D&D General Why grognards still matter

[Ruin Explorer]

The narrative I have seen a lot of places including this site is that the new generation is the only one that matter from money generation to tastes that impact the bottom line.

All that I assert is that this has not been the case either in how 5e was made nor in how “I strongly suspect” the businesses would see it.

Do I think more established people have more money? Yes

Do I think more money is correlated with more purchases per person? Yes

Do I think some of that generalizes to more gaming purchases? Yes

Can I cite clear financial date from the businesses in question to prove it? No

Can I look around at everyone I know and see one small sample that suggests this is true? Yes

If folks think that grogs don’t disproportionally impact sales per person, I am curious to know”why not?” And not in a rhetorical way—-just curious.

Now I will go back to my game room which is brimming with books, licensed minis, and wonder if I would have bought all this crap as a kid working fast food or if my folks would have bought it all for me…

You understand, right, @Warpiglet-7 that what you're describing is a completely uninformed guess?

That's not a rational argument, it's a stack of generalizations and guesses and assumptions, none of which you have the slightest bit of non-anecdotal evidence for, and all of which fails to consider whether we're talking about D&D or "the industry". You don't even know if the generalizations are accurate.

Because that's the big thing I see here, and I do very much doubt that grogs spend so much more than other groups, that they make a significantly disproportionate impact on D&D specifically. On the industry? I don't doubt it, but if we're going to play the anecdote game, which, with respect, is what you're playing, let's play it.

I know a couple of dozen fairly regular RPG players IRL at the moment, like I've spoken to them in the last few years, ranging in age from about 30 to 50, discounting pre-teen kids who aren't buying for themselves (the oldest kid of anyone in my social group literally just hit 13 so that will be changing).

So I observe a couple things:

1) People new to D&D with 5E tend to have bought more D&D books, by far, than the people who are long-time D&D players (in my anecdotal experience). Certainly in physical. I can only speculate re: digital, but given digital uptake is typically lower with older generations, I don't see that being different here. If I look at people my age who run D&D, most of them have the main three books, and a scattering of other books, mostly adventures. They're often "missing" setting, rules, and monster books. Whereas if I look at the young 30s people (now, younger when they got into it), they have pretty much everything.

2) But there is one thing the older players have way more of - 3PP books and fancy 3PP RPG accessory stuff - like tables, dice/dice rollers, battle mats, minis, etc. etc. That Kickstarter-ish 3PP area is where I see friends and acquaintances in the hobby blowing absolutely bazillions. Particularly on board games rather than D&D. It's hard to even remotely spend what people spend on Kickstarting boardgames or incredibly fancy 3PP RPG stuff (some specific to D&D. And I know D&D players and DMs who play regularly, and drop hundreds of 3PP stuff and board games, but don't even have remotely-complete collections of WotC D&D books.

This is I think where you and the OP are falling down. Because I do think a lot of disposable income is going into "the hobby" from some people in their 40s, 50s, even 60s or older. But I don't think it's significantly age-deviated on WotC books themselves (and probably age-deviated away from older people on digital). I think that a lot of younger people manage to afford the same WotC books older ones do.

Again let's look at you:

Now I will go back to my game room which is brimming with books, licensed minis, and wonder if I would have bought all this crap as a kid working fast food or if my folks would have bought it all for me…

D&D as a whole is too expensive a hobby if you're really poor - virtually every other RPG is wildly cheaper. The three core book model is a huge outlay compared to other RPGs (this was less true in the 1980s and 1990s, I think), so I think what you're maybe not getting here is that the younger people who do get involved in modern D&D are probably towards the higher end of the earnings spectrum for their age. It's very much a middle-class leaning, educated-leaning hobby, even though it's not exclusionary (at the table) to people not from those backgrounds.

And I'm not convinced many more people who are 40+ are blowing cash on "licenced minis" than people in their 30s, frankly, nor am I convinced that market is so large as to mean much to WotC themselves.

Again, without any numbers, talk about "licenced minis" is kind of wanky (not insulting you, just pointing this out). It doesn't get us anywhere. It's guesswork and there's no actual reason to believe it's more than a minor sideline.

