D&D 5E "Labels" and D&D Gaming

[Neonchameleon]

Unlike you who seems cool with learning lots of systems, I'm the sort for whom learning an RPG system is work I feel I should only ever have to do once, after which I'll just tweak that system to give me what I want if required.

It depends on the system. One of the reasons I don't play TSR-era D&D and massively prefer modern games to just about anything from before 2003 is that modern systems are so much less work to learn. When I complain about oD&D having lookup tables (or THAC0) for attack rolls, percentile chances for thief skills and system shock chances, roll under for saving throws, and the rest is because that sort of stuff is massively disproportionately hard to learn. You've already learned it so it doesn't trouble you. But if I'm going to be using multiple systems because a well designed system can do far more to help me do certain things than I could on my own there had better be a huge reason to do things that awkwardly. And ... there isn't.

The player-filtering occurs much earlier in my case, at point of deciding who I'm going to invite in.

In my case I move when I move jobs - which is about every three years or so. And I have to form a new group each time. So I look for a group that I think will be fun and fit together - but they aren't always remotely the same and are possibly a bit less filtered than I'd manage if I didn't have to refound the group.

 

[Hussar]

It was blindingly stupid, and that's just my point.

And whether or not those over 35 stop buying is utterly irrelevant when conducting research on how people play the game.

But, that's not what the research was. It was market research - which means that those buying are absolutely the most important part of the research. That might explain why you seem not to understand why they cut off at 35.

May I point out something rather obvious that you've missed:

ENWorld's entire existence has been during the 3e-and-forward era. 3e was specifically designed to promote 12-18 month campaigns thus it's hardly surprising that most people ended up playing it that way whether they otherwise would have or not. 4e and 5e subsequently followed the same model.

If you're getting that data from the research itself, I'll just facepalm now and get it over with.

Nope. Dragon Magazine, various websites, pretty much any actual evidence, no matter how sketchy.

Of course most gamers would show to be in their 20s because responses from anyone in their 40s or higher, along with those in their late 30s, were discarded! (there was a low-age cutoff as well but I forget what it was)

Those who picked up the game in college in the late 70s/early 80s - i.e. a very large part of what drove the 1e boom - didn't qualify to be heard; they'd have generally been 18-22 then and thus in their mid-30s or higher when the research was done. How many of those people were still playing by then is, of course, anyone's guess...but I suppose we'll never know other than to say some of us are still playing now.

Sorry, but that's just crap research designed to give a pre-ordained set of answers.

Nope. It just wasn't asking the questions that you think that it was. Why on earth would they want market research that didn't accurately reflect the market? This wasn't political polling. This was the research (the first of its kind mind you) to determine just who buys RPG's and what those buyers experiences are.

Now, all that being said, other than your campaign, which I realize that you play these very long campaigns, what evidence can you point to that this isn't a really, really far outlier?

 

[Lanefan]

But, that's not what the research was. It was market research - which means that those buying are absolutely the most important part of the research. That might explain why you seem not to understand why they cut off at 35.

If the point of market research is to find out who's buying and what they'll buy, why exclude such a large proportion of the potential market?

But, if memory serves, the survey wasn't packaged as "what are you interested in buying?" but more "what/how are you playing right now?" with a bit of "what/how have you played in the past?" thrown in. And nothing was mentioned about any age cutoff in the survey itself (had there been, I wouldn't have wasted my time filling it out); I didn't find out about that until Dancey released his report, in which it is noted.

Nope. It just wasn't asking the questions that you think that it was. Why on earth would they want market research that didn't accurately reflect the market?

My question exactly: why did they want intentionally inaccurate data that only reflected a particular segment of the community/market?

This wasn't political polling. This was the research (the first of its kind mind you) to determine just who buys RPG's and what those buyers experiences are.

And that's what truly baffles me - it was the first of its kind (of any real significance, anyway) in the RPG realm, so why not start by surveying the entire market just to see what's out there?

Now, all that being said, other than your campaign, which I realize that you play these very long campaigns, what evidence can you point to that this isn't a really, really far outlier?

