I would not make any claims about demographics and spending habits without some source to back it up. While it is safe to assume that Zoomers are probably not spending much on D&D per capita compared to Gen-X since the oldest Zoomers have only just started their careers, I do not think it is safe to assume that Millennial players spend less on D&D compared to older players. Millennials are fully in the workforce now and they do have money to spend. Unless you can point to an article or study, I was not able to find any evidence on Google that suggests older players spend more than younger players on a per capita basis.
Older players die off, eventually. Or quit playing, or stick with an older edition. That's possibly crudely put, but a company needs to have an influx of new customers to replace the ones leaving. Alienating potential younger customers is a recipe for disaster down the line.
The thing is we do not know who is responding to Wizards' strategy of appealing to a wider audience. We can speculate that it is younger Millennials, but that is only a speculation not backed up by evidence. For all we know, Millennials could be spending very little as a group and it is the old guard doing the bulk of the purchases since they have the most experience being the DM.
The only few things that is safe to assume is that the youngest players are probably not contributing much to sales cause they have no jobs or are just barely starting their careers, and that Wizards' strategy of appealing to a wider audience is working. I think it might be also safe to assume that the strategy appeals to Millennials due to the amount of articles on Google pointing out that more and more people are playing D&D, but I do not know if that appeal translates to sales among Millennials and younger people.
D&D as a hobby seems to be primarily paid for by DMs, so unlike other hobbies like videogames where everyone has to buy their own copy, so you can tell that an increase in sales that coincides with an increase in younger people playing means that younger people are spending more, not everyone has to buy D&D to play D&D.
Sure, but if the old guard constitutes the far greater part of WotC’s revenue providers that’s an issue. Because, as said, no customer stays around forever. The youngest may not contribute a lot now, but they could remain paying customers for half a century if WotC can reel them in. The oldest may contribute a lot today, but be gone tomorrow. The art is to keep the young customers hooked long enough that they become the old customers in time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The art is to keep the young customers hooked long enough that they become the old customers in time.
And kids gloves approach with safespaces and trigger warnings they go for is the absolute wrong way of doing it. If the hobby is too safe and comfortable and doesn't push your boundaries, it gets boring before you grow your proper neckbeard.
The art is to keep the young customers hooked long enough that they become the old customers in time.
And kids gloves approach with safespaces and trigger warnings they go for is the absolute wrong way of doing it. If the hobby is too safe and comfortable and doesn't push your boundaries, it gets boring before you grow your proper neckbeard.
This is not a boot camp, it's just a game between friends. Why shouldn't it be safe and comfortable ? The PCs can literally have to walk through hell, but the players sure don't, they are just there to enjoy a game.
This. The game is meant to be fun. Stop criticizing people for having fun their way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Because humans thrive on adversity. You remove adversity, you remove the thrill. You remove the thrill, the game gets boring. When I GM my players know their characters can die or worse lose things they care about (I make sure they have those), and it keeps them at the edge of their seats. It engages people so well I run campaigns that lasted years IRL with regular weekly games.
Because humans thrive on adversity. You remove adversity, you remove the thrill. You remove the thrill, the game gets boring. When I GM my players know their characters can die or worse lose things they care about (I make sure they have those), and it keeps them at the edge of their seats. It engages people so well I run campaigns that lasted years IRL with regular weekly games.
I agree with you, actually. I enjoy tense and high-stakes games. But other people might not, and it is not your or my place to say what or how people should play. If they enjoy different stuff, let them enjoy it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Whatever works for your table, works for your table and power to you, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to run the game.
I've been running a weekly game for four years and I don't push any boundaries that my players don't all want to have pushed. I respect that they don't come to the table to 'thrive on adversity', but have fun, whatever shape that fun may take. My games are always safe and comfortable because that's what me and my players want; a safe, fun experience where we share the excitement of the heroic fantasy that is D&D.
Your game is your game, a wonderful, marvelously unique experience. However, the success of your methods of DM are not indicative of the right way to DM, but just a right way to DM for your players.
The joy of D&D is what happens at the table when you and your players work together to create fun for each other.
I'm criticizing the company decisions. There 's nothing wrong with running safe and comfortable games with all the bells and whistles so no one get offended or feel uncomfortable, but those are good for one-shots or short campaigns. Good luck keeping people for a long campaign with that approach. I've seen plenty of tries and every singe time people started missing sessions or leaving at game seven to ten and from that point the game disintegrates. And for a strategy of growing the core of veteran customers keeping that engagement for the long term is the most important.
