Why 2 Magazines?

[Nightchilde-2]

For the same reason D&D still uses ability scores of 3-18 instead of just the modifiers.

 

[Scribble]

For the same reason D&D still uses ability scores of 3-18 instead of just the modifiers.

Hey man, the con score is still used for HP

 

[James Jacobs]

With Dragon #323 and Dungeon #114, we did a relaunch for both magazines in an attempt to renew interest and excitement. For Dungeon, the relaunch went quite well—it continued on a mostly uptrend in subscriptions and popularity and positive feedback up to the final print issue after some pretty scary years where Dungeon was coming very close to being cancelled and/or rolled into Dragon.

For Dragon, though, the relaunch actually hurt. Why's that? I suspect because we put out the notion that, with the relaunch, Dungeon was the DM's magazine and Dragon was the Player's magazine.

I think what partially happened was that a lot of the DMs who bought Dragon but not Dungeon jumped ship, and there wasn't a corresponding number of players subscribing to Dungeon to jump ship over to Dragon. I suspect also that, while the idea is that there are a lot of players out there... what players spend on RPG stuff PALES in comparison to what DMs spend. Sure, there might be 4 or 5 times the number of players out there than DMs, but if DMs spend 4 or 5 times the amount of money on RPG products than a single player, does it matter? And if DMs spend MORE than that (which, judging from my own buying habits and the buying habits of other DMs I know, is pretty likely), then doesn't it make more sense to market primarily to DMs anyway?

After Dragon's relaunch, and about the point where Erik Mona took over the editor-in-chief chair a few issues after the relaunch, a lot of efforts at Paizo went into trying to basically apologize to our customers for saying that Dragon was a player's magazine. We took efforts to get articles for DMs back into Dragon, and did our best to try to get folk to realize that while Dungeon was indeed primarily for DMs, so was Dragon. Effectively, Dungeon was for DMs and Dragon was for EVERYONE.

Still, the damage done by proclaiming Dragon a "Player's Magazine" was done, and it took a LONG time to recover from the slump as a result. By the time of the last print issue, Dragon was making pretty good strides toward that recovery, IIRC, but I'm not sure we'd fully recovered. I was on the Dungeon side of the fence, after all, and had my mind wrapped around Adventure Paths and Wil Wheaton at the time!

Anyway, in closing, I think that tradition's a good enough reason to retain the two titles as long as the two title system progresses. That said, they're not the same things I grew up with, by simple fact of the matter that they're not in print any more and don't have ads and so on. So maybe it IS time to merge them together and call them the D.I. (shrug)

 

[Morrus]

I don't think they'll phase the names out. It's not a trade from Dragon/Dungeon brand recognition to D&D Insider brand recognition . . .

Well, if that's not their intention, and I still maintain it must be because:-- they're doing a remarkably good job of doing exactly that.

I can't believe such an effective and clever marketing rebrand and transfer of brand equity happens by accident.

Nah. It's deliberate. It can't not be. I mean, I'm no marketing genius, but I can clearly see the shift in brand equity from DRAGON/DUNGEON to D&D INSIDER. If I can see it, the marketing bods at WotC saw it long before I did, and planned it.

One would hope... because the alternative is horrifying.

 

[Desdichado]

I was on the Dungeon side of the fence, after all, and had my mind wrapped around Adventure Paths and Wil Wheaton at the time!

Which is kinda funny, because I always thought of you mostly as "the Demonomicon guy", which was a Dragon series. In my mind, that's your most lasting legacy from those magazines.

But that just shows where my priorities are, I guess.

 

[Echohawk]

I guess if they ever do decide to sell the individual pdfs then it would make sense to keep them seperate.

Plus, the current split lets them publish both a Dragon Magazine Annual and a Dungeon Magazine Annual in paper format each year.

 

[Echohawk]

Don't forget we are getting a print "best of Dragon" next year. Maybe there will also be a "best of Dungeon." Keeping the brands separate would make sense there.

I doubt that plan is still on. For one, there doesn't seem to be enough material for such a book... they'd pretty much have to include everything.

It is still the plan. Dungeon Magazine Annual 2009 comes out in May, and Dragon Magazine Annual 2009 in September.

 

[catsclaw227]

It is still the plan. Dungeon Magazine Annual 2009 comes out in May, and Dragon Magazine Annual 2009 in September.

Maybe Annual doesn't mean "best of". Maybe it is a compilation of almost all the articles? I think they would leave out Scales of War though. That could be it's own book.

Who knows?

 

[Echohawk]

I think there is plenty of material for the Annuals. Let's see:

Dungeon 155 (June): 109 pages
Dungeon 156 (July): 129 pages
Dungeon 157 (August): 136 pages
Dungeon 158 (September): 111 pages
Dungeon 159 (October): 99 pages
Dungeon 160 (November): 104 pages
Dungeon 161 (December): 128 pages

Total so far for Dungeon: 816 pages

Add on another 200 pages for January and February, assuming that's the cut-off date for inclusion in the May annual, and that's more than 1000 pages of material to work with.

Dragon 364 (June): 85 pages
Dragon 365 (July): 80 pages
Dragon 366 (August): 87 pages
Dragon 367 (September): 75 pages
Dragon 368 (October): 100 pages
Dragon 369 (November): 71 pages
Dragon 370 (December): 66 pages

Total so far for Dragon: 564 pages

There will most likely be another 480 pages in the Jan-Jun 2009 issues, also giving WotC more than 1000 pages of material to work with for the September Dragon annual.

 

[Wormwood]

Honestly, I'd rather the just did away with the pseudo-magazine format and went with something like "X supplemental articles and Y full adventures per month"