D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[mamba]

Sort of. Sales were split over multiple items. I think 1E phb outsold B/X big sellers- the two basic sets.

depends on what is lumped into Basic here (courtesy of Ben Riggs)

 

[Zardnaar]

depends on what is lumped into Basic here (courtesy of Ben Riggs)

View attachment 402231

Yeah those two big spikes are 2 different products iirc.

His numbers are fairly close to ones that have been around for years. Million+ Basic boxed sets, 1.5 for 1E, 750k-1million 2E.

Last bump for Basic would be the black box. 600k units iirc. More than 3.5 afaik maybe 4E.

 

[mamba]

Yeah those two big spikes are 2 different products iirc.

BX and BECMI I assume

EDIT: found another one that breaks it down

 

[kayakingpoodle]

A big thanks for filling in the stuff my memory didn't, BUT... (I cannot lie)

How do we think a similar basic vs advanced rulesets would sell/work with the current user base? That was my real question as we know what happened previously. How do "we" think it would work now?

 

[mamba]

How do we think a similar basic vs advanced rulesets would sell/work with the current user base?

What would the difference between the two editions be? I never liked the race as class thing... If it is more a somewhat simplified 5e and maybe capped at level 10 or 12, I'd probably jump ship to it

 

[Zardnaar]

A big thanks for filling in the stuff my memory didn't, BUT... (I cannot lie)

How do we think a similar basic vs advanced rulesets would sell/work with the current user base? That was my real question as we know what happened previously. How do "we" think it would work now?

Are they different or more like 2014 basic and advanced?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

What would the difference between the two editions be? I never liked the race as class thing... If it is more a somewhat simplified 5e and maybe capped at level 10 or 12, I'd probably jump ship to it

Are they different or more like 2014 basic and advanced?

I am thinking more rules light, and rule of cool over RAW, which most debates seem to boil down too.

For the record my favorite edition is 5e, as in pre 24/5.5 stuff and to me that relates more to rule of cool/light than the 5.5 stuff, though 5.5 just seems to push the peas around the plate rather than actually fix anything. Just my take and a big reason I don't care for 5.5. If it actually addressed any of the real issues it might have got me to crack open my purse, but as delivered it just gets fussy over what many tables fixed with house rules better and way less expensive than 3 new books.

So basically should 5.5 have been 5e advanced instead of the lumpy undercooked scoop of mashed potatoes many see it as?

 

[Remathilis]

A big thanks for filling in the stuff my memory didn't, BUT... (I cannot lie)

How do we think a similar basic vs advanced rulesets would sell/work with the current user base? That was my real question as we know what happened previously. How do "we" think it would work now?

5e tried a Basic D&D. Four races, four classes with one subclass. No feats, no multiclassing. Limited spells and magic items. It was on par with what BX offered. Obviously, it was treated as a sampler and not a complete game.

The thing is, I don't know how you simplify 5e further without forking development. Likewise, you can add all sorts of advanced options to use, but if no additional supplements use them, they don't gain enough traction. You can put three different rule books with simple, advanced, middle versions of the rules, but the real version is the one compatible with the supplements and modules.

 

[Zardnaar]

5e tried a Basic D&D. Four races, four classes with one subclass. No feats, no multiclassing. Limited spells and magic items. It was on par with what BX offered. Obviously, it was treated as a sampler and not a complete game.

The thing is, I don't know how you simplify 5e further without forking development. Likewise, you can add all sorts of advanced options to use, but if no additional supplements use them, they don't gain enough traction. You can put three different rule books with simple, advanced, middle versions of the rules, but the real version is the one compatible with the supplements and modules.

My thought woukd be similar to 2014 basic.

But the moving parts bits are baked in. Eg say ones a great weapon user. They have tgat style, the feat and graze preselect. Starter might be 5 levels.

Only choice you make is what precon to use.

2 distinct lines probably a bad idea.

 

[Hussar]

Your notion of what is valuable, or of worth, seems to me to be... narrow.

So, you seem to be structuring your thoughts such that all discussion is "arguing points". As if all discussion is only ever about determining an objective truth value of people's thoughts. I don't know if that's what you really mean, but that's what it seems.

This is, to me, akin to saying that all GMs are antagonistic - everything is a test, right/wrong, win/lose, as if that was the only way to play the game, it is also the only way to talk to another human being about any topic.

Again, that seem to me to be extremely narrow. I have loads of interesting, enlightening, valuable discussions, in which nobody ever has to prove anything.

Not disagreeing in the slightest.

But, in discussions where people ARE trying to prove something, then having actual evidence for opinions is a basic requirement, no?

Why do you keep adding in things that I'm not talking about? I've repeatedly specified that I'm talking about discussions where both sides are discussing facts and not simply stating preferences. Is there a reason you repeatedly change the topic?