There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[KoshPWNZYou]

D&D got a lot of exposure and was suddenly available in normal bookstores where it never had been before. I would hazard THAT was a more significant reason, though without any actual sales numbers, all we have is conjecture.

The same Dragon article offers some sales figures:

When we finished our first fiscal year back in 1975, we were pretty much a low-level-character sort of company, with gross sales of only about $50,000. We had excellent experience the next year, with a $300,000 figure, and in 1977 we doubled that to $600,000. TSR didn’t quite double again in fiscal 1978, ending the year at a gross of near $1,000,000, but in ’79 we did a bit better, finishing at a gross of well over $2,000,000. From the way 1980 is shaping up, there is no reason to doubt that we’ll at least double in size once again.

As the post linked to by Wayne points out, it actually quadrupled to eight million in '80. So, yeah, there was growth up to that point. If D&D weren't a game with some intrinsic appeal, it wouldn't even have survived long enough to draw such controversy. But the media attention brought in dollars.

The editor at the time put it best in a response to a letter about the issue:

The brouhaha surrounding the whole Egbert affair is similar to what journalists refer to as the “Bum Down the Well” syndrome. Your basic panhandler on the street is ignored until he polishes off a bottle of muscatel and falls into an abandoned well. Suddenly, big companies offer to supply rescue equipment, scores of volunteers come forth to risk life and limb in rescue attempts, and the various media have their crews maintain a round-the-clock vigil, with hourly broadcasts on the status of the situation. The guy down the well is no longer just a bum, he’s NEWS! And everybody wants in on the act.

... Positive, “up-beat” news generally doesn’t sell—it’s the sensational, tragic, or bizarre that sells. That’s why the National Enquirer is the largest-selling newspaper in this county. Take the mysterious disappearance of a young man, couple it with references to a generally unknown game (anything unknown to the general public can be immediately translated into “weird” or “bizarre”) and add a few irresponsible and untrue quotes, and you have a hot-selling item.

Note the reference to the 'unknown.' I think that's an important point. The fact that D&D was an unknown brand at the time fueled imaginations when all this controversy broke. There was an aspect of alluring mystery to the game. People read or heard about all these 'fantastical' and 'diabolical' aspects of the game that were being overblown by the media and they got curious. They assumed that D&D was some sort of 'Handbook of Devilry' and wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

When D&D became a household name, that aura of mystery disappeared. People knew what D&D was. When controversy flared up again, its effect was minimal -- it neither increased the game's allure to prospective customers nor scared them away, because the same accusations had already been made and either accepted or debunked. :\

 

[JohnSnow]

Would you accept the claim that D&D's negative publicity had the potential to only reinforce its fringe status? Well, I'm claiming that it actually did. For example, I'm claiming that the D&D cartoon didn't run as successfully as other cartoon properties in the '80's in no small part due to the contriversy over the game and the cartoon itself (which did little to alleviate concerned parents fears). I'm claiming that toy lines failed in part because D&D's reputation crushed its ability to market itself to small children, and that at the time the 'toys as collector items for adults' like we see in the McFarland line hadn't really fully developed. I'm claiming that you need those sort of things to gain mainstream acceptance and overcome your fringe status.

I agree that the game's negative publicity may have had the long-term effect of reinforcing its fringe status. However, I do not feel that the presence of occult elements and how they are perceived is what caused that. Parents either regard fantasy as corrupting influence or not.

D&D was edgy, not because of magic and demons, but because of the drawings of naked women and half-naked women in the rulebooks. It wasn't at all hard to make the case that D&D wasn't suitable as a game for young kids, and that, as a result, anything associated with D&D was similarly unsuitable. They probably kept that stuff because with the controversy, it was not seen as "necessary" to cater to the moral values crowd. That disregard probably turned off some people, who were concerned about the impact that pictures of naked fantasy girls might have on kids.

For all their magical and violent elements, both the Harry Potter books and The Lord of the Rings pretty much avoid the discussion or implication of sex, which has always been more controversial (at least in the US) than violence. I'd therefore argue that the controversy found fodder in the form of things that were in the books that had nothing to do with what caused the controversy.

Now that the game lacks pictures of naked girls, I don't think there's anything to lose by putting demons or warlocks in D&D. And overcoming the latter (the perception by the public that the game is too "adult") has nothing to do with the former (avoiding demons to avoid offending the Chick and Pulling crowd).