On top of all this, I think there's a real question between:

"D&D as a game"

and

"D&D as a lifestyle brand"

I don't doubt that 40+ people spend disproportionately more on D&D as a lifestyle brand. I.e. stuff that's not REALLY for gaming, like licenced minis, ridiculously overpriced and surprisingly low-quality WotC dice (I mean come on...), pure lore books (like the dragon one), etc.

But I don't think overall that "lifestyle brand" approach to D&D has paid off all that well for WotC (yet, as Homer would point out!). And that's a good thing! Because being a lifestyle brand and being a game pull D&D in two very different directions. Directions that, I would argue, are not really compatible.

 

[Parmandur]

I must be a Grandmaster Immortal Whale*...

View attachment 397458

(*actually average income to low, but no bills)

I mean, that is a lot...but represents a moderate amount over time.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems reasonable that people over 25 buy, on average, more product than people 15-25.

Something can  seem reqsonable without corresponding to facts on the ground.

if people over 25 bought more D&D books in the aggregate, then over 25 would be the target demogrpahic for whom WotC makes books.

However, WotC has been consistent for a long time that ages 12-24 are the target demographic for D&D.

Therefore it would seem more reasonable that more income is coming in from 12-25 year old players. Any evidence to the contrary...?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It seems reasonable that people over 25 buy, on average, more product than people 15-25.

So that's a big loud "No" to my question?

It also doesn't reflect my experience as an RPG buyer. I was never more completist, more keen to buy every book, than at that age group. Even if it pushed my finances kind of hard. I'm far less completionist now. I'm currently a lot better positioned to buy every single WotC D&D book as it comes out, but I don't. Why? Because both I'm far more financially responsible and sensible at 46 than I was at a younger age, and because I'm far less overexcited by RPG stuff (even though I care about it deeply) than I was at a younger age. I'm no longer a completionist.

Also "more product" over the industry as a whole is I think very different from "More stuff from WotC specifically".

But focusing on this one statement is a bit misdirecting to the underlying point I made.

Not really. It's actually quite fundamental, because the young people definitely wildly outnumber the grogs, your only logic for grogs mattering significantly is that the grogs wildly outspend them.

In an economic sense, they still buy a lot of product, regardless of the exact ratio or proportion of sales.

Sure but we're what, 10%? 15% of sales? 20%? Without figures it's meaningless, and clearly even you agree that the vast majority of the market isn't grogs.

Not sure why several folks keep making this error of interpretation

Because of the way your post is written, dude, it absolutely looks like that's what you're saying - that we spend more and thus matter disproportionately. You are not free from responsibility here!

I think what's funny here is WotC would like grogs to matter more than they do, because grogs are probably the ones buying most of the D&D merch, the D&D-as-a-lifestyle-brand junk (I use the term advisedly m'lud), but it looks like people actually want the kind of books I wanted when I was 16 or 26, not the kind of lifestyle stuff, or weird odd overpriced books that WotC would rather push (c.f. Spelljammer, aka rip-offJammer - and boy would that have made me way more angry when I was 20 than now!).

 

[PurpleHazy]

As a comparison, LEGO some years ago, conducted a survey/analysis on "Adult Friends of Lego" or "AFOL". The conclusion of their efforts was that AFOLs, while a small percentage of the total user population (~ 2-5% from memory), had an outsized impact on the economic success of any particular line and also Lego's bottom line. Again, from memory, the typical Lego user was a young person, typically male, aged 6-17 or so. These users could be expected to receive 2-3 sets per year (think birthday, holiday, perhaps another set along the way). This contributed perhaps $100-$150/yr. (more now) while the AFOL spending, on average, upwards of $2,000/yr. (so perhaps 15-20x buying power per capita) on new sets. Ultimately, LEGO decided that AFOL's were an important segment of their customer base. This was the basis for some of the first LEGO mega-sets, think Star destroyer, or now LOTR sets). LEGO still employs an "AFOL ambassador" who coordinates and interacts with the various "Lego User Groups" or "LUG"s throughout the world. These groups provide feedback via regular surveys and interactions with the AFOL ambassador. The embrace of the AFOL's helped in part to turn LEGO around and make it much more successful.

