Why the Modern D&D variants will not attract new players

[Beginning of the End]

Is it really a good idea to base the assumptions of a game on 20% of the audience?

It may be when those are the tables generating the most new players. I have two ongoing campaigns: On has run for 60 sessions over 3 years and included 7 players of whom 5 are still playing.

The other has run for 20 sessions over a year and a half and has included 24 different players. Of those 24 players, 6 of them were entirely new to roleplaying games and 8 hadn't played in 3+ years. Some of these players have stuck around and continued participating in the campaign. Others drop in once every few months as their schedule allows. Others haven't stayed interested. Others have spun off and begun playing and running their own games.

What's the difference? Well, the former campaign has a tight, ongoing continuity. Joining that campaign is a major commitment: You have to be willing to compromise your personal schedule in order to coordinate game sessions with a half dozen other busy people. We need to have a fair degree of confidence that (a) you'll be a good fit for the campaign and (b) that you won't drop out and cause continuity problems when your character vanishes. So inviting new people to play the game is difficult, and inviting people completely new to roleplaying games is essentially impossible.

OTOH, the other campaign is a looser affair: Whoever shows up for a particular session forms the adventuring party for that adventure. When the session is done, all the PCs head back to town ready for the next hodgepodge adventuring party that goes out to the dungeon or looks to explore the nearby wilderness. It's an old school structure, and it means getting new people involved in the game is as easy as saying, "Hey, you wanna play?"

If all you care about are the die-hards who play the game on a regular, weekly or bi-weekly basis then the latter campaign structure isn't where you want to be focusing your attention. The "retention rate", as you say, is terrible.

But if football manufacturers decided that the "retention rate" of people playing catch in the backyard was terrible because most of those people didn't join peewee leagues... Well, they'd sell a lot fewer footballs.

 

[Lanefan]

Of your long standing groups, barely 1 in 5 stuck around for the duration. 20%. Not counting yourself of course. And also not counting the number of players who only stuck around for a session or two.

Is it really a good idea to base the assumptions of a game on 20% of the audience?

As to whether people stick with the same system? Sure it is. Why, you ask? Because game system isn't why they leave.

Those who left had all sorts of different reasons for doing so, of which the actual game system being played was (if memory serves) in the first long game irrelevant and in the second one a consideration for only a few. But now you've got me thinking as to why each one did leave... ::checks some logs, tries to remember:: ...see below.

(side note: I should probably also mention here that all three of my games used/are using essentially the same system; and that there was player carry-over from one to the next in each case)

OK, why did they leave?

First long game had a total of 19 players. 9 of these were active at campaign's end. Of the 10 who left before it was done:

1 left due to boredom with system (advancement too slow)
3 left because they moved out of town
3 left because they weren't really into RPGs at the time (the 1-session types)
3 left due to personality clashes with other players and-or me

Also, one of the finishing 9 had left due to scheduling and later returned.

Second long game had a total of 21 players, 10 active at campaign's end. Of the 11 who left early:

4 left because they moved out of town
2 left because they weren't really into RPGs at the time (1-session types)
1 left due to health reasons (could not get to the games)
1 left due to dissatisfaction with game system, preferred 3e
2 left due to personality conflicts with other players and-or me
1 left due to scheduling issues (not enough time)

Of those who finished, 2 had left (one due to scheduling, one to try other RPG systems and genres) during the campaign, and later returned.

Third and current game has had 8 players, 5 are active now.

2 left due to scheduling (school); both are likely to return later
1 left due to not really being into RPGs at the time (1-session type).

So, to sum up: of all the various people who have left my games I can find only 2 for whom game system was - as far as I can tell - the primary reason. The *group*, as defined by its slowly-changing membership at any given time, stuck with the system.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

I'm not saying that system was the reason for leaving, Lanefan. In fact, I would assume that it wasn't usually the reason. After all, if you've sat down to play a given game, likely you're at least somewhat interested in that game.

But, if campaigns typically only last a year and groups not much more than that (which is what the WOTC market survey information says), then why would they design a game with the assumption that campaigns will last longer than that?

