December has been a disappointing month (For Dragon)

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
personal rant and disclaimer
I don't like the current way Wizards is advancing DnD. I don't like the move to a Web-based character builder. I think Essentials has done as much harm as it has done good, and I don't like what I've been seeing from Dragon magazine, which has been one of the two big motivating factors for my lengthy Insider subscription (the other, the CB, has already vanished as I knew it). Item rarity is a lovely concept, but its implementation leaves muchmuch to be desired.


But, darn it all, I bought a years subscription of DnDi, so I may as well stick it out, at least until my subscription expires come March.

December has been a disappointing month. November was merely "okay", but December (which has the same number of articles despite the loss of articles during the expected holiday week) has been outright disappointing.

Here's how it breaks down through this week:

The Editorial -- standard fare.

Shifters in the Realms -- 11 backgrounds for shifters. Number of backgrounds not duplicable by one of the other 700+ backgrounds in the compendium? 2: Look like a Human||Elf instead of a Shifter.

Reflavoring Powers -- This article deliver no content whatsoever. It could have easily been an editorial or Ampersand article instead.

Class Acts: Runepriests -- At long last! Feat, and/or power support for *the* least supported class. Finally we-- what? You say this article has only 4 items in it? 4 "rare" items that are unobtainable by PCs during character creation or via ritual? "Disappointed" is a massive understatement.

Bazaar of the Bizarre -- Perhaps we'll finally get some more common items -- a common ring, perhaps, we haven't had one of those yet! Alas -- 8 more rare items that shall never grace the hands of PCs save by intervention of fate itself.

Channel Divinity: Corellon -- 9 pages for a single, average paragon path that isn't usable RAW.

Unearthed Arcana: Psions  -- It is Unearthed Arcana -- meaning it *is* not, *will* not be supported in normal games. It will more than likely not provide anything more than alternate rules. I liked the fluff on this one, actually, but it's moot, since they are an "unofficial variant for the Dungeons & Dragons game".

Ampersand -- "If you’re already a D&D Insider, then you’ve been enjoying the new web-based D&D Character Builder." ...seriously?

Art Gallery: Famine in Fargo -- Not only is this art, it's Gamma-world art. The biggest release for 4e in this month is only tangentially related to 4e at all.

Essential Assassin Reveal for 12/17! -- ... nope, pushed back to the 21st.

Totems of the Far Realm  17 ways to live defeated -- aka 17 plot hooks that should be in Dungeon.

At this point, the 2nd update to the Essentials Assassin* had better be damn impressive. If "Totems of the Far Realm" likewise has even a single common item within it, I'll be equally impressed.

*
Why the class is even "essentials assassin" at all boggles my mind; the only thing the "eassassin" shares with the regular assassin is a pool of utility powers. They are an entirely different class, not some disparate, but otherwise related build.

If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one. Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
And you fail to point out what YOU would like to see.
And you fail to point out what YOU would like to see.



Actually, if you read to the end, he did.

At this point, the 2nd update to the Essentials Assassin* had better be damn impressive. If "Totems of the Far Realm" likewise has even a single common item within it, I'll be equally impressed.




I am in full agreement. They've used some great article concepts: Rune Priests, Corelleon, Shifters; and they've done absolutely nothing with them. And sorry, I also agree the Paragon path is pretty much garbage. Although I'll admit I liked this Bazaar of the Bizarre. Its a fun article, with rich history, and well... eladrin-ness.
And you fail to point out what YOU would like to see.



Actually, if you read to the end, he did.


Im refering to themes he would like to be addressed, not if the not-yet-posted articles will be interesting.

In the end, it is all very situational: you are playing a martial PC, articles about arcane stuff wont be immediately usefull; you are DMing in Paragon, Heroic adventures wont be worth much of your time.

Some think there isnt enough fluff and too much crunch, others are pissed with too much fluff and not enough crunch.

I would like rare and uncommon items moved exclusively to Dungeon.

