Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 7652105" data-attributes="member: 58416">I believe that -before you can create a brand identity of your own or chip away at someone else's- you need to have a quality product.&nbsp; More importantly, the people you are trying to sell to need to believe you have a quality product.&nbsp; On that front, there are many companies which are doing great, and I believe a combination of a lack of D&amp;D product a well as a perceived lack of quality (no matter if that perception is true or not) have given some of those smaller companies an ability to be seen.&nbsp; Now that they have been seen, the question is whether or not they can be unseen.&nbsp; Will people who were lured elsewhere come back to D&amp;D once D&amp;D has an active game again?&nbsp; Many people will probably play D&amp;D and something else, but that is still something which takes away from D&amp;D because the money spent on that something else is money that could have been spent on WoTC products.I do believe D&amp;D has a strong brand identity.&nbsp; I also believe it is one of the strongest brands in the rpg hobby.&nbsp; However, I'm not convinced it is still as strong now as it was ten years ago.&nbsp; I do remember times when I would say &quot;D&amp;D&quot; when I really meant &quot;tabletop rpg,&quot; but -now- I most often find myself and the other gamers I socialize with on a personal level being more specific with game names.&nbsp; With that in mind, my natural question is whether the D&amp;D brand strength is the most important thing right now or if the financial strength of WoTC (and Hasbro) is the most important thing.&nbsp; In no way would I ever try to deny that D&amp;D as a brand name is recognizable, but I will argue that -I believe- we're in a time where other rpgs could do just as well (if not better) if they had the same resources and support available.&nbsp; Something else I believe is that the next big step for a tabletop game might be to drop the term &quot;roleplaying game.&quot;&nbsp; I do not believe the term carries enough meaning.&nbsp; I also think the term is somehow both simultaneously empty of meaning and loaded with baggage because of games like D&amp;D and WoW.&nbsp; For those who don't know what it is, it doesn't say anything; for those who do know what it is, it says too much or not enough depending on who you are talking to.&nbsp; I think many games would benefit from a marketing standpoint if they used something like &quot;collaborative storytelling system.&quot;&nbsp; Depending on the particular game, different descriptors may work better, but my overall point is that I believe some changes in terminology might benefit a game due to the evolution of the hobby and the wide range of things that &quot;rpg&quot; can entail while simultaneously conveying little or no meaning to people outside of the hobby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 7652105, member: 58416"] I believe that -before you can create a brand identity of your own or chip away at someone else's- you need to have a quality product. More importantly, the people you are trying to sell to need to believe you have a quality product. On that front, there are many companies which are doing great, and I believe a combination of a lack of D&D product a well as a perceived lack of quality (no matter if that perception is true or not) have given some of those smaller companies an ability to be seen. Now that they have been seen, the question is whether or not they can be unseen. Will people who were lured elsewhere come back to D&D once D&D has an active game again? Many people will probably play D&D and something else, but that is still something which takes away from D&D because the money spent on that something else is money that could have been spent on WoTC products. I do believe D&D has a strong brand identity. I also believe it is one of the strongest brands in the rpg hobby. However, I'm not convinced it is still as strong now as it was ten years ago. I do remember times when I would say "D&D" when I really meant "tabletop rpg," but -now- I most often find myself and the other gamers I socialize with on a personal level being more specific with game names. With that in mind, my natural question is whether the D&D brand strength is the most important thing right now or if the financial strength of WoTC (and Hasbro) is the most important thing. In no way would I ever try to deny that D&D as a brand name is recognizable, but I will argue that -I believe- we're in a time where other rpgs could do just as well (if not better) if they had the same resources and support available. Something else I believe is that the next big step for a tabletop game might be to drop the term "roleplaying game." I do not believe the term carries enough meaning. I also think the term is somehow both simultaneously empty of meaning and loaded with baggage because of games like D&D and WoW. For those who don't know what it is, it doesn't say anything; for those who do know what it is, it says too much or not enough depending on who you are talking to. I think many games would benefit from a marketing standpoint if they used something like "collaborative storytelling system." Depending on the particular game, different descriptors may work better, but my overall point is that I believe some changes in terminology might benefit a game due to the evolution of the hobby and the wide range of things that "rpg" can entail while simultaneously conveying little or no meaning to people outside of the hobby. [/QUOTE]

Verification