From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I dropped my subscription to Dragon after 14yrs the day theyannounced[0] they were cancelling Role-Playing Reviews,
Boy, that was awhile ago, wasn't it? I don't recall seeing reviews in Dragon for quite awhile.
I think my last issue is ~#260--it was about 2 years before D&D3E, IIRC.
I'd actually consider dropping Dragon if they restarted reviews -- at this point, there are so many other sources for reviews online that asking me to pay for them, and giving up limited space in a print magazine for them, is just ridiculous. Not all of the online reviews are of professional caliber, but quite a few aren't bad, and what the others lack in quality they make up for in quantity (skim 5 badly written reviews; see what they mention in common, average the ratings, and go from there).
Well, admittedly, i no longer "need" reviews. As you say, there are several good sources online--though *very* few reviews anywhere measure up to those of Rick Swan or Ken Cliffe when they wrote the regular column in Dragon. But, at the time, this simply was not the case. IIRC, Sandy Antunes contacted me about getting involved in the start-up of RPGnet around that time. And, as i said, this is partly a matter of principle for me: i think that the extreme insularity of most things D20 these days is bad for the RPG hobby, and especially industry. The idea that there is "d20" and then there is "everything else" does more harm than good--i see no need to further fractionalize the small RPG market beyond the inherent splits of preference catered to with rulesy vs. rules-light, narrative vs. gamist, etc.--IOW, things that are inherently different and often incompatible. There's really not much different between most D20 System games and most other games, so behaving as though those interested in the former aren't interested in the latter is silly.
Also, i just have a different ideology on this matter, it sounds like. I'd rather have one good, high-production-value, flashy-looking, found-in-non-game-stores, RPG magazine that catered to all RPers, at least nominally, with a lot of non-system-specific articles and a spread of game-specific articles, even if that meant that i, personally, only got one good article out of each issue, but which would have at least nominal appeal to all gamers, than in insular, game-specific magazine that gives a certain segment of the market [almost] exactly what they want, but gives the rest of the market absolutely nothing. Sports Illustrated, rather than Golf Digest, to use an analogy.
Still, if you don't really like d20, D&D, or d20M, you're right...Wizard's house magazine probably isn't for you.
To be clear, i don't have anything much against D20 System as a system--i don't think it's particularly good, but i don't think it's particularly bad. And i rank M&MM and spycraft among the mechanically-best RPGs of any system, and think that AU, BESM D20, and several other D20 System games do amazing work with the system. I *do* have a problem with the concept of "system doesn't matter", or the claim that there is in inherent good to reusing the system (vice creating a new one). And, as i said, i think that WotC's implementations have been consistently lackluster. I wouldn't be using a single WotC product even if i *were* running a D20 System "D&D" game, and i honestly don't think that, even if i loved D20 System, i'd choose very many WotC products.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
"If you will practice being fictional for a while, you will understand that fictional characters are sometimes more real than people with bodies and heartbeats." Richard Bach -- "Illusions" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
