The paper of record found out that lots of people play D&D now, as they seem to do every few years. Not the most insightful article, but at least they’re not saying we’re all devil-worshipping nerds. I assume this means D&D is over.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I think you can read 1 article for free per day if you’re a member and get their newsletter. It was a puff piece, no meat & potatoes, but no poison either.
Turning off JavaScript gets you a long way on some sites. <cough>
Archiving the website on the waybackmachine and then reading it from there also works <cough>
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
For starters, just wanted to echo what XXXGammaRay said; speaking from the perspective of having family in the print journalism industry, it is a really, really hard time to be a newspaper. Not only do you have to compete with 24-hour news, you now have to compete with folks’ primary source of news - social media and the less-than-reputable “news” sources that prefer clickbait and views over journalistic ethics and paying a fleet of global sources.
As for the article itself, it’s a perfectly serviceable puff piece, though it probably could have done a better job discussing recent developments, rather than quotes from 2018 and the influence of TikTok on D&D’s ever-rising popularity (which should be part of the article, but was really last year’s news). Recent changes to make the game more inclusive (discussed as of Strahd, but not really delving into changes over this past year); the success of Legend of Vox Machina, both in terms of Kickstarter and it’s fairly high viewership and rating; Hasbro’s acquisition of D&D Beyond due to how profitable and popular the site has become - plenty of very recent developments worth discussing, if they didn’t want their article to feel about a year dated.
Terrific article! It's in the Style section too, and it's a long dive into what the article points out is the significant cultural impact and these days, popularity, of D&D. This isn't a "puff piece", it's yet another sign that D&D is a mainstream American cultural force.
Terrific article! It's in the Style section too, and it's a long dive into what the article points out is the significant cultural impact and these days, popularity, of D&D. This isn't a "puff piece", it's yet another sign that D&D is a mainstream American cultural force.
Except for the fact that the Times already published a better version of the article back in 2019 (even before the COVID surge of tabletop gaming) - except the 2019 article was actual journalism going through the reasons for D&D’s increased popularity, not just a series of quotes thrown together and called an article.
The reality is that D&D has been a recognised cultural force for a while - and certainly since Stranger Things gave it a massive boost toward becoming mainstream. Therein lies my problem with the article - it didn’t actually say anything that hasn’t been said for years, despite there being a lot of significant developments over the past few months alone which are worthy of discussion.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
Good journalism deserves compensation, but this was a lazy puff piece that looks like it could have been written 20 years ago aside from the references to social media.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
Good journalism deserves compensation, but this was a lazy puff piece that looks like it could have been written 20 years ago aside from the references to social media.
That is like no different from saying Beyond charging for TCOE's variable ASIs is dumb because it is so easy to just do it ourselves in homebrew. When you subscribe to NYT, you get the whole package. And while some articles may be no-brainers and their authors are captain obvious' for you, that might not be so for many other people.
As for the article being a puff piece, I do agree that I did not really learn anything valuable either, but this puff piece probably is not written for you. Edelgard von Hresvelg is one of my favorite Fire Emblem characters, and she is a cold blooded serial killer and a tyrannical *******, but she is very charismatic and I could connect with her backstory and motivation. She clicks with me in a way that her rivals do not, and I could read and talk about her for ages. To many Fire Emblem fans though, reading anything about her that does not condemn her will read too much like a propoganda puff piece trying to justify her actions. Sometimes, the primary purpose of an article is not to inform, but to evoke emotions and validation, and that validation is important to some people.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
Good journalism deserves compensation, but this was a lazy puff piece that looks like it could have been written 20 years ago aside from the references to social media.
That is like no different from saying Beyond charging for TCOE's variable ASIs is dumb because it is so easy to just do it ourselves in homebrew. When you subscribe to NYT, you get the whole package. And while some articles may be no-brainers and their authors are captain obvious' for you, that might not be so for many other people.
The point is not whether or not I could write a better article. Though I could. The point is that this is such a minimal effort in journalism. This article is virtually a copy-paste of articles that have been written about D&D for the last 20 years, which despite what Boomers seem to persist in thinking was when the franchise truly went mainstream.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
Good journalism deserves compensation, but this was a lazy puff piece that looks like it could have been written 20 years ago aside from the references to social media.
