One Year Later: D&D 5E PHB & MM Still On NYT Bestseller Lists

It's been year since D&D 5th Edition hit our store shelves (if we're counting the Starter Set); or since August 2014 since the Player's Handbook released. The D&D 5th Edition Monster Manual is hanging in at #7 on the "Games & Activities" bestsellers list at the New York Times, while the Player's Handbook is #3. Although it seems Minecraft has books, which are kicking both their asses. Who knew? (Lots of people, apparently!)

You can see the current list here. A snapshot is below.

​

 

[BryonD]

You know there were a LOT of people that said, "Sure it had a good launch but talk to me again after a year and well see if it's still selling well then".

OK...here we are. Let's talk.

I personally don't think of this as a year (for me it's a year after the last core book comes out that's most relevant). But this is "A" point to talk about.

I don't think I was in the "one year" camp, but close enough and who knows, maybe I said that somewhere along the way.

Regardless, it is the summer of 2015 and I'm slightly impressed by how well the 5E core is selling.

I still think they will either evolve their strategy into producing some increased volume of content or see their presence at tables fade as one year turns into three to four. The "evergreen" theory will need more than they are putting in.

But, again, it is a great core game. My deviation away from RAW has grown steadily, and I really have minimal interest in playing 5E RAW. But the core system is still really good and the openness to being the game any group wants to make of it is a huge feature. So I'll take the label of 5E fanboy. And I still think it will fade despite doing really well so far and despite being really solid.

I also don't dispute that the profit value of a PH2 or whatever else they call a hardback of supplemental content simply is not going to produce the return on investment that they feel is worthwhile. Without something like that, the number of people playing will fade over time more quickly than it will with something like that.

But for now, go team! Congrats

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think I was in the "one year" camp, but close enough and who knows, maybe I said that somewhere along the way.



Regardless, it is the summer of 2015 and I'm slightly impressed by how well the 5E core is selling.



I still think they will either evolve their strategy into producing some increased volume of content or see their presence at tables fade as one year turns into three to four. The "evergreen" theory will need more than they are putting in.



But, again, it is a great core game. My deviation away from RAW has grown steadily, and I really have minimal interest in playing 5E RAW. But the core system is still really good and the openness to being the game any group wants to make of it is a huge feature. So I'll take the label of 5E fanboy. And I still think it will fade despite doing really well so far and despite being really solid.



I also don't dispute that the profit value of a PH2 or whatever else they call a hardback of supplemental content simply is not going to produce the return on investment that they feel is worthwhile. Without something like that, the number of people playing will fade over time more quickly than it will with something like that.



But for now, go team! Congrats

People say this, but: Why? Why is a stream of new content more valuable for getting people to play than Salvatore novels or hit video games?

 

[TwoSix]

People say this, but: Why? Why is a stream of new content more valuable for getting people to play than Salvatore novels or hit video games?

New content is less valuable than novels or video games to get new players to pick up the books, I imagine. However, it's less useful in retaining the people who have already started playing. I don't think that matters right now, but it might matter a few years down the road, as I imagine people might be less willing to pick up a five year old game with only a small active community.

 

[BryonD]

People say this, but: Why? Why is a stream of new content more valuable for getting people to play than Salvatore novels or hit video games?

This is a bit of a non sequitur.

I'm sure that hit novels and hit video games have a finite positive value. I never said they didn't.

But people who are going to play RPGs are going to play what they want to play. Cool D&D novels released two years ago might inspire Pathfinder fans to play more, but they would continue to play Pathfinder, so that wouldn't help WotC's D&D.

People who are not playing RPGs, first and foremost, are going to overwhelming continue to not play RPGs.
An important aside here is that if marketing non-RPG D&D to these people is more profitable, then more power to WotC for going there. I'm not disputing that. I'm just talking about the specific RPG market.

For the trivial number of people who decide to try RPGs they are going to play what they find people playing. If this happens in June 2015 then they are quite likely to find 5E players. But if the pre-existing 5E player base ebbs, and it will, then the chance that the people the new person finds are playing something else goes up.

The rest of the RPG market will continue to fight for share of the fanbase. If WotC doesn't defend their turf they will see the impact. They have plenty of inertia and a good game, so it isn't just going to roll over. But other options will chip away.

 

[delericho]

People say this, but: Why? Why is a stream of new content more valuable for getting people to play than Salvatore novels or hit video games?

As TwoSix says, new content doesn't really help with gaining new players (and may actually be counter-productive), but it helps with retaining existing players.

Case in point: I found myself bored with 5e by the time I was halfway through reading the PHB. It's a perfectly fine game, don't get me wrong, and in many ways is just what I'm looking for in a new edition of D&D. But it's a reversion back to the classics again: elves and dwarves, fighters and wizards. Problem is, I was doing all that twenty five years ago with 2nd Ed, I did all that for years with 3e, and it's all a bit old hat by now. Some expanded options would be hugely beneficial; without them, I can't see myself running more than a single 5e campaign.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a bit of a non sequitur.