Must be something about our community, but any significant campaign attempt I can think of run by anyone I've known over the last 35-ish years has either a) fallen apart very early, within at most a few months but often after just a session or two, due to any of a host of factors usually involving available player time and commitment or b) lasted for years.

I somewhat suspect that might be due to back in the early 1e era there being but a very small number of DMs in town, with most subsequent DMs originating in their games (with the process repeating a few times) to start their own, and all of them had a long-term view of things.

Example (I'll file the names off to protect the guilty): the "tree" I'm in started with DM A, one of a very small group of DMs who may themselves have come from a common root, I don't know. His game lasted 6 years in the late 70s-early 80s and produced DMs B and C (of DM C I know no more). DM B's game, which has had three separate campaigns spanning nearly 40 years now, produced DMs D (me) and E that I know of, possibly along with some others of whom I've lost track. My games have gone 10, 12 and 11+ years. DM E's game lasted about 8-10 years through the late 80s-early 90s and produced DM F, whose three campaigns lasted about 12 years between them spanning the 1990s*.

Meanwhile and unrelated, another group in town (who may share a common root, I don't know) had DM G whose game, as far as I know, lasted some 5-10 years in the 1990s and produced for us first a few players and now - as of three months ago - DM H. Thus far these are all 1e-or-close games.

Toss into that mix DM I, who first joined us as a player after some DMing experience elsewhere and who since has had two campaigns: one using 3e that went 11 years through the 00s and a second ongoing PF one that's over 7 years in now.

And sure, one ten-year campaign takes the same time as five 2-year campaigns, and the five will likely involve more people in total. But that's no reason to say we're irrelevant; and around here I'd say we're probably somewhat more of an outlier now than we were at the time of the survey; in part due to game design and in part due to lower patience levels and attention spans.

* - of the people who I know were involved in games during the research period I'd guess about 3/4 would have been aged out of the survey.

 

[Hussar]

My question exactly: why did they want intentionally inaccurate data that only reflected a particular segment of the community/market?

Because the over 30 crowd didn't buy D&D books. That's almost word for word what Dancey said.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the point of market research is to find out who's buying and what they'll buy, why exclude such a large proportion of the potential market?

Because that's a proportion with little market presence.

Most over 35s are happy playing the game they already have. They already have a favourite system and a shelf full of books to go with it. They don't particularly want to spend the time and effort to learn a new system. And this does double for anything outside core. I can imagine you buying the core three books of each new version of D&D. But I simply can't imagine you, with your stated tastes buying any source material in e.g. the Realms or Eberron. Or the Critical Role setting. You've got your own setting.

In general, roleplaying being an exceptionally cheap hobby, over 35s have everything they need or even want including a stable location to play.

But, if memory serves, the survey wasn't packaged as "what are you interested in buying?" but more "what/how are you playing right now?" with a bit of "what/how have you played in the past?" thrown in.

Of course. One thing to remember about when it happened is that the least financially successful version of D&D was 2e, not 4e. It both got overtaken in sales by a rival (the World of Darkness) and was so unprofitable (unlike 4e which was raking in about six million dollars a year through DDI even after the launch of 5e) that it helped drive TSR to bankruptcy. WotC might have bought the biggest brand in tabletop roleplaying, but it had been an utter mess for years.

People who'd stuck with 1e through 2e were people (like yourself) who'd probably stay with 1e going forward. They were happy with their game. And the 2e fans who bought everything would probably keep doing so as long as there weren't massive changes.

But the other huge issue WotC had was that in the late 90s D&D was the old person's RPG. The popular RPG among teenagers and 20-somethings was Vampire: the Masquerade. WotC's two goals were to keep the 2e spenders (they spent money) and to win back the teenagers and 20-somethings (they spent money). They had data on what sold for 2e (player facing splatbooks) but needed more on what people were playing instead of D&D.

My question exactly: why did they want intentionally inaccurate data that only reflected a particular segment of the community/market?

They didn't. They wanted accurate data that represented the segment of the market likely to spend money.

And that's what truly baffles me - it was the first of its kind (of any real significance, anyway) in the RPG realm, so why not start by surveying the entire market just to see what's out there?

