Subject: RE: A Response to Duelist Ideas Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 11:05:58 +1000 From: Darryl Greensill To: "'fkusumot@ix.netcom.com'" Rob Hahn wrote: >Second, let me tell you what a number of you have been saying because >collectively, they are confusing. Remember the story of the man, the boy and the donkey? >1. Some people want to see expanded coverage of non-Magic CCG's such as >Star Wars, L5R or Battletech. Others -- a great many others -- want to >see nothing but Magic. I'm not sure how I could interpret such a conflict >in the opinions. Duellist is (or should be) to Magic as Dragon is to AD&D. Drag-mag has been around for a LONG time and their format is pretty successful, because they don't step much outside their target area. I'd say that your articles should be primarily of interest to Magic players as Magic players, which is not the same as exclusive coverage of Magic. Generally reports about similar games, including board, computer and card games, would be OK in small doses. So would game-related articles (like Dominaria backstories), so long as they remain secondary to the game. In-depth articles about aspects of Magic would be good. Don't be afraid to criticize aspects of the game. If you do, we might respect what you say when you praise other aspects. >2. Many of you want to see additional material for beginners who are just >learning how to play. But a great number of people want to see better >expanded coverage of Pro Tour-level events -- coverage which cannot be >done via the Net with simple "Who Won" type of reports. So this raises a >question in my mind: Do Magic players want in-depth tournament coverage of >the variety one might get in Sports Illustrated about the Superbowl? Or >do they not want to hear about tournaments at all? More a "best-of" from the Dojo tournament reports (email the authors, they'd probably be flattered, especially if you offered to pay). They are usually short, ideally don't contain *too* much detail, and generally make interesting reading. It would be best if you confined yourself to reports of major tournaments, or reports written by VERY good authors (of which there are a number), perhaps edited minimally to remove offensive/defamatory stuff. This gives players a greater sense of ownership of the Duellist. >3. Some of you want more non-strategy stuff: fiction, more backstory, >information about how cards get made, etc. while again many other people >think such non-critical information merely dilutes the magazine and their >enjoyment of the game. I don't know how to interpret this diversity in >the data. I'd be inclined to go for less "filler". If we want to read fantasy fiction, there are magazines and books devoted to the subject that frankly, have FAR better stories. We buy Duellist as Magic players, not as fantasy readers. Don't try to be all things to all people. That guy you quoted said: >>When I started to read the Duelist a while ago it was to read about MtG. >>There were a large number of strategy articles and the coverage of >>tournaments and the latest decks was excellent. Yes! The Duellist was GOOD in the old days. I'd suggest you dig up some back issues and rediscover why. >>Understandably, wizards want to get people playing more than just one >>game but for me this is a financial impossibility (if I want to have a >>life as well) - which means that at _3.50 (in the UK) I am now buying a >>bunch of adverts, numerous articles about games that are of no interest >>to me and about 16 pages of magic coverage. Of which about 14 pages are utter bulltwankey. That "multi-player combos" article was the lowest strategic point yet. Forking a Siphon Soul! Wrath/Llurgohf! Does the word DIPLOMACY mean anything to you? May I suggest you ask Mark Rosewater to check this sort of thing? His "Extra-Pulled" card at least proves that he understands this point. The best multi-player strategy article available on the net is the one in Vault magazine, in 3 parts so far by David Bloomberg (http://www.vaultmag.com/old/needtoknow1.htm). *THAT* article belonged in Duellist. >>Yes, you can argue that the stuff about the Rath cycle story etc is >>about magic but its not what I personally want to read about. I am >>interested in the game, its strategy, forthcoming sets etc. I do not buy >>it to read fiction, find out about various other WotC games etc. The story is about Magic *card art*, not about Magic *the game*. This is a game, not a comic book. Personally I'd prefer it if there was no silly backstory that reads like an extract from someone's high-level AD&D campaign (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's a perfectly valid choice), and all the pictures were line drawings; it'd be a *lot* cheaper. But if you must go in for world creation, it must remain secondary to the game. In summary, you have to please *the majority of* your target market. Your target market is Magic players. Use the Editorial Big Gun more. ("Is this more of interest to Magic players or Xena fans? Just Magic players who happen to be Xena fans? BOOM!") If you must cover C23, Battletech and similar dumbed-down-Magic-clones, do so in small doses (ie a half-page), and from a Magic player's point of view (which I admit you have done). Why not farm out niche articles? Let the house magazine of whoever owns the Battletech board game rights cover the Battletech CCG too. Battletech players probably buy it anyway. Leave RPG stuff to Dragon. Stop trying to compete with Inquest on the "universal gamer magazine" ground. Congratulations on your appointment to the post of Editor to what could become a great magazine. Regards, Darryl.