D&D General Behold! A mega chart of AD&D 1st and 2nd ed monster products sales!

[darjr]

Behold! A mega chart of AD&D 1st and 2nd ed monster products sales!

Products listed in the chart are on the right.

The fact I think most interesting about the chart concerns the 2nd edition Monster Manual, which I have helpfully labeled in hot pink on the chart.

In 2nd edition, TSR replaced hardcover books of monsters with loose leaf papers and three ring binders and called it the Monstrous Compendium. The idea was that players could add to the binder as new monsters came out, but the design of the sheets never made this convenient.

After five years of attempting to make the binder and sheets model work, TSR gave in and released a proper hardcover Monster Manual for 2nd edition. The following year, sales for most of the Monstrous Compendium line were in the negative, with more products returned than sold, though the chart does not make this particularly easy to see.

It certainly seemed that once customers were given an opportunity to buy a traditional book with monsters, they rushed to do so.

Gaming legend and Mage designer Phil Brucato has a new novel of urban fantasy on Amazon. It’s called Red Shoes and you should check it out! Link below.

Also, my book of D&D history, which people are saying is dishy and unputdownable is for sale everywhere books are sold! Pick it up and see what all the hubbub is about.

 

[darjr]

Here are Bens links
Phil Brucato's Red Shoes: https://www.amazon.com/Red-Shoes-Satyros-Phil-Brucato/dp/1953203019
And my book of D&D history! https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Drag...refix=slaying+the+dragon,stripbooks,93&sr=1-1

 

[Blue Orange]

Thanks for this!

Minor nitpick, but wasn't the hardcover 2e monster manual titled the Monstrous Manual, the only book to be titled that way? Might help in picking apart duplicate book sales and the like.

 

[darjr]

Here’s the link to his Facebook post.

 

[overgeeked]

No Fiend Folio? That’s…an odd choice. Does he think only books with the word monster in the title have monsters?

 

[Demetrios1453]

Any data on the later Monstrous Compendiums? I'm most curious about MC8, the one on the Outer Planes, which (re-)introduced the cunningly re-named devils and demons to 2e...

 

[Jer]

Almost a 50K difference in year of release for the MC1 vs. MC2.

That's wild - the MC1 and MC2 were basically the Monster Manual cut in half. I would have assumed they would have sold in nearly the same numbers. But it looks like the MC1 was treated as the "real" Monster Manual for 2e by most folks and the MC2 was treated like a supplement.

And that number for the Dragonlance MC sales - oof.

 

[RuinousPowers]

The Dragonlance MC was definitely a weak part of the collection- I don't remember really using any of it in my homebrews.

MM2 outselling MM1? That just feels like sacrilege!

 

[Mannahnin]

Almost a 50K difference in year of release for the MC1 vs. MC2.

That's wild - the MC1 and MC2 were basically the Monster Manual cut in half. I would have assumed they would have sold in nearly the same numbers. But it looks like the MC1 was treated as the "real" Monster Manual for 2e by most folks and the MC2 was treated like a supplement.

Were they? My recollection is indeed that the MC1 had all the "core" common monsters, and that MC2 was much more of a supplement, with weirder stuff in it. I definitely was one of those who bought 1 but not 2. Edit: my recollection was wrong!

Certainly that was the case with the original Monster Manual and Monster Manual 2 for 1E. The main thing MM2 had going for it was the revised random encounter system and charts, although in retrospect those expanded charts were totally wrongheaded and more space should have been devoted to explaining to DMs how to construct their own more useful 6-10 entry charts for a given play area.

 

[Parmandur]

Man, 1984 was a brick wall for the game.