D&D & Comic Books Share A Similar Problem

[mattcolville]

Chris Ware and Darwyn Cooke both at different times recently said that they thought it was somewhat foolish to make superhero comics for 30 and 40 year-olds.

The premise behind their thinking, and I know other pros who agree with them, is that you got hooked on supers when you were a kid, and that's about the right age for them.

In the late 70s and early 80s we got the first comic book stores, and a new revenue stream, Direct to Market. This caused a huge boom in readership as there were now local comic book stores kids could go to, instead of buying comics off the rack at 7-11 or news stands.

But that boom was just that, a boom. It didn't result in more and more young kids getting into comics as the years went by. Instead, you had this big bubble, the first generation to come of age with comic book stores, and as that generation aged the publishers keep chasing them. Trying to get lapsed readers back, trying to find new ways to get current readers to buy more.

But those people are now all in their 30s and 40s, even 50s, and what they want from superhero comics is very different from what A: they wanted when they were kids and B: what kids today want.

There should be a way, therefore, to both make the kinds of comics kids today would love, perhaps less violent, less Jungian, less sexualized, at least a little bit, and still make books that appeal to that older demo. In the absence of that Marvel and DC spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to extract more money from that dwindling older demo.

The same genre, supers in this case, shouldn't be forced to be all things to all people. I think there's a lesson there for our hobby as well.

During the height of its popularity, the early to mid 1980s, exactly the same period as the rise of the comic book store, D&D was played by, appealed mostly to, teenagers. Let's say 6th grade to college aged.

Players at that age, I think, want the kind of game AD&D was. Your character was motivated primarily by enlightened self-interest. You weren't out to try and save the world, you were basically Conan. You heard there was an unscalable tower filled with magic and treasure, you swore to be the dude who scaled it. Magic items were a source of great power and that's why you plumbed the depth of the Temple of Elemental Evil. Not because you thought you were Luke Skywalker out to overthrow the Empire. Because the Temple was there, full of magic, and conveniently labeled "Evil" to remove any qualms you might have had about killing its denizens.

There was lots of room for subtlety in that model. Roleplaying, negotiation, politics. There was an End Game back then; your character if he lived long enough would get a Keep and become a Lord and have influence over the events in the world. He'd retire, you'd make a new 1st level guy, and your old dude would get trotted out every once in a while to remind everyone how awesome he was.

That's the model that hooked millions of kids. And I submit to you that kids today aren't any different.

But *those* kids all grew up and while most of them stop playing after they've left school, the ones who keep playing start expecting more from the game. They want to be heroes. They want to save the world, rescue the princess, kill the Dark Lord and overthrow the Empire.

D&D is now designed by that generation of gamer and, I submit, the game they designed is meant to *appeal* to that generation of gamer. The problem with this is; it leaves no place for the kids who just want to kick down the door and kill the orc and steal the Apparatus of Kwalish.

Because the current version of the game changes your motivation. Items are no longer that big a deal. Adventures are now meant to interconnect and reveal a great badness at the end manipulating everything. Instead of being a series of unconnected episodes. Characters are expected to rect to evil, instead of take the initiative for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

In other words, like superhero comics for adults, we now have D&D for adults. And the product is very different because the audience is very different. I'm not talking about the rules, I think 4E is the best-designed RPG ever. I'm talking about what 4E assumes about its characters and players.

We have now Essentials and I think the mistake WotC is making is that they think they need to make the game *simpler* to appeal to new players. Well, maybe that would help, I'm not sure. Certainly AD&D did well in that demo and it was full of weird rules.

Rather, I submit that we need *two games*. One for teens, one for adults. And, of course, there will always be folks in one category happiest with the game from the other category.

These two games need not be "simple" and "complex," that's not the issue. The issue isn't the rules. The issue is; what do the two games assume about the PCs?

