Peak of D&D: the 1980s?

[Akrasia]

... At one time at least before 2000, D&D enjoyed its peak in the 1980s. ....

The articles and statemements on which my impression is based -- and the CNN/APA article as well -- refer to the entire history of FRPGs, not just up to 1999.

 

[Samothdm]

For years in the early 80's, the ONLY place I could buy gaming supplies was KB Toys! They had a tiny little display with the red and blue boxes, and a smattering of AD&D stuff. Then there was another place around '83, which was a traditional hobby store (model airplanes, baslawood, etc...) that had a small row dedicated to gaming. Wow! That was HUGE. Now, there are count 'em 3 full blown FLGSs in my very small market (Utah County, Utah).

That's sad - that's more than there are in Los Angeles.

The game stores in Salt Lake are awesome (Hastur Hobbies is a massive store). Over and above that, I can get a better selection of gaming stuff at BDalton, Borders, and Media Play than I EVER could in the early eighties.

Is there still a store downtown called "Cosmic Aeroplane" or something like that? They used to have music upstairs and then downstairs was all this weird funky stuff, and that's where I bought a set of Gamma World character sheets back in the day when my dad had been transfered to SLC for work.

As far as whether there are more players today, I just don't know how you'd measure that because I don't think anyone really knows how many players there were back in the 1980s. You can't use sales of the PHB to equal players. And, then there's the whole mess with Basic/Expert and AD&D - some played both, some played one or the other exclusively.

Even recently, you've got sales of the 3.0 PHB and the 3.5 PHB. How do you sort out that mess in terms of "counting" the actual number of players.

For my own first-person research, I bought the 2E Player's Handbook, most of the "Complete Handbook" series, and the 2E Monster Manual, and yet I didn't play D&D during the 2E days. I was playing other stuff and didn't start playing D&D again until 3E came out. So, I had the stuff... but I wasn't a player.

 

[SSquirrel]

Ummm ... the quote from the CNN article is making a claim -- presumably not one that the reporter made up out of thin air. News agencies that simply "invent" facts -- like the claim that D&D was at "its peak" in the 1980s -- tend not to last very long. :\

Heh tell that to Fox news. They do it all the time and the Supreme Court even ruled that there was nothing technically illegal about inventing news.

Hagen

 

[Akrasia]

... If there is a flaw in 3rd edition, is that it has created a massive entry barrier in expense and indimidation to new players. Let's say you are a kid (13-16) and you wake up one day and on a lark decide to "get into D&D". You march down to the FLGS to "buy D&D". I am willing to bet that 8 out of 10 kids in that situation give up after staring at a mountain of material. Where, pray tell, do you start? Without a "coach" to tell you to buy the PHB first, how the heck would you figure it out? Ok. Great. Gimme a PHB. What does it cost? $40!!! Woah. I'll be back in 9 weeks, cause that's how long it's gonna take me to save up my allowance, including tax.
....

It is not just an "entry barrier" problem, at least in terms of rules complexity. It is also a problem for staying with the game, if you have a job and other interests. 3rd edition requires a lot of preparation and rules familiarity on the part of the players, especially DMs.

In the 1980s this was not such a problem, because TSR produced the basic/expert D&D box sets, in addition to the AD&D line.

The "Basic Set" that WotC is producing now might make it easier for new players to get into the game, but it does not really address the "time sink" problem of maintaining a campaign over time.

Of course this may be a wise strategic move on the part of WotC: it could be that a more complex set of rules will ensure a more loyal, but smaller, following willing to purchase new supplements, etc, than would the availability of a less demanding, and more widely accessible, version of the game.

 

[Mark]

T**x* **z**!

"Peaked in the eighties and then peaked even higher with the release of 3E through now," says some guy who's been 'round the full thirty years (me).

 

[Akrasia]

... For years in the early 80's, the ONLY place I could buy gaming supplies was KB Toys! ....

Wow, I had the opposite experience.

I started playing around 1979, and I remember seeing D&D stuff everywhere -- bookstores, hobby stores, department stores, etc. -- in southern Ontario.

OTOH, there seem to be more straightforward "gamestores" around today. And lots of material can be purchased on the internet.

 

[Buzzardo]

Is there still a store downtown called "Cosmic Aeroplane" or something like that?

Nope. It's been gone for years. I didn't know they had gaming supplies there. I did buy a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook there though. Heh Heh Heh. Don't tell my mom.

For my own first-person research, I bought the 2E Player's Handbook, most of the "Complete Handbook" series, and the 2E Monster Manual, and yet I didn't play D&D during the 2E days. I was playing other stuff and didn't start playing D&D again until 3E came out. So, I had the stuff... but I wasn't a player.

This could be the topic of a whole 'nother thread. But I currently count time spent on the "meta" aspects of the game the same way I do actually playing. IMHO the meta aspects of the game are as enjoyable if not more enjoyable than actually playing. I used to think of time spent rolling up characters, reading modules, reading rules, reading dragon/dungeon, drawing maps, preparing adventures, creating monsters, creating spells, creating magic items, painting miniatures, writing adventures, etc... as time that didn't count. Until I realized that I actually often enjoy those activites at least as much as I like actually playing.

Whether you are actually currently in an active campaign or not... it's all good. That is absolutely THE MOST BEAUTIFUL ASPECT of this game!

Damn I love this game! Woo Hoo!

 

[Shadowdancer]

This is only bad if you think that journalists shouldn't interject their own opinions into stories. They way I figure it, the person writing the story is already picking and choosing their facts to support their preformed opinion anyway. They might as well come out and say it so the reader (or watcher) knows what the writer's bias is.

Well, journalists shouldn't interject their own opinions into stories, and a good journalist doesn't. A good journalist doesn't pick and choose facts to support their preformed opinion. A good journalist doesn't have a preformed opinion, or if he does, he keeps it out of the story. A good journalist presents all of the relevant facts and lets the reader form his own opinion based on those facts.

Sorry for the brief hijack. To keep this thread on topic, I've been playing D&D since 1980. I think there are more people playing D&D, and RPGs in general, today. But I think public awareness of D&D is lower today. That probably led to the writer of the AP story including the comment he did -- his perception, and the perception of people he probably talked to about the story (co-workers, the editor who assigned him the story, friends, family members, etc. -- none of whom are probably gamers), is that D&D had its peak in the '80s.

I encounter this quite frequently. I mention to someone my age (mid-40s) that I play D&D, and they usually say something like "Do people still play that? I remember it being really popular when I was in school."

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Heh tell that to Fox news. They do it all the time and the Supreme Court even ruled that there was nothing technically illegal about inventing news.

Hagen

Seems dangerously close to a political post...moderators, are you here?

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

It is not just an "entry barrier" problem, at least in terms of rules complexity. It is also a problem for staying with the game, if you have a job and other interests. 3rd edition requires a lot of preparation and rules familiarity on the part of the players, especially DMs.

In the 1980s this was not such a problem, because TSR produced the basic/expert D&D box sets, in addition to the AD&D line.

Keep in mind, though, that the Basic/Expert D&D was *not* an "entry level" version of Advanced D&D (although the name "basic" obviously suggested this). Rather, there were two *distinct* game systems: Dungeons & Dragons (which had a "Basic" and an "Expert" set of rules) and the more complex Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. But D&D did *not* segue into AD&D.