Harry Potter, D&D, and the children's market

The Human Target said:
Kids have no disposable income.

And Nintendo is only still there because they steal money from charity. :p

Kids have their allowance. And they spend it on "fun stuff". And if their allowance is not enough to get the stuff, they get more money from their parents.


And last time I checked (yesterday afternoon), many of those computer and video games involve killing things and/or taking their stuff.



I can totally see a child's RPG to introduce them to the hobby, maybe something that doesn't involve killing. Pokemon the RPG (not Pokethulhu, though), maybe, or Magic. Then, when they're into the whole thing (sitting around a table with actual persons, doing something that doesn't involve pushing buttons), you introduce them to D&D and all that nice, wholesome brutality and slaughter, and satanism, of course ;)


I don't believe D&D has to become a digital game - there's still enough people, including kids, that can have fun with books, think they're cool. They just have to be told about RPGs and shown how much fun they can be.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

wingsandsword said:
I contest this underlying assertion of your argument.

What kind of proof, citations, or evidence do you have of this other than the perennial doomsaying that pervades RPG's?

While I dispute his statement (dying off is too strong, the reasons are debatable and complex), I believe the evidence is out there that the tabletop RPG market is shrinking and doing it at a time when other hobby games are stabilizing. I think they will be around for a long time, but they might reach the "oh, people still play that old stuff" sort of level in a handful of years.

I think that a lot of gamers want to believe that the RPG sales are moving to an unmeasurable market and have convinced themselves it is so. However, I have heard at least one reputable person state he saw the numbers of a few key RPG companies and was surprised at how much their sales had dropped (unfortunately, I can't cite the source, but it was Monte Cook/Erik Mona level of reputation).

As for the topic, I think it's a shame that Rowling is so against licensing a Harry Potter RPG. That would be the ideal license to draw people to the concept and experience of RPGs. There are other similar young adult licenses that have grown in recent years (largely because of Harry Potter) that probably should be considered.

Such a game should be simple and elegant. It probably should be somewhat "programmed" with options for more freeform play.
 

WotC already has D&D books for children, they're just not gaming products.

There's "A Practical Guide to Dragons," which even though it doesn't have a D&D logo or mention D&D anywhere on it, is "written" by a kender and is clearly describing D&D style chromatic/metallic dragons. And there's the upcoming sequel "A Practical Guide to Monsters," that according to the amazon description discusses (amongst other monsters) yuan-ti.

I think there are also D&D novels geared for children.

So kids are getting hit early with D&D IP, at least. Maybe it will translate to an interest in the game when they get older.
 

Glyfair said:
As for the topic, I think it's a shame that Rowling is so against licensing a Harry Potter RPG.

I wonder if that might have changed now that Deathly Hallows is done?

That would be the ideal license to draw people to the concept and experience of RPGs. There are other similar young adult licenses that have grown in recent years (largely because of Harry Potter) that probably should be considered.

Perhaps. I'm still of the opinion that a licensed game is not the way to go, but that it would probably be more successful to blend multiple inspirations together into a whole new game, rather than tying it to a single popular series.
 

delericho said:
Perhaps. I'm still of the opinion that a licensed game is not the way to go, but that it would probably be more successful to blend multiple inspirations together into a whole new game, rather than tying it to a single popular series.

Such a game might appeal to existing roleplayers. It probably won't draw them in. There already was a d20 Harry Potter like book (Red-something) that got critical acclaim, but didn't set the world on fire.

Now, you might be right compared to the secondary titles. I'm not sure any would have that driving power. You might be better off with a Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys RPG (with lots of predesigned modules, since mysteries are tough for new players to run).

Still. Harry Potter is the Holy Grail of RPG licenses right now. Get that and design a game to utilize it's draw best and you might have something that could revitalize the RPG industry.
 


Ah, yes - lots of airy assumptions, very little hard data, we must be talking about the YA market!

I'm not being snarky, here - most people speak from ignorance here, including people in the business of bringing books to children, which is where I get this attitude. I once asked a buyer for a certain Megabookstore how she distinguished YA books from juvenile and adult books, and her response was "Trim size." You can't make this stuff up.

The basic assumption, that the YA and children's market is a real thing rather than a convenience for the venues purveying culture, is a difficult one to get past, but if you can get past the map to the territory and review your own experience, you'll find that that "the young people's market" is as illusory as "the young person." D&D, like most science fiction and fantasy, like Catcher in the Rye and Ayn Rand, is already a YA product. What I mean by this is, first, that all these works are suitable for and spontaneously discovered by people whose brains are in the final stage of growth, when learning is natural and easy, when issues of identity and potential are intensely personal, when experimentation is the order of the day. The point at which this stage begins varies with the individual. Everything varies with the individual.

