"analysis" and "assumptions" are not equivalent words and an argument based on that false premise is guaranteed to be, well, false.
D&D General RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey
- Thread starter niklinna
- Start date
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Agreed.
That said, despite the fact that I am pushing back on some of the assertions of @Lanefan .... I am sympathetic to Lanefan's feelings. It's part and parcel of the process of
At a certain point, you realize that a lot of things just aren't made for you. That you are no longer the target market. That people are discussing popular musicians or artists or influencers(?) you might not have heard of.
And yeah .... it does suck. Don't I count? I mean ... I have money and disposable income. What about me and my interests? It's just the circle of life, you know? One day you are insanely cool, and the next day .... you just aren't. Sorry.
But the thing is ... it's a great time to be alive. If you like the old stuff, the old games, the old rules ... well, they are more accessible than ever. It is easy to reach out and find people with shared interests, and it is easier to find and locate things from 10, 30, and 50 years ago.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
"Arbitrarily" and "internal analysis" from their write-up of the market study don't really work together either. That's one of multiple reasons I interpret their "internal analysis" as being based largely on their own assumptions. Their history of not listening to their market (as I point out Dancey criticized) and stated desire to keep the study to a manageable size and profile really don't give me a lot of confidence that the internal analysis was based on more than assumptions.
Their survey was interesting and useful... but had its power to infer information about the whole D&D market, as opposed to the 12-35 segment, hampered by its bias.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Nope, it was younger than that.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Always was, still is, probably will remain so.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
WotC doesn't have enough power to change the way people play by releasing a certain sort of product: 3E and 4E proved that. They sell by providing what people actually want, go figure.
Aldarc
Legend
As a milennial who spent his entire childhood getting bombarded with corporate advertisements from products that thought the way to win our milennial hearts was to make everything "XTREME!!!" as if we represented their shallow idea of Generation X, I longed for nothing more than for corporations to stop marketing to me. If it takes aging to liberate myself from being the target market, then so be it.
Last edited:
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I mean, they straight up said that the personality profiles they developed were true across age brackets, so they probably checked those, at least.So here's the thing -- I saw the same text as everyone else about who they were and weren't including in their survey. Absolutely regardless of that, I don't for a hot buttered moment believe that they didn't use the data of people over a specific age. Maybe not for the specific marketing decision about which the quote was referencing, but they still looked at the responses and drew conclusions (of some kind). Surveys are too expensive not to. If they didn't draw any hard, usable conclusions from that age group's data, it would be because the response rate was low enough that they didn't feel that the data could be trusted to be representative of that market segment as a whole. Bottlenecking in survey data is a real issue, particularly when someone from a niche sub-group can notice that the survey exists and get all their friends to go take it, making their voice unrepresentatively prominent.
The maxim of that notion is something I've seen plenty of fellow greyhairs espouse--right up until it comes back to mean them.
payn
Legend
Sorry about that XTREME stuff.
Yeah, we sort of went a little overboard with those Hi-C commercials.
payn
Legend
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Having recently aged out of the target market, it's nice. Though now my kids are in the line of fire...
I am a middle class white guy who just turned 47. I would say it has been about the last 2 years I have really honestly noticed that both mainstream 5E as well as many popular non-5E games and popular Kickstarters are "not for me." I don't mean that they are aggressively anti-GenX white dude or anything, just that my preferences (surely molded in no small part by the 80s and 90s RPGs I love) aren't the foundation of the art direction, themes or even mechanics of many of today's games. In a way it is a little off putting, but only because I would love to be as excited for a new RPG/D&D book/whatever as I used to be. But, at the same time, not being the "target market" is freeing in its own way. I can evaluate things on my own terms in a way that feeling swept along with the zeitgeist didn't feel as possible.
Of course it isn't just RPGs and D&D. Most new video games are outside of my favored genres, and while I like A LOT of the film and television coming out, I have noticed that certain genres are definitely not aimed at me (looking at you, naughty comedies). At least with RPGs if there isn't something in the market I want, i can just create the thing myself. Video games and TV, not so much.
Of course it isn't just RPGs and D&D. Most new video games are outside of my favored genres, and while I like A LOT of the film and television coming out, I have noticed that certain genres are definitely not aimed at me (looking at you, naughty comedies). At least with RPGs if there isn't something in the market I want, i can just create the thing myself. Video games and TV, not so much.
