Is Dragon Magazine even *Relevant* anymore?

[Vocenoctum]

I'm amused you give your own opinion strongly, just before noting it's pretty well worthless. Of course, your basic premise is wrong.
<snip>

Of course everything we say here is just people's opinions. I would argue, however, that Monte has a proven track record.

A proven track record among people that like him. His fan's are very vocal, there's really no way to quantify it. My opinion is worth what it is, no more or less than the others expressed in this thread. Saying Monte Cook's absence from Dragon is a horrible oversight is equal to me saying his articles add nothing to the magazine and it's better off without it. I recognize my opinion is not universal, and phrased it as such.

Yeah, the fact Dragon is on its third format in two years -does- mean its fondering. You may not realize, but Dragon has lasted so long because for many years TSR didn't care if it made money. Then WotC came along, and then Hasbro. They did care. And they decided it was a bad business proposition, and got ridof it.

They decided the money they were using for the magazine was not worth the return. The money could be invested in other products and personel and make them more money. (Or, by it's absence, inflate their value.) WotC has repeatedly let people go in large waves, when Hasbro needs to cut expenses. When that happens, you see which division is making you the least for the investment.
Dragon was an advertisement for them, just like the RPGA is for them now.

Dragon is trying to find it's stride under new ownership, not trying to reverse a death spiral, IMO.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Is that yet another reason why TSR financially ruined themselves?

If that's the case, they should never happened tried to circulate yet another magazine besides Dragon.

It's like Amazon always losing money, or CBS losing money on football.
The actual cost of the magazine was not as important as other revenue it's presence generated. For instance, (not sure of the exact deal) now WotC must pay for advertising in the magazine, whereas before it was indirect.

The internet allow them to rant at rapid speed -- sometimes not always constructive -- and find other angry common voices here as well.

Forgive the memory lapse, but have their been a time we flooded criticisms of Dragon while it is under TSR and WotC business operation, since the internet became public in the 90's?

I think the internet lets the voices be faster, louder and easier.
I remember the old Forum, where folks would write letters which would appear three months after the issue in question. I remember the flak over the April issue Erik mentions in this months Dragon.
You'd see threads of a complaint occur in the letters columns, over the course of a year.

The other problem with the Internet is the Fire&Forget mentality. You'll always hear what a waste of space something was, but rarely will someone retract it when they later need it in game.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

For what it's worth, my understanding is the Dragon's circulation peaked in the 1980s and perhaps early '90s, which would seem to indicate that it, at least, was at that time successful as the magazine of the RPG community. If those numbers are inaccurate, then hopefully Erik or one of the other Paizo editors can correct me on them.

For that matter, Dragon was pretty much the magazine of fantasy in general - remember that at that time, Dragon ran the only regular reviews of fantasy novels, electronic games and miniatures that could reasonably be described as authoritative.

What other magazine in 1989 could lay claim to the title of "the magazine of science fiction and fantasy?" SF&F? Asimov's? Analog? Hardly. Those fiction magazines were much lower in circulation then, and still are - measured, last I saw, in the very thousands that Erik himself described as being unfit for major magazine coverage!

But the fantasy genre has balooned in the intervening years - witness the Lord of the Rings films, the mainstreaming and Hollywoodization of comic books that are essentially pulp fantasy or science fiction, the titanic success of electronic games like Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy, and the cyclopean sales of Harry Potter. Geekdom, which generally overlaps with fandom, which exalts fantasy and science fiction above all other genres, is both mainstream and massive.

In 1989, Dragon was the magazine of science fiction and fantasy, especially fantasy, and fantasy was in everything but books sci-fi's very little brother in a secluded family that lived on the fringes of popular entertainment.

In 2005, there is NO definitive magazine of science fiction and fantasy, though fantasy and science fiction are the biggest genres of entertainment in the world (perhaps outside of TV, where production values restrict these two)!

I can't help but wonder if Dragon wouldn't be, well, the mass-market front-of-Waldenbooks (now Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com, I suppose) magazine it was in 1989 if the editors from 1990 to 2005 had stayed the course.

They didn't, and I don't think Dragon could recapture what it used to be after more than a decade.

According to Wizards of the Coast, D&D is bigger than it ever was in terms of players. Fantasy is vastly bigger than it once in the so-called golden age of RPGs (and Dragon magazine). So why are Dragon's numbers down since that time?

If Dragon is going to be "just" an RPG magazine, I think Erik is taking it in the right direction - covering topics that only Dragon can cover. A dozen d20 books cover most topics better than any magazine article ever could; only Dragon can (legally) give us Eberron, the Realms, beholders and D&D's named outer planes. I enjoy that stuff even though I don't play actual D&D, and I recognize it as a legitimate niche that nobody else can cover.

I'd have loved to see Dragon ascendant as the great wyrm fantasy magazine it used to be, but if it had to start out as a wyrmling again, I doubt it would be able to capture that empty throne.

I don't think Dragon would survive NOW as a generic RPG magazine, if only because its existing readers have become so agitated against non-D&D d20 and would presumably grow even more so at the presence of non-d20 material.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't think Dragon would survive NOW as a generic RPG magazine, if only because its existing readers have become so agitated against non-D&D d20 and would presumably grow even more so at the presence of non-d20 material.

