Quote from: TristramEvans;705457Since there's never been a comprehensive study of this hobby's statistics

There has (out of Delaware).  YOU just never read it.  Not that you'd understand it. Ignorance is ...

Quote from: Arduin;705465There has (out of Delaware).  YOU just never read it.  Not that you'd understand it. Ignorance is ...

Nope.

Quote from: Arduin;705465There has (out of Delaware).  YOU just never read it.  Not that you'd understand it. Ignorance is ...

Considering you've made a complete fool of yourself in every thread you've participated in thus far, even about subjects you've professed privileged knowledge of, you'll hopefully forgive me if I wait for you to produce it before lending it any credibility.

Quote from: Bobloblah;705443This is seriously delusional. The vast majority of D&D players don't participate on online forums, and that includes many hard core players.

I have been the primary DM in my group for some time, play multiple RPGs, buy enormous amounts of published material, but have gone for long stretches without posting to, or even reading, a forum. All but one of the other hard core players in our group (e.g folks who buy lots of material and play regularly) have never been on a forum. Ever. From talking to many others, both online and off, this is not at all unusual.

And yet, here you are.  And you claim to be the primary DM for your group.  If you don't lead the conversion, who will?  

If you were a really casual gamer, you'd probably have little preference for what game to play.  You like playing and hanging out with your friends, so you're cool with whatever the GM wants to run...  

But if you're not a casual gamer, you're going to have actual preferences for what you play and what you run.  You're going to have more influence in what games your group plays than someone who doesn't care.  

You can look at it another way - if a casual gamer walks into a bookstore that has a gaming section and has no experience with RPGs, but he decides he is going to try them, what is he going to pick?

You seem to be saying that 'he'll have heard of D&D so that'll be what he chooses'.  But I think that while he's probably heard of D&D, he's likely to have heard bad things as well as good things.  In that case, he's most likely to choose the game that has interesting cover art.  

If D&D is looking to be 'one option among many', then hoping that casual players adopt this game at roughly the same rate as they adopt other games might work.  But if there is any plan to achieve market dominance (as they did through the 3.x era) then they're going to have to win players back.  

It's pretty clear that they are not pursuing 4th edition players.  Since they're a pretty small group, that wouldn't be the best target, anyway.  But 1st and 2nd edition players are also a pretty small group (likely smaller than 4th edition - but that's mostly because 4th edition is still pretty recent).  They're also a particularly hard group to market to because they have demonstrated that they're not easily swayed by 'the new shiny'.  They'll only adopt if it actually appeals to them (while 4th edition players are way more easily swayed by 'new').  

So I do believe that 3.x players represent a fairly large number of lapsed players that would be interested in a new edition that actually addressed the issues of 3.x play and would make sense to target, I haven't gotten the sense that is the direction they're going.  

I honestly have no idea who they're marketing to, other than casual gamers that have no reason to select D&D over any other choice...  I'd really like to figure it out, because if they're going to have any success, they're going to have to win SOMEONE back.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477And yet, here you are.  And you claim to be the primary DM for your group.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;705421Everyone not in the trenches of edition wars in online forums.

Yup. Might bother some forumites who desperately want to remain relevant and their own opinions to count, somehow, but that's the plain truth.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477And yet, here you are.

Seriously? Look at my posting record...I've gone for months without so much as logging in here.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477And you claim to be the primary DM for your group.  If you don't lead the conversion, who will?

First off, I "claim"? Perhaps it's just a poor choice of words on your part, but if you start off not believing the basic things I say, why would we bother even attempting to converse? Don't be an idiot.

Second, yes, I'm currently the primary DM, and have been doing nearly all the DMing for the last 5 years or so. The idea that I determine what we play is simply incorrect. I'm one voice amongst the group. I can certainly refuse something, as I'm DMing. But I'm not actually a jerk, and am open to trying different options. We have played various systems based on different players interests and desires. I've actually had a difficult time getting the group to try several games that interest me...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477If you were a really casual gamer, you'd probably have little preference for what game to play.  You like playing and hanging out with your friends, so you're cool with whatever the GM wants to run...  

But if you're not a casual gamer, you're going to have actual preferences for what you play and what you run.  You're going to have more influence in what games your group plays than someone who doesn't care.

