D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[MichaelSomething]

So we should counter the youth dominance by running D&D games at senior centers?

 

[John Lloyd1]

Thank you, and you as well.

That said, I'm going to respond in a few ways. The first is by noting something that you haven't really grappled with- time. Regardless of the amount of disposable income you might have, it's practically a truism that, until retirement, must people have declining available time after they are young adults. Little things like "work," and "family," and "oh my god I have to do something about the plumbing before my house floats away," tend to interfere. And this is compounded by the social nature of the game- you're not just dealing with your middle aged schedule, but multiple middle aged schedules. Put another way, the amount of time that I had to play in my teens and early adulthood (junior high, high school, college, graduate school and post-college working) dwarf the amount of time I have to play now.

Next, while you have done a great job of generally supporting the idea that older people have more money than young people (which I personally call the "olds rule, young whippersnappers drool" law) that doesn't really apply to most cases. I can't speak for you, but I managed to get hold of a LOT more playing materials in my youth than I do today. Sure, I can afford more, I guess. Mortgages don't need to be paid, right? But back then, I didn't have to worry about paying for my food, shelter, and so on- it was all discretionary. Yes, I understand that I was privileged, but this is true for a lot of kids- basic needs are being met, so their money is for the things they want, not the things that they need. Not to mention studies of teen income don't take into account other "wealth transfers," like gifts- "Sure, Timmy, we'll get you some D&D stuff for your birthday."

Finally, I will point out that I deal a lot with high school kids. And while they don't all come from the same socio-economic backgrounds, I am constantly amazed at what they can afford with their income. Based on your surveys, none of them would have phones. Or cars. Or videogames. Or go out to eat. Or, for that matter, none of them would go to the movies- and yet, if it wasn't for the teens that go there to "hang out," (ahem), our local movie theater would have gone out of business.

Again, I appreciate what you're saying- I want stuff that's made for me, too! But the last time D&D was truly marketed for an adult audience was, well, the 70s. I think there's a section in Game Wizards when it's disclosed that TSR learned that a year or so after the Egbert incident, the majority of their sales were to the youth demographic. And it's been like that ever since. If anything, we've been fortunate that a lot of D&D products haven't been catering too extensively to that market, although they have been leaning pretty heavily into the PG-13/PG direction for a while.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

The other thing about getting older is better impulse control. I bought heaps of games when I was young that I was never able to play. Now, I only buy what I think I will use and am better at knowing if that is true. (This might not apply to everyone).

 

[BrokenTwin]

So we should counter the youth dominance by running D&D games at senior centers?

Running RPG sessions at senior centres would honestly be an amazing idea. For completely unrelated reasons, mind. Great social and mental stimulation, good way to mix together people who wouldn't normally talk to each other.

 

[Oofta]

So we should counter the youth dominance by running D&D games at senior centers?

We used to joke about running games there when we were older. Getting to the point where it's not that far off for some people.

 

[mamba]

So we should counter the youth dominance by running D&D games at senior centers?

just wait a few years

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Maybe people are thinking we are calling KP dishonest, when we are really calling their argument dishonest. There is a difference.

Their argument? If something someone say is dishonest, THEY ARE being dishonest. There is no difference. People say actions speak louder than words but speaking and writing words are actions. Misleading statements and lies are actions. KP says the following (though my own commentary is added as well):

"1) 5th Edition Core Rulebooks are going away. The 5E Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook, and Dungeon Master’s Guide will not stay in print."
This claim is being misleading at best and outright deceptive at worst. The 2014 books will go out of print, sure, but the 2024 books will also be 5E and they won't be out of print. They are making this claim to support later claims that D&D will be non-physical, subscription-only, and that people must to go to a 3rd party to get physical book support, and ask that they consider being that 3pp.

"New players must either use purely digital rulebooks (which works for some people) or find a new version."
As mentioned above, here is the "must." Anyone who thinks that Wizards is going digital-only in 2024 is... not being honest with themselves, let alone people they are trying to convince/deceive. Wizards has even said they are publishing books in 2024, but likely not special editions at first printing.

We aim to keep the spirit of tabletop alive by producing beautiful, inviting versions of the core rulebooks for those who prefer to play face-to-face and those who don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to play.
By saying they want to keep the spirit of TTRP "alive" they are saying it is dying. Really? Here we also see the subscription claim and that if you want to play face to face, you must go elsewhere.

We want to keep 5E vibrant and strong at the heart of a community of players and publishers. Your investment in 5E will be supported by Project Black Flag because it is compatible with the game you already know.
Anyone paying attention knows that Wizards plans on the 2024 update being backwards compatible. Even if that is in doubt, KP is claiming it as a fact, which is misleading because they can't know yet. Do people really think that KPs changes will be less than Wizards changes? Or Level Up's? Heck, they have to create all new subclasses, and they are adding a L1 feat themselves, and they have to make all kinds of changes that hammer down the proud nails they don't like. They are literally making an entire new game, not just options. In fact, if their changes aren't as big as Level Up, I may not be interested. At least Level Up created what they considered an "Advanced" option of alternate books, and are putting their design chops up against Wizards'. If both Level Up and BF's games are considered 5E compatible, I am confident that the 2024 D&D rulebooks will be as well if held to the same standards.