I enjoy tense and high-stakes games. But other people might not, and it is not your or my place to say what or how people should play.
Again, this.
Some people play computer games on the highest possible difficulty, spending hours battling enemies which kill them over and over again until they hit on the precise tactics needed and get a bit of luck. Some play on easy, wanting to enjoy the narrative without it being too difficult. Some own a Wii or Switch and want sweeties and rainbows. There is nothing wrong with any of these types of computer game player, and they don't get bored playing their own kind of games.
I'm criticizing the company decisions. There 's nothing wrong with running safe and comfortable games with all the bells and whistles so no one get offended or feel uncomfortable, but those are good for one-shots or short campaigns. Good luck keeping people for a long campaign with that approach. I've seen plenty of tries and every singe time people started missing sessions or leaving at game seven to ten and from that point the game disintegrates. And for a strategy of growing the core of veteran customers keeping that engagement for the long term is the most important.
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
They didn't, thankfully. They only recently announced they would move in that direction.
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
They didn't, thankfully. They only recently announced they would move in that direction.
When did they announce this? I didn't hear about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
They didn't, thankfully. They only recently announced they would move in that direction.
When did they announce this? I didn't hear about it.
No idea either, but I have to say - from an initial reading at least, haven’t gotten to run it yet - Rime of the Frost Maiden is looking pretty good, and not particularly non-threatening to adventurers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
They didn't, thankfully. They only recently announced they would move in that direction.
When did they announce this? I didn't hear about it.
No idea either, but I have to say - from an initial reading at least, haven’t gotten to run it yet - Rime of the Frost Maiden is looking pretty good, and not particularly non-threatening to adventurers.
I haven't heard of this either. Most likely, someone misinterpreted a comment from one of the game developers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I don't understand the fear about adding options for people to choose to use or not. This is coming from one who began in AD&D. So, you can leave all that veteran ageism at the door.
I can accept that it will scare people that this somehow affects their game even though it won't. People are sometimes like that, and no amount of convincing will work on those people - obstinate to the very end.
I cannot accept when people insist everyone else who is not playing with them must play their way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I'm criticizing the company decisions. There 's nothing wrong with running safe and comfortable games with all the bells and whistles so no one get offended or feel uncomfortable, but those are good for one-shots or short campaigns. Good luck keeping people for a long campaign with that approach. I've seen plenty of tries and every singe time people started missing sessions or leaving at game seven to ten and from that point the game disintegrates. And for a strategy of growing the core of veteran customers keeping that engagement for the long term is the most important.
There's no problem with making the players safe and comfortable, and challenging the characters. In fact, that's the ideal. You want players of every race, religion, gender, orientation and ability to feel safe and comfortable enough at the table to have fun, while also challenging their characters with puzzles, traps, combat and other encounters.
Or, at least, the potential to - nothing wrong with playing another way. One of my favorite games was spending a pair of sessions just brainstorming how to build a makeshift town for a bunch of dwarven refugees to survive a winter. No combat, just logistics.
I don't understand the fear about adding options for people to choose to use or not. This is coming from one who began in AD&D. So, you can leave all that veteran ageism at the door.
I can accept that it will scare people that this somehow affects their game even though it won't. People are sometimes like that, and no amount of convincing will work on those people - obstinate to the very end.
I cannot accept when people insist everyone else who is not playing with them must play their way.
The fear is understandable but unfair. Your group and your DM have the freedom to choose, but the democratic decision may go against a particular player’s preference. They would prefer a one-party system. But that’s not just. If they can’t agree with the group, they should find another. I understand the fear that they may be unable to, but in many cases, it’s probably unwarranted.
Brooklyn_red_leg, your interpretation of alignment is one-dimensional and out-dated. And that's fine... for you. If you want to stick with an antiquated world view because you think it's more "authentic" then that's fine... for you. If your game exercises racism in its purest form and that's what makes you happy, then your table has to deal with you and that's fine... for you.
My personal opinion is that with what has recently transpired in the real world concerning race relations, personal real-life growth is more important than being a murderhobo in a game. I prefer to use my D&D games to deep dive into RP and get nuanced and complex about interactions and moral decisions. For me, that makes the game more fun, engaging and rewarding. The same may not be true for you. You might prefer to see your campaign stories in black and white and maybe you get some sort of thrill from playing out racist acts. How you play your game is on you. And that's something the people at your table have to deal with.
