D RPGs than Dungeon ever has.  It appears that Dungeon's having to make the compromise into non-D&D material simply because it's less popular, and can't stand alone anymore.

If Dungeon was D&D adventures/LG setting material, I reckon the level of acceptance would be much higher among Dungeon subscribers - adapting D&D setting material is a lot more obviously "relevant" to a D&D game than adapting mecha/rock stars/gun fu etc.  Not as progressive, but how progressive are D&D players?


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 6, 2003)

LGJ is nearly worthless, as Greyhawk will never receive the depth of support of FR, thus making most of it useless--I mean, who plays Greyhawk anymore, and more specifically, who likes the horrible changes made to the setting during/since 2e's Greyhawk Wars? Not me, not my group. All the rotten changes TSR and then WoTC/RPGA made to the setting permanently soured us on ever using it again, and we really loved this setting when it came out.

LGJ is only occasionally useful, when items can be easily transplanted to FR or another setting, such as the Vault of the Drow special.

The RPGA means nothing to me or to the majority of gamers. Let them get their own ezine or something, not waste space in Dragon or Dungeon with their LGJ/Poly. And please get rid of the horribly unfunny, untalented comics in Dungeon. Dragon is the place for these, if they must be run at all, and Dragon has way too many awful comics in it clogging up space already, which amount to six free full page ads for Kenzer & Co. comic books.

I may sound bitter, but I'm really unhappy with the changes to Dragon/Dungeon lately and have given up hope that they will ever be improved to my satisfaction, where every issue will have at least **something** useful in it (but preferably at least 50% useful content).


----------



## rounser (Jun 6, 2003)

> LGJ is nearly worthless, as Greyhawk will never receive the depth of support of FR, thus making most of it useless



Erm, don't really agree with that.  Some folks dislike FR because of overkill on the detail.


> I mean, who plays Greyhawk anymore, and more specifically, who likes the horrible changes made to the setting during/since 2e's Greyhawk Wars? Not me, not my group. All the rotten changes TSR and then WoTC/RPGA made to the setting permanently soured us on ever using it again, and we really loved this setting when it came out.



Well, GH aside, I think a D&D adventure/generic D&D setting material magazine would be superior to something setting-specific, but without a setting to "hang" setting material off, you end up with lesser quality material (IMO), but if you do hang it off a specific setting, you get people complaining that it's not for _their_ setting (despite the fact that D&D in general is so darn generic that you can lift Dragonlance stuff into Birthright into FR into GH almost whole cloth and not raise an eyebrow) so perhaps it's inevitable that this will never happen.

The "setting to hang ideas off" thing is why I think the flavour of crunch (and fluff alike) for FR material is consistently better than the generic splatbook stuff, simply because there's a more of a solid foundation of setting for ideas to nest in than the implied D&D setting, and a solid context to inspire and spark ideas off of.  You can tell that the authors of Magic of Faerun were perhaps significantly more inspired than those of Tome and Blood, f'rinstance, and I reckon that's got everything to do with it being a book intended for a specific setting.

I'd be happier to see a town this issue, maps and stats for a wizards' academy the next, and a guard's wayhouse on a highway the next than a minigame each issue, simply because you could just lift them straight out and plonk them straight down into your D&D game, regardless of level.  I think non-D&D d20 can take care of itself...I don't really want to read academic lessons in applying d20 to new territory, simply because I don't care much about d20 and it's oh-so-bright future when we already have D&D.  *shrug*


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *I'd be happier to see a town this issue, maps and stats for a wizards' academy the next, and a guard's wayhouse on a highway the next than a minigame each issue, simply because you could just lift them straight out and plonk them straight down into your D&D game, regardless of level.  I think non-D&D d20 can take care of itself...I don't really want to read academic lessons in applying d20 to new territory, simply because I don't care much about d20 and it's oh-so-bright future when we already have D&D.  *shrug* *




I agree completely. A fully detailed town, guild, merchant company, academy or other urban location (with adventure hooks, not necessarily an adventure) every issue would be AWESOME. These are the kinds of things DMs like to have pre-made, so they can concentrate on creating the actual adventures themselves. Why Dungeon doesn't do this is beyond me; it would DRASTICALLY increase the usefulness/longevity of every issue. Adventures are run once and discarded, but a LIVING, BREATHING LOCATION the PCs can hang out in is used over and over for years, decades even!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *I may sound bitter, but I'm really unhappy with the changes to Dragon/Dungeon lately and have given up hope that they will ever be improved to my satisfaction, where every issue will have at least **something** useful in it (but preferably at least 50% useful content). *




Oh, blah. I get really annoyed that everyone gripes and complains so much about Dungeon, and no one seems to realize what happened to us Star Wars d20 players. We lost an ENTIRE MAGAZINE. Star Wars Gamer was great...now what do we have? Just a few pages in every few issues of Poly. I personally feel that there isn't any right to complain about Dungeon OR Dragon. At least you've GOT a magazine. Good or not.


----------



## rounser (Jun 6, 2003)

> At least you've GOT a magazine. Good or not.



True.  It's all relative, innit?  Paizo _is_ bending over backwards to keep the plates spinning to an extent for everyone, when no single part of the composite Dungeon/Polyhedron/Star Wars Gamer/Living Greyhawk Journal would remain viable on it's own.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 6, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *
> True.  It's all relative, innit?  Paizo is bending over backwards to keep the plates spinning to an extent for everyone, when no single part of the composite Dungeon/Polyhedron/Star Wars Gamer/Living Greyhawk Journal would remain viable on it's own. *




Seems about right from what I've seen....though I never did find out why SWG died off....ah well. *shrugs* Just waiting for Dungeon/Poly #102 for more SW content now...


----------



## diaglo (Jun 6, 2003)

*Re: Dungeon + Polyhedron = Delicious!*



			
				Andy_Collins said:
			
		

> *I love Dungeon.
> 
> * The adventures meet or exceed the highest quality you can find in the industry. The editors' rules expertise is extraordinary, ensuring that I'll rarely if ever be forced to rewrite a stat block or encounter because the author didn't know how the game worked.
> ...*





i agree the editors of Dungeon are far better than say the ones at the WotC. just look at the little gnome from the Sunless Citadel if you want poor stat blocks.  

or the rest of the errata ad naseum being put out by WotC.


----------



## Yeoman (Jun 6, 2003)

Honestly I only really started getting dungeon when they put in polyhedron, because even if I couldn't run an adventure out of the dungeon side, I could always use a mini game when not everyone shows for a game one night. I think if they pulled polyhedron out, I'd stop buying dungeon. I'm sure the adventures are good, but I've got a ton of them from every edition, or I can do them myself. 

Just my .02


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 6, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *LGJ is nearly worthless, as Greyhawk will never receive the depth of support of FR, thus making most of it useless--I mean, who plays Greyhawk anymore, and more specifically, who likes the horrible changes made to the setting during/since 2e's Greyhawk Wars? *



How about these folks? 
Or the very first story hour here on the boards? 
And dare I say it?  My Story Hour? 

To quote Inigo Montoya, _"You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means."_  Clearly, quite a few people use Greyhawk, especially given that it's the default setting.  It's also vague enough to allow lots of customization by the DM, something that is more difficult for the more detailed Realms.  Consequently, adventures that utilize Greyhawk are as welcome as not, IMHO.  But quite honestly, so are non-GH adventures.  Most dungeon modules don't require a great deal of customization.


*



			LGJ is only occasionally useful, when items can be easily transplanted to FR or another setting, such as the Vault of the Drow special.
		
Click to expand...


*
And that was, ironically, my least favorite issue of LGJ, so far.  You may not have found LGJ useful, but I've never found it anything but.  The Silent Brotherhood, Death Knights, the vault of the draow, new monsters, custom paladins, city maps, region details, histories and lots of possibilities and story ideas.  I only wish LGJ could be bigger, frankly.  Heck, a large part of my campaign got a kick-off from the presentation of the Animus template.



> *And please get rid of the horribly unfunny, untalented comics in Dungeon. Dragon is the place for these, if they must be run at all, and Dragon has way too many awful comics in it clogging up space already, which amount to six free full page ads for Kenzer & Co. comic books.*




Actually, I think you meant Dork Storm Press, there.  And I love all the comics, particularly the new 'Downer', which strikes me as a Wormy for a new generation.  I also love Zogonia which, to me, is always spot-on funny.  I much prefered the April Fool's issues to have expanded comics, rather than truly wasteful 'joke' material.  Clearly, as many folks disagree with that as the inclusion of fiction in Dragon.  Some folks don't like Peanut Butter in their chocolate. 

*



			I may sound bitter, but I'm really unhappy with the changes to Dragon/Dungeon lately and have given up hope that they will ever be improved to my satisfaction, where every issue will have at least **something** useful in it (but preferably at least 50% useful content).
		
Click to expand...


*
I'm sorry to hear it, but obviously disagree.  I've loved everything I've seen in the most recent changes, and always been under the impression that Paizo's staff is always striving to improve.  The problem, obviously, is that some of us (you and I, for example) radically disagree on the direction of the magazine, and it's obvious we can't both be served.  I enjoyed issue #100, while you found it extremely lacking.  It's a very difficult situation for them, as they can't please everyone.  Paizo needs to figure out which audience will keep the magazine in operation and turn a profit.  It's my opinion that they're trying.


