Is "I Hit It With My Axe" a success?

[Z(ombie)fan]

normally when i say "it makes my eyes want to to vomit its so bad..." im exagerating...

thats how bad it is.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

it's a bit like game dogs: a solid idea(Saturday morning cartoons for game dogs and porn for IHIWMA), got off to a huge start, then slowly people realized it wasn't that great. I still have no idea how they found these people, got them to play D&D and not have sex related to it, managed to pitch it to the escapist staff without them saying "that's a horrible idea", and then air it to people saying "It's worse then game dogs!"

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I personally can't tolerate IHIWMA, but I wouldn't say I gave it a fair chance. I don't play D&D or any kind of table-top RPG, and the little bit of the show I saw wasn't appealing in anyway I could perceive.

That said... I think the OP's logic is a little flawed. I agree that it's important for the community to provide ample feedback to the site developers to let them know what we do and don't like. But the Publisher's Club is an opt-in mechanism, those who pay have the right (and to a really short extent, a responsibility) to make it known what they believe is best for the site. Those of us who aren't in the Club [yet] don't really have any right to make demands about what content should and should not be on the site.

 

[outcast_within]

I gave it a chance since i saw some boobies on a pic. But didn't delivered.

Bring back U-realms plz.

 

[wolfy098]

I gave it a chance since i saw some boobies on a pic. But didn't delivered.

Bring back U-realms plz.

apparently Unforgotten realms is restarting at urealms.com
so that is feasible...

 

[Pygmalion696]

Right now, with me, it's a failure. Watching anyone else play D&D (regardless of whether they're a Pornstar or an Accountant) is like watching an Action Thriller movie played at 1/4-speed. Whatever excitement or suspense is felt by the participants does NOT translate to the observers.

As Pen/Paper RPGs are mostly an intellectual exercise, the series could possibly be improved with some interview episodes. Perhaps an interview with Sabbath about the challenges of creating a campaign for an all-female group of players (many of whom look to be novice players), or interviews with the individual players about their characters' backstories, or interviews with the players about how well they grasp the rule mechanics.

Sure, you're dealing with personalities who are mostly accustomed to appearing on-camera under a false persona, but an episode or two that required them to speak purely as themselves might be interesting.

 

[Cody211282]

I really don't like it. Watching someone play Dungeons & Dragons, especially cutting in and out as it does, is horrible. I also feel slightly stereotyped that, as a gamer and therefore most probably a nerd, I get excited by porn stars playing Dungeons & Dragons, which are obviously my two favouritest things ever.

Sure, porn stars might like to play it, good for them. But I really don't want to watch a video of it.

I don't feel that it really adds to the community as other video series' have. It's just another thing I do my best to ignore.

I completly agree with what you said.
The other problem I had is I never found it well....good, honestly it isn't funny and its not fun to watch. But i did like reading Shamus's D&D Campaign he has on his website. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=290

 

[outcast_within]

So what is the show really about?
Someone actually following the show?

 

[DoW Lowen]

It's no Dolareous & Associates, however I like it significantly better than Game Dogs.

EDIT: However, besides ZP my favorite series on here has and always will be "there will be brawl" despite the shitty ending.

 

[Crops]

As Pen/Paper RPGs are mostly an intellectual exercise, the series could possibly be improved with some interview episodes. Perhaps an interview with Sabbath about the challenges of creating a campaign for an all-female group of players (many of whom look to be novice players), or interviews with the individual players about their characters' backstories, or interviews with the players about how well they grasp the rule mechanics.

Sure, you're dealing with personalities who are mostly accustomed to appearing on-camera under a false persona, but an episode or two that required them to speak purely as themselves might be interesting.

It's already stated in the first episode that everyone (except Sasha Grey) is an experienced player.
Zak has been writing about this a while before it aired on the Escapist at his blog, where he goes much further in-depth than in the videos.
Also, there have been interviews before the show aired.
This one, for example explains a few bits about how Satine Phoenix feels towards their play style, the rule mechanics etc.

Even though no one seems to be getting over the whole pornstar bit, no one went around handpicking pornstars to toss into the environment. This really just is a group of DnD players in a fun campaign, who happen to be in the industry.