I do wonder if there are other player races that you think are unworthy of individual life. Do you also believe that tieflings should be murdered on sight? What about half-orcs? What about drow? Do you think R.A.Salvatore is some kind of bleeding-heart stooge because he thinks that good drow can exist? Your argument is just so fundamentally flawed that it's actually difficult to take your opinion seriously for discussion. But, again, it's your opinion and you get to have it... just like the vast majority of critical thinkers are free to dismantle your argument with ease.
Play your game the way you want and the rest of us can play ours the way we want.
From my point of view, I use fantasy racism in my game, but I try to keep it original nuanced. The aarakocra are the dominant, neutral-on-the-good-evil-spectrum race, but a few are chaotic good. Humans are oppressed and chaotic. A few are lawful evil. Multiple colors of skin are represented among humans. Dwarves are oppressed but lawful. A few are chaotic good. Halflings are true neutral. One of my PCs is a chaotic neutral halfling. Gnomes are chaotic neutral. Some are chaotic evil.
Drow are the dominant elf race. They are benevolent to non-drow elven peasants, but enslave humans. Like the aarakocrans, they are lawful neutral, but some are neutral good. I had an elven paladin PC. He was killed by the police. I have a drow rogue PC. He's chaotic neutral.
I think it can be detrimental to use racial stereotypes similar to thosed used in real-world racist propaganda, like the idea of a stupid, brutish, large, dark-skinned race dwelling far from the safe castle walls. I wouldn't say don't acknowledge race in your campaign, but I would say if you involve it, avoid pitfalls. If you want an escapist game, you can use fantasy beasts, monstrosities, aberrations, elementals, etc.
The game is Dungeons and _Dragons_. It can survive without goblins.
For some people, escapism means getting away from a world where their race limits their choices.
This hyper-fixation on race is entirely American thing. Outside of your states we generally don't have that problem. May have something to do with living in 99.99% mono-racial countries and having ancient grudges that focus our xenophobia more on cultural differences than silly skin colour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, but if the old guard constitutes the far greater part of WotC’s revenue providers that’s an issue. Because, as said, no customer stays around forever. The youngest may not contribute a lot now, but they could remain paying customers for half a century if WotC can reel them in. The oldest may contribute a lot today, but be gone tomorrow. The art is to keep the young customers hooked long enough that they become the old customers in time.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And kids gloves approach with safespaces and trigger warnings they go for is the absolute wrong way of doing it. If the hobby is too safe and comfortable and doesn't push your boundaries, it gets boring before you grow your proper neckbeard.
This. The game is meant to be fun. Stop criticizing people for having fun their way.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Because humans thrive on adversity. You remove adversity, you remove the thrill. You remove the thrill, the game gets boring. When I GM my players know their characters can die or worse lose things they care about (I make sure they have those), and it keeps them at the edge of their seats. It engages people so well I run campaigns that lasted years IRL with regular weekly games.
I agree with you, actually. I enjoy tense and high-stakes games. But other people might not, and it is not your or my place to say what or how people should play. If they enjoy different stuff, let them enjoy it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Whatever works for your table, works for your table and power to you, but that doesn't mean it's the only way to run the game.
I've been running a weekly game for four years and I don't push any boundaries that my players don't all want to have pushed. I respect that they don't come to the table to 'thrive on adversity', but have fun, whatever shape that fun may take. My games are always safe and comfortable because that's what me and my players want; a safe, fun experience where we share the excitement of the heroic fantasy that is D&D.
Your game is your game, a wonderful, marvelously unique experience. However, the success of your methods of DM are not indicative of the right way to DM, but just a right way to DM for your players.
The joy of D&D is what happens at the table when you and your players work together to create fun for each other.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm criticizing the company decisions. There 's nothing wrong with running safe and comfortable games with all the bells and whistles so no one get offended or feel uncomfortable, but those are good for one-shots or short campaigns. Good luck keeping people for a long campaign with that approach. I've seen plenty of tries and every singe time people started missing sessions or leaving at game seven to ten and from that point the game disintegrates. And for a strategy of growing the core of veteran customers keeping that engagement for the long term is the most important.
Again, this.
Some people play computer games on the highest possible difficulty, spending hours battling enemies which kill them over and over again until they hit on the precise tactics needed and get a bit of luck. Some play on easy, wanting to enjoy the narrative without it being too difficult. Some own a Wii or Switch and want sweeties and rainbows. There is nothing wrong with any of these types of computer game player, and they don't get bored playing their own kind of games.
