You're trying to connect two parts of my argument together that don't obviously go hand in hand.
Yeah, that's the point.
You can say "Us being perceived as toxic =/= everyone else drinking the kool-aid".
I say, "Both are examples of segregating us and them, and either there is a valid segregation or there is not. If there is, then suggesting that we are more critical (and thus less likely to
just drink the kool-aid) is valid. If not, then suggesting that we are more critical (and hence more toxic) is not."
I don't believe that "everyone else" consumes silently. Some do, some critique constructively, and some rave like lunatics. The assertion of the blog was that TTRPGers have a larger number of ravers than other groups that producers can market to.
Is it? People can rave about tuna being from Mars all they want, and it has no effect on consumer behaviour. However, the critique about dolphins did, indeed, make the tuna fishery change. I assume that the blog is talking about criticism that is actually listened to. Criticism that is ignored, presumably, is ignored.
YMMV.
Certainly, the CNN comments were not "raving", yet they were pointed out as an example in this trend.
Again, YMMV. Quite a bit farther from mine in this case, I expect.
The status quo is that we are nothing but geeks and losers, living in our mothers basements, pretending to be elves and that we should be marginalized in all areas of society except our own little niche.
Really? Not my experience at all.
I agree with you. No one is obligated to go say good things about the article. But why do so many people feel the need to go out of their way to bash something every chance they get?
I am quite certain that they have far more chances than you imagine, and are far more restrained than you imagine.
Every time you mention RCFRP I don't spew bile against it because it's not my game of choice.
Please do. Controversy fuels interest.
And to ignore the fact that comments like these could drive a potential new gamer away is sticking your head in the sand. And you said up thread that new players helps grow the hobby. So is driving a potential new player away damaging the hobby or not. You can't have it both ways.
Ah, well then. First you need to define what hobby you are talking about, as I suggested upthread. I feel quite certain that there are a number of people who feel 4e actually drains gamers from thier hobby.
Again, YMMV.
So you believe the gaming community as a whole is better suited by driving off potential new gamers, rather than risk them sitting down to play 4E?
I very specifically said that I was not going to enter my views on that, so I don't know why you would assume that they are as you say. Do I believe some people feel that this is true? Yes. I am certain that there are some people who don't know exactly what you mean by "the gaming community as a whole" and whose idea of their hobby doesn't include all games.
And, please note, I am not saying that they are correct. What I am saying is that, as with most people, they are behaving in a manner consistent with what they believe to be in their best interests.
Their base assumptions are different than yours.
No amount of crying about it is going to change it.
Do we know if the example in the article was crap? After the change in strategy, was it successful?
That's a good question.
Sometimes, it's easier to change your target market.
And that's a fact.
RC
