D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It still sounds to me like you just don't want to hear any negative opinion, but I'll drop out if it's bothering you that much. I'm glad that everything WotC is doing with their version of D&D is what you like. That isn't true for all of us, but the ones that are happy really seem to have a problem with dissent.

Do you really believe the above or are you just frustrated?

There is a difference between dissent and nagging. I think most, if not all, people on these boards are fine with dissent, but nagging irritates just about everyone.

 

[Reef]

Had 5e been what I expected it to be, I’d be playing a hacked hybrid of 4e and Star Wars Saga Edition with elements of The One Ring right now and I wouldn’t care about this new playtest at all.

Just wanted to say, that while I enjoy 5e, what you just described right there would have been glorious .

 

[Umbran]

I find it very hard to believe that the older demographics which make up 60%(25+)-75%(18+) of D&D players(depending on where you are drawing the line) don't spend enough money on the game to warrant a significant portion of the game being aimed their way.

Setting aside, for a moment, the rather explicit ageism in this whole discussion, and the likely selection/sampling/confirmation biases involved in coming to the idea that the upcoming game design doesn't interest a particular age group...

The argument for a product "for older gamers" largely becomes an argument that WotC should do what they have done before. It is an argument for retreading material and maintaining the status quo, and against innovation and new things.

It is also an argument putting short term income against maintaining long-term viability. The issue isn't that, in 2024 older gamers won't spend money. It is that gamers apparently age out of the hobby, and will stop spending sooner regardless of what the game looks like.

If gamers age out around 60 years old, then courting a 50-year-old gamer is courting 10 years of income, while courting a 20-year-old gamer is courting 40 years of income.

And, we can also note that (to use the vernacular names for the cohorts), Gen-X is a smaller generation than the ones who have come after. Even if these older people have more disposable income (which is arguable - younger folks seem to have money for videogames, which aren't cheap), you can make up for that with volume.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

I don't know, they are optional, but they do more than introduce new subclasses.

"This chapter introduces the PLAYER'S OPTION combat system, an advanced set of skirmish rules designed to add detail and flavor to battles in an AD&D game. The combat rules from the Player's Handbook and DUNGEON MASTERS Guide have been expanded and streamlined to create more active, exciting battles."

"This chapter presents several new combat actions, restructures the AD&D initiative system, and introduces retreats, fatigue, and critical events."

So I guess it is somewhere in between, thanks to being optional

I doubt it was your intention but now I want to read all the Player's Option line again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you really believe the above or are you just frustrated?

There is a difference between dissent and nagging. I think most, if not all, people on these boards are fine with dissent, but nagging irritates just about everyone.

Well, I am frustrated, and I'm tired of hearing people gush over WotC's choices, but that is my problem, not theirs. As I said, I'm dropping out of this. I really have nothing positive to say.

 

[Umbran]

My intent is to express my opinion, not to create a hostile environment (although that's clearly a side effect, and I am genuinely sorry I've made you feel that way). It still sounds to me like you just don't want to hear any negative opinion....

Mod Note:
By my recollection, this is not the first time you've been informed your relentlessly negative approach presents difficulties.

It might help if you spent some times talking about things you like, rather than just the stuff you don't.

You aren’t just expressing an opinion, you are making your anger other folks’ problem.

While I get where you are coming from, at this point the discussion's getting a little personal, which might get in the way of the message getting across. Let's let it cool down, and see if there's some improvement in relations going forward.

 

[Maxperson]

Setting aside, for a moment, the rather explicit ageism in this whole discussion, and the likely selection/sampling/confirmation biases involved in coming to the idea that the upcoming game design doesn't interest a particular age group...

That's not really what I've been saying. Folks have been arguing that the game isn't being aimed at the older folks and is/should be aimed at the teenagers. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be aimed at either group, but should take both groups into consideration, especially since the folks older than teenagers have the most money and 60% of gamers are 25+, 45% are 30+.

The argument for a product "for older gamers" largely becomes an argument that WotC should do what they have done before. It is an argument for retreading material and maintaining the status quo, and against innovation and new things.

Again, I'm not arguing that it should be "for older gamers." It just shouldn't be "For the young gamers."

It is also an argument putting short term income against maintaining long-term viability. The issue isn't that, in 2024 older gamers won't spend money. It is that gamers apparently age out of the hobby, and will stop spending sooner regardless of what the game looks like.

This isn't really true, or at least not to the extent that the older gamers shouldn't be taken into consideration. At this time 45% of gamers are 30+ 26% are 35+. A very large portion of existing gamers are those who have not aged out of the hobby and still play. They should not be ignored by aiming the game at the teenagers who are only 25% of the existing players.

If gamers age out around 60 years old, then courting a 50-year-old gamer is courting 10 years of income, while courting a 20-year-old gamer is courting 40 years of income.

As has been noted before in the thread, young folks(who are a minority of D&D players) eventually age into the older brackets. If you are ignoring the older brackets who make up the largest percentage of your players to court a minority of future players, you are ignoring the majority of the money out there. Neither group should be ignored or courted exclusively. Both young and old should be courted significantly in a compromise system that does the best that it can to make both groups happy.

 

[SkidAce]

That's not really what I've been saying. Folks have been arguing that the game isn't being aimed at the older folks and is/should be aimed at the teenagers. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be aimed at either group, but should take both groups into consideration, especially since the folks older than teenagers have the most money and 60% of gamers are 25+, 45% are 30+.

Again, I'm not arguing that it should be "for older gamers." It just shouldn't be "For the young gamers."

This isn't really true, or at least not to the extent that the older gamers shouldn't be taken into consideration. At this time 45% of gamers are 30+ 26% are 35+. A very large portion of existing gamers are those who have not aged out of the hobby and still play. They should not be ignored by aiming the game at the teenagers who are only 25% of the existing players.

View attachment 281446

As has been noted before in the thread, young folks(who are a minority of D&D players) eventually age into the older brackets. If you are ignoring the older brackets who make up the largest percentage of your players to court a minority of future players, you are ignoring the majority of the money out there. Neither group should be ignored or courted exclusively. Both young and old should be courted significantly in a compromise system that does the best that it can to make both groups happy.

SWEET! I'm off the chart baby...YEAH!

(off to the right in case you were wondering)

 

[Parmandur]

That's not really what I've been saying. Folks have been arguing that the game isn't being aimed at the older folks and is/should be aimed at the teenagers. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be aimed at either group, but should take both groups into consideration, especially since the folks older than teenagers have the most money and 60% of gamers are 25+, 45% are 30+.

Again, I'm not arguing that it should be "for older gamers." It just shouldn't be "For the young gamers."

This isn't really true, or at least not to the extent that the older gamers shouldn't be taken into consideration. At this time 45% of gamers are 30+ 26% are 35+. A very large portion of existing gamers are those who have not aged out of the hobby and still play. They should not be ignored by aiming the game at the teenagers who are only 25% of the existing players.

View attachment 281446

As has been noted before in the thread, young folks(who are a minority of D&D players) eventually age into the older brackets. If you are ignoring the older brackets who make up the largest percentage of your players to court a minority of future players, you are ignoring the majority of the money out there. Neither group should be ignored or courted exclusively. Both young and old should be courted significantly in a compromise system that does the best that it can to make both groups happy.

OK, sure, but I'd say that's what WotC is doing. Teens and teens are their target demographic, but Crawford and Perkins are themselves on the far right of that chart and are certainly making things they like themselves even as they keep their eyes on the target...

 

[Maxperson]

OK, sure, but I'd say that's what WotC is doing. Teens and teens are their target demographic, but Crawford and Perkins are themselves on the far right of that chart and are certainly making things they like themselves even as they keep their eyes on the target...

You can't in one breath tell me that's what WotC is doing and in the next say the bolded. They are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that they should target both. If they are only targeting teens, then they are not doing what I am saying.