----------



## TimSmith (Jun 6, 2003)

*Worldwide brotherhood of gamers*

I've just come across this fascinating thread. Its really nice to see that everyone is getting constructive at last and also that the folks at Paizo are obviously reading and taking notice.

What disappointed me was the amount of personal animosity some people displayed towards Paizo and Johnny Wilson in particular. (I don't mean those who are zealously defending their Dungeon from changes they don't like by making their views known-that's fair enough. I mean those who got personal)

If we step back and think about this for a minute, these guys are part of OUR gang! One of the lads (or lasses). Part of the same crowd as ourselves, who love D&D etc. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they don't care about Dungeon? That they are just out to make a quick profit and to the Abyss with the rest of us? Of course they aren't. They are doing the best they can with a difficult situation. This may well explain why Johnny gets a bit sensitive to the criticism and reacts the way he does. FWIW I emailed Johnny (politely) some time back about why we in Britain (and Europe) were not getting our subs at all- he emailed me straight back in a polite and informative manner. Maybe Johnny made a mistake in casting himself in the role of Mark Antony in his post. Mark Antony was the master orator, manipulating his audience like a weapon. I reckon Johnny is more Brutus, honourably struggling with his conscience over the evil he feels he must do for the good of the community, but knowing and fearing that he will be villified for it. And he's not as good with the crowd as Brutus was, either, and look what happened to him 

Erik certainly improved the mood on this thread with his post and good on him. Surely its pretty clear that Paizo are listening now and the quality of some of the suggestions is really high since that post.

From my point of view, I was one of the ones who didn't like getting Poly with my Dungeon, BUT I don't mind it if its the price of keeping the mags alive (that goes for Poly too, even though its not my cup of earl grey). I do find Poly at least slightly interesting, and as someone else said we won't really use everything in Dungeon, but we still enjoy reading it. I like the format and the colour (although I agree that these things can be a pain compared to the old style copiable format). My main concern with the current direction  of Dungeon is, as many people have already said, that the Dungeon part seems to be getting squeezed by the poly part. Don't mind SOME Poly, but don't want SO MUCH Poly (unless the Dungeon bit gets bigger as well). As for advertising space, get as much as you can if we still get decent amounts of Dungeon material. If we could have the maps either as inserts or on the reverse side of an advert page that would be great too.

I have just taken out a subscription with the UK distributor for paizo (www.theplaceforgames.com if any Brits are interested) as I for one am prepared to give Johnny et al the benefit of the doubt. Just remember, if we all voted with our wallets before giving them every chance, then we wouldn't have a magazine left for them to improve.


----------



## Henry (Jun 6, 2003)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *I agree completely. A fully detailed town, guild, merchant company, academy or other urban location (with adventure hooks, not necessarily an adventure) every issue would be AWESOME....a LIVING, BREATHING LOCATION the PCs can hang out in is used over and over for years, decades even!  *




I think such an idea would be a nice replacement for Critical Threats or Side Treks every other issue. After all, the heart of a good adventure is memorable events, be they villains and their plots, or locations that the PC's visit.

Imagine Piratecat's Akin's Throat spelled out as a location! (Or something similar that wouldn't infringe on the intellectual Property of him or his players.)  Imagine a cloud-city, complete with inhabitants, and how they exist and get from place to place? Urban does not have to mean, "boring human city."


----------



## Methuslah (Jun 6, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iron_Chef 
I agree completely. A fully detailed town, guild, merchant company, academy or other urban location (with adventure hooks, not necessarily an adventure) every issue would be AWESOME....a LIVING, BREATHING LOCATION the PCs can hang out in is used over and over for years, decades even!  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think such an idea would be a nice replacement for Critical Threats or Side Treks every other issue. After all, the heart of a good adventure is memorable events, be they villains and their plots, or locations that the PC's visit.
> 
> Imagine Piratecat's Akin's Throat spelled out as a location! (Or something similar that wouldn't infringe on the intellectual Property of him or his players.)  Imagine a cloud-city, complete with inhabitants, and how they exist and get from place to place? Urban does not have to mean, "boring human city." *



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a really cool idea. Mind if I use it in Royal Griffon? More to the point, does anyone want to write such pieces for Royal Griffon?

Richard Tongue,
Transfinite Publications,
http://www.transfinitepublications.com


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Jun 7, 2003)

First off, I buy Dungeon (well, try to; 99 still hasn't shown up) for Dungeon. I read Poly, skim the minigame, and then flip it over to see what I can use in Dungeon.

I dislike the idea of subscriber only content, if only because I feel ripped off when I consider grabbing it off the newstand when it fails to arrive.

I do like the glossy maps and full page artwork, but would give them up if b&w production saved Paizo money. As to Erik's comment that it would hurt newstand sales, I ask only: _what_ newstand sales? I'm only aware of one newstand in my entire city of 600,000 people that carries it, and they're a specialty shop - magazines are all they sell, and they get in 6 copies each of Dungeon and Dragon and usually have one left the day before the next issue hits. No bookstores carry it either. I can get it at comic and game shops, but that's a different story from newstands and convienience stores selling it. (Which some were a year and half ago). 

I understand that Mr. Wilson felt that combining the magazines was the only way to save them, but I have to wonder if they couldn't survive individually if they each had more content?

The minigames (as far as I know) didn't exist before the merger; with those, support for earlier mini games, material for the entire d20 market (as the RPGA isn't supposed to be about just D&D is it?), improved LG material and perhaps the reviews that Dragon gave up on long ago, Poly could be a proper magazine instead of the pamphlet it was before the merge. Even now, it must be filling that page count increase from the new monthly format somehow. 

Likewise, Dungeon could be expanded to a more widely useful product. Keep 3-5 adventures of varying setting and power levels, then _add_ critical threats, side treks, maps of mystery (a favourite of mine), allies, town settings, single interesting buildings, odd natural locations (a magical glade or somesuch); the ideas for new sections are endless, and many have been mentioned in this very thread. The existing adventures can be beefed up with new types of sidebars as well. Right after the adapting the adventure sidebar, have a "expanding into a campaign" sidebar detailing ideas on expanding the plot of the adventure into an ongoing campaign story arc or complete campaign; include ideas on other adventures (from prior and future Dungeons, print and online adventures, both from Wizards and other d20 publishers), have notes on suggested changes for people with various non-core rulebooks, like the Fiend Folio does.

Every action that Paizo has taken with these magazines seems to have been made from a siege mentality as an attempt to delay what the publisher seems to have always felt was the inevitable cancellation of the magazines. What is needed is an effort to thrive, as the desperate attempts to merely survive aren't helping. The Hasbro axemen aren't there anymore, so Paizo should stop ducking.


----------



## Hawkshere (Jun 7, 2003)

Believe it or not, I picked up #99 in my local supermarket while loading up for my big Labor Day weekend cookout.  At a Krogers mega-chain store for crying out loud.  /boggle


----------



## jasamcarl (Jun 7, 2003)

Agnostic Paladin said:
			
		

> *First off, I buy Dungeon (well, try to; 99 still hasn't shown up) for Dungeon. I read Poly, skim the minigame, and then flip it over to see what I can use in Dungeon.
> 
> I dislike the idea of subscriber only content, if only because I feel ripped off when I consider grabbing it off the newstand when it fails to arrive.
> 
> ...




That's odd. I've seen Dungeon everywhere from Waldenbooks, to B&N, to Borders, and this was in two different states. Must be a local distributing problem.

As to your other points, you do realize that the cost of expanding two magazine both in layout and newstand/storage space might very well outstrip potential demand?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 7, 2003)

Here, in Ballarat, Australia (the nearest town/city to Waubra), there are at least five newsagents that carry the two magazines (Dragon, Dungeon). There have been periods where there hasn't been a gaming store here, or a gaming store that carries those magazines. Although the games store I frequent now has them, it's far more likely that you'll find them at the newsagent.

Though it might not be true where you live, I can assure you that Dungeon magazine is sold in newsagents around the world. Not every newsagent, no, but it is sold in some. 

There is information on the circulation of Dungeon magazine printed in one issue each year; the # subscribers and # newstand copies sold are there - I can't find an issue with that information in it at the moment, but you may wish to do some research to discover exactly how many newstand issues are sold relative to subscription sales.

Cheers!


----------



## Agnostic Paladin (Jun 7, 2003)

I realize that such a plan could well exceed demand, but I still think that aggressively trying to improve the product, hopefully increasing demand (new! improved! now with 25% more cheese!) is a better mindset than desperate attempts to stave off death. The former requires changing your product to try and increase the market, and the latter requires the market to change on its own (possibly out of pity) before your product dies.

Right now, I've little interest in Poly because I gave up on Living Greyhawk after about three months and the minigames are not something I'll _ever_ have time to mess around with. The polyhedron I described though, would be something I'd pay for a seperate subscription to. The dungeon that I described is something I'd pay considerably more for than I am now.

(I've just noticed that the second edit that I did to my previous comment last night wasn't saved... and I can't remember everything I put in the two paragraphs that I'd added to it. crud.)


----------



## scourger (Jun 9, 2003)

*Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*

Thanks to all of you for keeping Dungeon great!  Without going into long, self-aggrandizing detail of my gaming background, suffice to say that I am a long time purchaser and subscriber.  I think the magazine is better than ever, and here is why.

