companies staying away from rpg gamers

thecasualoblivion · Jun 23, 2010

ggroy said:
The original Malcolm Sheppard article in the OP, seems to be alluding to the "perceived reality" of the people who are calling the shots when it comes to business decisions. If the decision makers have been turned off previously by "toxic" TTRPGers and have a "Comic Book Guy" perception of TTRPGers, they may think twice about embracing TTRPGers in the future. This may be a classic case of "once burned, twice shy".

As much as I disagree with the notion of TTRPGers resembling the "Comic Book Guy", it's this very perception which may be turning off some business decision makers, who believe that TTRPGers are more trouble than they are worth.

Particularly when the decision makers Google D&D and come to ENWorld and RPGnet and see "Comic Book Guy" behavior.

howandwhy99 · Jun 23, 2010

pawsplay said:
I am not getting within a mile of any religious topic. I don't know what people are reading into my post, but I am paraphrasing William James, the American philosopher.

I follow you. It's just James still believed in things like perceivable categories and relationships underlying practical thought. He is a far cry from contemporary theorists like Lyotard, Rorty, and Foucault.

Think of it like this: Objectivity is one's subjective perception of what most people believe. It's neither correspondent nor consensus truth, but a denunciation of epistemology. Reality is what we desire it to be in all ways.

As John Mayer sings: "I just found out there's no such thing as the real world / Just a lie you got to rise above / I am invincible"

ExploderWizard · Jun 23, 2010

Vyvyan Basterd said:
But, their perceptions shape the reality of the products we receive.

This is indeed the root of the problem. In gamer terms this is the central conflict of the campaign. The consumer wants a certain type of product. The producer doesn't want to sell that type of product because it would be incompatible with their goals. The consumer expresses displeasure because the delivered product is not the product which they desire.
The producer blames the consumer for not accepting the product that they wish to produce.

Do the actions of the consumer make sense?

Do the actions of the producer make sense?

pawsplay · Jun 23, 2010

MrMyth said:
But a lot of other posts have simply been focused on objecting to and attacking an opinion that doesn't exist. They've been about how this is an attack on gamers, or how stereotyping gamers is bad, or how businesses within the industry are glad to cater to their fanbases and don't need to take lessons from outside sources, or things along those lines. And these aren't even all bad opinions to have - they just aren't relevant ones.

I suggest you challenge those inaccuracies directly, if you feel the article has been misrepresented. Complaining about the responses in general just looks, to me, like an unsubstantiated attack on several people.

Mallus · Jun 23, 2010

pawsplay said:
No, perception is truth, if it is compatible with reality. Perception that is not compatible with reality is irrational.

Yes, but people are irrational. They make irrational decisions all the time. Which is to say, they make decisions based on their perceptions, which may have nothing to do with objective reality.

What's really real is that people frequently believe and act regardless of what really real. Tricky stuff, eh?

(sorry for adding to the tangent...)

billd91 · Jun 23, 2010

MrMyth said:
And then I read the rest of the article, and... no, it wasn't. But there are people in this thread who seem very, very convinced that it is. That having said those words - having shared the genuine feelings of his client, based on the man's actual experiences - the rest of the article is irrelevant or unforgiveable.

<snip>

But a lot of other posts have simply been focused on objecting to and attacking an opinion that doesn't exist. They've been about how this is an attack on gamers, or how stereotyping gamers is bad, or how businesses within the industry are glad to cater to their fanbases and don't need to take lessons from outside sources, or things along those lines. And these aren't even all bad opinions to have - they just aren't relevant ones.

<snip>

I mean, I don't even totally agree with what he is saying. Some of his bullet points in that blog post are good ones, others are not. In my view. But the core of what he is saying - the same philosophy behind Penny Arcade's "Don't Be Dicks" motto - is a good one, and it is a shame to see it lost, and even undercut, by some of the responses in this thread.

I'm kind of jumping around your response here a bit. But, the way I see it, the blog post is saying a lot of things, some in the early paragraphs, some later. That there is some decent behavioral advice later on doesn't negate some of the things he said previously in the post. Based on my reading, those things aren't really ameliorated or put into a softer context by the text later on in the post either. So I think it's quite fair to react to various different negative parts of the post even if there are constructive things said later on.

pawsplay · Jun 23, 2010

Mallus said:
Yes, but people are irrational. They make irrational decisions all the time. Which is to say, they make decisions based on their perceptions, which may have nothing to do with objective reality.

What's really real is that people frequently believe and act regardless of what really real. Tricky stuff, eh?

(sorry for adding to the tangent...)

To get back on track, I don't like the idea of throwing up our hands because choose to be irrational. By definition, there is no arguing with irrational viewpoints. I choose to focus on the possibility of communicating with others, building consensus, solving problems, and ultimately, accepting reality.

"Gamers are not a good market" is almost content-free. It's almost completely synonmous with, "I don't wish to do business with gamers." I don't think it really advances a rational viewpoint, nor does it really invite gamers to do anything about the perceived problem. It's just rubbish, masquerading as a reasoned opinion.

Vyvyan Basterd · Jun 23, 2010

ExploderWizard said:
This is indeed the root of the problem. In gamer terms this is the central conflict of the campaign. The consumer wants a certain type of product. The producer doesn't want to sell that type of product because it would be incompatible with their goals. The consumer expresses displeasure because the delivered product is not the product which they desire.
The producer blames the consumer for not accepting the product that they wish to produce.

Do the actions of the consumer make sense?

Do the actions of the producer make sense?

I don't believe most producers set out to force a product on consumers. Or at least those that do aren't acting rationally and will likely fail. Most producers seek a market for their product and adapt it appropriately.

Let say the producers of the X-Men movies screened the movie in front of two target audiences. Audience A are movie-goers in the 18-30 age bracket and the feedback consists or the usual range of giggly fluff to constructive criticism. Audience B are avowed X-Men comic book fans and their feedback speaks of how the producers have ruined the vision of the original comics, that Hugh Jackman is laughable as Logan, and the producers, their mothers and their dogs should all be shot because of the steaming turd they created and slapped the name X-Men upon. Which group would you rather market to?

This is obviously an extreme and unlikely real-world example. But what if the producers perceptions match that of the above fictional Audience A and Audience B? Would the producers find evidence to negate this perception among the fanbase?

Vyvyan Basterd · Jun 23, 2010

pawsplay said:
To get back on track, I don't like the idea of throwing up our hands because choose to be irrational. By definition, there is no arguing with irrational viewpoints. I choose to focus on the possibility of communicating with others, building consensus, solving problems, and ultimately, accepting reality.

"Gamers are not a good market" is almost content-free. It's almost completely synonmous with, "I don't wish to do business with gamers." I don't think it really advances a rational viewpoint, nor does it really invite gamers to do anything about the perceived problem. It's just rubbish, masquerading as a reasoned opinion.

I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?

thecasualoblivion · Jun 23, 2010

Wow, people just don't read.

The original article was specific about where the toxicity of the RPG lie. It wasn't in they're buying habits, or their characteristics as people. The toxicity came from them interacting with other customers, in a business model that had a social aspect where customers routinely interacted with each other, driving non RPG customers away.

If the Edition Wars raged on Facebook at large, among the larger community, most regular people would bail because they don't need that crap.