D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[Mistwell]

I think there's a lot of merit in your reasoning, but I wouldn't underestimate the impact that the slow and painful death of the brick and mortar bookstore had on D&D's persistance on Amazon charts.

What Amazon charts tell us is that more people are buying D&D on Amazon. We have no way to know if this offsets the fact that less people buy D&D in stores (a lot of store stopped carrying D&D completely before 5E's release, and WotC themselves allegedly choose to ignore certain, previously used channels).

Uh, yes we do. We ALSO get a report of brick and mortar sales, and those sales are very strong right now as well, and D&D continues to rank #1 on those sales as well. Retail stores are actually doing pretty decent right now, mostly thanks to the surge in board game popularity. Sales of hobby games in the U.S. and Canada crossed $1 billion in 2015, reaching $1.19 billion. It's growing VERY rapidly right now, a complete turn-around from just 5-6 years ago.

We also saw D&D high on the New York Times bestseller lists. And we see it as the number one RPG discussed on the internet by triple the next most discussed game. We also saw it ranking very high for a long time on Barnes & Nobles lists. And we have the key people at WOTC saying it's sales are more than any other PHB since 1e D&D. And we even had Hasbro official quarterly reports (which must be accurate or else they face FCC regulation and stockholder lawsuits) saying sales were extremely strong. By every metric I can think of, every single objective measure, we've seen 5e D&D is selling extremely well.

I suggest caution. I think it's early to celebrate.

When it first was coming out people said it was vaporware. Once it came out people said, "sure, it's selling well initially but wait a year". Then when a year came around and sales remained strong people said, "OK fine wait another year, no way this will last". So here we are, yet another year, and people are STILL saying "it's too early"? No, enough. Two years is enough time to assess success. It's a success. Time to accept that. Might not be your thing. Might be a slower release schedule than appeals to your tastes. But, the game is selling extraordinarily well. You'd have to literally be calling the people who work at WOTC liars (and they've posted here before) to deny that at this point. They've said in no uncertain terms just what I am saying now. Not "it's selling well" but that it's literally outsold every other edition except 1e, which they have sketchy records on for sales data.

 

[abirdcall]

When Pathfinder was doing well during 4e it was supposedly because of how well designed it was.

Now that 5e is doing well it is only because D&D is this mainstream brand behemoth that can't be competed with.

Can't have it both ways. 5e is a well designed game. It is also not 'baby's first RPG'. Simple vs complex is not the right framing. 5e is elegant. D&D has elegant rules for the first time.

 

[abirdcall]

Uh, yes we do. We ALSO get a report of brick and mortar sales, and those sales are very strong right now as well, and D&D continues to rank #1 on those sales as well.

This is an interesting link.

http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/35150/hobby-games-market-nearly-1-2-billion

It shows retail sales of RPGs in Canada and the US in 2015 as $35 million.

At $50/book that comes out to 700,000 books sold in retail stores.

The question then becomes how much of the market is D&D vs the other games.

This quote is telling:

"And the smallest category, roleplaying games, grew 40%, from $25 million in 2014 to $35 million in 2015."

So D&D 5e gets released and retail sales of RPGs increases 40%. It was even released in the middle of 2014 too, so some of that 25 million was from its initial release. If this isn't evidence of 5e's growing popularity I don't know what is.

 

[Jester David]

Naturally it's very much depending on personal taste, although, for me, 5e's artworks are... often bland, or should I say, too generic? It has very good ones, the MM is fairly good but there's some I don't like in the corebooks. Yes, it's full color (although it's not a sign of quality on itself, but I like b&w very much) and the full-page watercolors are mostly very pretty. However, the weapons in the PHB and DMG for example are very bad and the SCAG was a huge letdown. 5e is far better than 3e was and while 4e had top quality arts I didn't parrticularly liked the WoW-ish "everything must glow" style.

Pathfinder, (or the IK rpg) is more of an eyecandy for me on average, but I like Wanye Reynold's style very much and I think Paizo's books have much better page layout and overall graphical design.

But in the end, it's really about personal taste. 5e is good, but it's far from the best, or the 5 (might not be in the 10) best for me.

I don't dislike the Pathfinder art, but found their books bland. Lots of generic figures in a minor pose, with page after page of straight text. They've been better if late (since Occult Adventures), but I imagine this was in response to D&D.

I was impressed by the One Ring and the Middle Earth 5e book for its art. Far more landscapes and scenery rather than just people in armour.
But by far the high bar in term of RPG art for me is Shadows of Esteren. Gorgeous books, those.

 

[PMárk]

When Pathfinder was doing well during 4e it was supposedly because of how well designed it was.

Now that 5e is doing well it is only because D&D is this mainstream brand behemoth that can't be competed with.

Can't have it both ways. 5e is a well designed game. It is also not 'baby's first RPG'. Simple vs complex is not the right framing. 5e is elegant. D&D has elegant rules for the first time.

Assuming you reacted to me, at least in part.

You get it wrong IMO. I never said D&D isn't well designed. It's very well designed! But it has certain goals and presumptions in it's design and among the most important ones is simplicity. Not stupidity, but simplicity as a non-derogative word. It's easy to run, easy to learn and play. You could call it elegance if you'd like that word better. The result is the same, it has simpler, less simulationist rules, simpler antagonists, less character fine-tuning and options.