In looking at your web site, I note the mottos: 1) "Dungeon Magazine is your exclusive source for new D&D adventures"; and 2)  "Polyhedron Magazine: Definitive d20".  I believe many of the posters to this forum could find the answers to their questions by examining these mission statements.  (Curiously, Dragon has no such motto; but I don't buy it so I really don't know what it is all about).  

In my case, the mottos are true.  Dungeon is my (nearly) exclusive source for D&D adventures that I actually run.  When 3e first came out, I ran several adventures in a row from the pages of Dungeon.  Even though I no longer read it from cover to cover because there is another DM subscriber in the group, it is the single most valuable D&D game supplement to me.  When I run D&D again, it will be with advenutres largely drawn from the pages of your magazine.  A long-time favorite of mine is the Side Trek.  Please keep those coming.

Similarly, Polyhedron is the definition of d20 (i.e., not just D&D).  All the features are great, especially the mini-games.  I love getting new games in new and different genres without having to learn a whole new system.  Omega World is a standout example.  The inclusion of mini-games must be increasing sales.  To put it in micro market terms, I got my subscription issue #94 and bought 2 more off the stands.  I gave one to a friend, who bought another copy for reference also.  When he restarted an old campaign using this new game, two more players bought issue #94.  Another player is using his subscription copy in my game, too.  So, out of the total six issues, two were subcription copies.  The seeds planted in those 2 copies bore the fruit of sales of 4 more copies.  Remarkable.

I may never play most of the mini-games, but this is more a function of time (individual and group) than interest.  But, they are all fun to read.  The one standout (like Omega World) makes it all wothwhile.  Unlike adventures, which only the DM may read, the mini-games can be purchased and enjoyed by all the players.  This dynamic is the same as sourcebooks appealing to more player than adventures (DMs only).    

I like the Release Roundup.  Similarly, I like the ads.  I WANT to know what is coming out in the future and where my hobby is headed.  It's the same reason I read (and now post) here.  

There are two web-based innovations I would like to see.  First, can you post the map downloads as Wizards of The Coast used to do?  I am not sure if you can get their archived Map Dowloads and Index, but they were very useful.  Second, can you make the mini-games available for dowload?  This service could be done on your site or perhaps in partnership with an e-publisher such as RPGnow.  As noted above, a recurring market exists for the mini-games.  Any source for reprints would be valuable.  (I just saw a thread somewhere in which a consumer was looking for a post-apocalyptic game.  The suggestion of Omega World drew a question about where it would be available.)

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				scourger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In looking at your web site, I note the mottos: 1) "Dungeon Magazine is your exclusive source for new D&D adventures
> *




Does this mean that Kenzer will not/cannot release any more D&D Kalimar adventures. I know that WotC won't be releasing standard modules, but does this mean that we will never see any more FR adventures like spider queen or that they will not release any mega adventures for thier new champaign setting.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jun 9, 2003)

Since I know Eric and crew are reading -

I have had a subscription at my FLGS for about 5 years. I cancelled that subscription a few weeks ago. Here is why:

1. Subscriber only content (I am loyal to my FLGS)
2. Luke-warm hits or out right misses with Poly.
3. Lowered portibility into non-high magic worlds.
4. Prior to this thread - JLW's responses have been terse. 

Reasons I want to keep Dungeon

1. Christopher West Maps!!!
2. Reader/Fan/Profesionally submitted material
3. I have always bought Dungeon?


----------



## Felon (Jun 9, 2003)

[Edit--Sorry, misread the above post. I'm going to bed. Darn ENWorld devoured almost my entire weekend  ]


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Jun 9, 2003)

If I read what he said correctly is he had a subscription through is FLGS.  Meaning that when each issue came out they held a copy for him.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *I know that WotC won't be releasing standard modules, but does this mean that we will never see any more FR adventures like spider queen or that they will not release any mega adventures for thier new champaign setting. *




It's already been stated by various people at WotC that the company won't be releasing any new adventures in the foreseeable future. There is always a chance that we'll see one with the new campaign setting (they did have one for the Wheel of Time RPG, which was the only piece of support for that game), but we likely won't see much more than that (if we even see that).

What means is that if all the people discontinuing their Dungeon subscriptions in disgust over added content, a more frequent publishing schedule, and natural inflation actually manage to kill the magazine, they will be cutting off the best and most affordable source of adventures in the industry. Sure, you can still go out and buy the big ones produced by the D20 companies, but we all know that those are hit or miss in terms of quality, usually setting specific, varying widely in flavor, and usually run at least 10 bucks a pop. In other words, killing the mag would be a disservice to those that do like high quality adventures from established and upcoming designers, and it would kill a large portion of support not only for D&D, but also for Star Wars and D20 Modern.

But hey, gamers are creatures of habit that border on obsessive/compulsive and based on the judgments I've seen on these boards recently, not open to changes, innovations, or consideration of people who like to mix things up with some different content once in a while. So if it happens to have a new publisher (even if the new publisher is made up of exactly the same people as the old publisher), clearly the best thing to do is whine about it loudly and kill it in divine retribution for your displeasure.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> 
> killing the mag would be a disservice to those that do like high quality adventures from established and upcoming designers, and it would kill a large portion of support not only for D&D, but also for Star Wars and D20 Modern. *




This is so patently untrue as to be laughable. The quality of Dungeon's adventures is painfully hit and miss, just like adventures from any other publisher. Most of Dungeon's adventures suck, IMO. I get maybe one good one per issue if I'm lucky. Maybe. The vast majority of people who buy Dungeon are Dungeon Masters who play D&D and buy it for D&D adventures. They don't care about Star Wars or d20 Modern content. There are not enough people out there to merit Star Wars or d20 Modern getting their own magazine, but that doesn't mean the D&D crowd should have to get unwanted and unusable content shoved down their throat, taking up space that could be used for D&D.



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *But hey, gamers are creatures of habit that border on obsessive/compulsive and based on the judgments I've seen on these boards recently, not open to changes, innovations, or consideration of people who like to mix things up with some different content once in a while. So if it happens to have a new publisher (even if the new publisher is made up of exactly the same people as the old publisher), clearly the best thing to do is whine about it loudly and kill it in divine retribution for your displeasure. *




IMO, we got along fine without Star Wars or d20 Modern (or Hijinx) for decades. I don't care about d20 outside of D&D. All I want is D&D content and not have to pay for other games I can't use. Force-feeding us Poly, LGJ, Star Wars and Modern content is not innovative. Clearly these products in Dungeon are on life support, and I say pull the plug! It is the pigheaded refusal of Paizo to cancel these features that is killing Dungeon, not the refusal of the readerbase to accept content they don't want.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *IMO, we got along fine without Star Wars or d20 Modern (or Hijinx) for decades. I don't care about d20 outside of D&D. All I want is D&D content and not have to pay for other games I can't use. Force-feeding us Poly, LGJ, Star Wars and Modern content is not innovative. Clearly these products in Dungeon are on life support, and I say pull the plug! It is the pigheaded refusal of Paizo to cancel these features that is killing Dungeon, not the refusal of the readerbase to accept content they don't want. *




I think this proves the point I was just making. Its always about *ME!* There's no room in our magazine for people who might actually play these other games and would like to see them at least marginally supported.

Bah!


----------



## KenM (Jun 9, 2003)

I just picked up issue 100, good issue. But they said that issue 101 will have another subsriber only adventure.         Why not have a part of poly be subsriber only?  IMO It was Dungeon first, they should keep it that way. I get it for the adventures. A letter that was in issue 100 expresed some of the same views I have. The response was " you still get more adventure material then if you bought a module off the rack".  How can haveing subsriber only content, when i buy the magazine off the rack, be better value?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *Sure, you can still go out and buy the big ones produced by the D20 companies, but we all know that those are hit or miss in terms of quality,*



Just like Dungeon...


> *usually setting specific,*



Not that I've seen (e.g. NG, Troll Lord, Monkey God...).


> *varying widely in flavor,*



A good thing.


> *and usually run at least 10 bucks a pop. In other words, killing the mag would be a disservice to those that do like high quality adventures from established and upcoming designers, and it would kill a large portion of support not only for D&D, but also for Star Wars and D20 Modern.*



Agreed.


> *But hey, gamers are creatures of habit that border on obsessive/compulsive and based on the judgments I've seen on these boards recently, not open to changes, innovations, or consideration of people who like to mix things up with some different content once in a while.*



Oh, you mean _just like the entire general population_? Give me a break. I've seen this type of comment bandied around on ENWorld a few times by terribly misinformed people, and here it is again. The above comment applies to the populace at large (e.g. *cough*New Coke*cough*).


