# companies staying away from rpg gamers



## ggroy

Article about why some companies are staying away from tabletop rpg gamers.

Why You Can’t Have Nice Things | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard


----------



## ExploderWizard

Heh. This can be very tricky for a tabletop rpg company.


----------



## wedgeski

I'd have to chew on the article for a while to be sure, but I'm afraid my initial reaction is: yeah, he's right. I'm not convinced that TRPG gamers are somehow the sharp end of the spear, though, as I've seen plenty of similar behaviour in many other gaming segments.


----------



## Dausuul

Interesting article, but totally devoid of specifics. I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what he's complaining about. What companies are staying away from tabletop gamers? What are those companies selling? What are the "desired behaviors" the tabletop gamers are resisting, and why is it bad for them to focus on concrete goals instead of social conversations? Why does it matter if they relate cynically to the content? What content?

I have the feeling there's a giant lump o' context that I'm missing here someplace.


----------



## ggroy

Dausuul said:


> Interesting article, but totally devoid of specifics. I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what he's complaining about. What companies are staying away from tabletop gamers? In what context? What are the "desired behaviors" the tabletop gamers are resisting, and why is it bad for them to focus on concrete goals instead of social conversations? Why does it matter if they relate cynically to the content? What content?




It appears to be talking about companies in the "transmedia" area, which don't want to embrace rpg gamers.


The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part One)

The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part Two)

The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part Three)


----------



## Umbran

Malcom Sheppard said:
			
		

> Because it was easy to track user origins, we knew this was more true for gamers, than general users. So the counterargument that everybody on the internet is like this doesn’t work. They aren’t.




I'm not sure he's correct as he thinks, here.  How people behave depends on what they feel their role or position is in the endeavor.

If you court someone for their expertise in a particular field, they will tend to act like an expert in that field.  You've brought them there because you think they know more than you do about the field - so they're going to act like they know more than you.  If, however, they aren't professionals that field, they won't tend to act like professionals.

Someone who acts like they know more than you, but is unprofessional about it - doesn't that sound like a jerk to you?


----------



## ggroy

Umbran said:


> I'm not sure he's correct as he thinks, here.  How people behave depends on what they feel their role or position is in the endeavor.
> 
> If you court someone for their expertise in a particular field, they will tend to act like an expert in that field.  You've brought them there because you think they know more than you do about the field - so they're going to act like they know more than you.  If, however, they aren't professionals that field, they won't tend to act like professionals.
> 
> Someone who acts like they know more than you, but is unprofessional about it - doesn't that sound like a jerk to you?




It is possible to come across "professionals" who behave and speak in a very unprofessional manner, such as in some areas of high finance.


----------



## Mark

ggroy said:


> Article about why some companies are staying away from tabletop rpg gamers.
> 
> Why You Can’t Have Nice Things | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard





That's EN World's eyebeams, IIRC.




ggroy said:


> It appears to be talking about companies in the "transmedia" area, which don't want to embrace rpg gamers.
> 
> 
> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part One)
> 
> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part Two)
> 
> The Designer Monologues » Blog Archive » Transmedia (Part Three)





And that's EN World's GMSkarka.


Perhaps someone could tweet them and they could join the discussion in this thread.


----------



## Cor_Malek

Well, *one* company, to be specific. And all his bullet points on how bad gamers are can be summed up by "well, d'uh?".

"Instead of having social conversations, they focused on concrete goals."
Really? RPG gamers being nerd-like? Unheard of!

"They related to content in a cynical fashion."
They probably played dwarfs a lot. SeewhatIdidthar? Explained further by point above and some of those below, but: a person roleplaying a fairy tale creature in fictional world of magic is either extremely romantic, cynical, or probably both. With a sprinkle of crazy.

"They dissuaded other users from getting involved with the content."
Banter, it might mean something, probably in specific context of that client, but I have no idea what. In most basic form, disproved by this site and forums, as well as almost every other RPG-related community I know.

"They resisted most desired behaviors (that is, the stuff that actually might make money)."
Most desired by *your client*. This does not mean desired by *his clients*. I'm actually quite flattered by this, as it proves that gamers are more intelligent (or rather less gullible) than his avarage customer.

"They complained all the goddamn time."
Gamers are accustomed to contesting rules of their chosen Universe, and if they don't like them - they change them. What the hell did you expect?
Also, some business models are based on idea of client suffering, but not having balls to complain which lowers cost of support. See point above.


----------



## maddman75

Most gamers are nice, interesting people.  Reality is that it takes 100 of those people to counteract meeting one jerk or social miscreant.


----------



## Sammael

In other words, RPG companies should stop developing RPGs and focus on other areas, because this will make the irritating RPG people go away.

Oh wait. They're already doing this (White Wolf's focus on TCGs, new Warhammer packaged as a board game, WotC's aggressive push of D&D Encounters*).

No wonder the RPG hobby is dying.

* which includes blackmail tactics such as "your store must run D&D Encounters if you want to be able to order the new exclusive Orcus mini or the beholder mini pack from us"


----------



## ExploderWizard

Rpg gamers as a group often think outside the box and are somewhat experienced at different types of problem solving. 

Companies that want to run a game of bend over the customer find that the rpg gamer crowd doesn't appreciate this railroad and questions their house rules. 

Does this about sum it up?


----------



## Shazman

So let's see.  He actually calls us "names" that would be censored on any decent, civilized public forum.  He then says we are bad customers because we don't mindlessly go along with everything big companies do, and we don't hand them our money for products we don't like.  Seriously, who is the jerk here?  Pot meet kettle.


----------



## Shazman

[No message]


----------



## Dausuul

Hmm... well, I'm still not totally clear on the specifics.  In general, he does have a point. There are a whole bunch of dickwads in the gaming community; a situation that both results from and helps to perpetuate the status of said community as a dumping ground for social rejects. Sometimes society rejected those people for a good reason. And it is precisely the people who can't fit in anyplace else who are apt to be the most fanatical gamers.

That said, the gaming community has other, more positive traits; creativity, intelligence, dedication, technical talent (lots of computer geeks), and ferocious loyalty. Seems like there ought to be potential there for a company with the right business model. But that business model is not necessarily one that would succeed with other demographics. I think perhaps Mr. Sheppard, being himself a gamer, was looking at the community with rose-tinted glasses--seeing what he wanted to see instead of what the community really is.


----------



## Crothian

Without specifics I think the point is rather pointless.  I'm sure we can find idiots in any segment of the population on and off line.  The article is so general I think one could remove gamers and insert something like sports fan and it would still ring true.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I agree with Malcolm Sheppard, rpgers are more likely to be dicks than the average person. I'd like to see him expand on his first list of bullet points though as I'm not quite sure what he's referring to.


----------



## broghammerj

Certainly there has been the mindset from the beginning of the hobby that the game is mine (me personally) and ours (gamers, my group, the colletctive hobby, etc).  The lead designers from WotC are gamers and fall into that "ours" category as well.  We have been trained since the days of Gygax to take what we like and make it our own.

I am not terribly surprised by the attitude of questioning, criticizing, and commenting.  Now obviously that can be done in a socially acceptable, non-disruptive fashion....or you can be a jerk about it.  The problem is there will always be internet toughguys.

This is very different from golf where I don't stand around with my buddies and debate if we should give bonus points for making par out of the sandtrap or require the first shot off the tee has to hit the clubhouse before it is allowed on the green.  Differnt set of constructs, rules, and social norms.


----------



## pawsplay

I have gleaned the following:

1. Shockingly, many RPG producers don't like the fact that consumers complain about their products, even though the "industry standard," if applied to other sorts of products, would result in recalls that would make Toyota blush. 
2. Gareth popped in to make the completely unsupportable argument that people who purchase RPGs, which require a fair amount of prep, plus creative play, are more akin to passive consumers than to artists. 

My conclusion: it's not the fan base who don't get it. I don't make a lot of money off RPG writing, but it's enjoyable and satisfying to me. I have a great of respect for RPG fans and I believe they are an appreciative and wonderful audience to write for, if you can deliver.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Dausuul said:


> Hmm... well, I'm still not totally clear on the specifics.  In general, he does have a point. There are a whole bunch of dickwads in the gaming community; a situation that both results from and helps to perpetuate the status of said community as a dumping ground for social rejects. Sometimes society rejected those people for a good reason. And it is precisely the people who can't fit in anyplace else who are apt to be the most fanatical gamers.



I do not think it is specific to gamers, there are people that act like jerks and feel excessivly entitled everywhere. Nothing in the post would convince me that gamers are especially worse than the general population.
In my experience if gamers have a fault in this area, it is that gamers will tolerate behaviour that would in other places lead to homicide.


----------



## DEFCON 1

The silly part of this though, is that this is in no way isolated to the tabletop RPG arena.  Heck, every segment of popular culture has their 'hardcore' fanbase, and in practically every single instance the company trying to build a sustainable business in that arena doesn't want to cater to _just_ that fanbase, because there isn't enough money to be made there.  They want to "expand" their business and try to pick up the elusive "casual" person.

If you're creating a new MMO, what do you think you'd get if you went to the hardcore raiding scene and talked with those people about what you were doing?  You'd get the same alienating reaction, and all kinds of information that would be important _to them_, but not to the public at large that you are really trying to court.

All us hardcore pro wrestling fans (aka the 'internet smart marks') bang our heads against the wall every single week when we see absolutely ridiculous storylines and behaviors on WWE Raw or TNA Impact, and we just wish they'd listen to us and make wrestling "good" again.  But they for the most part ignore us, because our hardcore definition of "good" wrestling just doesn't lend itself to the wider fanbase the companies are looking for and hoping to make money off of.

And the hardcore movie nerds?  Yeah, _Battle Royal_ or _Let The Right One In_ or _Oldboy_ might be hands down better films than the newest Fast & The Furious movie... but it's been proven time and time again that FatF or Sex In The City 2 will be generating the box office.

The best you can hope for is for a producer of content to have an ear towards what the hardcore fanbase wants... but able to temper that with a more mainstream approach.  THAT'S how you generate the large bank that companies of product are striving for.  Sam Raimi and Jon Favreau didn't worry about every nitpicky thing the hardcore comic fans would have wanted included when they made Spider-Man and Iron Man... but they kept just enough to make the core feel like their property was being honored and respected.  And that's really what any company dealing with a property or arena with a devoted fanbase can hope to do.


----------



## maddman75

On further reflection, I agree with the premise but for totally different reasons.  He's talking about 'transitive media', which I take to mean stuff like video games and movies and TV shows.  They should not make those things to the standards of RPG fans.  They are completely different categories of things.  They are entertainment.  RPGs are hobbies.  You spend time outside the actual activity doing them.  The appeal comes from as much from the larger social aspects than the games themselves.  No, I would not abandon my tabletop games for computer games even if they were perfect reproductions of the fantasy world - because a large part of what I like is my friends coming to my house, making new friends, seeing old friends at GenCon, and talking about games with all of these friends.

They are completely different, and the tastes of what RPG fans want in RPGs should not have bearing on what goes into movies, video games, and other entertainment.


----------



## Dausuul

ardoughter said:


> I do not think it is specific to gamers, there are people that act like jerks and feel excessivly entitled everywhere. Nothing in the post would convince me that gamers are especially worse than the general population.




I agree that the post is too vague to convince anybody of much of anything, but my own experience suggests that there's a particular brand of dickwaddishness peculiar to gaming and related communities (e.g., the fantasy and science fiction fandoms). Other communities have other kinds of obnoxiousness going on.



ardoughter said:


> In my experience if gamers have a fault in this area, it is that gamers will tolerate behaviour that would in other places lead to homicide.




Yeah, we do. Which is why that behavior crops up more often in the gaming community IME.


----------



## eyebeams

Heya!

Let me make a few things clear:

1) I can't be specific because of the situation. It's a past client though, and not White Wolf. It's not transmedia either, but some of its insights apply.

2) I'm not talking about all gamers, but a disproportionate number of the ones whose opinions and behaviours are widely accessible.

3) According to our experience it was specifically people with a tabletop RPG background.

4) As I explain in the comments, I see no sign that it has anything to do with resisting marketing. In fact, I personally take great care in presenting what I directly publish because in my experience, gamers are *especially*  vulnerable to some sneaky stuff like social marketing. I don't do that -- but when I did for other stuff it sure as hell worked.

I also doubt it's laser keen critical faculties. One thing I discuss down in the comments is a situation where someone says, "I never read this book but it sucks and you should steal it." That is not an example of finely honed critical thinking. It's just toxic jerkdom. Companies don't want to deal with that even with paying customers.


----------



## Dausuul

eyebeams said:


> I can't be specific because of the situation. It's a past client though, and not White Wolf. It's not transmedia either, but some of its insights apply.




Granted, you have to respect your client's confidentiality, but perhaps you can give us a general idea of what each behavior would entail in a hypothetical setting? It's very hard to figure out what you're talking about with some of them, or why those things are bad.


----------



## ExploderWizard

eyebeams said:


> One thing I discuss down in the comments is a situation where someone says, "I never read this book but it sucks and you should steal it." That is not an example of finely honed critical thinking. It's just toxic jerkdom. Companies don't want to deal with that even with paying customers.




This could be a jerk from any hobby. Why is this extreme example of stupidity supposed to be representative of all tabletop gamers?


----------



## Crothian

eyebeams said:


> gamers are *especially*  vulnerable to some sneaky stuff like social marketing. I don't do that -- but when I did for other stuff it sure as hell worked.




What else would you call sneaky stuff?


----------



## ggroy

Crothian said:


> What else would you call sneaky stuff?




Astroturfing?


----------



## Raven Crowking

What I got was:

After years of learning to avoid being conned by NPCs, role-players have applied the same lessons to avoid being conned by marketting.  And those doing the marketting don't like that.  Most hobbies don't teach that sort of critical thinking, which makes people who follow those other hobbies far easier to sell stuff to, regardless of whether or not they need it, and whether or not it is actually useful/of good quality.

So, if you would like to be targetted by more marketting, please do not react using critical thinking.  Thank you.


RC


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

eyebeams said:


> 3) According to our experience it was specifically people with a tabletop RPG background.



 This is probably the one point I would most like some clarification.  
How was the background determined?  Self-identification, I assume, right?
How did you define background?  Did they play TRPGs a few times when they were kids, regularly over several years, currently play in three games per week?
What were the other backgrounds that did not show this same level of jerkdom?  MtG players, WoW addicts, professional poker players, athletes, members of quilting bees?
Was there only one background per person, or could a person have multiple influences/backgrounds?


----------



## Odhanan

What I see is a hobby which, since its very infancy, has been empowering the user to craft his own materials and take possession of the games sold by game companies. RPGs are, in this respect, very particular products, since they support the user's worlds of imagination, which all but ensures a feeling of ownership on his part.

Basically, to me, complaining that RPG users are too opinionated is simply looking at RPGs the wrong way. It's intrinsic to the nature of the product that a large portion of its audience will be opinionated, and feel empowered by the product itself. Just wishing otherwise is to wish RPGs were not RPGs.

So, either you come up with a marketing model that is based off the product itself, or you transform the product to fit a preset marketing model. This piece reads to me like some sort of rationale for the latter. This is NOT a good thing from my POV.


----------



## Erik Mona

I can think of about 26 full-time employees at Paizo who are probably glad we didn't take this idiot's advice.

--Erik

~ considering that we are not discussing some random person on the internet, but someone who is an ENworlder and posting in this thread, it is certainly NOT appropriate to call him an idiot. Thanks. Plane Sailing ~


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Most hobbies don't teach that sort of critical thinking, which makes people who follow those other hobbies far easier to sell stuff to, regardless of whether or not they need it, and whether or not it is actually useful/of good quality.



I'd put the idea that RPG's teach critical thinking in the same category as believing 'drinking cocktails makes me more handsome'... ie something I certainly _feel_ from time to time, but not, upon reflection, objectively true. Critical thinking, in the context of role-playing games, is kinda like logic in the works of Lewis Carroll, which is to say 'present, rather daft, and almost wholly inapplicable elsewhere'. Unless you consider 'pointing out the deficiencies genre film plots' to be a valuable life-skill...



> So, if you would like to be targetted by more marketting, please do not react using critical thinking.



The gist I got was: if you'd like RPG products to be made in the future, or at least to remain influential in new media, be less rabid. The question to my mind is: are the rabid folks really the face of the hobby? I can't say... 

It's an interesting article, though not my favorite --the ones about trust and the decline of friendship as reflected in game design are wonderful. My gut response is that the article's spot on, it's convincing, but it doesn't really match up w/my personal experiences.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> I'd put the idea that RPG's teach critical thinking in the same category as believing 'drinking cocktails makes me more handsome'... ie something I certainly _feel_ from time to time, but not, upon reflection, objectively true.




Depends upon the game and players, I guess.  


RC


----------



## eyebeams

Erik Mona said:


> I can think of about 26 full-time employees at Paizo who are probably glad we didn't take this idiot's advice.
> 
> --Erik




My client wasn't a small business.


----------



## eyebeams

Odhanan said:


> Basically, to me, complaining that RPG users are too opinionated is simply looking at RPGs the wrong way.




This isn't the complaint. Like I say later on in the discussion, this was encountering online parallels to the bad tipping and library/bookstore theft that has made some face to face businesses wary of gamers. It's not that you are just too REAL for corporate mofos or something. Believe me, there are models out there that can accept and exploit your sense of independence far more thoroughly than I for one would ever desire to.


----------



## Erik Mona

Ok. That doesn't make your observations any less wrong.

--Erik


----------



## GMSkarka

Erik Mona said:


> I can think of about 26 full-time employees at Paizo who are probably glad we didn't take this idiot's advice.




Seriously?

His advice is "be nicer people and foster a more positive culture online."

That makes him an idiot?

I'm beyond disappointed in your response, Erik.   I'm disgusted.


There's a whole bunch of knee-jerking to this article, which entirely misses the point.

What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.    

...and that's a bad thing.

A direct quote from his closing:

"I would really like the tabletop RPG community to be at the center of roleplaying in all media, sharing their insights, but it’s not going to happen unless that center attracts."



The result of saying that?    A negative pile-on by the usual suspects... aided and abetted by professionals looking to buff up their populist cred.

Irony, thy name is Gamer.


----------



## Crothian

eyebeams said:


> My client wasn't a small business.




So, you're calling Paizo a small business then?  And what does that matter?


----------



## Sammael

Objectively, Paizo is a small business. Even though they are currently the number 2 company on the market. Which is saying a whole lot about this industry.

However, to those who maintain that hardcore RPGers can jeopardize your business, I think your business isn't nearly as big as you think it is if a handful of aggravated, oppinionated geeks can jeopardize it.

Also, what's with the unholy fusion of entertainment industries? When was the last time that worked?


----------



## eyebeams

Crothian said:


> So, you're calling Paizo a small business then?  And what does that matter?




Different needs. My post isn't directly about how the tabletop RPG business could grow. Paizo's doing fine for that in my opinion. Erik didn't read my post thoroughly to get that, so he's not even wrong.


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Depends upon the game and players, I guess.



Oh, absolutely!


----------



## eyebeams

GMSkarka said:


> What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.
> 
> ...and that's a bad thing.
> 
> A direct quote from his closing:
> 
> "I would really like the tabletop RPG community to be at the center of roleplaying in all media, sharing their insights, but it’s not going to happen unless that center attracts."




That's right. As the post says, I think most gamers are pretty cool. They're also pretty cloistered. It's wrong to interpret what I wrote as an attack on all gamers.


----------



## Mark

The difficulties of breaking into this market with a new product might have as much to do with 80% of the tabletop RPG market being financially controlled by one company and the other 20% being controlled by 99.9% of the companies.


----------



## Alan Shutko

The US Small Business Administration generally considers any business with fewer than 500 employees a small business.

Why does it matter?  If you're targeting your product directly at gamers, it doesn't.  It's great to be a small company, because the market is big enough to support your company and you'll be able to thrive.

If you're a larger company, you need to look for a larger market.  Sounds like the unnamed company here had a product that could be useful to a bunch of people, including gamers.  They decided that of all the possible people to target, gamers weren't worth the hassle of targeting.


----------



## Dire Bare

Erik Mona said:


> Ok. That doesn't make your observations any less wrong.
> 
> --Erik




Well, wrong when starting an awesome RPG company!  But maybe not so wrong for other types of projects.

I see the behavior he discusses online here at ENWorld (in this very thread), on Paizo's boards, on WotC's boards . . . it is not behavior that represents the entire RPG community, or even a majority of the RPG community, and it is not behavior that is unique to the RPG community . . .

But . . . in a relatively recent thread here on ENWorld we discussed basically the same issue, and many of us felt that this behavior wasn't so much typical of gamers but rather typical of _people_ in general . . . but now, I'm not so sure personally.


----------



## The Ghost

eyebeams said:


> Different needs. My post isn't directly about how the tabletop RPG business could grow. Paizo's doing fine for that in my opinion. *Erik didn't read my post thoroughly* to get that, so he's not even wrong.




To be fair, your post could also be poorly written as there are a number of people in this thread who are/were confused about what point you _were_ trying to make. [Edit] Communication is a two-way street.


----------



## Dausuul

eyebeams said:


> Different needs. My post isn't directly about how the tabletop RPG business could grow. Paizo's doing fine for that in my opinion. Erik didn't read my post thoroughly to get that, so he's not even wrong.




So just what _is_ it about, then? It's a bit rich to accuse people of "not reading your post thoroughly" given how vague it is. Erik read your post and concluded, quite reasonably, that you were saying any attempt to target the "gamer demographic" as a business plan is doomed to failure. That may not have been what you intended, but it's a fair interpretation of what you actually wrote.

Perhaps you could spell out for us just what Nice Things the gaming community is not getting, or is currently getting but will soon lose, because of the behavior of our more obnoxious element, and how they differ from the Nice Things that Paizo is successfully providing.


----------



## eyebeams

The Ghost said:


> To be fair, your post could also be poorly written as there are a number of people in this thread who are/were confused about what point you _were_ trying to make.




I already said that I don't think vocal communities like this are wholly representative of gamers. Draw your own conclusions from there.


----------



## Erik Mona

GMSkarka said:


> Seriously?
> 
> His advice is "be nicer people and foster a more positive culture online."
> 
> That makes him an idiot?
> 
> I'm beyond disappointed in your response, Erik.   I'm disgusted.




Whatever. 

What you see as me trying to buff up my "populist cred" (a load of BS so smelly it might come from the armpit of just the sort of gamer stereotype you and eyebeams are perpetuating) I see as you piling on the tired old cliche of "the customer is the problem" that I see parroted again and again by marginal RPG businessmen trying to explain their failures. 

I'm just tired of it, basically. After having spent a weekend at PaizoCon surrounded 24/7 by hundreds of the most dedicated hard-core gamers I have ever met the whole article (and, frankly, your backing of it) just struck me as extraordinarily ungrateful to the people who pay your salaries. 

Not all of the gamers at our con were paragons of personal hygiene or social skills, but then neither are all sportsfans, all trekkies, or all superfans of any kind in any industry. 

I managed a sports memorabilia shop in one of the world's biggest shopping malls for about a year before joining the game industry, and that place was full of rude, opinionated, and just plain old jerky customers. I'd have to be a fool to tell those people "get the hell out of my store, I don't want your money, you are damaging to my business." More to the point, I would have been a giant douchebag to post a sign in front of the store that says "ATTN Sports Fans: You Losers Are Bad for Our Business, Bad for Sports, and Bad for Retailing," because it paints with such a broad brush that everyone walking into my store would think I was talking about them. 



GMSkarka said:


> What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.




Basically, I think that's bull. It assumes that people OUTSIDE the community even pay attention to things like ENWorld and RPGNet, which is seldom the case. I can't think of a single book chain buyer, for example, who even knows what EN World is, or who I imagine has ever visited RPG.net. 

Sure, RPG books get lifted out of bookstores, but that has more to do with the fact that they are largely aimed at teenagers and college age kids with incomes unable to match the asking prices for the books. I know a lot of buyers are a bit wary of RPGs for that reason, but I've never lost a sale because of it, and I don't think they equate their shrinkage problems with RPG fans being dicks online.



GMSkarka said:


> A direct quote from his closing:
> 
> "I would really like the tabletop RPG community to be at the center of roleplaying in all media, sharing their insights, but it’s not going to happen unless that center attracts."




Why? 

Why is it important or expected that a tiny niche hobby should be at "the center of roleplaying in all media"? A great tabletop RPG book might sell tens of thousands of copies, which would put a computer RPG company out of business immediately. The quoted section above is a bit like saying "I would really like the people who make models of boats in glass bottles to be at the center of all worldwide ship-building activity, sharing their insights, but it's not going to happen unless that center attracts."

No, it's not going to happen until that tiny niche hobby can bring numbers that mean anything to producers shipping product that sells orders of magnitude higher than even the best-selling RPG products. It has almost exactly nothing to do with who has been perma-banned on RPG.net because they said something mean about Exalted, who wore the same T-shirt three days in a row at Origins, or what some dude posted on his RPG blog.

Sorry to "disgust" you, Gareth, but I think you might need to turn down your Internet Indignation Meter a few clicks.

--Erik


----------



## eyebeams

Erik Mona said:


> No, it's not going to happen until that tiny niche hobby can bring numbers that mean anything to producers shipping product that sells orders of magnitude higher than even the best-selling RPG products. It has almost exactly nothing to do with who has been perma-banned on RPG.net because they said something mean about Exalted, who wore the same T-shirt three days in a row at Origins, or what some dude posted on his RPG blog.




Obviously, my post should have been beneath your notice.


----------



## Crothian

eyebeams said:


> I already said that I don't think vocal communities like this are wholly representative of gamers. Draw your own conclusions from there.




I can remember people saying that en Eric's message boards were all the rage back in 2000.  In 01 I think there was a company that asked people at Gen Con if they did any gaming on line or heard of the big gaming sites and a vast majority of people there did not.  

As a company if you want to find reasons to ignore sites like EN World, RPG Net, and other on line gaming communities you really don't need a lot of justification.  There have been companies that have done this, Fast Forward Entertainment I think ignored the opinions of EN World posters regularly.


----------



## Mallus

GMSkarka said:


> What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.



My only real question w/the article is: how widespread is this perception of role-playing gamers as a, hmmm, difficult market? 

It's not that I doubt your/eyebeams' direct professional experience... it's just they're at odds with my own, admittedly, limited, amiable, and non-professional experiences w/people in the hobby. Sure, beards, bulk and black wolf shirts may be overrepresented in the hobby, but is it really true our behavior discourages development, like brownfields littered with big, bearded guys in wolf shirts?


----------



## Dire Bare

Alan Shutko said:


> The US Small Business Administration generally considers any business with fewer than 500 employees a small business.
> 
> Why does it matter?  If you're targeting your product directly at gamers, it doesn't.  It's great to be a small company, because the market is big enough to support your company and you'll be able to thrive.
> 
> If you're a larger company, you need to look for a larger market.  Sounds like the unnamed company here had a product that could be useful to a bunch of people, including gamers.  They decided that of all the possible people to target, gamers weren't worth the hassle of targeting.




