D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

[Hussar]

/snip

So we have a few people in their 50s and 60s still playing D&D, and a ton of people in their 20s-40s, with people age 10-20 starting to play. But the question is, how many will actually play a tabletop RPG? That's what remains to be seen.

But again, the point is that RPGs are one of the only hobbies that you have significant numbers of people from age 10ish to age 60ish actively playing. The upper end of this number will continue to go up as the first and second generation of gamers grows older and keep on playing.

But I ramble.

Do you have anything other than gut feeling to back up the idea that there are more 20-40 year olds playing D&D than under 20's?

I remember the last Dragon (or was it Dungeon) polling that I saw for their readership, back in about 2007, and the average age of a Dragon (or Dungeon, I'm working from memory here, so bear with me) was around 21 or 22. IOW, really bloody young. Now, yeah, I know, confirmation bias and all that, it's hardly conclusive. But, I really think that the idea that there is this huge bulge in the middle of the age demographics of D&D is one that needs a lot more careful examination.

It's been almost taken as a truism that the fandom is graying, but, other than anecdotal evidence, I've never seen anything that actually shows that this is true.

 

[billd91]

It's been almost taken as a truism that the fandom is graying, but, other than anecdotal evidence, I've never seen anything that actually shows that this is true.

I think we have to be clearer in our terms. I'd be surprised if the mean age of Dragon subscribers was 20 or 21, though it would be less surprizing if that were the median. The fact of the matter is the mean age in the hobby is likely to be slowly rising as a big cohort, recruited in the game's faddish heyday, ages. It's the same reason the mean age in the US is rising - a big cohort in the population, in this case the baby boomers, gets older. That rising mean age is often referred to as "graying" even if it's not to the point of being able to expect the average gamer is actually old enough to have gray hair, nor does it mean most of the population is old, just that the mean of the population is getting older.

Ultimately, the mean age will depend on just how many of us older gamers are still around from the boom years compared to recruitment in more recent, lower profile years.

 

[Haffrung]

We, the ENWorld crowd, are not representative. We are kinda old.

The people who post here (and on the WotC forum, RPGnet, the RPGsite, etc.) are not representative even of older players. Most people who play D&D do not read forums and debate the minutiae of the game; they just show up and play like they do for a boardgame or a poker group. That's as true of the 40 years olds as it is of the 20 year olds.

It's been almost taken as a truism that the fandom is graying, but, other than anecdotal evidence, I've never seen anything that actually shows that this is true.

There are certainly more people age 40+ playing the game today than in 1977. And I suspect there are fewer 10-14 year olds playing today than in 1982 (the biggest D&D boom was when it reached into junior high schools). So while there isn't some lock-step aging of the same cohort of players, and new, younger players are joining all the time, the median is almost certainly higher than it was 20 years ago.

 

[Mercurius]

Do you have anything other than gut feeling to back up the idea that there are more 20-40 year olds playing D&D than under 20's?

I don't know if it is as much gut feeling as it is conjecture and extrapolation; either way, the answer is "no, not really."

But I think [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] brings up some good points, that there are different cohorts, different generations in which a group came into the game. So we can look at the largest cohort as being those that started in the late 70s to mid-80s, the "D&D Boomers." Presumably there was another cohort in the 90s, but I think it was significantly smaller (plus that's when White Wolf was really popular, so a lot of gamers were going in that direction).

Then we have another cohort with 3E and seemingly one with 4E as well.

This is where my extrapolation comes in. For the last 2 years there has been no actively supported form of D&D. For the last 3-4 years, D&D's popularity has been dropping, and a large number of folks starting up went into Pathfinder rather than 4E. I'm guessing that we're skipping a half generation, which is why I think there are fewer players in the 10-20 range than 20+. This could change in the next few years, if 5E is successful.

Of course it also depends upon what we're talking about - D&D by tight definition (logo), the D&D family (including Pathfinder, OSR, etc), or RPGs as a whole. I think we'd see different trends with all three definitions.

