D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

@TerraDave, I think that's clearly true--and thanks for reminding us old fools about this--but part of what makes D&D, and tabletop RPGs in general, a unique hobby is the wide age range. Aside from exceptions, I think it is safe to say that the oldest group of folks still playing D&D are those who were in their 20s in the mid-70s, when it first game out. So let's say ~1950 is the birth year for the first generation of RPGers (again, there are certainly people born before 1950 that play, but they are few and far between and the 50s-60s, or those now age 50-65ish, would be the first solid sized group of people).

The "Boomer" generation of gamers are those who started in the early to mid-80s, and tend to be folks born in the late 60s to mid-70s - people that are now 35-50ish, or true Gen Xers. I'm guessing that this would be the largest group on EN World.

Then you have the folks who started a bit later, in the 90s or with 3E ~2000. These are folks who are now 20-35, or G Yers.

The youngest generation, those age 20 and younger, are the folks that Mearls & Co must have in mind for "conversion" over the next few years. Of particular interest to WotC would be those age 10-20. These are kids who grew up in the Internet Age.

So we have a few people in their 50s and 60s still playing D&D, and a ton of people in their 20s-40s, with people age 10-20 starting to play. But the question is, how many will actually play a tabletop RPG? That's what remains to be seen.

But again, the point is that RPGs are one of the only hobbies that you have significant numbers of people from age 10ish to age 60ish actively playing. The upper end of this number will continue to go up as the first and second generation of gamers grows older and keep on playing.

But I ramble.

Mercurius said:

I love movies! But I'll be the first to admit that reading a book is far more "imaginatively nutritious," and generally a more satisfying experience

Click to expand...

I think you're making generalisations here that can't really be sustained. Just confining myself to some of my favourite fantasy movies - say, Excalibur, Hero, and Ashes of Time - I think these are more "imaginitively nutritious" and satisfying than most of the fantasy fiction I've read.

When I compare Ashes of Time to HPL's Call of Cthulhu, or Excalibur to REH's Phoenix on the Sword, I think in each pair that the film has much more to say about the relevant thematic material than the written story: Ashes of Time has much more to say, in my view, about the emptiness of human life and experience, than does CoC; and Excalibur is a much richer commentary on the nature of kingship and civilisation, in my view, than REH's short story.

It's true that, say, Tower of the Elephant is better than Ladyhawke - but the former is probably the best of all the pulp fantasy works, whereas the latter is a very ordinary movie saved by some charming performances.

Mercurius said:

I'm not as much comparing CRPGs to pop music and TTRPGs to jazz, but comparing the relationship of CRPGs to TTRPGs to the relationship of pop to jazz. Even that is stretched, but the point is this: One pair (pop, CRPGs) requires far less inner activity, is generally less sophisticated artistically, and allows for far less range of experience and improvisation.

Click to expand...

I refer, again, to G2. In what way does G2, whether as a work of authorship, or as a play experience, demonstrate artistic sophistication? How does improvisation in G2 differ from the sort of tactical improvisation that might be involved in playing a table-top or computer/video wargame?

I can think of some answers to the second question - eg befriending certain monsters/NPCs - although I assume that this is also possible in more sophisticated computer games. But I can't think of any answer to the first question.

And G2 is hardly unrepresentative of a wide range of D&D material.

Mercurius said:

Table top RPGs can be extremely "nutritious" - especially for DMs, but also for players - in that they involve self-generated imaginative experience, creativity, improvisation, and of course socialization.

Click to expand...

The D&D community - or, at least, the ENworld branch of it - strikes me as to a significant degree hostile to player improvisation and creativity, except within very narrowly defined parameters. The emphasis here is very much on GM authority over the most important elements of the shared fiction.

This may be good or bad for RPGing, depending on what one enjoys about the RPG experience, but to me it contrasts quite markedly with your characterisation of RPGs.

Mercurius said:

@TerraDave, I think that's clearly true--and thanks for reminding us old fools about this--but part of what makes D&D, and tabletop RPGs in general, a unique hobby is the wide age range. Aside from exceptions, I think it is safe to say that the oldest group of folks still playing D&D are those who were in their 20s in the mid-70s, when it first game out. So let's say ~1950 is the birth year for the first generation of RPGers (again, there are certainly people born before 1950 that play, but they are few and far between and the 50s-60s, or those now age 50-65ish, would be the first solid sized group of people).