Conan D&D would have more emphasis on items, and gaining power and money, and presume the PCs want to go on an adventure *to amass power*. Like Superman and Spider-man, it's a power fantasy for kids.

Luke Skywalker D&D would put more emphasis on being a Hero, saving the World, longer, more coherent narratives. Power coming from your character and the choices you make during play, rather than the loot you plunder. This is D&D4. We have this game, it's perfect for this.

So what we need, WotC, Mike Mearls, is Conan D&D back. The market needs both, because the Adult Gamer, like the Adult Reader, wants different things from his hobby than the teenager. Even when that teenager is 34.

 

[Aplus]

very insightful!

 

[Klaus]

You lost me at the Conan/Luke dychotomy. 4e does the Luke thing but not the Conan thing? It seems to me D&D is perfect for the Conan thing.

 

[Mistwell]

Chris Ware and Darwyn Cooke both at different times recently said that they thought it was somewhat foolish to make superhero comics for 30 and 40 year-olds.

The premise behind their thinking, and I know other pros who agree with them, is that you got hooked on supers when you were a kid, and that's about the right age for them.

In the late 70s and early 80s we got the first comic book stores, and a new revenue stream, Direct to Market. This caused a huge boom in readership as there were now local comic book stores kids could go to, instead of buying comics off the rack at 7-11 or news stands.

But that boom was just that, a boom. It didn't result in more and more young kids getting into comics as the years went by. Instead, you had this big bubble, the first generation to come of age with comic book stores, and as that generation aged the publishers keep chasing them. Trying to get lapsed readers back, trying to find new ways to get current readers to buy more.

But those people are now all in their 30s and 40s, even 50s, and what they want from superhero comics is very different from what A: they wanted when they were kids and B: what kids today want.

There should be a way, therefore, to both make the kinds of comics kids today would love, perhaps less violent, less Jungian, less sexualized, at least a little bit, and still make books that appeal to that older demo. In the absence of that Marvel and DC spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to extract more money from that dwindling older demo.

Chris is parroting an older argument than many other creators were making a decade ago. They were advocating that comics focus on "adult" indie-type comics for adults (like the comics Chris Ware creates), and turn superheroes back into kids comics.

But, they turned out to be wrong. Instead, the "adult" themed superheroes became the incubators for the movies based on those superheroes. Movies which needed to appeal to both kids and adults. In retrospect, continuing to make superhero comics more "adult" was the best thing some of those companies did. They don't need to make huge money on the comics anymore - they just need to make good stories that can eventually be adapted or mined for television and movies.

There are comics for kids. Kids do still buy comics, like Amelia Rules, and Gunnerkrigg Court. They sell pretty well. We, as adults, just are not aware of them, because they are not marketed to us.

Personally I'd like to see more diverse selections of genres in mainstream comics. But, I cannot look at how huge Marvel became under the current system and criticize it much. They turned those properties into gold with the movies and all the stuff that comes with it.

Ultimately I think D&D will do best when the edition can appeal to both kids and adults. From my perspective, that's 4e. My friend has been running a group of 7 kids in 4e, and the love it. And, he's running us late-30s/Early-40s in D&D using 4e as well, and we love it too. From my perspective, they found the happy medium. And Essentials helps with that, in that it presents the rules in a more simplified format - which does not make the rules themselves simple. It was a formatting change that everyone can appreciate, but particularly new players (of any age).

 

[Droogie]

D&D is now designed by that generation of gamer and, I submit, the game they designed is meant to *appeal* to that generation of gamer. The problem with this is; it leaves no place for the kids who just want to kick down the door and kill the orc and steal the Apparatus of Kwalish.

Dunno. I'd say 4e can handle this style of play just fine.

We have now Essentials and I think the mistake WotC is making is that they think they need to make the game *simpler* to appeal to new players. Well, maybe that would help, I'm not sure. Certainly AD&D did well in that demo and it was full of weird rules.

