As much as I love some Andy Borowitz satire, I cringed at the initial though of the recent New Yorker article covering the resurrection of Dungeons & Dragons.
Upon reading it, my head hurt, I felt a little dirty, and after fears of a clueless hipster wave overtaking my logic center made me empathize with Middle Americans who thought the coasts "didn't get it," I feel a little dirtier.
D&D is booming. The Fifth Edition books have all hit the Amazon 100 and stayed there for months. Podcasts and streaming video channels with diverse and telegenic tables of players with at least capable improv ability are entertaining tens of thousands. Even game cafes in Brooklyn are suffering waitlists and trendiness among the "Games Workshop Moms" that is usually reserved for Pokemon, Beanie Babies, Wine Memes, and fashionably comfortable footwear. Plus, their push for inclusivity of all types of players and characters has pushed upon the doors to let other people into a hobby dominated with socially awkward white dudes, even if the stereotypical character tropes are simply wrapped in a rainbow banner. We're not really breaking new ground, simply expanding upon a well-prepared base.
On top of all that, I've been through 18 years of mainstream articles touting 3rd/4th/5th, the same old list of celebrity gamers, and whatever the trendiest video site is for games (with an even more judgmental nod to video games). They are really not hashing anything new I haven't seen in the local paper, or a copy of USAToday many moons ago.
A couple critiques on some of the actual writing in the article:
Calling Gygax Magazine a "once defunct" magazine in the same paragraph that mentions its launch party is confusing to anyone with half a brain cell, and insulting to everyone with more than base knowledge in gaming history. (Dragon Magazine is discontinued... Gygax Magazine tries to take up the mantle, shenanigans ensue, and while the new TSR is barely alive, Gygax Magazine could most certainly be described as currently defunct.)
Really, I don't when this whole "D&D (and RPGs in General) are Great for Autism" thing went viral to the mainstream, but did anyone look at gaming groups in the 70's, 80's, and 90's? At least half of the players in them would probably land somewhere on "The Spectrum." Of course, it can be great for many different groups of people! It's not kettlebell pilates, naked paintball, or a Gerard Depardieu fan club, it's an imaginative social activity with friends.
And finally, I don't care what your style guide demands, the trademark is for "D&D," and has been for decades, so you don't need to plaster the obnoxious and migraine-inducing "D. & D." throughout the article. It's the moniker for the brand not the abbreviation some short line railroad in eastern Idaho.
I guess in the this post-media world we're now fully entrenched in, any media coverage truly is a positive for any entity, but I can seriously say, with my nearly thirty years of general gaming, industry news, retail and manufacturing experience, and hobby history, that I had no clue where the author really wanted to go with the article after the first read-through.
And regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the angles and directions of the article, if I can't figure it out, I have concerns that the regular readers of the New Yorker will be even more flummoxed.
Upon reading it, my head hurt, I felt a little dirty, and after fears of a clueless hipster wave overtaking my logic center made me empathize with Middle Americans who thought the coasts "didn't get it," I feel a little dirtier.
D&D is booming. The Fifth Edition books have all hit the Amazon 100 and stayed there for months. Podcasts and streaming video channels with diverse and telegenic tables of players with at least capable improv ability are entertaining tens of thousands. Even game cafes in Brooklyn are suffering waitlists and trendiness among the "Games Workshop Moms" that is usually reserved for Pokemon, Beanie Babies, Wine Memes, and fashionably comfortable footwear. Plus, their push for inclusivity of all types of players and characters has pushed upon the doors to let other people into a hobby dominated with socially awkward white dudes, even if the stereotypical character tropes are simply wrapped in a rainbow banner. We're not really breaking new ground, simply expanding upon a well-prepared base.
On top of all that, I've been through 18 years of mainstream articles touting 3rd/4th/5th, the same old list of celebrity gamers, and whatever the trendiest video site is for games (with an even more judgmental nod to video games). They are really not hashing anything new I haven't seen in the local paper, or a copy of USAToday many moons ago.
A couple critiques on some of the actual writing in the article:
Calling Gygax Magazine a "once defunct" magazine in the same paragraph that mentions its launch party is confusing to anyone with half a brain cell, and insulting to everyone with more than base knowledge in gaming history. (Dragon Magazine is discontinued... Gygax Magazine tries to take up the mantle, shenanigans ensue, and while the new TSR is barely alive, Gygax Magazine could most certainly be described as currently defunct.)
Really, I don't when this whole "D&D (and RPGs in General) are Great for Autism" thing went viral to the mainstream, but did anyone look at gaming groups in the 70's, 80's, and 90's? At least half of the players in them would probably land somewhere on "The Spectrum." Of course, it can be great for many different groups of people! It's not kettlebell pilates, naked paintball, or a Gerard Depardieu fan club, it's an imaginative social activity with friends.
And finally, I don't care what your style guide demands, the trademark is for "D&D," and has been for decades, so you don't need to plaster the obnoxious and migraine-inducing "D. & D." throughout the article. It's the moniker for the brand not the abbreviation some short line railroad in eastern Idaho.
I guess in the this post-media world we're now fully entrenched in, any media coverage truly is a positive for any entity, but I can seriously say, with my nearly thirty years of general gaming, industry news, retail and manufacturing experience, and hobby history, that I had no clue where the author really wanted to go with the article after the first read-through.
And regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the angles and directions of the article, if I can't figure it out, I have concerns that the regular readers of the New Yorker will be even more flummoxed.
