D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at

[Willie the Duck]

I find it interesting that while there are constant complaints that D&D is being 'Disneyfied', it's actually clear that WotC is aiming different products at different groups. Yes, some products are aimed at younger players (which is a good thing, for obvious reasons), the recent Netherdeep book was clearly aimed at older players with its more graphic artwork and horror themes, and Dragonlance and Spelljammer, while hopefully being a great intro to those settings for gamers who weren't playing 40 years ago, also aim at the older demographic.
...
I guess I'm not seeing it. Unless every book has to be specifically aimed at middle-aged men who played D&D in the 1970s, I'm just not seeing this alleged Disneyfication of D&D. I'm seeing a range of products, some of which are aimed at younger audiences, others which are not.

And for our bonus round: lots of folks like to talk about how they got into D&D 40 years ago at the age of 12 or however old they were. When they were kids. Kids have always played D&D, and many of them stay playing D&D until they can complain that kids are playing D&D. Hey, last D&D book I bought was about 3 years ago. I'll be buying Dragonlance though, that's for sure!

Regarding kids -- TSR recognized fairly early on that dedicated wargamers were not going the be the primary audience for the game. They then proceeded to spend a decade or more systematically not adapting to that fact. B, BX, and then BECMI came out to try to make the game rules clearer (succeeding, especially compared to the oD&D printed game rules), but never changed the fundamental game rules to match in any way. BX and BECMI certainly explained what to do better (BX being better about clear rules, BECMI having a 'choose your own adventure'-style intro which made the parts if covered very clear), but the early game was still effectively the same system created with the assumption that people would have henchmen, not be overly attached to characters, could see combat as the fail-state, and wanted to play a 'see how much I can accrue before I die or have to get out'-kind of experience (we might now call 'roguelike'). Glomming onto it as kids who wanted to play fantasy heroes, my friends and I made it work-- mostly by changing or ignoring up to half of it. What's worse, plenty of people didn't stick around. I gamed with dozens of other kids between the ages of 8 and 18. Of them, maybe a handful stuck with it. WotC finally learned from this lesson and is making a game that is friendly to power fantasy, doesn't default to roguelike dungeon-crawl, and yes defaults to easy mode (which regularly gets ridiculed for some reason, despite optional rules and discussions on how best to change it to get the results one wants being placed right in the DMG).

Regarding at whom everything is aimed -- there certainly are nods to longtime fans. They literally could have made a new game world from scratch (they did for 4e) and populated it with tropes and traits pursuant to newer gamers. Instead they are taking the old settings and trying to find places to shoehorn feywild and artificers and tieflings into Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms (yes, at times not to any individual's tastes, but they didn't have to try in the first place is my point). This leads me to think that notions that they are only working at pleasing 12 year olds, or millennials (yes, now 30-40), or just 'the reddit crowd' or whatever... are just plain overblown.

 

[Umbran]

My point is that older players, grognards and quasi-grognards, have earned the right to have an opinion,

Nobody has to earn the right to have an opinion. Those you get to have whoever you are, and there's no right of passage involved.

Having been around a while in and of itself doesn't make anyone's opinion more valuable. And, if the opinion is presented in a way that is too self-centered, or in a derogatory way towards creators or other players (see above, the disdain for "fluffy encounters") then it will likely not earn a whole lot of respect, and rightfully so.

 

[ad_hoc]

Only liking grim-dark and rejecting "childish" things is a very 12 year old mentality.

 

[Mercurius]

Nobody has to earn the right to have an opinion. Those you get to have whoever you are, and there's no right of passage involved.

Having been around a while in and of itself doesn't make anyone's opinion more valuable. And, if the opinion is presented in a way that is too self-centered, or in a derogatory way towards creators or other players (see above, the disdain for "fluffy encounters") then it will likely not earn a whole lot of respect, and rightfully so.

I didn't say anyone's opinion is more valuable, nor did I say anything about a rite of passage. You're fixating on phrasing, and seemingly missing the overall gist. I'm saying that everyone has the right to an opinion, even if it diverges from the current wave.

 

[Professor Murder]

I didn't say anyone's opinion is more valuable, nor did I say anything about a rite of passage. You're fixating on phrasing, and seemingly missing the overall gist. I'm saying that everyone has the right to an opinion, even if it diverges from the current wave.

"everyone has the right to an opinion."
Totally true.
However, if you offer up your own opinion for public consumption, you have to accept it will be subject to public scrutiny. For good and for ill.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say anyone's opinion is more valuable, nor did I say anything about a rite of passage. You're fixating on phrasing, and seemingly missing the overall gist. I'm saying that everyone has the right to an opinion, even if it diverges from the current wave.

I am trying to address the phenomena you are referring to. I am going beyond the limited context of your words to do so, in part because your words seem, to me, to miss much of the phenomenon.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This looks like a chance for Lamentations of the Flame Princess to gain some market share!

 

[Mercurius]

I am trying to address the phenomena you are referring to. I am going beyond the limited context of your words to do so, in part because your words seem, to me, to miss much of the phenomenon.

It is strange to me that you glide over the overall gist of what I'm saying to magnify a small element, and then re-characterize it in a way that I didn't say or mean.

 

[Blue Orange]

Only liking grim-dark and rejecting "childish" things is a very 12 year old mentality.

I remember reading somewhere a complaint that comic books were aimed at 16-year-olds who wanted to prove they weren't 7-year-olds, so everything had to be grim and gritty.

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”--C.S. Lewis​

Market segmentation's a well-known way to build a brand, though. It might be interesting to hear different people's opinion on which segment of the market each product is aimed at--if nothing else it would help people find stuff they enjoy.

 

[Mercurius]

"everyone has the right to an opinion."
Totally true.
However, if you offer up your own opinion for public consumption, you have to accept it will be subject to public scrutiny. For good and for ill.

Of course, but "public scrutiny" often ends up as castigation and exclusion by the majority. We don't want that, do we?

To re-address the original post, I am simply saying that people complain, and have the right to see things differently from those who love everything WotC does, no matter what. And further, "grumpiness" exists on a spectrum. At the least, I think we should be tolerant of relatively harmless grumbles and not conflate them with those who go over the top.