Dungeons & Dragons has 15 Million Players in NA Alone; Storyline Is "The Da Vinci Code meets Gangs o

Interesting. The following tidbit has me excited about the new storyline:

“The Stream of Many Eyes” ... story — which will be revealed on June 1 — was described by one D&D staffer as 'The Da Vinci Code meets Gangs of New York.'”

 

[Mouseferatu]

I would wager that the majority of people playing 5e have no prior experience or nostalgia for D&D of the past.

In fact, unless one discounts their statement that the gaming population is larger than ever before, a good portion of the players must, by definition, not be experienced with past version of the game.

Also, they've already said that their research shows that streaming games have brought a great number of new gamers to the audience.

But of course, as we've already established, all numbers and percentages are bald-faced lies.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, good grief. It's almost like WotC isn't part of a multi-billion dollar company that has all sorts of this sort of resources at hand.

There are any number of ways you can find these numbers. And any number of companies perfectly willing to take your money in order to find these numbers. FFS, even something as simple as analytics looking at the gender of those that check your Facebook page can generate pretty accurate numbers. And that's pretty lazy.

 

[Parmandur]

...
The closest thing they could do is cold call people...

Which you know they haven't had done because....?

 

[Jester David]

The reason 5e is doing well is they took nostalgia and sprinkled it with a few of the best mechanics from later editions and called it a day. The rest are adventures, very little mechanics.

That’s why it was a hit in 2014 and 2015.
Why it’s a hit in 2016 and 2017 comes down to different reasons.

I do, however, wish they did more "fluff" books. Didn't "Elminster's Forgotten Realms" do really well? And the "Grand History of the Realms" as well? I miss the days of 2e books, so much world material to play with. I was hoping for that in 5e, but we didn't really get it.

The catch is those books are still good. Fluff doesn't expire.

 

[Hussar]

And, to be fair, if you want that material, it's pretty easy to get. Drivethrurpg is flogging all the D&D stuff for 60% off for the month. And there's LOTS of stuff there.

 

[ad_hoc]

In fact, unless one discounts their statement that the gaming population is larger than ever before, a good portion of the players must, by definition, not be experienced with past version of the game.

Also, they've already said that their research shows that streaming games have brought a great number of new gamers to the audience.

But of course, as we've already established, all numbers and percentages are bald-faced lies.

Yeah, it's easy to see how 40% of them can be women too.

Just making up some numbers:

If women only comprise 10% of the long time hobby gamer population; and
New gamers to D&D 5e are comprised of 50% women; and

D&D 5e is made up of 25% long time hobby gamers and 75% new gamers (and those playing 5e are made up of similar gender distribution of their populations); then

We would have the population of women playing 5e at 40%.


I think it is more likely that what is going on is that long time hobby gamers (which this board and others mostly are) are insulated from the main player base. The same people are playing 5e as the ones who go to board game cafes. Of course the massive success and distribution of genders will seem out of place to those of us who have been hobby gamers for many years. That doesn't mean that the numbers for 5e are wrong, it just means we live in a tiny bubble.

 

[haakon1]

I think it is more likely that what is going on is that long time hobby gamers (which this board and others mostly are) are insulated from the main player base. The same people are playing 5e as the ones who go to board game cafes. Of course the massive success and distribution of genders will seem out of place to those of us who have been hobby gamers for many years. That doesn't mean that the numbers for 5e are wrong, it just means we live in a tiny bubble.

Yes, that’s the conclusion I have come to as well.

Which leads me, as a hobbyist who has loved the game since 1982, to wonder: how do I help D&D keep going strong?

One thing I can do is what I always do. Run games, talk about the game occasionally in real life and of social media, and invite new people to join.

And I guess on here, be nice and inviting to new people?

Sounds about right, though I am concerned that I don’t buy D&D like I did, since I still run 3.5e, I guess I am helping by supporting the brand.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Obviously, “DaVinci’s Code meets Gangs of New York” means that every character in the new adventure path will have both Tom Hanks’ hair from the first and Daniel Day Lewis’ facial hair from the latter. The art will be like an accident from which one can’t look away...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nonsense! It's clear that the "DaVinci Code" reference indicates the plot will feature an albino, and the gangs of new York indicates that the Albino will be modelled on DiCaprio, and the plot will focus on revenge that winds up getting nearly everyone killed.

Elric of Melnibone confirmed!

 

[DaveMage]

This is the key thing to note: it's not enough for D&D to make money. It has to make enough money.

Last Gen Con, I was at the Candlekeep seminar when James Lowder stopped in, and the conversation he had with everyone there got into the inner workings of how the D&D brand is managed. He mentioned (as an example) that it wasn't enough that the D&D novel division was making back more money than it spent; it wasn't making sufficient money to justify itself to Hasbro, who eventually had it shuttered (though he mentioned at the time there was talk of it being outsourced, and that seems to be what's happening now based on recent reports). "Return on investment" isn't just about ending up with more than you spent to a huge company, it's about making so much money that it's worth their time to bother with it at all.

According to Lowder, this is part of the reason why D&D made an aggressive push to get the movie rights back, for instance, and why we won't see campaign setting logos for things like the Forgotten Realms anymore. Branding and multimedia pushes are where D&D is going to make its money, rather than books, and brand dilution via multiple logos hurts that. It's why we're seeing so much emphasis on Critical Role and cameos in Stranger Things. D&D the brand is much more valuable, in terms of revenue generation, than D&D the game.

If the movies and multimedia ends up being as profitable as they hope, I wonder what effect that will have on the products we get for the RPG. I miss the setting branding, but I'm guessing that either way it's gone for good (unless there's licensing).