D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[billd91]

Keep in mind this survey is also 14 years old and was likely launched as part of the build up to 3e. What this does mean is that D&D was only 25 years old. So someone who got into the game at age 15 at the peak in 1981 would be around 33.
So aiming it at 12-35 year olds makes sense. It's going to have a slight bias but not remarkably so, given the 36+ bracket would be a smaller audience and one likely to be even busier and gaming less frequently (and also buying fewer books and less likely to change editions which makes them less of a marketable audience). And they'd likely skew the average start age statistics.

Here's the thing, they probably are skewing the average start age statistics by excluding the >35 players. Any speculation how gamers in that age range behave with respect to the questions being asked is just that - speculation. WotC basically picked a target age range to study so they could market to them better. But in doing so, they also wrote off the possibility of learning anything from the older range's behavior despite the almost certain fact that gamers that age would be a part of their actual market.

Looking at the statistics, it looks like they cast a wide net so it should be fairly representational. They have some good numbers. Might not be entirely accurate, but it just as easily might be accurate. And it's the only data we have, so unless you're willing to offer a better survey it should be cautiously relied on.

The question is, relied on for what? If you want a snapshot of relatively young gamers in 1999, sure. But if you want to infer information about a broader population of gamers, you're introducing a lot of error.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So would you call a sample in which they deliberately and arbitrarily decided to exclude responses from 35+ year olds unbiased? And are you going to say that the summary posted by Sean K. Reynolds supports all the assertions people are making here in this thread? Or are you going to continue to defend both of those because it fits your preconceived notions?

No, I would call it a survey of gamers under 35! Technically neither of us has any reason to believe that gamers OVER 35 are either radically different from those under 35 nor that they are radically different. Now, lets consider. This survey was done in 1998 or thereabouts IIRC, at that time D&D was only 22 years old itself. I started playing in 1975 at age 12, and in 1998 that made me 36! In other words there probably wasn't even a vast quantity of over 35 D&D players in existence in 1998. Obviously some people started playing at an older age than I did, so maybe they cut off a certain group of early era (pre 1980 vintage) gamers that were in their 20's or even 30's when D&D was invented.

Frankly, while again I haven't any numbers to back this up, having executed a few market surveys my instincts tell me that there's not a radical difference. In most respects populations don't vary wildly. 36 year olds are pretty much the same as 35 year olds and 45 year olds are not that different from 36 year olds. It would be interesting if Ryan would comment on why the survey was done as it was, but I seriously doubt I'm going out far on any limb when I say that the results wouldn't be radically different without the age cutoff. One LARGE reason for this is that simply put the vast peak of D&D popularity came late enough, in the mid 80's that 35+ probably only cut off a fairly small fraction of the overall gamers. If you exclude 10% of the population from your sample you will of course have SOME bias, but given that the excluded 10% is probably not that different from the rest and their small overall fraction of the population it is still quite valid to generalize to the whole population. Its less accurate, but you calling it "preconceived notions" in no way shape or form invalidates my reasoning. You just don't like the answers. That's fine, but if I were you I wouldn't count on sounding super credible...

And just because you say it's not in keeping with your experience doesn't say much either.

Oh, well, lets see you bring on your superior experience and training in the subject, shall we? lol. didn't think so....

They're certainly worth more than a few levels of pre-name-level advancement. But I'd not discount the higher level spells of the wizard or the impressive saving throws of the high level fighter.

Meh. I would. The mid-level cleric is the way to go for good saves, forget high level fighters. Higher level spells are OK, but they won't dominate in AD&D. 4th level spells are quite adequate in fact. You're better off doing damage or indirect effects at high levels anyway since saves for MONSTERS are quite high as well. Most of the stuff above level 5 are SoDs, not really that useful, and the few things that aren't are nice, but not overwhelmingly better than their lower level counterparts. Besides, level 3 and 4 spells have 3 and 4 segment casting times. 8th level magic is wonderful until you have to survive not being hit for 8 segments. Its doable, but you need more preparations (and again oddly enough most of those preparations are level 4 and below spells like invisibility, fly, and stone skin). Of course, all things being equal, its great to be higher level. I'd easily pit my level 14 wizard with a staff of the magi against any 20th level wizard without one. I'd do the same if he was 11th level honestly, it just wouldn't matter that much. Give me even 1 other really good item and I am almost guaranteed to win such a fight. My point is just that advancement in levels isn't everything. Just the advantage of being MCed into fighter is pretty big, I am already getting some better saves, hit points, etc your human can never get, and the XP cost was not that bad up to where I topped out. Surely a F/MU 9/11 is worth as much as a 14th or 15th level wizard.

 

[SkidAce]

In those games, how many people chose to start as level-capped demi-humans?

Not very many, and those that did went on quests to gain "legendary" exceptions to the rules. If I remember correctly we used the D&D Immortals rules when that happened. No guarantee of being within RAW of course, due to combining D&D and AD&D.

It was just an example of how people *play* the game differently.

 

[Jester David]

Here's the thing, they probably are skewing the average start age statistics by excluding the >35 players. Any speculation how gamers in that age range behave with respect to the questions being asked is just that - speculation. WotC basically picked a target age range to study so they could market to them better. But in doing so, they also wrote off the possibility of learning anything from the older range's behavior despite the almost certain fact that gamers that age would be a part of their actual market.

