WotC WotC partners with Start Playing to connect players and DMs and form tables.

[darjr]

Not every person is fortunate enough to play in a game run by an Enworlder. Why, we're so talented at DMing, people line up from around the block to play in our games!

For those unlucky people, there's Startplaying.games

Except there are ENWorlders even there. Even there.

 

[The Sigil]

Ironically, I think existing DMs going on endlessly about how hard it is is part of the problem. It isn't hard. We did it at 10 years old. Almost anyone can do it. Certainly one of the five of you can do it.

I don't think DM'ing is hard. I do think DM'ing WELL is hard.

I also don't think we DM'd well at 10 years old. Of course, our 10-year old peers didn't have a high bar of expectations for us to meet, either.

To say nothing of the fact that if I recall correctly the average "new game" skews older (college age?) now than when I got started (I was in the single digits at the time but I think most new players were tweens) and generally we have higher expectations for how we use our leisure time at, say 20 years old than we do at 10 years old... 10-year-olds generally tolerate lower-quality entertainment than 20-year olds (if, for no other reason, because they have less experience with entertainment and thus less to compare it to).

However, let's be honest about the expectations of the minimum material that needs to be digested prior to running your first game.

If you came in as a BECMI player, there were at most 112 pages of rules for you to get through to get started (64 pages in the Mentzger Basic Player's Guide, 48 in the DM's Guide, which included the monsters; the Moldvay Basic rules were even shorter). Even if you slot in the Expert rulebook as required reading, you have 14 levels of play across less than 200 pages.

For 1e AD&D, the PHB (128 page), DMG (236 pages), and MM (112 pages) combined for 476 pages. That's a significant amount of reading but those books are somewhat eye-friendly with a lot of white space (especially the MM) and tables (the DMG) so text density was low.

Contrast this with 5e where the PHB (316 pages), DMG (320 pages), and MM (352 pages) are nigh on a thousand pages (976 to be exact) of nicely illustrated but very dense text - white space is gone. Without even accounting for text density, that's more than double the old 1e required reading and about nine times the required reading of the old Basic Set!

Most of this is because there are simply MORE RULES in 5e than in BECMI or 1e (admittedly, they're more unified now; I don't expect BECMI or 1e players to know a 7th-level Thief's percentile chance to Hide in Shadows; I expect them to look at a table). We, the older generation of games, seem to want more things concretely outlined in the rules which leads to less ambiguity but also more rules complexity.

I happen to think despite complaints about "shorter attention spans" and "less literacy in general" in today's generation (whether or not you believe or agree with these sentiments), 100 pages of reading to get into a hobby is something you can still ask of a reasonably intelligent 10-year old. But 5e requires the aspiring DM to wade through an order of magnitude more reading before you can try to get started!

In short, whether we want to admit it or not, the "bar" for a "new DM" has been raised from where it was when we were young.

Last week I ran the Pathfinder Beginner Box with a group of mostly new players (all new to PF, one was a player in a 5e campaign I previously ran), all in their 20's. They all seemed to enjoy the experience but only one player even cracked open the 76-page Heroes Handbook. I think 76 pages is close to the 64 pages of the old Basic Player's Guide, but apparently the text density was too intimidating for most of the group! Most of them were quite happy with the 4-page-equivalent pregenerated character pamphlets (well, since one was a pretty cover page, effectively 3-pages, with rules summaries for spells, et al on them).

That to me suggests even the least-intimidating introductory products currently on the market are overstuffed with content and intimidating to new players. New players are happy with a bare minimum (3 pages?) of rules. I would theorize that 5e, PF, and their ilk are carrying far too much rules bloat to be all that accessible to new players, much less new DMs. That's why new players often want an experienced hand to guide them... I think the amount of stuff in RPGs now is too overwhelming for a player, who is only worrying about one character, to comprehend it without some help and trying to understand all aspects of a game would be simply impossible. Lots of crunchy stuff may be satisfying for experienced gamers that have had years (nay, decades) of experience layering on more and more rules, but from what I've observed, it creates a huge barrier to entry to those that lack the same experience.

 

[The Sigil]

That's not who the PAYING players are, though. It's Millennials and older.