Yup.  A small company made of tabletop gamers targeting tabletop gamers is well aware of the issue, but probably has internalized it or decided the problem isn't a big one.  It's just the way it is.

There is certainly a percentage of jerkwads amongst Paizo's regular customer base, but I doubt they have very many vocal regular customers left who "hate" the Pathfinder system . . . but there are a decent number of folks who dislike Pathfinder, or dislike Paizo's decision to go from 3.5 to Pathfinder, or the decision not to go 4e . . . and are total jerkwads about it who actively try to drive others away from Paizo's offerings.

This probably isn't a huge problem for Paizo, but I think it is a problem for WotC.  WotC needs to attract new gamers and grow the hobby to be successful at the scale of their business, but a disproportionate number of WotC's existing core audience are "toxic jerkwads" who can drive away the normals.  And WotC's D&D business is pretty much identical to the ENTIRE RPG community, as we have (almost) all played a version of D&D at some point and probably would again if they just "did it right".


----------



## Dausuul

eyebeams said:


> I already said that I don't think vocal communities like this are wholly representative of gamers. Draw your own conclusions from there.




The conclusion I'm drawing right now is that you posted something deliberately incendiary, knowing it would nark off a lot of folks, and are now making strenuous efforts to avoid backing up your incendiary statements with any kind of substance that people could engage. Meanwhile you're responding to your critics with snarky one-liners that remind me uncannily of the sort of person you decried in the original post.

Originally I thought you might have had a legitimate point. I'm now concluding otherwise.


----------



## GMSkarka

Erik, you're missing the point so spectacularly, its stunning.

Like it or not, Malcolm's experience outside of the game industry mirrors my recent experiences as well, with the various transmedia folks I've been dealing with.     

Places like ENWorld and RPGNow may not be places they pay attention to, but they ARE the sort of places that they easily find when doing research into the community.   Research that they DO undertake, because it seems a no-brainer that the RPG community is a perfect fit to be early adopters/influencers for a lot of where online entertainment is headed.

Saying that the negative fan segment is more vocal than the positive segment, and that negativity drives away the people and businesses who might be able to elevate the profile of gaming and take it into the future is not "disrespectful of the people paying our salaries" or "blaming the customer."

It simply is saying that we're letting our own worst elements kill the chances we have of having our hobby embraced, growing and evolving with the times,  instead of being aimed at an ever-shrinking rump of nostalgia-legacy users.   


I'm very happy that Paizo is doing well, and that PaizoCon has been a success for you.     But wrapping yourself in the flag of "I'm defending the socially awkward from the jerks" is unwarranted.   You're piling on to right a wrong that isn't being committed.


----------



## Dire Bare

Mallus said:


> My only real question w/the article is: how widespread is this perception of role-playing gamers as a, hmmm, difficult market?
> 
> It's not that I doubt your/eyebeams' direct professional experience... it's just they're at odds with my own, admittedly, limited, amiable, and non-professional experiences w/people in the hobby. Sure, beards, bulk and black wolf shirts may be overrepresented in the hobby, but is it really true our behavior discourages development, like brownfields littered with big, bearded guys in wolf shirts?




Well, how many non-tabletop RPG products are targeting tabletop RPG players?  How many tabletop RPG based movies have been made over the years by major studios?

MMORPGs are certainly an evolution of both earlier CRPGs and tabletop RPGs, but they do not target tabletop players in their marketing or design, IMO and IME.  

The various licensed RPGs from MMOs, or movies, or book series, or other properties were mostly (IMO) started within the RPG community seeking the licenses and not the other way around.  How many big companies with important brands have sought out an RPG company to whip up an RPG based on their property?  Some individual fantasy authors are certainly friendly to the idea as they were/are gamers themselves (Jim Butcher, GRR Martin, and others), but even then did they actively solicit an RPG licensing partner?  Maybe, somebody with more direct experience of the business side of Green Ronin's various licensing projects or the upcoming Dresden Files RPG could correct me . . .

I'm not saying Eyebeams is right . . . but I don't see a lot of evidence to the contrary . . .


----------



## Dire Bare

The Ghost said:


> To be fair, your post could also be poorly written as there are a number of people in this thread who are/were confused about what point you _were_ trying to make. [Edit] Communication is a two-way street.






Dausuul said:


> So just what _is_ it about, then? It's a bit rich to accuse people of "not reading your post thoroughly" given how vague it is. Erik read your post and concluded, quite reasonably, that you were saying any attempt to target the "gamer demographic" as a business plan is doomed to failure. That may not have been what you intended, but it's a fair interpretation of what you actually wrote.
> 
> Perhaps you could spell out for us just what Nice Things the gaming community is not getting, or is currently getting but will soon lose, because of the behavior of our more obnoxious element, and how they differ from the Nice Things that Paizo is successfully providing.




It was pretty clear to me after one reading that Eyebeams was not discussing starting a new RPG company or trying to grow an existing RPG product.

But maybe his post WAS poorly written, and I'm just damn good at reading between the lines . . .


----------



## Crothian

Dire Bare said:


> Well, how many non-tabletop RPG products are targeting tabletop RPG players?  How many tabletop RPG based movies have been made over the years by major studios?




Are there any small hobby groups being targeted by movie makers?  It's not like we see movies aimed at the Quilting demographic or the stamp collectors either.


----------



## Sammael

Can someone enlighten me as to what exactly is transmedia, and name a few large corporations embracing this concept?


----------



## rogueattorney

The producer-consumer dynamic within the rpg hobby is beyond dysfunctional, but placing that entirely at the feet of the "mean" consumer is only seeing half the picture.

Essentially - to borrow an analogy made in the comments to the article - rpg companies are trying to sell a bunch of finished paintings to a bunch of painters instead of trying to sell brushes and paints.  When the painters complain, the general reply from the company is, "Your paintings suck, use ours instead."  So, a big portion of the hobby thinks that their own paintings do indeed suck, another portion reacts to every new painting as if they're personally insulted, and another big portion paints over small bits of the producers' pictures and puts the end result up on the Internet with varying reactions from the producers.

The truth is, there is a much more blurry line between rpg game makers and rpg game consumers than between, say comic book makers and readers, or video game makers and players, or movie producers and watchers.  Failure to admit so puts the producer at risk of alienating one's customers, while admitting so underlines the producers' own lack of importance to the hobby.

Personally, on the consumer side of things, I think that there is way too much of a conception within our hobby that in order to support the hobby, we need to support the industry by buying product.  Rather, I believe gamers' resources will often be much more well-spent by contributing to community building "products" (game clubs, cons, web-sites like this one, etc.) that make the hobby more available to the community.  (And I fully realize that this final point is not contrary to, and in some ways agrees with, the article in the original post.)


----------



## Dire Bare

The Ghost said:


> To be fair, your post could also be poorly written as there are a number of people in this thread who are/were confused about what point you _were_ trying to make. [Edit] Communication is a two-way street.




It was pretty clear to me after one read.  But maybe I'm just good at reading between the lines, as it were.



Dausuul said:


> The conclusion I'm drawing right now is that you posted something deliberately incendiary, knowing it would nark off a lot of folks, and are now making strenuous efforts to avoid backing up your incendiary statements with any kind of substance that people could engage. Meanwhile you're responding to your critics with snarky one-liners that remind me uncannily of the sort of person you decried in the original post.
> 
> Originally I thought you might have had a legitimate point. I'm now concluding otherwise.




Please.  If he wanted to be incendiary, he would have started a thread here on ENWorld or on RPGNet and used harsher language.  Notice Eyebeam's post was linked to in the OP (Eyebeams isn't the OP), and the post linked to is on his personal blog relating his personal experiences and opinions.

With the reaction we've seen right in this very thread, I'm starting to lean towards agreeing with Eyebeams that we have way too many "visible" jerkwads who scare away the normals.  Heck, it's one of the reasons I have many friends who love D&D, but stay away from the online community.  I've also personally seen plenty of this behavior in game stores over the years, and my non-gamer friends have had many negative experiences when checking out the local game store for a board game or to see what's it's all about.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

[No message]


----------



## ggroy

thecasualoblivion said:


> the toxic section of the D&D community comes from outside WotC's current customer base, or at most is a reaction to toxic people outside the WotC community.




A "guilty by association" problem, in the eyes of outsider "normals".


----------



## Dausuul

Dire Bare said:


> Please.  If he wanted to be incendiary, he would have started a thread here on ENWorld or on RPGNet and used harsher language.  Notice Eyebeam's post was linked to in the OP (Eyebeams isn't the OP), and the post linked to is on his personal blog relating his personal experiences and opinions.




Personal blog or not, it has a bunch of readers to judge by the number of comments posted (even before the post was linked from here). And the rest of the site is obviously related to his professional work. It's not like this is some guy posting to a handful of friends on his LJ account.

And "harsher language?" That post contains words that would make it impossible to re-post on ENWorld uncensored; but in any case it's not profanity that makes something incendiary. Profanity is just style. Content is what starts fires.

Like I said, I started out sympathetic to his point of view but wanting clarification on a number of things. After reading his comments on the blog post and in this thread, though... well, let's just say I'm not so sympathetic any more.


----------



## The Ghost

Dire Bare said:


> It was pretty clear to me after one reading that Eyebeams was not discussing starting a new RPG company or trying to grow an existing RPG product.
> 
> But maybe his post WAS poorly written, and I'm just damn good at reading between the lines . . .




Maybe. What I do know is that I understand your posts defending his position better than I understand his posts defending his position.


----------



## IronWolf

Dire Bare said:


> Please.  If he wanted to be incendiary, he would have started a thread here on ENWorld or on RPGNet and used harsher language.  Notice Eyebeam's post was linked to in the OP (Eyebeams isn't the OP), and the post linked to is on his personal blog relating his personal experiences and opinions.




His post comes out shooting and lumping all gamers in one pot.  He called gamers vulgar names by the second paragraph.  He lists five negative points still being attributed to gamers as a whole.  Then by the fifth or sixth paragraph he calls millions of gamers of no benefit and a pox on growth.  That's an incendiary start.  And it worked!  He has lots of people reading and discussing that post now.

It wasn't until the next paragraph that he clarifies just a bit that this doesn't apply to *all* gamers, just a subset.  At which point he narrows it down to just the ones with a strong online presence.

And then immediately falls back to more incendiary rules which may or may not be directed at the gamer culture as a whole or just this gamer with a strong online presence.

Perhaps if he'd started by clarifying just who he was talking about before trying to clarify a third of the way into his diatribe reactions would be different.


----------



## eyebeams

I really do love gamers and tabletop RPGs. (Running a homebrew supers game tonight!) I don't go to conventions often, but I always meet good people when I do. None of what I said changes that, but I'm not going to back down from my opinion either. 

I'd like RPG folks to be in the thick of things because I believe we have cool ideas and ways of doing things that fit perfectly with evolving trends, and work better than what's being developed by companies looking for IP-backed social networks, transmedia and such. RPGs have already been instrumental behind the scenes of some really big stuff. But the last time I sat in a boardroom fretting about a 50K+ user base target it was pretty painful to have to share this stuff while tiptoeing around examples they could Google, because it might hose the whole thing.

Currently, work in games and media is a hobby as I'm busy with a local charity I really love. I don't monetize my site beyond some links to games and such. There's no Adsense, no Amazon affiliate links, no branded RPGNow store. My opinion is as unrelated to economic outcomes as you're gonna get. Maybe that's why it sounds so mean. Who knows?

If you decide I'm full of it and that gamers are just too sly for the Man, you can do everything as you've done it and events will play out accordingly. If not, and you think there's something to be done -- some way our community can have a critical backbone without being mean-spirited and wipe away some of the practiced jaded attitudes that I think infest our popular representation, I'd love to exchange ideas.


----------



## Age of Fable

The original article seems to me to come close to saying "the product was fine, there was something wrong with the customers."

Which, combined with zero information about the product, doesn't make me very interested in the product or confident  in the salesman.

It also reminds me of members of some other subcultures who see themselves as unpopular (eg Trotskyists, Christians or goths), and take the line of "those other Trotskyists/Christians/goths are a*holes. Ha ha, right on. But we're not like that though."

This never seems to work, if only because emotionally-fraught infighting is precisely the image they're trying to distance themselves from.


----------



## fanboy2000

I gotta say, I can why, if your product is aimed at a wide audience, you may not want to target a specific group that resists spending money on it.

If I've read Malcolm's article correctly, he's not talking about a tabletop rpg company upset with it's customers, he's talking about a _non_-tabletop rpg company wanting to market to tabletop rpg players. Thus Pazio wouldn't be applicable to what he's talking about.



> Can someone enlighten me as to what exactly is transmedia, and name a few large corporations embracing this concept?



Transmedia would be a product spread out over several mediums. If you're making a movie for example, you could make the movie and promote it with an Alternate Reality game, a book, a comic, a game, etc. Essentially, tie-in product that's a little more tied-in. (I.e., it's all there in the manual.)

The Matrix Trilogy is a good example. If you want to understand every thing the sequels, you might want to watch the Animatrix, and play Enter the Matrix.


----------



## Dausuul

fanboy2000 said:


> If I've read Malcolm's article correctly, he's not talking about a tabletop rpg company upset with it's customers, he's talking about a _non_-tabletop rpg company wanting to market to tabletop rpg players. Thus Pazio wouldn't be applicable to what he's talking about.




Quoted directly from the article:



			
				Original Article said:
			
		

> This applies to tabletop RPG companies as much as it does to ventures that might pull gamers from the tabletop to somewhere else.


----------



## fanboy2000

Yes, but the personal experience he talks about first is from a non-tabletop rpg company. Also right after what you quoted, it talks about expanding beyond the WotC's current customer base. Expanding beyond your current base is what any company does that wants to keep growing.


----------



## Sammael

fanboy2000 said:


> The Matrix Trilogy is a good example. If you want to understand every thing the sequels, you might want to watch the Animatrix, and play Enter the Matrix.



Ah. Nice example. Must be at least a part of the reason why I haven't met a living soul who actually likes the two Matrix sequels (while _everyone_ likes the first Matrix movie). 

I prefer my media to be stand-alone. Tie-ins are nice, but shouldn't be _required_ for the experience. I also understand why transmedia people would hate people who share this sentiment but tough luck. If I like your movie, I'll go watch it and buy the DVD/Blu-ray. If I like the game tied in to your movie, I'll buy it. But please don't make me buy both to enjoy either one, because I'm likely to buy _neither_.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Sammael said:


> Ah. Nice example. Must be at least a part of the reason why I haven't met a living soul who actually likes the two Matrix sequels (while _everyone_ likes the first Matrix movie).




*raises hand*

I realize I'm the only one in the world, but the second Matrix--minus the rave/orgy scene--is still my favorite of the three.


----------



## billd91

thecasualoblivion said:


> the toxic section of the D&D community comes from outside WotC's current customer base, or at most is a reaction to toxic people outside the WotC community.




Do you think we can keep edition-war digs at the 4e critics out of this discussion?


----------



## GMSkarka

Sammael said:


> Ah. Nice example.




Actually, it's an example of *early attempts* at transmedia, but not really representative, or successful.  

A better current example would be HEROES -- where you had a show, webisodes, comics (online and printed), flash games, etc. -- which weren't *required* for you to follow the main storyline, but any elements that you chose to follow would enhance the overall experience.


Transmedia is storytelling across multiple forms of media in order to have a wide array of entry points by which consumers can interact with a particular property.


It's also a threadjack for this discussion, so I'll stop.


----------



## Sammael

fanboy2000 said:


> Yes, but the personal experience he talks about first is from a non-tabletop rpg company. Also right after what you quoted, it talks about expanding beyond the WotC's current customer base. Expanding beyond your current base is what any company does that wants to keep growing.



True. Which is why I think WotC should seriously consider splitting D&D into "Basic" and "Advanced" once more. Furthermore, D&D: TCG, D&D Encounters, D&D board games, D&D (flavored) video games, D&D comics, D&D cartoons, D&D live action shows, and so on could all coexist peacefully without stepping on each others' toes.

Sure, the hardcore audience wouldn't like all these new forms of media. But WotC can easily keep the hardcore audience pleased with Advanced D&D while still branching out and expanding.

IMO, what they shouldn't do is let the core audience go, even if a part of that core audience is made of unwashed, abrasive, socially inept people. Just make sure that they don't give a damn about your other D&D-themed products, and they'll leave them (and the new customers) alone.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

The problem I have with the blog is the notion that rpg fanbase is especially toxic, may be the point is that they are especially toxic to the type of transmedia project being planned nowadays. 
If so then that point could be made clearer because there was a definite trace of the product was great but for the damn customers

I also wonder about the rpg community having any particular insights about the evolution of transmedia. I would doubt it, with the exception of people who are creative, have media experience and are rpger.

Also, someone up thread likened the rpg industry to companies selling finished paintings to painters. I dispute that, some people in the rpg community are acomplished painter, for sure. But many are like me and we need the products of the rpg industry which are not finished paintings but colour by numbers and join the dots books, to stretch the analogy.


----------



## Erik Mona

Out of curiosity, do BioWare (Dragon Age RPG) and DC Comics (DC Adventures) not count as companies looking to extend their "transmedia" brands with RPG expressions?

If we're not talking about companies like that, what exactly are we discussing?

--Erik


----------



## Dausuul

Sammael said:


> True. Which is why I think WotC should seriously consider splitting D&D into "Basic" and "Advanced" once more. Furthermore, D&D: TCG, D&D Encounters, D&D board games, D&D (flavored) video games, D&D comics, D&D cartoons, D&D live action shows, and so on could all coexist peacefully without stepping on each others' toes.
> 
> Sure, the hardcore audience wouldn't like all these new forms of media. But WotC can easily keep the hardcore audience pleased with Advanced D&D while still branching out and expanding.
> 
> IMO, what they shouldn't do is let the core audience go, even if a part of that core audience is made of unwashed, abrasive, socially inept people. Just make sure that they don't give a damn about your other D&D-themed products, and they'll leave them (and the new customers) alone.




That seems a little backwards to me.

I mean, consider other "transmedia" products. What you have in pretty much all cases is one central property (usually a TV show or movie, but in your proposal the D&D tabletop game) which attracts customers. For casual customers, that's all they buy. Hardcore fans are enticed with additional content. It's the same tie-in model George Lucas was using for Star Wars back in the '80s, just taken a step further by adding original, canonical material to the tie-ins.

The idea that the hardcore fan will buy only the core property, while casual fans will buy all these non-core things... I can't see it happening. I think WotC had the correct approach with 4E; draw in casual fans with a streamlined, easier-to-understand ruleset, and then entice the hardcore fans with minis, splatbooks, and DDI goodies. They may or may not be succeeding, but it's the right general idea.


----------



## Sammael

I wasn't arguing that Advanced D&D should be the central property. IMO, the central property should be a live action TV show or a cartoon. Hasbro is launching a new TV network, and I'm honestly surprised that they aren't utilizing WotC's brands for it.


----------



## maddman75

Those are good examples - the Dr. Who game recently was especially aimed at new gamers.

One thing that it needs to work in RPGs is that it has to be *good*.  I don't need your specially produced version of Avatar, the RPG.  I could reskin 4e, or use Savage Worlds, or any other assortment of game to get the experience.  Now if you want to sell me a good looking book with a great system then I might be into it, but I don't need your product.

Personally, I dislike the Cortex system.  I love Supernatural, the TV show.  So I passed on the licensed product and run Hunter: The Vigil with a few changes and it feels like Sam & Dean the RPG with rules I like.

Again, this is because gaming is a hobby, not an entertainment medium.  You aren't giving us pre-constructed mediums, you're giving us tools to create our own.  If the property you're pushing doesn't have great tools, we'll use our own.

And tell you about your epic failure.  Probably with profanity.


----------



## fanboy2000

Sammael, I agree that WotC shouldn't let long time fans of D&D go. What you've suggested seems to be _exactly_ what they're doing. The essentials line is Basic D&D without the rules differences. Plus: two board games are coming out this year, IDW has a D&D comics license, and D&D video games abound. None of these seem to be stepping on anyone's toes. I've never read a D&D novel in my life, and it hasn't seem to impair my enjoyment of the game.

I don't think they're letting the core audience go. I've lots of long time fans on both sides of the current edition debate. I started playing with 2e and I remember people hating 2e and lamenting the demise of 1e. Then 3e came along, and it brought some people back and kept some people. The 3.5 came out, and it brought some people back and kept some people. Then 4e came along, and some people come back and some people stick around. What I think Wizards is doing is trying to attract a wide audience to the main game while keeping long time fans happy. But individual tastes differ, even among the core audience.


----------



## GMSkarka

Erik Mona said:


> Out of curiosity, do BioWare (Dragon Age RPG) and DC Comics (DC Adventures) not count as companies looking to extend their "transmedia" brands with RPG expressions?
> 
> If we're not talking about companies like that, what exactly are we discussing?




I'm not sure how much Bioware and DC's efforts are intended as transmedia expressions, rather than just licensed tie-ins.    Those are different things, for the most part.


----------



## Erik Mona

Esplain.


----------



## Rel

Mouseferatu said:


> the second Matrix--minus the rave/orgy scene--is still my favorite of the three.




I'd hate to see this thread turn into any more rave/orgy bashing.










Be NICE, folks.


----------



## Dausuul

Sammael said:


> I wasn't arguing that Advanced D&D should be the central property. IMO, the central property should be a live action TV show or a cartoon. Hasbro is launching a new TV network, and I'm honestly surprised that they aren't utilizing WotC's brands for it.




The problem here is Sturgeon's Law:

*STURGEON'S LAW: 90% of everything is crap.*

With any kind of new media property, you're rolling the dice. Nine times out of ten, it turns out to be crap*. All of the big media companies understand this and have a system for handling it; new properties are given various kinds of trial runs, and if they don't pan out, they get dumped before they have a chance to cost major money. Usually.

But if you're going to produce a live-action TV show or cartoon with the intent of making it the "core" for D&D... you're harnessing the fate of a tested and successful (if niche) property to one of those untested unknowns. Think now: Do you really want the fate of D&D entrusted to what might, and in fact probably would, turn out to be a repeat of the 2000 "Dungeons and Dragons" movie?

D&D has spun off tie-ins in other media throughout its existence, with varying degrees of success. I dare say if one of them was a big hit, Hasbro would jump on it and make it bigger, and it might end up eclipsing the original game, in the same way that the Dragonlance novels ended up eclipsing the tabletop modules on which they were based. But that's not really something you can plan for.

[size=-2]*While this number may not be exactly correct, Sturgeon's Law applies to statistics too. There's a 90% chance that Sturgeon's Law itself is crap.[/size]


----------



## fanboy2000

Erik Mona said:


> Esplain.




Transmedia: The RPG says that location of Metropolis is located in New York state. This fact was not originally stated in the comics but is true for the comics.

Tie-in: The RPG says that the location of Metropolis is located in New York state. The comic completely ignores this and places Metropolis explicitly in Illinois.

It's the degree of integration. I remember when I would watch Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends and wonder why little of what I was watching held true for the comics. If everything takes place in one continuity, I'd call it transmedia. If everything takes place in separate continuities, then I'd call it a tie-in.


----------



## mearls

I think there's some amount of truth to Malcolm's essay, but I also think it's something rooted in Internet, rather than gaming, culture.

For many people, being angry on the Internet while at work is their hobby. It just happens to piggyback on top of other interests. I remember when I used to review cell phone games*, I knew that any positive review of a game from a big publisher would attract a horde of wrathful posters in the comment section. C'est la guerre.

IMO, the mistake is abandoning an audience. Regardless of what you do, there will be some segment of the Internet that will burst into rage over it. If you gave up because someone on the Internet is angry, you're not going to get anywhere with anything.

*True story: My editor was getting a lot of complaints from publishers about my reviews. From that point forward, they started raising my 1 to 10 scale ratings by a point or two without changing a single word in the review. The complaints stopped.


----------



## Leatherhead

This thread reminds me that I hate "gamer culture" and that I hate marketing, especially marketing buzzwords. 

In retrospect, I have no idea why I clicked on this thread in the first place and expected anything different.


----------



## Sammael

How does that work for a multi-billion property like the Transformers, which often has varying continuities* within the same product lines? Arguably, the Transformers has it all: movies, TV shows, webizodes, toys, comics, conventions, board games, computer games... and yet, going by the above definition, that would not be transmedia. Which seems highly suspect to me.

(*except for Takara's merged continuity, which makes no sense whatsoever)


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Dausuul said:


> The problem here is Sturgeon's Law:
> 
> *STURGEON'S LAW: 90% of everything is crap.*
> 
> With any kind of new media property, you're rolling the dice. Nine times out of ten, it turns out to be crap. All of the big media companies understand this and have a system for handling it; new properties are given various kinds of trial runs, and if they don't pan out, they get dumped before they have a chance to cost major money. Usually.
> 
> But if you're going to produce a live-action TV show or cartoon with the intent of making it the "core" for D&D... you're harnessing the fate of a tested and successful (if niche) property to one of those untested unknowns. Think now: Do you really want the fate of D&D entrusted to what might, and in fact probably would, turn out to be a repeat of the 2000 "Dungeons and Dragons" movie?
> 
> D&D has spun off tie-ins in other media throughout its existence, with varying degrees of success. I dare say if one of them was a big hit, Hasbro would jump on it and make it bigger, and it might end up eclipsing the original game, in the same way that the Dragonlance novels ended up eclipsing the tabletop modules on which they were based. But it's not something you can really plan.



Agreed, if you are going to expand D&D into other media, do a web series initially and look at doing mini series based on the more successful books.
Icewind Dale the mini series or Dragonlance. 
If they are successful, try an original one and then work from there.
You would have to try a lot of stuff to see what is successful and that needs pots of money. More than WoTC could afford, Hasbro would have to back this. 
The problem then is, is that the most useful use of pots of hasbro money?


----------



## Mark

fanboy2000 said:


> Sammael, I agree that WotC shouldn't let long time fans of D&D go.





This is always a question of either WotC catering to what long time fans like or converting them to what WotC decides to produce.  WotC could probably continue to attract revenue from fans of all stripes if they continued to support all editions.  The alternative is to attract enough new fans to replace the old ones that contiue playing older editions or who move on to other game systems from other companies.


----------



## Dausuul

Sammael said:


> How does that work for a multi-billion property like the Transformers, which often has varying continuities* within the same product lines? Arguably, the Transformers has it all: movies, TV shows, webizodes, toys, comics, conventions, board games, computer games... and yet, going by the above definition, that would not be transmedia. Which seems highly suspect to me.
> 
> (except for Takara's merged continuity, which makes no sense whatsoever)




As far as I can tell, transmedia does not lend itself to that kind of giant empire. If the goal of transmedia is to have everything be part of a single canonical continuity, then a single team has to manage that entire continuity, which necessarily limits how big it can be. Transmedia properties would actually be _smaller_ than tie-in empires.