The "Boomer" generation of gamers are those who started in the early to mid-80s, and tend to be folks born in the late 60s to mid-70s - people that are now 35-50ish, or true Gen Xers. I'm guessing that this would be the largest group on EN World.

Then you have the folks who started a bit later, in the 90s or with 3E ~2000. These are folks who are now 20-35, or G Yers.

The youngest generation, those age 20 and younger, are the folks that Mearls & Co must have in mind for "conversion" over the next few years. Of particular interest to WotC would be those age 10-20. These are kids who grew up in the Internet Age.

So we have a few people in their 50s and 60s still playing D&D, and a ton of people in their 20s-40s, with people age 10-20 starting to play. But the question is, how many will actually play a tabletop RPG? That's what remains to be seen.

But again, the point is that RPGs are one of the only hobbies that you have significant numbers of people from age 10ish to age 60ish actively playing. The upper end of this number will continue to go up as the first and second generation of gamers grows older and keep on playing.

But I ramble.

Click to expand...

It's a good ramble.

I can't speak to other cities... but three years ago, I managed to have sub jobs in EVERY high school in Anchorage... and I saw as many gaming groups now as back in 1987, when I was a student....

And what I saw, well into the 4E era... lots of 3.0 and 3.5 D&D. Lots of Palladium, Some WWG oWoD - but not nWoD. No 4E. One Mongoose Traveller game, one T20 group (who played outside school, but made me sign their rulebook, as I'm in the credits). I spoke about gaming with 7 kids in 5 different groups. The T20 group was mostly errata... they don't play with any adults. None of the kids in the high schools gamed with adults. I know one highschooler now who does... my daughter... but most of her gamer friends at school don't game with adults.

The kids are tending to play an edition or two back. The Palladium games were using 1st cover or 2nd cover, but not the 3rd cover pattern. (I don't know if those reflect rules revisions or not, as I quit reading Rifts after the release of Vampire Kingdoms.)

Of the kids I talked to, the T20 group was using the GM's dad's book, with permission. The rest were using books bought second hand or on deep discounts.

If WotC wants to catch them, well... the PHB isn't going to do so. They're playing what's cheap. (Locally, used rifts books go for $5 at certain pawn shops... and the shops buy them at $2... so they're really cheap, used.)

Now, the encounters nights locally... 2 young kids, a couple high schoolers... but mostly 20's to mid 30's. I feel particularly old (at 45) in there. The GM's are 3x 40's and 1x30's. 20+ people weekly.

Mercurius said:

@TerraDave, I think that's clearly true--and thanks for reminding us old fools about this--but part of what makes D&D, and tabletop RPGs in general, a unique hobby is the wide age range. Aside from exceptions, I think it is safe to say that the oldest group of folks still playing D&D are those who were in their 20s in the mid-70s, when it first game out. So let's say ~1950 is the birth year for the first generation of RPGers (again, there are certainly people born before 1950 that play, but they are few and far between and the 50s-60s, or those now age 50-65ish, would be the first solid sized group of people).

The "Boomer" generation of gamers are those who started in the early to mid-80s, and tend to be folks born in the late 60s to mid-70s - people that are now 35-50ish, or true Gen Xers. I'm guessing that this would be the largest group on EN World.

Then you have the folks who started a bit later, in the 90s or with 3E ~2000. These are folks who are now 20-35, or G Yers.

The youngest generation, those age 20 and younger, are the folks that Mearls & Co must have in mind for "conversion" over the next few years. Of particular interest to WotC would be those age 10-20. These are kids who grew up in the Internet Age.

So we have a few people in their 50s and 60s still playing D&D, and a ton of people in their 20s-40s, with people age 10-20 starting to play. But the question is, how many will actually play a tabletop RPG? That's what remains to be seen.

But again, the point is that RPGs are one of the only hobbies that you have significant numbers of people from age 10ish to age 60ish actively playing. The upper end of this number will continue to go up as the first and second generation of gamers grows older and keep on playing.

But I ramble.

Click to expand...

The dilemna is what each generation expects from an entertainment perspective is different, depending on what was available when you were a kid. And the internet age children expect a lot of content and many different types of content. And a lot of online content.

