Liz Schuh on Dragon/Dungeon moving to the web

[Maggan]

Two points...

First, Dungeon didn't contain "official" rules, it was a medium for adventures and GM advice. So it's a stretch to claim that the magazine's popularity and continued existence had anything to do with containing "official" content.

Second, Dragon and Dungeon were at their most popular when all content in them other than published errata and Sage Advice was considered unofficial. Again, it's a stretch to link popularity with "officiality" in light of that fact.

So it is your belief that Dragon and Dungeon would have sold equally well had they not had the D&D stamp on them?

I don't think I can ever present any evidence to the contrary, except that all the other magazines that tried peddling the same kind of material without the D&D stamp, are dead as a dodo. Or as dead as a flock of dodos.

And if the official stamp is not the thing, then we will soon see someone else publish the equvivalent of Dragon and Dungeon, and have 15 000 subcribers. I will allow myself to doubt that such a thing will occur, but will gladly be wrong on that account.

I will now bow out of this discussion, since I have reached the end of my resources trying to say basically what most industry people have told me when asked about why there aren't any more rpg magazines.

If you still don't think I have a clue, or a point, after my latest missives, there's nothing I can say that'll change your mind.

/M

 

[Ghendar]

Please note that I don't think that the DI will skyrocket and pull in millions of subscribers. I do think it was a bad move for WotC to cancel the mags, and I would have liked them to come up with a strategy that kept the mags after launching the DI.

I would have liked that as well.

It's just that I have worked in the industry since 1989, and rpg magazines have been a pain to sell for as long as I can remember.

/M

Not being an industry insider I can neither confirm nor deny that.
However, it couldn't have been too much of a pain for Paizo to do it. They've done just fine with it.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

And if the official stamp is not the thing, then we will soon see someone else publish the equvivalent of Dragon and Dungeon, and have 15 000 subcribers.

Don't forget those of us that already meet those requirements...

(Knights of the Dinner Table magazine)

 

[wingsandsword]

On the idea that every magazine except Dragon (and Dungeon) failed because they weren't official D&D or that gamers don't want print magazines (I know KodT gets a good circulation, heck I read it and enjoy it, but I usually think of that as "comic book" that happens to have a lot of features besides the comics, not "magazine", maybe it's the comic-book printing format that keeps me thinking like that). . .

Did the thought cross anybody's mind that maybe the market is only large enough for one magazine, or at least certainly not large enough for the glut of magazines that have been made, often highly specialized in focus (like Star Wars Gamer)?

I remember when Dragon was a lot more than a monthly official D&D update. There were articles on other non-D&D games, even on other types of gaming (like the article on the NERO fantasy larp that made that business skyrocket in popularity). I think Dragon lost a lot of appeal (at least to me) when it became focused on being purely a packet of D&D rules and promotional material. There was a certain character present in older issues of Dragon that seemed to be lost when it switched over to being just a D&D magazine.

Especially in the absence of Dragon, would there be a market for a magazine of general gaming? It woudl mostly cover tabletop RPG's, but also cover CCG's and CMG's, and even have some limited coverage of larping? Interviews with people from throughout gaming, past and present and other articles of general interest to gamers as a whole instead of fans of one specific system or setting?

 

[Glyfair]

Don't forget those of us that already meet those requirements...

(Knights of the Dinner Table magazine)

I don't consider it an "equivalent of Dragon and Dungeon". I buy KoDT regularly, but do so for the comics. If it was just the gaming material I wouldn't pick up an issue (not that I don't enjoy some of it when I pick up the comic).

 

[Glyfair]

So it is your belief that Dragon and Dungeon would have sold equally well had they not had the D&D stamp on them?

I don't think I can ever present any evidence to the contrary, except that all the other magazines that tried peddling the same kind of material without the D&D stamp, are dead as a dodo. Or as dead as a flock of dodos.

An argument can be made that the other recent magazines that failed did so because they weren't the quality of Dragon and Dungeon. In fact, though I don't think that's the only reason they failed, I do feel they all fell short with those magazines as yardsticks. For all of the comments about how Paizo's magazines felt like big advertisements for WotC products, I got that feeling more from the d20 magazines (here is an excerpt from <insert d20 product>).

However, I also agree with you that a large amount of the success of Dragon and Dungeon was because they were official. If nothing else, it created loyalty because of that. How many regularly picked them up to get Greyhawk content (or any other official WotC setting)?

 

[BOZ]

BTW, i don't feel like sifting through the thread at the moment, so not sure if someone posted this at some point. if you go to the page where the interview is, you'll notice there's now a disclaimer regarding the word Luddite.

 

[CharlesRyan]

An argument can be made that the other recent magazines that failed did so because they weren't the quality of Dragon and Dungeon.

Arcane didn't fail because it lacked quality. Neither did The Gamer.

Admittedly, these aren't exactly "recent" magazines. Maybe a magazine like Arcane could do better in the d20 era, when there would be a critical mass of gamers interested in the same system. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Maggan's experience jibes 100% with my 19 years in the game industry.

 

[Maggan]

Maggan's experience jibes 100% with my 19 years in the game industry.

Thank you for adding your voice to the debate, Mr. Ryan.

/M

 

[WizarDru]

Arcane didn't fail because it lacked quality. Neither did The Gamer.

Admittedly, these aren't exactly "recent" magazines. Maybe a magazine like Arcane could do better in the d20 era, when there would be a critical mass of gamers interested in the same system. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Maggan's experience jibes 100% with my 19 years in the game industry.

Nice to hear from you, Charles. I'm not an industry insider, but speaking as a consumer, I don't even KNOW these magazines, so I think that fact in and of itself says something. Granted, I was not a D&D player at that time, but I was an active gamer, and while I might have vaguely glanced at these on the shelf, I don't recall ever picking up either one. For that matter, during the pre-d20 era, I stopped getting either Dungeon OR Dragon, until I returned with 3e. Like many others, I completely skipped the 2e era (and this may explain my lack of familiarity with them).

RPG magazines would, I expect, be hard to sell because you're catering to such a diverse and segmented audience within an already niche market. D&D players weren't that likely to purchase Pyramid when it was in print, assuming they could even find it, for example. When Dragon covered other TSR games, it broadened it's appeal (though I have no idea if it did anything for sales to have Marvel material in with the D&D stuff).

But if you eliminate Dungeon and Dragon, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any publication that has been around as long and remained as focused on it's original material. The sole exception would be White Dwarf, but they only survived by changing their content away from the RPG segment to focus more on Warhammer and 40K. Even the venerable Games magazine discontinued publication for a couple of years.

Apropos of nothing, I think it speaks highly of people that Paizo is considered the proper caretakers of the magazines (based, naturally on years of them doing such a good job), when just a few years ago, the transition TO them was considered impending doom for both publications. The irony is a little funny, in hindsight.