The Past & Future of D&D

[Henry]

Interestingly enough, I don't think fads go any faster or slower thanks to the internet, although many people will tell you the case. Now, music singles, and subvariations within a fad will take place faster, but the general fad itself will not burn out quicker, in my estimation.

Figure that most fads will die out in approximately 2 to 3 years; for example, "boy bands" such as N*Sync and Backstreet Boys, and icons such as Brittney Spears were supremely hot back from fall of 1999 to late 2001; now, while still selling extremely well, they do not get nearly the media coverage they once did. Pokemon CCG, attaining quite lofty heights in 1998 to 2000, dropped off dramatically in 2001.

D&D hit its greatest popularity from 1981 to 1984, according to most after-market reports WotC released from TSR at the period; after 1984, the stench of evil slowly lifted off of D&D, and the faddishness began to wane. Though I have no figures, there was bound to be a slight resurgence of D&D about 1988 to 1989; but, it was the release of Vampire in 1991 that brought the beginnings of the Goth/Grunge fads of the early 90's. (I entertwine them because it seemed that the same players of Vampire and other White Wolf products also frequently listened to Nirvana and other leaders of the Grunge movement.)

Now, two years have passed in d20, and it seems that d20, while attaining a lot of steam, seems to be slowing down. Other than D&D, there has been no other breakaway RPG product that has filled gamers with anticipation and energy.

I often find one thing about fads; when pundits and newscasters start talking about a certain fad, that fad is probably already on its way out the door, simply because said pundits are so late catching up to current trends.

 

[Umbran]

what are MMORPGs?

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. Everquest being a decent example.

 

[Umbran]

Now, two years have passed in d20, and it seems that d20, while attaining a lot of steam, seems to be slowing down.

This probably depends on what you think constitutes "slowing down".

Many folks look at sales figures, and say, "Sales are down from last year, therefore the game is losing popularity." But with D&D, all that sales data can surely tell you is about the growth of the hobby.

This is an odd passtime. Unlike most, it doesn't require a constant stream of purchases to support it. Once I've bought the core books, I and sit back and play the game forever, without every buying another thing. I can sit back and play the game without ever showing up on anyone's radar. So, sales data doesn't tell you how many people are playing and enjoying the game.

So, what measures are you using to indicate that the hobby is "slowing down"? Where do you get this impression?

 

[mearls]

IIRC, D&D hit its fad phase from 1979 to 1983 or 84. That begins with the James Dallas Egbert case and extends up through the infamous 60 Minutes segment. It's worth noting that the chances of D&D ever becoming demonized to the same extent in the mainstream media are miniscule. At that time, we had (and though I am going to sound old, I'm only 27. I got into D&D when I was really young):

D&D Candy: Little boxes filled with minty orcs, trolls, and other monsters, with stats for a D&D monster on the back.

D&D Action Figures: Warduke, Strongheart, Northlord, collect 'em all! There was also a less famous line of plastic, non-poseable figures of generic monsters and characters.

D&D Model Kits: A model company (Revell?) made plastic dungeon kits with traps, monsters, and adventurers. IIRC, they were scaled too small to be used with 25mm figures.

D&D Cartoon: This one is actually semi-famous as a good Saturday morning cartoon. Heck, aren't Saturday morning cartoons on the major networks officially a thing of the past?

D&D Videogames, Handheld Electronic Games, Electronic Boardgames: They pretty much stuck the D&D logo on any game that had a dragon in it.

It was fad city, baby.

In the mid-80s, things slowed down quite a bit. Until Pool of Radiance came out in 1987 or 88, there was a four year gap in which D&D pretty much was confined to the game itself. With PoR, it exploded on to the computer RPG scene and developed into what we see today. There was also a few comics based on D&D settings, but I think those did not come along until the early 90s.

The interesting thing to me was the release of 2e. As far as I can tell, there was nowhere near the hype or excitement about it as there was with 3e. TSR at that time had developed a bad track record with products. You kids today with your errata... back in my day 3rd edition Gamma World came with a complete book of errata because they knew the product was already completely screwed up. And even the errata was wrong. The Castle Greyhawk module was, as far as I can tell, a giant middle finger extended by TSR towards EGG.

Anyway, 2e came out and didn't really do anything to fix D&D's problems while adding new ones. Demons and devils were taken out back and violently neutered. The half-orc, cavalier, monk, barbarian, and thief-acrobat were shown the door. The fighter still sucked compared to paladins and rangers. Thieves were still useless. Clerics were more powerful. The rules were still a train wreck. In essence, 2e expunged all the flavor and options from 1e without fixing any of the system's problems. The 2e DMG was the poster child for this. It was dull beyond comprehension and had little material of any use. I ended up giving mine away and stuck to my 1e DMG.

