D&D 5E We're Getting Old - and is WotC Accounting For That?

[ExploderWizard]

Think about it: D&D was at its peak in the 1980s, with the somewhat mythical number of "25 million" D&D players active. Now whether or not this is true, I don't know. For the vast majority of those folks it was a passing fad, something you and your friends did in middle school before you discovered girls. But a smaller--but still sizeable--group survived puberty and continued on into the 90s (This wasn't the first generation of D&D players, mind you, but it was the biggest - the first being the true Graybeards that cut their teeth on OD&D and B/X in the 70s).

Minor quibble. B/X wasn't around in the 70's. OD&D, AD&D and Holmes yes.

 

[Weather Report]

This thread speaks to me. I started in 1986 with 1st Ed, made the transition to 2nd Ed in 1989, then had a massive hiatus due to Magic: The Gathering, was into it from 1994 to 1999. I then got bored of M:tG, and started perusing my D&D stuff again, then they announced 3rd Ed and I was all over Eric Noah's site, but did not start up a campaign (due to moving countries, and all sorts) until 2005.

I ran the campaign from 2005 to 2008, and we switched to 4th Ed in 2008 (I was very much looking forward to 4th Ed, as I was getting burned out on DMing 3rd Ed, the labour, high levels), but after DMing 4th Ed for about a year, I became disillusioned, and started perusing all my D&D stuff, and other sources (SWSE,) to come up with my own system.

Now 5th Ed is coming along, and so far it is looking like what I wanted back in 2,000.

 

[Mercurius]

Minor quibble. B/X wasn't around in the 70's. OD&D, AD&D and Holmes yes.

I consider Holmes to be in the B/X category. I know, sacrilege, but it was the first "basic edition."

This thread speaks to me. I started in 1986 with 1st Ed, made the transition to 2nd Ed in 1989, then had a massive hiatus due to Magic: The Gathering, was into it from 1994 to 1999. I then got bored of M:tG, and started perusing my D&D stuff again, then they announced 3rd Ed and I was all over Eric Noah's site, but did not start up a campaign (due to moving countries, and all sorts) until 2005.

I ran the campaign from 2005 to 2008, and we switched to 4th Ed in 2008 (I was very much looking forward to 4th Ed, as I was getting burned out on DMing 3rd Ed, the labour, high levels), but after DMing 4th Ed for about a year, I became disillusioned, and started perusing all my D&D stuff, and other sources (SWSE,) to come up with my own system.

Now 5th Ed is coming along, and so far it is looking like what I wanted back in 2,000.

Yeah, I hear you. I was very excited about 3E but it soon spiraled out of hand and became a massive, messy affair - partially because the core game mechanic was so excellent.

In some ways 5E reminds me a bit of Castles & Crusades, but with possible modules of further complexity.

 

[JeffB]

I know that I for one, really liked the bigger fonts in the 4e books compared to that teeny stuff in 3.x.

I hope they continue to accomodate in that regard. My prescription has already changed quite a bit in the last 5 years.


Oh....

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I know that I for one, really liked the bigger fonts in the 4e books compared to that teeny stuff in 3.x.

I hope they continue to accomodate in that regard. My prescription has already changed quite a bit in the last 5 years.


Oh....

See, I feel exactly the opposite. I felt like I was getting a lot more content in 3e tomes than in 4e books. I just didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth with all the white space in 4e, and honestly thought the change in aesthetic presentation was targeting a younger group.

At least with digital copies we can magnify to our heart's content. But we can't cast a spell to double the content.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I know that I for one, really liked the bigger fonts in the 4e books compared to that teeny stuff in 3.x. (snip)

I'm the opposite.

I am getting more and more shortsighted. I may have to ask for a small print edition.

 

[Halivar]

D&D cannot thrive if new editions are aimed at the people already playing. Eventually we all become grognards with the One True Edition that we will play till the end of our days. Some of us already are (in fact I would say at least half the posters at EnWorld). We are not where the future is for D&D. We're the past. We have to recognize the significant generational differences between entry-level gamers in the 1980's or 90's and today. Kids these days don't come to fantasy gaming through LotR anymore. They come through M:tG or WOW or whatever. And we can hate that and gnash our teeth all we want, but it does not change the facts. I don't know what RPG's should look like for the current era of gamers, but it's not going to look like our D&D.

tl;dr: Yes, we're getting old, and WotC should account for that by ignoring us. We have our games already. They need to make games for the younger generation.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Worth mentioning is that new gamers are probably more likely to come from the children of grognards than the general populace. Kids who are raised on games are going to be more receptive to and comfortable with them.

 

[Halivar]

Worth mentioning is that new gamers are probably more likely to come from the children of grognards than the general populace.

If this is the case, then table-top gaming is maybe two generations from being dead. That said, I do not think this is a case at all.

 

[jrowland]

There are a LOT more options out there than D&D. Geek is Chic, and younger gamers are very open to ttrpgs.

The OP made a point about DMing that I think is the biggest issue: DMing is hard/time-consuming/thankless/etc.

They key to D&D, any edition, is DM support. Pathfinder and Paizo make a great product, but ultimately it comes from the Adventure path products, not the rulebooks. You buy the rulebooks to enhanced your adventures.

D&D next makes in-roads with a simpler system, but there is an underlying tension here: As a player, I want deep, intricate characters with deep intricate progression. I applaud the attempt to make a "simple" version for new players, but once you have the D&D hook, you want more. However, this is in opposition to the needs o the DM: Fast NPC creation, ad hoc resolution, simple to run yet memorable (to the players) monsters.

In a way, character development is a mini-game for players, mechanics plays into that. DMs are narrative driven, and burn-out, IMO, occurs when a DM is weighed down by trying to maintain mechanics. DMs feel like irrelevant, more like a computer (a bad one usually), than a storyteller/narrator. Most DMs thrive when the story is compelling. Thus the need for good published adventures (For busy DMs to grok quickly, be inspired by, etc) or excellent narrative-focus DMing advice.

I know there are those that *hate* DM fiat, but without it, DMs are in reality players in charge of the guy that always loses and never gets full character development, leading to burn out. DMs need freedom from the mechanics, in order to drive the narrative and elicit the Oohs and Ahhs from the players, game after game.

We are getting old, but the game only dies if we let it.