D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Threat ranges no longer stack!

[drnuncheon]

Yes, I think that ENWorld is fairly representative of the D&D community as a whole; and since the majority of that representative group holds a negative opinion of this change (and others), I feelit is safe to say, the majority of gamers will not receive this change well.

1) The set of gamers who access the Internet is a subset of the set of gamers in general.

2) The set of gamers who access ENWorld is a subset of the set of gamers who access the Internet.

3) The set of gamers who post to this thread is a subset of the set of gamers who access ENWorld.

Now, I'm no statistician, but it looks to me that you are performing a lot of rather dubious pre-selecting of your sample there. You are selecting for people who care enough about the game to access a bulletin board dedicated to it, and people who care enough about the topic to make a post in a thread dedicated to it. In general, that means you're going to get the opinionated loudmouths like you and me rather than any kind of sense of what 'gamers as a whole' want.

I'd make an analogy but all the best ones are political or religious.

I've seen reactions here on ENWorld that don't match the ones going on at the WOTC boards - so wait, which one is representative of gamers as a whole? I doubt that either one is. They are both subsets of a subset (and anyone who sounds off on a particular topic is a subset of that). Not the nest way to base any kind of valid statistical research.

J

 

[Ravellion]

My 15th level fighter has a 14 strength +gauntlets of ogre power for a total of 16.

Well, know that that is considered to be substandard, and your DM should probably take it into account when designing encounters. It is far too low, NPCs from the DMG will be able to beat you up.

 

[Pax]

Yes, and your belief is highly dubious.

Back that assertation up -- I have said I think the EnWorld community is no different, in it's distribution of player/GM types, from what could be expected formt he average of the D&D playerbase as a whole.

Your position woudl be that EnWorld DIFFERS; combined with suggesting I "think too highly of myself" for holding my position, it would seem you believe EnWorld's community is INFERIOR to ordinary, average gamers.

Back that up.

Please not to confuse a self-selected sample of overly opinionated, argumentative, net-savvy posters with a true random sample of the gamer community. Trust me, I'm a statistician.

Not everyone here is net-savvy; not everyone here is opinionated (some folks come to ask questions and gain answers, after all); not everyone is argumentative.

For every braggart, there is a corresponding whinger (the other guys in the game, if noone else). So there won't be brags any more. Isn't this a good thing?

I have not observed that trend here. I've seen a lot of brags, a question or two of "is this done right", and plenty of "yep, but ..." 's.

Tell me when a bunch of typeset paragraphs combined with artwork of random quality made for a game.

And your point is ... ?

These GMs are truly incompetent. Get out of the game, and save yourself the hassle.

Funny; like I said, they're GREAT at writing up scenarios, they simply hold the opinion that, blemishes and all, they prefer to stick with the whole rulesset as published (and possibly as officially errata'd).

I value ability at making and running good scenarios over ability to tweak the rules. If you have a great scenario and so-so rules, I can ignore the rules and RP the scenario, having a grand old time.

If you have a so-so scenario and great rules, FFS, I might as well be playing Risk or something.

Behold, I will do your work for you, because I'm just such a NICE GUY.

"In my game, threat range specials will stack, just like in 3E".

You can pay me later. I accept Paypal.

That's a line for threat ranges, where none was needed before.

Then there will be entries for house-ruled SF and GSF.

... and, I don't know how many OTHER little screwups have been wormed on, now. I have to go over the changes with a fine-toothed friggin' comb, to make sure I don't miss a NEW problem where none existed before.

...

I won't even dignify your auto-generated spam with a response.

 

[WizarDru]

Back that assertation up -- I have said I think the EnWorld community is no different, in it's distribution of player/GM types, from what could be expected formt he average of the D&D playerbase as a whole.

The last two conventions I've been to, no one had even heard of ENWorld, except for one DM, who spoke of it like it was some mystical far away land that few ever actually visited for any period of time. Most of my players learned of EN's site when we first started 3E, and I needed some explanation of AoOs. ENWorld has a disproportinately higher number of DMs than the actual playerbase at large.

My high school friends, who I see occasionaly, play 3E off and on, and they've never been here, nor have anyone they knew. They don't even know that 3.5 is imminent, let alone have an opinion of it.

hong is also a large contributor to the USENET D&D groups, as well as a variety of other sources. I saw him on USENET long before I noticed him here, and they don't have the same environment there as we do here, nor does Dragonsfoot, Nutkinland and others. I would expect him to have at least some perspective of online fandom, simply because he posts and reads in so many different places.

If anything, ENWorld is very non-representative for all the reasons mentioned above, and more. The fact that ENWorld is moderated discourages some from posting here...just check over on Nutkinland or RPG.net, for example. Over on WOTC's forums, they tend to display different (often more vitrolic) attitudes altogether. Intuitively, I would guess that more players would go to WOTC's site, and learn of ENWorld, than the other way around. But I don't think that WOTC's boards are any more representative of the overall playerbase than we are, or the Third Edition, RPG.net, gaming report or anywhere else.

On top of all that, I think most folks would agree that ENWorld is DM heavy. It's my perception that a higher percentage of DMs post here than elsewhere. And if there's one lesson that WOTC has learned, it's that players buy more stuff than DMs. I don't think it's a simple task to read the D&D playerbase...if it was, TSR might still be in business, and WOTC need never have done marketing research.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

(OT) I am a dm primarily and my players hardly ever visit these sites (Enworld, WotC, Monte Cook, etc).