I don't know why we're always so concerned about if the kids today are going to play D&D or not. But personally, I think D&D will evolve into something else. If Hasbro is smart, what they'll do with D&D is similar to what Marvel has done with their trademarks and brands.

Namely, they're making money hand over fist, but hardly any of it comes from comic books. In fact, the comic books are pretty abysmal right now, with a few exceptions, and have been for years. (Dan Abnett and Co.'s superhero space opera titles are the big exception. Ultimate Marvel was the exception for a time, but then Marvel went and screwed that up too.) Comic books aren't really even their core business anymore; they just have to do them for reasons of inertia, no doubt. But the movies, the licensing to toys, video games and TV shows--that's where the money is.

Can D&D be parlayed into that kind of multi-media franchise empire? Don't know. Can it succeed in any way similar to how it has done in the past based solely on sales of the game itself? I doubt it. I think the future of D&D is to branch out sufficiently that other enterprises can subsidize the game so that it can continue by the die-hards without having to worry about the brand folding up every few years because sales keep dropping.

pemerton said:

I think you're making generalisations here that can't really be sustained. Just confining myself to some of my favourite fantasy movies - say, Excalibur, Hero, and Ashes of Time - I think these are more "imaginitively nutritious" and satisfying than most of the fantasy fiction I've read.

When I compare Ashes of Time to HPL's Call of Cthulhu, or Excalibur to REH's Phoenix on the Sword, I think in each pair that the film has much more to say about the relevant thematic material than the written story: Ashes of Time has much more to say, in my view, about the emptiness of human life and experience, than does CoC; and Excalibur is a much richer commentary on the nature of kingship and civilisation, in my view, than REH's short story.

It's true that, say, Tower of the Elephant is better than Ladyhawke - but the former is probably the best of all the pulp fantasy works, whereas the latter is a very ordinary movie saved by some charming performances.

Click to expand...

I completely agree on all accounts! But you're missing what I'm getting at, I think, by focusing on the trees (specific words and phrases) rather than the forest of what I'm trying say (general ideas, essence). Also, exceptions to generalizations don't negate the validity of generalizations; there are always exceptions.

Of course there are great movies and bad books, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way the medium interacts with the mind, in particular the imagination. Excalibur--which also one of my very favorite movies, with multiple layers of meaning--is a profoundly exquisite movie, that deals with themes that most books don't touch upon, but it still interacts with the imagination in a different way: it shows you images, while books ask you to, at the least, co-generate images.

But perhaps some of my analogies don't work, or like all analogies can be broken if how they're being used isn't understood. Excalibur is certainly not junk food, not pop music. But it isn't a home-cooked meal - I'm not making it (although you could say I am making the meaning that I derive from it, but this isn't exactly the same as the imaginative process I'm talking about).

pemerton said:

I refer, again, to G2. In what way does G2, whether as a work of authorship, or as a play experience, demonstrate artistic sophistication? How does improvisation in G2 differ from the sort of tactical improvisation that might be involved in playing a table-top or computer/video wargame?

Click to expand...

Again, you're teasing out one "tree" (artistic sophistication) and missing the "forest." I am not saying that all TTRPGs are artistically sophisticated, nor that all video games aren't. Actually, I've seen incredible craftsmanship and sophistication from video games - but almost always in their design, their creation, not in their participation. That is what I'm focusing on - the participation, what it entails for the participant, what aspects of (and to what degree) their imaginations are engaged with the process.

pemerton said:

The D&D community - or, at least, the ENworld branch of it - strikes me as to a significant degree hostile to player improvisation and creativity, except within very narrowly defined parameters. The emphasis here is very much on GM authority over the most important elements of the shared fiction.

This may be good or bad for RPGing, depending on what one enjoys about the RPG experience, but to me it contrasts quite markedly with your characterisation of RPGs.

Click to expand...

This might be a separate topic and I think has to do with basic assumptions about the role of the GM and players, which differ depending upon the game, group, and individuals involved. You seem to imply that "emphasis on GM authority" is, if not a bad thing, then certainly inferior to a more "shared fiction" experience. I don't think that can be said, or at least--like you point out by comparing quality cinema with poor fiction--there are ranges within each, and it ends up being a matter of comparing apples to oranges.