The notion of the juvenile market is older, but even more artificial, and people are even more confused about it because they are less aware of their confusion. Many works that modern audiences associate with childhood - Gulliver's Travels, Robinson Crusoe, fairy tales - became so associated by accident, from the tendency of children to reach out and absorb anything of interest from the mass of the mundane and boring world presented to them as "reality." Others got this status due to an association of children with certain types of material - children like animals, so Bambi must be a children's book. The notion that children are, or should be, or can be, consistently educated, protected from distressing material, or maintained in a state of pristine innocence by their literature flies in the face of reality and is only maintained by adults by a determined effort to avoid understanding the books that children read. Complex ideas and tragedy are staples of the juvenile market, and nobody knows what any kid is learning from it. Nor should they.

That the juvenile market sector is a lucrative one is evident from the number of advertising dollars spent attracting the attention of young people to toys, clothing, junk foods, movies, etc. The publishing industry, however, has consistently failed to exploit it effectively. The publishing industry is full of marketing idiots. It's not the fault of the product - juvenile and YA literature, in the sense I discussed above, maintains a standard of quality which leaves modern adult literature gasping in the dust. (And I don't just say that 'cause I write the stuff - it took me years to make the attempt to write for children because I didn't think I wrote well enough.)

RPGs are already suitable for children and young adults, as demonstrated by the number of people over the decades who discover them spontaneously at about 13. Having adults introduce them is counterproductive, as one of the delights of becoming a young adult is to start making your own discoveries, independent of adults. As with reading books or watching TV, younger children who see their parents doing something will absorb the activity as normal and desirable - but most children RPG spontaneously, too. It's called "make believe" and they do it fine.

Positioning one's company to take advantage of the natural affinity between young people and RPGs is a complex problem and may or may not be best addressed by targeted marketing strategies. Creating new and targeted product would be certainly redundant, given the suitability of existing product to the existing market.
 

There was a Pokemon RPG that came out about five years ago. My kids got one. It had a narrative book and large 4x6 cards for each pokemon you could collect. The book that came with it contained adventures that an adult would read as the set up, and the child would then interact in. I think we went through two of the adventures, and the typical set up was to have the child confront a new pokemon in the wild and battle it. There were some RP elements that you could play up if you wanted to.

As for kids not reading comics, they do read comics, but in the form of manga. I think most kids enjoy comics with protagonists more like themselves, hence the popularity of characters like Naruto, Luffy (One Piece), Ashe and Misty (Pokemon).

Personally, I think companies like Wizards know the best way to get to the kids market is through collectable games. RPing takes a big time investment that most kids don't have. Kids today have many more time commitments than we did. There are two ideas in today's society on kids and parents. The first is the idea that sports activities during childhood promote qualities that lead to successful adults, and the other is giving children more homework earlier in their academic career. So between homework and sports activities, children need short activities to help them decompress. Video games are good for this, as are watching a little television, or even better, DVDs.

You show most 10 to 14 year olds an RPG book today and they'll think its a cheat book for a video game. I once showed a group of kids this age the d20 Modern book and they couldn't 'grok' the idea of sitting around the table for hours with your friends playing this kind of game.

Here's a question I have. Except for the publishers and those that get direct monetary benefits, why should anyone care whether RPGs are growing or shrinking? I don't get this attitude about "we have to save the industry" or "we have to get the next generation involved."

Types of recreation come and go with the generations. Enjoy what you have and let the youth enjoy theirs. It always seems kinda creepy these marketing campaigns like baseball cards pushed this past year on younger boys. Fewer boys really don't care about baseball as much as their parents or grandparents. Let them enjoy their Yu-Gi-Ohs.
 


bento said:
Here's a question I have. Except for the publishers and those that get direct monetary benefits, why should anyone care whether RPGs are growing or shrinking? I don't get this attitude about "we have to save the industry" or "we have to get the next generation involved."

I keep hearing about these groups that are stable and have had the same players for the last umpteen years. The players don't need or want to recruit new players. There are far, far from the norm, though.

A dead RPG industry means a tiny group of existing players to tap, or a large effort in trying to recruit a new player (or DM).

Also, most gamers, as they get older, have less time to prepare their games. They use more and more published materials for their game. If the RPG industry shrinks, those options shrink as well. Plus, when industries like this shrink because of lack of interest, the quality goes first. Quality costs money to maintain and when that money isn't there... Imagine the market during the d20 boom without the current big 3 or 4 companies and without WotC. That's what you are likely to see after an RPG industry crash, a mass of amateur product with a few glimmers of real quality hiding in the pile.

Sure, maybe you have your own self-contained and self-sufficient group that doesn't need an industry to dip into. Most groups do tap into those resources and don't miss them until they need them and find they aren't there, are hard to find, or aren't as good as they used to be.
 

Remove ads

Top