D&D 5E Who really IS the target audience of D&D Next?

[innerdude]

I'll admit, this topic is largely a response to this thread, talking about the longest-running gaming groups and individual characters within those groups.

And it got me thinking--Who really is the target audience for D&D Next?

To give some background, I consider myself a "gamer." I've been involved in a weekly or bi-weekly face-to-face RPG group at least 6 months a year over the past 9 years.

That said, many times on this message board I am staggered at the level of investment of other players and GMs compared to my own.

My RPG collection is a paltry dozen 3.x era books, five Pathfinder books, the Rules Cyclopedia, and a handful (maybe 10 total) from other various systems, most of them recent (Savage Worlds, Mongoose Runequest, Ars Magica, The One Ring, FATE/Legends of Anglerre).

So when people start breaking out stories of two-plus decades of play, using the same character, I suddenly start wondering if I'm really a part of "the hobby" in the same way other people are.

And it makes me wonder just who, exactly, is WotC targeting with D&D Next?

In some ways, I think I'm definitely part of the equation--someone who completely skipped over 4th edition, but has a history with the game, and is looking for an elegant rules system that fits my particular GM / group's style.

But--

I've never been to a gaming convention in my life.

I've played a grand total of 2 RPG sessions ever, in 25 years, at an FLGS, and didn't particularly like it either time.

I have almost zero interest in "living" campaigns.

I have a miniscule collection of maybe 2-dozen minis (if that), that I only really use half the time anyway.

Though I've now managed read a dozen or more rules systems, the only systems I've ever actively PLAYED with an actual group are BECMI, 3.x/Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS, and I don't even own hardcovers of the GURPS rules.

So in this regard, when D&D Next starts talking about being the "all inclusive" edition, are they targeting me, are they targeting the "hardcore" fans, are they targeting the "grognards"?

This is important, because their chosen target demographic, and the things important to that demographic, may play a significant role with the direction in which the rules "move." My concerns for how a system should look and feel are not going to be the same as someone much more dedicated to the hobby. In fact, looking at it from that angle, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that at the moment, Savage Worlds greatly appeals to me (fast, easy-to-adjudicate rules, flexible enough to work in multiple situations, still enough "crunch" for the players).

Obviously WotC would love to be getting some of my money with D&D-N, since I haven't spent a dime on 4e. But in truth, I suspect they'd like someone more dedicated to the hobby than I am. I'm a dedicated player, with a more than passing interest in the hobby, but I'm not an evangelist (yet).

What I'm really asking is, are the concerns and needs for a ruleset of someone who plays twice a month (at most) with friends going to be significantly different than someone playing twice a week, often with people they've never met at a game store?

Or, are the things that make an RPG "great" universal enough across play styles that it doesn't matter?

Your thoughts welcome as always, En-Worlders.

 

[Sunseeker]

That said, many times on this message board I am staggered at the level of investment of other players and GMs compared to my own.

My RPG collection is a paltry dozen 3.x era books, five Pathfinder books, the Rules Cyclopedia, and a handful (maybe 10 total) from other various systems, most of them recent (Savage Worlds, Mongoose Runequest, Ars Magica, The One Ring, FATE/Legends of Anglerre).

So when people start breaking out stories of two-plus decades of play, using the same character, I suddenly start wondering if I'm really a part of "the hobby" in the same way other people are.

And it makes me wonder just who, exactly, is WotC targeting with D&D Next?

In some ways, I think I'm definitely part of the equation--someone who completely skipped over 4th edition, but has a history with the game, and is looking for an elegant rules system that fits my particular GM / group's style.

But--

I've never been to a gaming convention in my life.

I've played a grand total of 2 RPG sessions ever, in 25 years, at an FLGS, and didn't particularly like it either time.

I have almost zero interest in "living" campaigns.

I have a miniscule collection of maybe 2-dozen minis (if that), that I only really use half the time anyway.

Though I've now managed read a dozen or more rules systems, the only systems I've ever actively PLAYED with an actual group are BECMI, 3.x/Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS, and I don't even own hardcovers of the GURPS rules.

So in this regard, when D&D Next starts talking about being the "all inclusive" edition, are they targeting me, are they targeting the "hardcore" fans, are they targeting the "grognards"?

