D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

Matthew L. Martin said:

We have some indication from the TSR catalogs of the early 90s. They report that the combined sales for Expert, Companion and Masters were around the 500,000 mark at the point the Rules Cyclopedia was announced. By contrast, the 2E core books sold around 250,000-300,000 each in their first year.

Click to expand...

Tony Vargas said:

Not really perfectly comparable numbers. Core books often sell the heaviest early on, and I'd expect more than a 50k swing between PHs and the DM-only MM & DMG. It'd be helpful to break out the Expert set, at least, why isn't Basic mentioned, etc...

Click to expand...

I'm honestly surprised that the Expert Set's sales weren't higher, given the robust support which it received. I would guess that the Expert Set probably accounts for 350k to 400k of that figure, considering how long it takes to advance through the levels and the usual attrition over time.

There is a thread on Dragonsfoot where Tim Kask states that, in reference to his assertion that the '83 Basic Set (red box, Frank Mentzer) was the best-selling D&D product of all time:

Sales figures are simply not available to the general public; neither WotC nor Hasbro will say, and TSR's records are unreliable.

So, I went to Jim Ward, who certainly was in a position to know, and he concurs with my assertion. Consider this, and I am paraphrasing Jim a bit: Frank's Red Box set was selling 100K copies per quarter, just in the US. Both the German and the Japanese editions of the Red Box matched those numbers for several years, plus the other 8 or 9 language editions were also being sold at that time. There are significant numbers of Europeans that see Frank as the father of role-playing because it was his name on the game they learned to play. (He clarified that at this year's RopeCon in Finland.)

So, if we assume those numbers for just three years, that means 1.2 million US, 1.2 million Japan and Germany, and then all of the rest will probably account for another 500 or 600K. That makes roughly 3 million just for those three years.

Click to expand...

The sales of Classic D&D vs AD&D also seem to have been different in the US vs internationally. The Basic and Expert sets appear to have been translated into more languages than were the AD&D books.

Tony Vargas said:

That's a very compelling argument for me not having actually gone from the Basic set to the Advanced game. Of course, I did so in 1980, a year before the Expert Set hit the shelves, so it was either AD&D or the old booklets.

Click to expand...

That isn't even remotely what I was arguing.


Consider a kid or young teen who begins playing D&D with this:




He loves the game and can't wait to play more, so he goes to the store to buy more D&D stuff. Looking through the large number of D&D products on the shelves, his most natural and logical next purchase is this:



Not three books like this:




You started with the original D&D Basic Set (Holmes, 1977), which was intended to introduce non-wargamers to D&D and then lead in to AD&D.

The second revision of the Basic Set (Moldvay, 1981) was designed to introduce non-wargamers to D&D and then lead into the Expert Set (Cook, 1981), which was released simultaneously. It was a complete game system that was more accessible and streamlined than AD&D. This version of D&D was deliberately positioned as a game where the action takes place in your imagination and not a board game nor a wargame.

I am going to refer to this version of D&D as "Classic D&D" from this point on. This term includes B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia.

My entire purpose in bringing Classic D&D into the discussion was that this version of D&D is as much a part of 5e's lineage as is AD&D. While D&D had its origins in wargaming and these roots were still apparent in AD&D, by 1981 there was a complete game of D&D that intentionally dumped much of the wargaming baggage and was very playable in the "theater of the mind." This version of D&D remained in print (in one form or another) until 1996.

I then suggested that those of us who were introduced to D&D (and RPGs) through Classic D&D were probably more likely to view "theater of the mind" as the default style of play than were gamers who started with wargaming, OD&D, or AD&D 1e. Not a statement of fact, but an entirely reasonable hypothesis.

Tony Vargas said:

The 'two pronged approach' always was a little weird, though, I'll grant you.

Click to expand...

It was weird, and probably would have been better to just have a streamlined "starter set" that was provided a complete play experience on its own but directed players towards the AD&D books for more options and higher-level play.

Basic and Expert together made for a very complete, playable, and streamlined game for a long time (levels 1-14 for fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling). The addition of the Companion and Masters rules (plus rules like skills form the GAZ line) added a lot of complexity to the game, and the publication of AD&D 2e made AD&D accessible enough that the Classic D&D game (as a whole) started to become redundant.