We have precisely one such player. Everyone else has distinct tastes. Actually, so does the casual player, but she'd try just about anything, then quit showing up if she didn't like it.

You know what those tastes don't much differentiate between? Different editions of D&D.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477You can look at it another way - if a casual gamer walks into a bookstore that has a gaming section and has no experience with RPGs, but he decides he is going to try them, what is he going to pick?

You seem to be saying that 'he'll have heard of D&D so that'll be what he chooses'.  But I think that while he's probably heard of D&D, he's likely to have heard bad things as well as good things.  In that case, he's most likely to choose the game that has interesting cover art.

No, I'm saying that they're likely to buy D&D due to the perceived inherent familiarity. Do you know how many of them know what Pathfinder is? Two of them, other than myself. Do you know how many RPG players I've met, ever, that didn't know what D&D is? I think you can guess...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477If D&D is looking to be 'one option among many', then hoping that casual players adopt this game at roughly the same rate as they adopt other games might work.  But if there is any plan to achieve market dominance (as they did through the 3.x era) then they're going to have to win players back.  

It's pretty clear that they are not pursuing 4th edition players.  Since they're a pretty small group, that wouldn't be the best target, anyway.  But 1st and 2nd edition players are also a pretty small group (likely smaller than 4th edition - but that's mostly because 4th edition is still pretty recent).  They're also a particularly hard group to market to because they have demonstrated that they're not easily swayed by 'the new shiny'.  They'll only adopt if it actually appeals to them (while 4th edition players are way more easily swayed by 'new').

I think this is just really blinkered thinking. Away from online forums D&D players' edition preferences aren't zero sum. In fact, the only edition I've seen broad-based strong feelings about is 4E, but even there, lots of people I've seen played it because it was the latest edition of D&D. That's actually pretty much why I bought the books on release, as I wasn't following the online buzz, and didn't even know 4E was in development. I was happy enough with previous editions to tag along for the ride.

Now, that didn't exactly work out. Combined with a growing disaffectation for 3.x, I ended up stumbling on the OSR through a roundabout fashion.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705477So I do believe that 3.x players represent a fairly large number of lapsed players that would be interested in a new edition that actually addressed the issues of 3.x play and would make sense to target, I haven't gotten the sense that is the direction they're going.  

I honestly have no idea who they're marketing to, other than casual gamers that have no reason to select D&D over any other choice...  I'd really like to figure it out, because if they're going to have any success, they're going to have to win SOMEONE back.

Even amongst (current) 3.x (not Pathfinder) players I know, there are quite a number for whom it isn't about 3.x as much as it is about 4E.

Will all of this be enough for WotC and Next? I have no real idea, but I do know that no one else does, either. Still, I can see what they appear to be trying for, even if the more diehard online edition warriors can't.

Here, let's do some back of the envelope math. Back in 2000, WotC learned that close to 3 million people played RPGs. Let's just assume that 90% of them have stopped: they're out of college, they've got kids, money's tight, time is short, whatever.  That's 30,000 players at any given moment. And we can be pretty certain that this is on the teeny tiny low end.
So how many people shout on the forums about their pet shibboleths? Realistically, it's under 100. I'm sure we could NAME them. But let's be generous and make it 300.  300 people who have the access, time, and motive to go online and shout about their hated games.

That makes it about 1%. A completely unrepresentative 1%. Show me a single statistician who'd take those numbers seriously and I'll show you a person who got their degree at Phoenix Online Academy.

No, Virginia, forums do not drive opinions. If they did, the 4evengers would be enjoying record 4e sales and the OSR would be huge.

The lack of solid information stymies most attempts at useful conversation about this stuff, and back-of-envelope guesstimates are all we're left with.

Although I hear Arduin knows.

Quote from: TristramEvans;705458Of the roughly 400+ gamers Ive met/ played with in my lifetime in the US, Britain , and Canada, Ive met a total of 3 players who wanted anything to do with online gaming forums.

IME, the majority of people who've gotten into gaming was via introduction by existing gamers, the rest did in fact simply walk into a bookstore/gamestore/toys r us and picked up the books because they looked cool.

I have no claim to my experiences being universal, but as the alternative has absolutely no evidence to back it up, I'll go with them as the most likely scenario.

