There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[JohnSnow]

I personally think that the contriversy crushed D&D as a brand. It's not a popular opinion amongst D&D players, but that's because the crucible of the contiversy has created a D&D community which is overwhelmingly on one side of the contrivery. It created a community which overwhelmingly self-selected for 'rebellion against social norms' or whatever it is that people credit as good in being a contriversial game that needs to attract young people as a source of new players. Naturally when they talk among themselves they find an amazing number of people who were attracted to the game because it was 'something that they weren't supposed to do', but that's because they are talking amongst themselves. The community is a product of the contriversy, but you have to compare it not to the community in the early '70's when almost no one had heard of role-playing, to the community it would have now if D&D hadn't essentially been kicked out of the mainstream just as it was getting big.

So what you're saying is that WotC really should let D&D die and just take the d20 System and create "Wizards & Warriors." Then they could jettison all the sacred cow baggage of D&D and dump the stigma associated with the brand at the same time. Then fantasy roleplaying could take its rightful place amidst popular entertainment. :\

Except that if that was the best strategy for success, WotC (or more accurately, Hasbro) would probably be doing it. Which means that at least THEY think the brand of Dungeons & Dragons is more of an asset than a liability.

 

[WayneLigon]

But D&D is permenently stuck as a niche, slightly counter-cultural, 'cult' game with the popular perception that people that play it are all wierdos or deviants.

That was the popular notion for video game players (and still is, if you bother listening to certain segments) for many years. Now consoles are about as mainstream as they're probably going to get. All these things go in cycles. Who knows, maybe in 10 years we'll have Congress threatening Senate investigations into comics again?

...if D&D hadn't essentially been kicked out of the mainstream just as it was getting big.

I think it's quite demonstratable that the only reason D&D ever got 'big' was because of the free advertising the controversy created.

 

[WizarDru]

I'm a little confused, here. In the early 80s D&D was popular because it was a FAD. It was no different than Pokemon, Webkinz, Cabbage Patch Kids, Pong or a hundred other 'get it because everyone else is getting it' events. Many people bought it just to see what it was or to play it for a year or so and then never again. It hit the zeitgeist, and like anything that peaks that high, it eventually faded to a stable level. The non-gamers tried it, didn't get it and moved on. That, combined with it being the only game in town, practically, made it a winner. You couldn't wander into a normal bookstore and find Star Ace, but you could find D&D. That made it much more accessible and helped sales...not unlike today, in that respect.

What I'm not seeing is some sudden rise of demon-use or evil being promoted in 4e any more than it ever was in the past. Demons and demon-lords have been in the game almost since it's inception. Evil characters, too....though they were no more encouraged than what I'm hearing now. The character classes of Warlock and Warlord aren't new and not necessarily evil, so unless you're saying that making them core is somehow promoting evil due to the fact that they sound or could be evil, I'm not sure I get it. It's like saying that D&D is promoting evil because they've talked about monsters.

As for 'Darth Vader is Cool'? First off, he IS cool. In the late 70s/early 80s he DEFINED 'cool'. This halloween, I had SIX Darth Vaders come to my door....more than any other costume. He's masked. He's mysterious. He has arcane powers and intimidates people. He commands faceless minions. He IS cool. Laudable? No, but that was never really the point. I would also argue that the Darth Vader I grew up with was neither a whiner nor a mass-murderer of children with his bare hands. He was a classic villian and one who eventually was found able to be redeemed.

I don't know a single kid, growing up, who professed admiration for Darth Vader's behavior, so much as the allure of his imagery and the fantasy of his power.

Hell, people LOVE Boba Fett and he barely even actually DOES anything in the movies. Lucas, to this day, doesn't understand the appeal of the character...even though he shares the same characteristics that Vader does.

 

[Celebrim]

So what you're saying is that WotC really should let D&D die and just take the d20 System and create "Wizards & Warriors."

I find it hard to imagine you actually read that in what I said. Why should you think that your sarcasm is really what I said. If it is really what I said, would you really need sarcasm and exagerration? If you prefer to hear your own sarcasm and exagerration to what I said, I can't do anything about it, but I would appreciate it if you didn't pretend what you just said was what I said.

