Dragon/WotC conspiracy article

[MonsterMash]

I remember Dragon and White Dwarf from the days they were good.... especially White Dwarf when it had a lot of good monsters and scenarios for various games before it was just the GW house organ.

I'm surprised that the author of the article didn't criticise WotC and Paizio for having the temerity to make profits so they can employ people... So Dragon as an officially licenced D&D magazine covers D&D and WotC's products uncritically, not a huge surprise and there is no big attempt to claim that the Dragon is an independent source of writing on D&D, so what's the big deal.

 

[diaglo]

i miss Wormy

 

[robberbaron]

Just to add to that point, Dragon used ot have an insert sci-fi section called Ares, which later became an independant publication (short-lived I believe).

Ares was a spin-off of Strategy and Tactics (both produced by SPI) covering Fantasy and Sci-Fi. Each of the 12 or so issues included a small board game - Barbarian Kings was about the best of these - and odd bits of creative writing and reviews.

Unless there was another Ares around in the early 80s.

 

[JPL]

Yes, but you have to remember that back in the day, Dragon DID discuss non D&D rpgs. That was before d20 cornered the market.

The more pressing issue is that I had heard that d20 threatened to take away a publisher's d20 liscence if they continued to publish non d20 material. Hence 7th Sea turning into Swashbuckling adventures. I don't know how true this is, however, because I think the company that makes Ravenloft d20 is under the auspices of White Wolf.

Maybe what it meant was that they could not publish a d20 system version of a game and still publish a non d20 system version of the SAME Game, i.e. that is why there is no Vampire: d20 Masquerade, and the 7th Sea roll n' Keep system is gone.

That what you heard, huh? Where did you hear that? You and Steve Jackson and Monte Cook go out for a beer now and again?

 

[vrykyl]

DRAGON Magazine was always a "house organ" of TSR, even though for many years it had a broader focus and had limited coverage of other game systems, along with review columns for RPGs, computer games, and miniatures. I remember those days quite fondly as my favorite period in DRAGON's history.

With D&D3e, DRAGON was re-vamped to be the "Third Edition Magazine." It's coverage became pretty much exclusive to D&D. While I actually enjoyed the magazine more in the old days, I believe the strategy has been largely successful.

If I'm not mistaken, Paizo is licensing DRAGON and DUNGEON from Wizards of the Coast, which means that they have to maintain the D&D3.5 focus as long as their licensor wishes it. No conspiracy, just business.

Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yes, but you have to remember that back in the day, Dragon DID discuss non D&D rpgs. That was before d20 cornered the market.

The more pressing issue is that I had heard that d20 threatened to take away a publisher's d20 liscence if they continued to publish non d20 material. Hence 7th Sea turning into Swashbuckling adventures. I don't know how true this is, however, because I think the company that makes Ravenloft d20 is under the auspices of White Wolf.

Maybe what it meant was that they could not publish a d20 system version of a game and still publish a non d20 system version of the SAME Game, i.e. that is why there is no Vampire: d20 Masquerade, and the 7th Sea roll n' Keep system is gone.

Threatened? I think not. Any company that's succeeding without d20 (and there are plenty) would just tell 'em to go take a hike.

It is entirely possible that companies are not finding it profitable to publish both -- I'm thinking of Deadlands and Sovereign Stone here. But that's not compulsion, that's just the natural market forces at work.

As for Dragon being a house organ, can I get a hearty "NO DUH!" from the audience? Was somebody actually expecting it to be otherwise?

-The Gneech

 

[Sir Elton]

If I'm not mistaken, Paizo is licensing DRAGON and DUNGEON from Wizards of the Coast, which means that they have to maintain the D&D3.5 focus as long as their licensor wishes it. No conspiracy, just business.

It could have been worse. DRAGON could have been intentionally misrepresented. However, with the format now, I'm happy with it. Although I haven't been getting DRAGON for a while now, the issues I do have contain a few gems. Like Robin Law's article on adding T.V. Structure to a campaign. I love that one!

 

[drnuncheon]

Note that Dungeon, at least, has run stuff covering non-WOTC material.

J

 

[drnuncheon]

The more pressing issue is that I had heard that d20 threatened to take away a publisher's d20 liscence if they continued to publish non d20 material.

Maybe what it meant was that they could not publish a d20 system version of a game and still publish a non d20 system version of the SAME Game, i.e. that is why there is no Vampire: d20 Masquerade, and the 7th Sea roll n' Keep system is gone.

Note that there are several games available in both d20 and non-d20 formats: Big Eyes, Small Mouth and Silver Age Sentinels from Guardians of Order, Legend of the Five Rings from Alderac (and I think you're wrong about Seventh Sea going away, but since I don't play it don't quote me on that).

What did happen was that a lot of games got converted to d20, often poorly, and then went under or dropped the d20 version because it wasn't popular.

J

 

[Cyberhawk]

and the Dragon Project (dragons for different RPG systems).

Oh man, I'd forgotten about the Dragon Project. Those were fun articles.

It would be cool if Paizo decided to do that again...