The ecology of the treant	Magick resistance	Gremlins	Saints	Strategic advice
Adventuring advice	-	-	-	Dragon

OUT ON A LIMB
'Shoddy work'

Dear Dragon:
I was, to say the least, sorely disappointed with
DRAGON #79. In my opinion, DRAGON has
been sliding slowly downhill ever since the new
typeface was introduced in #73. Issue #72 was a
wonder: We were treated to an official new character
class, the piercer article which started a
plethora of “The Ecology of . . .” articles, a
thoroughly satisfying piece on gems which put the
DMG to shame, an informative article on barbarians,
color pictures, and other wonders.

Next issue, you introduced a disgusting,
unreadable typeface, but my complaints were
allayed by your expansion to 96 pages and by a
series of relatively successful articles, especially
the “Nine Hells” features in #75 and #76.

Then, issue #79 arrived. Sons of Slaadi! Here
we are, back at 80 pages. Here we are, printed on
flimsy paper that I feared would rip if I turned
the page.

What is going on? On page 2, you talk about
the new technology at TSR’s Graphic Arts Services
department. Does that include Grade-Z
paper? Where was Larry Elmore’s Snarfquest?
Where were the last 16 pages?

I can understand that Gary Gygax is probably
very busy on the Players Handbook II, and is
therefore not sending more “Sorceror’s Scroll”
articles. Perhaps you decreased the magazine’s
size to avoid increasing the price. If this is the
case, raise the price and go back to 96 pages. I
would be happy to pay a higher price for
DRAGON if you continue to provide excellent
articles. (Heck, some of your issues have been
many times more useful than some of TSR’s
modules, which run for $6 or so a shot.)

On the other hand, if these problems stem
from your “new technology,” I think a lot of
gamers can do without these changes. Changes
should be for the better, and I was gravely disappointed
to see such shoddy work from a magazine
I’ve grown to respect and look forward to.

Jay Fry
Setauket, N.Y.


This kind of letter is always hard to answer
without sounding like either a martyr (“Gosh,
we’re doing our best”) or an arrogant snob
(“How can you dare complain?“). But I’ll try.

 We’ve been a little <PARANOID> about printing
“only” 80 pages in several recent magazines —
but even at that size, this is far and away the 
biggest magazine of its kind, and it isn't priced
any higher than the others. The page count of the
magazine is directly related to the amount of
advertising space that our clients buy; we’ll be
able to stay at 96 pages (or more) if and when our
advertising lineage remains consistently high. We
changed to a lighter-weight paper because it saves
a lot of money and — despite what Jay says —
doesn't seem to hurt the physical quality of the
product. Anybody who thinks that saving money
is a dumb thing to do can back that up by sending
us all of theirs.

Snarfquest is back, as you've already seen. We
skipped a month for the simple reason that we
knew #79 was going to be “only” 80 pages, and
we wanted to give you three more pages’ worth of
articles. It is correct to assume that Gary Gygax
is busy, because he always is. I hope he’ll find
time soon to start contributing to the magazine
again, but in the meantime we’re not exactly
ashamed of the material we have been using to fill
these pages.

If you find yourself in agreement with what Jay
is saying, we not-so-humbly invite you investigate
how this magazine stacks up, in size and content,
against the others on the market. Try to be objective
— but don’t expect us to be. 

— KM
(Dragon #81)