I always twitch when I see people argue “this was the way it was originally” when it comes to games. In D&D, just like in Lord of the Rings which it drew so much from, the heroes were always Caucasian looking while the monsters were explicitly not. We have moved beyond that point. Our games have developed a greater narrative complexity than “non-human, non-white looking creature is evil.” Sure, that might have been how it was when D&D was created in the 1970’s but it isn’t the 1970’s any more. I find it troubling that so many people would refuse to even acknowledge that “the way it was” is very alienating for a lot of people. “The way it was” doesn’t mean that’s what it should be today. I don’t see anyone who has argued that it’s wrong to add moral and narrative complexity to the game because it’s “modern morality” because “that’s the way the game was designed nearly 50 years ago” also argue that we should still be using THAC0 or, even more egregious an artifact of the past, Rogue percentile skills. If game mechanics can evolve into better systems, why too can’t, and more concerning shouldn’t, the moral and narrative elements grow in complexity?
You have moved beyond that point. Other didn't. Yet others just prefer the simplicity. And another group prefers to stick to the roots of European folklore DnD was build from and don't bring modern politics into their games. If you want moral complexity, play Eberron (my favourite setting), DarkSun or Ravnica, but let people who want it have their black-and-white FR, Grewyhawk and Krinn.
You have moved beyond that point. Other didn't. Yet others just prefer the simplicity. And another group prefers to stick to the roots of European folklore DnD was build from and don't bring modern politics into their games. If you want moral complexity, play Eberron (my favourite setting), DarkSun or Ravnica, but let people who want it have their black-and-white FR, Grewyhawk and Krinn.
No, we as a community have mostly moved beyond that point. More players are young than are the old guard. The majority of people have moved from simplistic "goblins bad, humans good" mindset, and many of them did decades ago. FR has never been black and white.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
No, we as a community have mostly moved beyond that point. More players are young than are the old guard. The majority of people have moved from simplistic "goblins bad, humans good" mindset, and many of them did decades ago. FR has never been black and white.
I missed the point where we voted you to speak for everyone in this community and decide what we are and who are the heretics to be stoned bigots to be canceled.
No, we as a community have mostly moved beyond that point. More players are young than are the old guard. The majority of people have moved from simplistic "goblins bad, humans good" mindset, and many of them did decades ago. FR has never been black and white.
I missed the point where we voted you to speak for everyone in this community and decide what we are and who are the heretics to be stoned bigots to be canceled.
I'm sorry, were you not aware that the largest age group of players of D&D were 25 or younger? The hobby is getting increasingly younger, and younger players favor more a more open version of the game. I am not speaking for everyone in the community, I am merely saying what the largest single age group of the community's preferred playstyle is. WotC will try to please the younger players, which is part of the reason they're leaning more and more towards racial inclusivity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
which is part of the reason they're leaning more and more towards racial inclusivity.
No, The reason is that the management believes they could make more money by chasing the new audience and that the twitter crowd is the accurate representation of their audience. If the failure of WoD and MtG that went the same route earlier is any indication they're wrong about it but would continue on the road until the financial impact of alienating their actual client base finally hits them.
Uh, no. WotC did a survey among their community, and found that 40 percent of the community was 25 years old or younger. Also, the newer players buy things, too. I am a newer player and I have bought every single official 5e book and much more (dice, Kobold Press books, minis, tactile maps, etc). Also, Critical Role books and products have sold a ton of content, and the vast majority of Critters are newer players.
Have any proof to back up that last statement, or should I just ignore it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Have any proof to back up that last statement, or should I just ignore it?
Just go look how both MtG and VtM5e dropped way below projected sales lately. Or feel free to ignore it if it makes you feel better and righteous in your fight. The power of capitalism would sort things out in the end regardless of what me or you believe in.
Thanks, that's interesting, I did not know about this infographic. Just want to point out, however, that what you said is actually not supported by the graphic, it's only 40% of the population who is younger than 25, so not a majority... :p
Still very glad of the number, though.