----------



## Uder

This is the second topic I've noticed lately that shines a light into the uglier side of online RPG fandom. Again, the reaction is to be as expected... "Hssssssss."

Second - it's interesting to note that the original premise (which I don't entirely agree with in this case, but did in the other) in both could not be stated here, but had to be blogged. Fan message boards in general don't handle introspection well. Hostility about "outsiders*" stating the obvious isn't as bad here as in video game circles, but I see some reasonable people getting unreasonably defensive in both topics.

Third, how old is the transmedia buzzword/trend/fad? Does it work on my AOL or do I have to Twatter it?


*  IMO These are probably not outsiders - just insiders that don't want to be banned from their favorite communities for their opinions.


----------



## GMSkarka

Sammael said:


> How does that work for a multi-billion property like the Transformers, which often has varying continuities* within the same product lines?




Multiple continuities are very much a part of transmedia -- but the key is that the continuities are generated and planned centrally, not licensed out to third parties.

If you want to read more about the topic, check out these two articles on the blog of Henry Jenkins (author of "Convergence Culture", professor of communications and cinematic art at USC, and former director of MIT's Comparative Media Studies Program):

Revenge of the Origami Unicorn, Part 1 and

Revenge of the Origami Unicorn, Part 2

..where he talks about the seven principles of transmedia storytelling.  He talks about multiple continuties in #3, Continuity vs. Multiplicity.


OK, I promise -- no more threaddrift from me on this issue.   If you want more info on Transmedia check Jenkins out, and read the articles on my blog posted way back at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## Ace

I wrote a couple of lengthy and somewhat irritable replies under my 5 Stone Games moniker at the link

I found the article more than a bit insulting actually, even ignoring the fact that role playing game players are not a monolithic group the article smacked of sour grapes to me. These people didn't do what I wanted so what a bunch of meanies  they are.

Well welcome to real life, anyone who has ever worked in marketing can tell you, the customer sometimes does what ever the heck they want, not what you want.


----------



## pawsplay

GMSkarka said:


> Erik, you're missing the point so spectacularly, its stunning.
> 
> Like it or not, Malcolm's experience outside of the game industry mirrors my recent experiences as well, with the various transmedia folks I've been dealing with.
> 
> Places like ENWorld and RPGNow may not be places they pay attention to, but they ARE the sort of places that they easily find when doing research into the community.   Research that they DO undertake, because it seems a no-brainer that the RPG community is a perfect fit to be early adopters/influencers for a lot of where online entertainment is headed.
> 
> Saying that the negative fan segment is more vocal than the positive segment, and that negativity drives away the people and businesses who might be able to elevate the profile of gaming and take it into the future is not "disrespectful of the people paying our salaries" or "blaming the customer."
> 
> It simply is saying that we're letting our own worst elements kill the chances we have of having our hobby embraced, growing and evolving with the times,  instead of being aimed at an ever-shrinking rump of nostalgia-legacy users.
> 
> 
> I'm very happy that Paizo is doing well, and that PaizoCon has been a success for you.     But wrapping yourself in the flag of "I'm defending the socially awkward from the jerks" is unwarranted.   You're piling on to right a wrong that isn't being committed.




I think you are missing the point. All this so-called negativity and cynicism is what I consider self-policing and the maturation of a relatively young hobby. If RPGs are to go anywhere, RPG creators must embrace creativity, aesthetics, and the community. Treating RPGs as a commodity is a quick route to discovering that, yes, in fact, crappy cell phone games based on movies based on video games will probably make more money than the best RPG book ever written. But this is a gaming site, and it's simply ridiculous to complain about the thing that it is. RPGs are RPGs.

It's like complaining opera would be great if it weren't for all the negativity and cynicism coming from opera fans, that opera could be the center of the pop music universe if opera producers just understood basic marketing. It's like saying movies could really take off if people like Roger Ebert would stop criticizing things and warning people away from inferior opuses. It's like selling motorcycles and kvetching that you can't sell enough Eddie Bauer leathers because biking's image is being ruined by Hell's Angels and a dying, nostalgic breed of biker.


----------



## pawsplay

GMSkarka said:


> Actually, it's an example of *early attempts* at transmedia, but not really representative, or successful.
> 
> A better current example would be HEROES -- where you had a show, webisodes, comics (online and printed), flash games, etc. -- which weren't *required* for you to follow the main storyline, but any elements that you chose to follow would enhance the overall experience.
> 
> 
> Transmedia is storytelling across multiple forms of media in order to have a wide array of entry points by which consumers can interact with a particular property.
> 
> 
> It's also a threadjack for this discussion, so I'll stop.




So basically, you are talking about WEG's Star Wars RPG, which was a huge success for the RPG industry and also for Lucasfilm's EU segment. 

Again, I think it's more likely that marketing is being cynical, rather than RPG players. Gamers like things that are... good.


----------



## D'karr

pawsplay said:


> It's like saying movies could really take off if people like Roger Ebert would stop criticizing things and warning people away from inferior opuses.




Interestingly enough, almost any movie recommended by Ebert, I skip at the theater.  The ones he calls clunkers are the ones that I go see.  I've been disappointed with this system less than a dozen times.

Knowing your tastes is usually important when you decided to "take" recommendations from others, whether professional "critics" or angry interweb fans.


----------



## billd91

D'karr said:


> Interestingly enough, almost any movie recommended by Ebert, I skip at the theater.  The ones he calls clunkers are the ones that I go see.  I've been disappointed with this system less than a dozen times.
> 
> Knowing your tastes is usually important when you decided to "take" recommendations from others, whether professional "critics" or angry interweb fans.




[further threadjack]That is interesting, because I'm usually in sync with him. I really liked it when *At the Movies* was Ebert and Roeper.[/further threadjack]


----------



## knifie_sp00nie

The blog reads pretty true to me. There's a large segment of gamers, at least on the internet, that are total jerks and drive people away.

Did anyone see the recent writeup up DnD Encounters at ArsTechnica? It was a pretty light piece. The author played some DnD and had fun. He even suggested that this 4th edition thing might be fun for other people. 

As soon as I read the headline I knew there was an edition war waiting for me in the comments. I was not disappointed. 

I could also cite the Amazon reviews of the 4e PHB that appeared even before the book was released. Hordes of angry fanboys had to go crap all over something they had no intention of buying.

I'm sure there was a similar war on the PvP forums when the authors started doing podcasts and enjoying 4e.

As has been stated, this stuff shows up really easily on Google these days, unlike the 3e edition wars that were mostly confined to usenet. 

Every hobby has factions and vocal fans. I've just never seen more bile and entitlement than that of the RPG people. Sure it's not all of them, but the reasonable people have their voices drown out.


----------



## billd91

For anyone who thinks gamers are somehow special in their internet rudeness, snark, and general idiocy, go check some political discussions on the online newspapers or political blogs, the talk-back comments for any political story. Heck, go check places like Yahoo Answers for any political questions. You'll find that gamers are not the most unhinged people on the internet. 

It may be possible that, in a certain limited case, tabletop gamers happened to behave boorishly. Change that case to be something political-oriented, I'm guessing it'll be the political activists behaving boorishly. Taking a limited case like this and inferring that tabletop gamers aren't like everyone else on the internet, that's quite a leap.


----------



## Dire Bare

Erik Mona said:


> Out of curiosity, do BioWare (Dragon Age RPG) and DC Comics (DC Adventures) not count as companies looking to extend their "transmedia" brands with RPG expressions?
> 
> If we're not talking about companies like that, what exactly are we discussing?
> 
> --Erik




Did Green Ronin approach BioWare and DC Comics asking for a license, or did BioWare and/or DC come looking for someone to do an RPG on their properties to expand their brand?

RPG companies have, of course, been doing licensed properties for practically the entire existence of the hobby (fond memories of Lankmar modules), but that doesn't mean that the IP holders are terribly interested in targeting the RPG tabletop market.  It doesn't mean they aren't either, but . . .

If DC execs were thinking, "Hey, to expand our business and customer base, we should see if we can get a quality company to do an RPG based on our comics!"  Well, that would be very different, IMO.

I'm just speculating of course, and would defer to your experience (you worked with the Star Wars license, right?).  Or maybe somebody from GR might dare step into this thread . . .


----------



## Dire Bare

billd91 said:


> For anyone who thinks gamers are somehow special in their internet rudeness, snark, and general idiocy, go check some political discussions on the online newspapers or political blogs, the talk-back comments for any political story. Heck, go check places like Yahoo Answers for any political questions. You'll find that gamers are not the most unhinged people on the internet.
> 
> It may be possible that, in a certain limited case, tabletop gamers happened to behave boorishly. Change that case to be something political-oriented, I'm guessing it'll be the political activists behaving boorishly. Taking a limited case like this and inferring that tabletop gamers aren't like everyone else on the internet, that's quite a leap.




You know, I'm beginning to think both ideas are true.  That tabletop RPG fans are more jerky in general than the populace at large, and that they aren't.  What?

It may be that tabletop RPG fans do not have a statistically higher percentage of "toxic jerkwads" (I love that phrase) than any other segment of society . . . . but there remains a perception among those outside of the hobby that we do have more jerkwads than any other segment of society.  And a simple Google search will give plenty of jerkwad examples to reinforce this perception, whether it is true or not.

So the trick for the guy trying to sell something to Men in Suits that targets the tabletop RPG crowd . . . . is to understand this, find ways to mitigate the perception or reverse it . . . which is probably a tall order . . .

I just wish there were less toxic jerkwads in our hobby for my own personal, selfish reasons (regardless of actual numbers or percentages).  Nothing can poison a day at the gamestore or a game with a new group (or new players) than somebody acting in a toxic manner.  I've had my fair share of both.


----------



## Rechan

To reiterate what several people on page 7 are saying, I think that eyebeams' is directing his criticism on gamers when it is more apt to _people on the internet_. Look on the comments of any video on Youtube and you'll find toxic jerkwads. When News agencies discovered the internet and started allowing comments on their stories, they had to soon stop or monitor them because of all the toxic jerkwads commenting on the news stories/news anchors/news blogs. 

A few pages ago Eyebeams mentioned someoen who said "I haven't reade this book but it sucks and you should steal it", honestly I'd expect that attitude from video gamers to movie goers who pirate media. 

I mean eyebeams point about gamers being cynical? Talk to comic book nerds, movie nerds or video gamer nerds. They are _quite_ cynical about "The man" and the industry of their choice's decisions. The amount of Hatred that EA is gettign now for Downloadable Content (DLC) is monumental in the circles that I go around. The internet runs on cynicism and flaming. 

It just takes a few toxic jerkwads to really sink any sort of discussion/comments/etc. And a company who experiences this jerkwadiness in a target demographic is likely just going to ignore that demographic because they don't want to deal with it. 



> It may be that tabletop RPG fans do not have a statistically higher  percentage of "toxic jerkwads" (I love that phrase) than any other  segment of society . . . . but there remains a perception among those  outside of the hobby that we do have more jerkwads than any other  segment of society.



I'm suspicious that it's not only that, but more that the Gamer demographic is a small community, compared to other demographics. And even if we have the same proportion of toxic jerkwads as other demographics, the small size makes the jerkwads seem more significant. 

So I don't think there is anything particularly unique about the Gaming community, despite eyebeams framing it that way. It's just that eyebeams happened to experience it from this community and not another. 

So, as others have pointed out, it's not eyebeams just taking shots at the community as an outsider who hates gamers. He is a gamer. He is taking shots as someone who is seeing how _Outsiders_ respond to the jerkwads in this community, and assume that the jerkwads make up the community, thus writing the community off.


----------



## Rechan

Mouseferatu said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> I realize I'm the only one in the world, but the second Matrix--minus the rave/orgy scene--is still my favorite of the three.



I, too, liked Matrix Reloaded a lot.  

(I commented because I can't give Mouse any more xp).


----------



## SKyOdin

I think there is a lot of confusion about what the original blog post was talking about. I think I understand it, so here is my take on it.

Lets imagine that fictional game developer X is creating a fantasy MMO, and decides that they like Pathfinder, and want to make their game Pathfinder Online. So, the people at X talk to Paizo and pay money for the license to make a Pathfinder MMORPG and start marketing the game to people who play Pathfinder in order to get a starting population. Of course, the subset of Pathfinder players who will want to play Pathfinder Online will not be enough to support an MMO in of themselves, they are just being targeted as early adopters to give the new MMO's community a kick-start.

Unfortunately, attracting Pathfinder players means drawing in all of their baggage as well. The Pathfinder Online messageboards begin to swell up with D&D vs Pathfinder vitriol, and the players in the game endlessly complain about the slightest difference between the Online game and the RPG books. Based on the blog post, the tabletop roleplayers are pretty bad at casual social interaction as well, a big part of the MMO experience. All told, the Pathfinder players put off everyone else from the game. Without a healthy, fun community, Pathfinder Online is doomed in today's MMO market. The game ends up struggling more than if it had used an original IP and marketed towards a different audience.

I am actually willing to bet that eyebeams' client is one of the various game companies that made an MMO or other game based on a table RPG franchise. D&D Online, Champions Online, Warhammer Online, that Shadowrun FPS, take your pick. They all have probably suffered from this situation, where the very fans targeted by their choice of IP doom their product. When was the last time anyone advertised D&D Online here at ENWorld, or even at WotC's site for that matter? I have to admit that I haven't seen it in a long time.

How do companies respond to this problem? They don't license tabletop RPG IP anymore. It is the cheapest solution for them. So we probably won't get a Pathfinder Online, or a new Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment, unless the RPG community gets its act together. This is why RPG enthusiasts don't get nice things.

I also doubt eyebeams is talking about perceptions or opinions. He probably has access to market data and internal tracking, making his statements based on empirical data and concrete facts. His claims also don't have to be true of the entire RPG community in order to be valid. If the RPG community does produce a statistically higher than average number of jerks or annoying customers, than companies have better markets elsewhere and won't market to RPG enthusiasts.

This definitely hurts RPG companies as well, since they won't be able to sell licenses to their IP, which cuts off revenue and slows their ability to reach out to new gamers.


----------



## Erik Mona

Dire Bare said:


> Did Green Ronin approach BioWare and DC Comics asking for a license, or did BioWare and/or DC come looking for someone to do an RPG on their properties to expand their brand?




I can't speak for Chris, but that seems pretty meta. If the end result is the same licensed game, is the strategy behind it really that important? Especially if it is totally inscrutable to the customer?

I know that Paizo has never approached another company (other than Malhavoc) to license their stuff, but plenty of companies (including comic companies and computer gaming companies) have contacted us. I'm pretty sure this stuff happens in both directions fairly frequently.

--Erik


----------



## Aus_Snow

Some person or other from some company nobody knew existed, whining that it's all the customers' fault he hasn't got anywhere much.

Well, at least his name is known now. A bit. For a short while, perhaps.


----------



## Erik Mona

SKyOdin said:


> A bunch of stuff.




This is all well reasoned, but there are about a dozen reasons why launching your own IP is preferable to licensing someone else's, and "some RPG fans are kind of dicks online" is quite low on the list.

Like, really really low.

--Erik


----------



## maddman75

SKyOdin said:


> I am actually willing to bet that eyebeams' client is one of the various game companies that made an MMO or other game based on a table RPG franchise. D&D Online, Champions Online, Warhammer Online, that Shadowrun FPS, take your pick. They all have probably suffered from this situation, where the very fans targeted by their choice of IP doom their product. When was the last time anyone advertised D&D Online here at ENWorld, or even at WotC's site for that matter? I have to admit that I haven't seen it in a long time.
> 
> How do companies respond to this problem? They don't license tabletop RPG IP anymore. It is the cheapest solution for them. So we probably won't get a Pathfinder Online, or a new Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment, unless the RPG community gets its act together. This is why RPG enthusiasts don't get nice things.




This goes back to the quality problem.  It isn't the mean ol' gamers like to hate on D&D Online, its that D&D Online is a terrible game.  I've known many people to download it, because they like MMOs and D&D, only to uninstall it a couple of hours later.  Other D&D licensed games in the past were quite successful - you mentioned several of them.  I spent many hours on forums during my Neverwinter Nights phase, so its not like the internet was not around.

Tying something in does NOT mean gamers will automatically eat it up.  It can get attention, but honestly I like the Buffy RPG for its great writing and mechanics, not just that was licensed from a show I like.


----------



## Shemeska

*Tongue Firmly In Cheek*



Mouseferatu said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> I realize I'm the only one in the world, but the second Matrix--minus the rave/orgy scene--is still my favorite of the three.




And I liked the rave/orgy scene. Why must you take shots at that amazing movie?! You're just trolling for an edition war you Matrix rave orgy hater you!


*actually that part kinda sucked. The German fetish club in the first movie however - that I appreciated.


----------



## Woas

I like how the blog is set up so that if you are a gamer and reject or have issue with what the points raised in the article, you are acting exactly how the blog claims all gamers are (cynical argumentative types). And if you agree, you are also agreeing what the blog claims all gamers are....


----------



## pawsplay

SKyOdin said:


> I am actually willing to bet that eyebeams' client is one of the various game companies that made an MMO or other game based on a table RPG franchise. D&D Online, Champions Online, Warhammer Online, that Shadowrun FPS, take your pick. They all have probably suffered from this situation, where the very fans targeted by their choice of IP doom their product.




How would anyone know? Those games are all, let's be frank, B- games. Sure, they're fun, but they are not especially good. If cranky fans doomed those games, the world is not much poorer for it. Again, this sounds like blaming fans for not wholeheartedly swallowing inferior products.


----------



## billd91

SKyOdin said:


> I am actually willing to bet that eyebeams' client is one of the various game companies that made an MMO or other game based on a table RPG franchise. D&D Online, Champions Online, Warhammer Online, that Shadowrun FPS, take your pick. They all have probably suffered from this situation, where the very fans targeted by their choice of IP doom their product. When was the last time anyone advertised D&D Online here at ENWorld, or even at WotC's site for that matter? I have to admit that I haven't seen it in a long time.




I dunno. It sounded to me like it could easily have been someone trying to market a Facebook app or other small-time online game tool, not an MMO. Something you could interact with, be social with people, and that had a revenue generator that sounded less like a mandatory subscription than an option... at least that's the impression I got.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Eh. I see it more as gamers are something like what most consumers are going to be like in a generation or two. 

The Industrial Era "passive consumer of centrally produce content" is somewhat of a fading star. They will grow more and more niche in the future (though they probably won't be totally eliminated, ever). 

You will have vocal, opinionated, impossible-to-please consumers who arbitrarily decide that they don't like the CEO's haircut, so no, they are not going to make a purchase of your Whatsit. 

Consumers are more and more interested and engaged with what they consume, and who they consume it from. Foodies and Makers and Remixers and YouTubers and Ben & Jerry's. Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon. 

Engaged and interested customers are also going to be, generally, vocal, opinionated, impossible-to-please customers.

It is part of what transmedia is actually starting to get at: there is no mass market, there are millions and millions of mini-markets, and consumers will travel across them if the reward is right. 

Gamers are there already. Learning how to engage with and work within the limits imposed by your target audience in the RPG industry (and industries like it) will educate the people who are going to lead the large companies of the future. 

"I never read this book but it sucks and you should steal it" is actually _constructive_, and should telling you at least two things: #1: Your distribution model might need to be different; #2: You might need people reading your stuff before you start charging them.

That's what a lot of Gareth-Michael Skarka's posts about transmedia RPGing address: build the fanbase, then charge them.

It's something that I bet even a WotC-sized company could benefit from.

I mean, who wouldn't want a big picture of the 1e _Deities and Demigods_ cover hanging over their living room couch?


----------



## tuxgeo

*(tongue firmly in cheek)*



Sammael said:


> Can someone enlighten me as to what exactly is transmedia, and name a few large corporations embracing this concept?



Regarding the first part of your question, I'm surprised that nobody else has posted this obvious answer yet: 

"transmedia" is the Latin plural of "trance medium" -- which is a person who goes into an altered state of mind for the purpose of contacting immaterial spirits who are supposed to be able to provide some desired information about how well your multi-pronged media project is going to sell.


----------



## FireLance

Let me give an example of the kind of behavior that I think is being talked about.

Imagine, if you will, a fan of the Lord of the Rings books who is upset that the first Lord of the Rings movie did not include Tom Bombadil.

In any internet site that he frequents, whenever the Lord of the Rings movie is discussed, he will add his comment that he thinks it's a bad movie. Or rather, he will say that it is a bad movie as if it was an objective fact instead of presenting it as his opinion. 

He will probably have a signature that makes disparaging comments about the Lord of the Rings movie, and the intellectual capacities of the writers, the directors, and the people who liked the movie, so that his dislike of the move is repeatedly referenced in every post that he makes.

In any thread which discusses the next two movies, he will post how bad the first movie was, and attempt to steer the conversation in a negative direction with questions like, "What are they going to ruin _next_?" 

If he becomes aware that the directors or the writers of the Lord of the Rings movie are going to be involved in any other project, he will post comments explaining how they are terrible people and how he hopes that their project fails. 

If any of the above seems vaguely plausible to you, then you have an inkling of the issues (real or perceived) that are behind the original blog post. 

And remember, we are talking about fictional works here! At least in discussions about politics and economics, there are real lives and livelihoods which could be made better or worse depending on the final outcome arrived at.


----------



## BryonD

FireLance said:


> If any of the above seems vaguely plausible to you, then you have an inkling of the issues (real or perceived) that are behind the original blog post.



Except....

The blog claims this is a special characteristic of tabletop gamers.  

Thus, if your LotR movie example is plausible, then you must disagree with the premise of the post.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

BryonD said:


> Except....
> 
> The blog claims this is a special characteristic of tabletop gamers.
> 
> Thus, if your LotR movie example is plausible, then you must disagree with the premise of the post.




The blog doesn't claim that this is a special characteristic of tabletop gamers, it claims that this behavior is much more common in tabletop gamers than in other places.


----------



## pawsplay

FireLance said:


> Let me give an example of the kind of behavior that I think is being talked about.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, a fan of the Lord of the Rings books who is upset that the first Lord of the Rings movie did not include Tom Bombadil.
> 
> In any internet site that he frequents, whenever the Lord of the Rings movie is discussed, he will add his comment that he thinks it's a bad movie. Or rather, he will say that it is a bad movie as if it was an objective fact instead of presenting it as his opinion.
> 
> He will probably have a signature that makes disparaging comments about the Lord of the Rings movie, and the intellectual capacities of the writers, the directors, and the people who liked the movie, so that his dislike of the move is repeatedly referenced in every post that he makes.
> 
> In any thread which discusses the next two movies, he will post how bad the first movie was, and attempt to steer the conversation in a negative direction with questions like, "What are they going to ruin _next_?"
> 
> If he becomes aware that the directors or the writers of the Lord of the Rings movie are going to be involved in any other project, he will post comments explaining how they are terrible people and how he hopes that their project fails.
> 
> If any of the above seems vaguely plausible to you, then you have an inkling of the issues (real or perceived) that are behind the original blog post.
> 
> And remember, we are talking about fictional works here! At least in discussions about politics and economics, there are real lives and livelihoods which could be made better or worse depending on the final outcome arrived at.




That is, of course, what basically happened with the LOTR movie. It was a wild success.


----------



## pawsplay

"The opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference."


----------



## ggroy

An earlier article by Malcolm Sheppard on the same topic.

Where Did You Go, Tabletop Joe? | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard


----------



## Hussar

I think if you want a fairly concrete example of exactly what's being talked about here, look at the commentary to the recent D&D Tries to Lure Back Players on CNN

I mean, here's an article about D&D on one of the most mainstream media outlets on the planet, yet, the first three comments I can currently see read:



> MrAsheSin
> "you'll be handed a character". That sums up 4th edition. You don't 'Create!' like with all the other versions. You just do. That's it. Take the pregen, jump into a fight, and bammo, go home.Wait, how is this role playing? Sounds more like roll playing.I've been a DM now for 14 years, and a player ... more
> 
> 
> arioch
> I've played D&D since 1980 and our group gave 4th edition a fair amount of time 1.5 years, but we had to call it quits. Final conclusion 4th edition is crap. Its way to combat focused, and because you spend ungodly amounts of time in combat as compared to previous editions there isnt much time to ... more
> 
> jontherev
> 4th suffers from some bad mechanics just as 3.5 did. You spend less time in 4th arguing about rules, due to it being less complex...BUT, you end up spending even more time in combats because monsters have *&^%tons of hitpoints. In 3.5, iterative attacks made combats crawl...in 4th, the players hav... more




I mean, these aren't even particularly negative, but, they're certainly not positive.  And it's pretty much exactly what Eyebeams is talking about.  People who don't play the game, presumably don't buy the product, telling all and sundry how the product sucks.

Yeah, that paints a pretty picture of the hobby.


----------



## FireLance

BryonD said:


> Except....
> 
> The blog claims this is a special characteristic of tabletop gamers.



Yup, as *thecasualoblivion* said, the blog post suggests that this type of behavior is more common among tabletop gamers than people in general. In other words, whenever you encounter this type of behavior on the internet, the person in question has a better than normal chance to be a tabletop gamer.


----------



## Erik Mona

[No message]


----------



## FireLance

pawsplay said:


> That is, of course, what basically happened with the LOTR movie. It was a wild success.



The fact that they succeeded _despite_ the malice of people like that (which, as the blog post suggests, have a greater than normal chance of being tabletop gamers) does not mean that we should condone or accept the malice.


----------



## FireLance

Erik Mona said:


> I'd rather imagine something like Green Lantern fans running ads in magazines and posting crude sigs and running campaigns to get writers fired over the death of Hal Jordan and the new Kyle Rayner Green Lantern. That actually happened, and was at least as persistent as any RPG edition war.



I think the real question is: what proportion of those Green Lantern fans are _also_ tabletop gamers?



> But I don't see any sort of media at all, really, running away from superheroes.



If, indeed, what the blog post suggested is true, and there is something about tabletop gamers that causes a greater proportion of them to become toxic customers, then it would only be a key issue for industries where tabletop gamers form a significant proportion of the customers. Presumably, even though some tabletop gamers are consumers of superhero-related media, they could be only a small proportion of all consumers of superhero-related media.


----------



## pawsplay

FireLance said:


> The fact that they succeeded _despite_ the malice of people like that (which, as the blog post suggests, have a greater than normal chance of being tabletop gamers) does not mean that we should condone or accept the malice.




I think it does, actually. "The malice" in this case being human nature in all its cantankerous glory, not original sin or something dramatically overblown. Compared to soccer riots or what passes for civic discourse on my Senator's Facebook page, I think we'll be okay.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

FireLance said:


> I think the real question is: what proportion of those Green Lantern fans are _also_ tabletop gamers?
> 
> If, indeed, what the blog post suggested is true, and there is something about tabletop gamers that causes a greater proportion of them to become toxic customers, then it would only be a key issue for industries where tabletop gamers form a significant proportion of the customers. Presumably, even though some tabletop gamers are consumers of superhero-related media, they could be only a small proportion of all consumers of superhero-related media.