The takeaway is that a similar, popular, and analogous product figured out years ago that their "grognards" had both economic and market (via their input) value. WOTC could do this. And to be fair, WOTC has done this to some degree, and, while, not nearly as successful, has made some efforts to capitalize on this via alternative covers, larger collections, etc. Beadle and Grimm have frankly capitalized on this more than WOTC (the economic aspect anyway). WOTC would do well to continue to learn this lesson.

Grognards need to continue to provide their input in ways that are ultimately productive. If you believe in something, you typically support it, as some say with your 'Time or your Treasure". Of the grognards that contribute, many do this well (as evidenced here and elsewhere on the interwebs). Those grognards that don't contribute well (e.g. gatekeeping, toxic, trolling) risk going the way of the dinosaurs and rightly so.

btw - I'm Master grognard per the aforementioned scale.

 

[Parmandur]

As a comparison, LEGO some years ago, conducted a survey/analysis on "Adult Friends of Lego" or "AFOL". The conclusion of their efforts was that AFOLs, while a small percentage of the total user population (~ 2-5% from memory), had an outsized impact on the economic success of any particular line and also Lego's bottom line. Again, from memory, the typical Lego user was a young person, typically male, aged 6-17 or so. These users could be expected to receive 2-3 sets per year (think birthday, holiday, perhaps another set along the way). This contributed perhaps $100-$150/yr. (more now) while the AFOL spending, on average, upwards of $2,000/yr. (so perhaps 15-20x buying power per capita) on new sets. Ultimately, LEGO decided that AFOL's were an important segment of their customer base. This was the basis for some of the first LEGO mega-sets, think Star destroyer, or now LOTR sets). LEGO still employs an "AFOL ambassador" who coordinates and interacts with the various "Lego User Groups" or "LUG"s throughout the world. These groups provide feedback via regular surveys and interactions with the AFOL ambassador. The embrace of the AFOL's helped in part to turn LEGO around and make it much more successful.

The takeaway is that a similar, popular, and analogous product figured out years ago that their "grognards" had both economic and market (via their input) value. WOTC could do this. And to be fair, WOTC has done this to some degree, and, while, not nearly as successful, has made some efforts to capitalize on this via alternative covers, larger collections, etc. Beadle and Grimm have frankly capitalized on this more than WOTC (the economic aspect anyway). WOTC would do well to continue to learn this lesson.

Grognards need to continue to provide their input in ways that are ultimately productive. If you believe in something, you typically support it, as some say with your 'Time or your Treasure". Of the grognards that contribute, many do this well (as evidenced here and elsewhere on the interwebs). Those grognards that don't contribute well (e.g. gatekeeping, toxic, trolling) risk going the way of the dinosaurs and rightly so.

btw - I'm Master grognard per the aforementioned scale.

Big difference between LEGO and D&D is thst, as @Clint_L pointed out, a kid could get everything WptC puts out every year for less than one of those birthday LEGO sets. D&D is a cheap hobby, the economics aren't going to match with a pricey endeavor like LEGO.

However, yes, WotC does do a lot to appeal to older gamers: premium reprints of OD&D, remakes of classic modules that are like 20 years older than most players (consider that much of the target market wasn'teven born when Eberron dropped), Easter Eggs, classic Settings, etc.

 

[Mercurius]

Something can  seem reqsonable without corresponding to facts on the ground.

if people over 25 bought more D&D books in the aggregate, then over 25 would be the target demogrpahic for whom WotC makes books.

However, WotC has been consistent for a long time that ages 12-24 are the target demographic for D&D.

Therefore it would seem more reasonable that more income is coming in from 12-25 year old players. Any evidence to the contrary...?

I didn't speculate on total numbers - just my sense that the average person over 25 spends more on gaming products (and probably WotC products) than the average 15-25 year old. If you're insistent on proof, feel free to provide some. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really matter either way, because even if wrong, 25+ year olds are still significant enough to "matter." In other words, I think honing in on this one thing is a bit of a red herring that, at best, obfuscates the overall point ("grognards still matter") but at worst, actually tries to negate that point (for some strange reason...aren't we supposed to be inclusionary?).

