Goobye Johnny!
- Thread starter BrooklynKnight
- Start date
WizarDru
Adventurer
Is it me, or do those three statements not all agree with each other? Personally, I don't buy Dragon so that I can spend more of my precious time trying to retool an article for Mutants&Masterminds to work in 3.5e. I buy it for D&D content. All those years when Dragon wasted space on non-D&D games coincide with when neither I nor any of my players actually read the magazine. Now we all have subscriptions. If I were suddenly to get coverage of Spycraft in Dragon, I'd be irritated. In Polyhedron, that's acceptable (expected, even)...but I can't recall any time when the map of a fast-food restaurant will be of any use in any D&D game I run. Sure, I can garner an idea from this article on Shadowrun and get some mechanics ideas from this Call of Cthulu article...but you yourself state that you don't want to use a certain type of article because of the amount of work required to actually use it....and I'm no different, except that I have less inclination than you to try and rework an idea in my game.woodelf said:
The web and the current game market have transformed the market from Dragon's early days. Dragon needs to be the best D&D magazine it can be...that will give it the widest readership. I know many D&D players who aren't into any other game, and have little desire to branch. Diversify Dragon into Just Another Gaming Magazine, and it ceases to be useful to me. Part of Dragon's appeal is it's official status of D&D's magazine, endorsed by the publisher of the game. Never mind the fact that every d20 magazine that's been launched in the last three years has failed miserably, AFAIK.
And the crunchy content? That's hardly anything new, either. I remember being excited whenever I saw a new monster, spell or magic item in The Dragon...in 1982. The only thing that really changed is that TSR drove me away from the game and then stabbed itself in the foot for a decade, until WotC called me back.
None of which is to say that
I'm not so sure I'd make that assumption. Rowling has a say, of course, and the possibility exists they might not make another film. It's kind of a thorny problem, given the turnaround time of movie development. To make the film on the scale they want, it takes years to make a film...and the biological clock is ticking for live actors. I mean, they already look too old for the parts, don't they? But I'm willing to let a lot slide, because they're talented.
What you're describing sounds like it might be what Paizo should do with Polyhedron, if possible. I would certainly buy it...I just don't want chocolate in my peanut butter, so to speak.
Default Name Player
First Post
Staying on-topic: Best of luck to Johnny in his future endeavors.
@ the people who are so self-centered that they can't help but turn this thread into (yet another rant on) how Dragon magazine disappointed them.
@ the people who are so self-centered that they can't help but turn this thread into (yet another rant on) how Dragon magazine disappointed them.
Alzrius said:
I find your definition of "fractionalize" questionable.
Situation A (Dragon in the '80s/early '90s): Almost no matter what game you play, you might find an article specifically for it if you pick up an issue. Many of the nominally game-specific articles are enough fluff, rather than crunch, to be easily adaptable to whatever system you play, and there's a healthy percentage of articles genericized to a genre, or even about RPing in general--things like how a magical economy might work, or justice in fantasy settings, or how to RP well. Thus, a healthy percentage of the articles that aren't for whatever game you play are likely to be useable. Anybody who's big enough to be worth noting advertises in Dragon, and Roleplaying Reviews covers the gamut of RPGs, from the latest TSR releases to literal-basement productions.
Situation B (Dragon now): All articles are specifically and explicitly for D&D, and they tend to be very crunch-heavy, with minimal adaptable fluff. There are no articles for, or reviews of, anything else. Last time i looked, pretty much everything RPG-wise but D20 and maybe WWGS had been priced out of advertising in Dragon--and with the all D&D, all the time, attitude, why would you expect to get a good return on your investment for advertising something else there? The magazine is specifically targeting that portion of RPers who only want one system.
Explain to me how a magazine with something for everyone (even if any given issue isn't entirely perfect for any given customer), which acknowledges and supports the entire RPG market, is more "fractionalizing" than one that pretty much ignores the existence of anything outside of one RPG, and encourages an us-vs.-them attitude by dismissing all other games? A implicitly assumes a market where there are "roleplayers". B implicitly assumes a market split into "D&D players" and "everyone else" (which may, in turn, be further split).