A more user-friendly system is always a plus and facilitates more enjoyable play. For me, anyway. Would a game with lots of weird rules work as well today? What would kids today think of 'THACO'? Or are you referring to some kind of recent demo that I don't know about? Many kids got eased into it with the old red box, rather than the AD&D hardcovers.

Rather, I submit that we need *two games*. One for teens, one for adults. And, of course, there will always be folks in one category happiest with the game from the other category.

These two games need not be "simple" and "complex," that's not the issue. The issue isn't the rules. The issue is; what do the two games assume about the PCs?

The game is neutral. The tone and scope is really up to the GM and players. Of course, some systems are more flexible than others.

So what we need, WotC, Mike Mearls, is Conan D&D back. The market needs both, because the Adult Gamer, like the Adult Reader, wants different things from his hobby than the teenager. Even when that teenager is 34.

His answer would probably be to point you towards Dark Sun. But I agree with you; at age 39, my tastes in D&D gaming has definitely changed since I was 12.

 

[Mercurius]

Interesting post. I guess I'm one of those lapsed comic readers--I am 36-years old and stopped reading comics when I was about 19; I just had a hard time taking them seriously anymore, and this was at the height of Image Comics and the over-the-top stylizations of Rob Liefeld (one of the worst comic artists ever, imo). A few times since then I have picked up a comic here and there, but have never been drawn back in. Not long ago I picked up that Chris Clarement X-Men graphic novel where he goes back to where he left off in the early 90s, but it has gathered dust on my shelf, unread. I can honestly say that there is nothing (that I can think of) that will draw me back in. I suppose a really good fantasy comic like the old Adventurers comic or from the 80s might draw my interest, but probably not at $4 a pop. If I have time read fiction then I'll pick up a fantasy or sf novel.

I don't really agree with you that WotC focused on the 30+ crowd with 4E; rather, I think they wanted to keep the 30+ crowd while trying to attract a younger generation, mainly the "Millenials" and current teenagers--basically those who grew up with computer games and are into World of Warcraft and anime. The problem is that they distanced many of the older generation with dragonborn and shardlings (or whatever they are called). So they came up with a CRPG-influenced version of the game that worked OK but was probably not a wild success in that it may not have appealed to either crowd quite as much as they had hoped; the WoW players weren't tempted away and many of the old-timers tried it but went back to 3.x or Pathfinder.

WotC seems to be trying to rectify this with the Essentials line, which may appeal to both young and old. I certainly hope that they are able to establish a foothold in the new generation, but I'm doubtful. I think of the kids I work with (I'm a high school teacher) and very few seem to have the kind of focused interest and imagination to prefer tabletop RPGs to video games. I find this a sad truth. That said, one now graduated student discovered D&D last year and his eyes lit up whenever he spoke about it--it was like he had discovered gold. The hobby will survive, but it will probably drastically shrink as its main proponents, Gen-Xers enter their 50s and start losing interest.

The core of D&D players are people born in the 70s. Next we have people born in the 80s (many of whom entered the hobby through White Wolf games), then I would say people born in the 50s-60s and 90s are about the same (I imagine there aren't many gamers born before the 50s or after the turn of the millennium...yet). With 3E, WotC sought--and succeeded--to gather the flock back in that had dispersed in the Dark Years of the late 90s. The strategy hasn't really changed in that all WotC can hope to do is re-solidify the 70s-80s base and try to appeal to the 90s generation. But how to do that? Maybe they're taking one from Warhammer, with its pseudo-wargame approach, figuring that kids like the stuff, the visual aids, etc. Maybe the Ravenloft and Ashardalon games are ways to draw people into the fringe of the hobby, hoping they want more and pick up the new Red Box. At worst you have the core buyers--the thousands of diehard DMs--who will buy anything that comes out (D&D is a hobby in which a small portion of its players purchase most of the products). It isn't a bad strategy, really, and I hope it works.