> *So if it happens to have a new publisher (even if the new publisher is made up of exactly the same people as the old publisher), clearly the best thing to do is whine about it loudly and kill it in divine retribution for your displeasure. *



Oh, so complaining/disagreeing = "whining"? Nice try. That's gotten pretty old and tired here at ENWorld already.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is so patently untrue as to be laughable. The quality of Dungeon's adventures is painfully hit and miss, just like adventures from any other publisher. Most of Dungeon's adventures suck, IMO. I get maybe one good one per issue if I'm lucky. Maybe. The vast majority of people who buy Dungeon are Dungeon Masters who play D&D and buy it for D&D adventures. They don't care about Star Wars or d20 Modern content. There are not enough people out there to merit Star Wars or d20 Modern getting their own magazine, but that doesn't mean the D&D crowd should have to get unwanted and unusable content shoved down their throat, taking up space that could be used for D&D.
> 
> IMO, we got along fine without Star Wars or d20 Modern (or Hijinx) for decades. I don't care about d20 outside of D&D. All I want is D&D content and not have to pay for other games I can't use. Force-feeding us Poly, LGJ, Star Wars and Modern content is not innovative. Clearly these products in Dungeon are on life support, and I say pull the plug! It is the pigheaded refusal of Paizo to cancel these features that is killing Dungeon, not the refusal of the readerbase to accept content they don't want. *




While you're entitled to your opinion, I find this to be very misguided. As I've said ealier in this thread, Star Wars HAS a magazine, and for reasons I'm not completely sure of, Gamer was canned. I'm fairly sure it wasn't because of there 'not being enough people to merit thier own magazine' though, because Gamer had huge support among the SWd20 fans. Now we have a little bit of SW info in every even numbered issue of Poly. That's it. I think you are underestimating the amount of people that play SWd20, because I know of a very large number who are buying Dungeon just for those issues of Poly that have Star Wars content. Paizo isn't stupid, they're not going to cut off as large a section of readers as Star Wars d20 fans...while not as vocal as D&D, its very popular. Why? Because its STAR WARS.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think this proves the point I was just making. Its always about ME! There's no room in our magazine for people who might actually play these other games and would like to see them at least marginally supported.
> 
> Bah! *




Maybe if I was the only one with this position. Maybe if Dungeon hadn't been "all D&D, all the time" from the start. With your position as a contributor (some might consider you an "insider") to the magazines, you are naturally biased and your comments clearly self-serving (perhaps you'd like these features to remain so you can get paid for contributing/"innovating" to them). No offense intended, just my belief after reading your posts.

Your stubborn clinging to positions held by Paizo look to be intended as insider "spin" and "damage control," IMO. You embody a position that typifies that of Paizo management (again, IMO); that position is a steadfast refusal to listen to what the majority of the fans want. We want Dungeon back the way it was before (all D&D) or not at all. If Paizo doesn't give the bulk of its fans what they want, and the magazine dies, then it's Paizo's fault, not ours. We want to buy Dungeon, but without Poly, LGJ, Star Wars, Modern or any non-D&D content. The way it always has been before the RPGA and powers that be conspired (perhaps in good faith, perhaps not) to ruin it. 

If the RPGA was truly financially viable and not a misguided drain on corporate resources, then there would be enough RPGA subscribers to have kept Poly and LGJ alive as their own separate entities, wouldn't there? If the Star Wars RPG was as popular as WoTC claims, then Star Wars Gamer would still be being published, wouldn't it? 

Marginal support is worse than no support, IMO, esp. if it interferes with support for "the world's most popular RPG": D&D. If the market won't support this content, then the content is not economically viable and should be flushed from official channels and released as OGC for fans or daring third party publishers to support on their own. 

Which brings to me another bone of contention: the mini-games are not OGC, when quite clearly, they should be (mechanics-wise, at least). WoTC's refusal to make the mini-games OGC is the reason they are dying on the vine; there can be no real fan or third party support without them being made OGC. The primary reasons the mini-games are flopping is a combination of D&D fans not wanting them in their D&D mags, the mini-games not being OGC, the games not having enough detail to be truly usable long-term, and the hit or miss nature of the games themselves, with rare gems like Pulp Heroes and the surprisingly decent (though still something I'd never play) revision of Spelljammer being followed by unutterable lameness like Hijinx. An interesting idea would be to release a big hardcover, full color book of d20 mini-games of varied genres and see how well that sells. Probably not very well, but you never know. Making it a support volume for d20 Modern/d20 Future (using those rules) might make it feasible.  A support volume of D&D mini-games that gave you rules and settings (or modifications to existing settings) to try low magic/high magic/no magic and "historical" style of play would be far more interesting and likely to sell better than any non-D&D volume, however.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Star Wars HAS a magazine*




Correction: Star Wars HAD a magazine. If Star Wars was something I played, I probably would have bought it. I flipped through it several times and thought it was decent, but there was too much attention given to non-RPG elements, such as the SW CCG. Too much attention, IMO, being ANY attention.   

The mag flopped because it was not economically viable. The reason Dungeon is flopping is because WoTC, and now Paizo, refuse to give D&D fans what they want. Make no mistake: 

Dungeon WILL die, and soon, unless (and maybe even if) Paizo doesn't give in to our demands to immediately kill all non-D&D (Poly, LGJ, SW, Modern, etc.) content and return the magazine to its roots. Trying to keep economically untenable products afloat may be noble, but it is misguided and a terrible mistake for any company. I say Dungeon may die even if Paizo does give in, because they've dragged their corporate feet so long and so loudly that they've aliennated even more people than they would have otherwise. It may be too late to save it, no matter what they do. And it's all their fault!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Correction: Star Wars HAD a magazine. If Star Wars was something I played, I probably would have bought it. I flipped through it several times and thought it was decent, but there was too much attention given to non-RPG elements, such as the SW CCG. Too much attention, IMO, being ANY attention.
> 
> ...




Oops, typo. Meant to say HAD too.  
I never did mind the CCG stuff, because it was Gamer...not just d20. It was interesting to at least look through, and I don't have a horrible hatred for CCGs. I'm not completely sure why the magazine flopped, but I'm going to look into it...I'm not all that sure it was because of not making enough money. It easily could have been, but from the numbers of people I've seen supporting it, that just seems surprising it was die off for that reason. 
The problem with cutting SWd20 content in Dungeon/Poly is fairly simple...Star Wars is NOT OGC. It probably won't ever be because of its strong ties to such a large franchise. That means, the ONLY Star Wars content we get is in the occasional Poly issue, and the WotC releases. D&D and d20 Modern are OGC, and can get a lot more support. I personally think that if Paizo simply dropped all non-D&D content from Dungeon, Dungeon WOULD die. This board isn't exactly a fair representation of how popular Poly is, but there are a lot of people saying they buy Dungeon only for Poly. Buy cutting it, there could be an indirect result of killing the entire magazine...hmm...seems that Paizo is stuck in a Catch-22. Keep Poly, they loose a lot of the D&D readers...cut Poly, they loose nearly all of the Poly readers. Keep Poly and threads like this will just continue to come up about how its useless...cut Poly, and then we get threads screaming about wanting Poly BACK...it will be interesting to see how this is dealt with, but I think Paizo can handle it without too much difficulty...


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 9, 2003)

IIRC, people from WotC & Paizo have said that Dugeon was *going to die*, before the merger with Polyhedron. So Dungeon isn't "flopping" because they aren't giving "the fans what they want"; it's flopping because there apparently aren't enough people that want to buy Dungeon for it to survive anymore, period. 

Which is a shame, 'cause I find it useful (pre- and post-Poly).


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think Paizo can handle it without too much difficulty...
> *




I wish I shared your optimism about Paizo management. I really do.

IMO, they refuse to deliver the D&D content most fans want, and they can't even deliver their mags on time to my FLGS (coming two weeks AFTER they've hit the stands at Barnes & Noble, and that's about a week and a half AFTER the first subscribers got their copy). Considering my FLGS is only about an hour away from their offices, this is really pathetic. My FLGS refers to Paizo as "buttheads" and tells everybody to go buy the mags elsewhere as they can't count on them to deliver properly. This delay is even worse than when WoTC was publishing them!  

One more rant: Subscriber only content makes me angry. If I'm paying full price at the store, I damn well better be getting every last bit of content there is to be had. Another misguided Paizo strategy that aliennates the readership. Down with subscriber only content!


----------



## hellbender (Jun 9, 2003)

I will chime in with non-subscribers who despise subscriber only content. I dropped my subscriptions after repeatedly receiving my magazines looking like they had been through a warzone and having to buy them at my flgs anyway. Now, I am penalized for paying more than subscribers? 

    Polyhedron does nothing for me, but I don't mind the magazine being hooked up if it is for the better. A polyectomy wouldn't bother me a bit, but I can survive with it. I admit I did like the Gamma World and Spelljammer games, and am still reading through the newest issue, which does look good, however, three mini-games out of all those issues doesn't really sway me to supporting Polyhedron.

    The price doesn't bother me except that the content has been slipping lately and that is the bottom line, Paizo better start moving fast, this is way too small of a market to have newsstand sales drop for very long. At local venues, I am seeing more and more lingering copies of Dungeon, telling me that discontent is becoming a growing trend.


hellbender


----------



## Marion Poliquin (Jun 9, 2003)

My two cents:

Never had any interest in Polyhedron.

I stopped buying since the flip flopping began.


----------



## El Ravager (Jun 9, 2003)

I am a Dungeon fan who doesn't mind Poly.  For me, if I simply ripped the Poly section out of the mag, the content of Dungeon is still worth the cover price so I continue to buy.  I find no use for the mini games - I barely find enough time to buy all the full RPGs that my friends and I play.  The only time I really felt Poly was useful and worth reading was the Poly issue attatched to Dungeon 98.  It had a variety of short articles that supported games I already played (The d20 modern NPCs in the article Gun Fu, the Starwars article and the ship and bank map).  That issue of Poly is an example of the kind of d20 content that I would actually use.  I can see mini games being published now and then, but I would rather see articles supporting d20 games.  Kinda like Dragon Magazinebut for d20 Modern, SW d20 and LG.