Now, the latter may make more business sense, may be easier to write for, and may make more money. But that doesn't mean it "encourages fractionalization".
woodelf said:
WizarDru said:
No contradiction: i didn't say i didn't use the FR articles, i said i couldn't use them without significant alteration. The amount of most FR articles that i used was on par with the amount of many articles written for completely different systems/settings that i used.
I obviously did the cost-benefit analysis differently: i'd rather have 1 article i can use as is, than 20 i have to tweak--but i'd rather have 20 i have to tweak than 0 of any use whatsoever. Right now, if you're a crunch-lovin' D&D3E player, you get 20 articles that you can either use as is, or have to tweak. If you play anything else, you get zip--crunchiness is the thing that least translates to different systems. More specifically, even if i could've only used the non-setting-specific AD&D articles in the old Dragon, that would've been, say, 3 articles a month. Probably more than i could actually make use of, despite as much as 20hrs/week of gaming.
The other element of this is what it does to the RPG market as a whole. Remember the WotC survey? Remember all those people who'd either stopped playing RPGs, or now only played not-D&D (whatever flavor of not-D&D appealed to them)? If someone gets sick of D&D, would you rather they stop RPing altogether, or find another RPG they like but give up D&D? Which do you think is better for the market? With the insular attitude that Dragon takes, combined with the ridiculous dominance of D&D/D20 System in the sales channels, it is more likely now than ever that a D&D player might not be aware of other RPGs or, if they are, not be aware of how different some of them might be. It might not even occur to them that they could keep what they love (RPing) while ditching what they don't (whatever element of D&D they don't like--not realistic enough, too detailed, not detailed enough, too simple, too complex, too random--whatever). So they stop playing. If it hadn't been for the non-D&D content in Dragon, back when, i might very well not be RPing any more, or i might be a very bitter unhappy gamer, playing only a system that frustrates me. Or, who knows--if i'd somehow remained ignorant of most other RPGs, maybe i'd be a big-name RPG publisher now, having been driven by frustration to write and publish my own stuff.
um... that's the whole problem. It wouldn't be "Just Another Gaming Magazine", 'cause that implies there are multiple gaming magazines. There aren't. There are multiple D20 System magazines, and zero RPG magazines. It is an untapped market.
My understanding is that Arcane is the only RPG magazine ever to turn a profit consistently--and that includes Dragon. Now, based on the fact that Paizo seems to be surviving without a massive RPG line to absorb the magazine's losses, this comparison is probably no longer correct--i suspect that Dragon and/or Dungeon are finally turning a profit. Anyway, my point is that saying non-D&D RPG magazines are bound to fail isn't absolutely true. It'd be just as accurate to say that non-"Dragon" magazines are bound to fail--the track record is about the same--which implies that Dragon, like D&D, has sufficient brand identity to make its own market, whatever its content.
And, in that same period, i could be excited whenever i saw a "how to DM better", "The Ecology of..." or "the metaphysics of the schools of magic" article. That's the difference--not that there weren't crunchy articles, but that there were also lots of fluffy articles.
[Snipped a bunch of stuff on the next Harry Potter film, i think. What'd you mean to be there?]
Well, frankly, i don't care *which* magazine is of general RPer interest--i just wish such a beast existed. However, i think anyone who cares about the long-term health of the RPG market should care that D&D players (and Vampire players, and Palladium players, and any other market leaders) be exposed to other games, and that would mean "the D&D magazine" shouldn't be "the D&D magazine"--it should have some acknowledgement of the rest of the RPG world. All your eggs in one basket is a *bad* idea, for a market as well as everything else. Especially for a luxury entertainment good that is poorly understood even by many participants.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
woodelf said:
I recall the Ares section and other such similar articles. My point about them speaks for itself given that such pieces were the very first thing to go when the magazine needed to be trimmed down. That shows that the people who knew best agreed with my standpoint.
Theoretically speaking, anything could be converted between systems. The point though is that it shouldn't have to be. Dragon and Dungeon are known as the D&D magazines. People buy them for the D&D content. Adding articles about other RPG systems wouldn't attract new subscribers based on people who play those RPGs, because no one wants to pay full subscription price for a magazine that has only one article of use to them.
