Search results

And yet...the OP talks about 15-25 vs. 25 and older. In the chart you cite, 63% of players are 25+, which makes me think that I was correct in assuming that 25+ year olds buy the bulk of products. Now obviously calling anyone over 25 a grognard is a bit silly, but the OP defines grognard by...

I think that's mostly true, at least in principle. I suppose the one caveat would be that I feel like there's been more grumblings from older fans over the last five years or so, in the post-Tasha's world. I don't know if it is because Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape were all considered...

Um, did you not read the first paragraph of the OP where I wrote: I would think the target audience is the big part of the bell-curve of current D&D players, which is probably something like age 15-25 right now.

Which, I'm guessing, is a topic of conversation at WotC, or a tension between (what they perceive to be) the younger audience's desired products and what older players will still fork out discretionary income on. And of course this is complicated by the fact that fans of all stripes have...

Not really, but I can see we're not getting anywhere. OK, Boomer ;)

Now I'm actually a bit confused about what you think I'm arguing, as it seems that you know more about what I was arguing than I do. What I observe are several posters insisting I'm saying something that I didn't actually say, something akin to grognard entitlement, or "grognards matter more."...

Depends what part. I agree I could have been more clear about speaking from opinion about sales, and to emphasize that regardless of sales my main point is that it is enough to matter. In other words, I probably should have phrased it as I did with my response to Umbran a couple posts back: I...

I think I watched one or two episodes of the Expanse, but was underwhelmed with overwhelming feelings of mehness. As for Rings of Power, let's just say that after somehow completing the first season and a few episodes of the second, I had to spend two weeks curled up in the shower, gently...

I'll make the statement again, but alter it slightly to be more palatable: I believe that older players still matter and buy a significant amount of product - at least enough to "matter." Is there anything wrong with that amended statement, in your eyes?

I get that, but it is a small--if vocal--minority of grognards with certain attitudes, none of which I personally expressed in the OP or this thread. There's also been rather a lot of "ok boomerism" about any statement that doesn't embrace the Latest Thing wholeheartedly. It cuts both ways. As I...

Again, I don't know. In other threads I have said that I think younger players are, and should be, the primary target audience of WotC. This seems rather obvious (and doesn't at all hurt my feelings ;)). As I said above, not only are younger players far greater in number, they're also potential...

No, I don't have hard numbers - but I don't think you do either. But it is really beside the point. Regardless of what the actual numbers are, older players (25+) still make up a significant percentage of purchasing, whether that is 25% or 55% of sales. Again, I'm not saying "more product" or...

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...

It seems reasonable that people over 25 buy, on average, more product than people 15-25. But focusing on this one statement is a bit misdirecting to the underlying point I made. Again, the broader point isn't that older players matter more (again, never said that - at all), but that they still...

You completely missed the point of the post and instead seem to want to use this as a soapbox to rail against what you feel like are entitled grognards. I'm not playing that game, because it simply isn't what I was talking about. Again, I'd suggest you reconsider your assumptions about what the...

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...

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.

No, it makes you a Quantum Grognard.

OK, OK. First post edited.

Probably has been said, but I think the biggest reason is that most campaigns just peter out before reaching a high level. Secondary factors are probably related to complexity - on both the DM and player side. Tertiary factors might have to do with ennui, boredom, wanting to start afresh.