That is like no different from saying Beyond charging for TCOE's variable ASIs is dumb because it is so easy to just do it ourselves in homebrew. When you subscribe to NYT, you get the whole package. And while some articles may be no-brainers and their authors are captain obvious' for you, that might not be so for many other people.
The point is not whether or not I could write a better article. Though I could. The point is that this is such a minimal effort in journalism. This article is virtually a copy-paste of articles that have been written about D&D for the last 20 years, which despite what Boomers seem to persist in thinking was when the franchise truly went mainstream.
What one sees as minimal effort could be seen as another person passionately writing about their hobby. As I have already stated, this article probably was not written for you, it was meant for people who want to feel good about enjoying D&D and want some kind of validation.
I find most articles on the Fire Emblem series to be tremendously boring and equally as uninformative. Even most indepth tactical and stragetic analyses on Fire Emblem Heroes written by fellow veteran players are not particularly helpful to me because I already know about them and they are targeted to a more casual audience; a journalist stands no chance of writing an article that would satisfy my needs even if they happen to love Fire Emblem. What I find valuable instead are the experiences and feedback from the highest level of competitive players, and they are usually not journalists.
I think the issue though, XXXGammaRay, is where it was published. It’s not on BuzzFeed or some article on a gaming forum - somewhere to expect writing for limited audiences. It is the Times, a newspaper with such pedigree that you can just say “the Times” and, despite there being many “[City Name] Times” papers out there, everyone knows which paper you are referencing.
Though “throw a bunch of quotes together and call it an article” is an increasingly common writing style among many modern internet, it isn’t exactly something you expect from the Times. You certainly don’t expect the Times to publish something where the very first quote undermines their thesis - if their thesis is that D&D is now mainstream, starting with a quote saying it was mainstream in 2018 is a some thing I expect from a lesser publication or even a forum post.
As I noted earlier, what I would expect from the Times is something like their coverage of the exact same story three years ago. That story did what you expect from a real newspaper - it contained in-references to alignment and spells and “feel good” quotes for fans; it contained a history and summary of the game for those unfamiliar; and, most importantly of all, it covered emergent trends in the game so the reader actually learned something new. That ability to write for all audiences, not just one at a time, is what one should expect out of a paper that has won just a bit under twice the Pulitzers as it’s next closest rival (the Post).
I think what really makes this article a miss - there’s lots going on in D&D right now. The 2019 article talked of D&D’s plans for greater inclusivity and early implementation - we’ve seen a lot change on that front. We saw the effect of COVID on D&D and the industry as a whole. The rise of TikTok in D&D. The kickstarter and critical success of Vox Machina. The recent purchase of Beyond. Hasbro activism investors seeking to spin-off Wizards. Etc.
Theres a real article out there - one that isn’t just “written for a segment of the population”, but instead “written for the entire population.” And therein lies my disappointment - this would be fine on something like BuzzFeed, but it’s simply beneath the Times’ stature.
I think the issue though, XXXGammaRay, is where it was published. It’s not on BuzzFeed or some article on a gaming forum - somewhere to expect writing for limited audiences. It is the Times, a newspaper with such pedigree that you can just say “the Times” and, despite there being many “[City Name] Times” papers out there, everyone knows which paper you are referencing.
...
Theres a real article out there - one that isn’t just “written for a segment of the population”, but instead “written for the entire population.” And therein lies my disappointment - this would be fine on something like BuzzFeed, but it’s simply beneath the Times’ stature.
I think the article is fine for what it is. While I agree that the NYT is one of the most prestigious newspaper out there, this article is also in the Styles section next to topics like celebrities, roof top parties, and fashion. If an article is in the Sports, Arts, Styles, etc. sections, I do not have the same expectation from them as an article from the News, Business, and Science section.
There is a difference in substance between the serious sections and the less serious sections of the newspaper. I skim the headlines at best for the less serious sections, if not outright ignore it; those sections are clearly not written with an audience like you or me in mind.
I think the issue though, XXXGammaRay, is where it was published. It’s not on BuzzFeed or some article on a gaming forum - somewhere to expect writing for limited audiences. It is the Times, a newspaper with such pedigree that you can just say “the Times” and, despite there being many “[City Name] Times” papers out there, everyone knows which paper you are referencing.
...