I would like fewer backgrounds, period. They are the weakest, most underdeveloped aspect of character creation.

I personally would like to see power and PP articles for Monks.

I would like to see previews for non Gamma World, non Essentials books; It's been four months since Psionic Power and Dark Sun, and if essentials is really not replacing core 4e, I want to see some book proof of it. What's the release schedule look like, anyway? All I know that's in development is Arcane Power 2. At any rate, it's looking like it won't be until April (at bare minimum) before there's a chance for non-essential books.
If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one. Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.

I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.

ive been reading dragon magazine for a long time, and i really dont see that much difference from then till now.  during the tsr days, there were many that i didnt read anything but the letters, same with the paizo days.  there were some real stinkers during the paizo days. 

it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days.  i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars. 

they have said many many times, to submit article ideas, then write them.    you shouldnt let others dictate what your game is about anyway.

the paizo adventures were very railroady.  each encounter can be completely seperated from the adventure.  i like that.  but, i ramble.

if you dont like whats being published, write it yourself.  you may even find yourself walking away with a paycheck.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.

I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.




They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.  

Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.

I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.




They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.  

Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.



You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.


it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days.  i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars. 

'

LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....

Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.


it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days.  i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars. 

'

LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....

Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.



Which is interesting because I have found bark at the moon to be a great adventure sofar.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.

I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.




They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.  

Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.



You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.



Indeed. I dont feel the need to water down every statement with some hand wringing 'IMO". Reasonable people assume that already.

Even you cant deny theres a glut of backgrounds. The basic set up is pick a skill to get +2, add a skill, add a language etc. There is no need to publish MORE variation of what already exists. These are the lazy crunch equivalent of the 3rd edition +2/+2 feats, where they could have made ONE generic feat (pick 2 skills, gain +2/+2) and been done with it. Actyually, this crap is worse, because they generic option already exists, and yet they are STILL publishing "NIce Abs" to give you a +2 to athletics and diplomacy.

There is, flat out, no need for most backgrounds mechanics that see print, because the mechanics are ALREADY there. They are a waste of space and just clog the database. These are illusory crunch, adding to the bloat for sake of adding. The space could have been devoted to fleshing out the ideas presented in the article more.
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.

Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.



I disagree. I thought there was some pretty fantastic material in Dungeon this month.
How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?

All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.

Not rocket science.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?

All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.

Not rocket science.



Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.

Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.


it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days.  i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars. 

'

LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....

Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.



That is "your" opinion. I like Bark at the moon and I am sure I will like the 2nd part to it as well. One persons Junk is another persons Treasure and all that.

And about Miniature skimish wargame battle setups. That is every dang encounter that anyone ever builds that features mini's/tokens. The games very nature is about tactical combat.
you just don't understand, man. Pathfinder is all about the story!

Note: I'm assuming that that's the reason they railroad you. How else are you going to hear the story?
i can make a story.  when i have MY story the characters can go anywhere.  do anything.  they dont get railroaded from one STORY arc to the next.  im glad that there isnt this overpowering story arc, where i have to read the descriptive prose. 

i would be even happier if dungeon was just 80 pages of encounters.  perhaps with a theme, but just 60 or so encounters, then i could put them together as i liked.

How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?

All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.

Not rocket science.



Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.

Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.



People have been writing articles but they have not been taken.  The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.
i thought the mags hit a low point about three months ago. this month has been a lot better

People have been writing articles but they have not been taken.  The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.



Yes, exactly the point I was going to make.

The 'Then write your own article!' reply doesn't really work for me. Can you imagine an editor of Time or The Wall Street Journal replying to a reader's letter by saying that? It would be ridiculous. Why? Because I am not a professional RPG writer; that's why I buy DnD books. If I were, I wouldn't need to buy them in the first place.

