Dragon Vs Dungeon magazine

[ShadowMaster]

Hi there,

I'm planning to subscribe to one dungeon and dragon magazine and I would like to know what are the differences between the Dragon and the Dungeon magazine. Which one is the best suited for my needs as a dungeon & Dragon player?

Thanks.

 

[EricNoah]

Dragon has articles on new rules, new classes, new spells, new feats, and general D&D and RPG articles. It comes out 12 times per year.

Dungeon/Polyhedron is really two magazines stuck together. It comes out 6 times per year.

Dungeon features adventures for D&D (plots, characters, monsters, maps, encounter areas, etc.).

Polyhedron features D20 System coverage. Each issue features some d20 "mini game" or campaign setting for the D20 System. Things like Gamma World, Spelljammer, Mecha Crusade, and so forth.

I like 'em both, but my favorite would have to be the Dungeon half of Dungeon/Polyhedron.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I agree with Eric. I usually buy them (both) off the newsstand, although I too am seriously considering just subscribing to both. Dungeon, although a little pricey, has dramatically increased it's production quality over the past couple of years, and I still think it's one of the best d20 gaming resources available.

Also, while I was starting to get pretty tired of Dragon during the last few months, I think that Piazzo (can't think of the company's name who took over Dragon) is starting to listen to people like us on these boards, by making the mag far less rules-intensive. I mean Christ, if we're reading the magazine, we own the core books; how many more new rules, items, and PrC's do we really need?

Instead, they seem to be leaning the focus more toward aspects of (go figure) playing the game, like how to run a certain kind of encounter (for example, running a combat with large numbers of enemies), how to design a better plot, etc.

The recent Dragon article on pacing was SO helpful to me that it's convinced me that I should get a subsription, and that Piazzo (or whatever it's called!) is improving on this once-great, lately-lame magazine.

Note to the publishers of Dragon: when are you going to listen to your readers and eliminate the fiction section? Fill up that (relatively large) space with articles, any kind of articles! Even if it means putting a few more ad spaces in there, I think most readers would find it well worth it.

 

[Fast Learner]

Which one is the best suited for my needs as a dungeon & Dragon player?

As a player, you should get Dragon magazine. If you're a DM then they both have value, and if I had to pick just one as a DM I'd pick Dungeon (but Dragon is still great).

 

[EricNoah]

Note to the publishers of Dragon: when are you going to listen to your readers and eliminate the fiction section?

Is it possible that some people are saying one thing and other people are saying something different? And not just about the fiction, but about all of the preferences you listed.

 

[BluWolf]

IMHO both are worth their respective prices.

I love them both.

 

[diaglo]

buy Dragon if you are a player.

buy Dungeon if you are a DM.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Is it possible that some people are saying one thing and other people are saying something different? And not just about the fiction, but about all of the preferences you listed.

Yes, it's possible. I'll be the first to admit that, according to most rpg-related internet "polls" I've seen, I'm clearly in the minority of gamers, because I don't feel that "crunchier = better." I vastly prefer reading about how to accomplish something in terms of the game itself, rather than getting caught up in the minutiae of details, like magic items or Prestige Classes, that I most likely will never use.

I personally would much rather see more articles on a certain type of game that can be run (witness: the swashbuckling issue, and even the slightly less appealing (to me) knightly issue). I think these past couple of issues have shown a clear intent on the part of the publishers to ease off of the "crunch" (yes, I too hate that word, just as I'm starting to hate what it indicates ) and put more emphasis on how the game is to be played. Personally I, as a DM, don't really have trouble thinking up new creative ideas, items, NPC's or whathaveyou, I have more trouble implementing them. I need more help actually telling the story, so to speak, than coming up with something to tell, if that makes any sense.

So, back to my original point, I'm simply trying to say that the publishers already seem to be going in a very positive direction (IMO, obviously) with Dragon magazine, and I've yet to hear from any hard-core reader (or any Dragon reader at all, for that matter), who said they really enjoy the fiction section (or even read it). So, it's my opinion that they should eliminate it.

Eric, how do you feel about the direction (as you see it) Dragon is heading in? Do you see any change since Piazzo took over? What about Dungeon? Is it better or worse since its merge with Polyhedron. Personally, I actually think it's better; even though I have never actually used the Polyhedron game-rules (yet), mostly because I don't really have time to learn the rules in-depth, I enjoy having something a little different that I could add to my game, if I so chose. I mean, Dungeon has never really been a magazine I've gotten 100% use out of, and still I almost always enjoy it.

 

[EricNoah]

Eric, how do you feel about the direction (as you see it) Dragon is heading in? Do you see any change since Piazzo took over? What about Dungeon? Is it better or worse since its merge with Polyhedron.

I don't currently see Dragon heading in a direction. It seems essentially the same, to me, as it has always been. I have no opinion on the "theme vs. no theme" argument because even in a theme issue that doesn't appeal to me NOW there is stuff I can probably use at some point. I do like stuff that's somewhere between "pure crunch" and "pure fluff" -- i.e. to me the perfect example would be a big article on how a thieves' guild works, with some new rules, gadgets, NPC stats, etc. as the crunchy part. But there's stuff that virtually everyone has said they liked that I never read (the Dungeoncraft articles). Much of the magazine is enjoyable much of the time, and that's all I think I can reasonably expect.

Dungeon has gotten better in many ways since 3E but its biggest drawback is its lack of monster stats. Understandable, but regretable. I always end up having to print out monster stat blocks to run their adventures (I refuse to open the MM during a game-- ick!).

I've liked reading the Polyhedron minigames, but purely from an academic standpoint. I'll probably never actually use them. But I'm not into one-shot gaming much, and ditto for "modern" gaming.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Interesting viewpoints, Eric. I would have to say I agree with you on all but the 'mixed elements of crunch/fluff,' but I discussed that already.

I too, never really got the excitement over Dungeoncraft articles (but are they still putting those out?) If, in the swashbuckling issue, the article on pacing is a Dungeoncraft article, then I definitely do like those articles (but that's probably because I recently decided to abandon my plan of running a pre-made Dungeon adventure in favor of simply creating my own, and I found the tips very useful). In any case, I remember glossing over some (IMO) incredibly boring articles in Dragon a few months back about Worldbuilding that I have to say I really didn't enjoy.

Not that they wouldn't be useful to someone actually building a world (go figure), but the way I see it, if someone has the skill and dedication to create their own homeworld from scratch, I sincerely doubt they are going to need a Dragon article like that one to help them.

Oh well, I think both the magazines have improved dramatically since Paizo took over, and I plan to subscribe to both sometime soon.