Do 4 million people really play D&D on a regular basis?

[Tuzenbach]

Sorry I don't have the applicable link but, back in October, CNN ran a story about D&D's 30th Anniversery and mentioned that 4 million people played the game on a "regular basis". A few questions immediately sprang to mind:


1. How did CNN arrive at this statistic?

2. Is the figure correct?

3. How is "regular basis" defined?



Sorry I waited so long for a discussion thread on the subject. Perhaps I was too busy playing D&D on a regular basis?

 

[Turjan]

This is the result of some market research initiated by WotC. Charles Ryan, D&D's brand manager, has given this number recently on EN World in this post .

 

[Tuzenbach]

Ah, thanks for the link, Turjan! However, that still doesn't answer how they define "regular basis". Is it once a week? Once a month?

Also, about how many people play D&D on a NON-regular basis? And how would those folks be defined? I know so many people who "used to play" and they still have all of their books and they're just waiting for a good game to fall into their midst. I'd say I know far more NON-regulars than regulars. FWIW, I'm defining NON-regulars here as "haven't played within the last year, yet have played several times in the past".

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Ah, thanks for the link, Turjan! However, that still doesn't answer how they define "regular basis". Is it once a week? Once a month?

It's once a month, I believe. You have to play at least once a month to be considered "regular."

Also, about how many people play D&D on a NON-regular basis? And how would those folks be defined? I know so many people who "used to play" and they still have all of their books and they're just waiting for a good game to fall into their midst. I'd say I know far more NON-regulars than regulars. FWIW, I'm defining NON-regulars here as "haven't played within the last year, yet have played several times in the past".

My suspicion is that if you play less than once a month, you're unlikely to be a consumer of RPG books. (i.e., you're not likely to buy any more RPGs) In the software industry, there's a similar statistic --- most new software for a PC is bought within the first 6 months of buying a new PC, which is why new software (especially games) almost always have ungodly requirements that requires new hardware and new operating systems. The honest truth is that people who haven't upgraded for a while are unlikely to spend money on new "software", and I imagine that this applies to gamers as well. In other words, WoTC probably discounts the opinions of non-regular gamers quite a bit.

Note that if you're playing AD&D 1e you're still considered a regular game.

 

[reanjr]

Ah, thanks for the link, Turjan! However, that still doesn't answer how they define "regular basis". Is it once a week? Once a month?

By definition once a century would be regularly.

 

[reanjr]

most new software for a PC is bought within the first 6 months of buying a new PC, which is why new software (especially games) almost always have ungodly requirements that requires new hardware and new operating systems. The honest truth is that people who haven't upgraded for a while are unlikely to spend money on new "software", and I imagine that this applies to gamers as well. In other words, WoTC probably discounts the opinions of non-regular gamers quite a bit.

Note that if you're playing AD&D 1e you're still considered a regular game.

That's faulty reasoning, whether it be your own or some marketing genius's. It has no causitive relationship. Yet, the opposite would. If you require a new machine to play your game, then if you would go buy a new machine to play a new game, thus buying it within the first six months of purchasing the machine.

 

[diaglo]

Sorry I waited so long for a discussion thread on the subject. Perhaps I was too busy playing D&D on a regular basis?

not if you were playing the newer editions.

d02 ain't D&D.

 

[Henry]

Also, about how many people play D&D on a NON-regular basis? And how would those folks be defined?

Chances are, with few exceptions, anyone who plays less than once a month probably no longer plays. I know a few people on the forums here who get together with old school chums biannually or so to play some giant bash or other, but for purposes of a company who thrives on quarterly sales, they no longer play.

I know so many people who "used to play" and they still have all of their books and they're just waiting for a good game to fall into their midst. I'd say I know far more NON-regulars than regulars. FWIW, I'm defining NON-regulars here as "haven't played within the last year, yet have played several times in the past".

True, and that's with any hobby. I used to play with action figures ("dolls" for the purists ) about twenty-five years ago, and at one time in their past, so did 90% of the other people here on this forum. So the pool of "used-to's" is always bigger. I work with more than one former player who no longer plays because for them it was "something they did back in high school" or such.

 

[Numion]

I play on a regular basis but haven't bought much since 3.5e came.

The meaning of regular is in the context. Obviously playing regularly is different time scale than a comet that passes earth 'regularly' each 1000 years. WotC probably meant something like 'at least every month', the lowest pace I could see a campaign form and function properly.

 

[Andre]

Sorry I don't have the applicable link but, back in October, CNN ran a story about D&D's 30th Anniversery and mentioned that 4 million people played the game on a "regular basis".

What bothers me about this figure (which WOTC has been throwing around since before 3E came out) is that Dragon's paid sales are currently only 65,000 a month. That's one Dragon magazine per 60 "regular" players. If there are an average of 4 "regular" players per group, that means only 1 in 15 groups buys a Dragon mag (ignoring all the groups that have more than one person buying Dragon).

This doesn't match my own experience at all. The only time I was in an rpg group that didn't buy Dragon was when we switched to Champions in the 80's/early 90's. But we weren't playing D&D, so it didn't matter.

Are the numbers inflated? Or do 90+% of D&D groups have no one buying the D&D magazine? Note, I'm not saying every group playing regularly should have at least one Dragon buyer - I'm saying I don't understand how over 90% don't.