Which edition of D&D did you start with?

[rogueattorney]

Following Treant and RFisher's posts:

1. I wonder how/if the poll would be different on the WotC boards. I think that board tends to have a younger crowd. I would guess there'd be a much higher percentage of people introduced to the game by 2e or 3e.

2. Trent's right. Almost 3/4 of the people on this board first got into the game with a product that wasn't generally available after 1990 or so (OD&D, 1e or BD&D). Which means - (a) not as many people were getting into the game over the last 10-15 years; or (b) the people who got into the game over the last 10-15 years, didn't stay in the game; or (c) the people who got into the game over the last 10-15 years don't post here; or (d) a combination of the above. I think d is probably the case, but the general agreement that the gaming population is getting older would indicate that a and b are significant factors.

3. Fisher's right. The BD&D sets were close to perfect in accomplishing their goal - not only introducing people to the game, but getting them enthused and interested in continuing to play it.

TSR stopped supporting BD&D in 1993, with its last supported Basic set in 1991. It put out a new version of the set in 1994 and a 1999 box set that was really an introduction to 2e rather than another Basic set, but neither of these were promoted or supported. I don't think it's any coincidence that the abandonement of the Basic rules by TSR in the 90's roughly correlates with a and b in point 4.

In other words, my theory is that the failure to provide and support a new Basic game is directly responsible for the aging game population. No intro game leads to no new blood.

I hope I'm wrong about my initial premise, that the D&D gaming population is getting older, and is dying out to some degree. I hope my concerns are moot because either or both the D&D Basic game by WotC and C&C by Troll Lords fills the roll of the old Basic sets. However, I don't think I'm being a Chicken Little here either.

R.A.

 

[jeffh]

I hope I'm wrong about my initial premise, that the D&D gaming population is getting older, and is dying out to some degree. I hope my concerns are moot because either or both the D&D Basic game by WotC and C&C by Troll Lords fills the roll of the old Basic sets. However, I don't think I'm being a Chicken Little here either.

R.A.

There's a sort of "basic set" out there already. Spencer T Cooley Publishing has done a book with a title something like OGL Fantasy Lite which is 64 pages and covers all the rules a player needs to advance to fourth level. There are four races and four classes - human, dwarf, elf, and halfling, fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric. Feats are covered mainly in the Fighter section and skills mainly in the Rogue section. Since it has character creation rules, it's OGL but not D20, but most of it is nevertheless taken directly from the D20 SRD.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Or maybe that the D&D Basic Sets are the best introduction to the hobby for people of any age.

But you're probably right...

Most of the people I game with played 2ed. And they range from abt. 22-45 years old.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Myself, personally, I started around 1999-2000 with 3.0 when it first came out. We switched over to 3.5 although I do have a few nitpicks with stuff in it...

My first character was a halfling(!) paladin that the DM had created. He'd created a stack of characters. I had no clue as to how to play paladins but he wasn't as stringent on that code of theirs as one DM I have now can/will be. Next character was a half-elf ranger (still play him!). Then moved onto playing clerics about a year ago. My most fun character was a cleric!

A friend of mine's first 3.0 character was a cleric that he brought back about a year ago when another cleric he was playing got killed..... The first one gets about as much respect now as he did then (none!). Poor guy's the target of quite alot of jokes.....

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Following Treant and RFisher's posts:

1. I wonder how/if the poll would be different on the WotC boards. I think that board tends to have a younger crowd. I would guess there'd be a much higher percentage of people introduced to the game by 2e or 3e.

Could be a similar slide on the poll as there's quite a few older-edition players there. Probably somewhere around 50-50, I'm guessing.

2. Almost 3/4 of the people on this board first got into the game with a product that wasn't generally available after 1990 or so (OD&D, 1e or BD&D). Which means - (a) not as many people were getting into the game over the last 10-15 years; or (b) the people who got into the game over the last 10-15 years, didn't stay in the game; or (c) the people who got into the game over the last 10-15 years don't post here; or (d) a combination of the above. I think d is probably the case, but the general agreement that the gaming population is getting older would indicate that a and b are significant factors.

There are those of us who didn't start playing until about 5 years ago, myself included along with a 17-year-old who started the same time I did. He'd just turned 13 at the time. Did have a brief stint back in the mid-80s but there wasn't any rulebooks. We mixed D&D with GI Joes, Star Trek, Star Wars (don't ask! No way I can explain it! )

 

[Mouseferatu]

There's a sort of "basic set" out there already. Spencer T Cooley Publishing has done a book with a title something like OGL Fantasy Lite which is 64 pages and covers all the rules a player needs to advance to fourth level. There are four races and four classes - human, dwarf, elf, and halfling, fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric. Feats are covered mainly in the Fighter section and skills mainly in the Rogue section. Since it has character creation rules, it's OGL but not D20, but most of it is nevertheless taken directly from the D20 SRD.

There are others, as well, and will be more in the future.

But honestly, they're irrelevant to the growth of the market. They're excellent tools if a gamer wants to introduce a young non-gamer to the game, but they serve no purpose in attracting whole crowds of non-gamers. Nobody but WotC--and Hasbro--has the market saturation and name recognition to produce a true D&D Basic. Nobody else in the market is equipped to market to non-gamers, put products in Toys R Us and Walmart, support them, advertise them, and otherwise grow the market.

Fortunately, they do have a Basic D&D coming out at GenCon. While it's not what I, personally, want from a Basic D&D, it looks like it's designed specifically to draw younger people and non-gamers into the market, and that can only be a good thing.

 

[Staffan]

There are also those of us who cut our teeth on a different RPG entirely. For me, it was Drakar och Demoner, which at the time was a somewhat modified translation of Basic Roleplaying (later editions would modify it even more). The first Dungeons & Dragons I played, however, was 2nd ed.

 

[RFisher]

Almost 3/4 of the people on this board first got into the game with a product that wasn't generally available after 1990 or so (OD&D, 1e or BD&D).

I'm wondering if there's anyone out there who was introduced to the hobby by a D&D Basic Set after 1990. These things didn't simply disappear when they went out of print. (As those of us collecting them well know.) Surely some of them found there way into the hands of a willing victim.

Heck, there's a good chance I'll use my old Basic Set & the spare rulebook I acquired recently to introduce my own kids to the hobby when they're old enough.

 

[tarchon]

There are also those of us who cut our teeth on a different RPG entirely. For me, it was Drakar och Demoner, which at the time was a somewhat modified translation of Basic Roleplaying (later editions would modify it even more). The first Dungeons & Dragons I played, however, was 2nd ed.

Drakar och Demoner! That would have caused riots in the US.

 

[Staffan]

Drakar och Demoner! That would have caused riots in the US.

Yeah, Sweden is a lot more secular than the US. However, I'm pretty sure the name was mostly chosen for its similarities to Dungeons & Dragons (both have the D & D thing going, though the accepted abbreviation for Drakar och Demoner is DoD to avoid confusion) - the company making it was sneaky that way.