Actually, our opinion does matter.

[tuxgeo]

Having more than one opinion doesn't mean that our traits generalize to the rest of the population. Yes, we have people on both sides of any given contentious issue,

. . . and the fact that there are people on both sides of such issues is the thing that makes them "contentious."

but there's one gigantic difference here between how we approach these issues and how your average (non-enthusiast) gamer approaches these issues: your average gamer doesn't even realize that many of these issues exist.

I imagine* that the average gamer develops an overall feel of the game from playing it; but the average gamer only does a shallow (as opposed to a "deep") analysis of any underlying issues that might contribute to that overall feel. Based on that, I imagine that the average gamer may feel that the game has some issues, but may lack any great ability to express what those issues might be.

*imagining is the only source I have for this kind of conclusion. Yes, that makes it imaginary; but without that, I have nothing to contribute here.

 

[xechnao]

And, the overall market? Using the WotC market survey results (old, but the only hard data we have), it's more like a million than 100,000.

We have other hard data too. Like the ones that Wotc used in court when it went against the PHB2 pirates.
Really, it seems that the active market population is just in hundreds of thousands if not merely tens of thousands. The one that buys supplements beyond the core books.

 

[Umbran]

Really, it seems that the active market population is just in hundreds of thousands if not merely tens of thousands. The one that buys supplements beyond the core books.

There's also the definition of "market" to consider. Is the market "those we regularly sell to" or "those we might regularly sell to".

 

[Ourph]

I imagine* that the average gamer develops an overall feel of the game from playing it; but the average gamer only does a shallow (as opposed to a "deep") analysis of any underlying issues that might contribute to that overall feel. Based on that, I imagine that the average gamer may feel that the game has some issues, but may lack any great ability to express what those issues might be.

The population of people who do not post at ENWorld does not necessarily equate 1:1 to the "average" gamer. I know any number of gamers who regularly engage in "deep" and thoughtful analysis of the systems they use who do not post at ENWorld. I've also seen numerous analyses of games here at ENWorld that have been anything but "deep" and thoughtful. I'm not sure equating "opinions expressed online" to "opinions which are well thought-out" is a supportable position to take.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would guess that the people who read EN World are representative of the RPG community at large but that only a portion of those post here regularly enough to really get much of a handle on that larger community. It's a better soapbox than sounding board, though I have seen it used as both fairly well at times.

 

[TheUltramark]

Didn't buy 4e, so no.
Won't buy 5e if it is like 4e, so no.

WotC probably thought that I would buy anyway, but if so then they were wrong.

We 'all' won't buy it.

Some of us, perhaps many of us, will. But all? Not the chance of a soggy snow cone on the flaming tombs of Dis.

The Auld Grump, we 'all' here are not all 'die hard fans'. Some of us think that 4e is just not D&D anymore. Generalities, by their nature, are almost always false.

How do you know it "is just not D&D aymore" ???
after all, you animately say you did not buy 4e - I must assume that means you didn't buy any 4e books, right?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

How do you know it "is just not D&D aymore" ???
after all, you animately say you did not buy 4e - I must assume that means you didn't buy any 4e books, right?

You know something amazing?

You don't need to buy a book to read it.

You know something else?

WotC described 4e in a series of books leading up to 4e - and it didn't sound like D&D then, either. And they charged money for those books.

Hmph! Two demerits, House WotC! *EDIT* To more closely impersonate Alan Rickman. *

If you are going to argue, please come up with some arguments that make sense.... Otherwise you come across in a less than self flattering manner.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT 2* Please note: I am not telling you 'don't argue' - I am saying 'When you argue, make sure that your argument makes sense, and does not have an obvious hole such as reading the books without purchasing them....'

It is more fun when the argument makes sense on both sides.

 

[Deset Gled]

Oi!

On a slightly personal note, I like to read your posts with the voice of Alan Rickman. I think you should know that using the word "oi" here made that a little difficult. Other than that, you've been doing a great job. Please carry on.

 

[chaochou]

IMO, the value (or lack of) of contributions on forums is a matter for the company making its design and marketing decisions. It's not for me to say this forum, or any other, is representative of anything. That's a specific decision for WotC or Paizo or EvilHat or whoever.

So, to the extent that the OP is saying 'We matter' I disagree. To the extent that the OP is rejecting the claim 'We don't matter' I agree.

Our collective importance is, in my view, undefined. It requires an external point of reference to make that judgement.

 

[DireWereTeddy]

I consider myself a casual gamer. I enjoy reading message boards, and sometimes, if the mood strikes, I'll post. I only care about two things in my RPGs, is it fun to play and how easily can I twist the mechanics to produce the effects (affects? I can never keep those two straight) that I want.

As far as I'm concerned, WotC is in no way beholden to me. I don't expect them to make products that cater to my desires. Their responsibility is to their stock holders (or Hasbro's in this case), their employees, and perhaps, to the industry. I don't agree with every decision they've made or like every product they've released, just as I don't like all the changes Hasbro has made to some traditional board games. But I don't expect Hasbro to go to internet board game communities and ask them about what changes they should make to the product.

I had a point in mind when I started typing this post, but I think it's gotten lost in the jumble of my thoughts. I suppose that, ultimately, what I'm trying to say is that the best way to influence WotC is with your money. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. But things will only change if they are unhappy with the income they're receiving from their products.

Yeah, I rambled around in this post and probably didn't make any sense whatsoever. Sorry.