In part they did that. I don't know if the over 35s cutoff came before or after an initial scan of the results.

Must be something about our community, but any significant campaign attempt I can think of run by anyone I've known over the last 35-ish years has either a) fallen apart very early, within at most a few months but often after just a session or two, due to any of a host of factors usually involving available player time and commitment or b) lasted for years.

That's ... not my experience. But I live in London, and people move around in London. A year or two is normal and people move away for jobs. Also a group I was part of that lasted 25 years had campaigns for a couple of years.

I somewhat suspect that might be due to back in the early 1e era there being but a very small number of DMs in town, with most subsequent DMs originating in their games (with the process repeating a few times) to start their own, and all of them had a long-term view of things.

And because 1e sets things up for the very long haul that way. Apocalypse World sets itself up for 6-12 session campaign - with significant character arcs in that time and possibly rewriting the world (which was created fresh and collaboratively for the campaign). In Pathfinder it took us about a year to get up to a level in the mid teens.

And sure, one ten-year campaign takes the same time as five 2-year campaigns, and the five will likely involve more people in total. But that's no reason to say we're irrelevant;

Financially if you are still playing 1e you are. It's a game that has been basically out of print for 30 years (yes I know about the recent deluxe editions). WotC is a business.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, @Lanefan, you've got it backwards. They didn't design 3e to run 1 year campaigns and then market 1 year campaigns. They learned, through the market research that was done before 3e was designed, what people were actually doing at the table. Let's not forget, prior to that WotC market research, no one had that slightest clue. There was no market research done. At all. As mind boggling as that is, it's still true. No one had the slightest clue what the "average" gamer did.

That's why they did that market research. To find out what the average gamer who was going to buy books (and that's the important caveat) did. Which revealed that D&D was largely a suburban phenomenon primarily geared towards young men in their teens and early to mid twenties. That's where the largest buying block was.

 

[S'mon]

I think there are a fair number of age 35+ 'Whales' who buy a ton of RPG material since they have a lot of disposable income and it's their lifestyle hobby. I certainly buy more WoTC stuff than most of the young gamers I know!

 

[fearsomepirate]

Of course. One thing to remember about when it happened is that the least financially successful version of D&D was 2e, not 4e. It both got overtaken in sales by a rival (the World of Darkness) and was so unprofitable (unlike 4e which was raking in about six million dollars a year through DDI even after the launch of 5e) that it helped drive TSR to bankruptcy. WotC might have bought the biggest brand in tabletop roleplaying, but it had been an utter mess for years.

2e itself sold quite well, certainly better than 4e ever did. The problem was Williams ran TSR like a bust-out operation. TSR had a deal with Random House where they'd get a 27% cash advance on any books delivered. Williams looked at this like a sucker's deal and had TSR crap out utter garbage quality books as fast as they could to get cash. Then you had the Buck Rogers game, where Williams got paid royalties by TSR for books that didn't sell. At the end, TSR was delivering books to Random House to get the advance just to cover existing debts. When WotC took over TSR, they had AD&D profitable within a year by just not running the company like something from a mob movie.

 

[Umbran]

I think there are a fair number of age 35+ 'Whales' who buy a ton of RPG material since they have a lot of disposable income and it's their lifestyle hobby. I certainly buy more WoTC stuff than most of the young gamers I know!

Today, 35+ are very active in the market. But remember that the market research under discussion was done back in 1999. That's before the boom of 3e, and again of 5e. The diversity of 3rd party materials (both game rules and physical aids like custom dice and GM screens and all) didn't exist. The market was a different place.

The 35+ of then are the 55+ of today.

 

[MoonSong]

I think there are a fair number of age 35+ 'Whales' who buy a ton of RPG material since they have a lot of disposable income and it's their lifestyle hobby. I certainly buy more WoTC stuff than most of the young gamers I know!

Twenty years ago, many 35+ whales were 15+ teens in the middle of an economic boom, while many teens today have a hard time finding a part time job for pocket money and many in fact need that job for basic necessities. It is a different context.