Why does the Dragon Magazine material seem to make people shy away from it?

[Spectre9000]

Seems like people treat the Dragon Magazine akin to Homebrew. Why is that?

[Darrin]

Seems like people treat the Dragon Magazine akin to Homebrew. Why is that?

Mostly because it has the same Good/Bad/WTF ratio of homebrew.

[Spectre9000]

Mostly because it has the same Good/Bad/WTF ratio of homebrew.

Is it unaffiliated with Wizards or somehow disjointed from the main group making D&D?

[Necroticplague]

Because it's 2nd party (written by Paizo), so it operates in a grey area between 1st and 3rd party. Just like the Kingdoms of Kalamar books (which are also complicated by the fact the first few are 2nd, while the rest are 3rd). Also, the mags generally aren't as readily available as the books unless you resort to piracy.

[Zanos]

Mostly because it has the same Good/Bad/WTF ratio of homebrew.
Homebrew has about the same Good/Bad/WTF ratio as WoTC material.

There are reasons though:

1. Dragon Magazine is more obscure.
2. Individual issues are difficult to find.
3. The kind of person willing to comb through 40 magazine issues to find stuff is the kind of person probably looking for overpowered stuff to use.

[Ruethgar]

A. Not all of them have the official WotC seal and furthermore they sometimes have it for some articles but not others.
B. As a magazine they try to save space and don't always delineate fully the functions of some content because of this.
C. They had to get them out regularly and thus had even less time devoted to balance and editing than the books they had years to edit.

[animewatcha]

2 reasons among many, but are amongst top. Martial Monk and Half-Minotaur template.

[ZamielVanWeber]

There is so much of it. If I ban Dragon Magazine then there is a ton of material I don't have to adjudicate. No balance issues, no rules dysfunctions, zip.

[Jowgen]

I think it is mainly limited accessibility and a not-entirely-deserved reputation for unbalanced stuff.

I believe this ties heavily into package size.

There is variations between books, in that there are good splat books (e.g Races of X), bad splat books (e.g Tome of Magic) and books with disproportionately powerful stuff (i.e. Tome of Battle). With Dragon magazine, this same variation is found between publication periods (e.g. once Class Acts go introduced, there was more useful stuff), individual magazines and even between articles. This much variation makes it impossible to assign a solid value to all of Dragon Mag; so people err on the side of caution.

Some things in Dragon Mag are just badly written (I recall coming across a CONCEALMENT AC BONUS :smallfurious: at one point), totally weak (just about every Dragon Mag class ever) or totally out of whack (Half-Minotaur being a famous abomination). Other stuff, on the other hand is beautifully written (e.g. Ever heard of the City of Balefire in the Plane of Shadow), or just a great improvement on the game.

I, for example, am a big fan of most Alternate Class features and Class Variants it presents. None of them are strictly more powerful than the regular, but it just gives so much material to work with when trying to customize a character. The Neutral Good Paladin Variant called Sentinel (310) for example, isn't that good in itself, but I just find it so much nicer to play.

I guess since it's impossible to judge it as a whole, people judge it based on memorable things, which usually either mean terribly bad/overpowered.

[Troacctid]

Personally, I don't allow Dragon Magazine material because it's difficult to reference and because I generally prefer to stick to 1st-party material. I'm willing to make an exception for Dragon Compendium because it's easier to reference and because I like it.

I've found Dragon material to be much more commonly allowed in 4th Edition games, FWIW.

[Bullet06320]

chicken infested, I think that about sums it up

[hamishspence]

I've found Dragon material to be much more commonly allowed in 4th Edition games, FWIW.

Probably because WOTC took it over and had the magazine online.

[Eldan]

Mostly because the magazines were never sold in this country. Also, I've never read any, so I'm unfamiliar with it.

[Ashtagon]

chicken infested, I think that about sums it up

I don't think any writer ever expected the April edition content to be taken with the same level of seriousness as other months.

[nyjastul69]

I don't think any writer ever expected the April edition content to be taken with the same level of seriousness as other months.

I'm stunned that anyone would take an April fools joke seriously. Dragon magazine has a history of running an April joke issue.

