D&D General Why grognards still matter

[Maxperson]

I think the underlying premise of the OP is wrong. Considering incomes, generally they increase with age. Using google (yeah I know that isn't always reliable) the average 16 year old makes $32,500 vs at 60 it's $62,000. However, teens have near zero in bills while older adults save at much higher rates. Most economists I follow consider 40 to be a break point. That is why "most" products are targeted at the coveted 14 - 29 year old. I would like to raise 2 additional thoughts I rarely see discussed.

I can believe that the average old D&D grognard spends more than the average young D&D grognard. That said, and these numbers are arbitrary to illustrate my point, it doesn't matter if the average old D&D grodnard spends 4x as much on D&D books as the average young D&D grodnard if there are 6x as many young D&D grognards.

We may get outspent just from sheer numbers of young folks vs. aging older folks who are unfortunately diminishing in numbers just due to the sheer passage of time.

That said, I think there are enough of us who spend enough money that we should matter to WotC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have a sincere question.

Is there a difference between "mattering" as you define it (whatever that definition may be) and being the primary focus?

Because that seems to me what a lot of people really mean when they say their group "matters." They're actually saying, "Our group should be the primary focus of [target entity]'s efforts." It's not enough that they continue to have meaningful influence. They must have more influence than any other comparable demographic. Be it political, religious, economic, artistic, whatever--"we still matter!!" so, so, so often just comes across as a more palatable spin on "we matter the most, so therefore give us what we specifically want."

 

[Maxperson]

I have a sincere question.

Is there a difference between "mattering" as you define it (whatever that definition may be) and being the primary focus?

Yes, of course there is. We may not be the focus, but neither should we be completely disregarded.

 

[Mercurius]

If I've had three of those, does that just make me confused?

No, it makes you a Quantum Grognard.

 

[Mercurius]

I have a sincere question.

Is there a difference between "mattering" as you define it (whatever that definition may be) and being the primary focus?

Because that seems to me what a lot of people really mean when they say their group "matters." They're actually saying, "Our group should be the primary focus of [target entity]'s efforts." It's not enough that they continue to have meaningful influence. They must have more influence than any other comparable demographic. Be it political, religious, economic, artistic, whatever--"we still matter!!" so, so, so often just comes across as a more palatable spin on "we matter the most, so therefore give us what we specifically want."

I would have thought it would be obvious from what I wrote: Of course there is a difference. Nowhere did I say that grognards should be the primary focus, and it really confuses me how anyone could take it that way. And I repeated that several times throughout the thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, of course there is. We may not be the focus, but neither should we be completely disregarded.

Okay. What kinds of things would count as being "completely disregarded"?

I would have thought it would be obvious from what I wrote: Of course there is a difference. Nowhere did I say that grognards should be the primary focus, and it really confuses me how anyone could take it that way. And I repeated that several times throughout the thread.

That was not the impression I got from the OP. The impression was, "We spend more money than anyone else. We are more active than anyone else. Our involvement is more important than anyone else's involvement." The natural conclusion from that, then, is that whatever products are produced must prioritize "grognard" interests first, and everything else second.

Will you feel "completely disregarded" (to use Max's term) if your priorities are clearly second, as in if there is a genuine conflict between that and their primary focus, a situation where they cannot choose both/all/everyone/etc., they will consistently choose the primary focus first?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I don't consider myself a proper grognard, as I don't grumble about developments in the game, I just ignore everything post-2008. I tried not ignoring them a couple of times, but found that unsatisfying. I don't harbour any illusions about my relevance to the modern game.

I stopped being interested in any new developments in Star Wars and Star Trek at around the same time. Does something happen in your brain when you're 38?

 

[Mercurius]

Okay. What kinds of things would count as being "completely disregarded"?


That was not the impression I got from the OP. The impression was, "We spend more money than anyone else. We are more active than anyone else. Our involvement is more important than anyone else's involvement." The natural conclusion from that, then, is that whatever products are produced must prioritize "grognard" interests first, and everything else second.

Will you feel "completely disregarded" (to use Max's term) if your priorities are clearly second, as in if there is a genuine conflict between that and their primary focus, a situation where they cannot choose both/all/everyone/etc., they will consistently choose the primary focus first?

Well, you got the wrong impression. Nowhere did I say that "whatever products are produced must prioritize grognard interests first, and everything else second." It really starts and ends with that mis-reading on your part. Meaning, re-examine that and then you'll find your second question to be completely unnecessary.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, you got the wrong impression. Nowhere did I say that "whatever products are produced must prioritize grognard interests first, and everything else second." It really starts and ends with that mis-reading on your part. Meaning, re-examine that and then you'll find your second question to be completely unnecessary.

I don't see how it's unnecessary. You want to be prioritized. You accept that that prioritization will not put you first. Okay. What, then, would be insufficient prioritization? You accept that the upper limit isn't going to be 100%. What is the acceptable lower limit? Because you and others clearly wouldn't accept 0%. That would be, again to use Max's phrase, "completely disregarded". Hence, there's got to be some range where the lower bound is more than zero and the upper bound is less than 100. What are those bounds? It's extremely important to actually have a notion of what approximate range would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Without that, every single discussion bogs down into "well it isn't good ENOUGH" and then we're just right back to my original question, because never good enough is exactly what "we must be prioritized first" cashes out as.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yeah, you’re insisting some segment of the market matters more for some essential reason. Nope. What I said, you don’t matter. Grognards that buy every book don’t matter, they buy every book. Grognards that don’t buy any books anymore, don’t matter, they don’t buy books. I suppose those disposable income grognards you talk about matter for their purchases of wizkid and other licensed products. But ultimately, You’re just an old man saying that old men matter and, sorryy, in the TTRPG space, ya don’t. You’re 50 years old and spending a lot of time debating books targeted at kids in their late teens. Think about it. What old forks like us want doesn’t matter. They’re making a product for our kids. You can like if you like, but seriously, get over the idea that grognards matter to anyone making new stuff these days. Stop wanting things to be about you, appreciate all the new stuff being made for othe next gen.

That sounds like an argument against hearing from anyone over the age of 25 about gaming at all.