At what age did you start gaming?

[The Sigil]

I started when I was 17 (my first year of University).

Because you're apparently not seeing the aging demographic. Sure, "back then", everyone started young - and they've all aged. Thus, the producers of products have catered to the largest demographic. And rightfully so.

Clearly, the average age of a gamer is moving upward over time. This has more to do with the "head" and "tail" of the curve moving, though - I think the "head" is simply tracing out a greater area. I tried to make it clear that I *did* see the aging demographic. I think the demographic used to look something like this (number of gamers is vertical, age is horizontal) around 1973:

<pre>
______
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

And in 1983:

<pre>
_____________
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

And in 1993:

<pre>
_________________________
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

And today:

<pre>
____________________________________
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

I'm just concerned that if we cut off the tail, rather than looking like this in 2013:

<pre>
______________________________________________
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

it will instead look like this:

<pre>
______________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
</pre>

And as people start aging and dying, it will eventually look like this:

<pre>
____
|
|
|
|
|
|
</pre>

Instead of like this:

<pre>
______________________________________________
/
/
/
/
/
/
</pre>

None of the above means that publishers should ignore the largets demographic. I'm just concerned they are ignoring the "source" of the water, so to speak. If you shut off the faucet, you eventually run out of water.

As to your assertion that publishers should serve the younger group with material? Well, no thanks. I'd rather them serve ME and my age group, since I have a career, family, and life. IMO, of course!

Obviously, everyone wants publishers to serve the age group they're in - it's human nature (though I fail to see what career, family, and life have to do with the question).

The question is, are we enlightened enough to demand that they serve us without cutting off the influx of new gamers - and thereby the constant influx of new money that sustains and grows the product? Or do we selfishly insist "only me right now" and kill the revenue streams of the future, making our hobby wither and die on the vine before its time.

That's where I say the "selfishness" comes in - we're so determined to have the market serve US what WE want RIGHT NOW to the exclusion of everyone else that we're blind to the fact that doing so hastens the market's demise. If we ask them to serve us WITHOUT excluding everyone else - i.e., we compromise a little and get mostly what we want - we can keep the market alive.

I guess the whole point of the thread is, "do you understand what the ramifications of moving the hobby too far away from 'family-friendly' are? Are you willing to live with those ramifications? And if the response is, 'what do I care, my needs are still met,' does the inherent selfishness in that statement bother anyone else? Should it?"

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me, or accusing anyone of being bad... I just hope this inspires a little bit of thought before saying, "of course D&D should serve the majority of the market without regard to a smaller part" if that smaller part is the source of future growth (and even just sustaining at a constant level) in the hobby.

--The Sigil

 

[diaglo]

what do i care. they have already closed the market to me.

my game is OoP.

 

[The Sigil]

what do i care. they have already closed the market to me.

my game is OoP.

Natch. In cases like that, I guess you are out of the market.

What IS your game, if I may ask?

--The Sigil

 

[diaglo]

Natch. In cases like that, I guess you are out of the market.

What IS your game, if I may ask?

--The Sigil

Original D&D (1974), the only true game.

all the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Nifft]

Reading the books and daydreaming? 9-12.

Actually rolling dice with other human beings? 26.

-- Nifft

 

[Datt]

I don't think the answer lies in changing the core books to be more user friendly.

As most of the people here have stated they got started using the box sets. Why not make more boxed sets for the younger crowd to learn the rules and get used to them? I mean I know they have one out right now and they have a Web Enhancement as well, but they aren't really advertised or supported that I can see. With box sets and modules marketed at the younger crowd I think that both parties will win. We "older" folks will have the core items and the "younger" folks will have the box sets and modules. Of course when they feel they are ready to move up they can simply buy the books. I only say "younger" because I am only 24 but have been gaming for the last 13 years. So while I am not quite in the "older" category I don't think I fit in the "younger" category either.

 

[drothgery]

So far, the poll is running at 60% of us were introduced to gaming at 12 or under and 85% (rounded numbers there) introduced at 15 or younger.

If that's the "prime time" in life to discover D&D, why aren't we serving that group with material - both in what is covered (staying away from mature subject matter) and how it is covered (easy rules)? After all, we older, more experienced folks can "make up" the "mature" stuff fairly easily, right?

I'd guess it's a lot easier to market to older gamers; twelve year olds have to convince their parents to buy stuff for them, while twentysomething gamers can buy their own stuff. Also, working full-time tends to decrease free time (meaning you'll often want to buy material rather than make your own) and increase disposable income.

 

[Uzumaki]

I gamed for the first time when I was about 7, but moved up to regularly when I was 15.

 

[D'karr]

I started gaming when I was 16. I was the DM for a group of players including my brother who was 11 at the time. We had a group of 9 players with four players between the ages of 11-14. the rest were my age and a couple of years older. Including a married couple in their late 20's.

I've been gaming regularly for over 20 years now.

My oldest son, now 15, started playing with our group when he was twelve.

Is it a game for "mature" audiences? I sure hope it doesn't become one.

 

[D'karr]

I'd guess it's a lot easier to market to older gamers; twelve year olds have to convince their parents to buy stuff for them, while twentysomething gamers can buy their own stuff. Also, working full-time tends to decrease free time (meaning you'll often want to buy material rather than make your own) and increase disposable income.

If the success of Games Workshop and the "Pokemon" line of CCG's is any indication I'd say that this is the wrong assumption.

Games Workshop has as a design philosophy to make the rules as simple as possible. They know that parents will buy kids in their marketable category (12-15) almost anything.

I've seen it at my local game store on many ocassions. A parent comes in and buys hundreds of dollars of miniatures and game stuff for one of their kids. When "Pokemon" was in its heyday it was not unusual to see parents plunking down $60 or more for some of the "rare" cards.