Why 2 Magazines?

[mach1.9pants]

I would like 2 mags, one with DM only stuff and one with player stuff and DM stuff. That would mag the in gaming group distribution easier for me.

As to why? Tradition.

 

[Glyfair]

Don't forget we are getting a print "best of Dragon" next year. Maybe there will also be a "best of Dungeon." Keeping the brands separate would make sense there.

 

[Sammael]

Don't forget we are getting a print "best of Dragon" next year. Maybe there will also be a "best of Dungeon." Keeping the brands separate would make sense there.

I doubt that plan is still on. For one, there doesn't seem to be enough material for such a book... they'd pretty much have to include everything.

 

[Dire Bare]

So now that they've gone digital do we really "need" two magazines? Why not just one big section of digital articles/adventures?

Not that I think it makes a huge difference one way or another... just wondering?

The two magazine names aren't pointless . . . they serve two purposes.

1) As mentioned above, legacy. If WotC made no other changes but ditched the "Dragon" and "Dungeon" labels, it would upset fans.

2) They serve to categorize the articles. Dragon is for player content and Dungeon is for DM content. They could just have a "player section", but why not name it "Dragon" instead and keep the legacy alive? Admittedly, some of the columns and editorials seem somewhat arbitrarily assigned, but it works for the most part.

I hope that if D&DI really takes off, we might someday get an "Ares" section for scifi d20 gaming and maybe a "Polyhedron" for more general d20 gaming. Heck, if things really take off we might even get the "Greyhawk Journal" and "Legends of the Lance" again!!! (yeah, I know, don't hold your breath).

 

[Scribble]

2) They serve to categorize the articles. Dragon is for player content and Dungeon is for DM content. They could just have a "player section", but why not name it "Dragon" instead and keep the legacy alive? Admittedly, some of the columns and editorials seem somewhat arbitrarily assigned, but it works for the most part.

Ok sure I'd be down with that... but what purpose do "creature incarnations" serve to a player? Or the beasiary? Or the codex articles, or the backdrops really...

Thats why I said some of the articles just seem to be arbitrarily tossed into certain sections. It's not really divided up in that manner. As it is now, it just kind of feels like an extra button to click, rather then any kind of organizational tool.

If they DID get it to a point where I new for sure, that Dungeon was for the DM and Dragon was for the player, then cool. But eh... Right now you could just make them one section with various categories in it.

 

[Dire Bare]

I assume that's the aim - to trade the brand equity of DRAGON and DUNGEON for D&D INSIDER and phase the former two out.

I don't think they'll phase the names out. It's not a trade from Dragon/Dungeon brand recognition to D&D Insider brand recognition . . . but rather Dragon and Dungeon provide an important part of what D&D Insider is!

They can advertise, with D&D Insider you get all sorts of game tools AND two . . . not one, but TWO . . . gaming magazines every month!!!!

In a sense, it's all semantics, but I think they'll keep the mag names forever in some form or other.

That website sure could use some organization and a redesign though . . . .

 

[Scribble]

That website sure could use some organization and a redesign though . . . .

It does have some strange features to it... I mean have you clicked either the forgotten realms or the ebberon buttons lately? All they do is take a really long time to switch the picture at the top (thats usually an ad for DDI) to a picture that says forgotten realms or ebberon...

Kind of pointless.

 

[Dire Bare]

Ok sure I'd be down with that... but what purpose do "creature incarnations" serve to a player? Or the beasiary? Or the codex articles, or the backdrops really...

Thats why I said some of the articles just seem to be arbitrarily tossed into certain sections. It's not really divided up in that manner. As it is now, it just kind of feels like an extra button to click, rather then any kind of organizational tool.

If they DID get it to a point where I new for sure, that Dungeon was for the DM and Dragon was for the player, then cool. But eh... Right now you could just make them one section with various categories in it.

Huh, you're right. Funny how obvious that is and I didn't even really see it. Dragon has always been the "bucket" for everything but adventures (at least after Dungeon launched so long ago), and Dungeon has just been adventures mostly. They are just continuing that idea.

I think Paizo at some point tried to push Dragon as the "player's" mag and Dungeon as the "DM's" mag . . . . although Dragon has always had monster articles and such. Or maybe I'm just experiencing early-onset Alzheimer's.

With the leap to digital format, a more coherent and sensical arrangement would be nice. I'd be fine if Dungeon remained just adventures . . . maybe they should simply move ALL of the columns and editorials to the Dragon side. Young's dual editorials, one for each mag, are kinda pointless.

Better yet, move all editorials and some columns to the overarching "D&D Insider" bucket, move all player articles to the "Dragon" bucket, and all DM articles and adventures to the "Dungeon" bucket, but view them all as simply sections of one uber-magazine rather than two separate mags. I'd even be alright with one PDF compilation each month with everything in it!

 

[Dire Bare]

I doubt that plan is still on. For one, there doesn't seem to be enough material for such a book... they'd pretty much have to include everything.

Heh, that might actually BE the plan!

 

[The Little Raven]

Better yet, move all editorials and some columns to the overarching "D&D Insider" bucket, move all player articles to the "Dragon" bucket, and all DM articles and adventures to the "Dungeon" bucket

I'd like to see this.

Also, as a show of commitment to the GSL and getting 3rd parties onboard, it'd be nice if they revived the "Polyhedron" line as a 3rd-party D&D magazine, to allow GSL-adherents to support their products in a communal fashion, which can better help them judge whether additional products for their lines would be viable.