And in any case, even if I were to write articles on crunch, they would not be accepted. Wizards has made their new direction crystal clear: they want more fluff, not crunch. So the only option we have is to keep letting them know that we dislike this new direction, whether by cancelling our subscriptions or giving them feedback on these boards. I prefer to keep my subscription (I do still find some of the content useful) and make my views known in the hopes that the direction will eventually be reversed.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

Is it at all possible that the submitted articles are poorly written? I haven't seen the submissions so don't take anything personally...
Ampersand -- "If you’re already a D&D Insider, then you’ve been enjoying the new web-based D&D Character Builder." ...seriously?



Heh, yeah. This one made me laugh out loud as well. What little credibility Ampersand had as anything but a mouthpiece for the marketing department just died with that sentence.
Is it at all possible that the submitted articles are poorly written? I haven't seen the submissions so don't take anything personally...



My point is more basic than that:

If you buy tires from Goodyear and they all blow flats two days later, you would not be happy if Goodyear's response was, 'Well, if you don't like our tires, make them yourself!'

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.

Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.



And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.



And about Miniature skimish wargame battle setups. That is every dang encounter that anyone ever builds that features mini's/tokens. The games very nature is about tactical combat.



No, its a limit of the delve format, which was a specific choice to drive mini/token and tile sales. It took away from exploration, as you just progress from set up to set up. Its by far the worst thing about the current adventures.  It also makes it difficult as hell to figure out what is going on in an adventure. Changing the encounter format would likely reduce many (unfounded) complaints about the lack of RP in 4th edition. But its hard to get that from the main publisher's adventure presentation.
you just don't understand, man. Pathfinder is all about the story!

Note: I'm assuming that that's the reason they railroad you. How else are you going to hear the story?



If by having a villain actually do something other than exist in a dungeon tile setup, you mean railroad, then yes. Or events that actually occur outside of the PC's initiative radius. Dungeon has devolved into skirmishes, little more. And its pretty easy to throw some minis on a tile and call it a day if that's all you want outside of an adventure.  
Is it at all possible that the submitted articles are poorly written? I haven't seen the submissions so don't take anything personally...


 
It is possible but considering we have seen articles with not the best editing I tend to doubt that is the only reason.  Further I believe they edit any article somebody submits anyway so they could improve the article if needed.  I think it is more of a problem is that most people are not writing the articles WotC wants produced at this time.  I really doubt most submissions they get are for more backgrounds, rare items, and many of the other things we see.  I am sure it is more like new runepriest, seeker, essentials classes (soon anyway), sorcerer, etc articles dealing with powers, feats and paragon paths.
The last few months have been rough. The magazine, for me, has hit it's lowest point this month. However, this month is also December. There's a whole week of just missing content to start. It's the month BEFORE DDXP (when we learn the most about future D&D plans next to GenCon) so to me, I can't comlpain (much) that this is the magazines lowest point.

Bark at the Moon is a let down in two areas. It's strong reliance on a notoriously boring feature: The disease track. Also, it's maps were pretty awful/unispired. I feel they've put out stronger adventures. Heck, just the last one in November was great.

The Assassin debacle is dissapointing as well as just the overall complete lack of crunch or any real content. Did any of you guys, paying money monthly for D&D support, not know you could reflavor powers?? I mean that's printed in the books.

Did your Shifter in your Frogotten Realms campaign really need half a dozen background options? I'm thinking that anyone still playing a pure Runepriest (ie, you didn't just give/house rule your runepriest healing/inspiring word) is really let down by the upper paragon "items" they got. I know I'll likely never play my LFR Runepriest, in low heroic, again.
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.

Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.



And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.



Unfortunately the complaints about the decline of quality are basically the same as yours, you didn't like what they wrote about, or it's not what you personally are interested in.

Which doesn't mean the quality has gone down, they are just trying to cover more subjects then you are interested in.
How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?

All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.

Not rocket science.



Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.

Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.



People have been writing articles but they have not been taken.  The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.