Thanks to previous successes, superhero movies have more inherent mainstream appeal. Inherent mainstream appeal can drown out the fanbois. RPGs don't have that.


----------



## pawsplay

D&D fanboys are, in fact, ultimately responsible for World of Warcraft. Anyone want to argue against that?


----------



## haakon1

Malcolm is such a "jerkwad", to use his infantile phrase, that his opinions aren't worth anyone's time.

Next time we need to discuss the view of an idiot, please post them here instead of a link to up his view count.


*Mod edit:* Guess what, folks!  Name calling and insult are explicitly against the rules, and will get you booted from a thread!


----------



## pawsplay

haakon1 said:


> Malcolm is such a "jerkwad", to use his infantile phrase, that his opinions aren't worth anyone's time.
> 
> Next time we need to discuss the view of an idiot, please post them here instead of a link to up his view count.




Let's not name call. His ideas can fail to stand up for themselves.



			
				Malcom's post said:
			
		

> 1.Please the old fans and ask them to perform outreach to new fans in exchange for cookies and ego stroking.
> 2.Gradually alter the game to get new fans and migrate old fans (Helooooo new edition! Metaplot!)
> 3.Hit the new fans hard; invite the old ones to come along for the ride, but don’t hold up the bus for them, so to speak.
> Gamer conservatism has poisoned #2 to the point where it’s basically firing the fans anyway.




Suuuure. That's exactly what happened with BESM 2e, and Vampire Revised, and D&D 3.5, and the rest. Riiiiight.


----------



## FireLance

pawsplay said:


> I think it does, actually. "The malice" in this case being human nature in all its cantankerous glory, not original sin or something dramatically overblown. Compared to soccer riots or what passes for civic discourse on my Senator's Facebook page, I think we'll be okay.



Except that the blog post suggests that it's more common among tabletop gamers than among the population in general. But you're right to a certain extent - it's not a big deal. The mainstream media companies will still go on making money (or not). Tabletop gamers will still be targeted by marketing, just not in their capacity as tabletop gamers. That is all.


----------



## pawsplay

FireLance said:


> Except that the blog post suggests that it's more common among tabletop gamers than among the population in general. .




Perhaps. But almost certainly not more common than among other fandoms. Certainly not more than MMO fandoms.


----------



## Rechan

> The fact that they succeeded _despite_ the malice of people like  that (which, as the blog post suggests, have a greater than normal  chance of being tabletop gamers) does not mean that we should condone or  accept the malice.





pawsplay said:


> I think it does, actually. "The malice" in this case being human nature in all its cantankerous glory, not original sin or something dramatically overblown. Compared to soccer riots or what passes for civic discourse on my Senator's Facebook page, I think we'll be okay.



So you think we should _condone_ people being jerks? Honestly? 

The only reason why ENWorld et al is NOT like your Senator's facebook or  a soccer riot is because the Mods don't tolerate that crap. There's a reason that this forum has rules against bad behavior. You're suggesting that bad behavior is just human nature so hey who cares. People can disagree and state their opinions _without_ malice. What do we get for _not_ condoning or accepting it, exactly?


----------



## fanboy2000

Hussar said:


> I think if you want a fairly concrete example of exactly what's being talked about here, look at the commentary to the recent D&D Tries to Lure Back Players on CNN
> 
> I mean, here's an article about D&D on one of the most mainstream media outlets on the planet, yet, the first three comments I can currently see read:



I don't think it's all that bad. That thread, like this one, shows a tension between tabletop rpgers and the companies that make them. For many of us, our hobby is just playing the games, it's buying them. And the games are a luxury item. We all know that each book is a luxury item, so I think it's makes us more cynical of the companies that make them.



Erik Mona said:


> Haven't you heard? Companies are staying away from superheroes.



I think there is a difference between super hero fans and comic book fans. A person can be a fan of Spider-Man, watch the movies, the cartoon, and read the numerous Spider-Man books and never pick-up a comic. Jim Butcher came out with one last year.

In fact, I haven't seen _any_ evidence that the people who make superhero movies and tv shows try to please comic book fans at all, despite the fact that they're the most natural audience for the movie tv show.

My girlfriend loves the X-Men, doesn't own a single X-Men comic. She likes them because of the 90s cartoon. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? The difference between the cartoon I grew up with and the original Mirage comics is the difference between an apple and New York Strip Steak.



pawsplay said:


> D&D fanboys are, in fact, ultimately responsible for World of Warcraft. Anyone want to argue against that?



Not me. You may not want to tell Mr. T that though, he might start shooting Snickers at you.


----------



## Leatherhead

pawsplay said:


> D&D fanboys are, in fact, ultimately responsible for World of Warcraft. Anyone want to argue against that?




That depends on what you mean by "ultimately."

If by ultimately, you mean some guys who really liked DnD gave rise to the video game RPG genre, which eventually lead to the creation of WoW, then that's technically correct.

But then again, you could say the guys who invented chess are ultimately responsible for World of Warcraft using the same logic.


If you are talking about someone on the dev team being a DnD fanboy, well that is something else.


----------



## pemerton

Sammael said:


> IMO, what they shouldn't do is let the core audience go, even if a part of that core audience is made of unwashed, abrasive, socially inept people. Just make sure that they don't give a damn about your other D&D-themed products, and they'll leave them (and the new customers) alone.



If the blog post is correct, though, this is hard to do, because those hardcore unwashed will hang around your more peripheral products and drive off the new customers you were looking for.



billd91 said:


> For anyone who thinks gamers are somehow special in their internet rudeness, snark, and general idiocy, go check some political discussions on the online newspapers or political blogs, the talk-back comments for any political story. Heck, go check places like Yahoo Answers for any political questions. You'll find that gamers are not the most unhinged people on the internet.



I think the difference is that politics is worth arguing about - sometimes, it's worth killing about. Games probably aren't.


----------



## pemerton

rogueattorney said:


> rpg companies are trying to sell a bunch of finished paintings to a bunch of painters instead of trying to sell brushes and paints.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The truth is, there is a much more blurry line between rpg game makers and rpg game consumers than between, say comic book makers and readers, or video game makers and players, or movie producers and watchers.  Failure to admit so puts the producer at risk of alienating one's customers, while admitting so underlines the producers' own lack of importance to the hobby.



In his blog post GMSkarka criticises this view, of RPGers as artists, as "delusional garbage". I think maybe his language is a little too strong, but I find it hard to reconcile the notion of RPGers as artists with the really obvious evidence of consumerist culture in the RPG hobby - completist purchasers, for example, and the hype that surrounds every release of a new book or set of minis, or the ongoing complaints about the crappiness of WotC modules. If we really are all painters looking for some paints and canvasses, why do we _care_ about the quality of WotC's modules? Or what WotC has done to the 4e Realms?

It seems to me that D&D players, at least - or the online ones, anyway - are actually pretty big consumers of (i) story elements written and marketed by commercial publishers, and (ii) of more-or-less useless junk that is marketed by those same publishers simply on the basis that it carries a certain logo or references a certain story element.

It would be different if RPGers were mostly interested in buying system material to support their own story-telling - Ron Edwards's high-octane premises and system ideas - but that doesn't seem to be the case. WotC has just restructure its D&D Worlds team to give them more prominence in the organisation. And as far as I can see, Paizo and White Wolf make their money almost exclusively by selling stories.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ggroy said:


> An earlier article by Malcolm Sheppard on the same topic.
> 
> Where Did You Go, Tabletop Joe? | Mob | United | Malcolm | Sheppard



Well that article starts off with the moan that table top gaming is dieing. Now, that is IMHO a doubtfull premise. Also, implied in that statement is the notion that tabletop gaming ==rpgs, which I am sure comes as a shock to any wargamers and boardgamers outthere.
The trouble with the above claim is that i have been hearing it for 20 years or more, (ever since Lorraine Williams ran TSR) and I have never seen any evidence that it is true.
So without some hard numbers, I'm going to take this with a pinch of salt.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

pemerton said:


> I think the difference is that politics is worth arguing about - sometimes, it's worth killing about. Games probably aren't.



The problem with that statement is, from what I have seen in the comments section of Newsweek and other places is, that hate fill comments usually are not worth to time it takes to read them. They add nothing to the debate and generate more smoke than light.

Now, I get what he is saying, but in my experience it is universal on the internet. Now this tidbit
[quote from blog] *The core fandom demographic crosses over with the social media  power user demographic, providing unprecedented influence on creative  decisions.* [/quote]
Now according to facebook there are 400 million active users worldwide and according to WoTC there are what 6 million rpger's active (can't find the thread, my search attempts keep crashing the search function - did find the news article that there are 1.5million D&D players)

So if the handfull of rpger are swamping out the great mass of Facebook users then, man you are doing your marketing wrong.


----------



## Garnfellow

[No message]


----------



## Melan

pemerton said:


> In his blog post GMSkarka criticises this view, of RPGers as artists, as "delusional garbage". I think maybe his language is a little too strong, but I find it hard to reconcile the notion of RPGers as artists with the really obvious evidence of consumerist culture in the RPG hobby - completist purchasers, for example, and the hype that surrounds every release of a new book or set of minis, or the ongoing complaints about the crappiness of WotC modules.



GMS plain doesn't like the competition - one more gamer putting his campaigns on a heavy DIY basis, one less potential revenue stream for Adamant Entertainment. That's the ugly truth of it. This is the same argument Ed Cha pushed ca. 2003 or so when he suggested that people posting free modules on the Internet were harming pro module producers (conveniently including Ed Cha).

Frankly, I find Gareth's view on gaming offensive, contrary to the basic premise of RPGs as a bottom-up social hobby based on shared amateur creativity, and consider it doomed as a line of business. To the last I also say: good. High time for it. We need more people actively creating entertainment for themselves and their friends, and less staying with a model of passive consumption based on a one-way pro designer-->user relationship.

Coincidentally, what Gareth suggests is contrary to the widespread emergence of people creating computer game mods and levels, custom-tailoring digital entertainment, writing fan fiction or collaborating in RPG-like messageboard/IRC games. Whether the final products are any good is questionable - from a neutral standpoint, they are largely not - but what matters is the act of getting involved and sharing -- the same thing that had made roleplaying games the addictive hobby they became. At its heart, they are about *you* -- you the consumer/creator, and not the guy with the diplomas from Game Design Academy on his wall telling you what to do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Rechan said:


> So you think we should _condone_ people being jerks? Honestly?





Personally, I think that the case that people are being "jerks" because they don't like something, and are vocal about it -- especially if it is something they perceive being done to something they care about -- is (at best) unproven.

We live in a culture where deceit is lauded, and honest opinion is "politically incorrect".  I am of a mind that deception and manipulation is more "jerky".  I could go farther in this, but I have no desire to break EN World's "no politics" ban.

Suffice it to say, no, I do not _condone_ people being jerks.  But I very much doubt that you and I would agree on who the real jerks are.


RC


----------



## BryonD

thecasualoblivion said:


> The blog doesn't claim that this is a special characteristic of tabletop gamers, it claims that this behavior is much more common in tabletop gamers than in other places.



Dude, look at the very title of the blog.  It claims it is present to sufficient magnitude that tabletop gamers are avoided.  It is quite specifically referencing a distinguishing factor within table top gamers.  How can you read it and not get that?


----------



## BryonD

FireLance said:


> Yup, as *thecasualoblivion* said, the blog post suggests that this type of behavior is more common among tabletop gamers than people in general. In other words, whenever you encounter this type of behavior on the internet, the person in question has a better than normal chance to be a tabletop gamer.



The blog is not talking about individual gamers.  It is talking about gamers as a collective market target.

And, neither it nor your LotR example provide any evidence that it is true for gamers moreso than movie lovers.

If it is true so strongly amongst gamers then why are you compelled to use a non-gamer example to make the point?  Again, you undermine the very point being argued.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench

1) Erik Mona,
Classic, sir! Pure classic! _Bravissimo!_ 

2) Yes some RPGers are jerks...um...so? Anyone over the age of 25 who has NOT noticed about 15% of the Human Race are useless and/or buttholes, has either lived in a one hell of a lovely place, lucky begger, or has been high as a kite!
So, yes, some gamers are buttholes...same as any other section of Humanity.
I have known in RL, ONE gamer who was a munchkin, rules-lawyering, selfish, annoying jackass- deluxe, versus about 10 who weren't.

3) This does ineed seem corporate-management non-Human hyperbabble and whinging.
Yes, we'd all like the jerkwads not to moan, edition bash, put new folks off etc.
Same as we wish similar jerks didn't cause havoc at football, in pubs or whatever.

For every butthole, there's several folk encouraging others to play, see, here's a facet of life nitwits overlook:


> You always notice the scumbags, more than you notice the nice folk, because the nice folk do you no harm.



this always makes it look like there are more ratbags in life than there actually are. We are literally programmed to notice, fear and avoid danger and problems, much more than we do the nice things, because the nice things won't chase us down and eat our livers, or in our case, harangue anyone who likes the new eidition, or whatever it is that gets the nitwit upset...which is about as painful as getting liver-eaten I'd imagine 

And do NOT get me started on corporate psychology and the utter tosh there in. Jeesh. 

4) I freely admit I am the stereotypical "basement dwelling sweaty fat beard geek" 
Sometimes life drops "Captain Tripps" on your head. 
I've loved D&D for decades, but now it's one of the few things I'm physically capable of doing, sort of, as I can rarely travel.
What little monies I have either goes on D&D, or art. 
My bitching and ranting I reserve for health issues and politics, not D&D. D&D is about fun.
Politics/health are not fun.

I'm fair looking forward to DMing my pal's kids in a few years as they grow up, and release another bunch of D&D nerds on the planet, hehe. 

5) And corporate attitudes and machinations can take a big run and jump back up into the flatulent bowels of a curry-slurping pit-fiend, form which they surely descended! 
From long, bitter experience, there is nothing so assinine, stupid, blinkered, dangerous and evil in the whole damn world as "corporations" and the group mentalities they create and empower, sigh. Drow ain't got _nothin' _on 'em! 

6) Only a nitwit treats a BIG paying customer with contempt. Sun-Tzu, anyone?
Like oh, try to use them or guide them in more effective manners.
That takes skill and tact, not corporate leet speak and contempt.

7) Gamers are of above average IQ. Corporate consumerism has problems with that when it shouldn't, _if_, it had half a brain itself (in general, which it doesn't, BP merely being one of a whole line of proofs of this, lol). 
Part of the problem is that the corporate world just sees consumers as victims to fleece and use, rather than as the whole damn point of the game!
Selling is a game, "winning" isn't important, making a living and _enjoying _it is the game. The game itself IS the "candle", i.e. dealing  with the customer and creating the product, rather than the damned Quarterlies. 
Ah well, folk won't get that till it's way too late.

To quote a certain Mr Rotten:


> "Do you like the taste of honey?
> Isn't it best without the bees!"





_Be one with your stereotype, or make yer own!_


----------



## I'm A Banana

_Condone_ is probably not the best word, but _accept_ might be close to the truth.

Politics stands out as an especially cantankerous area, and people have been crying about the death of democracy since Athens. 

And it's not like the feature is unique to the internet. Go to a random barber shop/bar/church cookout and mention universal health care, and see where that conversation goes.

It's true that what edition of D&D someone plays should not be as important as the political issue du jour. The sense of proportion is all out of whack. The Lakers Riot will certainly cure you of the notion that trivial things cannot have disproportionate reactions.

I have a hard time seeing Malcolm's post as anything aside from, well, pretty much exactly what he decries.  Sour grapes, as Eric's Grandma might put it. Sounds like when he did this: "We looked at the market at the time and determined that the service was pretty much tailor-made for roleplayers and that they were the most natural early adopters.", he misidentified the market, or perhaps when he did this: "we got actual tabletop gamers from the “leading edge” of the hobby", he attracted the wrong crowd. 

I assume if you identified that your product was for political people, and you got people from the "leading edge of politics," you'd find that your assortment of outspoken senators and muckraking pundits was, indeed, a contentious group.

Same thing if you recruited YouTubers. Or comic book fans. Or people _really into_ Ultimate Fighting. Or soccer hooligans. Or [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMdi-lOqDv8"]Lakers Fans[/ame].

And certainly a basketball game matters just about as much to the world as a D&D game. 

When D&D fans burn a taxi because of 5e, call me.

Until then, these are just passionate people being passionate about something they do really like.

Which is a great thing, though it also basically makes for a fundamentally unpleasable fanbase.


----------



## Shazman

GMSkarka said:


> Seriously?
> 
> His advice is "be nicer people and foster a more positive culture online."
> 
> That makes him an idiot?
> 
> I'm beyond disappointed in your response, Erik.   I'm disgusted.
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of knee-jerking to this article, which entirely misses the point.
> 
> What he's talking about is that the WORST elements of the RPG community, as represented online, is sadly defining the segment for people OUTSIDE the community -- even in those areas where RPGers should be valued.
> 
> ...and that's a bad thing.
> 
> A direct quote from his closing:
> 
> "I would really like the tabletop RPG community to be at the center of roleplaying in all media, sharing their insights, but it’s not going to happen unless that center attracts."
> 
> 
> 
> The result of saying that?    A negative pile-on by the usual suspects... aided and abetted by professionals looking to buff up their populist cred.
> 
> Irony, thy name is Gamer.




No. His advice is "You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everyone else."  It may not make him an idiot, but it does make him sound like a major jerk.  Doesn't he get the irony, since his article is about gamers being jerks?

Now that I have cooled off, I realize that this comment comes accross as harsher than I intended.  I am sorry for any personal attack.  The article was inflammatory and used profanity to describe gamers.  It did make me quite upset, and I lashed out.  I am sorry for that.


----------



## eyebeams

Shazman said:


> No. His advice is "You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everone else."  It may not make him an idiot, but it does make him sound like a major jerk.  Doesn't he get the irony, since his article is about gamers being jerks?




You seem to be under the impression that your opinion can influence my income, when the truth is I can say whatever the hell I want to you precisely because it doesn't.

Get some grounding. Consider that a site choked with contextual advertising, a banner promoting paid membership, and popups exhorting mobile users to buy paid apps is where you believe you're taking a stand against evil commercial influence. You're fighting for freedom with the backing of the head of the second largest company trying to sell you things.


----------



## ExploderWizard

eyebeams said:


> You seem to be under the impression that your opinion can influence my income, when the truth is I can say whatever the hell I want to you precisely because it doesn't.
> 
> Get some grounding. Consider that a site choked with contextual advertising, a banner promoting paid membership, and popups exhorting mobile users to buy paid apps is where you believe you're taking a stand against evil commercial influence. You're fighting for freedom with the backing of the head of the second largest company trying to sell you things.




Advertising and selling things isn't a problem. A picky and educated consumer is the best friend to producers of quality product and the worst enemy of producers of crap. Many RPG fans are very vocal about stuff they like and dislike. This can be a blessing or a curse. 

To those who see it as a curse-Stop producing crap.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Pig Champion

Oh the irony.


----------



## Shazman

[No message]


----------



## Umbran

Folks,

A number of people have started getting personal, and that's not appropriate.

You should have no need to attempt to proactively discredit people.  A person's writing style will speak for itself.  Their logic and positions speak for themselves.  That should be sufficient.

So, address the logic and content of a post, please, and not the person or character of the poster.  Thanks.


----------



## MrMyth

Shazman said:


> No. His advice is "You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everone else." It may not make him an idiot, but it does make him sound like a major jerk. Doesn't he get the irony, since his article is about gamers being jerks?




Ok, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with everything he says, but I think people need to stop putting words in his mouth. 

He isn't saying gamers shouldn't offer criticism, or don't have a right to their likes and dislikes. He is saying there is a segment of the gaming populace that is so abrasive in unleashing criticism that they can make the RPG gamer demographic less appealing for outsiders to market to. 

I'd say that 99% of the people in this thread aren't the sort of folk he is talking about. But they are out there, and we've certainly encountered them all on the web. 

As others have said, this isn't isolated to gamers alone. He claims that it can manifest more abundantly among gamers than elsewhere, and says that in one specific case, it very clearly did. Is that universal proof? Of course not. Can anyone of us really know for sure, without investing millions of dollars in some absurdly detailed study of the phenomonen? Nope. 

But it is downright silly for people in this thread - especially _industry leaders among them _- to try and misinterpret or undercut his point. Taking to make this about an attack on gamers is simply nonsensical. He's saying that until the more reasonable segment of the gaming populace - which is the majority - has a stronger and more visible presence, outside sources aren't going to look to draw connections to the RPG crowd. 

Whether I agree or not, it is downright disappointing to see how many people popped over to his post, apparently read only one or two lines, and then formed a complete opinion about what he was saying and why. This isn't necessarily the exact phenomonen he is talking about, but it certainly isn't a demonstration of our best side, either.


----------



## Dausuul

I don't buy into the whole "down with evil corporations, stick it to the Man" thing. Corporations are what they are; most of us work for one. They exist to make stuff and sell it. Some of them make stuff I like, and I buy it. Some of them make stuff I don't like, and I don't buy it. They use whatever marketing tactics they think will get their stuff to sell. Some of those tactics work on me, and some don't. So it goes. If I think a corporation is doing something genuinely unethical, I'll take it to the voting booth and try and get it made illegal; otherwise I just won't buy what I regard as inferior.

However... the original blog post does indeed reek of sour grapes. These customers were focused on concrete goals instead of social conversations? Oh, what a horrible crime! They resisted desired/profitable behaviors? Well, evidently your desires and their desires did not align. They complained all the goddamn time? Maybe they didn't like something. They related cynically to content? What does that even mean?

The bottom line is this: You identified your whatever-it-was as "tailor-made" for tabletop RPG-ers. If they did all these things that cut against your business model, then *clearly you were wrong.* Deal with it.

Furthermore, if this is, as you say, just a small part of the tabletop community causing problems... then what's the point of your post? Do you really think they'll change because you called them ***holes? If they're so unreasonable, then your... ah... sweet words of reason won't work on them. And to the rest of the community, it's just a gratuitous smack in the face.


----------



## Shazman

eyebeams said:


> You seem to be under the impression that your opinion can influence my income, when the truth is I can say whatever the hell I want to you precisely because it doesn't.
> 
> Get some grounding. Consider that a site choked with contextual advertising, a banner promoting paid membership, and popups exhorting mobile users to buy paid apps is where you believe you're taking a stand against evil commercial influence. You're fighting for freedom with the backing of the head of the second largest company trying to sell you things.




Actually, I don't really care if my opinion does influence your income.  The article was really inflammatory, used profanity (which is never okay in my book nor should it ever be socially acceptable to do so), and, whether you intended it to be or not, it did come accross as a smack in the face to many gamers, especially to those of us who feel we do not act like jerks online or in person.  You article seemed to exhibit the same jerkishness that you accuse many gamers of exhibiting, so it does seem to be very ironic.


----------



## mudbunny

MrMyth said:


> Well written stuff




"You must spread Experience points around..."

Well crap.


----------



## Maggan

Dausuul said:


> then what's the point of your post?




Leaving aside the content of the blog post, I don't think eyebeams should be held to explain why he wanted to post a blog post of his own, on a blog of his own, discussing something he personally experienced.

It's a blog, people post stuff to blogs. That's the whole point of blogs.

/M


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Rechan said:


> To reiterate what several people on page 7 are saying, I think that eyebeams' is directing his criticism on gamers when it is more apt to _people on the internet_. Look on the comments of any video on Youtube and you'll find toxic jerkwads.




I think alot lies in the perception of who the "jerkwads" are. The media presents the toxic complainer as the Worst. Customer. Evar. They see and portray toxic internet complainers as the Simpsons "Comic Book Guy." You often see this caricature portrayed as the "lonely loser, who lives in his parent's basement and plays D&D."

So, while the blog may have no actual merit, perceptions are that Tabletop RPG players* are lonely fat angry people who will slam your product no matter the relative value of it permeates the media and may be influencing who companies market to from outside our hobby. People like Erik Mona have a more realistic view of what actual gamers are like and will market to us, as will other RPG companies. But an uninformed producer looking in from the outside has this preconceived notion that we're all like the Comic Book Guy. And if that producer does any research into our market do you think his preconceptions are being diminished by what he discovers?

It may not be fair, and it may be insulting, but perception is reality.

*Understanding that to those on the outside TTRPG player = D&D player usually.


----------



## pawsplay

Rechan said:


> So you think we should _condone_ people being jerks? Honestly?




What is the alternative?  Do you have some plan for getting people to stop being jerks? The way I see it, you can:

a) not condone people being jerks, not accept it, and be unhappy about it, and people will continue to be jerks, or
b) condone and accept it, come up with strategies for dealing with the reality of the situation, and people will continue to be jerks, but they will not bother YOU as much

Take your pick.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It may not be fair, and it may be insulting, but perception is reality.




No, perception is truth, if it is compatible with reality. Perception that is not compatible with reality is irrational.


----------



## pawsplay

MrMyth said:


> Whether I agree or not, it is downright disappointing to see how many people popped over to his post, apparently read only one or two lines, and then formed a complete opinion about what he was saying and why. This isn't necessarily the exact phenomonen he is talking about, but it certainly isn't a demonstration of our best side, either.




I read the whole article twice. Why are you saying people only read one or two lines? Are you spying on my computer or something?


----------



## mudbunny

[No message]


----------



## pawsplay

mudbunny said:


> There are several billion people who believe in one sort of religion or another that would disagree with you there.




What?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> No, perception is truth, if it is compatible with reality. Perception that is not compatible with reality is irrational.




What I meant was your perception are your reality. Even the perceptions of a completely insane person is reality _to that person_. And the perceptions of the producer making decisions of who he will market to beomes everyone's reality in the released product.

The X-Men example above was a good example. If the producer of the movies perceived comic book fans as the best consumers to market to, then the movies would have held truer to the comics.


----------



## pawsplay

Leatherhead said:


> That depends on what you mean by "ultimately."




I mean that the people who made the deliberate choice to create World of Warcraft knowingly worked in a genre created by D&D, that would not exist without D&D, and would have had difficulty taking off without D&D players. 

I used to have an old CRPG game (a bad one called) _Ancients: The Death Watch._ "Like 3D Dungeon and Dragon!"

We're not talking beats of a butterfly wing, here, but conscious adoption of memes.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What I meant was your perception are your reality. Even the perceptions of a completely insane person is reality _to that person_.




Well, I don't accept your radical subjectivism. In my reality, the perceptions of a completely insane person are not reality. Since I have just proven your reality and my reality are not compatible, I have just demonstrated that both our "realities" cannot exist simultaneously in all reality.

So either you are wrong, or there is no such thing as reality at all, and you should consider using a different word in order to be more clear.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

mudbunny said:


> There are several billion people who believe in one sort of <thing> or another that would disagree with you there.






pawsplay said:


> What?




People of one group perceive that a being exists, this is a reality for them. Others perceive that said being does not exist, this is reality for them. Both groups perceive their own reality. Just like the producer of a product might perceive all TTRPGers as the Comic Book Guy, this is reality to him and his business decisions. Even if our reality as TTRPGers has a completely different perception.