Likewise, you could convert the material yourself by hand, but no one particularly wants to have to do that in the first place. Whether or not you could is irrelevent. The people who buy those magazines for the D&D content wouldn't be happy to see articles for other systems, despite the fact that they could convert them. It simply would be seen as a hassle that should be unnecessary.
You seem to be ignoring that Dragon still does have a large base of people who advertize in it, both d20 specifically and more general SF genre-related. Just take a look at a current issue's Ad Index.
Ah, bliss.
Which is hardly a bad thing when you consider that the d20 system is far and away the largest on the RPG market.
Simple. People want a magazine that devotes all of itself to their singular interest. It encourages an us-vs.-them attitude because that's the attitude that exists in the market. It's called business competition. WotC (who gives Paizo the rights to do D&D-specific content not covered in the OGL) has no interest in seeing White Wolf or Steve Jackson's games given more press in a magazine devoted to their (WotC's) product. Why should they? It doesn't serve them. Nor does it serve the people who only want to play D&D - it would be wasted space to them.
If you only play tennis, for example, and you only wish to subscribe to one magazine, are you going to subscribe to Sports Illustrated, or to a magazine specifically about tennis. Sure you could adapt some of the articles in SI about, say, basketball, into tennis plays, but for the most part, the tennis-specific magazine will give you more for your money. Same thing with D&D.
Because, in terms of business, that ("B" that is) is how it is. There will be no further split though, since WotC is canny enough not to subdivide their audience with multiple campaign worlds.
Actually, saying there are D&D players and everyone else does seem like a fractional statement to me - that's how it is, after all. Likewise, given that that, as you said, is easier to write for, makes more business sense, and is more profitable...what on Earth makes you think Paizo would not do that??? They are, after all, a business, and still need to turn a profit to keep going, just like everyone else.
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
I dont want to sidetrack this thread any further. Therefore, I've created a separate thread to discuss the content of Dragon magazine.
Goodbye and Good Luck, Johnny. I appreciate what you've done with the magazines, and have voted with my dollars. Nuff said.
Goodbye and Good Luck, Johnny. I appreciate what you've done with the magazines, and have voted with my dollars. Nuff said.
Last edited:
Alzrius said:
While i understand your basic point, i don't think it's quite that straitforward. First, to the best of my recollection, the pagecount of Dragon never went down, only up. Second, the Ares section was *added* to the magazine, increasing the %age of non-D&D content for a few years. Which points out that, prior to D&D3E, Dragon went in cycles: the coverage would be broadened because readers complained that they wanted stuff besides D&D, then a few years later they'd announce that they were decreasing or eliminating non-D&D (or non-TSR, depending on the time) content, due to reader requests/complaints, then the non-D&D content would slowly creep back in, presumably due to a mixture of reader interest and available submissions, then it would ebb again, and so on. I can recall at least 2, maybe 3 "all D&D, all the time" announcements prior to the most recent one (~3 years ago, when i dropped my subscription--not because of the elimination of non-D&D game articles, but because of the elimination of Roleplaying Reviews, the most valuable part of the magazine to me). And a couple "satisfying a broader range of readers" announcements, too. It has not *always* been the best estimation of the readership that it wanted nothing but D&D. Maybe the readership has changed; maybe for some reason the D&D-only readers were less vocal at periods in the magazine's history--i don't know.
In any case, the content pendulum has swung both ways for the entire life of the magazine, and i wouldn't be one bit surprised to see it swing back in the direction of broader coverage in the next few years--especially since it's no longer actually owned by the producers of D&D. It would likely be just D20 System games, even then, but i wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. Perhaps, as with previous editions of D&D, the market will start to burn out on it, and be more interested in other games--or maybe some other D20 System game will make a big fuss and garner enough interest to seriously compete with D&D--who knows? I wouldn't be one bit surprised if, down the line, we start seeing "special" non-D&D articles, nominal one-time occurences ("we know this isn't explicitly for D&D, but it was so good we just couldn't turn it down, and since it's D20 System, we're sure you can make some use of it if you want to", or something like that), and then maybe a regular feature of one non-D&D article per issue, with rotating coverage, and so on. Then again, it may not happen: I don't think the D&D owners or the D&D players have ever been as insular before as they are now.
Similar Threads
