D&D General On gatekeeping and the 'live-streaming edition wars'

[Tun Kai Poh]

There's always going to be different ways into the hobby for different people, whether it's Endless Quest #2: Mountain of Mirrors by Rose Estes, or the Fell's Five comics by John Rogers, or BECMI, or 3.5th edition.

I think a bit of good-natured ribbing between the camps is okay, but when personal attacks start flying or couches start burning, we have to draw a line. It's not okay for CR vs tabletop, any more than it would be okay for a rivalry between the Buckeyes or the Wolverines.

(if D&D = American football, then Games Workshop = Nottingham Forest F.C.? Norwegian LARP = Telemark skiing? SLA Industries = Curling?)

 

[Dausuul]

Y'know, considering the amount of general griping around here, I'm not 100% sure that people who play can even be counted as "fans" of D&D.

You're not a real fan unless you hate the thing you're a fan of.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also, before the Grognards judge young ones, remember that you were once like them.

I was’t born a grognard, but I became one as soon as I could.

But diaglo is probably the spawn of grognard gametes...

 

[3catcircus]

I think you are missing the point S'mon.

I do not think anyone is trying to say that "Watching" = "Playing" because, logically, it can't.

But, what we are saying is that it is not right to declare that people who watch and do not play cannot be fans. Because, we don't get to decide who fans are and are not.

An interesting point. Let's say - not D&D fans. Let's say we're talking about (pick any sport) fans. Do the fans get to decide what direction the sports go? Sure - in some cases, a small minority of outspoken fans can drive fearful team owners or advertisers to implement rules changes - and look at the results. Fewer hockey fights (angering fans and players). NFL rules increasingly treating QBs with kid gloves (angering fans and players). In many cases, rules changes that are believed to be "because the fans demand it" anger the players (the ones who have to actually adhere to the rules).

People can be D&D fans all they want, but if they never play, they shouldn't have a greater voice as to which products get published than those who actually play. Why even bother putting out a survey every year if you're just going to "publish this book because Twitch/YouTube?" You may sell that to the "fans" but the "players" will go elsewhere if their desires aren't being addressed.

I'd like to know the following things, which should be considered when we talk about "gatekeeping" and fans fs players:

1. How many of Critical Role's social media subscribers are actual butts-in-seats eyes-on-screen people vs. bots or sockpuppets.
2. What is the breakdown of the 88000 or so people who supported their kickstarter (i.e. did most people give a little bit, or were there a few high net worth individuals who contributed the bulk of the funding?) It's vastly different to say 88000 people contributed $11.4M and the average was $250 than it is to say that 87500 people donated an average of $20 and 500 people contributed an average of $20000 to get to that $11.4M.
3. Of the people who watch Critical Role's streams, how many of them also play, and how many of those also pay to subscribe and contributed to the kickstarter.

 

[Morrus]

2. What is the breakdown of the 88000 or so people who supported their kickstarter (i.e. did most people give a little bit, or were there a few high net worth individuals who contributed the bulk of the funding?) It's vastly different to say 88000 people contributed $11.4M and the average was $250 than it is to say that 87500 people donated an average of $20 and 500 people contributed an average of $20000 to get to that $11.4M.

You can look at that for yourself.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I just don't care there's always been people who consume D&D in some way but don't play.

Indeed. I have a feeling some people demanding another FR campaign book are more interested in reading about the current political situation in Cormyr than actually playing a PnP game set there.

 

[pemerton]

there's always been people who consume D&D in some way but don't play.

Right. I see plenty of posts on this board from people who are "between games", or who seem to read quite a bit more than they play.

People can be D&D fans all they want, but if they never play, they shouldn't have a greater voice as to which products get published than those who actually play.

WotC isn't a charity. It's a commercial publisher, entitled to publish - within the limits of the law and good taste - whatver it wants to and thinks it can make money selling.

If WotC thinks it can sell more stuff to readers, or viewers, or some other group of non-players, than to players, then it should probably publish that stuff. (There's a good commercial reason to publish enough stuff for players to keep the game being played, because all that other stuff is to some extent dependent on their being an active play community. But selling to those players is not an end in itself.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

3. Of the people who watch Critical Role's streams, how many of them also play, and how many of those also pay to subscribe and contributed to the kickstarter.

It doesn't matter.

It completely does not matter how many people who watch the stream play the game themselves.

We have people on this forum who have self-admittedly not played in years, because life has gotten in the way. There are other people I'm sure who are still running their homebrew worlds from 3.5. We aren't WoTC, so we can't do anything about their schedule, all we control is ourselves. So, should we as members of this community tell people who haven't played a serious game in years that they are no longer "true fans" while elevating those who play multiple games weekly?

How about pay to play games, should we rate them higher or lower than charity games run as after school programs for children? There is a DnD alphabet book I saw once, so if a 5 year old runs up to me with that book and says they love it, are we rating them as less of a fan than the 55 year old with disposable income who purchased only the "original setting" books?

Are DMs bigger fans than players? IF you only play in one game are you less of a fan than the person who DMs three?

At what point, do we have the right to analyze someone else, and decide how much of a fan they are?

 

[Reynard]

It's kind of sad that this thread, meant to clarify that gatekeeping is not acceptable at ENWorld, has turned into a celebration of it by so many. It's kind of gross, frankly.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's kind of sad that this thread, meant to clarify that gatekeeping is not acceptable at ENWorld, has turned into a celebration of it by so many. It's kind of gross, frankly.

I don't think there are many - just one or two who make a lot of noise (as is usually the case).

That's why ignore is better than reason - if people respond it makes them sound louder.