As for Dungeon, I do not find the content slipping at all.  Yes issue 99 sucked.  Alot.  And to make matters worse, it had the most useless Poly ever.  Every mag has bad issues and issue 99 seems to be, in my opinion, the exception, not the rule.  I like the Adventure Path adventures they are doing and I have not gotten it yet, but I hear issue 100 is good.

I don't look at Poly as wasted space that could have been Dungeon, the only thing I look at is are the pages of Dungeon worth my money?  As long as that answer continues to be 'yes' I will keep buying Dungeon.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *With your position as a contributor (some might consider you an "insider") to the magazines, you are naturally biased and your comments clearly self-serving (perhaps you'd like these features to remain so you can get paid for contributing/"innovating" to them).
> *




Just a few inaccuracies to clear up. First of all I have never had anything more than a letter to the editor appear in Dungeon. I also currently have nothing in the works to publish in Dungeon.  Dragon has published my material 3 times in the past, but there hasn't been anything from me in Dungeon aside from the aforementioned letter. Second of all, I don't work for Paizo, I haven't had any conversations with Paizo about their business strategy. I've been with Dungeon since issue 17 - far before anyone could consider me an "industry insider." That and that alone is why I have a strong opinion about the magazine and its future. How long have you been part of its readership?

I would also like to point out that with the work I'm currently doing with WotC RPG R&D on actual hardback D&D books in a freelance capacity and the work I've been consistantly doing for Bastion Press for the past year, keeping Dungeon around as a venue to "get paid" for contributing is really the least of my considerations.



> *
> If the RPGA was truly financially viable and not a misguided drain on corporate resources... *




If this were true, Hasbro would have chopped it off years ago. 'Nuff said.


----------



## rounser (Jun 10, 2003)

> I think this proves the point I was just making. Its always about ME!



If the buying habits of the crunch-hungry masses who drove Dungeon and modules in general to the wall didn't compromise in their spending patterns, maybe it's poetic justice that an unwanted intrusion of d20 crunch into the last true home of adventure "fluff" see a similar fate, even if it does risk bringing the whole ship down with it?


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *How long have you been part of its readership?*




First, I resent the sly insinuation that that newer readers opinions are not as valid as "old schoolers" who have been with it from the get-go. That said, I've been reading Dungeon about as long as you. One of the first ones I bought was back in 1988 or '89 and had "Wards of Witching Ways" in it, about the two crazy old wizards in their island fortress tormenting the shipwrecked PCs for fun and sport. Might have been issue #16 for all I can remember. Maybe it was #18, or #22. Not going to be bothered to go hunt for it at this late hour. That was back when you got a good adventure or two every issue; no glitz, no non-D&D content, just good ol' fantasy adventures. Course, we still got plenty of unusable, awful crap, too. After all, that was the reign of terror of Lorraine Williams/T$R and the heyday of "Angry Mom Syndrome," so "edgy" wasn't exactly on the corporate menu. But plenty of great adventures still got through, more then than now, IMO. 

I've seen your name before in Dragon #296... the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook support piece on new stronghold enhancements, right? Great article, but you left out all the price breakdown info for the fortified inn/trading post, Drekken's Rest I think it was called. Probably a goof on WoTC's part; they were always screwing up and leaving out important bits of articles if they didn't just cut or change them on purpose without telling anybody (ask Sean K). Anyway, I'd very much appreciate that missing info if you'd care to post it here. It might make me less curmudgeonly toward your posts, LOL. No promises, though. 

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, though as a writer, I suspect you'd prefer that a "forum for innovation in game design" like Poly remain, if not for you, then for other writers to tinker with new ideas or so called "advancements" in game design. As a writer, I would, too. As a gamer, however, I don't want your chocolate in my peanut butter... I resent the inclusion of material I cannot use, and worse, have no desire to ever use, let alone bother to read except glance at in shock, surprise and dismay, like Hijinx.

Regarding your other point about Hasbro forcing WoTC into cutting off the RPGA if it was unprofitable, I don't agree. I think they've been misled by WoTC with faulty logic and fuzzy math into thinking the RPGA has value as a recruitment tool to help grow/sustain the hobby. Corporations with deep pockets support bone-headed, money-losing propositions like this all the time if they think it has some strategic long-term value towards garnering future profits. I don't think it does, and I think it is a waste of time and resources. Neither one of us being party to the insides of WoTC/Hasbro corporate matters, we'll have to chalk it up to a draw. You believe one thing, I believe another. Neither of us can be sure we're right, and (gasp!) we could both be wrong. Though, of course, I rarely am... at least in my own mind.


----------



## Numion (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> IMO, we got along fine without Star Wars or d20 Modern (or Hijinx) for decades. I don't care about d20 outside of D&D. All I want is D&D content and not have to pay for other games I can't use. Force-feeding us Poly, LGJ, Star Wars and Modern content is not innovative. Clearly these products in Dungeon are on life support, and I say pull the plug! It is the pigheaded refusal of Paizo to cancel these features that is killing Dungeon, not the refusal of the readerbase to accept content they don't want. *




Amen, bro!

I guess Dungeon staff listened to us when people everywhere said that the mag is the best value for money in d20 business before the whole Poly thing .. and saw an opporunity to optimize that value to their advantage (they thought that they'd get away with a lesser value / $ if the original value was so good), by selling us some crap on the side and charging more. 

It seems that the plan has backfired


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 10, 2003)

I'm trying to figure out what 'most D&D gamers want', and finding that I have no idea.  I know what most D&D gamers _I know personally_ want...and we don't all agree, there.  I look at ENWorld, and I see many of use don't agree here, either.  I look at USEnet, and see that no one seems to agree there, either.  So I'm not sure that quantifying such an item is so straightforward, or that Paizo is failing to meet that requirement.   Quick: do 'most fans' prefer fiction in Dragon magazine or not?  There you go.

Unless we assume both WotC and Paizo to be lying (and quite frankly, I've been listening to Erik Mona since many of the posters on this thread), Dungeon was on it's deathbed.  Dungeon has *never* been a high-margin magazine, and at times only existed to help push the D&D brand.  Like it or not, Cat Fancy probably has a wider circulation than Dungeon, and probably proves more profitable.  The same is true of New York or Philadelphia magazines.  Owing to that, it's more likely that Paizo is willing to inconvience two different readerships (both of whom have individual desires that are not necessarily communal), rather than not have either.

The contention that Dungeon needs more space so that it can have more modules, so that the percentage of sucky modules will decrease seems to miss the point, to me.  If you think that only one module per issue is usable, then you don't demand more pages so they can have two out of six that are usable, you ask for the other modules to be of higher quality.  However, you have to face the idea that maybe not everyone agrees on the quality of said modules, and that further, Paizo is limited by what material is submitted to them.  Unlike most magazines, Dungeon solicits far less material, and pulls much more from the slush pile.  Perhaps changing that policy will change the quality issue...but I'm not sure that it would be for the better, or that I would be happy if they did.  One of Dungeon's charms, to me, is that joe-dungeon master can submit a module and it might get printed.   When you consider that many of the folks who are currently published got their start that way (some of whom rose to editor), I think it should stay that way.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 10, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Unless we assume both WotC and Paizo to be lying (and quite frankly, I've been listening to Erik Mona since many of the posters on this thread), Dungeon was on it's deathbed.  Dungeon has never been a high-margin magazine, and at times only existed to help push the D&D brand.  *




I still don't believe this.

I recall numerous comments back around the dawn of 3E stating that Dungeon was one of the few things doing well.

Now everybody swears that wasn't true.  Fine, somebody was wrong, I do not know who.

But I still have one of those quotes from Ryan Dancy because it was part of a bigger discussion of the transistion from TSR to WotC.  And I have always found Ryan to be about as honest as they come.

My thinking is that the Pazio guys have attempted to leverage the Dungeon appeal to build their idea of a general gaming magazine.  Now they are dumbfounded that the Dungeon appeal doesn't just magically jump over to non-Dungeon things simply through bundling.  Then they make it worse by taking our non-interest in non-Dungeon material as a personal insult and responding from an emotional stance.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 10, 2003)

Well, I remember this quote from Ryan after the buyout (concerning listening to customers):  "_That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures._"  All that shows is that Dungeon sold better than TSR's adventures, not that it was really selling like hotcakes, remember, we're talking about print runs of 10,000 to 100,000, here.  TSR was only a big fish in a small niche market, and WotC's only slightly bigger.  Given that the cost of printing has sky-rocketed due to paper costs in the last four years, Dungeon's profit margin has probably shrunk accordingly.

