Thoughts about Dragon Magazine: A minor rant about the D&D periodical
Note: This is a repost of an article I posted on my Web site over three years ago (has it been that long? Jeez...). In the process of re-doing the site I felt it was more appropriate as a weblog essay rather than a webpage. I should also note that since I originally wrote this, I feel that Dragon Magazine has improved a fair amount, at least in terms of content. For the most part I still feel the way I did when I originally wrote this - especially in relation to the Dragon covers - but it has gotten better and hopefully that will continue. I do have to say I've gone from reconsidering my subscription a year or two again to looking forward to the new issues, so that's saying something.
I'm a long-time reader of Dragon Magazine, having picked it up every month since issue #98 (which was published over 20 years ago - yes, I feel old). I haven't been overly fond of the magazine for awhile now, but I still get it and read it since it's the flagship D&D magazine. It's not that I don't like the magazine, it's just that it doesn't hold the same appeal that it used to. Part of the reason is that is often more of the same - more prestige classes, more spells, more monsters, more magic items, etc. That gets old after awhile, and it doesn't help that that's what most of the d20 products cover as well - which is why I don't buy too many of them. But the other reason is the presentation, part of which I didn't realize until reading a recent issue.
I've not liked the internal presentation of Dragon for quite some time. It's too busy, too inconsistent, too "hip", I suppose. Granted, lots of magazines are like that; I imagine Paizo is simply keeping up with the other publishers. But I prefer the simplicity the layout had around the time I started reading it: bold article headers, a good serif typeface, the well-done B&W line art from names like Easley and Elmore...it was more a feeling of "here's some good information for your campaign" rather than "lookatthiscoolstuffwowyou'llloveit!" (I think there were more articles that weren't just more "crunchy bits" in the past, too, but I could be wrong). But a reader's letter in issue #302 pointed out something I didn't think much about before: the covers.
Basically, the reader was complaining that Dragon used to have better covers, and after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion. Dragon used to have great covers - wonderful pieces of art. There were titles on the covers, but they were relegated to the top, succintly-written and in a tasteful size and typeface. And they were often scenes of something - an entire picture filled with background, detail, interaction, or sometimes mere contemplation. Now, we generally have a single character (often looking like a cheap comic book extract more than anything), usually posing and looking like some sort of bad-ass, with no background, nothing interesting going, and surrounded by huge titles of all the "kewl" things the reader can expect to find in the issue. Instead of a beautiful piece of art and some hints of the contents inviting you in, Dragon covers are now more like some loud, obnoxious punk rocker jumping in your face and screaming about why you need to rip open the magazine and rock out with all the kick-ass crunch inside. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit here (got on a bit of a roll), but you get the idea.
Granted, Dragon hasn't always followed the "ideal" I put forth above (looking through my CD archive reminds me of that). And the editors are far more professional than when the magazine first came out. Regardless, the visual appeal of the magazine hasn't been there for years. And the more I think about it, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing to buy each month as it is...
On a side note, I would like to say that I have very little to complain about concerning Dragon's sister publication, Dungeon Magazine. I don't read it cover-to-cover, but I do get it to build up a collection of adventures; most of the ones I've run from Dungeon have been pretty good. And Dungeon has a nice, consistent layout...though it suffers from some of Dragon's problems when it comes to covers, though not quite as badly.
Another note: I also like how Dungeon has the "DM articles" in it as well. I don't use half of them, but I still like the idea. It's almost enough to balance out the dislike I have for the "Downer" comic.
I'm a long-time reader of Dragon Magazine, having picked it up every month since issue #98 (which was published over 20 years ago - yes, I feel old). I haven't been overly fond of the magazine for awhile now, but I still get it and read it since it's the flagship D&D magazine. It's not that I don't like the magazine, it's just that it doesn't hold the same appeal that it used to. Part of the reason is that is often more of the same - more prestige classes, more spells, more monsters, more magic items, etc. That gets old after awhile, and it doesn't help that that's what most of the d20 products cover as well - which is why I don't buy too many of them. But the other reason is the presentation, part of which I didn't realize until reading a recent issue.
I've not liked the internal presentation of Dragon for quite some time. It's too busy, too inconsistent, too "hip", I suppose. Granted, lots of magazines are like that; I imagine Paizo is simply keeping up with the other publishers. But I prefer the simplicity the layout had around the time I started reading it: bold article headers, a good serif typeface, the well-done B&W line art from names like Easley and Elmore...it was more a feeling of "here's some good information for your campaign" rather than "lookatthiscoolstuffwowyou'llloveit!" (I think there were more articles that weren't just more "crunchy bits" in the past, too, but I could be wrong). But a reader's letter in issue #302 pointed out something I didn't think much about before: the covers.
Basically, the reader was complaining that Dragon used to have better covers, and after thinking about it, I came to the same conclusion. Dragon used to have great covers - wonderful pieces of art. There were titles on the covers, but they were relegated to the top, succintly-written and in a tasteful size and typeface. And they were often scenes of something - an entire picture filled with background, detail, interaction, or sometimes mere contemplation. Now, we generally have a single character (often looking like a cheap comic book extract more than anything), usually posing and looking like some sort of bad-ass, with no background, nothing interesting going, and surrounded by huge titles of all the "kewl" things the reader can expect to find in the issue. Instead of a beautiful piece of art and some hints of the contents inviting you in, Dragon covers are now more like some loud, obnoxious punk rocker jumping in your face and screaming about why you need to rip open the magazine and rock out with all the kick-ass crunch inside. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit here (got on a bit of a roll), but you get the idea.
Granted, Dragon hasn't always followed the "ideal" I put forth above (looking through my CD archive reminds me of that). And the editors are far more professional than when the magazine first came out. Regardless, the visual appeal of the magazine hasn't been there for years. And the more I think about it, I'm wondering if it's worth continuing to buy each month as it is...
On a side note, I would like to say that I have very little to complain about concerning Dragon's sister publication, Dungeon Magazine. I don't read it cover-to-cover, but I do get it to build up a collection of adventures; most of the ones I've run from Dungeon have been pretty good. And Dungeon has a nice, consistent layout...though it suffers from some of Dragon's problems when it comes to covers, though not quite as badly.
Another note: I also like how Dungeon has the "DM articles" in it as well. I don't use half of them, but I still like the idea. It's almost enough to balance out the dislike I have for the "Downer" comic.
Labels: DnD
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home