[Psyren]

Homebrew has about the same Good/Bad/WTF ratio as WoTC material.

There are reasons though:

1. Dragon Magazine is more obscure.
2. Individual issues are difficult to find.
3. The kind of person willing to comb through 40 magazine issues to find stuff is the kind of person probably looking for overpowered stuff to use.

^ Basically that.

Speaking personally, if someone finds something cool (and not overpowered) that they absolutely cannot do using splats, I might consider it. For example, before the PF Soulknife came around, I was a big advocate for that one Dragon Issue with the mind blade feats in it because Soulknife so badly needed the help. And the monk pressure points issue was cool too (and monk also needed the help.)

[NomGarret]

^ Basically that.

Speaking personally, if someone finds something cool (and not overpowered) that they absolutely cannot do using splats, I might consider it. For example, before the PF Soulknife came around, I was a big advocate for that one Dragon Issue with the mind blade feats in it because Soulknife so badly needed the help. And the monk pressure points issue was cool too (and monk also needed the help.)

Also the issue that included Hex feats for Hexblade - same reasons. But yeah, even when a DM has read Dragon, it's a lot more work to reference individual options than with full books.

[Dunsparce]

As a DM, I allow all official 3.0(converted to 3.5) and 3.5 books and online articles, as well as all issues of Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine(Since I own all 3.0 and 3.5 issues of both). Most of the DMs I've played under were the same way. So I can't say I've ever played with restrictions of any sort outside of obvious cheese and loophole abuse. And I've never played with a person trying to do either of those, but I know that it's a common thing for some tables.

[The Viscount]

Another thing about Dragon Magazine is that some things simply don't match up properly. There are a few Dragon Magazine vestiges, some which were written with a clear understanding of how vestiges work (Kas) and others not so much (the epic vestiges).

Some things seem like they were written on a time crunch and not properly thought out. Dvaati is a legendary example, and that made it into the compendium. Think about the class for more than 45 seconds and you'll think of some problem they didn't address. There's a meld somewhere that gives you the swarm subtype. It has a miniscule amount of text for such a dramatic shift.

[Chronos]

Nitpick: Dragon Magazine is only second party if you're the dude who writes it. The first party is WotC, the second party is the player, and third party is everyone else.

[Ashtagon]

Nitpick: Dragon Magazine is only second party if you're the dude who writes it. The first party is WotC, the second party is the player, and third party is everyone else.

I thought the third party is what happens after the second TPK :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Nitpick: Dragon Magazine is only second party if you're the dude who writes it. The first party is WotC, the second party is the player, and third party is everyone else.

Thank you, I've been saying this for months. Licensed third-party is still third-party.

[Pluto!]

Apparently I'm not the only person who read the second half of this thread waiting to pounce on that. >_>

It's one of those things that doesn't make sense that just keeps being repeated.

[Kraken]

Opening up Dragon as a valid source can open up all sorts of unforseen consequences, just because of the sheer volume of it, and when you add that much volume with the same ratio of good/bad/WTF content, that's a lot of new WTF content to break your games in ways that you might not necessarily be aware of at first glance. Further, many people don't actually use Dragon content from reading the actual articles (pirated or otherwise), they rely on accounts of the articles, which sometimes miss what might be a crucial nuance.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I'm stunned that anyone would take an April fools joke seriously. Dragon magazine has a history of running an April joke issue.

It was bound to happen considering the quality of the fluff and editing is as high or higher than mst of their serious material.

[Afgncaap5]

My group, regardless of who's DMing (with one exception) has a kind of "You can probably use it, sure! Lemme just read it first" approach. Which I'm fine with.

In a lot of our games, we pick and choose which elements of which books to choose based on what the campaign is. If we're playing in Rokugan, we're not gonna be using Incarnum, etc. We don't use stuff that doesn't fit the campaign theme or story style, and a lot of the Dragon Magazine stuff feels like it's meant for *very* specialized settings (kinda like a lot of 3.0 Forgotten Realms stuff; not everything genericizes as easily as the Bear Warrior.)