I also found lots of anecdotal evidence from Ryan's research, that showed that most gamers leave the hobby within 5 years, after growing tired of it.  His evidence also showed that there was a core audience who bought D&D products to the exclusion of other game materials...200,000 in 1999, although it certainly spiked much higher, later.  Now consider that Dungeon, by virtue of it's material, is not as popular as Dragon.  None of my six players buy it, although almost all of them get Dragon.  IME, this is hardly uncommon.  The sales numbers for Dungeon have probably dropped sharply in the last year or so, as D&D has 'leveled off' in sales.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*



			
				Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> *First, I resent the sly insinuation that that newer readers opinions are not as valid as "old schoolers" who have been with it from the get-go. That said, I've been reading Dungeon about as long as you. *




I apologize if this came off as confrontational. I really was actually curious, not trying to insinuate that newer readers opinions are less valid. I do believe however that newer readers are more likely to jump ship when a change they don't like comes along. Needless to say, I'm still happy with the magazine although I will admit that it has seen a lot of changes recently.



> * I've seen your name before in Dragon #296... the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook support piece on new stronghold enhancements, right? Great article, but you left out all the price breakdown info for the fortified inn/trading post, Drekken's Rest I think it was called. Probably a goof on WoTC's part; they were always screwing up and leaving out important bits of articles if they didn't just cut or change them on purpose without telling anybody (ask Sean K). Anyway, I'd very much appreciate that missing info if you'd care to post it here. It might make me less curmudgeonly toward your posts, LOL. No promises, though.
> *




Thanks for your kind words on this article. I will have to see if I can dig up the files on this. Its been so long since I wrote it that I really don't remember if the costs were figured. I thought I had figured out all four of them in a spreadsheet that was turned in with the article. I'll see what I can find and post it if I still have it.



> *Regarding your other point about Hasbro forcing WoTC into cutting off the RPGA if it was unprofitable, I don't agree. I think they've been misled by WoTC with faulty logic and fuzzy math into thinking the RPGA has value as a recruitment tool to help grow/sustain the hobby. Corporations with deep pockets support bone-headed, money-losing propositions like this all the time if they think it has some strategic long-term value towards garnering future profits. I don't think it does, and I think it is a waste of time and resources. Neither one of us being party to the insides of WoTC/Hasbro corporate matters, we'll have to chalk it up to a draw. You believe one thing, I believe another. Neither of us can be sure we're right, and (gasp!) we could both be wrong. Though, of course, I rarely am... at least in my own mind.  *




Ah the perils of getting into flame wars on the internet... There is still some inaccuracy here to clear up. While I have no official ties to Paizo, I am a Wizards employee (corporate office, not retail). I have some information on this, but it starts getting into areas where my NDA applies and I don't feel comfortable discussing corporate business strategies on message boards. What I do feel comfortable saying about the RPGA is that it definitely has a valued place in the business. If someone officially representing the RPGA wants to show up and elaborate, then that would be their call. But hey, I'm not posting here as a representative of WotC. All the opinions I express are my own, which is why I don't call out who my employer is in my sig and I generally try to stay out of threads dealing with speculative stuff regarding the business.


----------



## hellbender (Jun 10, 2003)

I think we should just be thankful that there is anything out there for us at all. I remember the time before Dungeon when the mini-games (sometimes boardgames) where in the centre of Dragon and when adventures came out ("Into the Forgotten Realms"), it was cause for celebration. Look at what some other companies give as supplements (e.g. the "Rifter"), some of these can be very hit and miss (although the Perez comic in the Rifter was cool).


hellbender


----------



## BryonD (Jun 10, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *Well, I remember this quote from Ryan after the buyout (concerning listening to customers):  "That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures."  All that shows is that Dungeon sold better than TSR's adventures, not that it was really selling like hotcakes, remember, we're talking about print runs of 10,000 to 100,000, here.  TSR was only a big fish in a small niche market, and WotC's only slightly bigger.  Given that the cost of printing has sky-rocketed due to paper costs in the last four years, Dungeon's profit margin has probably shrunk accordingly.
> 
> I also found lots of anecdotal evidence from Ryan's research, that showed that most gamers leave the hobby within 5 years, after growing tired of it.  His evidence also showed that there was a core audience who bought D&D products to the exclusion of other game materials...200,000 in 1999, although it certainly spiked much higher, later.  Now consider that Dungeon, by virtue of it's material, is not as popular as Dragon.  None of my six players buy it, although almost all of them get Dragon.  IME, this is hardly uncommon.  The sales numbers for Dungeon have probably dropped sharply in the last year or so, as D&D has 'leveled off' in sales. *




Well said and all very fair.

But I don't think you can interpret Ryan's quote as being compatible with a magazine being "on its deathbed" at that time.

Maybe it is now.

Regardless, none of that changes the points I made about Pazio presuming that Dungeon buyers would take to Poly or that Pazio has made comments to the effect that if I say "I don't want Poly" then they take it as if I am saying "Your design skills suck and you are lame."  (And a Pazio person said pretty much that, in different words, directly to me via e-mail)

No offense to you, wizardDru.  If you were Pazio's spokesperson, I might be a bit more sympathetic at this point.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 10, 2003)

Folks, please feel free to use this thread as a vehicle for expressing your opinions on the magazine.  Please do not use it to bash each other or a certain "type" of gamer, to ascribe ulterior motives, or belittle each others' opinions.  If it continues to be a "bickerfest" I will close it.


----------



## WizarDru (Jun 10, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *But I don't think you can interpret Ryan's quote as being compatible with a magazine being "on its deathbed" at that time.*




True.  And he may very well have said that it was doing well, though I don't recall it.



> *Regardless, none of that changes the points I made about Pazio presuming that Dungeon buyers would take to Poly or that Pazio has made comments to the effect that if I say "I don't want Poly" then they take it as if I am saying "Your design skills suck and you are lame."  (And a Pazio person said pretty much that, in different words, directly to me via e-mail)*




Well, in my case, they presumed correctly, but that's neither here nor there.  

I personally think Johnny Wilson needs a few lessons in how to represent his company in public, or at least in internet forums.  He may be trying to be flip, but sometimes comes off as cocky and arrogant...to people who have no patience with such behavior.  He could take a few pages from Monte Cook's Book.  (_Heh.  Cook's book.  I digress._)  On the other hand, I think also that Paizo's folks are getting a little tired of being needled constantly, right or wrong.  While people have every right to complain about a magazine they've subscribed to or love dearly, some folks are downright rude about it.  There's really no need for bad manners on either folks' side 

And make no mistake, I think the burden is on Paizo here to present itself in a forthright manner....consider how Anthony Valterra is perceived versus Johnny Wilson.  AV had a terrible press release for the BoEF, but his handling of the event afterwords left everyone calm, if not in agreement.  JW can often act as gasoline on the proverbial fire.

*



			No offense to you, wizardDru.  If you were Pazio's spokesperson, I might be a bit more sympathetic at this point.
		
Click to expand...


*
Heh.  None taken, and I hope no received.  Mind you, if I were Paizo's spokesperson, I wouldn't still be having trouble with my Dragon subscription.    At least my Dungeon subscription is back on track. 

_Oh, and it's just WizarDru...you can drop the extra 'D'.  Everybody keeps wanting to give me two of 'em.  _


----------



## Matchstick (Jun 10, 2003)

Wow, it has been forever since I've posted.  Hi to Eric, PC, and all the others I remember.

I'll throw in my thoughts with the intent of this thread becoming somewhat of a poll for Paizo.

I don't use Poly at all, and would much rather that space be dedicated to D&D adventures.  I just don't have the time to run multiple games, and other than the Gamma World game (which was neat to look through) I've not even been tempted to play any of the mini games.

I do have a subscription and don't plan to cancel, which perhaps means this is an ignorable post.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*

triple post (edit)


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks Johnny, Erik & Chris*

edit (triple post)


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I apologize if this came off as confrontational. I really was actually curious, not trying to insinuate that newer readers opinions are less valid. I do believe however that newer readers are more likely to jump ship when a change they don't like comes along. Needless to say, I'm still happy with the magazine although I will admit that it has seen a lot of changes recently.*




Now that's the way to post! You're really earning that "Esquire" on the end of your name; that was an Anthony Valterra quality response (I mean that as a compliment).    Your latest reply completely defused me, and likely any others who might have thought you were casting aspersions on the outspoken "grumpy" section of the readership. I apologize if I misinterpreted your motives and ascribed sinister intentions/ulterior motives to your posts where none were. 

I think you're right that new readers are more likely to jump ship when they see something they don't like creep in to "their" magazine, while old timers put up with a lot more before finally jumping ship. That said, I think that a significant number of Dungeon readers are new, brought in by 3e, and failing to cater to them is a recipe for disaster, just as surely as failing to give the old timers what they've come to expect over the years. But I think the majority of both demographic groups (old and new readers) want the same thing: more D&D adventures, less (hopefully none) of anything else.




			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> *Thanks for your kind words on this article. I will have to see if I can dig up the files on this. Its been so long since I wrote it that I really don't remember if the costs were figured. I thought I had figured out all four of them in a spreadsheet that was turned in with the article. I'll see what I can find and post it if I still have it.
> *




Your article was the primary reason I bought that issue; I'm very picky about Dragon and Dungeon buys after feeling ripped-off by a Dragon subscription that yielded approximately 6.5 useful issues out of 12 in 2000-01. Not good odds. #q296 was one of the best issues ever, IMO, and that was largely due to the quality and utility of your article, which was without a doubt in my mind, the centerpiece of the issue. I'm just now getting around to using it, and that's when I noticed the price (total and breakdown) information of Drekken's Rest was completely missing. Everything else appeared intact. Frankly, your article was the kind of thing I think we should see more of in Dungeon: locations, locations, locations!  We don't even need them to be big complex adventures so much as provide cool maps with defined contents and a few hooks to get the juices flowing (depending on where the hooks are placed, LOL). I'm not trying to flatter you, either; I'm simply calling it as I see it. The article kicked ass and whatever our current disagreement, it remains one of my favorites (and I've been collecting Dragon off and on since #50!). If I could receive this bit of info, it would be greatly appreciated. 




