Wil Wheaton Drops Dungeon Column

[Samothdm]

In fact, I suspect those gamers are the backbone of the hobby.

--Erik Mona

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your quote, but I hope you're not saying that the backbone of the hobby is made up of the rude excessive fanboy types who basically were one of the catalysts for Wil to give up the column. I'd hate to think that the majority of the hobby was made up of those types of people.

 

[Simplicity]

In fact, I suspect those gamers are the backbone of the hobby.

Oh, I hope that the majority of D&D players aren't complete pricks.

Sure, we've got a lot of geeks. Sure, geeks tend to have social... ahem... issues that are only aggravated by the Internet. But do think it's a vocal minority and not a vocal majority that are like that.

 

[DonTadow]

In fact, I suspect those gamers are the backbone of the hobby.

--Erik Mona

I don't know. I don't think the immature remarks properly represent the true backbone of the hobby, which are guys like Will. Guys who have grown up, had families and still love the game. I don't see those guys on there. I see guys whom refuse to believe that a gaming magazine can have a page of something lighter than stats. Just one page. As a soon to be father, I really digged the family gaming aspect of Will's comments and I think you got to realize the game has grown beyond dungeoncrawls and political intrigue to really see that value. I've read those nasty remarks and I don't get that from them. They may be steady subscribers but they are the reason the readership base may not be increasing as exponentially as the hobby is. Recently in the Dungeon letters, I read one remark about women readership not being raised, and I couldn't help but think that it would take different types of articles like Will's to make that happen. It doesn't have to be life stories, but a couple pages focused on the lifestyle would be interesting. Now that these guys have had their way it is another point against the progress of the game.

 

[Anson Caralya]

The latest bout of complaints on the Paizo boards was triggered by Wil's admission in his most recent column that he couldn't find the time to play. That's something I can identify with, which meant to me that Wil had extended his streak of gamer-topical insight. I'm sorry to see the loss of a nice dimension to the magazine.

 

[LeapingShark]

I really digged the family gaming aspect of Will's comments and I think you got to realize the game has grown beyond dungeoncrawls and political intrigue to really see that value.

I don't think a great many people would disagree with that, but I think the bigger issue for some people, was more about location and relevance.

Back in the old days before Dungeon existed, Dragon featured an occasional adventure in the center of the magazine. Those adventures were such a popular feature, that a spin-off magazine was formed, solely for the purpose of satiating the demand. I subscribed to Dungeon before a single issue was published, because I too was one of those who loved those center-page adventures in Dragon and wanted more. Dungeon has survived for many years on it's fantastic adventures.

So the point is, if WOTC filled the back pages of each Monster Manual with Wil Save articles about the family aspect of gaming, ya I agree it would still be an interesting article and I would enjoy reading it, because it's true the life of a gamer is so much more than dungeoncrawls and political intrigue. But I just think another location would be more appropriate for such thing, a better place than the back of the Monster Manual, or the back of an anthology of adventures. Especially when Dragon magazine exists, which it's always been the place for EXACTLY that.

I am simply amazed when people say they only subscribe to the monthly adventure anthology because of Wil Save articles. Would people say they would only buy a Monster Manual if it had Wil Save articles? They are fun to read, but to me it's the wrong location.

 

[Erik Mona]

Let me be clear.

I don't think that ornery gamers are the bulk of gamers, by any stretch of the imagination. As you said, I think most gamers are "average" folks with "average" lives, to whom D&D is just a diversion.

However, I think that ornery gamers make up a significant chunk of the "active" base of roleplayers, the ones who subscribe to magazines, post online, etc.

Again, these folks don't represent a majority of this "active" base, but there are enough of them that they help to keep the hobby alive, and cannot be jettisoned simply because they have inconvenient opinions. Without them, I'm not certain that the industry would be a success, or even viable.

Thus, I suspect they may form the "backbone" of support for the hobby.

But that's just a suspicion, and I'm not married to it.

--Erik

 

[Vocenoctum]

Let me be clear.

I don't think that ornery gamers are the bulk of gamers, by any stretch of the imagination. As you said, I think most gamers are "average" folks with "average" lives, to whom D&D is just a diversion.

However, I think that ornery gamers make up a significant chunk of the "active" base of roleplayers, the ones who subscribe to magazines, post online, etc.

--Erik

A lot of the obsessive fan's are probably also completionist's that want to buy ever product for their favorite game lines, so I can see where the opinion comes from.

No way to tell though, since I doubt they'd check the "are you insane" box on any survey.

 

[The Shaman]

However, I think that ornery gamers make up a significant chunk of the "active" base of roleplayers, the ones who subscribe to magazines, post online, etc.

Again, these folks don't represent a majority of this "active" base, but there are enough of them that they help to keep the hobby alive, and cannot be jettisoned simply because they have inconvenient opinions. Without them, I'm not certain that the industry would be a success, or even viable.

So the reason that we get the products we do and the support we do is based on the spending and reading habits of the most socially maladjusted segment of our hobby community.

This explains so much.

:\

 

[Staffan]

Because it's often easier to scrape up the money for a single issue than it is to have enough ready cash to send in for a subscription.

Also known as the Vimes Theory of Boots.
A poor man spends 10 Ankh-Morpork Dollars on a pair of shoddy boots. They last him a year, then he has to buy new boots.
A rich man spends 50 Ankh-Morpork Dollars on a pair of really good boots. They last a decade or two.

 

[rowport]

No way to tell though, since I doubt they'd check the "are you insane" box on any survey.

Well, they might, but not because he is wrong in this opinion!

(JK, Erik.)