[Extra Anchovies]

Sorta off-topic, but...


bad splat books (e.g Tome of Magic)
frist of all how DARE yo u
How dare you. That splatbook's a great one! Binding is an awesome system, and Shadowcasters work pretty well if you implement the fixes that the class's developer wrote up post-publication (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?184955-Shadowcaster-fixes-by-Mouseferatu&p=3273239&viewfull=1#post3273239). Not sure what those 95 blank pages at the end of the book were for, though. Shame they only included two new magic systems.

[Chronos]

Another potential issue with Dragon Magazine is that a lot of material in it is alternate rules, rather than supplemental rules, and which therefore can't be used unless everyone at the table is using those alternate rules.

[lsfreak]

The interactions of the book materials with each other are largely known things: we know what combinations of ACFs and feats make a paladin good, we know you need to be careful with Legacy Champion advancing things beyond what's expected, we know not to let Nightsticks stack when you've also got DMM on the table. Apart from a handful of well-known exceptions (Alternate Spell Source, mystic ranger, etc), such community knowledge isn't really present for Dragon materials. So DMs are more reluctant to use it, and so there's little community experience with Dragon materials, and so there's less available advice, and so DMs are reluctant to use it...

As already said, there's also the issue of obtaining them. When I checked a few year ago, even less-than-legal sources had the books far easier to get a hold of than Dragon issues.

[Curmudgeon]

A. Not all of them have the official WotC seal and furthermore they sometimes have it for some articles but not others.
Huh? Every Dragon issue I've seen during the D&D 3.x era had the official D&D logo on the cover:


http://www.hitpointe.com/kenzer/pics/3elogo.gif

usually with a banner like "100% OFFICIAL CONTENT". Inside the cover you'll find a notice like:
Trademarks related to the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS brand, including DRAGON, DUNGEON, and D&D are used under license from Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a division of Hasbro, Inc.
If you have any examples to the contrary, please bring them to our attention. I can probably borrow the issue(s) and see what's up.

[Pluto!]

It's not just Dragon.

For the system that introduced OGL, internet posters still seem to get real skittish about things that aren't printed by WotC.

Try suggesting something like an Iron Heroes Executioner, a Priest of the Celestial Spheres from the Classes of Legend series or a Psychic from the Advanced Player's Manual in a "what should I play?" thread, even though at least two of those are OGL and available online.

[KillianHawkeye]

Nitpick: Dragon Magazine is only second party if you're the dude who writes it. The first party is WotC, the second party is the player, and third party is everyone else.

THANK YOU! I was going to post this myself if nobody else had.

Unfortunately, that's what happens when people use words and phrases they don't properly understand. :smallsigh:


Tip: It's for the same reason we have first person perspectives and third person perspectives in stories, but not second person perspectives. Also, first person and third person views in video games, but not second person views.

[Necroticplague]

Tip: It's for the same reason we have first person perspectives and third person perspectives in stories, but not second person perspectives. Also, first person and third person views in video games, but not second person views.

Actually, there is a second person perspective. It's for things like Homestuck or a lot of CYOAs/TAGs where the character is referred to as 'you'.
EX:"You pick up the flask. You notice the faint bubbling of its contents.You have an ominous feeling that it''s contents aren't remotely potable."

[Story]

Homestuck is really third person limited though. It just uses second person pronouns for the CYOA aesthetic.

Anyway, I think 2nd party material would just be homebrew in this case.

[torrasque666]

Huh? Every Dragon issue I've seen during the D&D 3.x era had the official D&D logo on the cover:


http://www.hitpointe.com/kenzer/pics/3elogo.gif

usually with a banner like "100% OFFICIAL CONTENT". Inside the cover you'll find a notice like:
If you have any examples to the contrary, please bring them to our attention. I can probably borrow the issue(s) and see what's up.

Just cracked open my Dragon 304. No official D&D logo. And the trademarks bit means just that, its licensed by WotC, but not published by them. Thus, 3rd party. Says that its the "Official Dungeons and Dragons Magazine", but all that means is that other magazines aren't licensed by WotC.

[Doctor Awkward]

Seems like people treat the Dragon Magazine akin to Homebrew. Why is that?

Good DM's generally shy away from it because the magazines are extremely difficult to reference without piracy. I can sympathize with that. As a DM, I don't care how awesome this thing is your found, if you can't produce it for me to read through, I'm not allowing it in my game.