I never said it was the majority of the community that was younger than 25, but I'm sure that enough of the old guard also have moved from "all orcs/goblins evil" that my statement of "the majority of the community preferring one style of play" to be accurate. However, that is not 100% proven by data, so I will give that to you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Think about goblin genocide this way: American colonizers slaughtered natives they believed to be evil to steal their land and to "manifest destiny." All goblins being evil brings a bad taste to the mouths of some people. Also, even if they worship the evil god Magubliyet, they can always be atheists or worship another pantheon. Just my two cents.
And those same natives slaughtered other natives who lived on those lands two or three centuries ago. Who also got hat land the same way. That's just how things went in premodern society - every nation for themselves and those who couldn't fend for themselves get eaten. And so is in most DnD worlds, except with more xenophobia, because others are not just different colour/religion/culture, they're entirely different species. When its kill or be killed hippies go extinct in one generation.
Actually, many conflicts between the First Nations were settled by battles of counting coup instead of actual bloodshed. And they often settler conflicts without combat. In fact, when some of the First Nations peoples went to battle the conquistadors, and the conquistadors started killing people, the people’s were horrified by their barbarity.
Already mentioned similar with respect to North America earlier in the thread but interesting to know about South and Central America.
You are kind of missing out on the fact that in these regions where warfare was conducted as flower wars, the losers were taken as slaves by the winning sides, many of whom were live sacrifices to the winners gods. Non-lethal warfare was not about reducing the number of people that were killed or being more civilized, it was about gaining slaves and human sacrifices.
The savagery displayed in the Yucatan went far beyond simple organised warfare.
Civilisation has progressed quite a bit and is accelerating as scientific progress moves forward, and it is a proven fact, statistically, that both savagery and organised warfare, despite unfortunately still being present, has regressed spectacularly.
It can actually be argued that civilisation is very much the reverse of savagery.
I envy your optimism, but the only reason we're not fighting World War 3 or 5 is MAD. Before the nuclear weaponry every time civilization progressed forward warfare became more and more horrific and destructive. Meanwhile parts of Mankind that never progressed past stone age never had the reason to have organized warfare to begin with.
which is part of the reason they're leaning more and more towards racial inclusivity.
No, The reason is that the management believes they could make more money by chasing the new audience and that the twitter crowd is the accurate representation of their audience. If the failure of WoD and MtG that went the same route earlier is any indication they're wrong about it but would continue on the road until the financial impact of alienating their actual client base finally hits them.
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.
As for the claim that Magic is failing, I am pretty sure that is pretty far from the case as Hasbro's annual report contradicts that and says Magic's revenue increased by more than 30% for 2019 compared to 2018. And in that same report, 2019 was also the sixth straight year where D&D saw continuous growth. With six straight years of continuous growth, this is not Wizards hoping and praying that they could make more money by appealing to a wider audience, this is Wizards already striking it rich from that hoping and praying six years ago, and Wizards has been digging at the gold mine successfully for the past six years. Their current strategy of appealing to a wider audience is working and have been proven to work.
Unless you can find more detailed information on demographics and sales, there is no reason to assume that their current strategy is alienating the old guard or hardcore fan base. For all we know, there is a possibility that you might not be representative of the old guard or hard core fan base, and most of the old guard and hardcore fan base might love the current direction that D&D is going just as much as newer and younger players. With no detailed information to suggest one way or another, new players being the driver of that growth is just as plausible as the old guard driving that growth.
2020 could possibly be the year where revenue slumps due to COVID, but I believe the upward trend will resume in 2021 if Wizards continue with their current strategy. Mercy and compassion for goblins is where the gold and platinum is at right now, and Wizards will go after that trend. To convince Wizards that goblins deserve to be put under the sword from birth, it is going to take a lot more than a few Messages and two coppers.
Goblins don't have to be servants of evil gods in everyone's setting. If you want to play like that you can. If you don't, you don't have to.
And just because something is the way the game has always been played doesn't mean it has to always continue to be that way. New approaches and new players are welcome.