This describes me very accurately as well, and I have to wonder many of the same things. I'm not really sure who the target of 5e is going to be, but with their rather casual disrespect for 4e, I don't think it's me. By and large I've been involved in 4e games much more than games of any other system, and I've enjoyed it greatly. My experience with older system and the older players attached to them has been regularly unfavorable.

I won't know for certain who 5e is targeting till I get it on my table and try it out. Maybe it is me and I just have far too little information so far. But in my experience, grognards are not a market, they want support for their edition and aren't interested in new ones. Hardcores are a minimal market share, they're not going to make those numbers Wizards is looking for to keep Hasbro happy. So while mathematically they should be targetting the newer, younger, and broader markets associated with 4e and possibly 3.5, I really don't see it yet.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Well, I've been playing RPG's for a long time.

I have an entire bookshelf and and about 8gb of RPG materials. I've thrown away/ donated/ given away more RPG books annd materials than that one book shelf of material that I now own.

I have a fair amount of mini's both metal and pre-painted plastics.

I have never been to Gen-Con and have no desire to go (I love my hobby but I pretty much despise and hate the fandom. And that's a feeling that grows more and more the the more time that I spend on message board forums).

I too have no interest in "living campaigns". As I feel while for some it's the only way that they can get a regular game, I also feel that a fair amount of people who play in these games are power gamers and people who want to game the system. In short the type of people you dont want in your regular game. That may not be entirely true but that's just the way I feel.

D&D Next isnt going to be the all-inclusive edition. It only care about that in so much as regaining it's market share back from older editions and other games like Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. I'd pretty much bet now that WOTC's main order of business is to completely disrupt Pathfinder's momentum or destroy it completely.

If they really cared about all inclusiveness they'd let things be and focus on making the best game that they can without starting up the nostalgia train. For all their talk about how great 4E is and that it was what people wanted it now seems like they are kind of pushing it to the side sort of like what they did to 3.5. And that's a shame because as much as I didn't care for 4E it wasn't a bad game at all.

So who is their target audience? The OSR crowd? The Pathfinder crowd?

Is playing something with the D&D name on it really that important to most people? Apparently it is with all of the people from both the OSR group and supposed Pathfinder players eager to jump ship at first sight of the new shiny.

The one good thing about 4E (other than condensed monster stat blocks) was that it freed me from D&D. I havent played a game with D&D on the cover in 4 YEARS. That's the longest I've ever gone without playing something called D&D since I started player RPG's. But apparently while I can walk away from the brand and keep walking some people just cant.

So I'd say THAT'S the target audience. D&D fans. People who absolutley need to be playing something with that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS on the cover.

 

[Consonant Dude]

My concerns for how a system should look and feel are not going to be the same as someone much more dedicated to the hobby.

I think a lot of those things you are concerned about are inconsequential. How many times you game every year and how long you have played has very little to do with what you like. Same as everybody else.

There are people out there who are dedicated to the hobby and hate miniatures while others will love them.

There are countless recent gamers who prefer older editions and veterans of 30 years who prefer newer editions.

WotC will be wise to check out what's on the market and current trends but ultimately, the size of your gaming collection will have absolutely no impact on whether you like 5th edition or not. WotC doesn't care which other games we own.

The focus should be on the product. For them and for us. We can try to categorize each of us and why exactly we like edition X but that's rarely productive.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

With apologies to Einstein, their target goal is to be as inclusive as possible, but no more than that. By definition, this is going to leave some people out. (I don't know who exactly.)

In any case, I think there is a "vast middle" of players that like a range of games that are more or less D&D-ish in nature. If the next version is decent and provides their table a fun experience, they'll buy it and play it. That doesn't mean they'll devote themselves to it, forsaking all others.

The above is a separate concern from those lobbying hard for the "Current Version of D&D" to cater to their preferences, and not really caring about anyone else, on the often mistaken grounds that this is the best way to maximize their play chances and/or convince other people to play the style they enjoy. That is, the number of people who just play whatever D&D is right now, without regards to whether it fits their style or not, is ... let's just say a concept with more than its full share of hyperbole. These people will be disappointed with 5E no matter what, except insomuch as they are able to convince themselves that other tables are using and enjoying the same options that they are.

 

[Kzach]

Isn't it obvious?

D&D Next is aimed at the social group that you most dislike and can aim the most vitriol at as you criticise and maim the edition and blame it for destroying the fabric of the universe and eating cute puppy dogs with big, watery eyes.

