It's more omnipresent. Rather than just some kids having access to the virtual entertainment, all kids have access via PCs or consoles or mobile devices. But compared to the kid who had an NES or PC the distraction is just as great as the current kid who has a smartphone. Possibly less so as the time required to play through a classic NES game (Dragon Slayer, Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy) is so much longer than a lot of current games.
Yeah, the smartphone adds a whole new dimension - entertainment in one's pocket. This impacts everyone - young and old(ish) alike. This is really another whole discussion, although related to this one, but I don't think we'll fully understand the negative elements of the cultural impact of smartphones for a few years yet. I'm not a luddite, but also find the "technological utopia" ideology laughably naive; for every step forward a new range of problems arise.
Sure, I guess I was just referencing the "center of gravity" as you put it. I would still call it a "young" hobby overall.
Sure, in that 40 years isn't so long historically speaking. But I guess my question is whether it is largely a Boomer-to-Gen Y thing, centered on Gen X, or if it will capture Gen Z kids for whom advanced entertainment technologies are not just available, but ubiquitous.
I don't know about refined. It is just simply personality. But regardless, I think we more or less agree that this pyramid is VERY real.
I have to disagree with you here, Bryon. Preference for the Transformers movies vs. the novels of Proust isn't just a personality thing, just as preference for Dunkin Donuts over gourmet French pastries speaks to a lack of refinement of tastes. Any kind of taste requires a development of a palate; in the case of video games vs. RPGs, the palate involves the deeper, more refined taste of self-generated imagination, wonderment, etc.
At least in part that fits in. But even people who only buy a few books they absolutely will use, if they LOVE playing RPGs they will keep playing RPGs. If the current source dries up, the demand will make itself known. Plus there is plenty out there for all of us to play until we are dead. Remove the battleship from the water, you get really big waves, but 5 minutes later you can't tell it was ever there.
True. This reminds me of a thought I once had, about what would happen to RPGs if all publishers ceased publishing - or at least the major ones. I imagine there would still be a vibrant "underground" community, with tons of people self-publishing online, kickstarters, etc.
Most of us today have near-instanteous, on-demand access to more entertainment than we could consume in several lifetimes. Whether it's watching a movie, playing a video game, or reading something on the Web, we rarely have to spend any amount of time not being entertained. Unless you're driving a car.
Although unfortunately even then, people like to text and drive! I can't tell you how many people I see texting while driving.
But yeah, as to the rest, you're preaching to the choir, bub. One other issue you didn't mention is when you play with a group of players and you're the only one who really wants to DM; if your group plays or not is entirely dependent on whether one person has the time and energy to prepare a game. So much of D&D at least is reliant upon one person, the DM.
All of the above applies to boardgames, and yet the boardgame industry and hobby are booming. Turns out that despite the marvels of technology, a lot of people still enjoy getting together face-to-face with friends and engaging their minds.
Well here's the thing: As I see it, there are two major qualities that tabletop RPGs have that video games don't really have, which is imagination and social interaction (and board games lack the former, for the most part). Humans, young and old, crave both. The problem isn't that we don't want these things, its that it is too easy to find surrogates - through video games and other discursive, passive, and non-creative entertainments. And what people don't realize, in my opinion, is that those "lesser" entertainments won't truly satisfy the deeper longings that tabletop RPGs
can satisfy; all they do is "fill one up," like junk food. But like junk food, the underlying nutritional need remains unsatisfied.
But as for board games, they're a lot easier to prepare for than an RPG. First of all, most board games are a one-off - you play for a few hours and then are done. No picking up things where you left off. Board games are short stories rather than novels.
You said:
So, yes, that's what you chose to focus on.
Talk about selective reading! Tony, to be honest I find it a bit challenging conversing with you because you're so clearly defensive about anything having to do with 4E and seem to (mis)translate anything anyone says that isn't glowing adoration as an attack.
So yeah I hear you, as Haffrung put it, you're pissed off that WotC moved on from 4E. Nothing I can do about that.
That's not far off the mark. 4e /was/ a bid to expand the revenue of the franchise to unprecedented levels. Grognards and edition warriors can't take much credit for ruining it - the bid was mostly focused outside the game itself, on the on-line DDI/VTT as a means of getting an MMO-like revenue stream, and that rather thoroughly crashed and burned in
development.
I think that you're somewhat wilfully ignoring the fact that 4E--for whatever reason--split the community in a way that WotC wanted to rectify, and tried to rectify with 5E. Even if 4E is the best version of D&D evar, it still wasn't well received by
the community as a whole. And in the end, for better or worse, that matters.
The question has always been two-fold: how to bring back lapsed players
and how to find new ones. But 4E was the first time that large segment of
active players left en masse, which was a huge problem for WotC and the health of D&D.
So regardless of how good 4E was as a game, it was terribly divisive to the community and had to be let go of.
They really do. I don't know how many new players you've introduced to the various editions. I've run introductory games and convention games for decades, and Encounters for most of it's run. The way 4e - and even Essentials - retained new players compared to prior eds was a remarkable thing to see.
I believe you - but it seems that your experience is somewhat localized and clearly and exception rather than the rule, otherwise 4E wouldn't have fizzled and died three years after it first came out.
When old-timers think about what would attract or please new players, we tend to think about the things /we/ liked about the game when we first tried it. Thing is, we're often wearing some serious rose-colored glasses as we do so.
Of course, although that doesn't mean that the two--what old players like and what will attract new players--are mutually exclusive. I would argue that the
underlying qualities are somewhat universal - e.g. the play of imagination; Mearls' three pillars of exploration, combat, and social interaction; heroic adventure, etc.
I skim through 5e and see a delightfully familiar game, with little details that take me right back to 1981, and being the youngest player at the table as we prowl through a dungeon the DM is randomly generating out of the back of the DMG as we go.
Yes, that's part of it. I also see a streamlined game that reflects the last 25 years of game design, and little innovations and new bits here and there.
We Encounters DMs have a little less freedom this time around, but one thing I didn't find any prohibition against was using the more restrictive encumbrance rules, which seemed like a /great/ idea, at the time, when we were building characters. For me, carefully tracking your gear & treasure to avoid encumbrance penalties was something I found engrossing as a kid. Last night, when half the party was trying to drag the unconscious other half of the party to the Keep, I kinda had to relent a little bit...
Not sure what your point is?
Sheesh. Every generation seems to get the idea that the ones following it are screwed up and undeserving.
It's also funny because you're effectively blaming 'kids these days' for not liking their fathers' D&D, rather than blaming the game for not appealing to them. (And yeah, go ahead and turn that around and say I blamed edition warriors for taking up arms rather than blaming the game that provoked them to do so. I totally do. Unreservedly.)
That is not at all what I am saying. Actually, I find that
every generation has its foibles and hangups, but I take the view that "normalcy" is a mild form of psychopathology!
I'm not blaming "kids these days" for growing up in a context where
adults these days exploit them by surrounding them with junk food entertainments.
As an aside, youdo realize that there are 4Edition warriors too, right?
If you're one of the players attending, you might need to buy enough snacks to share. Whoever is running the game needs to prepare an adventure in advance (either buying and reading one or making one up).