 

[PhiMed]

Users of this site do not have the privelege of seeing views. Comments are the only proxy we have for viewership. If I'm wrong, and views are in fact increasing as the series progresses, then this is a poor proxy, but it's the only one we really have.



I've already stated that if a series is good for the escapist, then I'm all for it, regardless of whether it's my cup of tea. If the show is a runaway hit, then my opinion is slightly less important than Roger Ebert's. Since people frequently use phrases like, "not for everybody" and "minority appeal" when talking about this show, however, I get the feeling that's not the case.

An assumption you're basing on the comments, your "proxy" for viewership, thus my previous point.

And Zero Punctuation, given Yahtzee's...shall we say, colorful, language...isn't for everyone, either. Just like Unskippable isn't for everyone, Doraleous isn't for everyone, Rebecca Mayes isn't for everyone. Something doesn't have to be a pet project to be quirky or distinctive, and not everyone is going to grok everything on the site. That's why we offer a lot of different stuff, so that people have the best chance of finding something that really connects with them.

Ultimately, I don't have a problem with you asking the question "Assuming Project X is doing poorly, do we have the right to have a say in it," merely pointing out the error in your assumptions. If you just want to roll your eyes at me and say "Ok, ok, fine, let's say for the sake of argument only ten people watch Axe every week, can we get on with it now?" that works, too. I get that a lot.

I don't think anyone's made the case that Zero Punctuation has "minority appeal", but point taken with the rest of your examples.

I did roll my eyes a bit, but it's okay. I still think you're neat.

 

[PhiMed]

I'd like to begin by saying that I did not start this thread so that detractors and fans could have a flame war. I started this to have a discussion on whether this series has a future.

I don't follow that many shows on the Escapist, but the few that I do have shown the following trend: Huge numbers of comments for the first episode or two, an abrupt drop-off, then a steady exponential increase in comments until each episode brings in at least 500-600 comments each week (more if it's a particularly popular episode).

Now, I realize that comments don't necessarily correlate exactly with views, but I couldn't help but notice a trend in the comments for I Hit It With My Axe. I looked at the number of comments at noon on the Friday after release for each episode, and this is what I saw.

Episode 1: 353
Episode 2: 255
Episode 3: 103
Episode 4: 90
Episode 5: 95
Episode 6: 60

Now, that's a pretty clear downward trend, and I'd like to point out that many of the comments on episodes 4-6 are by people with double and single digit post counts whose only posts have been on IHIWMA episodes, some of whom are actually involved with production of the series.

Obviously, a site is only as good as its community and its original content. If this series will attract traffic, that's good for the Escapist, so I'm happy. It appears a few people are joining the site just to comment on these videos, but even assuming these are all legitimate new members who are enthusiastic about the show, overall interest seems pretty low, and it looks like its getting lower. This is paid content, and considering the fact that the Escapist is asking us to pay for the Publisher's Club, I think the community's opinion is important regarding what types of paid content the editors should green light.

So I ask, is this good for the Escapist? Now that we're being asked to help pay for it, is this worth it?

I personally think I Hit It With My Axe is the best content The Escapist has ever had, for all sorts of reasons (that I won't go into because it's getting off-topic and would require a small thesis that I don't have time for - this post as-is is lengthy enough). The only problem with it in my view is that one day it will end. It's obviously a show with minority appeal, but that doesn't make it "bad" per se. Perhaps it's not trying to appeal to everyone? Is popularity the only indicator of something worthwhile?

I think people should be more tolerant. For example, I think Game Dogs is absolutely awful but I'm not going to campaign for its removal, if other people like that kind of thing they're welcome to it, I just choose not to watch it these days because for me its entertainment value is zero. If someone doesn't like I Hit It With My Axe, they can always not watch it. Your argument is a bit like saying "because some shows are less popular than others, they should remove the shows that aren't popular, because we're paying". All well and good from a marketing perspective, but a TV channel that doesn't occasionally cater to different audience tastes gets pretty bland and monotonous.