That said, I think you could make an argument that a game in which players have a more active role in the co-creation of the world and game experience is more along the lines of the participation that I'm talking about above, but I don't necessarily think this is inherently a superior form of RPGing. I think that there are types of games and experiences that work well with a more shared approach, but that for most people the "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than you seem to prefer.

aramis erak said:

It's a good ramble.

Click to expand...

Thanks. One thought on what you say. I work at a private high school and I've noticed that Pathfinder, or 3.5, is by far the dominant form of D&D in the rather small group of gamers - and this has been the case for the last six years. There's a rather hostile attitude towards 4E, with only a few kids having been neutral or positive about it.

But I don't think this is as much about playing one edition back because of cost. It could be because they just attached themselves to the negativity towards 4E in a herd-like manner. Or it could be that they didn't like the style of 4E and preferred 3.5. Or it could simply be that they started playing 3.5 and never tried 4E and were turned off by a vocal minority. Who knows?

Uchawi said:

The dilemna is what each generation expects from an entertainment perspective is different, depending on what was available when you were a kid. And the internet age children expect a lot of content and many different types of content. And a lot of online content.

Click to expand...

True. We'll see how WotC handles this.

Hobo said:

I don't know why we're always so concerned about if the kids today are going to play D&D or not.

Click to expand...

I don't personally care, or a least not all that much other than the fact that I want D&D to thrive, but I imagine WotC cares a good deal.

Hobo said:

But personally, I think D&D will evolve into something else. If Hasbro is smart, what they'll do with D&D is similar to what Marvel has done with their trademarks and brands.

Click to expand...

Right. And there's reason to believe that this is what they plan on doing, that this is the "big picture" vision. I imagine that Hasbro, WotC, and the D&D team all hope for the same thing: that five years from the now the tabletop RPG is a relatively small and autonomous part of the D&D franchise, important and strongly supported as the heart of the franchise, but without the need to fulfill unrealistic financial goals (like some, such as [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas, say was the main cause for the demise of 4E).

Hobo said:

Namely, they're making money hand over fist, but hardly any of it comes from comic books. In fact, the comic books are pretty abysmal right now, with a few exceptions, and have been for years. (Dan Abnett and Co.'s superhero space opera titles are the big exception. Ultimate Marvel was the exception for a time, but then Marvel went and screwed that up too.) Comic books aren't really even their core business anymore; they just have to do them for reasons of inertia, no doubt. But the movies, the licensing to toys, video games and TV shows--that's where the money is.

Click to expand...

As a side note, I just started reading X-Men again after over 20 years. I read a trade of the "All-New X-Men" and craved more, but decided to go back and re-read from early on. I started chronicling my journey over at rpgnet.

Hobo said:

Can D&D be parlayed into that kind of multi-media franchise empire? Don't know. Can it succeed in any way similar to how it has done in the past based solely on sales of the game itself? I doubt it. I think the future of D&D is to branch out sufficiently that other enterprises can subsidize the game so hat it can continue by the die-hards without having to worry about the brand folding up every few years because sales keep dropping.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think WotC is accounting for this - which is why they've scaled back operations so much. I think gone are the years of expecting another early-80s "golden age" boom, but they may hope that they can see another early-00s "silver age" boom - or, at the least, something like what Paizo is experiencing now, which is a healthy, vibrant game and company that isn't over-extending itself.

But the brilliance of what they're doing (or what I think they're doing) is that D&D the TTRPG doesn't have to be a wild success. It mainly has to please a large percentage of the existing community and be the platform for a broader, multimedia franchise which may feed back into the TTRPG, but doesn't have to (as with your Marvel example).

I think TSR in the mid-80s, then again in the mid-90s, then WotC in the mid-00s and again a few years later, all made the same mistake of over-extending - not unlike buying a house when interest rates are low, and then being stuck with it when interest rates fly through the roof. It is the consumerist business model that is proven, time and time again, to simply not be sustainable.

Mercurius said:

Thanks. One thought on what you say. I work at a private high school and I've noticed that Pathfinder, or 3.5, is by far the dominant form of D&D in the rather small group of gamers - and this has been the case for the last six years. There's a rather hostile attitude towards 4E, with only a few kids having been neutral or positive about it.