At that point, IIRC D&D supplements were all driven by a setting or were meant as generic resources like the complete books. I don't think there ever was an intro module a la Sunless Citadel ever made for 2e. The adventure that came with the DM's screen was for 5th (!) level characters, not exactly a useful tool for starting a campaign.

IMO, this is when the great 90s death spiral began. 2e failed to address any of the real problems with D&D while simultaneously lacked the product necessary to help transition players from 1e to 2e. It's worth noting that concurrent with 2e's release, the RPG industry as a whole saw quite a few games take off, Ars Magica, Shadowrun, TORG, and a couple others. My armchair analysis is that people were moving away from D&D and seeking alternatives, but an even greater proportion dropped it or simply stopped buying product. TSR shifted its focus to producing and supporting as many worlds as possible and paid the price for it. For whatever reason, they chose to turn their backs on the core values and game models that made D&D a success in the first place.

From the numbers I have seen, after a surge in sales with the release of 2e RPG sales entered into a steep decline. By the time Magic came along, RPG sales were already hurting. The market bottomed out when TSR went under, but began a slow resurgence with WotC's purchase of the game. 3e has re-energized the player base and the advent of d20 has allowed D&D to finally take advantage of its position as the foundation of the RPG business.

As for D&D's future, I have no idea. I don't think we'll ever see the basic form of the game change. As long as companies, especially WotC, continue to produce product people want, need, and use, I don't think the game is in danger of dying out. IMO, D&D fills a very basic human need to tell stories, create, and socialize. The game took root despite an utterly arcane set of rules that were almost utterly incomprehenisble. Despite bad media coverage, poor business decisions, and other missteps, the core D&D audience has always been there.

 

[johnsemlak]

This probably depends on what you think constitutes "slowing down".

Many folks look at sales figures, and say, "Sales are down from last year, therefore the game is losing popularity." But with D&D, all that sales data can surely tell you is about the growth of the hobby.

This is an odd passtime. Unlike most, it doesn't require a constant stream of purchases to support it. Once I've bought the core books, I and sit back and play the game forever, without every buying another thing. I can sit back and play the game without ever showing up on anyone's radar. So, sales data doesn't tell you how many people are playing and enjoying the game.

I think sales probably can indicate either the growth/slowing down of d20 products.

Of course you have to take into account the factors you mentioned. But, I do imagine that ultimately a decline in sales means a decline in interest. It may very well be a 'delayed reaction' effect, since people who buy, for example, the PHB will go on playing for at least a year or so (perhaps a lot longer) after the purchase. But I'm sure a numbercruncher can figure out what the relationship is between sales of d20products and actualy playing of D&D. It's just a matter of calculating the relevent averages. I'm sure WotC has people who do exactly that.

 

[Desdichado]

You have to be careful in trying to equate any slowing in sales figures to a decline of the "3e fad." Because our economy has been in a depressed condition for the last year and a half or so, sales figures are down in all industries. RPGs, as essentially a frivolous luxury item, are going to be one of the first consumers cut when budgets are tight.

None of this means the game itself is in any danger of having peaked, it just means that the timing was coincidentally bad. If the market were to absolutely take off this next year, then we should expect to see a resurgence in consumer spending across all industries, including RPGs.

 

[hong]

D&D will always remain a small segment of society because it actually takes imagination to play. In this day of visual stimulation from video games and the mindlessness of TV most kids don't have the time or inspiration to get into D&D.

Eh. D&D will always remain a minority pursuit because most people don't have a particular interest in playing make-believe games taking place in make-believe worlds. The real world is plenty interesting enough for them.

 

[Horacio]

Eh. D&D will always remain a minority pursuit because most people don't have a particular interest in playing make-believe games taking place in make-believe worlds. The real world is plenty interesting enough for them.

That hurts, Hong...
But maybe it's true enough...

But I roleplayed without nowing it when I was a small child and I played big adventures with my LEGOs or Playmobil. And I think everybody did it once of another...

Maybe us, roleplayers, never grew up from it, a bit Peter-Pan syndrome.

 

[hong]

That hurts, Hong...

Note that I never said there was anything WRONG with playing make-believe games in make-believe worlds.

 

[Horacio]

Note that I never said there was anything WRONG with playing make-believe games in make-believe worlds.

You made it sound as something childish and wrong...
Or maybe it was only me in a bad mood today...
Sorry...