I'd like to point out that I specifically stated "quality article" - Anybody can write a bunch of new powers and some story, but if they're really horribly balanced or don't fit the thematics that WotC wants for the class, they won't get accepted.
They can also be not accepted for all sorts of reasons.  They could have been wonderfully written and balanced does not mean that WotC will take them.  If the articles lately are any indication you would be better off writing material that is very low on the power scale with a small likelyhood of being used.
ive been reading dragon magazine for a long time, and i really dont see that much difference from then till now.  during the tsr days, there were many that i didnt read anything but the letters, same with the paizo days.  there were some real stinkers during the paizo days. 

it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days.  i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars. 

they have said many many times, to submit article ideas, then write them.    you shouldnt let others dictate what your game is about anyway.

the paizo adventures were very railroady.  each encounter can be completely seperated from the adventure.  i like that.  but, i ramble.

if you dont like whats being published, write it yourself.  you may even find yourself walking away with a paycheck.



There's a whole other thread on this topic. Some posters did some digging and found that 9 out of 10 articles are written by staff or ex staff or "pros". So there is little or no chance that you will get something published by WotC in Dragon or Dungeon. Sorry to burst your bubble there...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I submitted a class acts: clerics a while ago and never heard a response back.  It was specifically a battle clerics proposal with new at wills, encounter powers, feats, and paragon paths with no prereqs for strength clerics.  This is the least supported build out of all the PHB1 classes and some of the ideas had been tried out by other posters in home games and worked well.  This was shortly before they released the warpriest preview articles so even if they liked my ideas they may have given up supporting that build altogether.

I was not impressed with this months magazine.  Themes and crunch for unsupported classes and races is my main desire.  It does not even have to be classes or races I like. 
I submitted a class acts: clerics a while ago and never heard a response back.  It was specifically a battle clerics proposal with new at wills, encounter powers, feats, and paragon paths with no prereqs for strength clerics.  This is the least supported build out of all the PHB1 classes and some of the ideas had been tried out by other posters in home games and worked well. 



omg i so wish that article had come out
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.

I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.




Some backgrounds can be nice - but they need to be genuinely interesting. Stuff that actually inspires players to try out a character they wouldn't otherwise pursue. And to that end, I actually found some of the Shifter backgrounds interesting, though I'm dismayed they returned to non-standard bonuses for them.

But at other times... I mean, did you read the backgrounds in the Corellon article? "Be some sort of artist". "Be some guy who knows stuff about the outdoors." Simply a waste of space.

Anyway, I was amused by the OP, since I had also been thinking of doing a summary of recent articles in light of the disappointments of December. I was actually planning on going back farther, so I could highlight some of the worthwhile articles of late - I actually hadn't felt the quality on Dragon had really gone downhill until, well, this month. And its not over yet, at that.

But yeah, last two weeks have definitely been a series of disappointments.

You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.



If he is a subscriber, he is perfectly in his right to feel disappointed if the product he is paying for doesn't live up to his expectations - and to cancel his subscription or ask for a refund in such a case. Now, that doesn't mean WotC is required to cater to him, but raising concerns about the magazine content is hardly out of line.

Especially when, I think, many of the concerns can actually be addressed. Two such solutions come to mind - Dragon finding a better balance, for one thing. Don't compensates for months of crunch-heavy articles with months of fluff-heavy articles - either one will leave people unhappy. Instead, find a happy medium.

And, meanwhile, make sure Dragon content belongs in dragon. Multiple articles that fit better in Dungeon is going to leave players very disappointed. Similarly, name articles properly - if people know an article will be all about magic items, they will not build up different expectations and hopes for an article where they expect powers and feats for an undersupported class.

This month, thus far, Dragon has had almost no player content. Not just content aimed at different classes or builds - but almost no content at all. That is a serious issue, and something the editors should take note of.

