D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Maxperson]

I give you a three-word story:
Snarf Zagyg Rex.

Isn't that one of the rare giant space hamsters?

 

[Hussar]

So nobody beats WotC in terms of art, production value, editing, AND mechanics? Seriously? That's your claim? RPGs can and do certainly compare themselves to their work (they kinda have to), but to claim them as the top end...the two of us are very alien to each other.

No, that's not what I said at all.

I said that WOtC sets the standard. And it does. Setting the standard does not mean that no one can beat it. It means that if you want to be considered top in whatever category, WOtC is going to be the baseline. I remember the days when RPG books were all softcover and hardcover was for a fairly select couple of books. Then WotC started making all their books hardcover and, guess, what, now all the serious players have to publish hardcover. Full color art? Yup, that was WotC.

Heck, name 3 famous TSR artists. Or WotC for that matter. Now, name three famous artists for, say, Pathfinder that aren't Wayne Reynolds. Whose name do you think of when it comes to cartography in the game? Guess what, that artist started at either TSR or WotC to make their name.

So, no. I didn't say that WotC beats everyone. I said that everyone is judged relative to WotC. That's what setting a standard means.

 

[mamba]

It's the medium and grog nards that tend to have most of the disposable income to actually pay for D&D products. You need to target them at LEAST as much as the new nards.

and this theory is based on what? I assume age, but I am not sure that 1) everyone who is older than say 30 is also a grognard, 2) there is a sufficient number of grognards compared to the rest of the player base for this to even be a blip on the radar for product sales

 

[dave2008]

So nobody beats WotC in terms of art, production value, editing, AND mechanics? Seriously? That's your claim? RPGs can and do certainly compare themselves to their work (they kinda have to), but to claim them as the top end...the two of us are very alien to each other.

To be fair, they said "sets the standard" not the "top end."

In many ways McDonalds sets the standard for french fries, and I like them a lot, but they are definitely not the best french fries I have ever had. I do; however, judge other fries by the standard they set.

EDIT: I see @Hussar already responded with basically the same comment, but without my helpful analogy

 

[Reef]

"Better Game" is a very nebulous category to try to pin down. Better how? And for whom? I freely admit there are games out there with 'better' mechanics than D&D 5e. If I was going to run a pulp/cinematic campaign, I'd say Savage Worlds has better mechanics for that. If I'm looking for a more narrative style with the players as co-authors, well then Fate or PBTA games are clearly better.

Although I've never played Pathfinder 2e, I've looked at it, and heard lots about it. And by every indication it's a great game. Solid math, easy encounter building for the GM, good tactical choices, and lots of character options for customization. Based on that, I wouldn't quibble if someone said it was a better game than 5e. However, my group would choke on it, no matter how much 'better' it was. For them, 5e is the better game, because it is the one they enjoy playing.

If WoTC went and added all the new mechanics that Micah (and others) are asking for, it might very well be a better game mechanically. At least for them. But would it be a better game for everyone else? No one can say, because 'better' isn't something we can quantify.

Based on the info WoTC has gathered over the years, they've decided that this version of 5e is the better version for the largest number of players. Considering how well it is doing, I can't fault them for that.

 

[Maxperson]

and this theory is based on what? I assume age, but I am not sure that 1) everyone who is older than say 30 is also a grognard, 2) there is a sufficient number of grognards compared to the rest of the player base for this to even be a blip on the radar for product sales

We're far more than a "blip" on the radar. 26% of players are 35+ and we buy a hell of a lot more product with our disposable income than the myriad of college kids living on ramen. 25% are 17- and they have pretty much no disposable income. It's their older parents who buy the bulk of their stuff. Another 18% are 18-24. An age group that tends to have little disposable income. That means that a full 43% have little money to buy books with. If they aren't aiming at that 57% that has the bulk of the spendable money, nearly half of which are 35+, then WotC is just plain stupid.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We're far more than a "blip" on the radar.

Facts not in evidence.

26% of players are 35+ and we buy a hell of a lot more product with our disposable income than the myriad of college kids living on ramen.

