D&D Summer Camp #2: D&D Killed the Board Game Star

That's what social media is. We're all on the hell platforms. And many people are extremely knee jerk protective of their hobby. Spoken as someone who doesn't even agree with the generalizations you make in this article.

Michael Barnes wrote: Twitter reactions to this have ranged from good, solid debate to complaints about how an article about finding gaming joy and rediscovering the values of a classic game with my children is “insulting”, has a “superior” tone.

To be fair it has, mildly. I made a mild complaint about that aspect of it upthread.

The problem is that folks can't see that a gentle poke in the hornet's nest is a valid, useful way of stirring up a good, productive debate as indeed it has.

Like you say, there is this odd defensiveness to a lot of nerd culture, not just board games. I guess it's rooted in the dismissive, patronising attitude the material finds in the wider world. So it's particularly unwelcome when it comes from "one of their own".

As ever, Birdman says it best.

Twitter? That seems like a crippled excuse for a discussion forum. Did they raise the character count on posts again? Too bad that we can't get more of that discussion happening here.

A well written article that generated discussion and feedback and a solid number of hits. I call it a big win.

I confess to being baffled why people would be offended by this, though I've seen board game defensiveness over and over again, so I shouldn't be too surprised. Eric Lang stepping in seems a little bush league to me too, but I didn't see the original context, so what do I know.

One thing I have noticed is how many board gamers I've met who are convinced board gaming is somehow cheaper than Magic/D&D/Warhammer, etc. I mean, it certainly CAN be, but it definitely doesn't have to be. But somehow implying that there's better value to be had in one of those big brands can get surprisingly touchy in my experience.

Matt Thrower wrote: As ever, Birdman says it best.

Preach it, brother!

san il defanso wrote: I confess to being baffled why people would be offended by this, though I've seen board game defensiveness over and over again, so I shouldn't be too surprised. Eric Lang stepping in seems a little bush league to me too, but I didn't see the original context, so what do I know.

One thing I have noticed is how many board gamers I've met who are convinced board gaming is somehow cheaper than Magic/D&D/Warhammer, etc. I mean, it certainly CAN be, but it definitely doesn't have to be. But somehow implying that there's better value to be had in one of those big brands can get surprisingly touchy in my experience.

Eric Lang works for a company that claims to offer thematic, immersive experiences in its $300 Kickstarters. If he sees this piece as a threat on that money it's a lot more telling about how successful they are at achieving that claim than anything else. Surely the box of plastic can't be beaten by a book and some pencils?

(it can, it absolutely can, CMON can eat it)

san il defanso wrote: I confess to being baffled why people would be offended by this, though I've seen board game defensiveness over and over again, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

Because it's a threat to their worldview.

To many boardgamers this kind of articles feel like an attack on their identity. In their mind, it puts them in a bad spot. If you consider yourself a gaming expert because you own 300$ Kickstarter games, the idea that RPGs are better use of your time makes you look like a fool. It threatens to take your "gaming status" away.

That the article involves actual children is like rubbing salt on the wound. Not only is your gamer social status being challenged, it's being challenged by children. Many boardgamers talk about how RPGs are too complex, or too difficult to enjoy. Accepting that D&D isn't actually difficult or overly complex makes them, on their very own eyes, look like idiots.

And Barnes is not insulting them. He's not calling anyone names or anything. But, in the eyes of this kind of people, he's opening the door to questioning. It's like how people get very upset when someone says they don't drink, or that they are vegan or that they are an atheist. It's not the idea that offends people, it's the possibility of being wrong. After all, if Barnes has fun with his kids, can they really say their way is the best?

I've mentioned this before, but my most controversial articles haven't been my contrarian takes on games. Nobody has fought tooth and nail to argue with me about GTA V or This War of Mine. But some people got very upset when I wrote an analysis of Team Fortress 2's themes. Because game criticism and in-depth analysis of games is a bigger threat than some dude complaining about a game. One is easier to dismiss than the other.

As for Mr Lang, I don't know what he expects. He himself has gone on extensively on record about CMON being a "component-driven company" and how he designes games first and foremost to look great on the table. If he didn't want to wear the shoe, well, he shouldn't have so carefully made it. As much as I might respect Mr Lang as a designer, he's really out of place there.

I must also say that the guy talking about how children are developmentally incapable is scary and reminds me of the teachers in school that made me read books twice because I "couldn't have read that fast".

Where are people even seeing this conversation? I didn't see it on Twitter?

Yeah, someone give us a link. The world wonders.

OK, yeah. I feel like these people read a different article than I did. But I'm in much the same place as Barnes here so I'm pretty biased

Anyone not willing to be relentlessly positive about board games all the time will ultimately be rejected as the enemy in this hobby. It's what makes board game Twitter and /r/boardgames so exhausting.

I've noticed an explosion in expensive, detailed, expensive, fancy, expensive, very limited use (and did I mention expensive?) minis and RPG "scenery" which has got to be a reactionary thing to just how much $$$ folks are willing to pay for board games with fancy bits. RPGs have always been about lots of books but even then, a complete series probably still wouldn't touch a modest KS minis game. So now we have "mad scientist lab set" and some sort of $200 pirate ship thing! I remember playing with a buddies box of pewter minis and we used proxies for EVERYTHING. About the only thing you tried to do was get a mini that looks a bit like your character (or, more often, designed a character to resemble a mini we already had). But now you can get minis and scenery sets to go with a one shot adventure!

So I'm not sure the plastic mini market sees RPGs as a threat, more like a direct line to folks who will willingly forego those annoying half-baked games rules just to get to the pretty bits!