I'm sure that hit novels and hit video games have a finite positive value. I never said they didn't.



But people who are going to play RPGs are going to play what they want to play. Cool D&D novels released two years ago might inspire Pathfinder fans to play more, but they would continue to play Pathfinder, so that wouldn't help WotC's D&D.



People who are not playing RPGs, first and foremost, are going to overwhelming continue to not play RPGs.

An important aside here is that if marketing non-RPG D&D to these people is more profitable, then more power to WotC for going there. I'm not disputing that. I'm just talking about the specific RPG market.



For the trivial number of people who decide to try RPGs they are going to play what they find people playing. If this happens in June 2015 then they are quite likely to find 5E players. But if the pre-existing 5E player base ebbs, and it will, then the chance that the people the new person finds are playing something else goes up.



The rest of the RPG market will continue to fight for share of the fanbase. If WotC doesn't defend their turf they will see the impact. They have plenty of inertia and a good game, so it isn't just going to roll over. But other options will chip away.

Sorry, maybe didn't phrase myself well, I meant retaining players rather than new players. Considering years of play I've gotten out of just the 3.5 core books, it puzzles me that continued books are seen as necessary for people to keep playing. This seems contrary to my experiences of playing the game.

 

[Parmandur]

As TwoSix says, new content doesn't really help with gaining new players (and may actually be counter-productive), but it helps with retaining existing players.



Case in point: I found myself bored with 5e by the time I was halfway through reading the PHB. It's a perfectly fine game, don't get me wrong, and in many ways is just what I'm looking for in a new edition of D&D. But it's a reversion back to the classics again: elves and dwarves, fighters and wizards. Problem is, I was doing all that twenty five years ago with 2nd Ed, I did all that for years with 3e, and it's all a bit old hat by now. Some expanded options would be hugely beneficial; without them, I can't see myself running more than a single 5e campaign.

On the other hand, the classics are really what I want out of the game: Conan, Harry Potter, Batman, Elvis Presley and Gimli descending into Moria. Anything past that is superfluous. Heck, I've been getting 1E and Basic fluff from dndclassics to supplement 5E for that very reason: oldies, but goodies.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, maybe didn't phrase myself well, I meant retaining players rather than new players. Considering years of play I've gotten out of just the 3.5 core books, it puzzles me that continued books are seen as necessary for people to keep playing. This seems contrary to my experiences of playing the game.

You may have used "just the 3.5 core books", but you are referencing the most (over) saturated game platform ever. (And I love 3X/PF, I'm not being critical)

The market place and community in which these "people" with whom you play was constantly supported by new things to keep the mass group excited about something new. This does not remotely prove my point, but you can't say that absence of continued books is contrary to your experience with the wider community of 3X.

Beyond that, there are still people play OD&D and 1E. And there is no reason to say anything slightly negative about that. But I'm not getting hung up on outliers.

If nothing better comes along *I'LL* be playing so heavily house-ruled version of 5E 5 years from now. It is completely possibly that I will be an outlier myself. But that is a huge "if".

 

[Manbearcat]

On Amazon, the PHB is currently #76 in Books.

Not in Books > Games or somesuch. Just in Books, overall.

The DMG is running at #174 in Books. The MM comes in at #177.

I don't follow the D&D market trends or book sales so I don't have much in the way of commentary (or perspective) on them. However, the PHB being # 76 on Amazon in general Books (1 year out) seems an indicator of a pretty damn stout year 1 release. Much more impressive than its place in gaming. Again though, I don't know if big time retail brick and mortars or hobby shops aren't doing very well and Amazon is the way most folks get their toys, but on the face of it, that # 76 slot is something I would be proud of if I was a 5e designer (and something I'd be offhandedly touting to the evil overlords to convince them to keep me through next Christmas so I can put out more product!).

 

[Corpsetaker]

I don't follow the D&D market trends or book sales so I don't have much in the way of commentary (or perspective) on them. However, the PHB being # 76 on Amazon in general Books (1 year out) seems an indicator of a pretty damn stout year 1 release. Much more impressive than its place in gaming. Again though, I don't know if big time retail brick and mortars or hobby shops aren't doing very well and Amazon is the way most folks get their toys, but on the face of it, that # 76 slot is something I would be proud of if I was a 5e designer (and something I'd be offhandedly touting to the evil overlords to convince them to keep me through next Christmas so I can put out more product!).

Amazon is a bit of a double edged sword in this case.

Would these books be selling so well if they were being sold for full price or even full price plus free shipping?

One of the big sellers was the cheap price that Amazon had them down to. It was basically a "if I don't really like it then I haven't lost much in the way of money".