Are kids playing tabletop D&D these days?

[jdrakeh]

Theres so much more to the gaming experience when played socially, than there is when playing online.

Here's what a lot of people fail to grasp -- playing online can be social. Adding a physical table doesn't make the experience anymore social, it's just a different kind of social. In a world where people have limited free time for games and internet access is no longer a luxury, one of these mediums for social interaction is much more convenient than the other and, thus, much more appealing to the masses. That's one of the main hurdles that tabletop RPGs have to leap, I think -- hence the Digital Initiative at WotC.

 

[GlassJaw]

In its current state, I don't think D&D, or the PnP RPG industry in general, is bringing new players, kids or otherwise, to the hobby.

If that's true, the real question are do the legacy players - the ones that play RPG's now and will continue to do so - enough to sustain the hobby. With the announcement of 4E and the style changes associated with it, I think WotC has answered that question with a "no".

The problem I see is that a new edition with Dragonblooded and Tieflings aren't going to bring new players to the hobby. First and foremost, they need to make the demographic aware of the hobby. This is done with effective targeted advertising. I spent a lot of time playing MMO's last year and I was fairly surprised how little people were even aware of the PnP RPG hobby, even on DDO.

I also think WotC stands a better chance of attracting new players with the online features of Gleemax/DDI. The problem with that is they really only get one chance. If the interface sucks or it's a pain to use, navigate, and sign-up for, they blew their chance.

 

[DragonLancer]

Here's what a lot of people fail to grasp -- playing online can be social. Adding a physical table doesn't make the experience anymore social, it's just a different kind of social. In a world where people have limited free time for games and internet access is no longer a luxury, one of these mediums for social interaction is much more convenient than the other and, thus, much more appealing to the masses. That's one of the main hurdles that tabletop RPGs have to leap, I think -- hence the Digital Initiative at WotC.

I think people do grasp that. I really do. I played NWN for a long time, meeting new friends online and playing with them. But that held nothing to a tabletop game of D&D.

What I think WotC and other RPG publishers are doing wrong is they are not trying to expand the hobby enough. Where are the TV or magazine ads? The only advirtising you see is in gaming magazines, and occasionally comics and computer game mags. If the publishers want to expand its a good idea to bring the game to non-gamers rather than continually target teens and established gamers.

Thats my thoughts anyway.

 

[JDJblatherings]

i know of about a dozen kids under 18 playing D&D near me. 2 are even regulars in my weekly game.

 

[Delta]

And thats a real shame. I really do believe that if RPG's are to survive that new players need to be drawn away from the computer or console and brought into tabletop roleplaying. Theres so much more to the gaming experience when played socially, than there is when playing online.

My long-time thesis -- "D&D is to video games" as "theatre is to movies".

Anyone in the RPG industry needs to deal with that fact, and think deeply about how the theatre industry stays alive in the moden era (applying similar lessons to RPGs long-term).

 

[jdrakeh]

I think people do grasp that. I really do.

Then they need to quit suggesting that it's any less social than tabletop play, which it really isn't. Again, yes, it's different but being different =/= less social. The 'argument' about tabletop play being more social and, therefore, superior to all other mediums of social interaction in regard to gaming comes up early and often in threads like this.

What roleplayers need to do is get with it -- boardgame players embraced virtual mediums years ago (today, for example, there are probably more people playing games of Risk online than there are in their living rooms). If I wasn't clear earlier, I think this is the hurdle that most tabletop RPGs need to clear -- the reluctance of many established players to change.

I think the WotC approach of introducing more digital elements and focusing on new blood this time around rather than trying against all odds to bring 'round old blood are both big steps in the right direction.

 

[WizarDru]

I think people do grasp that. I really do. I played NWN for a long time, meeting new friends online and playing with them. But that held nothing to a tabletop game of D&D.

I think some people grasp that...but I think many others DON'T. All of my players have been involved in MMOs at some point. Some of them are still playing WoW (EQ, EQII, UO, DDO, AC and CoX all having eventually fallen to the wayside), but all of them are still playing D&D. But many of my players ALSO play online together. They may be members of a guild or what have you, but they also tend to play together....and in many cases play with former players that are no longer geographically accessible. I can play online with a friend from Massachusetts, something I'll simply never be able to do at the table. I still consider the face-to-face activity superior, but the trade-off isn't always powerful enough for many players.

Where are the TV or magazine ads? The only advirtising you see is in gaming magazines, and occasionally comics and computer game mags. If the publishers want to expand its a good idea to bring the game to non-gamers rather than continually target teens and established gamers.

TV ads are expensive, and not necessarily as effective. WotC HAS had TV ads in the past and has certainly had print ads in non-gaming magazines...but it hasn't had much of an effect. They've released board games, basic sets, video games and other stuff. They maintained a retail chain that pushed their stuff. Some of this stuff was poorly executed, but they did try. The DDI IS an attempt to broaden the market, using a Web 2.0 type of social website and creating their own online community. Will it work? Is it a wise move? No idea.

I mean, D&D doesn't need Brand Awareness. That's already out there. They even have someone who's very popular with that demographic mentioning [urel=http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dungeons-dragons-online/537989p1.html]how much he enjoyed the game[/url]. No, the problem is there's no easy way to just TRY the game. Even the basic game requires a significant investment of money.

There needs to be some trial similar to GURPS Lite or WoW's 14-day free trial to hook people in....or some very convincing gatekeepers need to be won over.

 

[kenobi65]

I think people do grasp that. I really do. I played NWN for a long time, meeting new friends online and playing with them. But that held nothing to a tabletop game of D&D.

Seconded. For 6+ years now, I've been playing RPGA games (and similar "living-style" campaigns) online, in chat rooms. I've made some very good friends through online play, and enjoyed many of the games we've played.

However, IMO, it's still not quite as good as playing face-to-face. My online group and I are able to get together once or twice a year to play together face-to-face (usually at a convention like Origins), and those games, with all of us around the same table together, are the ones that we really remember.

 

[BryonD]

Then they need to quit suggesting that it's any less social than tabletop play, which it really isn't. Again, yes, it's different but being different =/= less social.

I'm sorry, but while it isn't non-social, it is both different AND quite less social.
There are all sorts of good things that can be said about on line play. I'm not slamming it. But there is a big difference.

Maybe a better way to put it is that online is social but face to face is even more social.

 

[Reynard]

I think the WotC approach of introducing more digital elements and focusing on new blood this time around rather than trying against all odds to bring 'round old blood are both big steps in the right direction.

You seem to be suggesting that the latter half of that statement didn't work last time, when it did, astoundingly so.