----------



## howandwhy99

pawsplay said:


> So either you are wrong, or there is no such thing as reality at all, and you should consider using a different word in order to be more clear.



This is central to the belief system of a large portion of RPG designers in the hobby already.  I would be careful not to tread to close into religion on this board however.


----------



## billd91

pawsplay said:


> Well, I don't accept your radical subjectivism. In my reality, the perceptions of a completely insane person are not reality. Since I have just proven your reality and my reality are not compatible, I have just demonstrated that both our "realities" cannot exist simultaneously in all reality.
> 
> So either you are wrong, or there is no such thing as reality at all, and you should consider using a different word in order to be more clear.




Personally, I think of reality as reality. Perceptions of reality mainly serve to put a scope to our ability to interact with reality. So it's not that perceptions determine reality, if particularly limited, they put particular limits on how we interact with reality. They may, in fact, be delusional leading to actions that are a poor fit with reality.

So, if a company perceives tabletop gamers as toxic and behaves accordingly, they aren't determining reality. They aren't even determining their own reality. They're just limiting the way they deal with reality. Reality may deal with them in surprising ways as a result.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> People of one group perceive that a being exists, this is a reality for them. Others perceive that said being does not exist, this is reality for them. Both groups perceive their own reality. Just like the producer of a product might perceive all TTRPGers as the Comic Book Guy, this is reality to him and his business decisions. Even if our reality as TTRPGers has a completely different perception.




So what are they perceiving? And now for a chance to use the word "homonculous." 

Homunculus argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And thus endeth the philosophical tangent.


----------



## pawsplay

howandwhy99 said:


> This is central to the belief system of a large portion of RPG designers in the hobby already.  I would be careful not to tread to close into religion on this board however.




I am not getting within a mile of any religious topic. I don't know what people are reading into my post, but I am paraphrasing William James, the American philosopher.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

billd91 said:


> So, if a company perceives tabletop gamers as toxic and behaves accordingly, they aren't determining reality. They aren't even determining their own reality. They're just limiting the way they deal with reality. Reality may deal with them in surprising ways as a result.




I agree that if a company believes TTRPGers are toxic it does not make us all toxic, they don't create the reality they are perceiving in us.

But, their perceptions shape the reality of the products we receive.


----------



## Pour

We don't have the human connection here, the physical exchanges. All we have are direct feeds of opinion to one another and, unfortunately, direct feeds to many designers. No filter, no consequence, and no perceived responsibility. There is a point where the consumer goes too far, I think, becomes too discerning, too negative, too demanding, and I think they are the real problem here. 

Luckily, I think most companies involved in this industry take the overwhelming feedback from the internet with a grain of salt, and instead conduct their own research of in-the-flesh players and GMs at hobby stores, libraries, bookstores, comic shops, conventions and the like. I think that is where they draw their inspiration from, as they always have. It feels altogether a different sort of research pool when people are live around a table, playing or discussing or designing. There's a lot of positive, constructive undertones. That isn't to say coddling or easily-pleased, but certainly not adversarial or venomous like so much of this digital feedback. Yes there's plenty of positive responses mixed in, plenty of amazing threads, but a fair portion of the online rpg community is not ready to participate in the larger discussion. I imagine that's frustrating, though, to those who demand to be read.

My only fear is that all this sort of discussion is taken too seriously.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

After the last 2 or so years of internet RPG commentary, are people trying to argue that the RPG community doesn't have toxic elements?


----------



## ggroy

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Just like the producer of a product might perceive all TTRPGers as the Comic Book Guy, this is reality to him and his business decisions. Even if our reality as TTRPGers has a completely different perception.




The original Malcolm Sheppard article in the OP, seems to be alluding to the "perceived reality" of the people who are calling the shots when it comes to business decisions.  If the decision makers have been turned off previously by "toxic" TTRPGers and have a "Comic Book Guy" perception of TTRPGers, they may think twice about embracing TTRPGers in the future.  This may be a classic case of "once burned, twice shy".

As much as I disagree with the notion of TTRPGers resembling the "Comic Book Guy", it's this very perception which may be turning off some business decision makers, who believe that TTRPGers are more trouble than they are worth.


----------



## MrMyth

pawsplay said:


> I read the whole article twice. Why are you saying people only read one or two lines? Are you spying on my computer or something?




There are certainly some claims being made in this thread that really feel like people read the first few paragraphs, and then pretty much stopped - specifically, right up to "They weren’t the gamers he remembered having fun with. They were s."

I get this sense, because when I first read the article, I got to that point and started to be offended. What was this guy saying? Was this an attack on the gaming community?

And then I read the rest of the article, and... no, it wasn't. But there are people in this thread who seem very, very convinced that it is. That having said those words - having shared the genuine feelings of his client, based on the man's actual experiences - the rest of the article is irrelevant or unforgiveable. 

But I wasn't saying that was true of everyone in this thread, and haven't particularly noticed in your own posts. Indeed, the sort of discussion points you've been raising, I've actually found to be rather good ones - on how this all ties into perception vs reality, and on the possibility that even if some gamers are jerks, there might be nothing we can do about.

I don't necessarily agree with on the points you've made in those topics, but I think that is the sort of useful reflection on the subject matter that is worth discussing. It actually involves the issues raised by the article itself. I think the discussion of "What can we do about this?" is exactly the sort of talk we should be having. 

But a lot of other posts have simply been focused on objecting to and attacking an opinion that doesn't exist. They've been about how this is an attack on gamers, or how stereotyping gamers is bad, or how businesses within the industry are glad to cater to their fanbases and don't need to take lessons from outside sources, or things along those lines. And these aren't even all bad opinions to have - they just aren't _relevant_ ones. 

I don't even think that most of these objections have arisen maliciously. Like I said, I think some people read the first few paragraphs, saw gamers being dissed, and took insult, and their posts here captured that very honest sense of being offended. Even though the blog wasn't talking about them at all. It was offering one man's observations about a situation, and the genuine feelings of his client in that situation after his interaction with a segment of the gaming populace, and thoughts about what this could mean for the industry and what we could do about it. 

I mean, I don't even totally agree with what he is saying. Some of his bullet points in that blog post are good ones, others are not. In my view. But the core of what he is saying - the same philosophy behind Penny Arcade's "Don't Be Dicks" motto - is a good one, and it is a shame to see it lost, and even undercut, by some of the responses in this thread.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

ggroy said:


> The original Malcolm Sheppard article in the OP, seems to be alluding to the "perceived reality" of the people who are calling the shots when it comes to business decisions.  If the decision makers have been turned off previously by "toxic" TTRPGers and have a "Comic Book Guy" perception of TTRPGers, they may think twice about embracing TTRPGers in the future.  This may be a classic case of "once burned, twice shy".
> 
> As much as I disagree with the notion of TTRPGers resembling the "Comic Book Guy", it's this very perception which may be turning off some business decision makers, who believe that TTRPGers are more trouble than they are worth.




Particularly when the decision makers Google D&D and come to ENWorld and RPGnet and see "Comic Book Guy" behavior.


----------



## howandwhy99

pawsplay said:


> I am not getting within a mile of any religious topic. I don't know what people are reading into my post, but I am paraphrasing William James, the American philosopher.



I follow you.  It's just James still believed in things like perceivable categories and relationships underlying practical thought.  He is a far cry from contemporary theorists like Lyotard, Rorty, and Foucault.

Think of it like this: Objectivity is one's subjective perception of what most people believe.  It's neither correspondent nor consensus truth, but a denunciation of epistemology.  Reality is what we desire it to be in all ways.

As John Mayer sings: "I just found out there's no such thing as the real world / Just a lie you got to rise above / I am invincible"


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> But, their perceptions shape the reality of the products we receive.




This is indeed the root of the problem. In gamer terms this is the central conflict of the campaign. The consumer wants a certain type of product. The producer doesn't want to sell that type of product because it would be incompatible with their goals. The consumer expresses displeasure because the delivered product is not the product which they desire. 
The producer blames the consumer for not accepting the product that they wish to produce. 

Do the actions of the consumer make sense?

Do the actions of the producer make sense?


----------



## pawsplay

MrMyth said:


> But a lot of other posts have simply been focused on objecting to and attacking an opinion that doesn't exist. They've been about how this is an attack on gamers, or how stereotyping gamers is bad, or how businesses within the industry are glad to cater to their fanbases and don't need to take lessons from outside sources, or things along those lines. And these aren't even all bad opinions to have - they just aren't _relevant_ ones.




I suggest you challenge those inaccuracies directly, if you feel the article has been misrepresented. Complaining about the responses in general just looks, to me, like an unsubstantiated attack on several people.


----------



## Mallus

pawsplay said:


> No, perception is truth, if it is compatible with reality. Perception that is not compatible with reality is irrational.



Yes, but people _are_ irrational. They make irrational decisions _all the time_. Which is to say, they make decisions based on their perceptions, which may have nothing to do with objective reality. 

What's _really_ real is that people frequently believe and act regardless of what _really real_. Tricky stuff, eh? 

(sorry for adding to the tangent...)


----------



## billd91

MrMyth said:


> And then I read the rest of the article, and... no, it wasn't. But there are people in this thread who seem very, very convinced that it is. That having said those words - having shared the genuine feelings of his client, based on the man's actual experiences - the rest of the article is irrelevant or unforgiveable.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But a lot of other posts have simply been focused on objecting to and attacking an opinion that doesn't exist. They've been about how this is an attack on gamers, or how stereotyping gamers is bad, or how businesses within the industry are glad to cater to their fanbases and don't need to take lessons from outside sources, or things along those lines. And these aren't even all bad opinions to have - they just aren't _relevant_ ones.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I mean, I don't even totally agree with what he is saying. Some of his bullet points in that blog post are good ones, others are not. In my view. But the core of what he is saying - the same philosophy behind Penny Arcade's "Don't Be Dicks" motto - is a good one, and it is a shame to see it lost, and even undercut, by some of the responses in this thread.




I'm kind of jumping around your response here a bit. But, the way I see it, the blog post is saying a lot of things, some in the early paragraphs, some later. That there is some decent behavioral advice later on doesn't negate some of the things he said previously in the post. Based on my reading, those things aren't really ameliorated or put into a softer context by the text later on in the post either. So I think it's quite fair to react to various different negative parts of the post even if there are constructive things said later on.


----------



## pawsplay

Mallus said:


> Yes, but people _are_ irrational. They make irrational decisions _all the time_. Which is to say, they make decisions based on their perceptions, which may have nothing to do with objective reality.
> 
> What's _really_ real is that people frequently believe and act regardless of what _really real_. Tricky stuff, eh?
> 
> (sorry for adding to the tangent...)




To get back on track, I don't like the idea of throwing up our hands because choose to be irrational. By definition, there is no arguing with irrational viewpoints. I choose to focus on the possibility of communicating with others, building consensus, solving problems, and ultimately, accepting reality.

"Gamers are not a good market" is almost content-free. It's almost completely synonmous with, "I don't wish to do business with gamers." I don't think it really advances a rational viewpoint, nor does it really invite gamers to do anything about the perceived problem. It's just rubbish, masquerading as a reasoned opinion.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> This is indeed the root of the problem. In gamer terms this is the central conflict of the campaign. The consumer wants a certain type of product. The producer doesn't want to sell that type of product because it would be incompatible with their goals. The consumer expresses displeasure because the delivered product is not the product which they desire.
> The producer blames the consumer for not accepting the product that they wish to produce.
> 
> Do the actions of the consumer make sense?
> 
> Do the actions of the producer make sense?




I don't believe most producers set out to force a product on consumers. Or at least those that do aren't acting rationally and will likely fail. Most producers seek a market for their product and adapt it appropriately.

Let say the producers of the X-Men movies screened the movie in front of two target audiences. Audience A are movie-goers in the 18-30 age bracket and the feedback consists or the usual range of giggly fluff to constructive criticism. Audience B are avowed X-Men comic book fans and their feedback speaks of how the producers have ruined the vision of the original comics, that Hugh Jackman is laughable as Logan, and the producers, their mothers and their dogs should all be shot because of the steaming turd they created and slapped the name X-Men upon. Which group would you rather market to?

This is obviously an extreme and unlikely real-world example. But what if the producers perceptions match that of the above fictional Audience A and Audience B? Would the producers find evidence to negate this perception among the fanbase?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> To get back on track, I don't like the idea of throwing up our hands because choose to be irrational. By definition, there is no arguing with irrational viewpoints. I choose to focus on the possibility of communicating with others, building consensus, solving problems, and ultimately, accepting reality.
> 
> "Gamers are not a good market" is almost content-free. It's almost completely synonmous with, "I don't wish to do business with gamers." I don't think it really advances a rational viewpoint, nor does it really invite gamers to do anything about the perceived problem. It's just rubbish, masquerading as a reasoned opinion.




I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Wow, people just don't read.


The original article was specific about where the toxicity of the RPG lie. It wasn't in they're buying habits, or their characteristics as people. The toxicity came from them interacting with other customers, in a business model that had a social aspect where customers routinely interacted with each other, driving non RPG customers away.

If the Edition Wars raged on Facebook at large, among the larger community, most regular people would bail because they don't need that crap.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?




This sounds a lot like the question: How can someone show outside marketers that their research into a particular market segment is shallow?


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?




We would need to chase Comic Book Guy behavior out of the hobby, or something close to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?




I think we should first ask, "Why should we care?"


----------



## ggroy

thecasualoblivion said:


> We would need to chase Comic Book Guy behavior out of the hobby, or something close to it.




How much of the revenue is highly dependent on the Comic Book Guys buying stuff every month?  What percentage of Comic Book Guys are also hardcore completionists, who buy almost everything in a particular product line?


----------



## thecasualoblivion

ggroy said:


> How much of the revenue is highly dependent on the Comic Book Guys buying stuff every month?  What percentage of Comic Book Guys are also hardcore completionists, who buy almost everything in a particular product line?




Its a trade off. You have to weigh how much money you get from Comic Book Guys buying every book that comes out against how many other customers they drive away with their crap. Sometimes they drive so many other customers away that the amount they spend isn't worth it. This is exactly what the original blog post discusses.

This doesn't include the toxicity of "Former Comic Book Guy" who also exists on message board forums, and I don't know what the cure for that is.


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> I think we should first ask, "Why should we care?"




I've seen people talk about how they'd be interested in a new D&D cartoon show. I'd be eager to see another D&D movie, well-done. Some CRPGs for 4E. 

Now, all this sort of stuff can originate from WotC, but also requires a connection outside the company - a connection harder to create, if the outside world thinks that the RPG populace can be more trouble than they are worth as a fanbase. 

I don't honestly know if it is truly enough of an issue to get in the way of things like this. But if it does have the potential to cause a problem, then... sure, of course we should care! Our hobby could have more cool stuff - I like cool stuff!

More than that, in recent years, fantasy and sci-fi elements have become more mainstream. The popularity of epic movies like Lord of the Rings and Avatar, and books like Harry Potter, has presented an opportunity for the hobby to also expand and make connections outside of its own home base. There is a good opportunity here for the RPG base to expand, and related interests seeing the popularity of such things might consider trying to connect to hobbies like this in order to reap the benefits themselves. 

If a small subset of the gaming crowd drives them away, it is a lost opportunity for everyone - for the gamers, for the industry as a whole, and for the outsiders that might have found a connection and gotten drawn into RPGs themselves.


----------



## ggroy

Raven Crowking said:


> I think we should first ask, "Why should we care?"




The only scenario where I probably wouldn't care much at all, is if I was a hardcore 1E AD&D grognard whom has zero interest in expanding the hobby.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

thecasualoblivion said:


> We would need to chase Comic Book Guy behavior out of the hobby, or something close to it.



I would actually assume that Comic Book Guy behavior TENDS to chase itself out of the hobby.  Nobody LIKES CBG behavior.  Nobody wants to game with CBG, talk to him, hang around him, etc.  He ends up ostracized and isolated by his own actions.  But until then he draws unwanted attention and exerts unwanted (by ANYONE) influence.

But gamer/geek/nerd culture is reluctant and slow to police its own by its very nature.  It's heavily built around acceptance or at least tolerance of eccentricity, even obnoxiousness in favor of the comfort provided by even slim common ground.

If I understand correctly the article from the OP is only decrying the damage CBG does while he's around, and lamenting that the "silent majority" isn't more assertive.  Or something like that.


----------



## Erik Mona

I don't have much to say on this topic that I didn't say yesterday, but upon reflection I'd like to apologize to eyebeams. I completely disagree with a lot of his conclusions, but that doesn't make him stupid, and it was lame of me to kick off my contribution to this discussion by calling him an idiot.

So, sorry about that, Malcolm.


----------



## MrMyth

thecasualoblivion said:


> We would need to chase Comic Book Guy behavior out of the hobby, or something close to it.




Which is a tricky thing to do - even if it is one we _should_ do. I don't like how some people might act online, but I don't really have the right to drive someone from the hobby. 

I think there have been improvements in some areas, in the form of better standards for behavior at cons and such, and places online like Enworld where the mods actively work to make it a welcoming environment. 

But I think the real answer - and the one being proposed in the article - is to just make the heart of the gaming community more visible. Because the bulk of the community isn't the handful of jerks who draw attention - they just make themselves more obvious. Enough positive feedback can overcome the perception they offer. 

In theory. 

In practice, I don't know precisely how one would work to go about such things, on an industry wide level. On a personal level, I think it just means paying attention to what you say and how you say it, and try to focus on the elements that matter. When something comes along like the article on D&D Encounters, regardless of what edition you prefer, offer comments welcoming newcomers and emphasizing the best parts of the hobby, rather than drag things down into petty rivalries that will only drive away the outside world.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

MrMyth said:


> Which is a tricky thing to do - even if it is one we _should_ do. I don't like how some people might act online, but I don't really have the right to drive someone from the hobby.
> 
> I think there have been improvements in some areas, in the form of better standards for behavior at cons and such, and places online like Enworld where the mods actively work to make it a welcoming environment.
> 
> But I think the real answer - and the one being proposed in the article - is to just make the heart of the gaming community more visible. Because the bulk of the community isn't the handful of jerks who draw attention - they just make themselves more obvious. Enough positive feedback can overcome the perception they offer.
> 
> In theory.
> 
> In practice, I don't know precisely how one would work to go about such things, on an industry wide level. On a personal level, I think it just means paying attention to what you say and how you say it, and try to focus on the elements that matter. When something comes along like the article on D&D Encounters, regardless of what edition you prefer, offer comments welcoming newcomers and emphasizing the best parts of the hobby, rather than drag things down into petty rivalries that will only drive away the outside world.




A lot of people don't want the hobby to grow if that growth is in a direction they don't approve of. RPGs have a lot of "scorched earth" style fandom.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I would actually assume that Comic Book Guy behavior TENDS to chase itself out of the hobby.  Nobody LIKES CBG behavior.  Nobody wants to game with CBG, talk to him, hang around him, etc.  He ends up ostracized and isolated by his own actions.  But until then he draws unwanted attention and exerts unwanted (by ANYONE) influence.
> 
> But gamer/geek/nerd culture is reluctant and slow to police its own by its very nature.  It's heavily built around acceptance or at least tolerance of eccentricity, even obnoxiousness in favor of the comfort provided by even slim common ground.
> 
> If I understand correctly the article from the OP is only decrying the damage CBG does while he's around, and lamenting that the "silent majority" isn't more assertive.  Or something like that.




Something I have seen is that Comic Book Guy behavior is just the tip of the iceberg, and the appearance of CBG behavior can often be contagious, drawing otherwise sane people into bad behavior.


----------



## Desdichado

IronWolf said:


> His post comes out shooting and lumping all gamers in one pot.



No, he really doesn't.  He says that a _subset_ of gamers has worse qualities than comparable subsets of other hobbiest populations.

That's the part that I can't accept based on the, "Because I said so.  Trust me, I'm a consultant."  I need to see something much more compelling than that before I can take that assertion seriously.


----------



## ggroy

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of people don't want the hobby to grow if that growth is in a direction they don't approve of. RPGs have a lot of "scorched earth" style fandom.




RPGs are not the only niche which is like this.

For example, some really extreme niches of heavy metal music are like this too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

MrMyth said:


> I've seen people talk about how they'd be interested in a new D&D cartoon show. I'd be eager to see another D&D movie, well-done. Some CRPGs for 4E.




Hrm.  I, personally, don't believe that D&D is a good medium for adapting into cartoons or movies.  What I've seen of said attempts, thus far, have been dismal.  FWIW, I'm happy with any well-done fantasy that can be used to inspire D&D, rather than hoping the D&D will produce well-crafted fantasy films.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.



> of course we should care! Our hobby could have more cool stuff - I like cool stuff!




Specifically, what "cool stuff" are we talking about?



ggroy said:


> The only scenario where I probably wouldn't care much at all, is if I was a hardcore 1E AD&D grognard whom has zero interest in expanding the hobby.




I don't know about you, but all I need to "expand my hobby" is paper, pens, and dice.  Everything else is peripheral.  And, as there are constantly people willing to play -- often more than I have space & time for -- that seems like a good strategy to me.  And I am not a 1e grognard.

I also define "expanding my hobby" in terms of actual play.  New rules and systems?  Great expansion!  New players?  Great expansion!  New GMs?  Best possible expansion!  I imagine that hardcore 1e AD&D grognards view expansion of the hobby in the same way -- willing to welcome new players, encouraging to new DMs, and interested in new subsystems that they believe are valuable to their games.

I am not at all certain how another D&D movie would "expand the hobby".  Certainly, the first two didn't do much.  AFAICT, it was being concerned about this sort of expansion that allowed Gary Gygax to be manouvered out of TSR.  

No, I am pretty sure what we are discussing here is not expansion of the hobby, but rather the expansion of someone's profits.  And, to be blunt, expanding someone's profits is something I do tangentially with my hobby (I have expanded the profits of Cubicle 7, MonkeyGod, WotC, and Paizo in the last few months, for example), but my actually hobby isn't expanding someone's profits.  It's designing/playing rpgs.

It is of great benefit to the bottom line if a company can convince you that shelling out money to them expands your hobby.  Even more benefit if they can convince you to do so uncritically.

It is not necessarily of any benefit to you, and may well be to your detriment, and to the detriment of your hobby.

So, again, "Why should we care?"



RC


----------



## Krensky

thecasualoblivion said:


> Wow, people just don't read.
> If the Edition Wars raged on Facebook at large, among the larger community, most regular people would bail because they don't need that crap.




Seriously? Facebook has thousands of people of varying degrees of idiocy and irrationality idiots arguing about anything all the time.


----------



## Age of Fable

The trouble with the original article, in my opinion, is that it's saying several different things, and both the author and people responding are treating it as saying one thing:



My friend's business died because of RPG players (impossible to assess given the information provided)
RPG players are under-served compared to other hobbies (pretty obviously false in my opinion)
There are a lot of fatbeards out there...
but you're not one of them (implicitly)
It'd be better if we were nicer to new players
and so on.


----------



## Raven Crowking

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of people don't want the hobby to grow if that growth is in a direction they don't approve of.





Sorry, but I am getting a bit confused here.  Exactly what is "the hobby" we are talking about here?

Playing any role-playing games?

Playing specific role-playing games?

Watching movies?

Watching cartoons?

Playing role-playing games based on movies or cartoons?

Watching movies or cartoons based on role-playing games?

Something else?



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Another thought: 

Let us say for the sake of discussion that gamers in general are bad juju and should not be catered to in marketing. 

What then?

Products being what they are, they will either interest gamers or they will not regardless of marketing. Since when does someone have to be a part of a target audience in order to complain about it in a very obnoxious manner? 

I guess my question is really how much trash talk can be mitigated by targeted marketing?

Lets look at World of Warcraft. Here is a product that slammed by many vocal gamers who have never tried it (and some that have). The game has also come under fire by those with no direct interest in it. Your SO never wants to spend time together instead plugging into that damn videogame? Time to scream about it on the internet. Let the entire world know just how awful that game is. 

Lets say that WOW marketing did a great job of not catering to that irritated spouse. Does it matter? 

The Raw truth is that loudmouths on the web or anywhere else WILL exist whether you market to them or not. If your product pleases more people than it turns off then you will enjoy some measure of success.


----------



## MrMyth

pawsplay said:


> I suggest you challenge those inaccuracies directly, if you feel the article has been misrepresented. Complaining about the responses in general just looks, to me, like an unsubstantiated attack on several people.




In the post I was responding to, Shazman said, "No. His advice is 'You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everyone else.'"

I felt that was a vast mischaracterization of the article, and I was responding to it. I'm not sure what the issue is here. As I said - and as Shazman's edit seems to indicate - I don't think he was deliberately distorting the blog post... I think he was offended by part of it, and acted on that offense rather than what it actually said. 

Some people seem to be saying that it doesn't matter what the rest of the article says - that if even part of it is offensive, of course he should be responded to in kind! 

But my point wasn't that he is mean in one part and nice in another. My point is that considering any part of it as an attack on gamers is a misreading. 

Look, at no point is the author actually saying that all gamers are bad people, or that they have to 'drink the cool-aid' or that companies will embrace them only if they avoid criticism. 

What he does is share a true story (unless you think he is lying.) The experience of someone he knows - a client. And that man ran into a bunch of gamers and felt that they were jerks. 

I could understand if some people felt like the problem was that they weren't getting both sides of the story. Do we actually know if those gamers behaved badly enough to merit such condemnation? Well, no, we don't. 

But I think we do all know that some people, especially on the internet, do indeed act like that. I think there is little reason not to take him at his word. 

If someone came to Enworld and shared a story about going into his local shop, and running into some gamers who wouldn't let him play, and made fun of him for wearing a WoW shirt, or acted like jerks to him for whatever reason...

...would we really respond by castigating this poster for 'attacking the gaming community'?

I don't think so. The man ran into some gamers who didn't play well with others. _He has the right to consider them jerks_. Doing so isn't a condemnation of gamers as a whole, as the author of the blog post made very clear a single paragraph after sharing that story. 

Yes, we want to stick up for our hobby. This isn't a bad thing, by its own nature. But by placing jerks within the hobby ahead of good people outside of it - especially good people trying to connect to the game - we only become more insular and unwelcoming.

All I'm saying, for those who really are upset by his article, is to try and get what he is actually saying. Which is four things: 

1) Here is a story of something that happened to a client of his. He had a bad experience trying to attract gamers. He remembers the gamers he used to play with and had fun with, but those he ran into among the online crowd were hostile and difficult to handle, it was a better direction for the company to try and move entirely away from them. 

2) His experience is not unique. There is a perception from the outside that the RPG demographic is, in many ways, toxic. 

3) Those who have caused these perceptions are not the majority of gamers, but they are the most visible, and their behavior undermines the appeal of the gaming community to the outside world. 

4) It would be really cool if we could change this. How can gamers be nicer people? Here are some ideas. 

