D&D General Some Interesting Stats About D&D Players!

The full cover spread for Phandelver and Below, by Antonio José Manzanedo​

GeekWire has reported on the recent D&D press event (which I've covered elsewhere). Along with all the upcoming product information we've all been devouring over the last day or two, there were some interesting tidbits regarding D&D player demographics.

• 60% of D&D players are male, 39% are female, and 1% identify otherwise
• 60% are “hybrid” players, who switch between playing the game physically or online
• 58% play D&D on a weekly basis
• 48% identify as millennials, 19% from Generation X and 33% from Generation Z
• The majority of current D&D players started with 5th Edition

 

[Reef]

Their definition is far more narrow and sales focused than mine.

I guarantee you no one is disputing that…

 

[codo]

Their definition is far more narrow and sales focused than mine.

And that makes them liars who are misrepresenting themselves for financial gain? If anyone ever disagrees with your definition of a word they must be lying?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As was said, so they can present D&D as a concept to be equal to what they're currently selling. Since the survey results heavily favor young people who started with 5e, it is in their best interest to present the results as representative of all people who play D&D, as opposed to, "all WotC customers who responded to our survey", which seems the more accurate descriptor.

As I said, marketing for clear financial gain.

Note that I am not actually refuting the survey results themselves here.

Personally, I think when you say "These are the numbers that resulted from our survey" it is implicitly implied that the numbers mean they are the results of survey responses. I agree that surveys are often wrongly conflated with meaning MORE than they do, but I don't think anyone should have to constantly reiterate "of survey responders!" to drive that point home ad nauseum. We get it (or at least, we should). It's "of survey responders". Every survey is.

Heck, that's also why there's "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

what financial gain is it that they are getting?

I'm curious too.

 

[Oofta]

Their definition is far more narrow and sales focused than mine.

These numbers were from a press summit discussing plans for the current edition. Even if you are right that they somehow "misrepresented" what people are playing, something you have no evidence for, it doesn't matter. We're getting secondhand information about a PR event discussing the current edition. The demographics barely register as a footnote in their overall presentation.

Why would they care if people are playing variants they don't publish or older versions of D&D? How would it have been at all relevant?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

3E and 4E both sold plenty of books...but if they mostly sold to people who started playing in the 90's, that would mean that eventually those Editions sales may have fallen off a cliff, as the next generation wasn't buying the books...

Hmmm. I mean, yes, both editions had their sales fall off a cliff in their last two years. But so did 2e. It was DEAD when 3e hit.

Another anecdote: My current IRL group started playing with 4e (I introduced a bunch of my Comic subscribers to 4e when it was new, and they're now my friends, drinking buddies, and 5e after-hours group). MOST of them had started with 2e and had lapsed. None of them had played 3e. A couple started with 4e. ALL of them like 5e best. Obviously, that's not indicative of anything world-wide, but it's IMO, a little interesting, I hope.

 

[Parmandur]

Hmmm. I mean, yes, both editions had their sales fall off a cliff in their last two years. But so did 2e. It was DEAD when 3e hit.

Another anecdote: My current IRL group started playing with 4e (I introduced a bunch of my Comic subscribers to 4e when it was new, and they're now my friends, drinking buddies, and 5e after-hours group). MOST of them had started with 2e and had lapsed. None of them had played 3e. A couple started with 4e. ALL of them like 5e best. Obviously, that's not indicative of anything world-wide, but it's IMO, a little interesting, I hope.

I mean, I for one would be amused if your drinking buddies are more representative of the general D&D player base than this forum, lol.

Hypothesis: 2E may have been dead those last 2 years, but that's after 9 years on the market (same as 5E now!). If 3E mostly sold to 2E fans, that's, what, 6 years to replicate 9 years of sales...? And 3 or 4 years for 4E? Heck, 3E and 4E could have sold faster than 2E, but still largely reached the same audience. And I'm someone who totally started with 3E...but most of my College friends started with 2E, to the point thar I realize in retrospec that we were playing 3E like it was 2E, which is why 5E is so comfortable.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it hints at them being lumped together.

Regardless of that, who do you expect to fill out a WotC survey, a 5e player or a 1e / OSR player?

As a member of the latter group, I fill out those WotC surveys whenever I run across one.

I can only trust that my responses, along with others from my age group and-or edition preference, aren't being auto-pruned by arbitrary limits on whose responses they'll accept.

Given past experience I'm not hopeful on this, but I fill 'em out anyway.

 

[MGibster]

Sure, but was it ever a big hit with them? I mean a BIG hit?

Not to be pendantic, but how are we defining a big hit? Because by the 1982, D&D was a household name. It wasn't as successful as it is now, but when you put in an appearance in the biggest movie of the year, E.T., you've pretty much arrived. I suspect most of the people playing D&D from 1974 through a significant portion of the 1980s would mostly been boomers.

 

[Parmandur]

Not to be pendantic, but how are we defining a big hit? Because by the 1982, D&D was a household name. It wasn't as successful as it is now, but when you put in an appearance in the biggest movie of the year, E.T., you've pretty much arrived. I suspect most of the people playing D&D from 1974 through a significant portion of the 1980s would mostly been boomers.