You get the same thing over on BGG. People convinced that the representations on the site and activity thereof represents the sum total of the board gaming community. Then they get consistently shot down by whichever publisher happens to wander in and point out how it really rolls.

Online presence will allways be only a fraction of the total gaming community.
For one because it is usually a group thing and for some odd reason you tend to see only ever one, maybee two members of any given group ever on the same forum. So for every person commenting online there is like 4 or more not.

Same with sales. Copies sold do not = people who played it. Studies show that even with RPGs it is often one person of a group who buys the game/books.

Quote from: Omega;705587You get the same thing over on BGG. People convinced that the representations on the site and activity thereof represents the sum total of the board gaming community. Then they get consistently shot down by whichever publisher happens to wander in and point out how it really rolls.

Haha, yeah, cause if BGG was in any way accurate to the market, Monopoly wouldn't be still chugging along printing cash.

A board game like Monopoly, or even RISK doesn't really compare to an RPG.  First off, the games are self-contained...  Most everyone has a copy of Monopoly and/or RISK sitting on a shelf somewhere, even if they only play sporadically.  

An RPG requires a larger investment in time and expertise.  Someone has to break down the rules and learn them well enough to teach everyone else how to play.  It's a level of complexity well beyond a game like Settlers of Cataan.  

I can tell you, of our group of 5, there's only me posting to this forum.  And I'm sure that at least one other is aware of Next, but doesn't seem particularly interested.  The other three, if they know of it, it's because we've mentioned it to them.  

For myself, for every player I know that taught themselves how to play and recruited a group, I know 20 players that were introduced to the game by someone else.  It's a big investment of time and energy if you don't already know someone that will play with you.  Counting on that demographic exclusively is all kinds of stupid...  

I'm sure they're planning an appeal to established players, but I still can't figure out which group(s) they're targeting.  

That, more than anything else (beyond even problems with the rules that might or might not exist) is why I don't believe Next will be successful.  Believe me, I would prefer to see D&D achieve a level of cultural popularity beyond what it has ever achieved before, but I remain skeptical about Next.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705611A board game like Monopoly, or even RISK doesn't really compare to an RPG.  First off, the games are self-contained...  Most everyone has a copy of Monopoly and/or RISK sitting on a shelf somewhere, even if they only play sporadically.

Good job missing the point. Which was: Forum popularity and sales don't always line up.

And I was responding directly to a comment about how true this is on BGG.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;705166Trying to appeal to all lapsed gamers with incompatible play styles is surely a losing strategy.

1) A casual market does not mean lapsed gamers.
2) This rigid playstyle thing people talk about on the internet isn't something I've really seen in the wild so to speak. Sure we all turned down 4e because it was boring, but if it was just one of us who had a problem, he probably would've sucked it up and played everybody's 4e game and kept running 3. 4e really only failed with us because it failed absolutely all of us.

QuoteBut I don't think that any strategy that focuses only on new players or lapsed players is going to work, either.

See 1) again, with the addendum that casual players need not be new either. A person can play monthly or yearly for years same as they can play weekly for years.

QuoteGetting into D&D isn't easy.

This isn't necessarily the case. It can be easier or harder depending on a number of factors. In D&D's case in particular, though, it's not exactly hard to find a DM ready to run or players to play. Even for 4e.

QuoteI'm curious to see who they think the 'core' is for Next that they're aiming for.  I don't think it is 4th edition players; I don't think it's 3rd edition players; I don't think it's Pathfinder players...  I don't think they're looking to poach players from another system (GURPS, Rifts, Shadowrun, etc).  It's possible that they're aiming for the 'prior editions' demographic.  And maybe they're so hard up for some 'official love' that the overture will work - but I don't think there are as many of them as they need, and since they've been clinging to their 'old style' gaming so long, I don't know if they can be convinced to embrace 'the newest thing' because it is shiny and new.

Who was 3E's target market? 1E players? 2E players? BD&D players? New players?

The answer is yes. And 3E did (and still does) pretty well, all things considered.

Quote from: Bobloblah;705516The lack of solid information stymies most attempts at useful conversation about this stuff, and back-of-envelope guesstimates are all we're left with.

Although I hear Arduin knows.

He follows Statistics: The Way of Truth TM!