Of course, the primary reason for keeping two separate lines going was the legal dispute with Dave Arneson.

Keldryn said:

I'm honestly surprised that the Expert Set's sales weren't higher, given the robust support which it received. I would guess that the Expert Set probably accounts for 350k to 400k of that figure, considering how long it takes to advance through the levels and the usual attrition over time.

There is a thread on Dragonsfoot where Tim Kask states that, in reference to his assertion that the '83 Basic Set (red box, Frank Mentzer) was the best-selling D&D product of all time:

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone outside of TSR at the time knows why, but a few factors why Expert and on might not have done better are obviously, many migrating to AD&D and not looking back, but also could oddly be the social nature of the game. For us (and yes, it's personal anecdotes, but it's just throwing possible explanations out there for something none of us have inside information on, anyway), we each got the Basic Set, many as gifts. That got us interested in the game, and so we then found others who were interested in the game and started playing regularly. After that, we all knew each other and we just got one set of the subsequent boxes since we could share (well, I think we had 2 Experts, but definitely only 1 of each of the rest compared to 5 or so Basics in our group).

Other groups may have been the same way. Rather than starting with the Basic set to bring your current friends into D&D, many of us found others who also had the D&D set and formed new friendships and gamed from there. But once that was done, the need for each of us to independently own each set dropped dramatically.

A third factor, although less for Expert, but much more so for Companion on, is the common problem of either gamers or campaigns moving on before getting to higher levels. We certainly played far more B & E than M & I (in fact, only played Immortals once, I'd be interested to hear if anyone played it long term).

So, who knows why Expert and on didn't sell well. There are some likely candidates, however, and I think it's a solid bet that some combination are the likely truth.

Keldryn said:

I am going to refer to this version of D&D as "Classic D&D" from this point on. This term includes B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia.

Click to expand...

Just call it BECMI. It's clearly less 'classic,' than, say Original D&D.

My entire purpose in bringing BECMI into the discussion was that this version of D&D is as much a part of 5e's lineage as is AD&D. While D&D had its origins in wargaming and these roots were still apparent in AD&D, by 1981 there was a complete game of D&D that intentionally dumped much of the wargaming baggage and was very playable in the "theater of the mind." This version of D&D remained in print (in one form or another) until 1996.

Click to expand...

I thought it was '92, but whatever. You're really building this on the foundation of the '83 set selling super-well in the fad years, which, it did. However, the very fact that the set sold multiple times what the subsequent sets did, and edged out the PH by some indeterminate margin, illustrates that most of those purchases /didn't/ create long-time D&Ders.

So, while you've nicely illustrated the folks who missed that D&D had always been a wargame came from - the B/X, BECMI, or RC versions of D&D, the basic set of which was meant to appeal to non-wargamers - you've hardly refuted the roots of D&D as a wargame. Maybe the game did abandon those fans in '92 or 96 when the RC was finally allowed to go out of print. That doesn't legitimize claims that AD&D 1e or 2e, let alone 3e, had ever been 'meant' to be played in the 'TotM' mode, for which no version of D&D has ever been particularly suited.

Even if the BECMI basic set used some similar phrasing in it's blurbs or intro, did it actually carry through with rules that facilitated TotM, or did it just present range/area/movement/positioning in feet, like 2e & 3e did?

pemerton said:

In my personal experience, I never used a gridded map and tokens before 4e. In earlier games, if a sketch was needed I would whip one up.

Click to expand...

I don't recall using a grided surface for D&D prior to 3e, either, mainly because I never saw a battlemat until I started playing Champions, and then it was hex. But a play surface of whatever sort was available and /something/, usually minis, of course.

The reason that AD&D was so much easier to run without token and grid, I think, was because positioning played such a small role in its combat resolution. (Eg becaues movment within melee is free and does not trigger OAs, you can work out who is flanking whom, etc, just by assuming that the more numerous side automatically adopts the most advantage positions against the less numerous side.)

Click to expand...

