The Theory of Tens. A Knee Jerk Hypothesis

[Hussar]

Ok, I've got a theory. Now, this is totally unsubstantiated, and, AFAIK, completely untestable, so, as theories go, it's pretty much bunk. But, I wonder, in a sort of glassy eyed sort of way, if it might help put things in a bit of perspective. I call it my:

Theory of Tens

The Theory of Tens states that after each edition change, 10% of the audience of D&D does not change with the new edition. When 1e changed to 2e, 10% of players stuck with 1e. Now, this is a totally made up number and it could be anything. But, just bear with me for a second.

That ten per cent stuck with 1e and was, by and large, ignored by the rest of the hobby. It was, after all, only a small minority and could safely be ignored. Then 3e came along, and another 10% dropped away. But, again, we're only talking 20% of the D&D gaming population, so the rest, those who went with 3e, could largely ignore them. Granted, I think that 20% was enough to bootstrap the OSR into existence and start sites like Grognardia and Dragonsfoot.

Then 3.5 rolls along and, it's generally considered a new edition. Another 10% drops off. But, again, we're still running with 70% of the D&D gaming population, so 3.5 has enough warm bodies to be pretty successful and move along. But, when 4e hits the streets, now we've lost 40% of the D&D gaming population and suddenly we can't ignore those who have not made the change.

They number almost the same as those playing the current edition. It's been a while since I saw any "what are you currently playing" polls at En World, but, when they were around, about 60% were playing 4e with the other 40% playing something else (1e, OSR retroclone, 3e, Pathfinder, etc).

I'm just wondering if the reaction to 4e has less to do with the changes to the game than a sort of accretion of resistance that reached a tipping point. If that's true, I wonder what effect 5e will have. Will it shed another 10%? Meaning that it never gains majority popularity right out of the gate? Or will it reverse the trend and draw back sufficient numbers to quiet the nay-sayers with sheer numbers?

Just pontificating.

 

[Herschel]

Yes and no. There are also new gamers coming in to the fold, your assumption is based on a static group of gamers. It does have some merit obviously, but it's too simplified to give us a good feel for overall numbers.

The somewhat frightening aspect of this is IF this assumption is "close" to representing the actual market then the game itself, regardless of edition, isn't bringing in enough new players to sustain it even and they're going to spaghetti theory editions as often as they can until profits sink too far. I doubt that's the case but it's not completely out of the question.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This seems to ignore the rate of new player acquisition; or at least assume that it is constant.

2e, for example, was not actively being produced and was probably not bringing in a whole lot of people by the time 3e was released, while the 3.0 releases probably introduced a substantial number of people to the hobby.

I also find the idea that 3.5 lost 10% of its audience dubious; seemed to me like there was a lot of grumbling but a near 100% conversion rate. Hardly anyone plays by the book 3.0; most people play 3.5, PF, or some mishmash of 3.X rules.

It also ignores the non-D&D games that have proliferated, of which PF is the most successful example of many. There are now more people buying D&D products without D&D on the label than with. The OGL has created a kind of competition that didn't exist before. More importantly, that competition isn't going away. To succeed, 4e had to be more appealing to consumers than the alternative, which it succeeded in doing before PF's release, but is now decidedly behind on. Reclaiming the throne with a new release is not a given-at least, not in the long term.

And frankly, I think the 10% is a bit low.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I have multiple disagreements with this post, but, as you noted, Hussar, there's no real way to test it. With that, we'll just say that your post didn't convince me at all. As always, play what you like

 

[Minigiant]

This theory only works if the proportion between each rate of new players for each edition is constant and the proportion between each rate of hold out players for each edition is constant.

 

[B.T.]

[asperger's]

Your math is wrong. If we assume that there is a collective of D&D fans and 10% are with each edition, then the composition of editions would look like this:

1e: 10% (90% move to 2e).
2e: 9% (81% move to 3e).
3e: 8.1% (72.9% move to 4e).
4e: 7.29% (65.61% move to 5e).

[/asperger's]

Anyway, the premise is wrong (presupposes a set number of D&D fans), assumes that players don't play multiple editions, and is completely untestable. 5e is a response to discontent with 4e, not the total dissatisfaction of the whole D&D fanbase. The people who have stuck by older editions of D&D are completely resistant to change--try debating the merits of ascending vs. descending AC for a fun bout of BUT IT'S BETTER THE OLD WAY--and are not interested in what 5e has to offer.

 

[Sir Brennen]

This theory only works if the proportion between each rate of new players for each edition is constant and the proportion between each rate of hold out players for each edition is constant.

Not to mention that, by the time 5e rolls around, the population of hold-outs from 1E to 2E (for instance) has lost individuals, as many of those players

1) Have gone ahead and switched editions
2) No longer play D&D of any edition (either playing some other RPG system, or stopped playing RPGs all together)

Also, that initial population might have gained individuals, either brought in by other players of that edition, or just curious and decide to try it out on their own, or drawing back players of newer editions for nostalgia/preference reasons, or former members of the hold out group lost for the reasons stated above.

WotC's re-release of the original 1E books is going to actually contribute to this for 1E, as well as potentially drawing back a few of the individuals lost from that.

All in all, I think this thread shows that determining your market and the behavior of the individuals within it takes more than a simple formula. And even if the OP's Theory of Ten holds true for D&D edition changes, it's part of the goal of marketing to understand WHY you have a 10% hold out rate, and what can be done to lower that percentage and/or compensate and grow the market by attracting new players to each new edition.

It's as much psychology as it is math.

Edit: Since the OP is basing his theory on poll results on ENWorld, I don't think such polls are indicative of the D&D market as a whole, but rather the ENWorld audience. Specifically, either the random people who visited on the day the poll was on page 1 of a forum, or ENWorlders who visit frequently enough to see it. Also, people playing older editions often have strong opinions on why they're doing so, and are probably more likely to respond to such a poll, thus skewing the results.

 

[Shadeydm]

I would be surprised to learn that the net change in total players with the publication of 3E was a negative number.

I would also be surprised if over its 4 years of existance the total people playing 4E was only 10% fewer than 3E.

Anything is possible and you theory has just as much merit as another theory posted on these boards that WotC is pulling an Elway with the early design of 5E.

 

[Dedekind]

I agree that most of the technicalities of the OP are wrong. That said, the intuition is valid. Some portion of the population will not change editions and, the more editions that exist, the percentage of the population not playing the current edition will rise without some amazing enticement to switch.

As far as a "tipping point" at which a new edition will not be well received...

The difference between now and 20 years ago is that gamers now have so many options with which to compare a hypothetical new product. When my group switched from 2E to 3E, our non-switching friends could only stay with 2E or go with a much smaller list of alternatives (or quit?).

Today's games face much stiffer competition for gamer time and money. D&D now competes with itself (prior editions), other RPGs (M&M, PF, Mouseguard, etc.), digital RPGs (Neverwinter Nights, Skyrim, etc.), and other tabletop games. Just like a brand new car line in the auto market, a new edition simultaneously gives us more options, but dilutes the product market. To be considered as successful as in the past, it must "steal" players from competitors or make the market bigger.

 

[Jester David]

Everything I've heard about 3e's numbers suggests the number of players shot up at that point and did not go down. 3e was the once-in-a-generation gaming spike.