Like Mistwell, I do think that 4E has been reasonably successful in appealing to young and old, but that there is a lot of room to improve. They need to both keep on making a product that will interest the 70s-80s base, which means coming out with new editions and/or lines of products (e.g. Essentials) soon enough to regain interest, but not too soon to piss people off. But they also need to focus on the younger generation. But it is a tricky thing, appealing to both young and old. Good luck!

 

[fireinthedust]

Players at that age, I think, want the kind of game AD&D was. Your character was motivated primarily by enlightened self-interest. You weren't out to try and save the world, you were basically Conan. You heard there was an unscalable tower filled with magic and treasure, you swore to be the dude who scaled it. Magic items were a source of great power and that's why you plumbed the depth of the Temple of Elemental Evil. Not because you thought you were Luke Skywalker out to overthrow the Empire. Because the Temple was there, full of magic, and conveniently labeled "Evil" to remove any qualms you might have had about killing its denizens.

(snip)

So what we need, WotC, Mike Mearls, is Conan D&D back. The market needs both, because the Adult Gamer, like the Adult Reader, wants different things from his hobby than the teenager. Even when that teenager is 34.

I couldn't disagree more. What are you talking about? A rules set has nothing to do with the subject matter you're using it to depict. RPGs *already* have what you're referring to as "Conan" adventures. And, if you want easy D&D vs. adult D&D, we already have them: 4e = kids, Pathfinder = adults. There, problem solved.
As for kick in the door: did you buy Dungeon Delves? Amazing dungeons, each back tot he old kick in the door style of play. 4e is all about ignoring plot in preference of treasure items and combat.

I didn't get into RPGs except for the larger plot reasons. I wanted to be in Lord of the Rings. I was annoyed that the modules were so random and dungeony; I expected better traps than mere combat. I was in grade 9.
Same reason I stopped reading X-Men in grade 4, after Claremont left: comics became pointless, and every issue mandated a fight (for no reason!). I needed more depth and plot. Did I mention having been in grade 4?


However, the reason I'm here is to correct you on a very important point: Conan.

Conan, as written by Howard, is a highly moral character. He has a strong code of honor, and while his professions are often self-interested, he responds to moral dilemmas correctly whenever they present themselves.

You mention the Tower of the Elephant, where Conan just wanted to go in and rob the wizard of his gems. Sure. However, when he got there he abandoned all the treasure in preference to helping Yag-Kosha/Yogah in gaining his freedom and slaying Yara. It was all destroyed when the tower fell. Sure, he's been robbing Zamorians, but let's face it: the whole nation is a pack of thieves descended from demons; they're an evil group of folks, and in these stories stealing and killing are right if they're done to the right people.

In the Red Citadel, Conan is motivated to rescue his kingdom; not for the glory he originally wanted, but because of the harm that would come to his subjects.

In the God in the Bowl, Conan refuses to name the noble who hired him to rob the temple, even though it means torture and death: he must keep his honor. He kills his patron only after being betrayed.

Even in The Frost Giant's Daughter, when he chases the title character, her whole plan was to lure him to her frost giant brothers so they could sacrifice his heart to Ymir, their father. This is about the worst Conan ends up getting, I believe.



EDIT: Also, magic items weren't a source of power: they were created by Lovecraftian horrors from the great beyond! Sure, some items may have been fine, but they weren't "treasure" per se. [/EDIT]


While you could have a point regarding the movies or the work of other authors (Robert Jordan, I'm looking at you!), the original stories paint an entirely different picture of a moral character.


Please be kind.

Conan predates Lord of the Rings, is written by Howard in beautiful flowing prose, and you wouldn't have RPGs if he wasn't there. In fact, heroic fantasy in general would not exist the way they do without Howard or Conan (or Kull, or Am-ra, etc.).

 

[Celebrim]

I admire the stance because its unconventional, counterintuitive, and hasn't been said before. I love listening to people move against the flow.