 

[Mark CMG]

To repeat what I posted over here -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...d-d/317958-open-gaming-license-lesson-5e.html

- but trimming out the portions that don't crossover -

I think with each new edition WotC has made attempts to recapture lapsed D&D players and with limited success. 3.XE seemed to bring a lot of D&Ders back but it's hard to say since it was much harder to gauge the varying communites pre-Internet.

Plus, it sure seems that people tend to either be casual gamers who play from time to time and don't purchase much, staunch gamers who follow a single system, or multi-system gamers.

I think WotC hopes to capture the casual crowd and maybe find ways to increase their involvement by leveraging technology in ways previously unavailable. I think they hope to draw some new gamers to D&D. I think WotC hopes that many of the multi-system crowd will at least check out 5E and add it to their rotation. I also think they hope to keep the WotC 4E D&D loyalists on board while also snagging the WotC 3.0 and 3.5 D&D loyalists who didn't move on to 4E D&D or to Pathfinder.

I think they'd like to recapture some (O)D&D, Basic D&D, 1E and 2E D&D loyalists but this seems like a bigger struggle. They've simply been away too long. Many didn't move forward before, not only because they have in hand the game they love but also, because spending a bunch of money on a new game that won't likely continue being supported beyond a handful of years is one of the reasons they didn't move on in the past. That hasn't changed.

But it seems the majority of Pathfinder gamers are Pathfinder loyalists and likely the toughest sell for 5E. They've got some of the best and the brightest of game design, as ordained by WotC, working on a game they love. They've got a network of 3PP using the OGL to broaden support for their system and probably many still use a number of OGL books from the 3.XE era. I dont think many of them are jumping ship any time soon. There might be a shake up when Paizo finally gets around to revising Pathfinder but that largely depends on the tack that is taken and what is produced. I don't see Paizo as a company that will take their loyalists for granted or, through lack of communication, will take the game in directions that their fanbase will bolt over.

 

[amerigoV]

I figure I'm out of the target market. Sure I game, and I'll spend money too! But its not the system I want, its the ideas, worlds, and settings. I just do not have the time to create things out of whole cloth, and neither does most of my group. We want a simple set of rules that cuts across genres and has tons of ideas for us to mine.

D&D is many great things, but it basically is for people that have time in invest in the system. Even if they manage to speed up play and keep it streamlined - its too late. I found a new drug (Savage Worlds - whose target market I sit squarely in and they frickin know it!).

I do hope Next does well and brings many new players into the hobby.

 

[Walker N. Waistz]

And it got me thinking--Who really is the target audience for D&D Next?

Hopefully, the target audience is you. The fact is, while you may be a more casual gamer than some, I think casual gamers are a larger audience than the hardcore ones. I think that is where there is room for growth in the hobby in general and D&D in particular.

Also, I think hardcore players are complex, and make decisions about playing a new game for reasons that often have little to do with the actual game. Like, if the very idea of a new edition angers you, you are never going to play it, even if it were the greatest game ever. A hardcore gamer is much more likely to have invested heavily in games that are not D&D at all, as well as previous editions, and may not want to play D&D because his game of Spirit of the Century or Savage Worlds or whatever is already going so well. At the same time, some hardcore gamers will get the new edition just to check it out or because they are D&D loyalists in general, or simply to criticize it. Some will like it or dislike it based solely on its similarity to a previous edition they did or didn't like.

So, when there is one audience that you can bring in with game design choices, and another audience where game design is less of a factor than decisions they make separate from it, I feel it makes sense to target the first primarily and focus less on the second. But ideally, I think they want to include them all.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, I think this is actually something that WOTC has screwed up with both 3E and 4E.

D&D went from a fairly accessible game to something that was incredibly rules heavy (3e) and full of tons of jargon (4E - I don't understand what 4E fans are even talking about most of the time)

5e seems like they are trying to walk things back a bit, but given the design staff (I mean, Monte Cook comes from Rolemaster, often derided as RulesMaster) I don't think it's too likely.

More and more I think they should have just decided to support past editions. Put out a D&D Classics - a blend of the best parts of AD&D and BD&D. Then D&D d20, then just keep up 4e.

People have different tastes. It's why Coke makes Sprite, or why 7 up makes Dr. Pepper (and distributes RC)