Keep in mind as well that I Hit It With My Axe would have cost peanuts to make, so it's hardly a drain on The Escapist's resources or anything. The whole "these people being paid money to bring us this content could have been bringing us something else instead" argument doesn't cut it given how little effort would have actually been involved in getting the series up and running. You could probably make ten I Hit It With My Axe episodes with the amount of labour that would be needed to create one Game Dogs, Dorealus or ZP. It's bonus material. Whining about it is kind of like eating a great restaurant meal and complaining that the after-dinner mint tastes bad.

Glad you like the show. I would like to respectfully request that you chill out. I didn't say anything derogatory about any of the people involved, so your message of tolerance is a little over-the-top.

I'm quite chilled. I wasn't talking about the people involved, or suggesting that you were making any observations about that. I was referring to tolerance of existence of the show itself, not the people in it.

Your OP suggests that because you don't like the show, and you feel that the show isn't popular (basing this on the number of forum comments), you question the show's worth. I'm suggesting in response that a show's worth should not necessarily be tied to its popularity, and that tolerance for the less-popular content should be encouraged, as this is part of what makes a media content provider's content more interesting.

You may be chilled now, but you weren't so much before. "Whining" isn't a word I usually use to describe someone's behavior when I'm trying to formulate a measured response that will not evoke anger. Perhaps you have a different style, but that's off-topic.

I never stated an opinion on the show in my OP. Although I admit I'm not a fan, I'd like you to re-read my OP and find anywhere this was stated outright. My OP also said that I know that forum comments do not correspond precisely to views, so reiterating this is redundant. All I said is that it could be used as a proxy. The staff has data on the hits, so they know the full story. I'm not staff, and neither are you, so we don't know.

Feeling my OP was verging on tl;dr for this type of topic, I actually deleted an entire paragraph asking how much leeway a series should be given in terms of low viewership before the plug is pulled. Some series that have a low number of viewers should be given the benefit of the doubt, of course, while others should be kept on a shorter chain. Which type of show this is is up for debate. You've already made it known which side you fall on.

While this is a site that offers original videos, I question its status as a "media content provider", especially regarding your analogy to a television station that you made earlier. This is a niche site. It caters to a specific interest: games. While a network like, say, NBC or the BBC, should have a wide variety of programming so that as many interests as possible can be represented, this is a completely different situation. If a niche show is very unpopular on a site that caters specifically to that niche, one has to question where it will find viewers if not on a site created to attract its target audience.

Virgil, while not exactly providing a tag line for the Publisher's Club, made the point that the staff feels passionately for tabletop gaming. I also enjoy tabletop gaming, and I'm glad they're pushing for content to promote it. I just think it probably could've been done without catering to some of the strongest negative stereotypes about male gamers that there are. It's also not necessarily a bad thing if the ideas guy and the production guy are different people.

I've been pretty chilled right from the word go, honest I have. Maybe I just use stronger language than is necessary sometimes, sorry about that. I have a habit of doing that actually, it's probably a trait I've learned from my workplace.

It's true that you didn't state your opinion about I Hit It With My Axe directly in the OP, but you didn't have to. It's not difficult to read between the lines of your OP and deduce that you're not a fan of the show.

I guess that's secondary to the point your making though, which is, should the plug be pulled on content (of any type) which isn't popular? My answer to that is always going to be no.

I work in the music industry, with record labels. A record label's goal is to get one big monster ************ hit artist release every year. They want to get that Taylor Swift, Norah Jones or Lady GaGa album that shifts millions of units and tons of associated merchandise going, plus the tour etc. Once they've got all of that, then they have a sustainable financial base from which they can work from. At that point, the label can start taking chances. It can throw some money at some less marketable artists and build them up, it can sign a band from your town and see how they perform, or they can throw some money at some really unmarketable stuff that is never going to be big simply because one of two guys in the office feel that what they're doing is a stroke of genius, or just for the sake of expanding the portfolio, or having bragging rights down at the pub ("Sasha Grey has an album coming out with us!") that makes the label look "hip" by association even if no-one actually buys the thing (yes labels do this all the time), or countless other reasons which I won't go into here but could list endlessly. I was responsible for getting some stuff signed to one label that the label never would have touched, including a band that sounds like Municipal Waste, but with really hilarious (to me) misogynistic lyrics. Did it sell? Not really, we barely made our money back on that one. Did it offend some people? You bet. Did we pull the pin on the band's contract? No. Why did we sign then up? Because I like their stuff, I think it's hilarious. If work can't be fun sometimes, what's the point? I don't want everything on the label to sound like Norah Jones, and I don't want to walk in the door and be bored every day.

