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
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. [...]
Yea, it's not like there has recently been a thread complaining about lack of rare items for the heroic tier, and how WotC built a great rarity system that can't be used because of no items. Oh, wait, there is: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
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.
So in other words, people agree with me that the quality is declining because of poor article choices. You're continuing to plug your ears and dismiss complaints as "that's like, your opinion man."
I am going to respectfully, STRONGLY disagree with a lot of things that have been said earlier.
I'm a player, who was under the preconceived notion, that "every month, players should find something of value to their characters"
That used to be a motto of the Dragon Magazine Redesign, and if you want to fight me on it, I can go and pull up many of the old editorials and such that I read through before essentials and give you that data.
Fluff is good. But lately the articles feel like a bowl of milk with no cereal.
There were articles that used to bring tears to my eyes they were so good. They would bring up new powers/feats/abilities that a player in most any campaign could use, and not only that, but how a person might use them, and what they could mean to a character.
You know, the new psionics article that everyone is complaining about? That is the only article this month I am not disappointed in. Rare items, great, no one knows how to make those, and no one has ever made a custom, campaign only, breaks everything if a player could just buy one item.
Lets face it, It's not a "I don't want content X" it's gimme a break, why is there no content Y.
People are upset, and rightly so, that everything they knew that was carved in stone got replaced by a new tablet carved in stone that told no one how to use the other stuff they used to have.
That's why we are really upset to be honest. I'm a DM foremost and a player second, and right now, I don't know how to regulate treasure, starting at higher levels, what will happen when they rebuild the five builds from player's Handbook, if the encounter values changed...
Dragon used to educate, not just spew off random locations from various realms with a wall of text, followed by items that players have no education on how to add to their game. I miss learning stuff like that, and I sure as heck don't like the essentials assassin no matter how many times they ram it down my throat. This will be the third month it gets re-released to us. I game with seven other people and they all hate it still.
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.
So in other words, people agree with me that the quality is declining because of poor article choices. You're continuing to plug your ears and dismiss complaints as "that's like, your opinion man."
If the only thing you or others have to offer as why it's poor quality is because you don't like it, then yes, it's just your opinion. As it's been also pointed out many, many times. The number of people posting in a forum is never even close to a good representation of the larger customer base.
Just because a group of people share the same opinion, doesn't mean it's more then that. An opinion.
I found the articles useful. Others have found them useful. Others have asked for just such articles.
Are you saying that your opinion is better then theirs?
if Goodyear's response was, 'Well, if you don't like our tires, make them yourself!'
This is disengenuous though and your analogy is far from apt. First of all, no one at WotC (that I am aware of) has said: if you don't like it, make your own! It's other customers saying that. Secondly, it isn't about a defective product. It's about a product that isn't too your tastes (or possibly as advertised but that's a can of worms I really don't want to get into right now). And finally, comparing articles in an online gaming magazine to tires on a car is really, really over the top. One is a safety concern and the other is... well... it's a GAME.
I think it's more like this:
You go to a restaurant. The waiter suggests the macaroni and cheese. You order it and find there isn't enough cheese on it for you. You stand up in the middle of the restaurant and shout: "I HATE THIS MACARONI AND CHEESE I CANT BELIEVE IM PAYING FOR IT!" and the guy at the table next to shouts back: "Then make your own next time!"
Yea, it's not like there has recently been a thread complaining about lack of rare items for the heroic tier, and how WotC built a great rarity system that can't be used because of no items. Oh, wait, there is: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Yeah, but... who's that thread by? Looks more like a DM concern than a player one. Perhaps a reason why these articles should be in Dungeon, not Dragon. Yes, players can make some use of them and try and lobby their DM to include the perfect rare for that character. But I don't think that will happen often, especially as it is, honestly, somewhat against the design of the new system.
Also, I notice that other folks in that thread are tossing out the other view - asking for more common items. And those folks are typically the players, not the DMs.
That's really one of the big problems with this month - it isn't that there isn't room in the magazines for these articles. But they shouldn't be the only articles. And in some cases, they need to be better labelled, or placed in the right magazine.
it sounds more like you submitted game mechanics, then an article, honestly. I doubt they are looking for other peoples game mechanics.
They may not might be looking for other people's mechanic, but a lot of their subscribers want more mechanics and don't care who writes it as long as it is published in dragon.
I submitted a class acts article proposal that was heavy on mechanics, just like many of the other previous class acts articles have been. I just checked the compendium total support for strength clerics in dragon has been 16 strength cleric powers, no feats specifically for them, but about 6 geared towards them or balanced builds, and one paragon path for half orc clerics/paladins and one paragon path for any divine character. So for powers they have had decent support, but little for feats and almost nothing for paragon paths.
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.
And, well... they are. For one thing, character's only get one. That makes them much more limited in use than powers or feats. More importantly, getting a new background called "Guide" when we already have one called "Explorer/Guide" is pretty useless. The real goal for backgrounds should be inspiring creative new characters. For myself, I thought the Shifter article didn't do a terrible job of this. But when it's the only real player content in the month, it feels pretty light.
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?
Well, no, they should reorganize it because of their new rarity system in which PCs have less control over what items they get. They do have control over common items, which are the ones that the OP is asking for, in fact. Rare items - which will show up once or twice a campaign, as chosen by the DM - just are not player content.
Sure, give us commons in Dragon. Even uncommons, which players have more hope of questing for or convincing the DM to include. But multiple articles focused entirely on rare items? That's poorly done.
A paragon path isn't an option for a player? Well who's it for, the DM? Don't paragon paths come with...powers?
Yeah, its an option. Singular. Since Dragon has gone online, a 9 page article with a single paragon path would feel like a relatively small amount of crunch. But that is occasionally acceptable. When it is the only real crunch over half a dozen articles, there is a problem.
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.
Yes. He does not like the fact that Dragon magazine is no longer providing him with player content. Not that it is providing player content for characters other than he uses - that the numerical amount of content it has provided this month is a fraction of the expectations he has for the magazine.
He's paying for the magazine. That's what gives him the right to complain. What gives you the right to complain about his compaint?
Feel free to offer your own support for what the are publishing. But taking him to task for offering an honest opinion about a genuine issue that numerous subscribers have noted - sorry, I don't find that particularly reasonable.
There isn't any way WoTC can give him what he wants, without denying someone what they want.
So, you believe that if WotC: -included an extra page of feats in the Corellon article; -moved the two 'rare item' articles to Dungeon magazine; -added a Runepriest Class Acts article with actual player support that enhanced existing runepriest options; -and added a Bazaar of the Bizarre article presenting new common items for player use...
Then we would have mass outrage from some other source?
Cause, honestly, I don't see that.
Yes, not every month can have content designed exactly for one person's use. But the lack of mechanical support for player options in this month's Dragon is still an issue, regardless of what the actual articles are, themselves, about. And I think it has only added to the fire that people had expectations raised based on the incorrect names given to certain articles, or the presence of Dungeon content in Dragon.