As was already mentioned, the magazines do tend to have about the same ratio of quality as Homebrew material. Some of it is good, some of it is useless, and some of it will make you wonder wtf they were smoking.


Bad DM's on the other hand often read that most people don't allow it, and assume that the reason for this is that anything and everything found in Dragon Magazine is "overpowered" and for "munchkins". They also tend to give homebrew material the same treatment.

There are a couple of reasons for this, but chief among them is that they have no real idea of what power is in D&D. They lack the mechanical knowledge to look at a piece of material and judge its quality, and how it would fit in to the type of game they want to run. Since they can't make an informed decision for themselves, they just assume that 1st party material is the most balanced and the only acceptable material that should ever appear in a "fair" and "balanced" D&D game, when in reality some of the best Homebrew material out there was created by folks who have far more system mastery of D&D than the people who designed it.

There really is no cure for this other than experience. Learning how the system works, and what makes abilities "good" is the only real metric by which any material for the game can be judged. Either that or make friends with one of those folks and ask them what they think the best material is.

[KillianHawkeye]

Actually, there is a second person perspective. It's for things like Homestuck or a lot of CYOAs/TAGs where the character is referred to as 'you'.
EX:"You pick up the flask. You notice the faint bubbling of its contents.You have an ominous feeling that it''s contents aren't remotely potable."

Yeah... I realize that there are some second person cases in writing where the author is directly addressing the reader, but I felt like it was such an uncommon niche situation that it didn't bear mentioning. At least within the realm of fiction writing, almost all stories are written from the perspective of the protagonist or from the third person perspective.

Anyway, that was just a comparison. The terms first party, second party, third party, et al derive from usage in legal contracts and similar documents where, for example, the first party is usually the person or group or business which writes the contract and the second party is you, the person signing the contract, and sometimes there is a third or fourth party that is involved in some way.

[Crake]

Nitpick: Dragon Magazine is only second party if you're the dude who writes it. The first party is WotC, the second party is the player, and third party is everyone else.

Super double nitpick: 2nd party developers are ones that are partially owned by the 1st party. It is not like narrative reference frames, which is what you described. In the case of games development a 1st party product is one produced by the owner of the platform, in this case, dnd 3.5, wizards of the coast. A 2nd party developer would be a company owned partially by wizards, and a 3rd party developer would be an entirely independant company. That said, unless paizo is partially owned by wizards, they are still 3rd party developers.

[Taelas]

Because it's easier to do so. Dragon Magazine is, for most DMs, an unknown quantity. The quality is all over the place as well. There are some really broken things in them (not that there isn't broken material in ordinary splatbooks).

[KillianHawkeye]

Super double nitpick: 2nd party developers are ones that are partially owned by the 1st party. It is not like narrative reference frames, which is what you described. In the case of games development a 1st party product is one produced by the owner of the platform, in this case, dnd 3.5, wizards of the coast. A 2nd party developer would be a company owned partially by wizards, and a 3rd party developer would be an entirely independant company. That said, unless paizo is partially owned by wizards, they are still 3rd party developers.

No, you're making this up. It's not real. When somebody mentions that people are using words wrong, we're talking about you.

[Lord Vukodlak]

No, you're making this up. It's not real. When somebody mentions that people are using words wrong, we're talking about you.
Sorry the Crake is not a lie, look up second party developer.

[Crake]

No, you're making this up. It's not real. When somebody mentions that people are using words wrong, we're talking about you.

It honestly really helps to double check your facts before accusing someone like that. I was actually in the same party as you when I read this thread, but then, before I posted, thought I should double check to make sure, and hey presto, I learned something today. 1st/2nd/3rd party when it comes to development is not the same as 1st/2nd/3rd party in the context of narrative perspective. 2nd party developers are not "you".

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Unfortunately, that's what happens when people use words and phrases they don't properly understand. :smallsigh:

I don't think that it was a misunderstanding of the words and phrases involved that resulted in the colloquialism "Second Party Publisher"(SP).

1. "Third Party Publisher"(TP) becomes a regular part of the gaming vernacular shortly after the OGL is released.

