Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3888409" data-attributes="member: 32164">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.</blockquote>

Verification