What part of this is an attack? The actual experience of a man he knows? The recognition that certain gamers have created a bad perception for the community through their behavior online? The ideas on how to act to avoid contributing to this perception?

There are certainly elements to disagree with. Whether this behavior really is abnormally worse amongst gamers than other demographics. Whether the elements pinpointed as bad behavior are universally unacceptable ways to act. Whether the presence of these gamers is really the biggest factor in keeping us disconnected from other media. 

But those other complaints - those who feel this is an attack on gamers, or is telling gamers to just shut up and stop offering criticism, or that he is trying to tell companies already within the industry how to do their jobs - they all seem to be responses to a completely different article, and ones I simply can't agree with.


----------



## ggroy

Raven Crowking said:


> I imagine that hardcore 1e AD&D grognards view expansion of the hobby in the same way -- willing to welcome new players, encouraging to new DMs, and interested in new subsystems that they believe are valuable to their games.




Not every 1E AD&D grognard thinks this way.

Of the 1E AD&D grognards I know personally, a few of them hated any rules supplements books beyond the core PHB/DMG/MM1.  These particular grognards also do not acknowledge the existence of any D&D/AD&D editions beyond 1988.  They also do not acknowledge the existence of any modules which were not written/co-written by Gary Gygax.

As far as they're concerned, the 1E AD&D PHB/DMG/MM1 core books are "holy writ".


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying we should just accept this viewpoint or that it isn't irrational. But how do we change this perception? How can we show the outside marketers that the majority of us are not the Comic Book Guy?




The only marketer I'm concerned about is the guy asking "How?" instead of saying "If." I'm unconcerned with the business decisions of producers who lack resolve, ideas, and long-term vision.


----------



## Dausuul

MrMyth said:


> I've seen people talk about how they'd be interested in a new D&D cartoon show. I'd be eager to see another D&D movie, well-done.




Ahh, well, that's the rub, isn't it? The D&D movie _wasn't_ well done. D&D players did not flock to see it in large numbers because a) it was bad and b) we simply don't have large numbers. And if you're wondering why Hollywood isn't eager to make more D&D movies, you need look no further than that. (Although it did make enough money to justify one direct-to-DVD sequel.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Specifically, what "cool stuff" are we talking about?




This is the key question. I can't speak for anyone else, but I at least am not looking for novels and movies and transmedia and so forth from D&D. The comparison between RPG materials and an artist's paint and canvas is quite apt; neither the artist nor anyone else is interested in "Paint and Canvas: The Movie."

Give me new and better paint, canvas, and brushes. Give me better ways to reach potential viewers and fellow artists. Increase the number of artists and viewers. That's all the "cool stuff" I want from RPGs and the companies that make them.


----------



## pawsplay

MrMyth said:


> What he does is share a true story (unless you think he is lying.) The experience of someone he knows - a client. And that man ran into a bunch of gamers and felt that they were jerks.




Nobody has said he is lying. I think the consensus in the anti-article camp is mainly that the client lacks a finely calibrated sense of irony.


----------



## Desdichado

ExploderWizard said:


> Advertising and selling things isn't a problem. A picky and educated consumer is the best friend to producers of quality product and the worst enemy of producers of crap. Many RPG fans are very vocal about stuff they like and dislike. This can be a blessing or a curse.
> 
> To those who see it as a curse-Stop producing crap.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson.



It's a little more complicated than that in the RPG world because "crap" or "not crap" is likely to be much more subjective than in some other industries.  Therre are few objective qualifications, with the exception of maybe editing or something, that gamers can actually glom onto.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I think we should first ask, "Why should we care?"




If the collective "we" don't care how non-RPG products are delivered to us, why do "we" have such a negative reputation for raging against the results (LotR, X-Men movies, etc)?



ggroy said:


> How much of the revenue is highly dependent on the Comic Book Guys buying stuff every month?  What percentage of Comic Book Guys are also hardcore completionists, who buy almost everything in a particular product line?




RPGs market to all RPGers, including CBGs. I don't think that's the issue here.



MrMyth said:


> Which is a tricky thing to do - even if it is one we _should_ do. I don't like how some people might act online, but I don't really have the right to drive someone from the hobby.




Not the person, the behavior. How do "we" drive away the perception that this how "we" all act?



thecasualoblivion said:


> Something I have seen is that Comic Book Guy behavior is just the tip of the iceberg, and the appearance of CBG behavior can often be contagious, drawing otherwise sane people into bad behavior.




Yes, I'm guilty of being drawn into this myself at times.


----------



## Umbran

It seems to me there's a bit of poorly-substantiated assertion going on. "We had a bad experience trying to build for RPG players," does not clearly extend to, "Bad RPG people like this are a major reason the RPG audience doesn't get much attention."  

It would seem to me that the more argument would be that tabletop RPG audience doesn't get much attention because it isn't all that big a market.  I don't argue that some of us behave poorly, but the generalization seems poorly supported.


----------



## Raven Crowking

MrMyth said:


> 1) Here is a story of something that happened to a client of his. He had a bad experience trying to attract gamers. He remembers the gamers he used to play with and had fun with, but those he ran into among the online crowd were hostile and difficult to handle, it was a better direction for the company to try and move entirely away from them.
> 
> 2) His experience is not unique. There is a perception from the outside that the RPG demographic is, in many ways, toxic.
> 
> 3) Those who have caused these perceptions are not the majority of gamers, but they are the most visible, and their behavior undermines the appeal of the gaming community to the outside world.
> 
> 4) It would be really cool if we could change this. How can gamers be nicer people? Here are some ideas.




I read something more like this:

1) Here is a story of something that happened to a client of his.  He wanted to sell a product to gamers, but as those he ran into among the online crowd were hostile _*to this product *_and difficult to _*sell*_ _*this product *_to, it was a better direction for the company to try and move entirely away from them.

1a) The gamers, rather than the product or the marketing, were to blame. 

2) His experience is not unique. There is a perception from the outside that _*marketing to *_the RPG demographic is, in many ways, toxic.

(At this point, note that marketing a shoddy product to a critical audience is toxic.  Marketing a superior product to a critical audience, however, is not.  "Shoddy" and "superior" may be subjective, but if you have failed to understand what your target market wants, the fault lies in you, not your target market.)

3) Those who have caused these perceptions are not the majority of gamers, but they are the most visible, and their behavior undermines the appeal of the gaming community _*to marketers*_. 

4) It would be really cool if we could change this.

(This is where I ask Why?)

5) How can gamers be nicer people *to marketers*? Here are some ideas.

At which point, "'You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everyone else" becomes a very understandable reading.  If you ignore that marketing lens, then the blog entry may look spiffy keen.  If you do not ignore that marketing lens, it may look less spiffy keen.


RC


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> Hrm. I, personally, don't believe that D&D is a good medium for adapting into cartoons or movies. What I've seen of said attempts, thus far, have been dismal. FWIW, I'm happy with any well-done fantasy that can be used to inspire D&D, rather than hoping the D&D will produce well-crafted fantasy films.
> 
> I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.




Honestly, that would be what I'd want out of such products - not something that rigidly copies the game, but a well-done fantasy show/movie that includes elements unique to D&D. Either setting elements, or unique D&D monsters, or just outlooks that call back to the gaming experience. 

Now, what would be the benefit of such a production? It's a good question, but I don't think that it is that hard to answer. As a gamer, I'd enjoy it (assuming it was done well, of course.) It would give me something in the media that felt crafted in part for me, and my recognition of the unique D&D elements would make me able to appreciate it all the more. 

But outside of that, it would also help the hobby grow. The hobby being Roleplaying Games in general, and specifically D&D - kids grow up enjoying the show, or adults like the movie, and that presents an opportunity to bring them into the game and the hobby. 

It sounds like you feel that media-related tie-ins to the game do not in any way expand the brand awareness or provide the potential for new players. I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise. I would think it self-evident that more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light, would only help to draw in more players, and I think most marketing research would support this. 

For me, that is why we should care. Being able to connect to other media can help expand the game. Having outside interests trying to figure out ways to make us happy and acquire us an audience can help provide us with better tools to play the game. 

I mean, consider the scenario that someone comes along with a tool that would port over perfectly as a virtual game table, or some other new electronic tool that would be great for the hobby. Like something with the Microsoft Surfaces or some such. And they say, "Hey, we've got this product, isn't it the sort of thing we could offer to the RPG crowd?"

And so maybe they could go on to open up discussion with WotC, and this brings to the gaming community the VTT that many people would be eager to see, one professionally designed and developed. Or something like the Microsoft Surfaces D&D project, in a more portable or accessible price range for gamers. Or any number of other innovations or new technologies that might be right around the corner. 

If those companies have a product that could be _awesome _for gamers, but the perception of the gaming community drives them away, than that is a loss for _us_. 

Now, do we _need _such products? Of course not - we already have every tool we need to keep gaming happily for decades to come, no matter what edition you prefer. That's one of the strengths of the game. 

But it doesn't mean that new advancements and technologies to advance the game wouldn't be really nifty, and many of us would like to see them, and would hate to miss out because of a small but vocal subset of our crowd. 

That's why we should care. 

Again - the presence of those naysayers might not be a problem at all. That assertation has yet to be proven. But saying that even if it is, who cares? That the game doesn't need or desire advancements, innovations, or new technologies from outside? That's a really limited view, and not one that I think is good for the hobby.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

eyebeams said:


> I'd like RPG folks to be in the thick of things because I believe we have cool ideas and ways of doing things that fit perfectly with evolving trends, and work better than what's being developed by companies looking for IP-backed social networks, transmedia and such. RPGs have already been instrumental behind the scenes of some really big stuff. But the last time I sat in a boardroom fretting about a 50K+ user base target it was pretty painful to have to share this stuff while tiptoeing around examples they could Google, because it might hose the whole thing.



 I know this an old post from pages back, but I would love to go back to this since you probably missed and did not answer the questions I posted back on page 2.  This idea of "RPG folks;" what does that mean?  I play RPGs.  Does that make me an RPG folk?  I play computer games.  So am I not a "Computer game folk"  because I am an RPG folk?  How do you classify people like this and what is it you are or were doing that makes you think calling on RPG folks specifically is important?  

I'm really trying to understand what it is that makes tabletop RPG players potentially valuable as a community such that not having their input would diminish whatever end product they were trying to produce.  If the product isn't specifically targeted towards tabletop RPGers but would somehow be of interest to many in that community, would it not be of interest to many of those same people but identified through some other demographic grouping?


----------



## Shazman

Umbran said:


> It seems to me there's a bit of unsubstantiated assertion going on.
> 
> "We had a bad experience trying to build for RPG players," does not clearly extend to, "Bad RPG people like this a major reason the RPG audience doesn't get much attention."
> 
> It would seem to me that the more argument would be that tabletop RPG audience doesn't get much attention because it isn't all that big a market.  I don't argue that some of us behave poorly, but the generalization seems poorly supported.




Except that I don't recall him saying anything about the size of the market, but he did basically say that RPG people are viewed as "toxic" and don't get much attention because of it.  The RPG market is small, so I don't think any large company is going to base their success on marketing to us regardless of how they perceive our behavior.  The article seems to be a cop out on a client's failure to gain a significant profit from marketing to RPG players.


----------



## Dausuul

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If the collective "we" don't care how non-RPG products are delivered to us, why do "we" have such a negative reputation for raging against the results (LotR, X-Men movies, etc)?




Just who are "we" here? Are "we" RPG gamers? Or Comic Book Guys? Or just hardcore fans of any given thing?



MrMyth said:


> It sounds like you feel that media-related tie-ins to the game do not in any way expand the brand awareness or provide the potential for new players. I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise. I would think it self-evident that more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light, would only help to draw in more players, and I think most marketing research would support this.




That's not how tie-ins work. Tie-ins are a way to extract more money from hardcore fans of the main property. They are driven by the popularity of the main property; they do not drive it to any significant extent.

In rare, exceptional cases, a tie-in may explode in popularity and become a success on its own merits, but as I said earlier, that's not something you can plan for. And if it does happen, I really doubt that a handful of "toxic gamers" are going to derail it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> At which point, "'You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everyone else" becomes a very understandable reading.  If you ignore that marketing lens, then the blog entry may look spiffy keen.  If you do not ignore that marketing lens, it may look less spiffy keen.




So, "everyone else" drinks the corporate kool-aid and consumes silently? And people wonder why we have a reputation of being arrogant.



Dausuul said:


> Just who are "we" here? Are "we" RPG gamers? Or Comic Book Guys? Or just hardcore fans of any given thing?




"We" are all RPGers. And we have a negative perception from those outside the hobby. My personal experience tells we that this perception is unfounded in the majority of RPGers, but also my experience shows that the perception is held disproprotionately by outsiders.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ggroy said:


> Not every 1E AD&D grognard thinks this way.




Perhaps not, but then, the people you know personally sound unlikely to be concerned with whether or not new products are marketed to them, either.



pawsplay said:


> I'm unconcerned with the business decisions of producers who lack resolve, ideas, and long-term vision.




+1.  

I care far less about the _*quantity*_ of products available, and far more about the *quality*.  I'd rather fewer marketers with better ideas.  Remember the initial product glut of 3.0?  Should gamers have been uncritical?  Did criticism lead to the survival of the better producers?



Dausuul said:


> Ahh, well, that's the rub, isn't it? The D&D movie _wasn't_ well done. D&D players did not flock to see it in large numbers because a) it was bad and b) we simply don't have large numbers. And if you're wondering why Hollywood isn't eager to make more D&D movies, you need look no further than that. (Although it did make enough money to justify one direct-to-DVD sequel.)




Indeed!



> This is the key question. I can't speak for anyone else, but I at least am not looking for novels and movies and transmedia and so forth from D&D. The comparison between RPG materials and an artist's paint and canvas is quite apt; neither the artist nor anyone else is interested in "Paint and Canvas: The Movie."
> 
> Give me new and better paint, canvas, and brushes. Give me better ways to reach potential viewers and fellow artists. Increase the number of artists and viewers. That's all the "cool stuff" I want from RPGs and the companies that make them.




Exactly so.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If the collective "we" don't care how non-RPG products are delivered to us, why do "we" have such a negative reputation for raging against the results (LotR, X-Men movies, etc)?




I am not at all sure what you are saying here.  Who is the collective "we" you are talking about?  Gamers?  Movie goers?  Fans of comics?  Fans of Tolkein?

Regardless, I would suggest that "we" have such a negative reputation *from the producers* for raging against the results because the other option is for the producers to accept that criticism of the results is valid.  

This is not unlike being unable to sell a product to a market, and then blaming the market for not buying your product.

(And this does not necessarily mean change -- criticism that Han Solo wasn't such a nice guy because he shot Greedo first is valid.  But that doesn't invalidate Han Solo's character growth throughout Star Wars.  Nor, IMHO, should it have been changed.)

I am very happy with RCFG so far; I would be a moron if I therefore thought that the community should adopt the game "just 'cause".  Many fair criticisms can be levelled against the system.  Some have informed my revision; some miss the mark for what I am trying to accomplish.

I've had some negative reviews for short stories I've had published, too.  I could decide that was the fault of the fault of the story, or that the story and the reviewer just didn't click.  And, sometimes, I believe one to be true, and sometimes the other, depending upon the review.  What I don't believe is that it is the fault of the reviewer -- that he is "out to get me" or "acting maliciously".  _*He may be*_, but there is no profit in that assumption.


RC


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> I read something more like this:
> 
> 1) Here is a story of something that happened to a client of his. He wanted to sell a product to gamers, but as those he ran into among the online crowd were hostile _*to this product *_and difficult to _*sell*_ _*this product *_to, it was a better direction for the company to try and move entirely away from them.




Except the post isn't referring to gamers that are hard to sell to. He is saying that in the story, it wasn't a problem that the gamers weren't buying his pitch, it was that they were "bad for business", and it was better in the long term to actively stop attracting that crowd. 

Later on, he explains that "There are customers out there who can faithfully buy from you and still run your company into the ground." 

Nowhere does he say these people want these gamers to just stop criticizing and buy their stuff. He's saying they want gamers to buy their stuff without driving away other consumers, or proving to be a hassle or hindrance in some other fashion. 

That's what is frustrating me, here. There seems to be a goal of trying to break this down into "Us" vs "Them", the "Gamers" vs "Corporations and Marketing". 

This idea that there _couldn't _actually be gamers out there who are acting like jerks - that it had to be the _company's _fault, that they are to blame for producing a shoddy product... I mean, it could be true. It certainly could be. 

But having this expectation that gamers could do no wrong, here, and that this is all about corporations and marketing just trying to brainwash them... again, the more we focus on 'us' vs 'them', the more insular that makes the gaming community. 

This article isn't about gamers who he has a hard time selling a product to. It is about gamers who buy a product, join a new community attached to it, and then drive others away. At which point the companies realize that even if the gamers themselves are willing to buy the product, they cost the company in the long run. 

Whether this claim is legitimate or not remains up for debate. But avoiding addressing it entirely, and saying this is all about evil corporations trying to brainwash the consumers, and that gamers are too smart to fall for that... 

Again, I just don't see it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

MrMyth said:


> I would think it self-evident that more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light, would only help to draw in more players, and I think most marketing research would support this.
> 
> For me, that is why we should care.




Then, if the goal is to have "more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light", wouldn't that be better served by _*better product*_, rather than mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced?

It seems clear to me that every product along this line to date, with the exception of the novel lines, has been based on the hope for mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced, because of the D&D logo.

That dilutes the D&D logo, and is ultimately damaging to awareness of the game in a positive light.

IMHO.  YMMV.


RC

EDIT:  It is in the interest of marketers to convince you that your hobby is all of this "cool stuff".

It is not always in your interest, nor in the interest of the hobby.


----------



## Corinth

eyebeams said:


> You seem to be under the impression that your opinion can influence my income, when the truth is I can say whatever the hell I want to you precisely because it doesn't.
> 
> Get some grounding. Consider that a site choked with contextual advertising, a banner promoting paid membership, and popups exhorting mobile users to buy paid apps is where you believe you're taking a stand against evil commercial influence. You're fighting for freedom with the backing of the head of the second largest company trying to sell you things.



What ads? I run with AdBlock Plus and NoScript.  I see no ads and get no popups.  I refuse to waste money on things that I can get for free.  I know that I am far from alone in my Web browsing practices.  I find your position to be that of a sucker, which is disappointing because I figured you to be wiser and smarter than that.

Flat out, _I don't need you_.  I don't need _any publisher_.  Because of these two facts, you have to work really hard to give me a reason to buy- go learn from Trent Reznor, because he's already figured this out.  I can roll my own, I have rolled my own, and I increasingly find it difficult to justify spending money on stuff that I can get for free elsewhere.  Setting material? Wikis and YouTube vidoes are fantastic for this sort of stuff--one evening of _Ancient Aliens_ clips on YouTube, which I don't pay a dime for, and I'm set for an indefinite period of time--and are free for the taking.  Hell, combine the reading of a Wiki with listening to an audio clip from YouTube and I can make even better use of my time (and can do it on a lunch break, coffee break, etc. so I can fit other time commitments into it).  Plenty of weblogs out there can, and do, provide useful information and content without all of the crap that you want out of it- and all without ever going near the matter of PDF piracy.

Art?  As in drawings and paintings?  Google Image Search with relevant key words solves that problem.  You're far more likely to find imagery that you'll want to use in other media, including non-fiction (especially non-fiction for certain genres).  Sites like Deviant Art will handle the rest.  Storytelling?  Writing forums and 'blogs, and that's just the start of what's available for free.  TVTropes alone covers so many bases that it's become my go-to place for any issue related to storytelling in its practical form.  Design?  The Gaming Den, where Frank Trollman puts out in clear, concise language what does and does not work (and why, and shows his work) is just one of many places where folks looking to roll their own can quickly get up to speed- and in similar time learn to master principles and thus become competent at it.

The tabletop RPG hobby is now in a place where it can again become a haven for tinkerers and craftsmen.  More and more players are aware that publishers aren't providing a sufficient reason to buy, so they aren't going to do so until that happens.  _They know that you need them, and that they don't need you._  The retro-clone movement, while itself small, signals a larger reawakening of the very qualities that made tabletop RPGs take off to begin with: as a participatory, shared hobby of productive creativity.  The publishers that grok this and feed into it are doing just fine, whereas the rest are choking on their own waste with no sensible folks lamenting that fact.

What are you doing to justify your existence?  As things are you look like whiny middlemen facing your own extinction, and if that is all that you are then go die in a fire and good riddance to you.  Once you're producing something of actual value--and too few of publishers do--then you will actually be worth spending money upon.  Until then, get back to work.  You shan't be missed if you wish to quit.

"then go die in a fire"? In what way do you think that is appropriate language to use in a discussion? Your out of this thread. ~ Plane Sailing


----------



## MrMyth

Dausuul said:


> That's not how tie-ins work. Tie-ins are a way to extract more money from hardcore fans of the main property. They are driven by the popularity of the main property; they do not drive it to any significant extent.
> 
> In rare, exceptional cases, a tie-in may explode in popularity and become a success on its own merits, but as I said earlier, that's not something you can plan for. And if it does happen, I really doubt that a handful of "toxic gamers" are going to derail it.




I admit, I'm not an expert here. But I was really under the impression that helping to raise awareness of the brand could help bring in new consumers. If kids watch a D&D tv show, and like it, and then see the game in the store, they would be more likely to try it out. 

If adults see a D&D movie that actually does well - that stands on its own, and convinces them the game _isn't_ about devil-worship or whatever other misconceptions they have, but actually has something interesting to offer - that helps the game in the long run. Even if those who see it don't immediately start playing themselves, it at least makes it something more conventional to them, more accepted. When their coworker mentions playing the game, it doesn't seem as weird and unusual as it would if it remained completely alien to them. 

And honestly? My very first connection with D&D? Dragonlance novels, and the SSI Gold Box games. I didn't even realize they were D&D when I played them - I just enjoyed the stories in the games, and when I found out some of my friends were playing a game that all these were based on, I leapt to get in on it. 

I'm not saying any one product is going to change the world. I simply don't agree with any outlook that says we don't need or want such media connections. Even if they haven't been done well in the past, I think they offer potential to attract new gamers and bring D&D more into the cultural mainstream, both of which are good things for our hobby in the long run.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, "everyone else" drinks the corporate kool-aid and consumes silently? And people wonder why we have a reputation of being arrogant.




Well, make up your mind.  Are we like everyone else, and hence not any more toxic than anyone else?  Or are we different?  You can't have it both ways.

Clearly, the blog entry suggests that "everyone else" drinks the corporate kool-aid and consumes silently, and that we have a reputation of being toxic because we do not.  Do you disagree with this assertation?  Your posts do not make it seem so.

(And I, for one, would rather have a reputation for being arrogant, than a reputation for being a patsy.  Both are liable to be overstated.  The person folks claim is arrogant is often just not easily pushed around.  The person folks claim is a patsy is often just a bit too easily pushed around.  I have no desire to be easily pushed around.)


RC


----------



## Dausuul

MrMyth said:


> Except the post isn't referring to gamers that are hard to sell to. He is saying that in the story, it wasn't a problem that the gamers weren't buying his pitch, it was that they were "bad for business", and it was better in the long term to actively stop attracting that crowd.
> 
> Later on, he explains that "There are customers out there who can faithfully buy from you and still run your company into the ground."
> 
> Nowhere does he say these people want these gamers to just stop criticizing and buy their stuff. He's saying they want gamers to buy their stuff without driving away other consumers, or proving to be a hassle or hindrance in some other fashion.




Much of the problem lies in the bullet points that open the article. Those bullet points include "pursuing concrete goals instead of social conversations," which hardly sounds like an objectionable thing; plus "relating cynically to content" and "resisting desired (money-making) behaviors," which sound an awful lot like the reaction of consumers to bad product in the first case and a poor business model in the second.

At that point, a lot of folks concluded that this was bellyaching from somebody who couldn't figure out how to make money off us, decided it was somehow our fault, and then turned his own failure into a sweeping indictment of the gaming community (or some "toxic" subset thereof) as consumers in general. The rest of the post does nothing to lessen this impression.


----------



## Umbran

Shazman said:


> Except that I don't recall him saying anything about the size of the market, but he did basically say that RPG people are viewed as "toxic" and don't get much attention because of it.




There's no "except".  I agree that this is what the piece said.  I find that to be a fundamental flaw of the piece.  Why go down the rathole of whether or how we should banish Comic Book Guy behavior if that's not really the issue?



> The article seems to be a cop out on a client's failure to gain a significant profit from marketing to RPG players.




Cop-outs are what you give when you _must_ explain yourself - when someone asks a question, and you don't have a good answer.  If the audience was the client, I'd say it might have been a cop-out.  But there's no call to cop-out to the general public about a project the public didn't know happened!


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> Then, if the goal is to have "more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light", wouldn't that be better served by _*better product*_, rather than mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced?
> 
> It seems clear to me that every product along this line to date, with the exception of the novel lines, has been based on the hope for mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced, because of the D&D logo.
> 
> That dilutes the D&D logo, and is ultimately damaging to awareness of the game in a positive light.




But again, we aren't complaining about criticism of a product, or simply settling for something of poor quality. We are talking about a whole host of behavior that goes well beyond that. 

I admit, the D&D movie was bad. (Though I've heard good things about the second one.) And I confess, I never saw the cartoon show. But I enjoyed the novels and the video game lines. They got me into the game. I'm sure the same is true for others. If the movie was better, I expect it could do the same. Fostering an atmosphere that discourages the creation of such things is depriving yourself of any potential to continue that trend. 

Look - in your other post, you say that most criticisms you receive for your game are legitimate ones. You don't assume any malicious intent on the part of the reviewer. 

But are you telling me you have never gotten a response that was completely without merit? That was just someone raging at your product, possibly over reasons or expectations that were completely unrelated? 

I just don't understand how you can deny the presence of a subset of gamers who really are vocally unpleasant online. Enworld certainly is good at keeping them out, but they do crop up online, among gamers and others. In every group of people, there will be a portion that are simply jerks. 

They are the ones this article is about. I don't know how many times it needs to be said - this isn't about legitimate criticism of a product. This is about people who go ahead and buy a product, and then drive others away. 

Look, if some people are playing in a game store, and while they are having a good old time, someone walks over and starts mocking them for playing a game he doesn't like, or insists on standing next to the DM pointing out everything he is doing wrong and explaining why his game of choice is so terrible, odds are high those gamers at the table won't have any fun. 

And when they walk out and stop visiting the store, the owner is going to be upset at the one guy who is left - even if he keeps purchasing stuff from him every week. 

On the internet, there are _lots_ of people like that one guy, and they can band together. And we get the same exact sort of behavior, and thus it makes the gaming crowd as a whole all the more unappealing to outside interests. 