Positioning is one of those things were AD&D was inconsistent. Parts of the rules (firing into melee) implied that everyone was moving around in a melee and there was no positioning, other parts (AC from shields, backstab, modifiers) spelled out facing, including distinctions among front, flank, front/rear flank, and back on grids or hexes. Facing hasn't been seen in D&D since. Then there's area effects. Space-filling fireballs, cones with precise angles, 120-degree arcs of flame, and on and on. You wouldn't want to use a grid on those, because the grid just isn't precise enough. ;P

Mercurius said:

Hey, I agree with you. I actually overall preferred 4E to 3E, so a debate about their respective merits between the two of us wouldn't really generate much friction. I do think, though, that you are writing off the downside of 4E's tactical mastery, perhaps simply because it never was an issue for you.

Again, where with 3E it was almost entirely a rather pronounced systems mastery, 4E combined some systems mastery and some tactical mastery in a way that was frustrating for "systems-tactics neophytes."

Click to expand...

I also prefer 4e to 3.x on the whole; after having DMed 4e, I would never DM 3.x again.

Where I think 4e was most frustrating for "system-tactics neophytes" was that as soon as you get beyond simply making attack and damage rolls, you're drinking from the fire hose. Even 1st-level powers and monsters are tossing around forced movement, triggered actions, opportunity actions, short-term conditions, short-term buffs/debuffs, temporary hit points, and the like. None of these concepts are difficult to understand on their own, but players need to learn all of them pretty quickly and they also need to learn how they interact with one another.

On top of that, to really play the tactical game well, not only do you need to have a firm grasp of what your character can do, but you also need to know what all of the other players' characters can do as well.

Some players take to this naturally (especially experienced 3.x players). Others never seem to take to it because it feels more like work than play. Sure, you can select the most straightforward damage-causing powers for them and tell them in which order they should use their powers, but you're not exactly laying the groundwork for them to be really engaged in the game.

Mercurius said:

And for really casual players who just like to show up and roll dice, there's a steep and long learning curve.

Click to expand...

Yes. I regret that I never had the opportunity to play 4e with a group composed entirely of dedicated and motivated players. I spent far more time and effort trying to help 3 out of 4 players get over that learning curve than I did actually preparing adventures.

Mercurius said:

The second - it feels like AD&D with fiddly bits taken out, but with a more streamlined core mechanic. Sort of like what 3E "should" have looked like (aka "Castles & Crusades") with the extra stuff as options, not core.

Click to expand...

This is how 5e feels to me as well, for which I am extremely happy about.

4e was a very well-designed game. The core rules were very elegant and consistent, and the system as a whole was very well-balanced. The fiddly bits and deeper tactical elements could have been layered on top of this streamlined and balanced core, rather than baked right in from 1st level.

The simplest character in the PHB was probably the Ranger, but even that character had Hunter's Quarry, which was almost like saying "add 1d6 damage to the first target you hit on your turn," but couldn't quite be played that way because you needed to use your minor action to designate the target closest to you as your Quarry, once per turn. This kind of fiddliness permeated the entire game system, and it really didn't have to.

Mercurius said:

But my point is, all editions of D&D are great. Just like if you listen to the albums of your favorite band, or the novels of your favorite author, you might have fond favorites, but hopefully you see a progression. But just because their first album or novel was comparatively simple compared to more recent work, it still has its place and charm and is fun to listen to.

Click to expand...

Yes, as long as you leave out Load, Reload, and St. Anger.

kenmarable said:

Other groups may have been the same way. Rather than starting with the Basic set to bring your current friends into D&D, many of us found others who also had the D&D set and formed new friendships and gamed from there. But once that was done, the need for each of us to independently own each set dropped dramatically.

Click to expand...

In the case of my group, me and one guy got into the game with Holmes basic (before B/X was released) and then a year or two later some guys who had bought the Moldvay Basic set joined up group. But since we (the 'experienced' guys) already had the AD&D books by then, we saw no need for the Expert Set.

I think that route was probably quite common: Neophyte picks up Basic D&D; finds other guys to play with, but the DM uses AD&D; so he switches and never moves on to Expert D&D.