It's not that it's 'baby's first rpg', it's just it is easier for beginners who later might find they want something different besides, or instead of this. But an easier access means more beginners and that means more potential later branching out. You don't need to be beginner to play it and enjoying it as an experienced player doesn't diminish you in any way. A lot of people like even more simpler rule systems. I like WoD and CoC for example, WoD is my favorite game. But other people also might like other styled systems or genres, or anything, but 5e is a much more easy access point for rpgs than Mage the Ascension, or even Pathfinder. Also, it is indeed in the right place at the right time just as Vampire was in the 90's.

It's okay to wanting simpler because it helps you to concentrate on the story, or you don't have the taste, or time, or energy for more complex rules, or because you like more GM empowerment, or faster play or anything.

It's also okay to wanting more complex, because you like that style, or like more character options, or more simulation adds to your gaming experience or whatnot. Or you want more flavoring to realize in the rules and not just window-dressing.

You'd always have both types (and more). Simpler ISN'T inferior, BUT it's easier to begin with.

It also indeed have the largest brand recognition. It doesn't mean it is successful just because that, but it helps to get more mainstream recognition from media. But just as mainstream != good, it also !=bad in any way. It's just people outside of the hobby know about it, so again it's an easier and more likely access point.

It's a huge success, because the combination of the above.

Oh, and PF also wans't and is doing well just because of oh-so-well designed it was. It had a lot of reasons behind that success too.

I also want to add, that while i like the style of PF a little better, at this point, I'd be happy with a PF 2e, because it is indeed could use some streamlining and stuff. I just don't want it to go 5e, but be better in its own thing.

 

[PMárk]

I don't dislike the Pathfinder art, but found their books bland. Lots of generic figures in a minor pose, with page after page of straight text. They've been better if late (since Occult Adventures), but I imagine this was in response to D&D.

Sure, we're agreeing here, there are a lot of filler arts in them. I just like the overall graphical style better than 5e's, especially Reynolds. And the full page/half page spreads in the books, or APs re generally very good IMO. What's your problem was my biggest problem with SCAG.

It's a shame I found most of their dragon pictures less to my taste (excluding the blue ones). 4e/5e has better dragon artworks, but my favorite dragon drawings were always from Lockwood.

I was impressed by the One Ring and the Middle Earth 5e book for its art. Far more landscapes and scenery rather than just people in armour.
But by far the high bar in term of RPG art for me is Shadows of Esteren. Gorgeous books, those.

I don't have the ME book, but the pictures I saw were beautiful. I also agree, Esteren is gorgeous and also agree that RPG books, especially setting books need more landscapes and life pictures instead of posing adventurers in gear, PF isn't less guilty in that.

​

 

[Istbor]

I grew out of all the clutter of 3.0 and 3.5. I didn't hate 4e and had some good times with it, but 5e hits the mark for me.

As such, I don't really want to look at PF since it is 3.5 in essence. I am glad to see this edition doing so well.

In ages past the groups I DM or play with would switch around what game we play every other campaign or so. So far, that has not happened and it has been 5e throughout. I am quite excited to see what they put out next, and am pleased with this slower release date.

Glad to see that it is reflected in some outside metrics as well.

 

[Jester David]

When it first was coming out people said it was vaporware. Once it came out people said, "sure, it's selling well initially but wait a year". Then when a year came around and sales remained strong people said, "OK fine wait another year, no way this will last". So here we are, yet another year, and people are STILL saying "it's too early"? No, enough. Two years is enough time to assess success. It's a success. Time to accept that. Might not be your thing. Might be a slower release schedule than appeals to your tastes. But, the game is selling extraordinarily well. You'd have to literally be calling the people who work at WOTC liars (and they've posted here before) to deny that at this point. They've said in no uncertain terms just what I am saying now. Not "it's selling well" but that it's literally outsold every other edition except 1e, which they have sketchy records on for sales data.

To me it feels a little the reverse of what happened during late 4th Edition, when the ICv2 chartes first had Pathfinder tying with D&D. No matter what was said, D&D was fine and doing great. "ICv2 isn't reflective. The reports of few players are anecdotal. D&D is doing great in my town. Lisa Strevens is lying. Essentials isn't a sign sales are bad. Cancelled books aren't a sign sales are bad." Etc, etc.


It's the same thing. Just like some people refused to believe 4e didn't sell well across the board, some people here just don't want to believe 5e is doing well.


Which feels sad to me. A very special flavour of schadenfreude.


I mean, I didn't like 4e. Not my favourite edition of D&D. And I was happy we got 5e sooner rather than later. But I never wanted 4e to fail. And I sympathized for its fans when it ended. Because I love D&D as a whole, and always want it to succeed and for the brand to do well. I'm always rooting for Team D&D.

 

[PMárk]

To me it feels a little the reverse of what happened during late 4th Edition, when the ICv2 chartes first had Pathfinder tying with D&D. No matter what was said, D&D was fine and doing great. "ICv2 isn't reflective. The reports of few players are anecdotal. D&D is doing great in my town. Lisa Strevens is lying. Essentials isn't a sign sales are bad. Cancelled books aren't a sign sales are bad." Etc, etc.

What, you say geeks are prone to hyperbole????

Preposterous!

 

[Parmandur]

It's worht reiterating that Mearls went on public record that the 5E core books are not selling at a faster initial rate, but that it has sold 2E, 3.x and 4E for their entire respective life cycles in just two years; not the most successful edition of the game quite yet, but give it a few years and a mediocre hit movie.