Or so the argument goes. Whether true or not, that's the claim being made - that some gamers are jerks, and are ruining it for the rest of us. Trying to distort that into saying that gamers should accept subpar quality products, or should shut up and be happy with whatever they are offered, just seems like a willful misreading of the point.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Shazman said:


> The thing is some of those are very valid criticisms. 4E combat does take so long that there is room for little else. Maybe if WotC had tried to make 4E have a streamlined, simpler, quicker combat system instead of slowing it down to a crawl, you wouldn't see those criticisms. Focus on making a better product and the criticisms will be fewer and have less impact. I believe one reason D&D Encounters exists is that WotC finally realized that 4E combat takes so long that most adults with real lives will only have time to play one combat encounter a week.



I think the point Hussar was trying to make, Shazman... was that here was a prominent article on a national news website, giving essentially _advertising_ about a hobby that probably 99% of the people who go to that website have no real idea about... and rather than seeing comments that were helping to prop up the industry the article was talking about... (because like it or not, D&D 4E is a prominent part of the roleplaying game industry)... they immediately went into tearing the industry down.  How does this help our industry in any way?  All ripping on the game mechanics of D&D 4E does (justified or not) is tell people who are unfamiliar with the industry on a whole that apparently it isn't worth even trying to learn more about. 

If this article was on a site like ENWorld (a site specifically about the RPG industry, read by people who understand the industry), then yes, making criticisms about 4Es mechanics would be understandable and not a big deal to those of us reading it.  But when its out there in the world at large?  That nitpicky, fanboy, Comic Book Guy attitude does nothing more than potentially alienate the outside people who have no idea what the complaints are actually about, but they just know that it must suck enough to cause complaints in the first place.  And thus people who might have gone to Wikipedia or Google to learn a little bit more about this if it seemed like this game had excited followers and commenters... instead doesn't bother.  And that's why the "vocal minority" can cause more harm than good.


----------



## IronWolf

Hobo said:


> No, he really doesn't.  He says that a _subset_ of gamers has worse qualities than comparable subsets of other hobbiest populations.




After he gets rolling he eventually comes out and clarifies his target, saying he's met lots of great gamers and not all are like that.  But the article starts off all guns blazing and even calling millions of gamers a pox on growth. 

By the time people get to the clarification they've already gone on the defensive and are apt to gloss over that he's talking about a certain subset.  I was more highlighting that the post comes across as incendiary because it starts off with a wide target before being narrowed down a bit, which at that point I suspect folks are already seeing red.

But you're right, by the mid-point/end he is talking about a subset of gamers - the article just doesn't start off that way very well in my opinion.  He should have been more clear up front.


----------



## Raven Crowking

MrMyth said:


> Look - in your other post, you say that most criticisms you receive for your game are legitimate ones. You don't assume any malicious intent on the part of the reviewer.
> 
> But are you telling me you have never gotten a response that was completely without merit? That was just someone raging at your product, possibly over reasons or expectations that were completely unrelated?




Sadly, no.  

I only wish controversy would stir up interest in my game.  



> I just don't understand how you can deny the presence of a subset of gamers who really are vocally unpleasant online.




I don't.

And, I used to be partial owner of a comic book store -- I know that some customers are not worth the effort.  They want too much, in one way or another, for what you are getting back.

But, here's the thing.  That jerks exist doesn't colour my view of all gamers, or of all comic readers.  And I know that I pissed some folks off with policies that said, in effect, we wouldn't cater to jerks.  I'm sure some folks complained.  I bet someone might even have blogged.

So what?

I can no more cause the sun to stop shining that I can prevent such behaviour, and I have no intention of wasting my time trying to do so.

Pick a percentage:  5%, 10%, 15%.  No matter what percentage of people you think are jerks, it is your fault if you don't take that into account when you set up shop.  No one else's.


RC


----------



## Dedekind

I propose a test of the jerkiness level of gamers online vs. other hobbyists. I think a comparison of admin actions on this forum compared to other non-gaming forums would provide a fruitful comparison. Are people banned more frequently here? Are threads locked more often here because of jerky behavior? Anyone have any experience in this area?

Anecdotally, an individual investor forum I once followed had similar rules (grandma-friendly) but rarely had banning except for spam.


----------



## GMSkarka

Corinth said:


> What ads? I run with AdBlock Plus and NoScript.  I see no ads and get no popups.  I refuse to waste money on things that I can get for free.  I know that I am far from alone in my Web browsing practices.  I find your position to be that of a sucker, which is disappointing because I figured you to be wiser and smarter than that.
> 
> Flat out, _I don't need you_.  I don't need _any publisher_.  Because of these two facts, you have to work really hard to give me a reason to buy- go learn from Trent Reznor, because he's already figured this out.  I can roll my own, I have rolled my own, and I increasingly find it difficult to justify spending money on stuff that I can get for free elsewhere.  Setting material? Wikis and YouTube vidoes are fantastic for this sort of stuff--one evening of _Ancient Aliens_ clips on YouTube, which I don't pay a dime for, and I'm set for an indefinite period of time--and are free for the taking.  Hell, combine the reading of a Wiki with listening to an audio clip from YouTube and I can make even better use of my time (and can do it on a lunch break, coffee break, etc. so I can fit other time commitments into it).  Plenty of weblogs out there can, and do, provide useful information and content without all of the crap that you want out of it- and all without ever going near the matter of PDF piracy.
> 
> Art?  As in drawings and paintings?  Google Image Search with relevant key words solves that problem.  You're far more likely to find imagery that you'll want to use in other media, including non-fiction (especially non-fiction for certain genres).  Sites like Deviant Art will handle the rest.  Storytelling?  Writing forums and 'blogs, and that's just the start of what's available for free.  TVTropes alone covers so many bases that it's become my go-to place for any issue related to storytelling in its practical form.  Design?  The Gaming Den, where Frank Trollman puts out in clear, concise language what does and does not work (and why, and shows his work) is just one of many places where folks looking to roll their own can quickly get up to speed- and in similar time learn to master principles and thus become competent at it.
> 
> The tabletop RPG hobby is now in a place where it can again become a haven for tinkerers and craftsmen.  More and more players are aware that publishers aren't providing a sufficient reason to buy, so they aren't going to do so until that happens.  _They know that you need them, and that they don't need you._  The retro-clone movement, while itself small, signals a larger reawakening of the very qualities that made tabletop RPGs take off to begin with: as a participatory, shared hobby of productive creativity.  The publishers that grok this and feed into it are doing just fine, whereas the rest are choking on their own waste with no sensible folks lamenting that fact.
> 
> What are you doing to justify your existence?  As things are you look like whiny middlemen facing your own extinction, and if that is all that you are then go die in a fire and good riddance to you.  Once you're producing something of actual value--and too few of publishers do--then you will actually be worth spending money upon.  Until then, get back to work.  You shan't be missed if you wish to quit.





Ladies and Gentlemen:   EXHIBIT A.


----------



## Raven Crowking

DEFCON 1 said:


> I think the point Hussar was trying to make, Shazman... was that here was a prominent article on a national news website, giving essentially _advertising_ about a hobby that probably 99% of the people who go to that website have no real idea about... and rather than seeing comments that were helping to prop up the industry the article was talking about... (because like it or not, D&D 4E is a prominent part of the roleplaying game industry)... they immediately went into tearing the industry down.   How does this help our industry in any way?




You are right.  Here was advertising prominently maquerading as a news item, and probably based upon a press release devised by WotC.  

That is, after all, a rather standard practice these days.  Companies send out press releases to news agencies, which are disguised as news items, and they get used as filler because, frankly, it is cost effective to do so.

Now, I am not going to get into whether or not WotC or 4e are good for "the industry" in the short term or the long term.  What I am going to do is suggest that no one is under any obligation to prop up either "the industry" or WotC.  No one is under any obligation to see an ad pretending to be news and help it reach its advertising objective.

Nor did they tear "the industry" down; they had complaints about 4e.

Nor is "the industry" the hobby.



RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, make up your mind.  Are we like everyone else, and hence not any more toxic than anyone else?  Or are we different?  You can't have it both ways.




You're trying to connect two parts of my argument together that don't obviously go hand in hand. Us being perceived as toxic =/= everyone else drinking the kool-aid.



Raven Crowking said:


> Clearly, the blog entry suggests that "everyone else" drinks the corporate kool-aid and consumes silently, and that we have a reputation of being toxic because we do not.  Do you disagree with this assertation?  Your posts do not make it seem so.




I did not read that inference from the blog. But then I wasn't looking at it through offense-laden lenses. I don't believe that "everyone else" consumes silently. Some do, some critique constructively, and some rave like lunatics. The assertion of the blog was that TTRPGers have a larger number of ravers than other groups that producers can market to. And, more importantly, that people outside of the RPG community disproportionately perceive that all of us are raving lunatics.



Raven Crowking said:


> (And I, for one, would rather have a reputation for being arrogant, than a reputation for being a patsy.  Both are liable to be overstated.  The person folks claim is arrogant is often just not easily pushed around.  The person folks claim is a patsy is often just a bit too easily pushed around.  I have no desire to be easily pushed around.)




Nor do I. That is why I'd like to find a way to have our hobby not perceived incorrectly and why I do care to change that perception. The status quo is that we are nothing but geeks and losers, living in our mothers basements, pretending to be elves and that we should be marginalized in all areas of society except our own little niche.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> What I am going to do is suggest that no one is under any obligation to prop up either "the industry" or WotC.  No one is under any obligation to see an ad pretending to be news and help it reach its advertising objective.




I agree with you. No one is obligated to go say good things about the article. But why do so many people feel the need to go out of their way to bash something every chance they get?

I don't go out of my way to bash Brittney Spears every time an article pops up. Every time you mention RCFRP I don't spew bile against it because it's not my game of choice.

And to ignore the fact that comments like these could drive a potential new gamer away is sticking your head in the sand. And you said up thread that new players helps grow the hobby. So is driving a potential new player away damaging the hobby or not. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> You are right. Here was advertising prominently maquerading as a news item, and probably based upon a press release devised by WotC.
> 
> That is, after all, a rather standard practice these days. Companies send out press releases to news agencies, which are disguised as news items, and they get used as filler because, frankly, it is cost effective to do so.
> 
> Now, I am not going to get into whether or not WotC or 4e are good for "the industry" in the short term or the long term. What I am going to do is suggest that no one is under any obligation to prop up either "the industry" or WotC. No one is under any obligation to see an ad pretending to be news and help it reach its advertising objective.
> 
> Nor did they tear "the industry" down; they had complaints about 4e.
> 
> Nor is "the industry" the hobby.




So you believe the gaming community as a whole is better suited by driving off potential new gamers, rather than risk them sitting down to play 4E? (And thus possibly getting involved in the game, and either continuing with D&D, in any of its forms, or moving on to other games entirely.)

I mean, I really don't get how some people can see something like D&D Encounters, aimed at drawing in new gamers and providing a regular opportunity for casual players to get involved... and somehow this is a terrible thing, and that news about such an event is an example of WotC deception and deceit. 

Yes, dragging the edition war into the comments of an article tears the industry down. Because we are representing gamers as a whole, and when someone sees how these people are acting, they don't want anything to do with it. If you don't understand how that could scare off an outsider, I'm not sure what else there is to say.


----------



## Dausuul

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Nor do I. That is why I'd like to find a way to have our hobby not perceived incorrectly and why I do care to change that perception. The status quo is that we are nothing but geeks and losers, living in our mothers basements, pretending to be elves and that we should be marginalized in all areas of society except our own little niche.




All other disagreements aside, I agree with this and would also like to change that perception. So, given that the jerkwads among us are not likely to stop being jerkwads, how shall the rest of us accomplish that?


----------



## billd91

GMSkarka said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen:   EXHIBIT A.




Maybe you should listen to him. He's telling you exactly what you're competing against and how high the bar you want to get over is.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> Pick a percentage:  5%, 10%, 15%.  No matter what percentage of people you think are jerks, it is your fault if you don't take that into account when you set up shop.  No one else's.




Agreed.

Take the article as an example.  The author and his client had what for lack of better term I'll call a pilot group that was apparently filled with jerks.  How'd they come by this pilot group?  Who vetted their participation?  

A client worth his salt would not blame the market for poor pilot group selection.


----------



## fanboy2000

ExploderWizard said:


> To those who see it as a curse-Stop producing crap.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson.



Do we know if the example in the article was crap? After the change in strategy, was it successful?



pawsplay said:


> What is the alternative?  Do you have some plan for getting people to stop being jerks? The way I see it, you can:
> 
> a) not condone people being jerks, not accept it, and be unhappy about it, and people will continue to be jerks, or
> b) condone and accept it, come up with strategies for dealing with the reality of the situation, and people will continue to be jerks, but they will not bother YOU as much
> 
> Take your pick.



It seems like what Malcolm is saying is that many companies have taken option b, but he'd like it if Tabletop RPGers were more pleasing to marketeers. Given that he seems to be both a gamer and a marketeer, this is unsurprising.



Raven Crowking said:


> I read something more like this:
> 
> 1) Here is a story of something that happened to a client of his.  He wanted to sell a product to gamers, but as those he ran into among the online crowd were hostile _*to this product *_and difficult to _*sell*_ _*this product *_to, it was a better direction for the company to try and move entirely away from them.



Yep.



> 1a) The gamers, rather than the product or the marketing, were to blame.



I agree with this point in the post, if group A doesn't want someone's product, then that person isn't going to market to that group. Blame seems kind of strange word to use, but whatever.



> 2) His experience is not unique. There is a perception from the outside that _*marketing to *_the RPG demographic is, in many ways, toxic.
> 
> (At this point, note that marketing a shoddy product to a critical audience is toxic.  Marketing a superior product to a critical audience, however, is not.  "Shoddy" and "superior" may be subjective, but if you have failed to understand what your target market wants, the fault lies in you, not your target market.)



Sometimes, it's easier to change your target market.



> 3) Those who have caused these perceptions are not the majority of gamers, but they are the most visible, and their behavior undermines the appeal of the gaming community _*to marketers*_.



I think your on to something. (Or maybe your just on something. But since I agree with your reading of the post, what am I on?)



> 4) It would be really cool if we could change this.
> 
> (This is where I ask Why?)



Great question. The answer can, I think, be found in this sentence from the Malcolm's article:


			
				original article said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, the tabletop’s anti-intelligentsia are roaming Outer...Space complaining that they don’t get enough respect, service and other super-good stuff that nobody with a good long term business plan should be especially eager to provide.



There are, apparently, people who aren't you or Corinth that complain that marketeers don't market to them. Then when marketeers market to them, they spend the least amount of money they can on the product and act in a way that drives off other customers.

It seems to me that there are two rather obvious exceptions. One, is that if you make tabletop rpgs, then you need to listen to the complaints of tabletop rpgers. It's still a good idea to market to other people, to expand the customer base though.

The other exception is people like you and Corinth. You don't care if people market to you, so you don't need to change this. 



> 5) How can gamers be nicer people *to marketers*? Here are some ideas.
> 
> At which point, "'You gamers should shut up and drink the corporate kool-aid like everyone else" becomes a very understandable reading.  If you ignore that marketing lens, then the blog entry may look spiffy keen.  If you do not ignore that marketing lens, it may look less spiffy keen.



Call me crazy, but it seems like some people _like_ to be marketed to. If a person likes to be marketed to, it would behoove them act like an attractive audience. Since you don't seem to derive any enjoyment from being marketed to, this wouldn't apply to you.

Like you, I believe that a health dose of cynicism towards marketing is a good thing. Like all things, I think it can be taken to far.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

fanboy2000 said:


> Like you, I believe that a health dose of cynicism towards marketing is a good thing. Like all things, I think it can be taken to far.




Yep. I think this points to an observation one of the ENW moderators made recently. Too many topics here are discussed in extremes. The debate seems to be between the extremes of "being a silent consumer and drinking the corporate kool-aid" and "all types of critcal thinking and criticism of products is toxic."

You *can* make smart decisions about products you buy and offer criticism to marketers without being a toxic consumer. There is a middle ground.


----------



## Herschel

Crothian said:


> So, you're calling Paizo a small business then? And what does that matter?




26 full-time employees? That's not just small, that's tiny. That's an employment non-blip by any measure. 26 people making something I like (or dislike, or heck, don't even know about) is most definitely a small business. That isn't a put down, that's a simple fact.


----------



## kinetic

maddman75 said:


> Most gamers are nice, interesting people.  Reality is that it takes 100 of those people to counteract meeting one jerk or social miscreant.




I gotta agree with maddman.  We don't have the gamer stereotypes for nothing, but I don't think the majority of the gamers out there fall into them (or even close to them).  Still, it's the ones that do that stand out - especially to those not active in the hobby.


----------



## ggroy

Herschel said:


> 26 full-time employees? That's not just small, that's tiny. That's an employment non-blip by any measure. 26 people making something I like (or dislike, or heck, don't even know about) is most definitely a small business. That isn't a put down, that's a simple fact.




Anybody know how many full-time employees on salary, are working in the D&D division of WotC?


----------



## Vurt

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I agree with you. No one is obligated to go say good things about the article. But why do so many people feel the need to go out of their way to bash something every chance they get?




"It is much easier to be critical than to be correct." -- Benjamin Disraeli


----------



## Corinth

GMSkarka said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen:   EXHIBIT A.



Gareth, what you want to do with your business is--at this time--not a good fit for the tabletop RPG medium or hobby.  You have two useful options.  One of them is to adjust your plan to conform to the reality of this niche.  The other is to shift the emphasis of your business away from tabletop RPGs.  Do whatever your judgment deems best in light of your desires and objectives, and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.  I've pointed out that you're trying to compete with Free here, and that means that you have to change things to deal with that; if Jeff Jarvis can successfully adapt, so can you.  You're a smart guy, you can do this.


----------



## Shazman

ggroy said:


> Anybody know how many full-time employees on salary, are working in the D&D division of WotC?




Probably not much more than Paizo.  I don't think it was big to begin with, and it would seem that it has shrunk a lot from layoffs that seem to have started 8 years ago and never really stopped.  The RPG department is a very small part of WotC which is a very small part of Hasbro.


----------



## IronWolf

Umbran said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Take the article as an example.  The author and his client had what for lack of better term I'll call a pilot group that was apparently filled with jerks.  How'd they come by this pilot group?  Who vetted their participation?
> 
> A client worth his salt would not blame the market for poor pilot group selection.




I found myself wondering just how the group in question was selected as well.


----------



## Shazman

[
It seems clear to me that every product along this line to date, with the exception of the novel lines, has been based on the hope for mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced, because of the D&D logo.

That dilutes the D&D logo, and is ultimately damaging to awareness of the game in a positive light.

You are so right, so much of 4E and some of the later stuff of the 3.5 era definitely seems to have been put out with the belief that people will buy it just because it has the D&D logo on the cover.


----------



## Erik Mona

Herschel said:


> 26 full-time employees? That's not just small, that's tiny. That's an employment non-blip by any measure. 26 people making something I like (or dislike, or heck, don't even know about) is most definitely a small business. That isn't a put down, that's a simple fact.




And yet, in this business, there are perhaps one to three companies with a larger full-time staff than Paizo. Most companies "smaller" than us consist of a married couple and maybe some contracted freelancers. A lot more are just one dude cranking out PDFs. 

I think _that_ tells you more about why big companies aren't scratching at our doors than the blog post that kicked off this whole thread.


--Erik


----------



## ggroy

Erik Mona said:


> And yet, in this business, there are perhaps one to three companies with a larger full-time staff than Paizo.




Lemme guess.  

1 - WotC
2 - Games Workshop
3 - White Wolf (?)


----------



## Lolth

GMSkarka said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen:   EXHIBIT A.




I bothered to log in to say that this just cost a sale of dead tree version of ICONS, as a final nail to the coffin after the whole thread. And I don't buy PDFs, if I can avoid it. But, I guess that one sale is just one sale and hey, maybe I wasn't planning to use it to pull in new players in order to churn out more people who might buy stuff and spread the gamer gene.

Just *maybe* some *creators* and *companies* are toxic too. Where do they come from? What spawns them!?

Oh, ****. They're _*gamers*_, aren't they? Run for the hills! ZOMG! 

Do I at least get awesome Toxic Avenger powers?


----------



## GMSkarka

Corinth said:


> Gareth, what you want to do with your business is--at this time--not a good fit for the tabletop RPG medium or hobby.  You have two useful options.  One of them is to adjust your plan to conform to the reality of this niche.  The other is to shift the emphasis of your business away from tabletop RPGs.  Do whatever your judgment deems best in light of your desires and objectives, and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.  I've pointed out that you're trying to compete with Free here, and that means that you have to change things to deal with that; if Jeff Jarvis can successfully adapt, so can you.  You're a smart guy, you can do this.





Again, if people were actually reading what others have said, rather than what they think has been said, we'd be much better off.     

For example, lecturing me on adapting my business model to compete with Free is amusing as hell, considering that in my transmedia posts ---linked earlier this thread, and written almost two months ago --- I advocate that RPGs should be *given away* as one platform of your property.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You're trying to connect two parts of my argument together that don't obviously go hand in hand.




Yeah, that's the point.  

You can say "Us being perceived as toxic =/= everyone else drinking the kool-aid".

I say, "Both are examples of segregating us and them, and either there is a valid segregation or there is not.  If there is, then suggesting that we are more critical (and thus less likely to _*just*_ drink the kool-aid) is valid.  If not, then suggesting that we are more critical (and hence more toxic) is not."  



> I don't believe that "everyone else" consumes silently. Some do, some critique constructively, and some rave like lunatics. The assertion of the blog was that TTRPGers have a larger number of ravers than other groups that producers can market to.




Is it?  People can rave about tuna being from Mars all they want, and it has no effect on consumer behaviour.  However, the critique about dolphins did, indeed, make the tuna fishery change.  I assume that the blog is talking about criticism that is actually listened to.  Criticism that is ignored, presumably, is ignored.

YMMV.

Certainly, the CNN comments were not "raving", yet they were pointed out as an example in this trend.

Again, YMMV.  Quite a bit farther from mine in this case, I expect.



> The status quo is that we are nothing but geeks and losers, living in our mothers basements, pretending to be elves and that we should be marginalized in all areas of society except our own little niche.




Really?  Not my experience at all.  



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I agree with you. No one is obligated to go say good things about the article. But why do so many people feel the need to go out of their way to bash something every chance they get?




I am quite certain that they have far more chances than you imagine, and are far more restrained than you imagine.



> Every time you mention RCFRP I don't spew bile against it because it's not my game of choice.




Please do.  Controversy fuels interest.



> And to ignore the fact that comments like these could drive a potential new gamer away is sticking your head in the sand. And you said up thread that new players helps grow the hobby. So is driving a potential new player away damaging the hobby or not. You can't have it both ways.




Ah, well then.  First you need to define what hobby you are talking about, as I suggested upthread.  I feel quite certain that there are a number of people who feel 4e actually drains gamers from thier hobby.

Again, YMMV.



MrMyth said:


> So you believe the gaming community as a whole is better suited by driving off potential new gamers, rather than risk them sitting down to play 4E?




I very specifically said that I was not going to enter my views on that, so I don't know why you would assume that they are as you say.  Do I believe some people feel that this is true?  Yes.  I am certain that there are some people who don't know exactly what you mean by "the gaming community as a whole" and whose idea of their hobby doesn't include all games.

And, please note, I am not saying that they are correct.  What I am saying is that, as with most people, they are behaving in a manner consistent with what they believe to be in their best interests.

Their base assumptions are different than yours.

No amount of crying about it is going to change it.



fanboy2000 said:


> Do we know if the example in the article was crap? After the change in strategy, was it successful?




That's a good question.



> Sometimes, it's easier to change your target market.




And that's a fact.


RC


----------



## Desdichado

MrMyth said:


> I just don't understand how you can deny the presence of a subset of gamers who really are vocally unpleasant online. Enworld certainly is good at keeping them out, but they do crop up online, among gamers and others. In every group of people, there will be a portion that are simply jerks.



ENWorld is no such thing.  There are _tons_ of such posters on ENWorld.  ENWorld is usually pretty good about jumping on the overtly aggressive ones, but it doesn't do anything whatsoever to keep them out.  And it doesn't do anything at all about the passive aggressive ones either.


----------



## GMSkarka

Lolth said:


> I bothered to log in to say that this just cost a sale of dead tree version of ICONS, as a final nail to the coffin after the whole thread.




I'm sorry to hear that in your world, it's OK for someone to tell creators/publishers that they're "whiny obsolete middlemen" who should "die in a fire" and "good riddance" -- yet when I point out that as exactly the sort of negative behavior we're talking about, it costs me a sale.

Good to know.


----------



## SKyOdin

Corinth said:


> Gareth, what you want to do with your business is--at this time--not a good fit for the tabletop RPG medium or hobby.  You have two useful options.  One of them is to adjust your plan to conform to the reality of this niche.  The other is to shift the emphasis of your business away from tabletop RPGs



You seem to be missing the point. None of the people involved in the original blog post were creating an RPG book or even necessarily something directly related to the RPG industry. They created a product, then _successfully sold it to RPG fans_. The RPG fans did buy the product. They then ruined the product for everyone else. At this point, the creator of the product shifted his focus away from RPG fans and became more successful by drawing in non-RPG fans.

GMSharka and eyebeams have made it abundantly clear that they don't consider marketing to RPG fans to be all that difficult. Marketers have no problem getting RPG fans to buy stuff. The problem is that they instead are in the business of actively dissuading RPG fans from buying their products, because RPG fans would only damage their long-term success.

Honestly, I really can believe the claim that RPG fans are more prone to being toxic and off-putting than the average customer. There is no RPG community as a whole, only a heavily Balkanized collection of fanbases for various games and settings that all seem to hate each other. Not only that, but, as someone in this very thread mentioned, RPG fans generally consider themselves to be smarter than the average person and tend to look down on people outside the general community as well as those who disagree with them. I honestly believe that the CBG isn't an unfounded stereotype, but a regular product of the culture of tabletop gaming. I am not saying that everyone who plays tabletop RPGs is a jerk. Rather, the culture of the hobby as a whole encourages everyone to occasionally act like one.


----------



## Erik Mona

ggroy said:


> Lemme guess.
> 
> 1 - WotC
> 2 - Games Workshop
> 3 - White Wolf (?)




I know WotC has (way) more. I didn't think of GW. Both are good examples of companies with multi-million-dollar brands likely to attract outside interest.

Fantasy Flight probably has more total employees, but many work on board games and non-RPG stuff. That's true of some of our employees as well, so it's an imperfect comparison.

I have no idea how many full-time White Wolf employees still work actively on tabletop RPGS. And I have no idea how many employees they have total. I think possibly "a lot".

--Erik


----------



## Dausuul

SKyOdin said:


> Rather, the culture of the hobby as a whole encourages everyone to occasionally act like one.




How so, specifically?


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> Then, if the goal is to have "more awareness of the game, especially in a positive light", wouldn't that be better served by _*better product*_, rather than mere uncritical acceptance of whatever is produced?



No one's advocating 'uncritical acceptance' of product, RC. They're suggesting a slightly higher civility quotient, which, after wincing my way through the comments on the CNN D&D puff-piece, is kinda hard to argue against, even if you don't accept eyebeam's position. 