Tony Vargas said:

So, while you've nicely illustrated the folks who missed that D&D had always been a wargame came from - the B/X, BECMI, or RC versions of D&D, the basic set of which was meant to appeal to non-wargamers - you've hardly refuted the roots of D&D as a wargame.

Click to expand...

Even by 1980 (when I started), the roots of D&D were irrelevant to millions of new players. We hadn't the faintest idea what Chainmail was, or why things were measured in inches. All we knew was that exploring dungeons and battling monsters was awesome. And the grognards referred to us as "munchkins" (that's the original meaning of the term - little kids who don't know how to play D&D properly like the university-aged or older wargamers).

Tony Vargas said:

That doesn't legitimize claims that AD&D 1e or 2e, let alone 3e, had ever been 'meant' to be played in the 'TotM' mode, for which no version of D&D has ever been particularly suited.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat once again - Gary Gygax did not use miniatures on a grid to represent combat. And we didn't care if D&D was particularly suited to that style of player - other fantasy RPGs may as well not have existed to us (and to 80 per cent of the people who have ever played the game). D&D TotM worked (and continues to work) perfectly well. My players don't expect to know the exact relationship of combatants, and trust me to make reasonable estimates and judgements so they can focus on the imaginary action.

Keldryn said:

I
Where I think 4e was most frustrating for "system-tactics neophytes" was that as soon as you get beyond simply making attack and damage rolls, you're drinking from the fire hose. Even 1st-level powers and monsters are tossing around forced movement, triggered actions, opportunity actions, short-term conditions, short-term buffs/debuffs, temporary hit points, and the like. None of these concepts are difficult to understand on their own, but players need to learn all of them pretty quickly and they also need to learn how they interact with one another.

On top of that, to really play the tactical game well, not only do you need to have a firm grasp of what your character can do, but you also need to know what all of the other players' characters can do as well.

Some players take to this naturally (especially experienced 3.x players). Others never seem to take to it because it feels more like work than play. Sure, you can select the most straightforward damage-causing powers for them and tell them in which order they should use their powers, but you're not exactly laying the groundwork for them to be really engaged in the game.

Yes. I regret that I never had the opportunity to play 4e with a group composed entirely of dedicated and motivated players. I spent far more time and effort trying to help 3 out of 4 players get over that learning curve than I did actually preparing adventures.

Click to expand...

This is exactly my experience. I'm 10 sessions into a 4E Essentials campaign, and besides the one other guy who has read the rules, I still have to hand-hold the players through every combat. I'm enjoying the campaign (mainly because we only have 1 or 2 combats a session). But I think I would enjoy it a lot more with a dedicated group of experts. I can run TSR D&D (and from the looks of it, 5E) with casual players. Not because they're more familiar with TSR D&D, but because they can simply describe what their characters do and let me handle the mechanics, far easier than is the case in 4E (or 3E).

Tony Vargas said:

That is interesting. Essentials /did/ roll back things about 4e that were being heavily criticized in the course of the edition war. It put forth a simple, daily-less fighter with few options. It added lots of fluff text. It generally did what it was asked to to accomplish the two things you mentioned. It was launched as such with 'Red Box' art and everything. Appeal to old players. Be easy for new ones.

And it that initiative that Pathfinder finally beat.
....

Click to expand...

It's been awhile, but if I recall the sales figures correctly, Pathfinder had already equaled or passed by WotC before Essentials was ever launched. In the quarter after Essentials was launched, WotC regaine the lead. Then, when they returned to the ADEU books, they fell behind again - though at that point, I think they were already wrapping things up.

Tony Vargas said:

...
It's just that on another, less personal level, I can't help but worry that re-winding /so much/ is setting the hobby back, perhaps even dooming it to a long, slow decline....

Click to expand...

Sometimes, when you hit a dead end, you have to go backwards if you're going to go anywhere at all.

Tony Vargas said:

I thought it was '92, but whatever. You're really building this on the foundation of the '83 set selling super-well in the fad years, which, it did.

Click to expand...

No, I'm building this on the foundation that there was a parallel branch of D&D throughout most of the TSR years which did not assume or require the use of a grid or miniatures, and which explicitly stated that "the action takes place in your imagination."

