Monday, March 17, 2025

Musings on Poll Results (Part II)

With two more polls closed, let's take a look at the results, starting with when were you first introduced to roleplaying games? When I posted this poll on March 3,  my initial guess was that most of my regular readers were introduced to tabletop RPGs sometime between 1979 and 1983. As you can see, my prediction was very close to the truth.

The period between 1980 and 1982, corresponding to the tail end of the Holmes Basic Set's run and the launch of Moldvay/Cook accounted for just shy of one-third of all votes, while 1977–1979 accounts for nearly one-fifth. Taken together, they represent almost one-half of respondents. Interestingly, the period between 1983 and 1985, during which the Mentzer's BECM boxed sets were released (I didn't appear until 1986) is a close third. Altogether, then, the nine-year period between 1977 and 1985 represents two-thirds of those who voted.

The fourth place period of 2000+ is worthy of separate mention. Though only 10.66% of respondents chose this option, it's still larger than the other remaining options. This proves, I think, that Third Edition was a consequential edition of Dungeons & Dragons, one that introduced a lot of people into the hobby who have continued to participate in it. Though 3e is far from my favorite edition of the game, I also think it gets a much worse reputation in old school circles than it deserves. (As an aside, I think it's even more notable that the reign of 2e seems to have garnered so few votes, but perhaps that's just a quirk of my readership.)

The next poll, which originally appeared on March 10, asked: how old were you when you first started playing tabletop RPGs? My prediction was that the winning answer would be somewhere in the 10 to 14 age range – and I was correct.



A little less than three-quarters of all correspondents chose either 9–11 or 12–14, with the latter winning by just two votes. This doesn't really surprise me. Most of the roleplayers I met in my youth were within a year or two of my own age – I started in late '79, having just turned 10. What does surprise me, though, is how much smaller than other age cohorts are, especially the 18–20 and 21+ categories, both of which are smaller than the 6–8 category. As ever, that may simply be a quirk of my readership, who largely seem to be middle-aged men who were born in the late '60s to early '70s. Even so, I remember older guys who roleplayed, like my friend's high school-aged older brother, for instance, and the college kids who hung around hobby shops. Where are they now?

17 comments:

  1. I don't know how I missed these polls, but I was 1983/5 and 11/13.

    What I am surprised about is that so many people were playing in the 9-11 band as I played with people who were all 13 when BX was published (their sets).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Surely the fourth-place ranking of "2000+ for first playing" is related to it being ~eight times as long a period as the other categories?

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I got out of my friend group for gaming, most of the folks older than me were college students (so early 20s circa 1979) but there was a definite older cohort. Most of that older cohort I suspect is gone by now.

    Starting from the 1990s, I suspect there have been very few folks introduced to gaming later than college. With their introduction either being checking out what their kids are getting into or spouses introduced to gaming. Either of those groups I suspect are pretty scarce in forum and blog spaces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're right about this. My current gaming crew is by a narrow majority 'post-college adopters' -- and most of those only knew of TTRPGs from their kids, or from a husband. But I don't imagine this is all that common a situation.

      Delete
  4. At the risk of being "that guy," the data you present is more favourable to 2e than 3e. The period that is "the reign of 2e" is split among four different time frames, and amounts to 77 votes -- well more than the 60 votes for "2000+," which would also include the 4e and 5e newcomers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OTOH, it's questionable how much 2e ever really "reigned" during its lifespan. A lot of people stuck with 1e or some version of Basic long after 2e came around, and IME even more adopted weird homebrew hybrids where they kept what they wanted of 1e and excluded what they didn't from 2e. If 2e was ever the king, its grasp on the throne wasn't a steady one.

      And don't forget, there are 5 or more post-2000 editions of D&D, depending on how you count 3.5, the ludicrously in-denial "5e 2024" (it's 5.5, WotC, you're fooling no one), and the two editions of Pathfinder. Certainly PF1 ought to count, it's D&D 3.75 in everything but name. PF2 is more its own animal, so perhaps not. I could even make a fair argument that 13th Age is D&D 4.5, but that's a bit of stretch. Still be somewhere between 5 to maybe 8 editions of WotC driven D&D in the last 25 years, which is a lot and doesn't consider the OSR stuff extending the lifetime of TSR D&D even further.

      Delete
    2. I guess that "Level Up: Advanced 5e" (EN Publishing) and "Tales of the Valiant" (Kobold Press) also count as 'post-2000 editions of D&D' (5e specifically) ?

      Delete
  5. Another interesting poll would be who introduced you to gaming. Friend, child/niece/nephew, parent/aunt/uncle, grandparent, student, teacher, staff at store or library, found it on the bookshelf, any others?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your conclusion that
    "The fourth place period of 2000+ ... proves, I think, that Third Edition was a consequential edition of Dungeons & Dragons, one that introduced a lot of people into the hobby who have continued to participate in it."
    doesn't necessarily have to be true. It could also mean that a lot of those people were first introduced to D&D with 5e, due to the success/exposure of D&D 5e with things like 'Stranger Things' and 'Critical Role'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fair. I keep forgetting that 5e exists.

      Delete
    2. People who worked gaming retail during the time period when 3.0 was introduced has any doubts about the edition being "consequential" - I'd even same world-changing myself. It sold in phenomenal numbers and drew in even more new players than returning ones, and its massive success (along with the OGL spreading teh game's footprint far beyond what WotC alone could ever support) is a huge part of why there are so many 5e players. 5e has had a much larger "old fan" base to grow off of than any edition of D&D, and was even specifically designed (for better or worse) to try to please everyone from TSR-era gamers to 4e fans. The early playtest documents emphasized the "how do we make sure everyone's welcome?" aspect of it repeatedly.

      Delete
    3. Although I do not have enough knowledge on the subject matter here to comment on your other points, the argument that "the OGL spread the game's footprint far beyond what WotC alone could ever support" and was a huge contribution to the game's success, has always sounded like a valid and logical statement to me. But then I guess that (the positive effect of the release of 3th party products) would be true for both 3e and 5e ?. Oh, well.

      Delete
    4. Oh sure, 5e has also benefitted a lot from 3PP support. WotC scaled back enormously on splatbooks and adventures in 5e (compared to the excesses of 3/3.5/4e) and left that to other publishers to a large degree.

      Delete
  7. LetsfightsomeslimesMarch 19, 2025 at 8:27 AM

    I missed these polls as well. I was 12, in 1994, AD&D 2.5

    ReplyDelete