Theres a real article out there - one that isn’t just “written for a segment of the population”, but instead “written for the entire population.” And therein lies my disappointment - this would be fine on something like BuzzFeed, but it’s simply beneath the Times’ stature.
I think the article is fine for what it is. While I agree that the NYT is one of the most prestigious newspaper out there, this article is also in the Styles section next to topics like celebrities, roof top parties, and fashion. If an article is in the Sports, Arts, Styles, etc. sections, I do not have the same expectation from them as an article from the News, Business, and Science section.
There is a difference in substance between the serious sections and the less serious sections of the newspaper. I skim the headlines at best for the less serious sections, if not outright ignore it; those sections are clearly not written with an audience like you or me in mind.
Wit’s respect, for your post to be valid, one has to take a rather dismissive view of the Style section and the journalists who work there, effectively writing them off as less important than serious journalism and thus allowing them to get by with bad writing - and, again, an article that points out it is four years out-of-date with its first quote is objectively bad writing.
Browse through the Style section and the majority of the articles you will see ARE real articles - they talk about current events in fashion, film, and gossip or are current “feel good” anecdotes or personal stories… and hard hitting pieces on the rise of fentanyl and crypto issues. The Style section isn’t generally my cup of tea - but that doesn’t mean it should be seen as lesser or held to a lower standard to their more serious journalism (with the possible exception of horoscope articles, which are such an engrained part of newspapers I think we can cast some forgiveness).
But, I also grew up in a household with a parent who wrote for internationally recognised papers, so I’ll admit to some bias against and engrained disdain for the “let’s just collect a bunch of social media quotes and call it an article” method of “journalism” that seems to be increasingly common.
Which is still to say that I am glad D&D is getting creature cultural recognition with each passing year; but there’s just so many interesting and discussion-worthy things going on in the game, it seems a shame that greater attention was not paid to actual, useful information in this particular article.
Please note that this is not the place to discuss models of print news. If you wish to discuss such topics, please take them to our off topic forum. Thank you
Terrific article! It's in the Style section too, and it's a long dive into what the article points out is the significant cultural impact and these days, popularity, of D&D. This isn't a "puff piece", it's yet another sign that D&D is a mainstream American cultural force.
Except for the fact that the Times already published a better version of the article back in 2019 (even before the COVID surge of tabletop gaming) - except the 2019 article was actual journalism going through the reasons for D&D’s increased popularity, not just a series of quotes thrown together and called an article.
The reality is that D&D has been a recognised cultural force for a while - and certainly since Stranger Things gave it a massive boost toward becoming mainstream. Therein lies my problem with the article - it didn’t actually say anything that hasn’t been said for years, despite there being a lot of significant developments over the past few months alone which are worthy of discussion.
Hi,
You're right, but l think you and a lot of posters here didn't seem to notice this is an article in the 'Style' section. So you're right, it's not a deep dive into history or what one might call "actual journalism". And just to point out, articles like these and lots of other kinds will hit mainstream media more and more as D&D is now mainstream. VERY mainstream. It's an American cultural phenomenon. That's just how the media operates.
And as someone who reads a lot of journalism I wish to point out that FOXnews, et al, will bring back the 'Satan worshipping' crap one of these days. Likely when that movie comes out. I bet anyone here three thousand quatloos.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The paper of record found out that lots of people play D&D now, as they seem to do every few years. Not the most insightful article, but at least they’re not saying we’re all devil-worshipping nerds. I assume this means D&D is over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/style/dungeons-and-dragons.html
Yeah, I saw that the other day. No, it really wasn’t a very insightful article, but it wasn’t a smear campaign either, as you said.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I remember you linked that one Sposta, but the Times bounces anybody that doesn't pay them a billion dollars a minute. Sad. They already plaster their articles with seven thousand annoying pointless ads, feels like they could let people occasionally read the news without demanding princely sums.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think you can read 1 article for free per day if you’re a member and get their newsletter. It was a puff piece, no meat & potatoes, but no poison either.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think they give 5/month for free or I wouldn’t have bothered linking to it.
But there really wasn’t much to it.
Turning off JavaScript gets you a long way on some sites. <cough>
Archiving the website on the waybackmachine and then reading it from there also works <cough>
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
I hate to say this to you, but good journalism deserves at least as much compensation as game designers, if not more so given the current state of domestic and world affairs, and its critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy.