Tony Vargas said:

So, while you've nicely illustrated the folks who missed that D&D had always been a wargame came from - the B/X, BECMI, or RC versions of D&D, the basic set of which was meant to appeal to non-wargamers - you've hardly refuted the roots of D&D as a wargame.

Click to expand...

I never once even attempted to argue that D&D did not have its roots as a wargame, and you know that.

Tony Vargas said:

That doesn't legitimize claims that AD&D 1e or 2e, let alone 3e, had ever been 'meant' to be played in the 'TotM' mode, for which no version of D&D has ever been particularly suited.

Click to expand...

I also never argued that AD&D or 3.x were ever meant to be played in the "TotM" mode. I do think that AD&D was, at least by 2e, but I wasn't arguing that and I'm certainly not going to get into it now.

Tony Vargas said:

Even if the BECMI basic set used some similar phrasing in it's blurbs or intro, did it actually carry through with rules that facilitated TotM, or did it just present range/area/movement/positioning in feet, like 2e & 3e did?

Click to expand...

Right, when you quote from the books, it is proof of your argument. When I quote from the books, you get to dismiss my argument. Whatever.

Of course range, area, and movement were expressed in feet. You know, real-world measurements. Was it supposed to say that the fireball spell had a range of 90 zipfals and explode in a sphere of 30 cubic gorwaks?

First, AD&D 1e specifying distances in scale inches was indicative of how it was meant to be played, and now using real-world measurements is indicative of the same thing?

The DM looks at the map and tells the players about how far away the monsters are. Based on that information, the PCs can attack with missile weapons or close to melee. Once in melee with an opponent, a PC needs to take a withdrawal action to avoid giving his opponent a free attack roll.

You don't need specific rules to facilitate TotM play. You simply need to not have rules that make it important to keep close track of positioning and movement during combat. Many issues regarding range or area of effect can be answered by the DM looking at his map and making a judgement call. Even if a game just classifies things as "long" or "medium" range, the GM will still generally need to translate that into some real-world units of measurement so that everyone has some frame of reference.

In any RPG where you have ranged weapons and areas of effect, it's always going to be helpful to have some visual means of keeping track of where everybody is once there are a large number of combatants involved, even if it's just a quick sketch on paper.

I started with AD&D, and I always wondered why more of you didn't use minis before 3e.

Not because of gridded combats, or rules. Just to avoid the arguments about whether or not the wizard was in the range of the dragon's breath, or where the fighter was when the trap went off. "You said you were in the back of the party! You can't just be right there at the chest!" "Sure I can, I'm very fast!"

Haffrung said:

This is exactly my experience. I'm 10 sessions into a 4E Essentials campaign, and besides the one other guy who has read the rules, I still have to hand-hold the players through every combat. I'm enjoying the campaign (mainly because only have 1 or 2 combats a session). But I think I would enjoy it a lot more with a dedicated group of players. I can player TSR D&D (and from the looks of it, 5E) with casual players. Not because they're more familiar with TSR D&D, but because they can simply describe what their characters do and let me handle the mechanics, far easier than is the case in 4E (or 3E).

Click to expand...

Am I hearing this right? You have to 'hand hold' players because they don't know the rules in one edition, which is terrible, but in another, you have to handle all the mechanics for them because they don't know the rules, and that's great?

Well, if that's your experience.

My experience with casual play (D&D Encounters since Season 2, I think it was) has been that 4e, and even Essentials, were ideal for it. New players pick up the basics very easily, they have what they need on the compact pregen or character sheet, and it's all very intuitive. Players casually missing sessions or changing tables doesn't hurt, because party composition isn't as vital (something 5e hasn't un-done as badly as teh playtest sometimes made it look like it was going to by reinstating niche protection). And, the default encounter guidelines aren't too unforgiving, while still being fairly interesting. It's really the first time casual play - including new and casual players - has seemed practical to me. Of course, you could always have pickup games before, you just needed players familiar with the rules (and able to quickly adapt to your personal version of them in the case of AD&D) and willing to play whatever class was needed so you could get a functional party together - which is certainly casual, though in a different sense - a causal gathering of serious players.