One of my players has every product under the sun.

 

[Pax]

And if there's one lesson that WOTC has learned, it's that players buy more stuff than DMs.

Actually, that's simply not true. A study conducted by them indicates just the opposite. You can read that very document right here if you wish, but the salient parts I'll quote right here:

First, the obligatory boilerplate (you'll understand why when you read it):

Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary
Version: (RPGs) V1.0
Release Date: February 07, 2000
Summary prepared by:
Ryan S. Dancey
Vice President, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons

* * * * *
Permissions: This file is Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast. This file may be freely redistributed or quoted in whole or part, provided that this attribution remains intact.

Now, the key bit is near the end:

The following financial figures are for TRPG players in general (D&D information, where available, is provided as well)

This data seems to validate the theory that young gamers, while very active, don’t spend a lot of money. (The following data is reported by for RPG expenditures) The big dollars come from adults...

Total spending by age:
12-17: $297
18-24: $850
25-25: $2,213

And, the longer they stay in the category, the greater their total outlays...
Play <1 Year: $116
Play 1-5 Years: $562
Play >5 Years: $2,502

And if they can be induced to become a DM/GM, expenditures skyrocket.
Will DM/GM: $2,048
Will not DM/GM: $401

Some breakouts for the D&D population in particular...

Total D&D spending by age:
12-17: $164
18-24: $443
25-35: $1,642

Monthly D&D spending by age:
12-17: $10
18-24: $12
25-35: $14

Total D&D spending by time in game:
<1 Year: $123
1-5 Years: $338
>5 Years: 1,756

Monthly D&D spending by time in game:
<1 Year: $7
1-5 Years: $22
>5 Years: $16

(Interesting note: Monthly spending in the first five years after adoption of the game is higher than the spending beyond that point - though the older, longer gamer plays the game more, they spend less. This may relate to the frequency of a character/game restart.)

D&D DM willingness effect on expenditures:
Will DM: $1,444 total / $21 monthly
Will not DM: $187 total / $7 monthly

(Interesting note here: Even people who don’t DM buy a heck of a lot more than just a PHB...)

WOTC's own study shows that someone who does or will DM, buys just over SEVEN TIMES as much as someone who does not, and will not, DM, solely within D&D. Outside D&D, the gap is narrower (down to about 5x or 6x as much), but still: DM's tend to purchase more than non-DMs. Far more!

Furthermore, the number of GMs out there is higher than you might be assuming. From slightly earlier in the same study:

When asked how likely a person was to be the DM/GM, the responses were:
2+ Sessions as DM/GM: 47%
Don’t DM/GM: 41%

So about half of the people out there have DMed or GMed twice or more; add to that the increased spending by those who are DMs ... and we see roughly 80% to 85% of all money spent on the game, is being spent by people who are DMs.

So if EnWorld is so GM heavy, then from a MARKETING standpoint, it'd be a superior data source; it'd tap into the segment of their market producing around three quarters of their gross income!

But regardless, WOTC has in fact learned the exact opposite of what you assume. It is not the players who provide the bulk of income from RPGs, it is the Game Masters, by a very large margin!

That is, assuming of course, they paid attention to their own study ...

 

[Camarath]

I think sometimes people who are primarily players will portray themselves as DMs because the opinions of DMs often seem to get more repsect here. I also think that people who DM spend more non-game time thinking about and working on D&D and thus are probably more likely to spend time on Gaming Boards like this one. I DM one campaign and play in two others. So am I a player and a DM? I would like to think I am both.

I do not see why you guys are aruging about weather ENworld is a representative sample of the entire gaming community. We are individuals here with individual opinions. I don't speak for ENworld. And I don't speak for the gaming community as a whole. I speak for myself and I do not like this rule or the movtivation behind it. I see no need for the change and dislike the imposition. It worries me that simple nonessential rule changes seem to constute such large portion of the 3.5 revisions I have seen so far. I was hoping for more from 3.5 then just a piecemeal update. But thats just my opinion, which I say is as justified and as legitimate as anyone else's even the Game Designer's. I find it insulting to have my opinoin dismissed because I am not the majority of gamers. If that is the standard for having an opinion then come back and post when you are millions of people.

 

[WizarDru]

But regardless, WOTC has in fact learned the exact opposite of what you assume. It is not the players who provide the bulk of income from RPGs, it is the Game Masters, by a very large margin!

That is, assuming of course, they paid attention to their own study ...

No, they found that DMs spend more than an individual player does, not that catering to DMs generate more sales than not. None of my players purchased Traps&Treachery...but they all bought Sword&Fist. The data you quoted shows that DMs can act as gatekeepers, not that DMs are the source of sales. My players didn't wait for my say-so to purchase the splatbooks or the Legendary books, for example...they just bought them, and then asked permission.

In fact, the data you quote, taken out of context is misleading or not detailed enough to draw the conclusion you have, as far as I can tell. I'm 34 and a DM. Which category applies to me? My players are all in their thirties, and almost spend as much as I do on RPG materials. I certainly don't spend 7x as much as they do. WotC recognized that fact, and that's why most supplements have crunchy material for players, and are geared at them. Compare the sales of, say, the Psionics Handbook versus Deities and Demigods.

All of which really has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not ENworld is a representative sample or not. And since all this handwringing happened at the arrival of 3E, and the subsequent reaction was certainly different than what many expected (namely the huge acceptance, market-wide, and the tripling of the playerbase), I find it somewhat hard to accept.