			
				Baraendur said:
			
		

> Ah the perils of getting into flame wars on the internet... There is still some inaccuracy here to clear up. While I have no official ties to Paizo, I am a Wizards employee (corporate office, not retail). I have some information on this, but it starts getting into areas where my NDA applies and I don't feel comfortable discussing corporate business strategies on message boards. What I do feel comfortable saying about the RPGA is that it definitely has a valued place in the business. If someone officially representing the RPGA wants to show up and elaborate, then that would be their call. But hey, I'm not posting here as a representative of WotC. All the opinions I express are my own, which is why I don't call out who my employer is in my sig and I generally try to stay out of threads dealing with speculative stuff regarding the business. [/B]




A graceful way to exit, though I suspect mention of this earlier might have clarified things and prevented some of our more colorful fencing of words!  

Ah, well. No harm done and no ill will on my part. Thanks for the fun debate!


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *
> consider how Anthony Valterra is perceived versus Johnny Wilson.  AV had a terrible press release for the BoEF, but his handling of the event afterwords left everyone calm, if not in agreement.  [/i][/size] *




Apparently, I was one of the few people not offended by AV's BoEF press release, or who welcomed the content with open arms (not the same thing as "I've gotta buy it!" but I think there's a niche for this product and will give it a look through if I see it on the shelf). 

TANGENT:
I'm a big (but generally silent) supporter of "mature content" like BoEF, Vile, Nymphology, GUCK, etc. I'm mostly silent on the subjects because A) The official material like BoVD/unofficial material like AEG's EVIL isn't really "vile" enough for my taste, and B) The GUCK and Mongoose's pdf Nymphology are largely juvenile and useless aside from a few spells fit for use outside the bedroom and, of course, pregnancy rules... 

My opinions, mind you. I think Vile and Erotic d20 development should continue (and wouldn't mind seeing them combined!), but most of it simply does nothing for me except to raise an eyebrow and maybe elicit a snicker or two (often directed at the authors, not the content).


----------



## BryonD (Jun 10, 2003)

WizarDru,

Sorry I got your name wrong.

Yeah, I don't like Poly and you do.  But beyond that we appear to agree.

I certainly do not mind the merger, I just will not fund it.  

You nailed my view, the burden IS on Paizo.  

When customers complain rudely, they are being unprofessional.  But, hey, they are not speaking as professionals.  

When Paizo responds rudely, they show themselves the be unprofessional.  And they are supposed to be professionals.  Yes, it is a double standard.  Life is tough.  Life is tougher is you want people to give you their money.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 10, 2003)

BryonD said:
			
		

> *WizarDru,
> 
> Yes, it is a double standard.  Life is tough.  Life is tougher is you want people to give you their money. *




Sad but true.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 11, 2003)

Well Iron Chef, I wish I could give you the full break down of the costs of the Drekken's Rest, but unfortunately I have long since deleted the files. I think I decided that there wasn't much point in preserving the files for posterity when I upgraded to a new computer about a year ago. 

Anyway, I can help you out a little. In Dragon 298 the editors responded to a pretty favorable letter written about the article in which they were asked about the missing costs. What they put was Subtotal: 665,150 gp. Total 866,400 gp. I would have to go back and figure them out from scratch if I were to give the more specific costs, and unfortunately I don;t have enough time for that. Hopefully the small amount of information I can supply will be sufficient.

I think I did take the time to figure them all out, but there is a slight chance I'm mistaken. I know I did the ones that appeared in the magazine.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Jun 11, 2003)

Any info is better than none. Much obliged! At least now I can figure out whether it's affordable or not at a glance. I'll mark a note in the margins of the article for future reference. Thanks!!! 

PS: Is the subtotal the amount before factoring in walls, and the total with all walls included?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 11, 2003)

I actually read through five and half pages of this thread before I started skimming, so I apologize if I say something that was already said.

First, the idea of seperating Dungeon/Poly or killing Poly is not going to work.  Neither magazine was working on it's own, even under WotC - after all, they didn't say "axe Poly", they said "axe either".   Obviously neither one of them was viable from a revenue standpoint.  Seperate them, and you'll see both of them perish in a short time, IMO.

I think that there's a lot of potential in both Dungeon and Poly which isn't being utilized.  I don't want a magazine that's just adventures - that's too narrow a scope for a magazine, especially one of this nature.  I think they should take a look at the subscription and sales rates, and decide how to divvy up pages that way.  If the subscription rates were (made up) 9k Dungeon and 1k Poly, then I say definitely cut back Poly - make it a 90/10 split.  But without hard numbers, I really couldn't say what a fair split would be.

I actually think some of the articles from Dragon about world-building and DMing should go in Dungeon - especially if it's thought of as a DM's magazine.  I think there needs to be a lot more generic stuff - the idea about outlining a town was great, and I think there needs to be more along those same lines, from both Poly and Dungeon.  

On the Dungeon side, I think that setting-specific stuff needs to be toned down within the adventure, but perhaps expanded in a sidebar.  For instance, you have a generic pirate adventure - now how can you tailor it to Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms?  That way, you please people looking for any of generic, GH, or FR stuff.  I also think there definitely needs to be more of an emphasis on how you can take the core books and use them in innovative and creative ways.  Dragon is for new stuff.  Dungeon should be for getting the most out of the core books in your adventures.

As for Poly - there needs to be first and foremost support for the major d20 settings that WotC puts out.  I would say at least an even split between Star Wars, D20 Modern, and new material.  I would favor something more along the lines of 35/45/20 respectively, but that's just me.  Again it depends on sales statistics, though I wouldn't devote any more than 25% of Poly to new stuff.  Mini-games are fine, and can be interesting if they're good.  Keep supporting the good ones, screw the bad ones.  One thing I definitely wouldn't mind seeing is how you might be able to use non-RPG sources to enrich your games.  For example, there's all sorts of information on how solar systems might look - positions of planets around various types of stars and such.  Why not include an article like that, that will be useful to people playing in space settings?  It wouldn't have to be long, and could work as a good filler in slow months, I think.


----------



## bloodydrake (Jun 12, 2003)

Here is My problem with the price changes from the Canadian prices and one of the real reasons people are upset that I know. You can look below at the history of the last 12 issues I have.

issue-------Cost -----Pages dungeon----Pages poly
85----------8.99----------96---------------0
86----------8.99----------128-------------0
89----------8.99----------114-------------0
91----------8.99----------116------------64
93----------8.99----------112------------66
94----------9.99----------94--------------62
95----------9.99----------98--------------66
96----------9.99----------89--------------67
97----------9.99----------115------------64
98/99------19.98----------115------------88

Averaging about 100pages of dungeon every other month some shorter some longer. This is understandable . page count can’t always dictate the adventures you have.

At Sept 2002 a 1dollar increase in cost a few issues after poly had been incorporated.
Honestly I didn’t find that to bad really to me poly was worth the extra buck. And for all the poly fans Dungeon is probably worth a getting with their poly for a buck.
So overall I see this as a fair compromise of how to combine both subscribers into one mag.

Now the switch to monthly is where things just get out of control. The price DOUBLED! For the exact same dungeon content and an increase in poly content of about 25%! 
Now I understand the American price was nocked down 1dollar a month going back to basically 2 bucks cheaper every 2 months.. WHY was the Canadian price left up at 9.99??? 

This has been a real sore spot for me especially with issues like 99 where its basically 10 dollars for one 20page module.. i could have paid 13bucks for a full blown commercial retail module instead. Very hard to swallow.

Now the other big issue is why has the poly content thru 2 issues increased and the dungeon content stayed the same? I can almost guaranty you that if that extra 24 pages of poly in 98/99 had been dedicated to another dungeon adventure the majority of the feelings of being ripped off or extremely disappointed wouldn’t be.

When was the decision made to increase poly content and not dungeon content and honestly why? I don’t mind poly but I don’t want more of it per say.

As far as poly content, I’d like to see more d20 and ogl modules and less minigames.
Give me some more COC,Bablyon5,Everquest,D20 modules and supplements to support the other d20 games I play and I’d be happier then an endless stream of minigames that seem to just showcase d20’s ability to diversify.

I think looking at this all unless you increase the quantity of Dungeon content per month the practically doubling of cost is just not justifiable to the average customer and the magazines percentages need to be adjusted back to a 70/30ratio.
Take that 24 pages and put it towards dungeons and add a few more.
80pages per month of dungeon and 34pages of poly each month would work for me.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 12, 2003)

Wow, I'm amazed that this thread is still going on.   I read through Dungeon #100 last night, and was once again very pleased by the content.     It was fun to see a story with good old Flame from issue #1's "Into the Fire" and issue #17's "From the Ashes".   Both of those were among the best stories every printed in the magazine, and worthy of a trilogy.  I was just disappointed to see that it was by the same author as the original two.

