Why 2 Magazines?

[Dire Bare]

Its nice to see someone in the industry admit to this.

I can't provide links (because I'm too lazy to search), but folks from the rpg industry have loooong admitted this. If anything, it has become a "truism" of the rpg business that might not necessarily be true.

I mean, sure, DMs tend to be the gamers who are much more into D&D than those who are just players and consequently spend more . . .

But what if WotC worked to "close the gap" between "just players" and DMs? If they tried to encourage all DMs to also be players and all players to give DMing a try . . . then hopefully a larger segment of their fanbase would become bigger spenders on rpg products. Encourage a group of friends to regularly rotate the DMs job so that almost everybody is both a player and a DM!

Heck, maybe they are doing that and I just haven't noticed. I hope so!

 

[Scribble]

But what if WotC worked to "close the gap" between "just players" and DMs? If they tried to encourage all DMs to also be players and all players to give DMing a try . . . then hopefully a larger segment of their fanbase would become bigger spenders on rpg products. Encourage a group of friends to regularly rotate the DMs job so that almost everybody is both a player and a DM!

Eh I don't know. I've noticed (at least anecdotally as we seem to ahve to point out now) that it seems like there are two different mindsets. DMs and Players. Sometimes someone from one group will cross over into the other rolle but this tends to be a temporary thing. Players drift back to playing, and DMs drift back to DMing. There tend to be more players them DMs.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that it's not always the case between systems. IE someone who primarily likes to DM D&D might not always tend to be the Storyteller in WoD... And vice versa.

 

[Dire Bare]

Retaining "Dragon" and "Dungeon" is a branding stunt to package online content. There are two now because there were two in print. There were two in print because some folks wanted more pages of adventures in Dragon and some people didn't.

While I wouldn't use the word "stunt", you are essentially correct that WotC is trying to use the "capital" of the two magazines to increase desirability of the online offerings.

There is no doubt that advantages of the print magazines have been lost in the conversion to digital . . . but advantages have been gained also.

The decision that WotC faced was, are the advantages gained by moving the magazines digital outweigh the advantages lost? WotC obviously thought that was the case, as they moved forward with the idea.

There are gamers who disagree and hate the move to digital, just as there are gamers who love the change are are reading Dragon and/or Dungeon again for the first time in years. Only time and the continued survival of the online mags will tell who is "right".

A lot of dissatisfied gamers claim or imply that WotC did not fully think things through when going digital, but I highly doubt that is the case.

 

[Dire Bare]

Eh I don't know. I've noticed (at least anecdotally as we seem to ahve to point out now) that it seems like there are two different mindsets. DMs and Players. Sometimes someone from one group will cross over into the other rolle but this tends to be a temporary thing. Players drift back to playing, and DMs drift back to DMing. There tend to be more players them DMs.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that it's not always the case between systems. IE someone who primarily likes to DM D&D might not always tend to be the Storyteller in WoD... And vice versa.

Well, that's kinda my point. That is the way thing are right now. In my experience, (anecdotal, yes) most groups have one to three folks who trade off the DM's job (regardless of system) and everyone else simply shows up to play.

If WotC could convince all those "just players" to also become DMs on a somewhat regular basis, they would (ideally) be more interested in subscribing to D&DI and purchasing more rulebooks.

Part of that has been done with 4e being the easiest version of D&D ever to DM. But more would need to be done to "close the gap", if that is truly a desirable and even possible goal!

 

[Scribble]

If WotC could convince all those "just players" to also become DMs on a somewhat regular basis, they would (ideally) be more interested in subscribing to D&DI and purchasing more rulebooks.

Part of that has been done with 4e being the easiest version of D&D ever to DM. But more would need to be done to "close the gap", if that is truly a desirable and even possible goal!

I guess in the end it comes down to what ultimately drives someone to run the game in the first place.

I know in my case it's not simply ease of system use. That's a big part of it I'm sure, but I don't think it's the primary reason?

I think ease of use is something that effects the descision to go through with a desire created by soemthing else in the first place or not... If that makes sense?

 

[Sammael]

But what if WotC worked to "close the gap" between "just players" and DMs? If they tried to encourage all DMs to also be players and all players to give DMing a try . . . then hopefully a larger segment of their fanbase would become bigger spenders on rpg products. Encourage a group of friends to regularly rotate the DMs job so that almost everybody is both a player and a DM!

From my experience, this doesn't work.

While I know a good number of DMs who are also players (myself included), I know far more players who have never DMed in their life, and do not intend to do so - ever. I tried talking many such players into getting behind the screen, and I received a variety of responses as to why this will never happen. Bottom line - this doesn't work.

 

[JDJblatherings]

The decision that WotC faced was, are the advantages gained by moving the magazines digital outweigh the advantages lost? WotC obviously thought that was the case, as they moved forward with the idea.

There are gamers who disagree and hate the move to digital, just as there are gamers who love the change are are reading Dragon and/or Dungeon again for the first time in years. Only time and the continued survival of the online mags will tell who is "right".

A lot of dissatisfied gamers claim or imply that WotC did not fully think things through when going digital, but I highly doubt that is the case.

The promisses of the Digitial Iniitative have yet to be fully delivered, correct?
So somewhere someone did not fully think things through. Or they considered the savings in print costs (which were those of Paizo for years not WOtC) were worth losing a bunch of readers that they technically didn't' have anyway because Paizo was publishing the magazines.