How has Wizard's made safe and comfortable adventurers? In most of the full-length campaigns that I have read, the fate of the world rests upon the players.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
They didn't, thankfully. They only recently announced they would move in that direction.
When did they announce this? I didn't hear about it.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
No idea either, but I have to say - from an initial reading at least, haven’t gotten to run it yet - Rime of the Frost Maiden is looking pretty good, and not particularly non-threatening to adventurers.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I haven't heard of this either. Most likely, someone misinterpreted a comment from one of the game developers.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I don't understand the fear about adding options for people to choose to use or not. This is coming from one who began in AD&D. So, you can leave all that veteran ageism at the door.
I can accept that it will scare people that this somehow affects their game even though it won't. People are sometimes like that, and no amount of convincing will work on those people - obstinate to the very end.
I cannot accept when people insist everyone else who is not playing with them must play their way.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
There's no problem with making the players safe and comfortable, and challenging the characters. In fact, that's the ideal. You want players of every race, religion, gender, orientation and ability to feel safe and comfortable enough at the table to have fun, while also challenging their characters with puzzles, traps, combat and other encounters.
Or, at least, the potential to - nothing wrong with playing another way. One of my favorite games was spending a pair of sessions just brainstorming how to build a makeshift town for a bunch of dwarven refugees to survive a winter. No combat, just logistics.
The fear is understandable but unfair. Your group and your DM have the freedom to choose, but the democratic decision may go against a particular player’s preference. They would prefer a one-party system. But that’s not just. If they can’t agree with the group, they should find another. I understand the fear that they may be unable to, but in many cases, it’s probably unwarranted.
Brooklyn_red_leg, your interpretation of alignment is one-dimensional and out-dated. And that's fine... for you. If you want to stick with an antiquated world view because you think it's more "authentic" then that's fine... for you. If your game exercises racism in its purest form and that's what makes you happy, then your table has to deal with you and that's fine... for you.
My personal opinion is that with what has recently transpired in the real world concerning race relations, personal real-life growth is more important than being a murderhobo in a game. I prefer to use my D&D games to deep dive into RP and get nuanced and complex about interactions and moral decisions. For me, that makes the game more fun, engaging and rewarding. The same may not be true for you. You might prefer to see your campaign stories in black and white and maybe you get some sort of thrill from playing out racist acts. How you play your game is on you. And that's something the people at your table have to deal with.
I do wonder if there are other player races that you think are unworthy of individual life. Do you also believe that tieflings should be murdered on sight? What about half-orcs? What about drow? Do you think R.A.Salvatore is some kind of bleeding-heart stooge because he thinks that good drow can exist? Your argument is just so fundamentally flawed that it's actually difficult to take your opinion seriously for discussion. But, again, it's your opinion and you get to have it... just like the vast majority of critical thinkers are free to dismantle your argument with ease.
Play your game the way you want and the rest of us can play ours the way we want.
From my point of view, I use fantasy racism in my game, but I try to keep it original nuanced. The aarakocra are the dominant, neutral-on-the-good-evil-spectrum race, but a few are chaotic good. Humans are oppressed and chaotic. A few are lawful evil. Multiple colors of skin are represented among humans. Dwarves are oppressed but lawful. A few are chaotic good. Halflings are true neutral. One of my PCs is a chaotic neutral halfling. Gnomes are chaotic neutral. Some are chaotic evil.
Drow are the dominant elf race. They are benevolent to non-drow elven peasants, but enslave humans. Like the aarakocrans, they are lawful neutral, but some are neutral good. I had an elven paladin PC. He was killed by the police. I have a drow rogue PC. He's chaotic neutral.
I think it can be detrimental to use racial stereotypes similar to thosed used in real-world racist propaganda, like the idea of a stupid, brutish, large, dark-skinned race dwelling far from the safe castle walls. I wouldn't say don't acknowledge race in your campaign, but I would say if you involve it, avoid pitfalls. If you want an escapist game, you can use fantasy beasts, monstrosities, aberrations, elementals, etc.
The game is Dungeons and _Dragons_. It can survive without goblins.
For some people, escapism means getting away from a world where their race limits their choices.
This hyper-fixation on race is entirely American thing. Outside of your states we generally don't have that problem. May have something to do with living in 99.99% mono-racial countries and having ancient grudges that focus our xenophobia more on cultural differences than silly skin colour.