Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3888238" data-attributes="member: 32164">Celebrim, were you, or were you not, claiming that D&D's popularity was damaged by the controversy surrounding the game in the early 80s? Were you not also claiming (or agreeing with those who claimed) that putting tieflings and warlocks in the game might bring a return to the controversy that surrounded it in the 80s?Are you aware that said controversy was mostly the result of a marginally-sane group called Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons (BADD)? The woman who started it objected to D&D because her son had gotten lost in a sewer because he and his friends were playing there. Then when he committed suicide, she totally lost it, and blamed his death on D&D.When she looked into it, she found occult influences and concluded that the game was EE-VILL and had led her poor innocent boy astray. The lady who started BADD was interviewed by an ultra-conservative evangelical group and was railing about occult and satanic influences, and talking about D&D as a gateway product. She went so far in an interview as to equate D&D with "satanic works like the Necronomicon" - a fictitious book which H.P. Lovecraft made up (hence my "marginally sane" comment).That's the origin of the "controversy" surrounding D&D. And no, I don't think that had any bearing on the game's popularity. Certainly I don't feel it affected it in a negative way. I do think the controversy "got legs" because the game wasn't all that popular to begin with, and it's a whole lot easier to demonize something that's unpopular.Why wasn't it popular? Because it was primarily a geeky hobby for nerdy kids. And back then, things that were geeky weren't mainstream. They were fringe, like D&D. Many of them have SINCE become popular, like the Transformers, WoW, and G.I. Joe. But they did it by overcoming their fringe status. WoW succeeded despite its similarity to D&D, because when video games became less fringe, there was room for a video game based on fantasy roleplaying to become hugely popular. The better question to ask is "Why wasn't that video game branded Dungeons & Dragons?"I don't feel the D&D brand is tainted by anything but the fringe association tied to "tabletop roleplaying game." As the "standard-bearer" for tabletop roleplaying games, D&D bears the taint of that negative association. That's a taint that could be overcome with smart marketing, and WotC clearly believes it's possible, or they'd do away with the brand. And if you don't think businesses will shed an unpopular brand, I have a few examples.Firstly, when a couple of the baby Bells wanted to go into the cell phone business, many of them realized that their parent company name was a liability, not an asset in that market. So they created new brand names (Cingular, for example). Now that the parent company's name (which is now AT&T) is no longer seen as a liability in the cell phone market, they've decided to retire the Cingular brand. This happens all the time in business if a brand is actually seen as a liability. As another example, Pepsi dumped the "Slice" brand and came out with "Sierra Mist" and "Tropicana Twister" instead.Sometimes, retiring a brand (even a well-established one) is a smart idea. If that were the case with D&D, then WotC would do so. But clearly they feel the brand is more of an asset than a liability.And from what you're saying, you agree.However, it sounds to me like you're worried that putting tieflings and warlocks in the PHB will re-taint the brand. Is that what you're saying?'Cuz if that's what you're saying, I just disagree. Whatever damage that could do to the game was done and finished years ago. The people who thought D&D was satanic think Harry Potter is too, so I think it's safe to say that they're well outside the game's target market, and always will be.EDIT: Okay, finally got the facts of the BADD founder's son straightened out. Sheesh! I hate re-editing.</blockquote>

Verification