Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[Vocenoctum]

In short - while I appreciate your point, that is a false analogy Erik.

That seems to assume that Dragon has not reviewed the popularity of other magazines of a more broad nature.

But realistically, you're saying Dragon should change into a wider format, and that it could work because it's Dragon, which is a narrow format.

Taking the reputation you've earned on your product and banking it on a failed format makes no sense.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Taking the reputation you've earned on your product and banking it on a failed format makes no sense.

Haven't you been listening?

The Dragon's reputation was earned on a wide format - not a narrow one.

I'm guessing that you weren't around for that era in The Dragon.

I am not suggesting it adopt a wide format - only a little here and there. More to the point, a stolid refusal to review D20 D&D products from non-WotC sources has nothing to do with transgressing the "narrow" scope of the magazine, does it?

I think it has much more to do with not promoting (for free) products it sees as potential competition to its own product line - be it great or small.

 

[Odhanan]

In fact, the work of making Dragon better, more interesting, and more "relevant" will never ever stop so long as I am in charge.

I hope you get the chance to really put your ideas to practice, to see if they work/do not work. I think it's better when people in charge have a clear vision, know what they want, and can use it to the fullest. This is when the best comes out of people, as long as they are determined and hard working, which you seem to be.

So good luck to you Erik! I'll be following and giving you some feedback from time to time, like many other fans will, obviously.

The following magazines all had something in common, in that they tried to fill that "glaring hole":

White Wolf
Inphobia
d8
Troll
Valkyrie
Shadis
Campaign
Gaming Frontiers
Polyhedron
Vortext

QUIZ: What do all of these magazines have in common now?

That's radically different from the French market. In France, magazines devoted solely to a particular name, game or brand never really worked. A general magazine, Casus Belli, was succesful for a number of years. But now the RPG market in France has collapsed. Most of the activity is freelance, and litteraly named "amateur", with free products from passionate guys all over the country.

The main companies of French RPGs closed their doors one by one (mainly, I think, because of a lack of renewal of the players, which grew older with their games and made them more and more "adult", i.e. reserved to a knowledgeable public of gamers in close quarters, and because of the overwhelming success of Magic perhaps, which might have blocked the coming of kids to roleplaying games, prior to D&D3).

Now, only a few professional French companies remain, like Hexagonal, or Asmodee/Siroz. But these are exceptions rather than rules (since they profit largely from the d20 success, with lines like Scarred Lands and Ravenloft for Hexagonal, and the licence of translation of WotC products for Asmodee).

Now, why is it so impossible for a gaming magazine to be about RPGs generally, in North America?

 

[Scarbonac]

Once upon a time, if I missed a Dragon, I'd curse and scramble to find an alternate source.


Nowadays, not so much.

Back in tha day, when Dragon covered other games and systems, I freaking loved it; I'd happily convert a Top Secret module over to Gamma World, D&D or Champions ("KGB? OK, they're hobgoblins now, the revolutionaries are orcs, I'll make the Mad Scientist a 12th-level magic-user and the Giant Robot Pirate Ninja Dinosaur becomes an Iron Golem...") or just read an article for the sheer pleasure of it. I never knew what would stimulate my own creativity; hell, I took inspiration for adventures from some of the short stories!

The current version of the magazine is, IMNSHO, as flat as a beer left on the table overnight.

 

[Erik Mona]

The whole point is moot, because it isn't happening, no matter what.

Hate to be terse, but it's off the table. We would lose _far_ more readers than we would gain by tying major coverage to games that sell 1000-5000 copies.

I read too much reader mail, pay too much attention to market research, and trust my (growing) gut too much to drive Dragon off that particular cliff.

Sorry.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon

 

[Odhanan]

Hate to be terse, but it's off the table. We would lose _far_ more readers than we would gain by tying major coverage to games that sell 1000-5000 copies.

Very good point.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Haven't you been listening?

The Dragon's reputation was earned on a wide format - not a narrow one.

I'm guessing that you weren't around for that era in The Dragon.

I started in issue 88, I still have it around here somewhere.
I remember some great stuff in the Ares section.

But, once again, did you MISS the entire era of second edition?
Ares was gone and the format "D&D Only" a LOOOONG time ago. They have been successful for a long time, and know where their audience is.
It just seems like you think the changes have occured in 3e, straight from first edition. If you think Wizards is doing a lot of products now, then you're skipping months during second edition that had many more.

I am not suggesting it adopt a wide format - only a little here and there. More to the point, a stolid refusal to review D20 D&D products from non-WotC sources has nothing to do with transgressing the "narrow" scope of the magazine, does it?

I think it has much more to do with not promoting (for free) products it sees as potential competition to its own product line - be it great or small.

When was the last time they reviewed a WotC product? If you mean "why don't they preview non-WotC products" then if nothing else, I'd point to the utter failure of most of them to hit a release date.

Part of it may also reside with residual hurt feelings about their D20 Special Issue.

I don't think Dragon would turn away a good article that was drawn from a different companies setting, as long as it had a broad appeal.

 

[Odhanan]

Does that mean that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "gamer community" in North America but rather "game communities" around games which do not have the same publics?

If that's true, then indeed, there's no chance for a broad-gaming magazine. If however, there IS such a thing as a gamer community, then it has a particular "culture" or "identity" that could serve as the concept for a magazine. Right?

 

[Steel_Wind]

But, once again, did you MISS the entire era of second edition?

Yes. I did. I never bought 2E and stopped buying Dragon when it went 2E only.

3E brought me back to D&D. Dragon's format, however, continues to keep me away.

Hence, the thread.

Ares was gone and the format "D&D Only" a LOOOONG time ago. They have been successful for a long time, and know where their audience is.

Ares was a Johnny come lately to Dragon. The point is not that I or others were requesting regular sections of the magazine to support other games. But the Dragon's current format dissuades me from buying it. Period.

I don't think Dragon would turn away a good article that was drawn from a different companies setting, as long as it had a broad appeal.

I wish I could agree with this. There is precious little evidence to support that conclusion though, so I must disagree.

 

[Crothian]

I wish I could agree with this. There is precious little evidence to support that conclusion though, so I must disagree.

And none to deny it either. As far as I know no one has posted that they wrote such a piece, sent it in, and were denied.