Also, how would we _agree_ on what constitutes 'better product'? 



> That dilutes the D&D logo, and is ultimately damaging to awareness of the game in a positive light.



I don't brand dilution has anything to do with it. The trouble might be the completely undiluted, in fact rather _concentrated_, if unfair, public perception of non-electronic role-playing game players. A perception not helped by squabbles on CNN -- then again, they're ratings are pretty low these days, so perhaps it didn't do too much harm...


----------



## Herschel

Erik Mona said:


> And yet, in this business, there are perhaps one to three companies with a larger full-time staff than Paizo. Most companies "smaller" than us consist of a married couple and maybe some contracted freelancers. A lot more are just one dude cranking out PDFs.
> --Erik




Most definitely. It's a niche market in a niche market, and one I'm very thankful exists, even the ones I don't actually purchase from because it gives others a measure of the pleasure I get. There really is no great need for even a Medium-sized business in the RPG indutry, regardless of my wish to the contrary.


----------



## GMSkarka

SKyOdin said:


> YThe problem is that they instead are in the business of actively dissuading RPG fans from buying their products, because RPG fans would only damage their long-term success.




You were spot-on in your analysis, except for this.    I need to correct this, because it seems to be a common misunderstanding.

Neither of us are "in the business of actively dissuading RPG fans" -- in the original blog post, Malcolm was talking about the decision of ONE OF HIS CONSULTATION CLIENTS -- Not him, and not me.     I echoed his experience, because I've heard the same thing from other outside-the-game-industry folks I've spoken to and done consulting for.

I'm perfectly happy to sell to RPG fans -- that doesn't change the fact that I agree with Malcolm's post, because I've seen the same things:  namely that the worst elements of the RPG community (which you and others have termed the CBG element) often actively dissuade others from engaging with the community.

I honestly don't see how that's so damned controversial, but there ya go.


----------



## Lolth

GMSkarka said:


> I'm sorry to hear that in your world, it's OK for someone to tell creators/publishers that they're "whiny obsolete middlemen" who should "die in a fire" and "good riddance" -- yet when I point out that as exactly the sort of negative behavior we're talking about, it costs me a sale.
> 
> Good to know.




Well here's the thing -- *you argue with the same toxic attitude*. Why should I put my money into something which will support it? I, as a consumer unit, can only vote quietly with my wallet and take my business elsewhere, because if I open my mouth to point out what I see as a problem, I will suddenly be "toxic influence" in the hobby, a whiner, a loser, despite years of luring people into the hobby (I've corrupted my cousin into RPGs and miniatures, have DM'ed games in the local hobby store for female gaming crowd or total newbies, handled GM desk in a RPG con and so on; in other words, been like a gaming nerd and done my best to see that everyone is having good time, no matter what form that good time takes).

That post you made was the final straw, the final nail, *a result of toxic accumulation*.

And I'm going to note that you guys have no idea how vicious flamewars quilters can have. Jeeze, you support one technique in *stiching*, and suddenly 4e/non-4e edition flame wars look tame.


----------



## SKyOdin

GMSkarka said:


> You were spot-on in your analysis, except for this.    I need to correct this, because it seems to be a common misunderstanding.



Oops, sorry about that.


----------



## Herschel

Hobo said:


> ENWorld is no such thing. There are _tons_ of such posters on ENWorld. ENWorld is usually pretty good about jumping on the overtly aggressive ones, but it doesn't do anything whatsoever to keep them out. And it doesn't do anything at all about the passive aggressive ones either.




Must...spread....xp. You, Obryn, Nifft and a few others are getting jobbed.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I say, "Both are examples of segregating us and them, and either there is a valid segregation or there is not.  If there is, then suggesting that we are more critical (and thus less likely to _*just*_ drink the kool-aid) is valid.  If not, then suggesting that we are more critical (and hence more toxic) is not."
> 
> Certainly, the CNN comments were not "raving", yet they were pointed out as an example in this trend.




It's not just a matter of being critical. It's the delivery. I agree that the CNN comments were not "raving." I just believe the audience those people were speaking to was wrong. You are trying to equate toxic with critcal when no such assertion is being made and you are pointing at specific examples when the issue is more of general image.



Raven Crowking said:


> Really?  Not my experience at all.




Lucky you. Apparently you don't watch American media and see how D&D players are typically portrayed. That image is in the average American's mind when they think about roleplayers. Some strides are already being made in TV shows like Big Bang Theory (although they barely mention roleplaying) and movies like Role Models, but only in a small way.



Raven Crowking said:


> I am quite certain that they have far more chances than you imagine, and are far more restrained than you imagine.




To me that's like saying a serial killer is more restrained than I imagine because he doesn't kill _everyone_ he encounters.



Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, well then.  First you need to define what hobby you are talking about, as I suggested upthread.  I feel quite certain that there are a number of people who feel 4e actually drains gamers from thier hobby.




I'm sure there are, but that leads into the Scorched Earth mentality mentioned upthread. 4E might lead someone away from RCFRP. Or the person might play 4E for a while, get deeper into the general RP community, learn about other games like RCFRP, and decide they like your game better than 4E and switch. If they turn away from 4E because of jerks on CNN do you think they'd be likely to ever find RCFRP on their own? I don't think it's likely at all. WotC seems to suffer alot of heat for being the 500-lb gorilla, yet their game is the gateway to most people finding the smaller RPG companies.


----------



## Qwillion

This is based only on my experience with licences.

Its not about ill will or vocal discontent, its simply that there is not enough money in it for most companies when you compare it to say making a video game, a movie, a tv show, a CCG, a board game, or even just a novelization. 

The people who have gotten involved have a personal love for RPGs and want to see an RPG made out of their product, or be a part of the RPG community. 

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## SKyOdin

Dausuul said:


> How so, specifically?




I wish I knew. I know that I have been drawn into it myself on a number of occasions. There really does seem to be a culture of consistent vitriolic argument among RPG fans. Since I am neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, I can't really presume to understand the precise mechanisms and causes for this, but I have seen enough of it to believe that it is true.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Mallus said:


> No one's advocating 'uncritical acceptance' of product, RC. They're suggesting a slightly higher civility quotient, which, after wincing my way through the comments on the CNN D&D puff-piece, is kinda hard to argue against, even if you don't accept eyebeam's position.




I have to say that I don't think gamers are any less civil than others I have met.  OTOH, I didn't make it though all those comments on CNN....I shrugged after the first 20 or so, and decided the rest were likely to be similar.

But, the CNN piece certainly read as ad copy designed to fool you into thinking it was news, and I believe that was the case.  It is very, very common for corporations to send out complete copy to news agencies in order to shill their product from a name you may trust.  When you hear a news spot about the dangers posed by allergies, you might just want to consider whether or not a company producing allergy medication wrote the copy.  Just saying.

And, specifically, can you example what you thought was uncivil?



> Also, how would we _agree_ on what constitutes 'better product'?




Good reviews, good gaming, and where we spend our $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What else?


RC


----------



## Mallus

billd91 said:


> Maybe you should listen to him.



I would advise against it. 



> He's telling you exactly what you're competing against and how high the bar you want to get over is.



No he isn't. Corinth was describing some glorious, post-revolutionary future of the hobby where publishers have withered away and all that remains is the DIY dictatorship of the creative proletariat. Or something like that...  

I realize there's always been a strong DIY ethic in the role-playing game community. I also realize that we have some wonderful new tools for assembling and disseminating our own homemade game materials. But none of that is particularly relevant. Because some people don't like to create their own gaming materials. They don't find it rewarding. Or they don't have the time. Or they like creating settings but not modules. 

So the idea that a gaming company is suddenly competing against a large number of creative, independent homebrewers strikes me as, well, bunk.

Because the DIY-ers have _always_ been with us. And we're still going strong (I'm a inveterate homebrewer). But the hobby also has even more folks who happily purchase product, and I suspect it always will, well, up until the point it's shrunk down to it's last kernel of old, bearded adherents. This, of course, will suck for me, as I can't grow a proper beard.

I should note that even self-identified members of the OSR I've encountered online seem pretty gung-ho to buy the latest bit of gaming product reconstituted from something EGG scribbled on a couple of cocktail napkins.


----------



## Umbran

GMSkarka said:


> I'm perfectly happy to sell to RPG fans -- that doesn't change the fact that I agree with Malcolm's post, because I've seen the same things:  namely that the worst elements of the RPG community (which you and others have termed the CBG element) often actively dissuade others from engaging with the community.
> 
> I honestly don't see how that's so damned controversial, but there ya go.




The thing's controversial for one small word: "often".  As in, "..._often _actively dissuade..."  That, right there, is at the root of it all.


----------



## GMSkarka

Lolth said:


> Well here's the thing -- *you argue with the same toxic attitude*.




Saying "Exhibit A" is the same as a multi-paragraph rant which includes telling me and Malcolm, _personally_, to "go die in a fire"???    

I see from your profile that you're from Finland.   I'm guessing that perhaps we might have a cultural/language disconnect here, because seriously -- as Jules said in "Pulp Fiction" -- _"It ain't the same ball park, it's not even the same damn sport."_


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You are trying to equate toxic with critcal when no such assertion is being made and you are pointing at specific examples when the issue is more of general image.




Cool.

Tell me what "toxic" means and supply me with some examples.

Then we'll both be on the same page.



> Apparently you don't watch American media and see how D&D players are typically portrayed.




Can you example this?  I thought D&D players were typically ignored.



> 4E might lead someone away from RCFRP. Or the person might play 4E for a while, get deeper into the general RP community, learn about other games like RCFRP, and decide they like your game better than 4E and switch.




I have players who play both, and I know the second has occurred.  I can just hope that, one day, RCFG has enough players to have some lured away by other games!  

But, frankly, it is more important to me that the "jerks on CNN" maintain their right to free speech than it is that anyone ever finds RCFG on their own.  RCFG is a game; free speech is a fundamental principle.  I am very, very aware that the game is by far the less important of the two.

Nor am I at all certain that WotC is required to grow the hobby.  Or even a new game called "D&D", for that matter.  All it takes is for me to share my time and enthusiasm, and for others to do likewise.  I do believe that a case can be made that the term "D&D" is becoming essentially meaningless, as each subsequent edition dilutes the term's original content and context.  I don't know that I believe that case to be solid, however.

There are strong financial incentives for some people to have us believe these things; that is not enough to make them true.


RC


----------



## Dausuul

GMSkarka said:


> Saying "Exhibit A" is the same as a multi-paragraph rant which includes telling me and Malcolm, _personally_, to "go die in a fire"???




I think Lolth is talking about the accumulation of your previous posts, in this thread and on Malcolm's blog. Hence the "final nail" bit.


----------



## GMSkarka

Umbran said:


> The thing's controversial for one small word: "often".  As in, "..._often _actively dissuade..."  That, right there, is at the root of it all.




Somehow I doubt if I had instead used "on multiple occasions" instead of "often" that the critics on this thread would have suddenly calmed and said "Oh, OK, then."


----------



## Raven Crowking

GMSkarka said:


> Saying "Exhibit A" is the same as a multi-paragraph rant which includes telling me and Malcolm, _personally_, to "go die in a fire"???





That bothered me, too.  There were things in his post that I wanted to XP, yet there were more things in his post that I didn't want to condone.  I didn't like the "Exhibit A" either, but I did understand where it came from.


RC


----------



## fanboy2000

Erik Mona said:


> I know WotC has (way) more. I didn't think of GW. Both are good examples of companies with multi-million-dollar brands likely to attract outside interest.
> 
> Fantasy Flight probably has more total employees, but many work on board games and non-RPG stuff. That's true of some of our employees as well, so it's an imperfect comparison.
> 
> I have no idea how many full-time White Wolf employees still work actively on tabletop RPGS. And I have no idea how many employees they have total. I think possibly "a lot".



Back when I started, it was assumed that the _de facto_ #2 company was White Wolf. Now, it seems like there a number of companies competing  for that spot. 



Lolth said:


> And I'm going to note that you guys have no idea how vicious flamewars quilters can have. Jeeze, you support one technique in *stiching*, and suddenly 4e/non-4e edition flame wars look tame.



I keep trying to start a vi vs. emacs flame war here, and no one ever takes the bait. 



Raven Crowking said:


> But, the CNN piece certainly read as ad copy designed to fool you into thinking it was news, and I believe that was the case.  It is very, very common for corporations to send out complete copy to news agencies in order to shill their product from a name you may trust.  When you hear a news spot about the dangers posed by allergies, you might just want to consider whether or not a company producing allergy medication wrote the copy.  Just saying.



I got the same vibe from the CNN piece you did, but it also seemed to me that the author had actually gone to an D&D Encounters event to report on it. Rather than a straight press release, it seemed to me that the reporter had been invited by WotC and had a representative there to answer questions.

But of course, our analysis of the news article is part of the problem! I'm not going to stop doing it anymore than you are, but we're both cynical towards marketing. That said, I think it's only taken to far (and thus we get into the problem Malcolm was talking about) when the cynic acts like _any_ attempt at marking is a bad thing. As though perhaps any attempt at making a profit was bad.

Here's the kicker though, those aren't _that_ common. They're just _really_ annoying to encounter. Enough that I can see someone not wanting to participate in an online product that includes occasional contact with such people.


----------



## Dausuul

fanboy2000 said:


> I keep trying to start a vi vs. emacs flame war here, and no one ever takes the bait.




I spit on your vi and emacs. ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR!


----------



## Mallus

Raven Crowking said:


> I have to say that I don't think gamers are any less civil than others I have met.



In person, no. Online? Let's just say there are gamers I've encountered online that I certainly wouldn't want as the public face of the hobby (and no, I don't mean you ). But I'm still not convinced to what degree they are...



> It is very, very common for corporations to send out complete copy to news agencies in order to shill their product from a name you may trust.



It almost warms my heart to think the corporate owners of the D&D brand care enough about it to bother shilling via CNN. The thing is, I don't believe they care enough. 



> When you hear a news spot about the dangers posed by allergies, you might just want to consider whether or not a company producing allergy medication wrote the copy.



Sure. And? Fact of life in the consumerist West. At least we're dealing with a superabundance of toilet paper ads and not frequent shortages of actual TP ie it could be worse... 



> And, specifically, can you example what you thought was uncivil?



Not uncivil so much as off-putting. Who wants to read more edition warring, with rival camps throwing system-minutiae around? Not a way to pique the interest of the uninitiated.


----------



## Bluenose

ggroy said:


> Lemme guess.
> 
> 1 - WotC
> 2 - Games Workshop
> 3 - White Wolf (?)




Try 

1. Games Workshop
2. Everyone else combined

2,285 employees according to their 2009 annual report. That of course includes shop staff, but I'm not certain whether it refers solely to the UK based employees.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> Tell me what "toxic" means and supply me with some examples.
> 
> Then we'll both be on the same page.




No. Because you're missing the point. There is a general (mis)conception that all RPGers are CBG types. General Conceptions by definition have no specific examples. Some specific examples, like the comments on CNN, can fuel non-RPGers general (mis)conceptions that we are all the CBG.

I'm not advocating that any one of us is the CBG. We've all come across examples of that behavior. To say you haven't is bunk. To pretend that the world at large doesn't view us that way is sticking your head in the sand.

To clarify, because I think some are still offended by my assertions, I want to change people's misconceptions because I believe doing so can grow our hobby in general. I don't think that requires us to change as individuals, it requires us to change others' perceptions of us. Shows like Big Bang Theory and movies like Role Models have taken small steps to show the mainstream that we are not horrid little trolls to be avoided at all costs, while at the same time showing us that we don't need to hide away from the mainstream.


----------



## Lolth

GMSkarka said:


> Saying "Exhibit A" is the same as a multi-paragraph rant which includes telling me and Malcolm, _personally_, to "go die in a fire"???
> 
> I see from your profile that you're from Finland.   I'm guessing that perhaps we might have a cultural/language disconnect here, because seriously -- as Jules said in "Pulp Fiction" -- _"It ain't the same ball park, it's not even the same damn sport."_




I have a pretty good command of the language (my output may be lacking at times, but I am capable of understanding idioms, metaphors, and heck, think in English, I no longer translate things back and forth in my mind; I read way better than I write), and I see from the comments posted by others that you're rubbing them the wrong way as well, I am not the only one. 

Either the problem is in the way you communicate, or about dozen others are also interpreting you the wrong way. What are the odds here?

I _*said*_ it was a result of toxic accumulation, and that just cinched it, no matter the tone of the post which lead to it. You know how you can have a porcelain object which is cracked, but which still holds together, except then there's that tiny sharp ting when you put it on top of the metallic kitchen sink and the whole thing goes to pieces? Like that.

Want me to go back and look for other things you've said, in very dismissive tones, and with what I regard as open hostility and true toxicity?

In the article which started this whole thing, you said:



> No, the problem is that a group of *consumers* somehow got it into their heads that they’re “artists.”
> 
> It’s self-aggrandizing delusional [redacted] like this that lead to the wider media community, even in areas where you’d think RPGers would be valued, walking away as fast as they can.
> 
> Gamers aren’t artists. A gamer is a consumer who purchases and uses a category of products, specifically GAMES. That’s all.
> 
> That’s no more “cuckoo” than golfers purchasing and using golf gear…. Which certainly doesn’t make golfers “artists.”
> 
> Get over yourself.




I would like to note that JDCorley was using the words artist, paint and canvas as a way of illustrating his point of view to the situation:



> I have a deep suspicion that the reason all of this is true is because the hobby has set itself up with designers/producers and consumers, *when the actual experience of the hobby is more like a small group of artists buying and using paint and canvases.*




You, however, pounced on *literal* implication of it, instead of focusing on what he meant.

These are the tools. These are the tools we use together. We share the experience together. I could try to make the same point, except since I'm a computer nerd, I'd use a comparison to a coding language.

You, however, blundered in with *extremely* toxic and hostile attitude. Dismissive. But even worse... 

You reduce the players and DMs alike to the role of *consumer*, and I don't think I am misreading your diatribe here: you're "telling us how it is", rather than relying on metaphorical speech, yes?

We *consume*. You do know that the word "consumer" started with bad connotations, until somehow it became a virtue? It is, after all, derived from the word "consume". And even in its modern-day virtue, it is something which strips you of your uniqueness. 

Buy. Buy our stuff. BUY! WHY AREN'T YOU BUYING ALREADY? I don't need sunglasses a la *They Live* to see the message. I, consumer.

But you know what? If we're consumers, then it is our right to get even louder and complain about inferior services and product we're getting. While I do not subscribe to the thought where a customer is always right without a question (they're not), wouldn't it be even more understandable that a *consumer* is going to be loud when it looks like someone put a turd into their burger?

If we're *consumers*, this makes you both *producer* and *marketer*. And right now I, this consumer unit, deem that you've failed to market your product to me in a suitable and appropriate manner, even if I find ICONS to be a system which satisfies my need for supers-based gaming.

Skarka, *you failed your Marketing roll.* And I'm saying this as someone who has managed to buy stuff from *Terry bleedin' Austin* of Usenet fame.


----------



## BryonD

GMSkarka said:


> I agree with Malcolm's post, because I've seen the same things:  namely that the worst elements of the RPG community (which you and others have termed the CBG element) often actively dissuade others from engaging with the community.



Do you claim that this is a special characteristic of the RPG community?  (And to be clear, I'm not asking are other markets immune to individual examples of it.  I'm asking, is this a significant and influential consistent element of the RPG collective marketplace and at the same time NOT a concern for most to nearly all other marketplaces?)


----------



## GMSkarka

Lolth said:


> II don't think I am misreading your diatribe here




You are, or perhaps holding it to a ridiculous double-standard.   Either way, you're mistaken.

But fine.

I'm not going to bother to argue with you -- anything I say will be picked at further, in varying degrees of passive- and not-so-passive- aggression, and there's usually not much point, once someone on an Internet forum has reached the time-honored OMGIHAZRIGHTEOUSBOYCOTT stage.


----------



## Maggan

The longer this thread continues, the more I'm inclined to think that eyebeams were on to something.

Are there gamers who are acting in a way that puts some people off gaming? Well, as someone who has been disillusioned with a game due to "fan" behaviour, I would say yes.

Are there gamers that are irrationally critical of everything a specific publisher has to offer? Again, I have been embroiled in that situation, regarding both D&D, WFRP and a game I co-wrote, Mutant Chronicles.

Are there publishers that are jerks? Sure, but hey, they are gamers too, so there's no reason why they should be exempt of any theory that some gamers are jerks.

/M


----------



## GMSkarka

BryonD said:


> Do you claim that this is a special characteristic of the RPG community?




Not at all.    We're just talking about the RPG community specifcally because of the experience that Malcolm cited, which is something that I've heard echoed by the transmedia folks I've talked to as well.

I don't think it's unique to gaming. It's present in pretty much every fandom, to varying degrees -- and exacerbated by the internet.

Just because it isn't unique though, that doesn't change the fact that I think it's a shame, and hurts us in the long run.


----------



## Dausuul

After thinking about it a bit, here's the way I see Comic Book Guy, based on my own intuitive understanding and experience liberally sprinkled with pop psychology:

Comic Book Guy is someone (typically male) who is somewhat introverted, reasonably intelligent, and most of all _severely_ lacking in self-esteem and confidence. He compensates for that lack by becoming deeply invested in comic books, RPGs, or some other segment of pop culture, and then using his extreme knowledge of that area as a way to demonstrate his (self-perceived) superiority by putting down people who don't share his opinions or who lack his level of knowledge.

The thing is, this phenomenon is self-reinforcing. Comic Book Guy is so obnoxious because of his insecurities. But those insecurities are fed by his knowledge that, due to his chosen interests, the rest of the world perceives him as a geeky loser. The more the world views gaming as a haven of Comic Book Guys, the more Comic Book Guys gaming will produce, reinforcing the world's perception, and so on.

Fortunately, this does suggest at least a partial solution: *Stop reinforcing the perception of gaming as the pastime of geeky losers!* And by this I do not mean "don't be Comic Book Guy," because most of us aren't, so that advice is not helpful. I mean, stop talking about gamers as if we're all Comic Book Guy. Don't talk like that to the rest of the world; more importantly, don't talk like that to your fellow gamers.

This is something that I see _all over the place_, both online and in real life. Hell, I've done it myself. People make offhand remarks about what losers we all are, how gamers never get laid, neckbeards and fatbeards and so on and so forth... and if they get called out on it, they protest that it's all in good fun, or they're just talking about a toxic subgroup, or whatever. Which may be true, but doesn't change the fact that every one of these remarks is helping to spawn the next generation of Comic Book Guys.


----------



## Cergorach

What I got from the article was that he was writing about roleplayers + internet + internet RPG tools, and I would agree that in that demographic there are a lot of d!cks. Your average roleplayer is the casual player, and that kind of player doesn't spend any time on forums like ENworld or RPG.net (or a legion of similar sites). That casual roleplayer doesn't have much interest in an internet RPG tool, that's where the hardcore gamer comes in.

Hardcore roleplayers (hardcore anything for that matter) have a considerable amount of 'personality' invested in their idea of their hobby. That means that everything that deviates from their idea is going to create resistance from that hardcore roleplayer, wether it's reasonable or not. We've seen it here plenty of times from different edition wars to the most ridiculous flame wars. Folks saying things on the internet that would give them a black eye in the real world, there are Moderators and they have a function.

Now add early adaptor in the mix and you have a very opinionated bunch of folks that probably have very little in common with your actual target audience. Folks that don't care or want to care about the realities of business and the difficulties that go into producing a tool or game.

As for producing 'crap', crap like everything is in the eye of the beholder. I think reality shows are crap (and many with me), they have insane ratings for very little investment, that's a success for the producers and the folks that actually enjoy that kind of thing. There are many sci-fi/fantasy/noir books I really enjoy, but couldn't ever be considered literature, does that mean my enjoyment has no value?

Last week I had a discussion about the Turbine LotRO MMO move from P2P to F2P with someone who, until recently played the MMO 30 hours a week, in Beta and since Beta. He couldn't stop badmouthing the game and the company, but he didn't get that he wasn't Turbine's target audience. The difference between this and the internet RPG tool is that the casual MMO players aren't depended on the opinions of a hardcore player, they probably won't ever see that opinion. But an internet RPG tool requires those hardcore players as it is aimed at them. Not to mention that both are aimed at paying customers.

I would say that the business model was wrong in the first place because it obviously depended on reluctant customers, something you would have found out if more time was spend on research instead of using an idea from another hardcore gamer as a business plan...

As for the whole, "I can get that for free" thing, you often get what you pay for. Free things on the web are either tools to make money in other ways or they are made by fans, fans who have no obligations to continue to publish free material. The RPG business is not exactly a big money maker, if you are, your immensely lucky. If you were as lucky in say IT, you would be making even more money...

I would say that iPhone RPG apps would attract a better kind of customer, owning and using an iPhone means that you have a certain amount of money to spend and an expectation that they'll pay a small fee to use apps then your average Smartphone user. Folks that have 'hacked' their iPhone are folks that you try to avoid.

As an example of how dangerous hardcore fans can be I would like to point out what happened in the Shadowrun community, a group of fans/writers tried to sue the publisher and get the license to make Shadowrun products revoked (so that the group of fans could take over the license). Personally if I was that publisher I would really like to see those fans gone, I wouldn't particularly care about lost sales. What I'm trying to point out is that a very small group of hardcore fans was able to generate an enormous amount of commotion on the internet and reached an enormous amount of fans.


----------



## nedjer

While it's an amusing piece of scapegoating to blame CBG for marginalising tabletop RPGs, Gareth is so totally twisting your melons  

There are at least a dozen major factors working together to marginalise tabletop RPGs, including competition from videogames and access to online shared gaming. CBG is the shared responsibility of the group - it's just about possible to make a joke of those hygiene hazards.

The 'my business failed due CGB'  LMAO


----------



## Rel

I don't see much more of value coming from this thread and I think a few folks are likely to get banned if it continues.  So let's just call it a day.


----------



## Rel

And this is just me posting in a closed thread because I can.


----------



## Piratecat

Rel, stop posting in closed threads. It's bad form.


----------



## Rel

Piratecat said:


> Rel, stop posting in closed threads. It's bad form.




You got it.


----------



## Piratecat

Tis might be a good spot for a contest. First member to post in this thread after me wins a prize!


----------



## Umbran

Thankfully, I am not a member.  I know darned well the value of P-cat's "prizes"...


----------



## Rel

Piratecat said:


> Tis might be a good spot for a contest. First member to post in this thread after me wins a prize!




Is it a Peep?


----------



## Umbran

Half a Peep.  The mule got the other half.


----------



## Piratecat

Rel said:


> Is it a Peep?



Technically, I was going to push the person off a roof. Do you want in?

If not, it may default to jbear.


----------



## Rel

Piratecat said:


> Technically, I was going to push the person off a roof. Do you want in?
> 
> If not, it may default to jbear.




I've learned a lot about falling off roofs lately.  I'm game.


----------