BOTE - I think you're actually agreeing with me. Your loose campaign is generating loads more players than your tight campaign. Wouldn't it make sense to design a game with the loose campaign in mind?

Which is what I said in the first place. Why design a game based on a small, limited number of hard-core players instead of designing to wider appeal?

 

[Lanefan]

But, if campaigns typically only last a year and groups not much more than that (which is what the WOTC market survey information says)

The very flawed market survey, if you're referring to the one they did in the run-up to 3e.

then why would they design a game with the assumption that campaigns will last longer than that?

In part because they designed the survey to give them the answers they wanted, then designed to the answers they knew they were going to get. Different topic, however; so I won't go ranting off about it here.

Why design a game based on a small, limited number of hard-core players instead of designing to wider appeal?

Because in this hobby more than most it's those limited number of hard-core nutballers who are going to end up generating the wider appeal, albeit slowly, via word of mouth. That's how it worked for 1e; no reason to think much has changed since in that aspect at least.

Lan-"D+D as a game never comes across well in advertisements"-efan

 

[nedjer]

Because in this hobby more than most it's those limited number of hard-core nutballers who are going to end up generating the wider appeal

Is that wider appeal or simply the most reliable income in the short term?

 

[Wicht]

Is that wider appeal or simply the most reliable income in the short term?

Short term here meaning, of course, the 30+ years those hard-core gamers game and recruit others to gaming.

 

[Chrono22]

Yep^
Advertisements don't sell D&D, rulebooks don't sell D&D.
DMs Good DMs sell D&D. The best DMs aren't casual players. They are dedicated players, they are "hard core" gamers.

That's not to say all hard core players are good DMs, but I've never met a casual player that was also a good DM. Being a good DM, IME, requires a certain level of investment, dedication, and focus that can't be found in a casual player.

So I think WotC should rethink their marketing strategy. D&D will never have mass appeal like other games... unless they try to remove those elements that make it D&D in the first place. You know, the parts where having an imagination, time management skills, and a sense of story telling are required. But that's not a road I want them to take.

The hardcore niche is the niche that does the most work expanding the player base. I've seen loads of casual players come and go, and for the most part they have lousy retention. But the dedicated players just keep coming back for more, and they bring friends.

 

[nedjer]

Short term here meaning, of course, the 30+ years those hard-core gamers game and recruit others to gaming.

I don't doubt the great value of that contribution, but for me the potential RPG market goes well beyond the numbers brought in through hard-core gamers.

On a 'D&D spectrum' most of those possible players are open to a 'style' focused on exploration, mysteries, discovery, . . . and combat, using mechanics on the level of the oldish Basic, Expert, Companion, We Love Ourselves set.

However, these potential players may not exist, in which case it all seems a bit end of LoR/ Arthurian as the Round Table of hard-core gamer Elven Knights become outcasts in a world that no longer understands them.

 

[Wicht]

Nedjer, I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting a different ruleset might bring in a lot more players than the prevalent rulesets?

If so, I agree that might be possible, but killing the goose because you think the potential gold might outweigh the present gold is almost always a bad idea. Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory. 30 year customers are the long term strategy. Loads of customers that stick with you a few months and then quit is almost the definition of a short term strategy.

 

[nedjer]

Nedjer, I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say? Are you suggesting a different ruleset might bring in a lot more players than the prevalent rulesets?

If so, I agree that might be possible, but killing the goose because you think the potential gold might outweigh the present gold is almost always a bad idea. Faithful customers who stick with you for 30 years are easier to plan around than potential customers who might be tempted to give you their patronage if you revamp your entire inventory. 30 year customers are the long term strategy. Loads of customers that stick with you a few months and then quit is almost the definition of a short term strategy.

My take in terms of D&D is that if you want more hardbacks and AD&Ds it might be necessary to fund it by making D&D more accessible. This is being done up to a point with solo game PC generation card crossover efforts, Encounters, lower entry costs and dovetailing. Essentially, (sorry) I'm for fattening the goose rather than killing it.