WotC So, when do the announce the July book? Guesses on what it'll be? 🤔

[overgeeked]

In a couple weeks I fall off that chart entirely. I hope I don't just poof out of existence...

I was going to say the same. But I got a bit more time until I fall off the end if that chart.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Teens are definitely not their target. And especially not single-digit kids, as the products and official streams target PG-13 standards.

While the books need to be accessible to teens, the target market is probably something more like 18-35, just like the majority of pop culture

I mean the chart is pretty clear. They didn't include 8-12 year-old kids by accident. They don't make special "D&D for kids" stuff by accident. So your second sentence is just not true in a very straightforward way. They absolutely market to that group. Not exclusively but your language suggests they don't at all. 40% of players being under 24 is a huge deal.

The way they segmented the chart, which is something they chose to do, very much argues against your "Oh I'm sure it's 18-35!".

The folks with disposable income.

18-35 isn't a great age range to target for disposable income. Disposable income peaks 35-54 (you can look it up if you don't believe me). And 0-17 typically has 100% to 90% of their disposable income come from their 35-54-year-old parents.

 

[Reynard]

18-35 isn't a great age range to target for disposable income. Disposable income peaks 35-54 (you can look it up if you don't believe me). And 0-17 typically has 100% to 90% of their disposable income come from their 35-54-year-old parents.

I don't doubt you, but while my income is larger currently, my ability to just blow a bunch of it on gaming stuff was definitely greater in the 18-35 range. I've got a kid going off to college in the fall! But I get what you are saying. It would be interesting to see where actual spending happens across that demographic range. I'm sure WotC has that information. I wonder if it is available to shareholders.

 

[Parmandur]

"Spell like abilities" are a pet peeve of mine and always have been. I think it is lazy monster design and lazy writing. Monsters and enemies benefit from cool, unique abilities that tell the players something about the monster. Having to flip pages is just an added annoyance.

I actually find it easier to use Spells, since I have the big ones memorized, and can memorize any important spells for a monster in prep.

 

[bedir than]

I mean the chart is pretty clear. They didn't include 8-12 year-old kids by accident. They don't make special "D&D for kids" stuff by accident. So your second sentence is just not true in a very straightforward way. They absolutely market to that group. Not exclusively but your language suggests they don't at all. 40% of players being under 24 is a huge deal

Your mistake here is not understanding what a target market or target demographic is.

If you think single digits are the target because they are 12% it must follow that 40+ are the target as they are 11% (and a single point is a survey rounding error).

It's nonsense

 

[Parmandur]

Teens are definitely not their target. And especially not single-digit kids, as the products and official streams target PG-13 standards.

While the books need to be accessible to teens, the target market is probably something more like 18-35, just like the majority of pop culture

I would say it is more complex, certainly: their target is making four-quadrant hits. The teen audience has to be kept in mind for all products in that case.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your mistake here is not understanding what a target market or target demographic is.

If you think single digits are the target because they are 12% it must follow that 40+ are the target as they are 11% (and a single point is a survey rounding error).

It's nonsense

Your mistake here is not actually reading what I said, but okay.

I would say it is more complex, certainly: their target is making four-quadrant hits. The teen audience has to be kept in mind for all products in that case.

Yup exactly. You can't have anything that's unpalatable. It's a lowest-common-denominator situation. Having it palatable for the parents of a 13-year old or w/e isn't (and never has) deterred older people from playing it.

 

[Reynard]

I actually find it easier to use Spells, since I have the big ones memorized, and can memorize any important spells for a monster in prep.

Abilities are right there in the stat block.

 

[Faolyn]

And? How does including such things in D&D affect those people? Should the creators of D&D products try to avoid any topics that might trigger something negative in anyone who might read it?

How about if the creators of D&D products simply don't include something that noxious in their games in the first place?

You don't need to worry about something that "might trigger something negative." You could simply use some basic decency to know not to include things like that in a fantasy game that's supposed to be fun for everyone.

Lots of people have been "bled dry" by "vampires." Lots of people face "dragons" and "axe-wielding goblins." It is clothed in fiction, in mythic forms, but they can relate to anyone's experience.

Name one person who has literally be killed by a fire-breathing dragon, or has been turned into an undead, or has been attacked by an actual goblin.

I'm not looking for metaphors here. I want to see the actual cases.

Because the origin of muls isn't a metaphor in-game.

Or is it the literal nature of slavery, of breeding that you find problematic? And therefore, must D&D fantasy be completely mythic, with no connection to history whatsoever?

What about war veterans, most with some degree of combat-related PTSD?

When you play D&D, you know you're going into a game involving combat and fantasy violence. "May include sex slavery" isn't one of those things D&D is known for. Nor should it be.

To the best of my knowledge, D&D hasn't included torture instruments in their equipment lists. I mean, I know that whips are weapons, but I certainly can't recall them putting a gp value on The Rack or The Pear or The Iron Maiden. Does the lack of official torture instruments bother you? D&D also doesn't generally include rules for things like syphilis or cancer (the odd prestige class notwithstanding). Does this make you think that D&D is going out of their way to "avoid triggering people"? Do that also make you think they're following "unreasonable restrictions as to what can be published"?

If not, then why is it so important that they include sex slavery?

Muls are a rare instance of something being "carved in stone" in such a way. But if a person doesn't want that back-story they don't have to play a mul. Or if they want to, the DM can accommodate that. And of course, not everyone has to play Dark Sun! Should it, then, not exist, except in a format that removes any possible triggers?

Or, you can do the simple thing and change the origin of the muls. After all, no other species in D&D is created solely by forced-breeding for the purpose of creating slaves. Even when orcs were at their worst, it was never assumed that half-orcs were only the result of rape.

Have you ever heard of exposure therapy? It has been used to generally good results with war veterans and other trauma survivors. The basic idea is exposing them to a small dose of what traumatized them, be it through memory or virtual reality. This is not to say that D&D should be a therapeutic environment, but I bring this up to point out that encountering such things in the safe context of a fantasy game with friends may actually be beneficial.

Aaaand here's where I'm done with you.

Exposure therapy, like all forms of therapy, require consent on the part of the patient. The person has to agree to be exposed to the thing that traumatized them, and the person who is administering the therapy has to be an actual therapist who knows what they're doing.

A DM is not a therapist. And the player isn't consenting to therapy; they're playing a game.

And not everyone who doesn't want sex slavery in a game has been traumatized in some way. I've never been sexually assaulted or abused. I don't want sex slavery in my game.

 

[Faolyn]

It’s really odd the things that make us clutch our pearls. We gleefully cheer the wanton slaughter of sentient creatures just about every single combat of D&D, but don’t you dare include anything “disturbing”.

The wanton slaughter of sentient creatures... in what is usually a fair fight, often after finding out those sentient creatures are engaged in evil.

Can't say the same about sex slavery.