My guess is that younger players are the target audience not only because they're greater in number, but they're potential lifelong customers. If I'm WotC, I'm trying to "keep" them. But this doesn't mean they are ignoring, or should ignore, the "bird in hand" - those of us who have been buying books for years, decades even. As you yourself said a couple posts up.

 

[Parmandur]

Anyhow, I didn't speculate on total numbers - just my sense that the average person over 25 spends more on gaming products (and probably WotC products) than the average 15-25 year old. If you're insistent on proof, feel free to provide some. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really matter either way, because even if wrong, 25+ year olds are still significant enough to "matter." In other words, I think honing in on this one thing is a bit of a red herring that, at best, obfuscates the overall point ("grognards still matter") but at worst, actually tries to negate that point (for some strange reason...aren't we supposed to be inclusionary?).

My guess is that younger players are the target audience not only because they're greater in number, but they're potential lifelong customers. If I'm WotC, I'm trying to "keep" them. But this doesn't mean they are ignoring, or should ignore, the "bird in hand" - those of us who have been buying books for years, decades even. As you yourself said a couple posts up.

Right, I think the old school players in charge of D&D creative are constantly writing love letters to their fellow longtime while working to make the old relevant to younger audiences. A balanced approach.

But it really does seem to me more money probably comes in from teens than older gamers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it is pretty clear those of us who are 40+ (I am getting into my fifties) are a less significant demographic numerically for D&D than people in their 20s and 30s (provided the demographic charts WOTC has provided are accurate). I don’t think out purchasing power outweighs theirs. I do think people in our age groups are both dedicated to our hobbies long term and spend disposable income on them, and so we still buy books and even if we are just like 13 percent of the gamer base, that thirteen percent still have value. But I think this conversation has less to do with that and more to do with people saying we still matter period. Not that our dollar is better. Not that we can outvote anyone. Just that we shouldn’t be dismissed simply because we are older and have older tastes. Again someone pointed to IRL versus online, and I think that is true.

When I first started we used terms like grognard but I feel like there was more respect to it. Like we understood they were playing in a style that was older, more stodgy and had zero interest to us at times, but we could learn things about the hobby from their experience of having been there before us (and this is how most fandoms used to operate when I was younger: whether it was D&D or playing guitar)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As a comparison, LEGO some years ago, conducted a survey/analysis on "Adult Friends of Lego" or "AFOL". The conclusion of their efforts was that AFOLs, while a small percentage of the total user population (~ 2-5% from memory), had an outsized impact on the economic success of any particular line and also Lego's bottom line. Again, from memory, the typical Lego user was a young person, typically male, aged 6-17 or so. These users could be expected to receive 2-3 sets per year (think birthday, holiday, perhaps another set along the way). This contributed perhaps $100-$150/yr. (more now) while the AFOL spending, on average, upwards of $2,000/yr. (so perhaps 15-20x buying power per capita) on new sets. Ultimately, LEGO decided that AFOL's were an important segment of their customer base. This was the basis for some of the first LEGO mega-sets, think Star destroyer, or now LOTR sets). LEGO still employs an "AFOL ambassador" who coordinates and interacts with the various "Lego User Groups" or "LUG"s throughout the world. These groups provide feedback via regular surveys and interactions with the AFOL ambassador. The embrace of the AFOL's helped in part to turn LEGO around and make it much more successful.

LEGO is an interesting comparator because WotC are singularly failing at being something you could be an "Adult Friend Of".

An "Adult Friend Of D&D" (what a truly ghastly term, feels like something someone might use as a euphemism) just can't spend $2000/year on D&D official stuff. Especially not rulebooks/content that mean anything to other people.

Also, non-grog D&D players trend a lot older than LEGO assemblers, so we're looking at a market with significantly more personal buying power (that said grogs are a lot larger as a percentage than AFOLs, according to WotC's own figures).

But literally, how much can one even spend on D&D per year, not intentionally or stupidly wastefully?

Like, how much do all the official, rules-having books cost? PLEASE tell me someone already knows! I really don't want to have to look it up and do math! I'm begging my fellow nerds here - I know one or some of you already knows this lol! It's got to be like, what, hundreds of dollars? Well under a thousand? Under $500? Maybe not anymore? Let's separate out adventures if possible.