Likewise, I don't see how you think I said that D&D is more of an asset than a liability. Again, the current situation is not the same that it was in the late '70s and probably never will be again. The concept of the RPG hasn't just been invented. The size of the unreached market probably isn't larger than the currently reached market (except perhaps in the developing world). The RPG market is crowded with promenent brands. You can't just go and dump a brand and then expect to be able to create an even more successful brand just like that. If you could create successful brands that easy, we'd all do it.

So, in short, "No." Not only did I not say it, but I don't have to agree with any of that as a consequence of believing as I do.

 

[Celebrim]

I think it's quite demonstratable that the only reason D&D ever got 'big' was because of the free advertising the controversy created.

I think you and I are likely to permenently disagree over the definition of what is demonstratable.

 

[WizarDru]

I think it's quite demonstratable that the only reason D&D ever got 'big' was because of the free advertising the controversy created.

Demonstrable how? Do you have some link to illustrate the idea?

TSR peaked in 1984, and was in decline from that point forward. Pat Pulling filed her case in 1984, when it was summarily dismissed and then went on to form B.A.D.D. in that same year. In other words, D&D had already hit it's high point before wide-spread criticism had dropped.

The only real such material that predated it was 'Mazes & Monsters', which was printed in 1981 and had a TV movie in 1982. According to this report, criticism of D&D reached it's peak between 1988 and 1992. So I'm not really seeing a relation between the controversy of D&D in the pop culture and sales.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm a little confused, here. In the early 80s D&D was popular because it was a FAD. It was no different than Pokemon, Webkinz, Cabbage Patch Kids, Pong or a hundred other 'get it because everyone else is getting it' events.

No different?

When did D&D ever generate more than 2 billion dollars worth of sales in a single year?

D&D's revenue history is to my knowledge not very fad like. Not only was it ever as big as a fad tends to be, but its revenue stream since the fad-like phase was over has been much more robust than most things you'd deem fads. Cabbage Patch Kids still generate revenue, but I bet its about 1/1000th of its revenue from the period when it was a fad. Likewise, how much revenue do you think Pong is still making?

Anything new and interesting is going to go through a fad-like period where everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. But that doesn't mean all brands and products are fads, or that thier growth can be solely or collapse can even be primarily attributed to the fad cycle. In particular, most fads are triumphs of marketing and not brand new sorts of products. When D&D hit the scene, it was a brand new class of product in the same way the when 'Magic the Gathering' hit the scene it was a brand new class of product. MtG's revenue stream probably looks alot more like D&D's than it does like Pokemon's, Pong's or the Cabbage Patch Kids.

 

[JohnSnow]

I find it hard to imagine you actually read that in what I said. Why should you think that your sarcasm is really what I said. If it is really what I said, would you really need sarcasm and exagerration? If you prefer to hear your own sarcasm and exagerration to what I said, I can't do anything about it, but I would appreciate it if you didn't pretend what you just said was what I said.

Likewise, I don't see how you think I said that D&D is more of an asset than a liability. Again, the current situation is not the same that it was in the late '70s and probably never will be again. The concept of the RPG hasn't just been invented. The size of the unreached market probably isn't larger than the currently reached market (except perhaps in the developing world). The RPG market is crowded with promenent brands. You can't just go and dump a brand and then expect to be able to create an even more successful brand just like that. If you could create successful brands that easy, we'd all do it.

So, in short, "No." Not only did I not say it, but I don't have to agree with any of that as a consequence of believing as I do.

I was most definitely not being sarcastic. I disagree that the controversy in any way stifled the game's popularity. However, if what you say is true and it was the controversy surrounding D&D that prevented the game from achieving popularity, dumping the D&D brand and starting over would be a smart business decision. That's nothing other than drawing a logical conclusion if your premise were accurate.