I showed D&D books to teachers at my Catholic elementary school. The only "content" they were concerned about related to the naked pictures. Fortunately, my mother was more than willing to defend my hobby, but I admit not all kids are as lucky.

I think it makes more sense for WotC to market the game to an older crowd than to try to make it "family-friendly" enough to appeal to parents who are worried about its impact on their "impressionable" children.

That's part of what made World of Warcraft successful - kids with more disposable income who don't need mom and dad's "permission" for a place to play (beyond being allowed to own a computer or video game console).

To answer my earlier question about why it wasn't Dungeons & Dragons that cracked the gaming market? TSR got outplayed by Blizzard. They tried too hard to preserve the "D&D experience" rather than just making a video game that would appeal to videogamers and slapping the D&D label on it. Maybe they didn't do it because they didn't expect it to be a big market, or maybe it was just too far outside their core competency (they were mostly wannabe writers, not mechanical game designers).

Shortly after WotC took over D&D, Blizzard started work on World of Warcraft, and by then "Warcraft" was better positioned with the target market than D&D was. Basically, TSR failed to grab the computer market and left the door open for Blizzard, which they stampeded through.

But who knows? Blizzard may one day buy D&D from WotC. Stranger things have happened.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree that D&D seems to be swinging back in the other direction in regards to Evil and that really isn't a problem for me. I am glad though they scrapped the Adult book(s) they were going to do after BoVD.

However, they seriously need to stop putting out all these sly references to "The Lesser Key of Solomon" or they're going to be called out for pushing neo-paganism religions from our real world.

 

[Celebrim]

Parents either regard fantasy as corrupting influence or not.

The thing about ancedotal experiences is that they aren't particularly convincing as proof, but on the other hand you'll find it hard to convince a person that thier experiences didn't happen to them.

People don't regard fantasy as either a corrupting influence or not. People's relationship to fantasy material is much more complicated than that. This isn't something you can convince me isn't true, because I've met lots of people with more complex responces than that (indeed, I have a more complex relationship with fantasy than that).

D&D was edgy, not because of magic and demons, but because of the drawings of naked women and half-naked women in the rulebooks. It wasn't at all hard to make the case that D&D wasn't suitable as a game for young kids, and that, as a result, anything associated with D&D was similarly unsuitable.

Now I think we are moving in the right direction. I never said that D&D was edgy because it had magic and demons. The reason that it wasn't at all hard to make the case that D&D wasn't suitable as a game for young children was that D&D pretty much defiantly didn't see itself as a game for young children, even though it exploded in popularity among young children. (I don't know about you, but I was eight.)

And while I certainly agree that the art work was a big reason why the rumors about the game were taken as credible, that wasn't all there was too it. If the litany of demon and devil lords hadn't been taken directly from Judeo-Christian inspired occultism and simply random names used instead, the demons and magic angle would have been percieved as alot less of a problem as well. With that context, alot of 'disturbing' images get taken more seriously than they otherwise would have. There are a large number of families that wouldn't have a problem giving thier kids 'Lord of the Rings' to read, but who wouldn't want to introduce them to D&D. At the height of the panic, that included some non-religious families as well, since even if you think all of that bunk, you still might not want your kid drawn into some sort of quasi-religious cult. It wasn't any one thing. It was the sum taken together that really contributed to the panic. If AD&D hadn't been so easy to put in a bad light, there would never have been a big problem.

Now that the game lacks pictures of naked girls, I don't think there's anything to lose by putting demons or warlocks in D&D.

Well, other than some of us think its lame, no probably not. Alot of it strikes me more as ridiculous than morally dangerous, and in particular I'd think that alot of that over the top 'dark hero' stuff got tired by the mid-90's. But to each thier own.

I will say that I regard an RPG in a somewhat different light if it has occult inspired elements, and if it has occult inspired things as part of core roleplay. I don't really have a problem with D&D, but something like Kult strikes me as way over the line. (Apparantly its sufficiently over the line to bother even normally laise faire Swedes.) I wouldn't mind giving 3e core books to my kids as a gift. I'm not going to do that with something like Kult, and would probably frown heavily on them playing it. I'd never buy ToM, and the more 4e makes things like that part of core roleplay this less it is going to interest me and the less likely I am to be a customer.

I think it makes more sense for WotC to market the game to an older crowd than to try to make it "family-friendly" enough to appeal to parents who are worried about its impact on their "impressionable" children.

One thing that sorta bothers me is that the seem to be sending mixed messages. At the same time that they are moving the game in a less 'family-friendly' direction as far as content, they seem to be making the biggest push to bring in a young audience since introducing the Basic Set.

 

[Lanefan]

I will say that I regard an RPG in a somewhat different light if it has occult inspired elements, and if it has occult inspired things as part of core roleplay. I don't really have a problem with D&D, but something like Kult strikes me as way over the line. (Apparantly its sufficiently over the line to bother even normally laise faire Swedes.) I wouldn't mind giving 3e core books to my kids as a gift. I'm not going to do that with something like Kult, and would probably frown heavily on them playing it. I'd never buy ToM, and the more 4e makes things like that part of core roleplay this less it is going to interest me and the less likely I am to be a customer.

If you really have managed to tap into the 4e design mindset and are speaking true prophecy here, my interest in 4e is going up by the minute.

Lane-"I've never heard of Kult, and now I'm curious"-fan

 

[Keefe the Thief]

You should really look into it - Kult is a very good game. It´s strong point is the atmosphere it creates, not necessarily the system. I heard they cleaned it up with 2nd edition, though.

 

[Nifft]

Mistaken, perhaps, but "insane" is a ludicrous word to use, unless you are a qualified psychiatrist and have had a chance to interview the person involved.

I think the fight for clinical accuracy in psychiatric terminology lost "insane" and "crazy" a while ago.

You still have a chance at defending specific diagnoses from casual use.

- - -

While I generally agree that the "dark hero" stuff has been played out many times, there's a group you should consider before dismissing it (and similarly "tired" tropes): new gamers. Let's include at least a few things which cater to naive 13 year olds if we want to see more of them in the hobby.

Cheers, -- N

 

[TwinBahamut]

The "real" occult material? The only "real" things are some names and seal designs, but that's hardly more "real" than stealing names from "real" religious (e.g. Tiamat). The Binder's pact-buddies ("Vestiges") are not "real" at all -- nor are they even demonic! Their moral neutrality is very much a departure from the source material, but is perfect for their role in the D&D adaptation.

IMHO the ToM Binder did a fantastic job of bringing a new mechanic alive with links and references to "real" mythology. I do heartily condone and approve of ToM's Binder.

Cheers, -- N

So very true.

In addition, it is not like the Tome of Magic did anything that hadn't already been done in videogames. By the time the Tome of Magic was released, I had already played a videogame called Shadow Hearts Covenant. In that game, the main character is a guy who can transform into demons, and 80% of the abilities you learn in that game come from an item called the "Key of Solomon" and the full list of Goetic demons, full sigils included. The characters use this power without concern, and you get a lot of benefits from gathering all of the demons, concluding when the characters can directly challenge the spirit of King Solomon and claim his magical powers.

I don't think there is a single person who even batted an eye at Shadow Hearts Covenant, and despite its many unusual elements (mixing a WW1 setting and a comic tone, featuring Rasputin, possessed by Asmodeus, as a villain, Princess Anastasia as a character, having a young girl die on screen and come back as a ghost, various homosexual characters, dirty old men, and a vampire pro-wrestler who uses a Frozen Tuna as a weapon), I don't think it got any attention in the mainstream, even though videogames are under a lot more media scrutiny than tabletop RPGs are. In fact, it only received a Teen rating from the ESRB, and was never considered to be a controversial game.

These days, "Media Violence" and how it causes "increased aggression in youth" is all the mainstream media and various "potectors of children" groups care about. They really don't care about the rest.

 

[Plane Sailing]

and a vampire pro-wrestler who uses a Frozen Tuna as a weapon

This is one of the weirdest things I've read in a long while...

 

[WizarDru]

Now that the game lacks pictures of naked girls, I don't think there's anything to lose by putting demons or warlocks in D&D. And overcoming the latter (the perception by the public that the game is too "adult") has nothing to do with the former (avoiding demons to avoid offending the Chick and Pulling crowd).

So you're saying you haven't bought the Monster Manual, then?