Now, the month isn't over yet. But saying that customers shouldn't complain when a company fails to deliver - sorry, not your call to make. The company can choose to listen or not. Customers can choose to cancel subscriptions or not. Either way, I don't think people are 'at fault' for honestly expressing their dissatisfaction in a forum designed for this sort of communication.
He's free to say anything he wants.

If he want's to be taken seriously by WoTC, he needs to have more to say then he doesn't like articles about X, and wants more Y.

Because then someone is going to come and say, I want more Y and NO X.

It's not that hard to understand.
I submitted a class acts: clerics a while ago and never heard a response back.  It was specifically a battle clerics proposal with new at wills, encounter powers, feats, and paragon paths with no prereqs for strength clerics.  This is the least supported build out of all the PHB1 classes and some of the ideas had been tried out by other posters in home games and worked well.  This was shortly before they released the warpriest preview articles so even if they liked my ideas they may have given up supporting that build altogether.

I was not impressed with this months magazine.  Themes and crunch for unsupported classes and races is my main desire.  It does not even have to be classes or races I like. 



it sounds more like you submitted game mechanics, then an article, honestly. I doubt they are looking for other peoples game mechanics.


He's free to say anything he wants.

If he want's to be taken seriously by WoTC, he needs to have more to say then he doesn't like articles about X, and wants more Y.

Because then someone is going to come and say, I want more Y and NO X.

It's not that hard to understand.



He did say more. Remember, the concern raised in the original post wasn't that Dragon was providing specific player content he wasn't interested in. The concern was that this month of Dragon had thus far provided almost no player content at all.

He gives evidence for this by listing what content we have: 11 backgrounds, 4 rare items, 8 more rare items, 1 paragon path and a few more backgrounds.

Comments that show what he wants? "Feat, and/or power support for *the* least supported class." "Perhaps we'll finally get some more common items -- a common ring, perhaps, we haven't had one of those yet!"

What does he want? Actual player options. Content like feat and power support. Does that mean we want 10 page articles of nothing but feats? Of course not. But we don't want a complete lack of that support, either. And right now, more functional common items are of much more use to players than rare items.

That is a distinct and clear-cut statement that WotC can absolutely make use of.

Now, you can disagree with it. You can say, "Yes, I really want nothing but backgrounds and rare items." I'll find that hard to believe, but... go ahead and say it.

But instead, you've chosen to try and dismiss his arguments entirely by saying they are just uninformed complaining, without giving any actual direction for WotC to pursue, and that WotC can't listen to him anyway because other customers will always want the opposite of what he does.

And I don't think any of those things are true. I think he laid out exactly why he was upset about the December content, as well as exactly what content he was indeed interested in. And I think it very unlikely that there are as many fans of the sort of content we've been given this month, as compared to the sort of content many people want.
No, he stated that they provided player content that he doesn't care about. He doens't like backgrounds because he thinks they are the weakest aspect of character development.

he doesn't want items in Dragon, he wants them moved to Dungeon. Even though they have been part of the player side of material since the game came out, which is why they are included in the players handbooks and not the DMGs. So, WoTC should make use of his desire to move all items to Dungeon? They should suddenly reorganize that whole aspect simply because this person doesn't like it?

A paragon path isn't an option for a player? Well who's it for, the DM? Don't paragon paths come with...powers?

I'm not dismissing he doesn't like the content. But the fact that it doesn't make it poor quality. All he's basically done is get angry because he doesn't like the stuff they focused on this month.

There isn't any way WoTC can give him what he wants, without denying someone what they want.

Yes, he laid out what he was upset about Decembers issue. Well, it all came down to "Stuff I don't Like" Ok, fine you didn't like it. Maybe next month there will be stuff you do like. Maybe there will be articles about Dark Sun. Since I'm not running a Dark Sun campaign and I don't have psionics in my world, such articles would be a waste to me. But, since I understand that others use this material, it's good for them. I don't begrudge them articles they are interested in, that I am not.

And as for the content, I found some very useful stuff in it. Sorry