I don't believe the data from 35-40 or 40-45 would be that much different from 25-30. You don't get less busier as kids take up more of your time, and while you generally make more money expenses get larger and there are those pesky kids. You'll likely get more lapsed than current players.
It's not so large an audience as to be representational of the hobby, not in '99. And it's not worth throwing out all the data collected or dismissing all the statistics.

If you disagree with a point extrapolated from that data that's fine, but don't try and defend your position solely by knocking down the data. That just descends the argument into a nuh-uh, uh-huh debate as no one can actually back-up anything they say with hard facts anymore.

The question is, relied on for what? If you want a snapshot of relatively young gamers in 1999, sure. But if you want to infer information about a broader population of gamers, you're introducing a lot of error.

The question is: is it an acceptable margin of error?
I'd say yes. The value of the statistics outweighs the absence of any statistics and relying on personal experience or message board polls.

People are no less busy and games require no less prep time.
I'm happy the statistics backs-up what I've felt, that DMs always spend more than players, and that's unlikely to have changed.
Campaigns end for many, many reasons, so the length of campaigns is likely consistent. I can see some change in that with the focus on tiers and greater emphasis on 1-30 campaigns, so that have changed a little. But 10 extra levels greatly increased the length of time needed to hit cap, even if the encounters/level ratio dropped. But younger players are still likely playing shorter campaigns and older people longer, and most campaigns will still end due to loss of players before or life before reaching completion.
I can see more crossover between videogames and CCGs/TTRPG playing. I can see a drop in playing both TTRPGs and CCGs as both hobbies are pricey.

 

[SkidAce]

Two "rules" of statistics.

Any survey you agree with is valid and the ones you don't are flawed.

74% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

-----

Seriously this was a decent thread. And I didn't feel it was edition war, just that it was using examples from various editions to illustrate points. Now?

Stick a fork in it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two "rules" of statistics.

Any survey you agree with is valid and the ones you don't are flawed.

74% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

-----

Seriously this was a decent thread. And I didn't feel it was edition war, just that it was using examples from various editions to illustrate points. Now?

Stick a fork in it.

Well, it IS page 96. I'm pretty sure everything that can ever be said about the original topic has been, several times over. Probably is about time to close it up and go on to something else.

 

[pemerton]

The survey is not a reliable enough source to back you up as factual information.

On what basis are you saying that? For instance, what do you know about their methodology?

Really, the best reason to be wary about the data is that it's 14 years old. The demographics of the game have likely changed remarkably. A lot of the numbers might be off for that reason.

Agreed, but it's age actually makes it a better guide than current data to how AD&D was played, given it was collected when AD&D was still around and 3E/4e didn't exist yet.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

On what basis are you saying that? For instance, what do you know about their methodology?

Agreed, but it's age actually makes it a better guide than current data to how AD&D was played, given it was collected when AD&D was still around and 3E/4e didn't exist yet.

Seriously? Are you really going to go there?

You know damn well that you cannot sit there and use that survey as evidence to prove your claim is 100% accurate. All you can say is that amongst the people that were actually surveyed, the majority of games don't make it to 20.

Kind of funny if you think about it. This survey is supposed to represent a majority who don't make it to 20 and yet they create an edition that technically has no end.

You can hold that survey up all day long but its not a valid source to back up your claim. My original stance remains correct and remains the same.

Humans make better wizards than elves.

1: No level cap.
2: Can be raised.
3: Doesn't have a -1 to con.
4: Access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells.
5: Humans age quicker so they gain those bonuses to their mental stats quicker.

All five of those benefit the wizard directly.

Want to remind me again how an elf is better?

 

[Ratskinner]

Here is the presentation of the data by Dancey. He describes the methodology:

Wizards of the Coast regularly surveys various aspects of the adventure gaming channel; distributors, retailers and consumers to better understand their preferences, concerns, and needs. . . The contents of this file are excerpts from those sources . . . The primary source is a market segmentation study conducted in the summer of 1999.​

I do not think that this data is simply relying on people filling in cards in boxes and mailing them in.

If memory serves, they also had people trolling cons. I recall such a person getting a list of our events & descriptions. Or maybe that was a different survey...Replay Hazy, try again later.

That being said, I'm not sure how representative the sample was. While 2e was fairly popular where I was, others have said that 2e never took their local market from 1e. If there were significant numbers of AD&D players (either edition) who weren't buying products or attending cons by that time (which I have no trouble believing given the state of things at that time), then they wouldn't be represented on those surveys at all. How well that group matched the practices of the surveyed groups is an open question. Of course, WotC might not have viewed them as viable market, either.

Nonetheless, I don't think that balancing over adventuring career is a good idea, and I would be loathe to return to that. I seriously doubt a large percentage of campaigns ever reached much beyond 10th level, and I never saw anyone actually "hit" a level cap.* Starting at high level only reverses the problem with the added bonus of the Elf Fighter never having the opportunity to catch the Human Wizard.

*Strangely, I do recall many character gen sessions where "Are we using level caps?" was a big deal, and seemed to impact peoples' decisions to play race X or Y. Go figure.

 

[Ratskinner]

Any sample of around 60+ can have average values that follow a normal distribution (and are thus representative and susceptible to statistical tests for validity).

err...normal distribution does not imply representivity in any way, it just allows the other equations to work. The social end of statistics derives far too much confidence in the math working out being applicable. "The math works out" isn't nearly enough to justify it on its own.