I was also very pleased with "Beast of Burden".    While there may have been some similarities with the module from #97, I saw enough distinct differences as well.   I for one had no interest in running the story from #97, but am anxious to use the new one.  

On the Poly. side, the whole Githyaki bit was entertaining.  It is great to see an entire culture fleshed out for an underused race.  Furthermore, the content does not have to be limited to that particular race, as the various character classes and background presented here for the Githyaki could be easily modified for dozens of other humanoid monster races. 

And once again I liked the random map of the Fast Food Restaurant.   I don't really see how all the posters saying that non D&D material is useless can so easily discount the current popularity of the D20 Modern game, the sales of which should warrant the inclusion of a few pages in every issue.    

And one correction, an earlier poster said that the older issues of the Magazine were all D&D.   I recall that there was an excellent Marvel Superheroes module very early on, set in the mansion of the X-Men's enemies The Hellfire Club.    I believe that there were a few modules for other game systems as well.


----------



## rounser (Jun 12, 2003)

> And one correction, an earlier poster said that the older issues of the Magazine were all D&D. I recall that there was an excellent Marvel Superheroes module very early on, set in the mansion of the X-Men's enemies The Hellfire Club. I believe that there were a few modules for other game systems as well.



Yeah, and there was a Top Secret SI one in on of those issues too.  These were experiments that got a negative response, IIRC.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 12, 2003)

rounser said:
			
		

> *Yeah, and there was a Top Secret SI one in on of those issues too.  These were experiments that got a negative response, IIRC. *



Well, I for one enjoyed the Marvel module.  I was a fan of both the comic and gaming system.  I never got to actually run it as a Marvel game, but did later adapt the Hellfire Mansion for a regular D&D game. 

One other thing I enjoyed about Dungeon #100 was the look back by the various editors, as I enjoyed the parallel piece in Dragon #300.    I think that special anniversary issues are helped by pieces like this.


----------



## Sholari (Jun 12, 2003)

I don't see how Dungeon can be in that much jeopordy when you compare it to a company publishing individual game modules.  Unlike modules it has a locked-in subscriber base that minimizes its demand risk i.e. they can plan on at least a certain number of modules selling a month.  Because there is more consistency in demand, retailers would be a lot more likely to carry it in inventory.  It has income from other advertisers which modules do not have.  It probably sells at a higher volume than an individual game module which would most likely lower production costs.   Plus, you have the economic advantage of bundling several adventures together.  I just do not see how Dungeon can be a money losing proposition when there are modules out there making money.  I also do not see how bundling Dungeon to Poly is the only solution that can make both magazines viable.  There is a full spectrum of strategies that could be employed to make the magazines profitable.  Why is bundling two very different magazines together the only one?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

Sholari said:
			
		

> *I just do not see how Dungeon can be a money losing proposition when there are modules out there making money. *




Compare the price per page of Dungeon to the price per page of a standard module. Dungeon is far superior as value for money, and is colour besides.

Then think about what you just said.

Dungeon needs to a bigger subscriber base to attract ads.

If more ads don't come in, the cover price will have to increase to cover the gap.

Cheers!


----------



## Sholari (Jun 12, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Compare the price per page of Dungeon to the price per page of a standard module. Dungeon is far superior as value for money, and is colour besides.
> 
> ...




Some good points, Merric, though I'd say that there is more to a module than price per page unless it were a commodity.  The most important thing to a module is the quality of the material, which has suffered in addition to price per page.  Without quality Dungeon is really just paper with a bunch of words on them.

As far as increasing the subscriber base there are probably other ways to do this that are more in line with Dungeon's core audience than "welding" Polyhedron onto it.  I really wouldn't have an issue it they merged in Living Greyhawk Journal or something more aligned with the D&D gamemaster.  I'd even keep my subscription once it runs out of the Dungeon-Poly thing were just a temporary measure until they found another solution.


----------



## bwgwl (Jun 12, 2003)

Sholari said:
			
		

> *I really wouldn't have an issue it they merged in Living Greyhawk Journal or something more aligned with the D&D gamemaster.*



they already did.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

There definitely are other issues.

"I just do not see how Dungeon can be a money losing proposition when there are modules out there making money." 

Well, its easy to see how: they don't charge enough for Dungeon. 

It just what the content/quality/price points have to be.

Although I'm not a particular fan of the Dungeon/Polyhedron package vs. the pure Dungeon package, I can see that the D/P package _could_ be more popular than just Dungeon on its own. If this is actually so, then Paizo would be mad not to continue publishing it in such a manner.

That there are people who drop D/P is inconsequential to Paizo if more people take it up than drop it.

Unfortunately, at a certain time you can't rely on surveys any more - you must do it and see what the result is. Thus, anguish, strife, and many message board posts like this one! 

Cheers!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 12, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *There definitely are other issues.
> 
> "I just do not see how Dungeon can be a money losing proposition when there are modules out there making money."
> 
> ...




I like some others were willing to pay more for what we were getting. The problem was the amount of the price increase and that Poly was increased while Dungeon was not. If you don't value Poly (I and many others don't, but this does not mean others don't value it) then the price per page is very close to retail modules which don't have advertising and a guarunteed minimun sales figure. If Poly content was reduced for Dungeon content then the PpP goes back to being a value to me and I will be happy to support it. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> *Although I'm not a particular fan of the Dungeon/Polyhedron package vs. the pure Dungeon package, I can see that the D/P package could be more popular than just Dungeon on its own. If this is actually so, then Paizo would be mad not to continue publishing it in such a manner.
> 
> That there are people who drop D/P is inconsequential to Paizo if more people take it up than drop it.*




Unfortunately the facts seem to point to more of a drop than an increase after this change. While I don't have hard facts the number of posters saying they are dropping is higher than those saying they are adding. Additionaly Paizo is still talking like the magazines are still in trouble which is less likely if thier subscribtion base is increasing. We shall see the answer but it wouldn't surprise me to see another change soon in order to stop the hemoraging. If I am wrong and it is increasing subscribers good for them. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately, at a certain time you can't rely on surveys any more - you must do it and see what the result is. Thus, anguish, strife, and many message board posts like this one!
> 
> Cheers! *




That is what they have done and we shall see if thier choices were the right ones or the wrong ones. If they are losing subscribers than threads like this one might give them some other ideas to try.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

Just a couple of notes:

* Dungeon/Polyhedron as a combined feature has been going for over a year. It was underpriced for what it gave, but probably popular.

* Dungeon has _never_ been monthly before.

I hope the Dungeon content is increased per magazine, I don't mind about the price so much.

Cheers!


----------



## Skade (Jun 12, 2003)

A curious note- I recieved a renewal notice for Dungeon today, and notice that it still describes the subscription options as 

1 year 6 issues for 22.95
2 years 12 issues 38.95
3 years 18 issues 55.95

So bi-monthly rates.  You would think that would think their mailings would reflect their monthly staus by now.


----------



## Felon (Jun 12, 2003)

I believe the going rate now is $45 for 12 issues.

Less than $4 per issues. An excellent value.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

According to their website:

*Dungeon Magazine*
US$45 for 12 issues 
US$58.50 for 12 issues in Canada
US$99 for 12 issues in other countries.

*Dragon Magazine*
US$37.95 for 12 issues
US$43.95 for Canada
US$80 for other countries

*Combined Dragon and Dungeon subscription*
US$80.95 for 24 issues (I guess 12 of each)
US$99.95 in Canada
US$177 in other countries

The combined rates save you:
$2 for US.
$2.50 for Canada
$2 for other countries.

Cheers!


----------



## Skade (Jun 12, 2003)

I'm aware of the rates, what bothers me is that I recieved the above rates I posted in the mail today.  That should not be.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

Definitely shouldn't be! I hope they're still monitoring this thread! 

Cheers!


----------



## Skade (Jun 12, 2003)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Definitely shouldn't be! I hope they're still monitoring this thread!
> 
> Cheers! *




Well, the end result is I think I shall be sending in a check within a few days to extend my subscription.  Though I no longer have a group, and currently live in a gaming abyss, I still enjoy reading the mini-games and the occassional adventure.  A small part of my brain considered not subscribing because I won't have much use for it, but I simply enjoy reading the material, and for that it is by far worth the cost of a subscription.

Cheers to ya.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2003)

I must say, I don't understand "the article isn't useful to me now" concept. Recently, I finally managed to run the Desert of Desolation series of modules... 15 years after I originally purchased them!

What I hope is that an article or module will be helpful sometime in my gaming life. 

Cheers!


----------



## Skade (Jun 12, 2003)

With me, its more that I simply don't use modules.

I have run 6 published adventures in 12 years of running DnD or other game systems.  One of those was Tears for Twilight Hollow from a recent issue of Dungeon, which I think is one of the best I have ever read.  The others are Chicago By Night for Vampire, Terrible Trouble at Tragidore because it was traditional, and the Witchfire Trilogy from Privateer Press.  

one night encounters and filler pieces would help me alot, but adevntures don't fit into my campaigns very often without a serious rewrite.  So, I normally just wing it.  I do lift ideas very often though, for much the same things I just mentioned.  If I find a great plot device, NPC or encounter I may adapt it into a game somehwere, but I rarely even think about using it wholecloth.

I really just read the modules for entertainment factor.  I started my subscription fully on the merits of Polyhedron, which is funny since I was not and still am not an RPGA member.


----------