This site's big cash cow (I'm guessing - I don't really know) is ZP. Assuming that I'm right, because of ZP, The Escapist has probably been able to hire extra staff, maybe upgrade their computers, and expand their portfolios into different things. Now they can do extra fun stuff, like releasing an incredibly cheap, fun-to-make series of a bunch of pornstars (and a stripper, and a hairdresser) sitting down and playing D&D. The people involved are obviously having a ball with it, that can only be a good thing. It's a little pocket of genuine fun times brought to you by a niche industry (computer games) with a reputation for snarkiness, unpaid overtime and the humour of a goat (not referring to The Escapist here, just the rep of the industry generally). Hell, I would have done something like I Hit It With My Axe if I had thought of it first.

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass, is there any possibility that some of the things you mentioned (primarily the bragging rights example) could be contributing to the fact that the record label is dying as a business model? Just saying...

I'm not saying that art (or media, whatever one wants to call it) that producers have no expectation of generating big sales lack a place in the world, and I understand that successful acts pay the way for experimental ones. As Susan pointed out, I don't even know that this show is low on viewers (thus the question mark at the end of the title, "Is IHIWMA a success?"), so the point may be moot.

I would say, though, that if you really believe that content should never be cancelled because of low audience interest, that's kind of an idealist philosophy. One could say an extremely unrealistic one.

 

[Pygmalion696]

It's already stated in the first episode that everyone (except Sasha Grey) is an experienced player.
Zak has been writing about this a while before it aired on the Escapist at his blog, where he goes much further in-depth than in the videos.
Also, there have been interviews before the show aired.
This one, for example explains a few bits about how Satine Phoenix feels towards their play style, the rule mechanics etc.

Even though no one seems to be getting over the whole pornstar bit, no one went around handpicking pornstars to toss into the environment. This really just is a group of DnD players in a fun campaign, who happen to be in the industry.

That's all fine and good, but I was trying to offer constructive ideas on what I thought might improve the series itself. Auxiliary interviews on other sites, and blog-posts on other pages, are not the series.

Additionally, from my brief scan of Ms. Phoenix's interview, I now understand why their play style appears totally disjointed to me (one moment committing destruction and mayhem in the village, the next moment playing cutesy with their horses)... no Alignment.
When players are not boumd to some sort of moral compass to guide character behaviors and affect the story, the campaign is merely a video-game on paper, a tactical simulation, an overcomplicated game of Pokemon.
Without the potential for any sort of moral dilemma occurring in the game storyline, the series becomes a complete failure for me, and I lose *all* interest in watching.
I apologize only for my bluntness on the topic of alignment, and I thank you for providing me with the links that gave me that tidbit of info.

 

[Crops]

*snip*

That's all fine and good, but I was trying to offer constructive ideas on what I thought might improve the series itself. Auxiliary interviews on other sites, and blog-posts on other pages, are not the series.

Very true, my point wasn't really proving anyone wrong, it was a bit of clarification as to why the series doesn't contain these elements. It's all been done in other media, so it would probably be pretty meaningless to the creators to simply do the same thing again, only in video format.

Additionally, from my brief scan of Ms. Phoenix's interview, I now understand why their play style appears totally disjointed to me (one moment committing destruction and mayhem in the village, the next moment playing cutesy with their horses)... no Alignment.
When players are not boumd to some sort of moral compass to guide character behaviors and affect the story, the campaign is merely a video-game on paper, a tactical simulation, an overcomplicated game of Pokemon.
Without the potential for any sort of moral dilemma occurring in the game storyline, the series becomes a complete failure for me, and I lose *all* interest in watching.
I apologize only for my bluntness on the topic of alignment, and I thank you for providing me with the links that gave me that tidbit of info.