And they're three groups (mostly):

- totally new players ages 30 and up with disposable income

- hardcore forever DMs who want a chance to be players, and want a game that will happen on time, as scheduled, with everyone showing up and engaged to participate

- Little kids whose parents are paying for them to play as an entertainment/learning activity

I have lots of players in their 20s, but almost ONLY in free games.

Couldn't find it up-thread, but you pointed out that it's easier to start DM'ing at 10 (when you're still being encouraged to "imagine" a lot) than when you're 30-ish. Totally agree with you there.

Also, that's an interesting spread of paid players. If I was trying to come up with an explanatory theory, it would probably be based on the "everyone only ever has 2 of 3 when it comes to money, energy, and time" theory (when you're young you have time and energy but no money; when you're into your career you have money and energy but no time, and when you're old you have money and time but no energy).

I won't post a long thread explaining here; most of the math there can be done as an exercise for the reader, but clearly there are enough people who value D&D participation enough to pay for it, and the reason any particular individual isn't paying to participate is either (1) they don't have the money, (2) they value money more than D&D participation, or (3) they have been able to find "D&D for free."

Those who think paying for D&D is bad are probably: (a) members of group two or (b) fortunate to be members of group three or (c) members of group one that are hoping to soon become members of group three.

(For the record: I'm part of group three, although perhaps less because I'm fortunate now and more because I was fortunate when I was younger to be part of group three and now I'm happy to DM for free with the right group.)

 

[Reynard]

I don't buy that 5E is harder to learn to GM than BECMI. It may have more rules but those rules are infinitely more consistent and internally logical. Plus, again, the wealth of resources.

 

[Burnside]

I don't buy that 5E is harder to learn to GM than BECMI. It may have more rules but those rules are infinitely more consistent and internally logical. Plus, again, the wealth of resources.

So what's your take? Why so many players, so few DMs?

 

[Clint_L]

DMing requires a lot of time and effort, and people get self-conscious about knowing the rules well enough, being in charge, all kinds of things. From my experience, I suspect that TTRPGs attract a disproportionate number of folks with social anxieties, so that probably doesn't help.

I'm forever encouraging new-ish players to try DMing. It takes a certain type.

 

[Reynard]

So what's your take? Why so many players, so few DMs?

I can't say definitively of course, and don't want to over generalize, but as a parent of GenZ kids in high school and college, and as someone who literally goes to school with college kids in their early to late 20s (Civil engineering) I say this with both sincerity and empathy: many members of that generation have a real problem with anxiety and perception. I don't want to speculate too much, but I think it is wrapped up in a combination of social media and an apparently chaotic world. I won't be specific but I live in a town that suffered a major cultural event this generation, with us and my kids directly involved, and those events have deeply affected the kids of this generation.

It sounds dumb to tie that stuff to D&D, but if we are talking about why kids now don't "step up" the way we GenX kids did (again, I acknowledge that this is clumsy language) I don't think we can discount how a literal lifetime of fear and uncertainty can impact people.

 

[Dire Bare]

So what's your take? Why so many players, so few DMs?

It has always been so, even in the times of the Great Gygax.

 

[Dire Bare]

Or we could be honest about others' positions based on not wanting the big corp putting their nose into an independent company that's offering a valuable service that absolutely will end up worse for this and not try to appropriate real terms to create a boogyman.

Okay . . . so you're not kvetching about the existence of paid D&D games, but rather the big evil corporation meddling with the scrappy upstart StartPlaying? Well, if so, that's certainly a different situation. I'll take back the "gatekeeping" and "toxic fandom".

But . . . sigh. WotC certainly IS a big corporation that makes big corporate decisions, and has been racking up the blunders over the past few years . . . but to see evil everytime they are involved with something is paranoia.

It's just a marketing partnership, one that StartPlaying is likely very happy to be involved with. I'll trust them to make their own decisions and not play armchair quarterback.

WotC someday purchasing StartPlaying or starting their own service . . . would be a wise, corporate move. And if this future, hypothetical service was put to evil use . . . or just downgrades the service offered, then I'll worry about it then.

 

[Dire Bare]

Because Start Playing paid them money?

Well, that would be a benefit for WotC? Yes?

StartPlaying paying for a license is possible, but I doubt it in this case. This is just a marketing partnership between the two companies. I really doubt anybody is paying anybody . . . other than players paying the GMs!