Well, no, that's the thing, the target audience at that time period would mostly be Gen Xers.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean, I for one would be amused if your drinking buddies are more representative of the general D&D player base than this forum, lol.

They probably are, actually! Only one of them goes on ENWorld, and only occasionally. I'm the statistical outlier, I'm sure!

BUT... I "lied" above (in that I forgot): There WAS one of the original group that quit during late 4e and only currently plays OSR games and eschews 5e and anything modern. He started with 1e, like I did (though I barely remember playing 1e).

Hypothesis: 2E may have been dead those last 2 years, but that's after 9 years on the market (same as 5E now!). If 3E mostly sold to 2E fans, that's, what, 6 years to replicate 9 years of sales...? And 3 or 4 years for 4E? Heck, 3E and 4E could have sold faster than 2E, but still largely reached the same audience. And I'm someone who totally started with 3E...but most of my College friends started with 2E, to the point thar I realize in retrospec that we were playing 3E like it was 2E, which is why 5E is so comfortable.

I taught a lot of people to play 3e too, and for awhile they were my friends and players. They stuck with 3e and then Pathfinder when I started 4e with my current 5e guys, and now, if I still know them at all, we are friendly but don't hang out. I think they all still play Pathfinder 1e.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not to be pendantic, but how are we defining a big hit? Because by the 1982, D&D was a household name. It wasn't as successful as it is now, but when you put in an appearance in the biggest movie of the year, E.T., you've pretty much arrived. I suspect most of the people playing D&D from 1974 through a significant portion of the 1980s would mostly been boomers.

Do you? I think many of them would still count as GenX. Didn't it have a LOT of kids playing it then, even though it wasn't what they'd originally intended?

 

[Starfox]

Likely they just call everyone born before (whatever relevant date) Gen-X.

 

[codo]

Not to be pendantic, but how are we defining a big hit? Because by the 1982, D&D was a household name. It wasn't as successful as it is now, but when you put in an appearance in the biggest movie of the year, E.T., you've pretty much arrived. I suspect most of the people playing D&D from 1974 through a significant portion of the 1980s would mostly been boomers.

How many people playing d&d in the 70's were actually in their 20s or 30? A bit before my time, but from my understanding it was mostly teens and pre-teens. The people playing D&D in ET are like 12 years old.

 

[Micah Sweet]

what financial gain is it that they are getting?

"Hey look! According to WotC, everyone is playing D&D! We should buy WotC's stuff too so we can play D&D!"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Likely they just call everyone born before (whatever relevant date) Gen-X.

That's probably true, but it's also probably because it really mostly represents GenX.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that makes them liars who are misrepresenting themselves for financial gain? If anyone ever disagrees with your definition of a word they must be lying?

Of course not, but I doubt I'm alone in thinking that D&D is more than the books WotC is currently selling or planning to sell.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How many people playing d&d in the 70's were actually in their 20s or 30? A bit before my time, but from my understanding it was mostly teens and pre-teens. The people playing D&D in ET are like 12 years old.

Yeah, Eliot isn't a boomer. He's GenX. Heck, Drew Barrymore is at the YOUNG end of GenX (not that she was playing D&D in ET, but she was Eliot's sister, right?)

 

[Lanefan]

the statement says nothing about who kept playing and who did not. It said ' 2E AD&D remained the dominant "I started playing" version' until 5e. So fewer people started with 1e, 3e, or 4e

Seems to simply be indicating that for some reason those who started with 2e had more "staying power" than those who started with 0e, BX, or 1e..

Also, for many the 2e they started with was likely some sort of mashup of BX, 1e, and 2e anyway.

If 1e had more than 2e, then the statement in itself would be a weird way to phrase this to me, 3e and 4e definitely could not have had more than 2e. And this still has to account for players upgrading from 1e to 2e, which reduces the number of players starting with 2e.

For 3e-4e, if speculation is correct that it's mostly 5e players who are answering the surveys then those who started with 3xe or 4e would naturally be under-represented; because they're still playing those editions (or close enough) and never jumped to 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These numbers were from a press summit discussing plans for the current edition. Even if you are right that they somehow "misrepresented" what people are playing, something you have no evidence for, it doesn't matter. We're getting secondhand information about a PR event discussing the current edition. The demographics barely register as a footnote in their overall presentation.

Why would they care if people are playing variants they don't publish or older versions of D&D? How would it have been at all relevant?

It wouldn't be, to them. But D&D is more than what WotC is currently selling or planning to sell, and they're saying it isn't. That is misrepresentation.

 

[Reef]

How many people playing d&d in the 70's were actually in their 20s or 30? A bit before my time, but from my understanding it was mostly teens and pre-teens. The people playing D&D in ET are like 12 years old.

Yeah, I started when I was 11 in 1982. Boomers were my parents. Throughout my entire teen years, I don’t think I ran into one adult who played. Not saying they didn’t exist, but by far the majority of us in game stores were teens (that I ever saw).