D&D General RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey

[AbdulAlhazred]

How many of the people playing in 1999 could have even been over 35? That's 1964, and most people who had ever even played at all were probably born in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's by then. And in terms of this profiling scheme, it may not have made any difference at any rate.

Yeah, I was 36 in 1999... I was playing pretty early in D&D too, so about as 'old time' as anyone around at that time. So chances are VERY few mid-70's players were represented in the results if the cutoff was 35.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I was 36 in 1999... I was playing pretty early in D&D too, so about as 'old time' as anyone around at that time. So chances are VERY few mid-70's players were represented in the results if the cutoff was 35.

Yet not zero by that measure, and probably most people who had ever played at all.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If WOTC is willing to cede the over 35 TTRPG market to others, there are plenty of others willing to pick up the slack.

Frog God Games and Goodman Games are already on the case!

 

[Umbran]

If WOTC is willing to cede the over 35 TTRPG market to others, there are plenty of others willing to pick up the slack.

Well, since that was over 20 years ago, it is now the 57+ market.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, and if they were up-front about it (e.g. on the form say straight up that not all responses will be considered due to factors that may include age and-or country of residence etc.) that's fine. Well, maybe not that fine but at least it's honest.

But when they blanket-survey the whole population, then arbitrarily exclude a large segment of that population, then design a game for the whole population based on that informational subset, that's not fine in any way.

This bolded bit is what I keep coming back to. There is ZERO evidence that the excluded segment was ever large. Even now, we're talking about 25% of the gaming population, and that's because we've had twenty some years of aging to add on. It's a lot easier to have older gamers in a hobby that's 50 years old than a hobby that's 20 years old.

 

[Hussar]

If WOTC is willing to cede the over 35 TTRPG market to others, there are plenty of others willing to pick up the slack.

Frog God Games and Goodman Games are already on the case!

Ok, fair enough.

Now, what evidence do you have that Frog God Games or Goodman Games' audience is older, younger or the same distribution of ages as WotC's?

 

[Umbran]

This bolded bit is what I keep coming back to. There is ZERO evidence that the excluded segment was ever large.

Specifically, at the time, they were not considering the data submitted by gamers who were born before 1964. So, by and large, the excluded folks were the original grognards - gamers of the 1970s, the folks who were in their teens or older when D&D was first published.

We should all expect that group to be vastly outnumbered by the the gamers of the 80s. So, yes, we should expect the excluded segment to have been small.

And also, unless you are over 57 years old now, the perspective of your age group was included at the time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And also, unless you are over 57 years old now, the perspective of your age group was included at the time.

The assumption that its going to automatically map to different things than the people they were paying attention to at the time is also a bit of a reach. I'm literally about to turn 65. Of the two groups I regularly play with, there are four people around my own age, two about ten years younger, and two twenty years younger.

On the occasion when either group is going to play D&D or D&D adjacent, the preferred game of about four of those people is 4e, and the rest is PF2e. So the assumption we'd not like more recent designs because of our age seems to be reaching a bit.

 

[Hussar]

I did answer. Sometimes a game is defined by what it chooses not to create rules for. D&D doesn't try to be completely comprehensive of every aspect of the game, it's rulings over rules. I think how people actually use the game at the table is more important than trying to apply game theory analysis. The original question I was answering: "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?"

Because D&D 5E focuses on rulings over rules, goes out of it's way to encourage DMs to color outside the lines, what people do with that absolutely matters. This is where the academic analysis fails for me. I care more about how people actually use the game. In the case of D&D, what the rules leave out can be just as important as what they chose to include. The fact that any two games can be so radically different is a feature, not a bug. D&D doesn't establish a tone of game, it doesn't limit itself to a specific mythos even if it does provide some for specific settings. If I play a Cthulhu game I know I'm doing a horror campaign. If I play a D&D game I could play a horror game, a beer and pretzels game, a story of good vs evil or morally gray quagmire. I don't see how I can discuss the game without discussing how it's actually implemented and used.

And that's totally fair and a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. I can completely get behind that.

But, where the problem generally occurs is that you are advocating a specific view - what works at your table - and in many cases people aren't arguing that. When someone says, "Hey, 5e doesn't really support exploration very well", they don't mean that you can't do exploration. They don't mean that the DM can't make it work. They mean exactly what they say - 5e mechanics (as in the system of 5e, not the game which is system+table) don't have a lot of heft when it comes to exploration.

When you try to push for game (system+table) it's very difficult not to see it as advocating a very specific playsteyle. Just because someone says that the system doesn't support something very well doesn't mean that they automatically want to rewrite everything, or that they cannot make it work. What is being said though, is a simple truth - the system doesn't support X. And, if the rules are silent on X, then that's just true. You cannot claim that a system supports something that it doesn't actually have any support for.

Now, you can talk about how system+table works for you, but, I generally find that a lot less useful because there are just too many things that are unarticulated. I don't play at your table. I don't play with your players. What works for you at your table isn't necessarily something that will help me. It might, but, generally, no it won't. And, frequently we see people simply blow off problems with claims that "well, I don't have this problem, so there's no problem with the system". And around and around it goes.

I guess my basic point is, it is always very, very useful to be absolutely crystal clear that you aren't actually talking about the system. It would save a LOT of back and forth in conversations because you're simply talking past people.

 

[clearstream]

It'd be really interesting to know what you think "the rest of the RPG-playing world" is/was in your mind

Intended ironically. A complaint was that an age segment in NA was omitted. Everyone not in NA was also omitted.

, and how WotC was supposed to contact them to get their opinions back in 1999, when less than 3% of the world had internet access. Surveys were difficult and expensive affairs back in the day. They still are, honestly.

WotC was not, and is not, responsible for giving us a full and accurate picture of RPG gamers. We pay for their product - we do not pay them for market research results.

Which was the more egregious fault? Could the answer be - neither?