As much as I love some Andy Borowitz satire, I cringed at the initial though of the recent New Yorker article covering the resurrection of Dungeons & Dragons.
Upon reading it, my head hurt, I felt a little dirty, and after fears of a clueless hipster wave overtaking my logic center made me empathize with Middle Americans who thought the coasts "didn't get it," I feel a little dirtier.
D&D is booming. The Fifth Edition books have all hit the Amazon 100 and stayed there for months. Podcasts and streaming video channels with diverse and telegenic tables of players with at least capable improv ability are entertaining tens of thousands. Even game cafes in Brooklyn are suffering waitlists and trendiness among the "Games Workshop Moms" that is usually reserved for Pokemon, Beanie Babies, Wine Memes, and fashionably comfortable footwear. Plus, their push for inclusivity of all types of players and characters has pushed upon the doors to let other people into a hobby dominated with socially awkward white dudes, even if the stereotypical character tropes are simply wrapped in a rainbow banner. We're not really breaking new ground, simply expanding upon a well-prepared base.
On top of all that, I've been through 18 years of mainstream articles touting 3rd/4th/5th, the same old list of celebrity gamers, and whatever the trendiest video site is for games (with an even more judgmental nod to video games). They are really not hashing anything new I haven't seen in the local paper, or a copy of USAToday many moons ago.
A couple critiques on some of the actual writing in the article:
Calling Gygax Magazine a "once defunct" magazine in the same paragraph that mentions its launch party is confusing to anyone with half a brain cell, and insulting to everyone with more than base knowledge in gaming history. (Dragon Magazine is discontinued... Gygax Magazine tries to take up the mantle, shenanigans ensue, and while the new TSR is barely alive, Gygax Magazine could most certainly be described as currently defunct.)
Really, I don't when this whole "D&D (and RPGs in General) are Great for Autism" thing went viral to the mainstream, but did anyone look at gaming groups in the 70's, 80's, and 90's? At least half of the players in them would probably land somewhere on "The Spectrum." Of course, it can be great for many different groups of people! It's not kettlebell pilates, naked paintball, or a Gerard Depardieu fan club, it's an imaginative social activity with friends.
And finally, I don't care what your style guide demands, the trademark is for "D&D," and has been for decades, so you don't need to plaster the obnoxious and migraine-inducing "D. & D." throughout the article. It's the moniker for the brand not the abbreviation some short line railroad in eastern Idaho.
I guess in the this post-media world we're now fully entrenched in, any media coverage truly is a positive for any entity, but I can seriously say, with my nearly thirty years of general gaming, industry news, retail and manufacturing experience, and hobby history, that I had no clue where the author really wanted to go with the article after the first read-through.
And regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the angles and directions of the article, if I can't figure it out, I have concerns that the regular readers of the New Yorker will be even more flummoxed.
Upon reading it, my head hurt, I felt a little dirty, and after fears of a clueless hipster wave overtaking my logic center made me empathize with Middle Americans who thought the coasts "didn't get it," I feel a little dirtier.
D&D is booming. The Fifth Edition books have all hit the Amazon 100 and stayed there for months. Podcasts and streaming video channels with diverse and telegenic tables of players with at least capable improv ability are entertaining tens of thousands. Even game cafes in Brooklyn are suffering waitlists and trendiness among the "Games Workshop Moms" that is usually reserved for Pokemon, Beanie Babies, Wine Memes, and fashionably comfortable footwear. Plus, their push for inclusivity of all types of players and characters has pushed upon the doors to let other people into a hobby dominated with socially awkward white dudes, even if the stereotypical character tropes are simply wrapped in a rainbow banner. We're not really breaking new ground, simply expanding upon a well-prepared base.
On top of all that, I've been through 18 years of mainstream articles touting 3rd/4th/5th, the same old list of celebrity gamers, and whatever the trendiest video site is for games (with an even more judgmental nod to video games). They are really not hashing anything new I haven't seen in the local paper, or a copy of USAToday many moons ago.
A couple critiques on some of the actual writing in the article:
Calling Gygax Magazine a "once defunct" magazine in the same paragraph that mentions its launch party is confusing to anyone with half a brain cell, and insulting to everyone with more than base knowledge in gaming history. (Dragon Magazine is discontinued... Gygax Magazine tries to take up the mantle, shenanigans ensue, and while the new TSR is barely alive, Gygax Magazine could most certainly be described as currently defunct.)
Really, I don't when this whole "D&D (and RPGs in General) are Great for Autism" thing went viral to the mainstream, but did anyone look at gaming groups in the 70's, 80's, and 90's? At least half of the players in them would probably land somewhere on "The Spectrum." Of course, it can be great for many different groups of people! It's not kettlebell pilates, naked paintball, or a Gerard Depardieu fan club, it's an imaginative social activity with friends.
And finally, I don't care what your style guide demands, the trademark is for "D&D," and has been for decades, so you don't need to plaster the obnoxious and migraine-inducing "D. & D." throughout the article. It's the moniker for the brand not the abbreviation some short line railroad in eastern Idaho.
I guess in the this post-media world we're now fully entrenched in, any media coverage truly is a positive for any entity, but I can seriously say, with my nearly thirty years of general gaming, industry news, retail and manufacturing experience, and hobby history, that I had no clue where the author really wanted to go with the article after the first read-through.
And regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the angles and directions of the article, if I can't figure it out, I have concerns that the regular readers of the New Yorker will be even more flummoxed.