I don't think the ideas of morality were unknown to medieval people. Though to a large extent the ideas of the Crusades and a people who are an "other" influenced medieval warfare and governance.
The Romans didn't really have our concept of race. An African person could become a citizen and even emperor. Your nation and your family mattered, not your ethnicity.
As for Greyhawk, actually, some human-led organisation are far more evil than the bands of humanoids, and again, the only really irredeemably evil are the outsiders like Iuz. And, speaking of Gygax, even a clone of Eclavdra (a evil a drow as you can get) still redeems herself and replaces her in his own books, where it is hinted at that she might slightly transform drow society.
Yea, except for the fact that Gygax said Gordhawk wasn't necessarily Greyhawk and that it was but one of the Infinite Oerths (since he blew it up at the end). I mean, otherwise there would be no Pluffet Smedger, the Elder of The Royal University at Relmord in CY998 and A Glossography For the World of Greyhawk (let alone the republished Guide to the World of Greyhawk by the Savant-Sage, first published in CY576).
And that human-led organization is called The Scarlet Brotherhood, who work with all manner of Evil including the Drow of Erelhei-Cinlu, The Slavers of the Pomarj, Iuz the Old & Zuggtmoy (through The Temple of Elemental Evil) and so on. Doesn't mean the Humanoids of the Pomarj are less Evil than the scumbags who employ them as foot soldiers to loot, pillage and enslave The Wild Coast's petty-kingdoms and its citizens......
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
I always twitch when I see people argue “this was the way it was originally” when it comes to games. In D&D, just like in Lord of the Rings which it drew so much from, the heroes were always Caucasian looking while the monsters were explicitly not. We have moved beyond that point. Our games have developed a greater narrative complexity than “non-human, non-white looking creature is evil.” Sure, that might have been how it was when D&D was created in the 1970’s but it isn’t the 1970’s any more. I find it troubling that so many people would refuse to even acknowledge that “the way it was” is very alienating for a lot of people. “The way it was” doesn’t mean that’s what it should be today. I don’t see anyone who has argued that it’s wrong to add moral and narrative complexity to the game because it’s “modern morality” because “that’s the way the game was designed nearly 50 years ago” also argue that we should still be using THAC0 or, even more egregious an artifact of the past, Rogue percentile skills. If game mechanics can evolve into better systems, why too can’t, and more concerning shouldn’t, the moral and narrative elements grow in complexity?
You have moved beyond that point. Other didn't. Yet others just prefer the simplicity. And another group prefers to stick to the roots of European folklore DnD was build from and don't bring modern politics into their games. If you want moral complexity, play Eberron (my favourite setting), DarkSun or Ravnica, but let people who want it have their black-and-white FR, Grewyhawk and Krinn.
No, we as a community have mostly moved beyond that point. More players are young than are the old guard. The majority of people have moved from simplistic "goblins bad, humans good" mindset, and many of them did decades ago. FR has never been black and white.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I missed the point where we voted you to speak for everyone in this community and decide what we are and who are the
heretics to be stonedbigots to be canceled.I'm sorry, were you not aware that the largest age group of players of D&D were 25 or younger? The hobby is getting increasingly younger, and younger players favor more a more open version of the game. I am not speaking for everyone in the community, I am merely saying what the largest single age group of the community's preferred playstyle is. WotC will try to please the younger players, which is part of the reason they're leaning more and more towards racial inclusivity.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If you count the internet activity that is. Also the old guard buys more way more stuff per capita than kids do.
No, The reason is that the management believes they could make more money by chasing the new audience and that the twitter crowd is the accurate representation of their audience. If the failure of WoD and MtG that went the same route earlier is any indication they're wrong about it but would continue on the road until the financial impact of alienating their actual client base finally hits them.
Uh, no. WotC did a survey among their community, and found that 40 percent of the community was 25 years old or younger. Also, the newer players buy things, too. I am a newer player and I have bought every single official 5e book and much more (dice, Kobold Press books, minis, tactile maps, etc). Also, Critical Role books and products have sold a ton of content, and the vast majority of Critters are newer players.