Yeah, them readers make me want to retire my RPG hobby.

Kids these days have no appreciation for role-playing games.

 

[MerricB]

According to Wizards of the Coast, D&D is bigger than it ever was in terms of players. Fantasy is vastly bigger than it once in the so-called golden age of RPGs (and Dragon magazine). So why are Dragon's numbers down since that time?

I'd say there are two big reasons:

* Regular support for the game from Wizards of the Coast
* The Internet.

Cheers!

 

[Erik Mona]

Where are the articles by James Wyatt?
Where are the articles my Monte Cook?
Where are the articles by Owen Stevens?

Do even the authors question the importance of Dragon nowadays?

James Wyatt wrote "The Queen with Burning Eyes" in Dungeon #113. He also co-wrote (with Andy Collins) "Shards of Eberron," a three-part Eberron Campaign Arc that will appear in Dungeon 123, 124, and 125. In the meantime, he's been hard at work on launching the Eberron campaign setting for Wizards of the Coast, and has not had a tremendous amount of time for freelance writing. He's welcome in our pages any time.

Monte writes a monthly column in Dungeon, and I hope to publish a significant adventure by him within the year. He of course runs Malhavoc, which leaves a very limited amount of time for magazine writing. You might notice that he doesn't write hardcovers for Wizards of the Coast, either.

I tried to get Owen Stephens to write for the magazines several times more than a year ago, but he always told me he was too busy. Consequently, he has not since appeared in the magazine.

So, all of these people are busy with other projects, some of which include adventures for Dungeon. Does that mean they don't like Dragon anymore? A safer bet is that they're simply busy at the moment.

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

 

[Seeten]

Does it astonish anyone that Dungeon outsells Dragon, Dungeon has a coherent strategy, and Dungeon has all the big name writers, that it is Dragon thats floundering? At least, its Dragon that gets all the complaints.

I just dont get what Dragons PURPOSE is. I read it on the newstand sometimes, and it just has a mish mash of gobbledygook. Dungeon does stuff that is actually needed. Maps, encounters, adventures. Dragon is like random fluff and random crunch for random stuff at random times which likely dont fit since all the good ideas were in an article 10 years ago.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

Obviously I can't speak for Monte or James, but I certainly consider Dragon to be relevent, and extremely important. I buy every issue, and I read every page. Dragon is responsible for starting my professional writing career, and I expect to see poeple moving from Dragon magazine articles to professional or semi-pro writers every few years. When someone asks me how to break into rpg writing, I tell them "pitch something to Dragon, Dungeon, or Pyramid." Those are, to me, still the most important places to get your writing seen as a newcomer.

I've enjoyed most issues, and the ones I didn't get much out of were purely a matter of taste. But if Erik thinks he can make the magazine even better, I have no reason to doubt him. And for note, the idea that Dragon would only be making changes if it was floundering is silly on the face of it. A company wants to -expand- its customer base, and this often requires change. Dragon may well be doing fine, and Erik is just saying to himself "but is it the BEST it could be?"

It's important to remember that these people aren't just working on these magazines for a paycheck. They play these games, and love them. Erik may want Dragon to be better just because it's in his power to improve it. I know most of you have never had the opportunity to hear him talk about the magazines in person, but I have and I promise you he has a lot of enthusiasm for cool ideas just because they're cool. He has to balance that enthusiasm with business reality, but the fun factor is an improtant element.

As for my writing for Dragon, I'm surprised anyone notices if I am or not. I did an article just after 3.5 came out about enchanters, because I was specifically asked to. I haven't been pitching ideas because between doing two regular columns for the Wizards web-site, a monthly column for Pyramid Magazine, the occasional short adventure, my big writing projects (including a lot of Green Ronin work and a few things just announced at GTS) and running my own campaigns, I just haven't had the spare time and good ideas.

However, I consider that my loss, not Dragon's. The quality of the articles published really is what's important, and Erik does a great job picking out the good ones no matter who writes them. It's not like everything I've every pitched to Dragon was accepted. Established writers go through a process too, and when we aren't proposing things other people still are.

If Dragon isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. But don't predict its failure because its editor doesn't respond to a query on a message board of another web site about the lack of articles from three specific authors. (And be amazed when he does. Just imagine how many hours Erik is spending just to keep you all in the loop.) And -certainly- don't think I don't see Dragon as a lynchpin of the succeess of d20 gaming just because I'm not writing much for it at the moment.

If you're just dying to read more words I happened to write, feel free to drop by my blog (www.livejournal.com/users/thecaptainsblog). But if you want high quality D&D material, keep checking out Dragon.

Owen K.C. Stephens
d20 Triggerman

 

[Erik Mona]

Does it astonish anyone that Dungeon outsells Dragon

It would astonish me, since Dragon routinely sells about 10,000 more copies per issue than Dungeon.

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

 

[Ranger REG]

It would astonish me, since Dragon routinely sells about 10,000 more copies per issue than Dungeon.

Why am I not surprised.