That being said, the good news (pun intended) is that there are plenty of quality sources out there not locked behind a paywall. PBS/NPR is free and is mostly funded by the American public, and it got lots of very high quality programs on top of news; the BBC would be the British equivalent. Off the top of my head, Al Jazeera, Associated Press, Politico, and USA Today all got high quality reporting too, and they are free or mostly free.
Many public libaries also got free access to the New York Times. If you are in California, I believe you can get free access without actually being in the library physically if you have a library card and register online first in the library.
— — — — — — —
As for the article itself, I feel the first sentence to be the total opposite of my experience. I do not know anybody else that plays D&D besides my friends and I. While a former coworker plays D&D and that piqued my interest in D&D, I do not know her very well and I have not found anyone else who plays.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
For starters, just wanted to echo what XXXGammaRay said; speaking from the perspective of having family in the print journalism industry, it is a really, really hard time to be a newspaper. Not only do you have to compete with 24-hour news, you now have to compete with folks’ primary source of news - social media and the less-than-reputable “news” sources that prefer clickbait and views over journalistic ethics and paying a fleet of global sources.
As for the article itself, it’s a perfectly serviceable puff piece, though it probably could have done a better job discussing recent developments, rather than quotes from 2018 and the influence of TikTok on D&D’s ever-rising popularity (which should be part of the article, but was really last year’s news). Recent changes to make the game more inclusive (discussed as of Strahd, but not really delving into changes over this past year); the success of Legend of Vox Machina, both in terms of Kickstarter and it’s fairly high viewership and rating; Hasbro’s acquisition of D&D Beyond due to how profitable and popular the site has become - plenty of very recent developments worth discussing, if they didn’t want their article to feel about a year dated.
Terrific article! It's in the Style section too, and it's a long dive into what the article points out is the significant cultural impact and these days, popularity, of D&D. This isn't a "puff piece", it's yet another sign that D&D is a mainstream American cultural force.
Except for the fact that the Times already published a better version of the article back in 2019 (even before the COVID surge of tabletop gaming) - except the 2019 article was actual journalism going through the reasons for D&D’s increased popularity, not just a series of quotes thrown together and called an article.
The reality is that D&D has been a recognised cultural force for a while - and certainly since Stranger Things gave it a massive boost toward becoming mainstream. Therein lies my problem with the article - it didn’t actually say anything that hasn’t been said for years, despite there being a lot of significant developments over the past few months alone which are worthy of discussion.
Good journalism deserves compensation, but this was a lazy puff piece that looks like it could have been written 20 years ago aside from the references to social media.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is like no different from saying Beyond charging for TCOE's variable ASIs is dumb because it is so easy to just do it ourselves in homebrew. When you subscribe to NYT, you get the whole package. And while some articles may be no-brainers and their authors are captain obvious' for you, that might not be so for many other people.
As for the article being a puff piece, I do agree that I did not really learn anything valuable either, but this puff piece probably is not written for you. Edelgard von Hresvelg is one of my favorite Fire Emblem characters, and she is a cold blooded serial killer and a tyrannical *******, but she is very charismatic and I could connect with her backstory and motivation. She clicks with me in a way that her rivals do not, and I could read and talk about her for ages. To many Fire Emblem fans though, reading anything about her that does not condemn her will read too much like a propoganda puff piece trying to justify her actions. Sometimes, the primary purpose of an article is not to inform, but to evoke emotions and validation, and that validation is important to some people.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The point is not whether or not I could write a better article. Though I could. The point is that this is such a minimal effort in journalism. This article is virtually a copy-paste of articles that have been written about D&D for the last 20 years, which despite what Boomers seem to persist in thinking was when the franchise truly went mainstream.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What one sees as minimal effort could be seen as another person passionately writing about their hobby. As I have already stated, this article probably was not written for you, it was meant for people who want to feel good about enjoying D&D and want some kind of validation.
