Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3511260" data-attributes="member: 20239">Maybe I'm confused about your point.&nbsp; Are you saying that you think Dragon and Dungeon were popular because they carried the D&amp;D and associated brand names or because of the &quot;official&quot; status of the content (i.e. - the content was labeled by WotC as accepted alterations/additions to the game)?&nbsp; It seems to me you've been arguing the latter, but the above implies the former.For the record, I think the brand name recognition, marketing efforts of a major RPG company and track records of the magazines were the major determinants of their success in the light of failing competitors.&nbsp; I do not think that the status of the content as &quot;official&quot; plays a large role, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.&nbsp; In my experience, the rules content of Dragon has always been considered completely optional and just as suspect as 3rd party publications when it comes to including that content in a game for every group I've ever been involved with.&nbsp; Dragon and Dungeon existed for many years as periodicals which were strongly associated with the D&amp;D brand name but did not contain &quot;official&quot; content (all rules in Dragon except for published errata and Sage Advice were explicitly labelled &quot;unofficial&quot; by the magazine's editors).&nbsp; So there is a difference between bearing the &quot;D&amp;D stamp&quot; and the rules content being &quot;officially sanctioned&quot; (at least, IMO).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3511260, member: 20239"] Maybe I'm confused about your point. Are you saying that you think [I]Dragon[/I] and [I]Dungeon[/I] were popular because they carried the D&D and associated [u]brand names[/u] or because of the "official" status of the content (i.e. - the content was labeled by WotC as accepted alterations/additions to the game)? It seems to me you've been arguing the latter, but the above implies the former. For the record, I think the brand name recognition, marketing efforts of a major RPG company and track records of the magazines were the major determinants of their success in the light of failing competitors. I do not think that the status of the content as "official" plays a large role, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. In my experience, the rules content of [I]Dragon[/I] has always been considered completely optional and just as suspect as 3rd party publications when it comes to including that content in a game for every group I've ever been involved with. [I]Dragon[/I] and [I]Dungeon[/I] existed for many years as periodicals which were strongly associated with the D&D brand name but did not contain "official" content (all rules in Dragon except for published errata and Sage Advice were explicitly labelled "unofficial" by the magazine's editors). So there is a difference between bearing the "D&D stamp" and the rules content being "officially sanctioned" (at least, IMO). [/QUOTE]

Verification