Are kids playing tabletop D&D these days?

[kenobi65]

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.

(Disclaimer: I work in advertising; I do this stuff for a living. )

As WizarDru notes, advertising in "general media" is prohibitively expensive. You'll never see a TV ad for D&D on a network TV show, or a D&D print ad in a general-interest magazine, because 99+% of the people who'd see the ad are not only non-gamers, but they never will be gamers, and a simple ad isn't going to do anything to change that. Spending marketing dollars that way is incredibly inefficient.

What would be more efficient would be to place such ads in more targeted media -- the comic books and computer game magazines you mention, or on cable channels like SciFi or G4. That way, you're getting far less "slop" in your spend, by focusing on consumers who already likely have a predisposition to being gamers, because they have "allied interests" (i.e., nerdy hobbies).

But, even a straightforward TV ad on SciFi would probably break D&D's ad budget -- it's really that expensive. And, despite many of us perceiving that D&D is a "big brand" with a big budget -- that "big" is relative; D&D is the big fish in a very, very tiny pond. Compared to the sales (and marketing budgets) of big national brands (even computer game brands), D&D is tiny. Keep in mind that the D&D brand is a small part of a small division of Hasbro.

In the past, WotC has occasionally run TV ads for Magic: the Gathering -- but remember that M:tG is an awful lot bigger than D&D.

 

[BryonD]

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

True.

But even with that, the digital approach for 4E does not validate any level of social activity. It simply means that the social aspect of the game may not be its most profitable attribute and the focus is shifting to more profitable points.

 

[jdrakeh]

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

Not in regard to online play or different mediums, it didn't.

The vast majority of online play is still the realm of hobby newcomers, with most of the old guard rebelling against it as being inferior to the old ways. As much as I wish I were kidding when I type that, I think the various threads about the DI -- including some posts in this one -- make it clear that I am not. For some reason, older gamers view any medium other than face to face, over a tabletop, as inferior, many of them actively resisting the promotion of such mediums.

This is why, I think, the new edition seems to be more geared toward new blood, rather than old -- the game is moving in a new direction now, one that older players are generally loathe to embrace. Rather than dump lots of effort into converting an existing fanbase that is historically opposed to the idea of any play medium other than that of face to face, they're targeting a new audience that already embraces online gameplay.

 

[Reynard]

For some reason, older gamers view any medium other than face to face, over a tabletop, as inferior

All social interaction is superior face to face.

This is why, I think, the new edition seems to be more geared toward new blood, rather than old -- the game is moving in a new direction now, one that older players are generally loathe to embrace. Rather than dump lots of effort into converting an existing fanbase that is historically opposed to the idea of any play medium other than that of face to face, they're targeting a new audience that already embraces online gameplay.

I think you are right, and I think the DI is one of the reasons 4E isn't going to "be D&D". It isn't just building a way of playing D&D on-line, it is building a D&D that can be played on-line. Those are two very different things, and the latter is a step entirely in the wrong direction, IMO. D&D should be playing to its strengths, not trying to ape other mediums' strengths.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes and no. They are playing tabletop RPGs but D&D is on the outs with the actual teenagers I know unless someone else is running it. My exposure is limited; I know two actual groups of under-18's playing tabletop games (they also play MMO's and console games as well). D&D, they play as a rather more complex boardgame. It's total crunch with both groups with little in the way of what I'd think of as roleplaying.

They have multiple games and about half of them will GM for the others. Now, the only reason they play D&D is that two of the boys have the three core books and, I think, one or two supplements. The rest simply can't afford them; some of them have bought the PHB but at least two of them have to share with the others because they don't have time for after-school jobs and can't justify the cost to their parents. I think one of them got the PHB for Christmas a couple three years ago, too.

They'll play D&D for a bit but they have a campaign life of about 2 months tops. For them, the sweet spot is about levels 1-6 and after that it gets to be too much damn work for them so they either play something else for a time or start over. Part of it is that they're 16-18 and so have the attention span of gnats and part of it is that with the crazy schedules that part-time and retail/food service work entails, they might suddenly be with a GM for that game.

What do they play when they want to roleplay? Savage Worlds. Especially with the new Explorer's Edition, all of them have the book (since it is a complete RPG in one book, covering not just fantasy but all genres and it's just $10.00) and they all love it. The price is a major factor in them liking it, as well as not having to read through three large books.

 

[megamania]

I have been running a game for almost three years at my FLGS. I currently have 9, yes I said 9, kids in the group ranging from 10-18. I know that is probably to many, but I have a hard time turning kids away who want to play. I actually have 3 others who want to play but I don't have room. It's been a great experience for me. I think it makes my GMing better. It can be really hard to deal with that many kids at one time, but they all look very forward to playing.

Beldar

Sounds like its time to split the group in two. Alternate weekends playing.


The more I got thinking about this, WoW and other systems like it really have taken away a lot of the people I would have had gaming. At work, I currently have no one interested in DnD but three that play WoW regularly.

 

[BryonD]

Not in regard to online play or different mediums, it didn't.

Reynard replied to your comment about bringing back old players. If you meant to connect bringing back old players, but to a new medium, then you expressed yourself in an extremely unclear manner. The statement Reynard made in response to what you actually posted was dead on correct.

 

[BryonD]

This is why, I think, the new edition seems to be more geared toward new blood, rather than old -- the game is moving in a new direction now, one that older players are generally loathe to embrace. Rather than dump lots of effort into converting an existing fanbase that is historically opposed to the idea of any play medium other than that of face to face, they're targeting a new audience that already embraces online gameplay.

If you are right, then D&D will die sooner rather than later.

Online D&D is good.
But D&D is better face to face and other games are better than D&D online.
It is a suboptimal meeting from either direction and fans of either side will go to more optimal options for their preference.

However, I think you are wrong. D&D isn't moving in any real new direction. The foundation of 4E will be a face to face tabletop gaming. The world is different now and the game must and will develop with it. And online provides a great new way to support D&D. Going with that is obvious. But it isn't going to be the basis of a lasting profitable game.

Will some people decide to play online D&D as a new and only, and preferred way? Yes, most certainly. But it won't be enough to support the game. I doubt it will be enough even cover the costs of building the online portions. There will also be a small number of people who discover D&D through online options and become interested in face to face. But the much bigger groups will be people who use online to supplement their face to face games and people who use online because they just can't keep a face to face group running. It is great support, but if the face to face core is reduced, then the game will fail. Not in a week or a year, but it won't grow and will steadily dry up.

The nature of D&D (and other P&P RPGs) is distinct from any online game and the attributes that make one a success at one thing and other a success in their fields are very different. You can't just type some code and jump over. And nothing that has actually been said by WotC leads one to believe they will make the mistake of trying.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

There was actually a D&D after school group at the local middle school last year. This school year, it was cancelled because of other school obligations; however, I am looking into restarting it within the next month. At the school last year, we had 15 kids interested.
The group that I used to play with (RL conflicts with schedule stopped that) currently has 3 kids ages 8-13 playing.. and we had, at one point, 6 kids from 10 to 17.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

My oldest children (and nieces and nephews) are playing.