But I don't think this is as much about playing one edition back because of cost. It could be because they just attached themselves to the negativity towards 4E in a herd-like manner. Or it could be that they didn't like the style of 4E and preferred 3.5. Or it could simply be that they started playing 3.5 and never tried 4E and were turned off by a vocal minority. Who knows?
.

Click to expand...

I know that the kids I talked to chose older games specifically because of the lack of cost. I know because I asked. Locally, Pathfinder is the dominant adult game, but it still hasn't hit the two schools I've been to recently, nor my daughter's school. 3.0, however... and yes, they were almost universally unwilling to play 4E, but the few kids playing 4E were rabid about it.

Hobo said:

I don't know why we're always so concerned about if the kids today are going to play D&D or not. But personally, I think D&D will evolve into something else. If Hasbro is smart, what they'll do with D&D is similar to what Marvel has done with their trademarks and brands.

Namely, they're making money hand over fist, but hardly any of it comes from comic books. In fact, the comic books are pretty abysmal right now, with a few exceptions, and have been for years. (Dan Abnett and Co.'s superhero space opera titles are the big exception. Ultimate Marvel was the exception for a time, but then Marvel went and screwed that up too.) Comic books aren't really even their core business anymore; they just have to do them for reasons of inertia, no doubt. But the movies, the licensing to toys, video games and TV shows--that's where the money is.

Can D&D be parlayed into that kind of multi-media franchise empire? Don't know. Can it succeed in any way similar to how it has done in the past based solely on sales of the game itself? I doubt it. I think the future of D&D is to branch out sufficiently that other enterprises can subsidize the game so that it can continue by the die-hards without having to worry about the brand folding up every few years because sales keep dropping.

Click to expand...

I can definitely see something similar to neverwinter nights, especially if they keep the ability to make your own custom content being popular.

Shooter games played with headsets are played by the tens of millions after all and the voice enviroment is really well done. It wouldnt be that different from being in person except for huge bits of convenience added in finding a game and playing. Well that and having really good graphics and sound effects wouldnt hurt.

Mercurius said:

But you're missing what I'm getting at, I think, by focusing on the trees (specific words and phrases) rather than the forest of what I'm trying say (general ideas, essence). Also, exceptions to generalizations don't negate the validity of generalizations; there are always exceptions.

Of course there are great movies and bad books, but that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the way the medium interacts with the mind, in particular the imagination. Excalibur <snippage> is a profoundly exquisite movie, that deals with themes that most books don't touch upon, but it still interacts with the imagination in a different way: it shows you images, while books ask you to, at the least, co-generate images.

<snip>

Excalibur is certainly not junk food, not pop music. But it isn't a home-cooked meal - I'm not making it (although you could say I am making the meaning that I derive from it, but this isn't exactly the same as the imaginative process I'm talking about).

<snip>

Again, you're teasing out one "tree" (artistic sophistication) and missing the "forest." I am not saying that all TTRPGs are artistically sophisticated, nor that all video games aren't. Actually, I've seen incredible craftsmanship and sophistication from video games - but almost always in their design, their creation, not in their participation. That is what I'm focusing on - the participation, what it entails for the participant, what aspects of (and to what degree) their imaginations are engaged with the process.

<snip>

You seem to imply that "emphasis on GM authority" is, if not a bad thing, then certainly inferior to a more "shared fiction" experience.

<snip>

I think that there are types of games and experiences that work well with a more shared approach, but that for most people the "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than you seem to prefer.

Click to expand...

When I read a book I may sometimes generate images, but often don't. And when watching a (good) movie my imagination is engaged, also - I have to impute the inner life of the protagonists, which in a book may well be provided by way of narration. In my view there is nothing less imaginative in watching Casablanca and getting inside the heads of the characters, than reading Tolkien and imagining what Rivendell or Minas Tirith might look like.

I agree that for many RPGers a "classic D&D" game involves a stronger degree of GM authority than I prefer. My point is that this fact is somewhat hard to reconcile with the contention that there is something distinctively creative about participating in RPG play compared to other sorts of activities. In a game in which the GM has decided most of the key elements of backstory, situation, opposition and other stakes, etc, then what exactly does the creativity of the players consist? Forming mental images of things, and choosing whether to fight with a longsword or a mace?

I personally don't think that this sort of creativity is all that profound. I don't think it warrants any sort of comparison to performing jazz, which does involve artistic spontaneity on the part of the performer.