Have any proof to back up that last statement, or should I just ignore it?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, an online survey...
Just go look how both MtG and VtM5e dropped way below projected sales lately. Or feel free to ignore it if it makes you feel better and righteous in your fight. The power of capitalism would sort things out in the end regardless of what me or you believe in.
Here:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/d-ds-best-year-yet.671664/
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I find it amusing that you think organized warfare is savagery when it's actually the hallmark of civilization.
I never said it was the majority of the community that was younger than 25, but I'm sure that enough of the old guard also have moved from "all orcs/goblins evil" that my statement of "the majority of the community preferring one style of play" to be accurate. However, that is not 100% proven by data, so I will give that to you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You are kind of missing out on the fact that in these regions where warfare was conducted as flower wars, the losers were taken as slaves by the winning sides, many of whom were live sacrifices to the winners gods. Non-lethal warfare was not about reducing the number of people that were killed or being more civilized, it was about gaining slaves and human sacrifices.
I envy your optimism, but the only reason we're not fighting World War 3 or 5 is MAD. Before the nuclear weaponry every time civilization progressed forward warfare became more and more horrific and destructive. Meanwhile parts of Mankind that never progressed past stone age never had the reason to have organized warfare to begin with.
The topic of this thread is not historical warfare or the metrics of real world 'civilisation'. Let's keep things on topic please.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
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.
As for the claim that Magic is failing, I am pretty sure that is pretty far from the case as Hasbro's annual report contradicts that and says Magic's revenue increased by more than 30% for 2019 compared to 2018. And in that same report, 2019 was also the sixth straight year where D&D saw continuous growth. With six straight years of continuous growth, this is not Wizards hoping and praying that they could make more money by appealing to a wider audience, this is Wizards already striking it rich from that hoping and praying six years ago, and Wizards has been digging at the gold mine successfully for the past six years. Their current strategy of appealing to a wider audience is working and have been proven to work.
Unless you can find more detailed information on demographics and sales, there is no reason to assume that their current strategy is alienating the old guard or hardcore fan base. For all we know, there is a possibility that you might not be representative of the old guard or hard core fan base, and most of the old guard and hardcore fan base might love the current direction that D&D is going just as much as newer and younger players. With no detailed information to suggest one way or another, new players being the driver of that growth is just as plausible as the old guard driving that growth.
2020 could possibly be the year where revenue slumps due to COVID, but I believe the upward trend will resume in 2021 if Wizards continue with their current strategy. Mercy and compassion for goblins is where the gold and platinum is at right now, and Wizards will go after that trend. To convince Wizards that goblins deserve to be put under the sword from birth, it is going to take a lot more than a few Messages and two coppers.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Goblins don't have to be servants of evil gods in everyone's setting. If you want to play like that you can. If you don't, you don't have to.
And just because something is the way the game has always been played doesn't mean it has to always continue to be that way. New approaches and new players are welcome.
I don't think the ideas of morality were unknown to medieval people. Though to a large extent the ideas of the Crusades and a people who are an "other" influenced medieval warfare and governance.
The Romans didn't really have our concept of race. An African person could become a citizen and even emperor. Your nation and your family mattered, not your ethnicity.
Yea, except for the fact that Gygax said Gordhawk wasn't necessarily Greyhawk and that it was but one of the Infinite Oerths (since he blew it up at the end). I mean, otherwise there would be no Pluffet Smedger, the Elder of The Royal University at Relmord in CY998 and A Glossography For the World of Greyhawk (let alone the republished Guide to the World of Greyhawk by the Savant-Sage, first published in CY576).
And that human-led organization is called The Scarlet Brotherhood, who work with all manner of Evil including the Drow of Erelhei-Cinlu, The Slavers of the Pomarj, Iuz the Old & Zuggtmoy (through The Temple of Elemental Evil) and so on. Doesn't mean the Humanoids of the Pomarj are less Evil than the scumbags who employ them as foot soldiers to loot, pillage and enslave The Wild Coast's petty-kingdoms and its citizens......
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.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >