Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3887907" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think that this is a rather unprovable assertion.&nbsp; It isn't my sense of things.&nbsp; My sense is that the concept of an RPG was bound to soar.&nbsp; Consider how popular RPGs are as a concept.&nbsp; RPGs are a mainstream phenomenom now.&nbsp; They even think that they can use them to sell trucks, for crying out loud.&nbsp; But D&amp;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.&nbsp; Moreover, there is a not insubstantial RPG audience that doesn't play D&amp;D because of the contriversy, but is able to buy and play differently braned games openly because they didn't get the negative public exposure that D&amp;D got.D&amp;D undoubtably got an exposure boost from the contriversy.&nbsp; It no doubt gave it a short term sales boost.&nbsp; But it didn't need that kind of exposure to grow because the RPG market was ripe for growth anyway.&nbsp; My opinion is that the early contriversy of D&amp;D permenently stunted D&amp;D's growth and market share, and put a cap how big the brand D&amp;D could become.&nbsp; It's the difference between the D&amp;D movie being what it was, and having a budget and broad appeal like Transformers.&nbsp; It's the difference in popularity between the Dragonlance books, being lavished with the same sort of treatment as LotR, 'Harry Potter', or Narnia and the embarassing treatment thier getting in the new animated movie.&nbsp; I personally think that the contriversy crushed D&amp;D as a brand.&nbsp; It's not a popular opinion amongst D&amp;D players, but that's because the crucible of the contiversy has created a D&amp;D community which is overwhelmingly on one side of the contrivery.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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&amp;D hadn't essentially been kicked out of the mainstream just as it was getting big.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3887907, member: 4937"] I think that this is a rather unprovable assertion. It isn't my sense of things. My sense is that the concept of an RPG was bound to soar. Consider how popular RPGs are as a concept. RPGs are a mainstream phenomenom now. They even think that they can use them to sell trucks, for crying out loud. 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. Moreover, there is a not insubstantial RPG audience that doesn't play D&D because of the contriversy, but is able to buy and play differently braned games openly because they didn't get the negative public exposure that D&D got. D&D undoubtably got an exposure boost from the contriversy. It no doubt gave it a short term sales boost. But it didn't need that kind of exposure to grow because the RPG market was ripe for growth anyway. My opinion is that the early contriversy of D&D permenently stunted D&D's growth and market share, and put a cap how big the brand D&D could become. It's the difference between the D&D movie being what it was, and having a budget and broad appeal like Transformers. It's the difference in popularity between the Dragonlance books, being lavished with the same sort of treatment as LotR, 'Harry Potter', or Narnia and the embarassing treatment thier getting in the new animated movie. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification