Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8980334" data-attributes="member: 18">Calling something a red herring because you don't like it doesn't negate it lol.My point is you're speaking for groups you aren't actually a member of.As I said, your opinion here, is not realistic - that's an age range when a lot of people are seriously pressured for time and money.As I said (again), I'm talking actual surveys, not fanciful suggestions (many of them by non-parents or people who last had minor children 20+ years before!) about what you "should" give children.Further, $120 a month is certainly enough to buying D&D books, if that's the concern. Especially as likely not everyone in the group will be getting them.As for "if you do any chores at all it's not an allowance", ROFL is really the only answer to that. I haven't heard that argument since I was in school, and I last heard it from a kid whose hourly rate (in the 1990s) was about £100/hour given he did barely anything around the house but got £400/month "pocket money" (I know - I went to a pretty posh school so...).You and your wife being able to blow thousands per month suggests you're in a very high income percentile. I won't ask what you earn, that'd be weird, but let's be clear, any household where the total income high enough to have multiple thousands genuinely disposable (even 2k) is probably in the upper 25%, if not the upper 15% of US households. It's not normal or representative, even if you think it is. People have weird ideas about this - famously in the UK, during our last election, a politician was talking about taxes and how they aimed to only raise taxes on the top earners. An audience member had a question - and it was one of those "this is more a comment than a question" ones lol - where the audience member said he earned over £80k per annum and was in the bottom 50% of earners lol. In the UK, that put him in the top 10% (or 11%, I forget) of earner. But the dude earnestly and honestly believed this - a guy with his own business, multiple houses, multiple cars, who went on foreign holidays multiple times per year, thought the majority of people earned more than him. He was profoundly wrong, but he still believed it.But more to the point, it's irrelevant.D&D is not a high-spend activity. It should never, ever become a high-spend activity. It will die out, frankly, if it becomes a high-spend activity. D&D is a game you can play for between nothing and a few hundred dollars a year.D&D makes its money volume, not high spend. That's how they got to record profits.And that's why young people matter more - because they'll recruit far more people into D&D, and keep D&D going, than you will, at your current position in life. There is absolutely a place for helping parents get their kids into D&D (and WotC is already doing that, I believe), but that also needs to be low-expense or people just won't do it (I also am interested to see how much it sticks, and how many kids whose parents taught them D&D never play again after college, say, but that's a question long down the line).Also, if you believe all generations are the same, your argument is entirely moot. Why are you even arguing at all? Any content that is produced for D&D is fine by that logic. Seriously if you argue "all generations basically want the same thing", you really have deleted your entire logical basis for your argument. So probably reconsider that.Finally, what exactly is it WotC should be making to access your spare thousands?</blockquote>

Verification