I guess this is really up to preference. Personally, I love freestyle roleplaying. After trying out several different formats, the one I've enjoyed most is the one with the least stats and rules stuffing the players into their boxes.
It makes the campaign really depend on players and their creativity. Having a bad group will result in horrible campaigns.
Once you find a proper group to play with, I find it more comfortable to play in such a free manner. It's less bound to what the books and sheets tell you what you can/can't and will/won't do.

Rather than everyone playing the same old stereotypes, you will see more dynamic characters, affected by things that happen in the campaign, it allows you to adapt more to certain situations, and look at things from a rational perspective rather than simply following whatever the book dictates on your behaviour in given situation.

In short; The less rules involved, the more the games become about roleplaying, creativity and improvisation. The more rules involved, the more it's about minmaxing and 'winning the game'.
My personal preference is the creative roleplaying.

 

[Pygmalion696]

Very true, my point wasn't really proving anyone wrong, it was a bit of clarification as to why the series doesn't contain these elements. It's all been done in other media, so it would probably be pretty meaningless to the creators to simply do the same thing again, only in video format.

I guess this is really up to preference. Personally, I love freestyle roleplaying. After trying out several different formats, the one I've enjoyed most is the one with the least stats and rules stuffing the players into their boxes.
It makes the campaign really depend on players and their creativity. Having a bad group will result in horrible campaigns.
Once you find a proper group to play with, I find it more comfortable to play in such a free manner. It's less bound to what the books and sheets tell you what you can/can't and will/won't do.

Rather than everyone playing the same old stereotypes, you will see more dynamic characters, affected by things that happen in the campaign, it allows you to adapt more to certain situations, and look at things from a rational perspective rather than simply following whatever the book dictates on your behaviour in given situation.
In short; The less rules involved, the more the games become about roleplaying, creativity and improvisation. The more rules involved, the more it's about minmaxing and 'winning the game'.
My personal preference is the creative roleplaying.

True that it does depend on the GM and the players, but over 30 years in playing RPGs, I've observed that when players are not expected to adhere to an alignment, their natural tendency is to gravitate into Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil; without repercussions for alignment violations, they will regularly seek only whatever outcome presents the greatest profit to their characters, regardless of the methodology involved.
I've played in, GM'd, and observed campaigns where alignments were not used (for example, point-build systems like Champions, which include disadvantage-points for moral code restrictions), and in nearly every case, the lack of alignment, of ethical requirements for good or evil, law or chaos, resulted in Munchkinism. Pure self-interest in maximizing treasure and XPs, and to hell with the story-arc.
The use of alignment in a game does not lockstep a player into a certain mode of action (any GM who says "Your character wouldn't do that - they're Neutral Good." should be pelted with d4's), but it gives a talented GM additional tools to reward or penalize characters for certain actions, and thus an additional method of helping *guide* the campaign without resorting to railroading. When a PC has no fears of repercussions for committing arson in the tavern... well, that's not creative roleplaying in my view... that's just a license to do whatever the hell you feel like at the moment (Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil), or whatever you think will bring you the biggest payday (Neutral Evil).
In my view, the southwest corner of the Alignment Wheel are not alignments, they're excuses, and when they're coming from the players... they're often boring, unless the GM is willing to completely flip the script and play their opponents as the Good Guys.
I don't see that happening, here.

 

[032125]

It's intolerably dull. If the players were nude to begin with, and if they could pretend to enjoy themselves (as they do for a living) then it might be tolerable. If an orgy were to break out during some episode, I'd tune in.

The horrible truth is that my D&D group, comprised of middle aged married guys, is infinitely more entertaining.

Hit it with Axe:
Tedious dark mantle / blanket joke (episode 7)

My group:
Got 400 sailors drunk, fomented rebellion in 3 hours, stole a lords' fleet (with help from 400 drunken sailors), delayed a pending invasion, accidentally send two dozen prostitutes to be gang raped to death on aforementioned stolen ships, by aforementioned drunken sailors. Torched every other boat in the harbor on our way out, DM changed my alignment for evil act. That's D&D gaming at it's bizarre best.