They are claiming that they are the ones that can keep "5E" strong, but the only reason for making deceptive statements about 5E is to undermine whatever Wizards is working on. All those misleading claims were planned, purposeful negative-marketing speak to support a later request to replace anything 5E with their own game. That is not "strong." The entire ad is negative, pernicious, ad-speak intended to weaken Wizards. They want to sound like rebellious black flag flying pirates. Well they succeeded in my eyes.

They should drop the negative speak and put their design skills up against their competitors, showing how they are awesome, encouraging each other to up their game (pun intended). Heck, the D&D design team says they value and want 3rd party support as they can't create everything that different gamers want. I bet they buy 3pp books too! Many TTRPG designers are friendly industry acquaintances if not friends with each other and support each other. They don't want hostility.

At least Wizards changed course when they were called out for making errors. I will hold any creator to the same standards. Just because Wizards messes up, it doesn't mean that other companies can't.

 

[Maxperson]

Thank you, and you as well.

That said, I'm going to respond in a few ways. The first is by noting something that you haven't really grappled with- time. Regardless of the amount of disposable income you might have, it's practically a truism that, until retirement, must people have declining available time after they are young adults. Little things like "work," and "family," and "oh my god I have to do something about the plumbing before my house floats away," tend to interfere. And this is compounded by the social nature of the game- you're not just dealing with your middle aged schedule, but multiple middle aged schedules. Put another way, the amount of time that I had to play in my teens and early adulthood (junior high, high school, college, graduate school and post-college working) dwarf the amount of time I have to play now.

Next, while you have done a great job of generally supporting the idea that older people have more money than young people (which I personally call the "olds rule, young whippersnappers drool" law) that doesn't really apply to most cases. I can't speak for you, but I managed to get hold of a LOT more playing materials in my youth than I do today. Sure, I can afford more, I guess. Mortgages don't need to be paid, right? But back then, I didn't have to worry about paying for my food, shelter, and so on- it was all discretionary. Yes, I understand that I was privileged, but this is true for a lot of kids- basic needs are being met, so their money is for the things they want, not the things that they need. Not to mention studies of teen income don't take into account other "wealth transfers," like gifts- "Sure, Timmy, we'll get you some D&D stuff for your birthday."

Finally, I will point out that I deal a lot with high school kids. And while they don't all come from the same socio-economic backgrounds, I am constantly amazed at what they can afford with their income. Based on your surveys, none of them would have phones. Or cars. Or videogames. Or go out to eat. Or, for that matter, none of them would go to the movies- and yet, if it wasn't for the teens that go there to "hang out," (ahem), our local movie theater would have gone out of business.

Again, I appreciate what you're saying- I want stuff that's made for me, too! But the last time D&D was truly marketed for an adult audience was, well, the 70s. I think there's a section in Game Wizards when it's disclosed that TSR learned that a year or so after the Egbert incident, the majority of their sales were to the youth demographic. And it's been like that ever since. If anything, we've been fortunate that a lot of D&D products haven't been catering too extensively to that market, although they have been leaning pretty heavily into the PG-13/PG direction for a while.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

Okay. Back from a 4 day Legoland and San Diego Zoo extravaganza.

For sure time is an issue. When I was in my teens and early 20's the group I played in two groups. One was a bit more responsible and some had jobs, so the most we played was like Friday-Sunday. The other was a bit more privileged and 6-7 of us would sometimes stay at one guy's house for 1-2 weeks at a stretch. Now I manage 4 hours weekly on Thursday nights. That said, we are discussing players, so everyone in the groups I am talking about plays 5e at least some of the time and to do that they need books, and with the disposable income of those older groups, running out and buying the latest new toy to use in those games is really easy to do.

I like the "olds rule, young whippersnappers drool" law! Let me see if I can find that link I posted earlier. As you can see, the amount of disposable income in the 25+ age categories is quite significant per household. Many of those will be multi-income households, though. For single American disposable income I found this other link. Even with mortgages and other expenses, most American households will easily be able to afford to run out and buy a $50 book that was just released.

U.S. mean disposable household income by age 2020 | Statista

This statistic shows the mean disposable household income in the United States in 2020, by age.

www.statista.com

What is disposable income and how should you use it?

It’s the income you earn, minus the taxes you owe.

fortune.com

I find it very hard to believe that the older demographics which make up 60%(25+)-75%(18+) of D&D players(depending on where you are drawing the line) don't spend enough money on the game to warrant a significant portion of the game being aimed their way.

 

[Hussar]

I find it very hard to believe that the older demographics which make up 60%(25+)-75%(18+) of D&D players(depending on where you are drawing the line) don't spend enough money on the game to warrant a significant portion of the game being aimed their way.

That's some very serious cherry picking going on there. You are characterizing "old" as either older than 25 or older than 18. Good grief.

Somehow I don't think anyone characterizes a 21 year old D&D player as "old".

 

[Maxperson]

That's some very serious cherry picking going on there. You are characterizing "old" as either older than 25 or older than 18. Good grief.

Somehow I don't think anyone characterizes a 21 year old D&D player as "old".

That is, taking the entirety of my posts on this discussion into consideration, quite taking what I'm saying out of context. I never said 25 was old.

 

[Hussar]

That is, taking the entirety of my posts on this discussion into consideration, quite taking what I'm saying out of context. I never said 25 was old.

No you claimed that WotC needs to take older gamers into account when designing material. Then defined older gamer as anyone over 18 or 25.

And then you wonder why no one agrees with you.