Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3888141" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think we are going to permenently disagree over the definition of 'smart business decision' if you think dumping a brand like D&amp;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.&nbsp; Again, I never said the contriversy prevented D&amp;D from achieving popularity.&nbsp; I said that it prevented D&amp;D from achieving a certain level of success as a brand.&nbsp; (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 once again, I didn't say that it was because it had demons in it.&nbsp; The controversy was most certainly not the result of the fact that D&amp;D had magic or demons in it.&nbsp; That's another straw man based on a misunderstanding of exactly what caused the deep skepticism of D&amp;D.I'm afraid you don't understand my argument then.&nbsp; Lots of things have geeky elements without occupying the position that D&amp;D has.&nbsp; Transformers are geeky.&nbsp; Tolkien is geeky.&nbsp; Harry Potter is geeky.&nbsp; World of Warcraft is geeky.&nbsp; GI Joe is geeky.&nbsp; You are going to have to come up with some more explanation than, 'D&amp;D isn't popular because its geeky.'&nbsp; '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?'&nbsp; Again, you are evaluating my comment based on the culture D&amp;D has created.&nbsp; I'm saying that the culture D&amp;D created is only partly an essential aspect of the brand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3888141, member: 4937"] 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 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification