Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3887713" data-attributes="member: 4937">How can I talk about this... let's try the following.Yes, you aren't the only one.&nbsp; It bothers me too.&nbsp; They've been trending this way for a while now.&nbsp; At this point, it bothers me more in that I think it is lame than anything else though. No, I don't think a renewed round of D&amp;D contriversy is likely, but if it happened it wouldn't be good for sales.&nbsp; The situation now post-contriversy is nothing like it was in the late '70's.&nbsp; D&amp;D has already pretty much saturated the potential PnP market.&nbsp; The D&amp;D playing population has been winnowed for people who already tolerate or enjoy this sort of thing, and to a certain extent for people who consider rebellion cool.&nbsp; Those that didn't left and aren't likely to ever come back.&nbsp; Nor is it likely that a 30 year old game thats now part of the cultural lexicon will ever be counter-culturally cool again no matter how contriversial it gets.&nbsp; It's not at all clear to me that there is a large unreached population looking for more occult material who would play D&amp;D or who have never heard of it, compared to the number of new players who won't play if D&amp;D goes over the top with its occult material. No, its not merely the presence of magic which made early versions of D&amp;D contriversial.&nbsp; I think that shows some ignorance either of D&amp;D's early material, or the concerns of the average sort of person bothered by these things.&nbsp; Comparisons to Harry Potter are apt, but not in the way that you might think.&nbsp; Sure, there are some people who see evil in all representations of magic and condemn, for example, the 'Chronicles of Narnia' with equal fervor as 'Harry Potter', 'D&amp;D', 'The Lord of the Rings', etc.&nbsp; But this is a tiny tiny minority anyway.&nbsp; There is a much much larger portion of the population, and I'd say at least three or four orders of magnitude bigger, which are troubled not at all by magic per se and who herald works like 'Narnia' and LotR as great literature, but who are intensely uncomfortable with representations of the occult.&nbsp; For alot of people, there is a big jump between 'Wingardium Levioso', 'Occulus Repairus', and the sort of occult inspired material used in (for example) the recent Binder class, and they may well judge the first harmless and latter less so in some cases.&nbsp; And for that matter, I think if you look closely at the text, even 'Harry Potter' backed off the contriversy slightly.&nbsp; Almost all the most outrage provoking passages are in the early books, and even there its pretty weak.&nbsp;&nbsp; Take my word for it.&nbsp; If there had been a strong backlash, I would have known it.&nbsp; And, if 'Harry Potter' had have provoked more outrage, I guarantee it wouldn't have been good for sales.&nbsp; I think you'll see direct evidence of that in the responce to a different series of books and thier spinoffs in the near future.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3887713, member: 4937"] How can I talk about this... let's try the following. Yes, you aren't the only one. It bothers me too. They've been trending this way for a while now. At this point, it bothers me more in that I think it is lame than anything else though. No, I don't think a renewed round of D&D contriversy is likely, but if it happened it wouldn't be good for sales. The situation now post-contriversy is nothing like it was in the late '70's. D&D has already pretty much saturated the potential PnP market. The D&D playing population has been winnowed for people who already tolerate or enjoy this sort of thing, and to a certain extent for people who consider rebellion cool. Those that didn't left and aren't likely to ever come back. Nor is it likely that a 30 year old game thats now part of the cultural lexicon will ever be counter-culturally cool again no matter how contriversial it gets. It's not at all clear to me that there is a large unreached population looking for more occult material who would play D&D or who have never heard of it, compared to the number of new players who won't play if D&D goes over the top with its occult material. No, its not merely the presence of magic which made early versions of D&D contriversial. I think that shows some ignorance either of D&D's early material, or the concerns of the average sort of person bothered by these things. Comparisons to Harry Potter are apt, but not in the way that you might think. Sure, there are some people who see evil in all representations of magic and condemn, for example, the 'Chronicles of Narnia' with equal fervor as 'Harry Potter', 'D&D', 'The Lord of the Rings', etc. But this is a tiny tiny minority anyway. There is a much much larger portion of the population, and I'd say at least three or four orders of magnitude bigger, which are troubled not at all by magic per se and who herald works like 'Narnia' and LotR as great literature, but who are intensely uncomfortable with representations of the occult. For alot of people, there is a big jump between 'Wingardium Levioso', 'Occulus Repairus', and the sort of occult inspired material used in (for example) the recent Binder class, and they may well judge the first harmless and latter less so in some cases. And for that matter, I think if you look closely at the text, even 'Harry Potter' backed off the contriversy slightly. Almost all the most outrage provoking passages are in the early books, and even there its pretty weak. Take my word for it. If there had been a strong backlash, I would have known it. And, if 'Harry Potter' had have provoked more outrage, I guarantee it wouldn't have been good for sales. I think you'll see direct evidence of that in the responce to a different series of books and thier spinoffs in the near future. [/QUOTE]

Verification