I find most articles on the Fire Emblem series to be tremendously boring and equally as uninformative. Even most indepth tactical and stragetic analyses on Fire Emblem Heroes written by fellow veteran players are not particularly helpful to me because I already know about them and they are targeted to a more casual audience; a journalist stands no chance of writing an article that would satisfy my needs even if they happen to love Fire Emblem. What I find valuable instead are the experiences and feedback from the highest level of competitive players, and they are usually not journalists.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think the issue though, XXXGammaRay, is where it was published. It’s not on BuzzFeed or some article on a gaming forum - somewhere to expect writing for limited audiences. It is the Times, a newspaper with such pedigree that you can just say “the Times” and, despite there being many “[City Name] Times” papers out there, everyone knows which paper you are referencing.
Though “throw a bunch of quotes together and call it an article” is an increasingly common writing style among many modern internet, it isn’t exactly something you expect from the Times. You certainly don’t expect the Times to publish something where the very first quote undermines their thesis - if their thesis is that D&D is now mainstream, starting with a quote saying it was mainstream in 2018 is a some thing I expect from a lesser publication or even a forum post.
As I noted earlier, what I would expect from the Times is something like their coverage of the exact same story three years ago. That story did what you expect from a real newspaper - it contained in-references to alignment and spells and “feel good” quotes for fans; it contained a history and summary of the game for those unfamiliar; and, most importantly of all, it covered emergent trends in the game so the reader actually learned something new. That ability to write for all audiences, not just one at a time, is what one should expect out of a paper that has won just a bit under twice the Pulitzers as it’s next closest rival (the Post).
I think what really makes this article a miss - there’s lots going on in D&D right now. The 2019 article talked of D&D’s plans for greater inclusivity and early implementation - we’ve seen a lot change on that front. We saw the effect of COVID on D&D and the industry as a whole. The rise of TikTok in D&D. The kickstarter and critical success of Vox Machina. The recent purchase of Beyond. Hasbro activism investors seeking to spin-off Wizards. Etc.
Theres a real article out there - one that isn’t just “written for a segment of the population”, but instead “written for the entire population.” And therein lies my disappointment - this would be fine on something like BuzzFeed, but it’s simply beneath the Times’ stature.
I think the article is fine for what it is. While I agree that the NYT is one of the most prestigious newspaper out there, this article is also in the Styles section next to topics like celebrities, roof top parties, and fashion. If an article is in the Sports, Arts, Styles, etc. sections, I do not have the same expectation from them as an article from the News, Business, and Science section.
There is a difference in substance between the serious sections and the less serious sections of the newspaper. I skim the headlines at best for the less serious sections, if not outright ignore it; those sections are clearly not written with an audience like you or me in mind.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Wit’s respect, for your post to be valid, one has to take a rather dismissive view of the Style section and the journalists who work there, effectively writing them off as less important than serious journalism and thus allowing them to get by with bad writing - and, again, an article that points out it is four years out-of-date with its first quote is objectively bad writing.
Browse through the Style section and the majority of the articles you will see ARE real articles - they talk about current events in fashion, film, and gossip or are current “feel good” anecdotes or personal stories… and hard hitting pieces on the rise of fentanyl and crypto issues. The Style section isn’t generally my cup of tea - but that doesn’t mean it should be seen as lesser or held to a lower standard to their more serious journalism (with the possible exception of horoscope articles, which are such an engrained part of newspapers I think we can cast some forgiveness).
But, I also grew up in a household with a parent who wrote for internationally recognised papers, so I’ll admit to some bias against and engrained disdain for the “let’s just collect a bunch of social media quotes and call it an article” method of “journalism” that seems to be increasingly common.
Which is still to say that I am glad D&D is getting creature cultural recognition with each passing year; but there’s just so many interesting and discussion-worthy things going on in the game, it seems a shame that greater attention was not paid to actual, useful information in this particular article.
Please note that this is not the place to discuss models of print news. If you wish to discuss such topics, please take them to our off topic forum. Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Hi,
You're right, but l think you and a lot of posters here didn't seem to notice this is an article in the 'Style' section. So you're right, it's not a deep dive into history or what one might call "actual journalism". And just to point out, articles like these and lots of other kinds will hit mainstream media more and more as D&D is now mainstream. VERY mainstream. It's an American cultural phenomenon. That's just how the media operates.
And as someone who reads a lot of journalism I wish to point out that FOXnews, et al, will bring back the 'Satan worshipping' crap one of these days. Likely when that movie comes out. I bet anyone here three thousand quatloos.