It's been almost taken as a truism that the fandom is graying, but, other than anecdotal evidence, I've never seen anything that actually shows that this is true.

Well you might be right. But in a void of real research all we can go on is extrapolation and conjecture.

The people who post here (and on the WotC forum, RPGnet, the RPGsite, etc.) are not representative even of older players. Most people who play D&D do not read forums and debate the minutiae of the game; they just show up and play like they do for a boardgame or a poker group. That's as true of the 40 years olds as it is of the 20 year olds.

True! In my group of seven, I'm the only one who posts on EN World, or who really spends any time outside of the play session thinking about RPGs. Woe is me. But I think that's why we see a relatively broad separation between "casual" and "serious" gamers. It is a spectrum, but there's a relatively distinct gap between "casual" and "serious." A few of my players could be considered "casual plus," but they're still far closer to casual than serious.

 

[pemerton]

I don't doubt it. What I doubt is that that's somehow more closely tied with D&D specifically rather than being a widespread problem throughout the hobby. After all, most of the classic Call of Cthulhu scenarios were extremely railroady (in more than one way in Horror on the Orient Express...

Agreed.

Personally I find railroading a bit more tolerable in CoC, just because that fits with the general vibe of descent into madness (and therefore loss of self-control), and also that the world is really a random and meangingless confluence of events outside of human control.

Whereas I find railroading particularly frustrating in fantasy systems where the whole genre is meant to be about heroic protagonism.

But those are personal responses. I wouldn't necessarily expect them to generalise across the RPGer population.

 

[Iosue]

This is where my extrapolation comes in. For the last 2 years there has been no actively supported form of D&D. For the last 3-4 years, D&D's popularity has been dropping, and a large number of folks starting up went into Pathfinder rather than 4E. I'm guessing that we're skipping a half generation, which is why I think there are fewer players in the 10-20 range than 20+. This could change in the next few years, if 5E is successful.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with your analysis there, Mercurius. Certainly WotC did not introduce new material for 4e for two years, but during that time they continued to sell the Core Three and Essentials, as well as maintaining DDI. Given that RPGs are something that has no inherent need for new material, I don't think WotC's lack of new 4e material had an especially big effect on players coming in. One might say that the announcement of a new edition may have encouraged some people to wait before jumping in, but by the same token a good many new players join existing groups, and WotC supported organized play with new material through that entire time, for both 4e and 5e playtest rules.

As far as Pathfinder goes, I don't think we have any data on new players via Pathfinder vs. via 4e. As far as Pathfinder going head to head with 4e, we know that in the ICv2 surveys, Pathfinder moved ahead of 4e in those quarters where 4e was putting out little or no new material. And as Mearls pointed out at Dancey's panel, the ICv2 surveys track mostly with what line is putting out new material and supplements, rather than unit sales. Which makes perfect sense, since it is based on reports by retailers, distributors, and manufacturers on what they see moving off their shelves. If (hypothetically) 4e moved 5 Starter Sets, but Pathfinder moved 2 Core Rulebooks, 3 splats, and 2 adventure paths, Pathfinder would show up higher on the ICv2 survey, even though 4e had likely brought in more new players.

Of course it also depends upon what we're talking about - D&D by tight definition (logo), the D&D family (including Pathfinder, OSR, etc), or RPGs as a whole. I think we'd see different trends with all three definitions.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure I agree 100% with your analysis there, Mercurius. Certainly WotC did not introduce new material for 4e for two years, but during that time they continued to sell the Core Three and Essentials, as well as maintaining DDI. Given that RPGs are something that has no inherent need for new material, I don't think WotC's lack of new 4e material had an especially big effect on players coming in. One might say that the announcement of a new edition may have encouraged some people to wait before jumping in, but by the same token a good many new players join existing groups, and WotC supported organized play with new material through that entire time, for both 4e and 5e playtest rules.