Do we? Where's your substantive evidence? Also, with respect, are you "35+" or are you "40+"? Because most of this messageboard, last we checked, I believe was of an age where they'd be 40+ now, so in that 11%.

A lot of the 13-24 crowd will likely have fairly sizeable allowances and so on, and really there's a hard limit on what you can spend on WotC's actual D&D books (inc. adventures) per year, and it's not very high - what, like, $200-ish? Less? A bit more? WotC would like to blow the lid off that I'm sure, but they haven't done so yet.

What I've seen is that the 40+ D&D people do spend more on "D&D" products, but it's not official D&D products, it's stuff like special gaming tables, dice, dice towers, and so on.

As for your "57%", it's bizarre to see that as contiguous block, given it extends over one, arguably two, generation gaps (certainly Millennial to Gen Z, arguably Gen X to Millennial), and features people with quite significantly different interests and focuses and so n.

 

[Maxperson]

Do we? Where's your substantive evidence? Also, with respect, are you "35+" or are you "40+"? Because most of this messageboard, last we checked, I believe was of an age where they'd be 40+ now, so in that 11%.

This is a red herring. 35+ is sufficient for my point. Hell, I even included 25-29 in the disposable income category, because people start making decent money in that range. 40+ is just a distraction.

A lot of the 13-24 crowd will likely have fairly sizeable allowances and so on, and really there's a hard limit on what you can spend on WotC's actual D&D books (inc. adventures) per year, and it's not very high - what, like, $200-ish? Less? A bit more? WotC would like to blow the lid off that I'm sure, but they haven't done so yet.

What do you consider a sizeable allowance? Then divide that up between D&D books, books to read, board games, movies, amusement parks, and on and on. Kids like to do lots of different things.

As for your "57%", it's bizarre to see that as contiguous block, given it extends over one, arguably two, generation gaps (certainly Millennial to Gen Z, arguably Gen X to Millennial), and features people with quite significantly different interests and focuses and so n.

What does generation matter? Either you have disposable income or you do not. It's those that do that WotC should be targeting.

 

[Parmandur]

A 17 year old working part time at In and Out where I live is making $18.50 an hour minimum (that's their posted starting salary in the drive thru). So, one afternoon of work is enough to buy a D&D hardcover. And guess what? 17 year Olds tend to spend their earnings on hobbies and personal entertainment. Saving 4 hours of wages every fiscal quarter isn't hard for a high schooler.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is a red herring. 35+ is sufficient for my point. Hell, I even included 25-29 in the disposable income category, because people start making decent money in that range. 40+ is just a distraction.

So 40+ then? So you're essentially doing a "stolen valour" when talking about being 35+, let alone 25+. I guess it's "technically correct, the best kind of correct" lol.

Also, you think people in their 20s are "making decent money", what planet are you living on? People in their 20s are relatively poorer than they have been for decades, due to the incredible issues with housing costs (both renting and buying), energy costs, and food costs - and even if we ignore the latter two as being more recent, people in their 20s now do not have the significant disposable income that people in their 20s had when you were in your 20s.

What do you consider a sizeable allowance? Then divide that up between D&D books, books to read, board games, movies, amusement parks, and on and on. Kids like to do lots of different things.

Hundred+ dollars per month - and that's actually about average for the US - last actual survey I saw (as opposed to guidance on what kids "should" get) said the average as $30/week - though I imagine that's probably quite unevenly split between high-income and low-income families. Kids don't generally pay for themselves at amusement parks (esp. as they can't even get to them by themselves until they can drive), and they don't buy a lot of board games (that's usually parents buying for them) so those are weird to include. And I don't really agree that "kids like to do lots of different things" any more than adults do. Some kids and some adults have really diverse interests, others don't. I think that's a non-point.

What does generation matter? Either you have disposable income or you do not. It's those that do that WotC should be targeting.

Because people in those age brackets tend to want different things out of D&D/WotC, not identical things, which is, I suspect, the whole reason we're even talking about targeting older gamers.