Was that real? I neve saw it!
Hussar
Legend
Wow, really?So when discussing the game we can never discuss how it's actually played. In addition, I was answering a very specific question "Wouldn't the essence of a thing be the same for everyone, even if the specific permutations of their lived experience of it are different?"
So no, I don't think the essence of the thing, how the game is actually played from one table to the next is different.
But I get it. Anytime I say anything about my game, I'm not only wrong but somehow actively harming the conversation. Right.
That's your takeaway?
All or nothing? Nothing in between? No attempt whatsoever to understand the context of how other people are discussing things and what they might mean?
And you wonder why you keep butting heads with people?
Oofta
Legend
This all started with a post that posited that everyone had similar experiences with the game because we start from the same ruleset.
I disagreed and pointed out that you can do everything from dungeon crawls with little else, to a game with lots of politics and RP. I tried to explain that I believe talking about what a game chooses to include or not include matters. That D&D tends to have a broader thematic implementation than some games and less so than others because of what it leaves out.
To repeat: I am not promoting a specific view or playstyle. I'm discussing how the current incarnation of D&D works. Not how it should or could work. Some games (i.e. Cthulhu) will push a more specific style of game while others (i.e. GURPS) will have less specificity.
I don't see how I can be any clearer about that. I don't know how you can discuss a game system without talking about how that game system impacts gameplay. It has nothing to do with my personal implementation. It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact that I believe it's the right choice and is part of the reason that D&D is so popular. How much game designers choose to push certain thematic elements, what rules they include or not, how comprehensive they attempt to be is the topic I was trying to discuss.
So, for me, this sits in a position that many conspiracy theories do - they require the subject to be intelligent, but also idiots.
They are intelligent - they do extensive, very expensive market research to know things about their market. They are idiots - they base that research on arbitrary assumptions. This is inconsistent, and you'd have to explain that inconsistency before it'll be convincing.
It is more consistent that their choices were based on business data to which you are not, and should not expect to be, privvy.
Bacon Bits
Hero
It also seems to come from complaints that the results SKR described don't meet with our biases. So they must've done it poorly because I disagree with the outcome. It's quesitonable logic.
As far as omitting the over 35 crowd, I would think most people would be aware just how common youth marketing is. WotC wanted to be the overall market leader for the TTRPG segment, so they basically had to do this. They focused on 12-35 because that's where the money is, that's where customers with free time are, and those are the people whose choices are easiest to influence are. It's also whom you market to in order to get customers for the longest period of time, because older demographics tend to stick with the same brands.
WotC doesn't care as much about the over 35 crowd because they're a small fraction of the marketplace, as a whole they spend less, and it's difficult to expand the market for people this age. You might not like it, but that's just reality.
If you're over 35: When was the last time you bought a different toothpaste or laundry detergent just to try something different? How many cars or televisions or smartphones have you bought from the same manufacturer? How often do you buy something new to establish a new habit or new taste? If you have, how often have you done it after seeing it become popular among others rather than being more maverick? Would you say your tastes are pretty well established, or that you're always looking for something new or the next new thing? How about when you were 30? 25? 20? 15?
Thomas Shey
Legend
I can't say I buy things just to try something new, but I didn't do that when I was 20, either; I buy new things when the old thing is unsatisfactory on some level (which in the case of games, can of course, include boredom).
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Well, a LOT of kids started playing when things like the cartoon and Red Box appeared (in KB Hobbies, Walden Books, and Dept Stores no less). So, while I agree that MY EXPERIENCE of playing D&D in the early 80's (in College) revolved mostly around people my age, that doesn't say much about the overall demographic of all players. I mean, one of the things I really remember is this younger kid whom we were pretty much tasked with letting into our group (he was fun, but of course annoying to us somewhat older players, being 13 or something like that at the time). Actually, pretty soon all my brother's friends started playing too (they were 4-6 years younger than me). All of them had to have started playing around 1980-84 because I know I introduced many of them to RPGs. Honestly, I'd say they weren't much different from my older friends though in terms of how they played. In fact I have played with all of them off and on for all the years since. So, I'm honestly not sure that including older gamers would have actually made much difference in the numbers. Its an interesting question...
Similar Threads
- Locked