But if you are an old hat at moving against the flow (like me) sometimes you know that you are just going to turn out to be in the wrong afterall. I think this is one of those times.

First, I don't think you can make such blanket statements about what people, of any age group or at any time, want or wanted. You aren't dealing with remotely homogenous groups.

Second, you might be right about people's perception of Conan, but Conan is a much more complex character than that.

Thirdly, that's not how successful properties actually work. D&D was successful when it was introduced, because it worked as well for me - the elementary school kid - as it worked for my cousin who was as old as my dad. I think this probably took the designers of D&D somewhat by surprise, as I don't think they concieved of elementary or junior high school kids being a significant market for the game. However, most any thing that is extremely popular is extremely popular because it works well on several levels. You can appreciate 'Star Wars' at age 3 or age 30. You can appreciate the 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' cartoons at age 4 or age 40. Walt Disney made a fortune off the realization that you succeeded not by marketing your product to kids or adults, but to both kids and adults. You had something in there for everyone.

Lastly, I think you might be wrong about which audience 4e has most alienated. On the boards here, I think its 'old' guys like me who grew up with D&D that are more likely to reject 4e than 'young' guys who got into the hobby post 1e. I'm not sure that you can make the argument that 4e was designed for me. Third edition clearly was harking back to AD&D 1.5 (post Unearthed Arcana) as its model for the game and billing itself as an updated version of that (with a pretty high degree of honesty in my opinion), but 4e I think clearly was not. I think 4e looked not to the history of the game, but towards the history of RPG divergence from D&D for its design inspiration.

So, wonderfully argued and great for provoking thought (an attribute that is both overvalued and scarcer than is claimed), but I think pretty much entirely wrong nonetheless. On the bright side, keep thinking like that, because most of the time going against concensus is more likely to be correct than not in my opinion and experience.

As for 4e being the best designed system, I think that's correct for certain values of 'best designed'. I think its the tightest, most cohesive, most focused set of rules D&D has ever had. I think its the only version of D&D that has ever had a tight coupling between the intention of the rules and the actual results. I think it is the only version of the rules to ever go through a comprehensive design process. I think that it would be the edition of the game most likely to win a design contest judged by people who hang out at FORGE.

I just don't think any of those things are actually or at least necessarily good attributes for an RPG. In terms of fun, I'd still rather play the organicly created undesigned hodge podge that is 1e AD&D because its rules didn't exist to meet design goals, but to address in play issues. Sometimes evolution just beats the pants off design, in the same fashion that free markets often beat command economies. There is a wisdom in crowds. And there is a wisdom that comes from years and years of actually functioning RPG groups that can't easily be distilled in a design or a designer. And incidently, yes, that is a contridiction. However, I find that sometimes contridictory things are both in fact true.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I couldn't disagree more. What are you talking about? A rules set has nothing to do with the subject matter you're using it to depict. RPGs *already* have what you're referring to as "Conan" adventures. And, if you want easy D&D vs. adult D&D, we already have them: 4e = kids, Pathfinder = adults. There, problem solved.

Because no thread is complete without gratuitous edition war sniping.

As for kick in the door: did you buy Dungeon Delves? Amazing dungeons, each back tot he old kick in the door style of play. 4e is all about ignoring plot in preference of treasure items and combat.

Delves are as you describe them - kick in the door style play. Certainly not all I use 4e for (or indeed anything I use 4e for).

However, the reason I'm here is to correct you on a very important point: Conan.

Conan, as written by Howard, is a highly moral character. He has a strong code of honor, and while his professions are often self-interested, he responds to moral dilemmas correctly whenever they present themselves.

For some value of correctly. But yes. Agreed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even in The Frost Giant's Daughter, when he chases the title character, her whole plan was to lure him to her frost giant brothers so they could sacrifice his heart to Ymir, their father. This is about the worst Conan ends up getting, I believe.

It is also under a magical compulsion.


RC