As far as Pathfinder goes, I don't think we have any data on new players via Pathfinder vs. via 4e. As far as Pathfinder going head to head with 4e, we know that in the ICv2 surveys, Pathfinder moved ahead of 4e in those quarters where 4e was putting out little or no new material. And as Mearls pointed out at Dancey's panel, the ICv2 surveys track mostly with what line is putting out new material and supplements, rather than unit sales. Which makes perfect sense, since it is based on reports by retailers, distributors, and manufacturers on what they see moving off their shelves. If (hypothetically) 4e moved 5 Starter Sets, but Pathfinder moved 2 Core Rulebooks, 3 splats, and 2 adventure paths, Pathfinder would show up higher on the ICv2 survey, even though 4e had likely brought in more new players.


I agree 100% with this.

Recent interviews with Ryan Dancey and Montecook help put this in perspective. Mearls in an interview as early as 2010 admitted they drove away their players although they did not mean to. In 2012 when Monte was asked to come work for WoTC again the words "save D&D" again were used. Dancey in his interview estimated D&D was 1/3rd the size it was in 2000.

4E would have brought in some new players but they drove off over half of the existing player base and more like 2/3rds it seems. If 4E brought in a larger % of newer players that 2/3rd part is an even larger%. Even Jonathan Tweet has out right said 4E was rejected by the D&D player base.

Ryan Dancey
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?360842-License-to-Game-An-Hour-With-Ryan-Dancey!-Acquiring-TSR!-The-OGL!-Releasing-D-amp-D-3E!-Saving-D-amp-D!-Indie-games!-MMOs!-Pathfinder-Online!

Mike Mearls
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance

Tweet
http://frabjousdave.com/creative-colleagues-jonathan-tweet/

Monte Cook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBmzrQnxf4w

 

[Mercurius]

Recent interviews with Ryan Dancey and Montecook help put this in perspective. Mearls in an interview as early as 2010 admitted they drove away their players although they did not mean to. In 2012 when Monte was asked to come work for WoTC again the words "save D&D" again were used. Dancey in his interview estimated D&D was 1/3rd the size it was in 2000.

4E would have brought in some new players but they drove off over half of the existing player base and more like 2/3rds it seems. If 4E brought in a larger % of newer players that 2/3rd part is an even larger%. Even Jonathan Tweet has out right said 4E was rejected by the D&D player base.

Yeah, I think it is pretty clear from insiders that 4E did poorly in terms of acquiring new players and keeping existing ones. Tthis goes against the view that I've seen floated that 4E only "failed" in that it didn't reach company expectations. But I think it goes much deeper than that, especially given what Mearls, Tweet, and Dancey said. Dancey tends to have a pretty good read on such things and even if he's off by a significant margin--say half rather than one-third--that still means that D&D now has half the players that it did in 2000. That's not simply a matter of not reaching expectations, but actually flopping.

Now part of that is Pathfinder, so if we use a broader definition of D&D then perhaps the overall fan base hasn't shrunk. I honestly have no idea. But I think it is safe to say that people who play D&D (logo) are fewer than they were a decade+ ago.

 

[Mistwell]

Do you have anything other than gut feeling to back up the idea that there are more 20-40 year olds playing D&D than under 20's?

Mearls confirmed there are a LOT more younger players playing than most people thought. I will see if I can dig up that information.

 

[Haffrung]

Mearls confirmed there are a LOT more younger players playing than most people thought. I will see if I can dig up that information.

By younger he meant college age players - younger than the 30-something and 40-something players who dominate online forums and conventions. Still, the massive early 80s boom was fueled by players even younger - 10 to 14 year olds. I doubt that demographic represents a significant part of the D&D tabletop RPG market today.

So younger than you would think judging by RPG forums? Definitely. Younger than the player-base 25 years ago? I really doubt it. There were very few 40-something players back then, and there are craploads today. And there's a reason we see remakes of the Giant series, return to the Tomb of Horrors, etc. every five years or so.

If I had to guess, I'd say the D&D market today is:

10-14: 5%
15-25: 35%
26-35: 30%
36+: 30%

At the peak of the 80s boom, I'd bet on the numbers looking more like:

10-14: 30%
15-25: 40%
26-35: 20%
36+: 10%