However, I do not believe your statement about the effect of the controversy to be accurate. I personally believe that the game was never going to achieve full acceptance in the public. And it's not because it has demons in it. Lots of popularly successful things involve demons. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had demons, and was on the air for 8 years as a successful TV series. Ghostrider and Constantine both did pretty well at the box office. For that matter, if you can show me in what way the Balrog's not a demon, I have a bridge to sell you.

What hurts the D&D brand is not its demonic elements, but its geeky ones. I probably shouldn't have to point this out, but Dungeons & Dragons is, first and foremost, a brand associated with roleplaying games. Roleplaying games are regarded as a fringe hobby that only geeks play. Is that changeable? Of course. It has already happened with video games. But it has not yet changed. How could you change it? Well, making the D&D brand cool would be a good step in the right direction. A Dungeons & Dragons movie that ditched all the supergeek elements of D&D and just made a cool movie would do it.

What would you have to ditch? Basically anything that screamed "based on a roleplaying game" to non-gamers would have to go. Because anything "stupid" would be tagged with "god, that must be in there because it's part of that lame game." In other words, the only way D&D can achieve popular appeal is to make a movie that sheds the things about it that scream "D&D," but keep the D&D brand name. If the movie is nearly as good as The Lord of the Rings, the general public will revise their opinion of the brand.

Then, and only then, will the D&D brand gain true broad appeal. And it has nothing to do with demonic influences, BADD, or the existence of tieflings and warlocks in the 4e PHB. And quite honestly, it looks like WotC is actually attempting to shed some of the game's "hokey" elements in 4e.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No different?

When did D&D ever generate more than 2 billion dollars worth of sales in a single year?

The magnitude of the flash in the pan isn't the point. The flash in the pan is the point.

Cabbage Patch Kids still generate revenue, but I bet its about 1/1000th of its revenue from the period when it was a fad. Likewise, how much revenue do you think Pong is still making?

To use the third example you invoke, but which didn't make it into the rhetorical questions, Pokemon is still doing great as a property. The trading card game kind of vanished, but the video game series has published enough editions that I think they're running out of nouns to name them after. Coming Q1 2008 for your Nintendo DS: Pokemon Hamburger and Pokemon Bandsaw.

 

[Celebrim]

I was most definitely not being sarcastic. I disagree that the controversy in any way stifled the game's popularity. However, if what you say is true and it was the controversy surrounding D&D that prevented the game from achieving popularity, dumping the D&D brand and starting over would be a smart business decision. That's nothing other than drawing a logical conclusion if your premise were accurate.

I think we are going to permenently disagree over the definition of 'smart business decision' if you think dumping a brand like D&D in favor of something completely new is a smart business decision at this point in the brand's life regardless of the brand's taint. Again, I never said the contriversy prevented D&D from achieving popularity. I said that it prevented D&D from achieving a certain level of success as a brand. (More accurately, I should say that the controversy was generated by one of several things - specifically the inclusion of occult inspired material - which could be characterized as brand mismanagement.)

And it's not because it has demons in it. Lots of popularly successful things involve demons. Buffy the Vampire Slayer had demons, and was on the air for 8 years as a successful TV series. Ghostrider and Constantine both did pretty well at the box office. For that matter, if you can show me in what way the Balrog's not a demon, I have a bridge to sell you.

And once again, I didn't say that it was because it had demons in it. The controversy was most certainly not the result of the fact that D&D had magic or demons in it. That's another straw man based on a misunderstanding of exactly what caused the deep skepticism of D&D.

What hurts the D&D brand is not its demonic elements, but its geeky ones.

I'm afraid you don't understand my argument then. Lots of things have geeky elements without occupying the position that D&D has. Transformers are geeky. Tolkien is geeky. Harry Potter is geeky. World of Warcraft is geeky. GI Joe is geeky. You are going to have to come up with some more explanation than, 'D&D isn't popular because its geeky.' 'Isn't that based of a stupid game?' isn't any more of a pronouncement of geekiness than, 'Isn't that based off of a stupid kids show?' Again, you are evaluating my comment based on the culture D&D has created. I'm saying that the culture D&D created is only partly an essential aspect of the brand.