2. WotC is the "First Party Publisher"(FP).

3. In depth discussion of games made it useful to have a kind of publisher that exists in a state somewhere between FP and TP.

^I think we can all agree on these facts.^


I propose that FP and TP were industry/legalistic words that are largely disconected from the terms of perspective that they are associated with. This is displayed by the sentence "Check out this third party D&D book I wrote." In that sentence the speaker refers to themselves as a TP rather than FP when talking about themselves or SP since to their audience they are the second party. I'm sure that someone somewhere put their houserules and homebrew in a binder, labeled it a "Second Party Sourcebook", and got called a nerd by their gaming group, but the term never caught on.

edit: Upon further inspection, what I "proposed" is pretty close to reality though I erred in thinking that these terms weren't far older than the relevent situation.

[Crake]

I don't think that it was a misunderstanding of the words and phrases involved that resulted in the colloquialism "Second Party Publisher"(SP).

1. "Third Party Publisher"(TP) becomes a regular part of the gaming vernacular shortly after the OGL is released.

2. WotC is the "First Party Publisher"(FP).

3. In depth discussion of games made it useful to have a kind of publisher that exists in a state somewhere between FP and TP.

^I think we can all agree on these facts.^


I propose that FP and TP were industry/legalistic words that are largely disconected from the terms of perspective that they are associated with. This is displayed by the sentence "Check out this third party D&D book I wrote." In that sentence the speaker refers to themselves as a TP rather than FP when talking about themselves or SP since to their audience they are the second party. I'm sure that someone somewhere put their houserules and homebrew in a binder, labeled it a "Second Party Sourcebook", and got called a nerd by their gaming group, but the term never caught on.

This is such a thread derailment, but again, 2nd in development is different from 2nd party in narrative perspective, look it up.

[manyslayer]

Our group allows all (well, non-April fools joke stuff) Dragon and Dungeon. To us it is as valid as any WoTC source.

But we also are fairly unoptimized and just like the different options (like the alternate class stuff in Dragon 310) for making characters that fit our vision.

Also, I own all the issues.

[atemu1234]

I allow it, but can see why others wouldn't.

[turbo164]

I'm one of those "let me read it first and I'll probably allow it" DMs.

The Giant had an awkward experience with Dragon:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10546571&postcount=17


Since no one who was an editor for the magazine back then still is today, I don’t mind saying that I thought they absolutely butchered some of the spells that did make it into print. In particular, there was a cantrip called chalkboard that was originally conceived as a phantasm that only the caster could see, allowing him to write notes in midair that appeared in his field of vision but were invisible to anyone else. The editors changed that to a visible chalkboard illusion, and then added that it provided concealment for anyone standing behind it. So the spell went from a handy note-taking aide to a spell that provided a powerful (and unintended) combat advantage at a ridiculously low level. And my name was the sole credit on it.

[Psyren]

I'm one of those "let me read it first and I'll probably allow it" DMs.

The Giant had an awkward experience with Dragon:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10546571&postcount=17

Oh man, that is hilarious :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

It's for the same reason we have first person perspectives and third person perspectives in stories, but not second person perspectives. Also, first person and third person views in video games, but not second person views.


Homestuck is really third person limited though. It just uses second person pronouns for the CYOA aesthetic.

Anyway, I think 2nd party material would just be homebrew in this case.

Interestingly, choose-your-own-adventure books ARE written in second-person. They are addressing you as the character. There are a few children's books written that way, too. Mostly very small children's books that are making the very small child the "hero" of the simplistic narrative.

D&D 3e also expressly was written in 2nd person. This is actually distinct from how many gaming books are written; most refer to "the character" or to "a [class/race/character];" D&D talks to "you" about what "you" can do.

[VisitingDaGulag]

People shy away from weak material. The magazines are simply not strong enough: Lots of digging, but little gold.

For everything broken in the magazines there are 3 that are way more broken outside of them, many of which that are predominantly from core. CoP? Shapechange? Limited Wish? PAO? Dust of Sneezing? Genesis? XP as a river? Barghest pets? And it's not just that core is too strong. It's also broken the other way. Rogue's 20th level compared to a wizards? Vampirism for LA+7? Horizon Walker 5? etc