D&D: big as it ever was? (Forked Thread: So...How are Sales of 4E Product?)

[darjr]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/202166-trivia-d-d-nyt-best-sellers-list.html

Wolfgang Baur said that D&D would have dominated the Best sellers list back then. Does the NYT still do this?

 

[TwinBahamut]

That's ridiculous. The statement from Gygax in the 80's is "some old number made by a man who did not necessarily have enough information", but vague PR cheerleading thrown out decades later is the gold-standard "an employee of WotC has gone on record"?

That "PR cheerleading" is nothing more than a statement of your bias. I may have been a bit dismissive of Mr. Gygax's words, but I never said that he was being deliberately deceitful, or that we should accept what WotC has to say without question.

Also, you are backpedaling. You said earlier that data from WotC supports your argument. In fact, your argument regarding the statement by Mr Gygax only works if you also trust the statement by the WotC employee that the number of D&D players is "around 2 or 3 million". If you don't accept what they say as valid, then it actually does nothing but weaken your argument. You can't just accept their claims when they are convenient for you and dismiss them when they are not.

Come to think of it, we also have multiple polls at both the ENWorld and WOTC site that show the majority of players joining the game in the early 80's, but you'll probably discount that, too, in favor of your, well... nothing.

You are right that I will discount those. Self-selecting internet polls are almost completely meaningless. I don't even see the need to look at your links. There are countless reasons that both the data in those polls, as well as your particular interpretation of that data, is deeply flawed. Of course, WalterKovacs made good arguments for why your interpretation is faulty already, so I don't see the need to address it myself.

Also, as for my posts being "nothing"... You are just being rude. I have not done anything resembling such a personal attack against you, but here you are making implications that I am stuffing cotton in my ears and refusing to agree with you simply because I don't want to. You certainly won't get anyone to agree with you that way.

I already made two different points with two different methods: a logical proof and an analogy to a similar pattern in a related game. If you want to counter either of my points and call them "nothing", then do the polite thing and address my arguments, rather than try to pretend I didn't make them and attack my motives.

Anyways, since you have expressed the opinion that everything WotC tells is "PR cheerleading" that can't be trusted, the logical proof stands at this:

1) Only WotC has access to all the relevant information regarding sales and popularity for the entire history of D&D.

2) Specific information regarding sales data and market research is needed in order to prove a claim regarding relative popularity between different editions.

3) Since WotC's statements can not be trusted, no one outside of WotC has access to this data.

4) Given 1, 2, and 3, any claims regarding the relative popularity of different editions can not be proven by any party, even WotC (since they can't be trusted).

Not trusting WotC really doesn't help your own stance very much...

 

[Delta]

Anyways, since you have expressed the opinion that everything WotC tells is "PR cheerleading" that can't be trusted, the logical proof stands at this:

I said no such thing. You're being ridiculous and playing ridiculous word games. Discount all available evidence and make up whatever fantasy you like. You have that right.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Wow. Cool thread. Sorry I wasn't around to jump in earlier.

I'll answer a few specific points in a minute, but I want to make a couple broader points first.

For starters, for clarity, I don't work for WotC. I used to work for WotC, I know a lot about D&D, I've played for 30 years, and I love the game. (Those points are not unrelated.) I play both 3.5 and 4E. I post on EN World as an enthusiastic gamer, not in any official capacity. (There are a few exceptions to that last point, but they're generally pretty clear.) I'm not here to "sell" anyone on 4E (again, a few exceptions, but they're clear), not that my point is really 4E-specific.

Secondly, I urge everyone to avoid descending into minutiae ("there's been a 36.9% growth in PHB sales, but a 38.7% growth in population") or leaning too hard on the anecdotal ("in my high school we had over a million D&D players!"). This issue requires a broader view. My point is about seeing the forest, not the trees.

And this is the point: We do not live in the post-apocalyptic ruins of D&D's greatness. This is as great a time to be involved with D&D, as great or greater than any. D&D might have been a fad in 1983, but it's now better than that: A successful, well-known, thriving hobby with millions of participants.

How can I prove that? I can't--nobody can. But when I first came to this conclusion, back in 2004/2005, I had access to lots of data that, while not specific, painted a pretty solid directional picture. Most of it, like the much-discussed 1E sales data, was sketchy. (Note: sketchy, not nonexistent.) But it was across the board: Convention numbers, RPGA numbers, media hits, name recognition, and many other bits and bobs. It's very had to tease out exactly how many players any era represents. (Or, as has been pointed out, what the term "player" actually means!) But it was clear to me that while D&D might once have been a pop culture fad, as an actual activity it was roughly as healthy and "big" as it had ever been.

Skeptical? Fair enough. It's a soft issue, and everyone brings different experiences and perceptions to the table. But I urge you to take off any rose-tinted glasses you might be wearing and take a close look at D&D's positions in 1983 society and today's. The situation is definitely different. But truthfully (and edition biases aside), would you rather be a gamer in 1983 or now? Fewer cartoons, fewer PHBs sold at hardware stores and gas stations. But more actual gamers, more real games, bigger and stronger communities.

We don't live in the distant shadow of D&D's greatness. That greatness is now.

 

[justanobody]

We don't live in the distant shadow of D&D's greatness. That greatness is now.

If you are one of the one's that prefers 4th edition and the direction WotC is taking with D&D, and feel it the right direction for the future.

Sales will not change everyone's mind to just love something that sales well, nor get them to subscribe to the idea that it is selling well.

 

[CharlesRyan]

D&D doesn't seem to be in the cultural consciousness now like it was in the early to mid-80's. There isn't a Saturday morning cartoon. There aren't the D&D lunch boxes, action figures, beach towels, coloring books, etc. D&D isn't in the news now like it was (in this case probably a good thing).

This is a great example. D&D has never been more in the cultural consciousness, or more in the news. Sure, it's no longer a fad, so it doesn't attract the myriad of spinoff licenses that fads generate, but that has little to do with it's position in the public consciousness.

Despite all the lunchboxes, if you asked 10 random people about D&D in the 1980s, 3 of them would have said "huh" and another 3 would have a vague idea that they'd seen it on a lunchbox. (The next 3.9 would mumble something about steam tunnels and devil worship.) Today, D&D's name recognition runs at about 98%. It's as well known as Hersheys or Goodyear (two other brands you don't see on lunchboxes).

As for the news, as part of my job I have a clipping service that checks some 25,000 news sources on the internet every day, looking for mentions of a handful of brands I deal with (including D&D). This morning's report includes 28 hits on D&D.

In the 80s, a news story that mentioned D&D would be about D&D, and have to have some explanation of what it was (accurate or not). Today, D&D is mentioned in passing, often in a dozen or more news stories every day, with no explanation. The writers know that when they mention D&D, the readers understand what they're talking about. And that understanding is more likely than ever to be at least vaguely realistic.

Again, I can't prove the following statement, because I don't have data from the early 80s. But I'd bet my house that D&D gets way more mention in the press these days than it did in the 80s. Fewer stories about book burnings and cults, sure. But way more mentions.

D&D is definitely in the mainstream public consciousness in a way it never was in the 80s.

 

[CharlesRyan]

If you are one of the one's that prefers 4th edition and the direction WotC is taking with D&D, and feel it the right direction for the future.

Sales will not change everyone's mind to just love something that sales well, nor get them to subscribe to the idea that it is selling well.

Did you actually read my post?

 

[JohnRTroy]

FYI,

Gary would get his sales figures for 1st and 2nd D&D post-TSR from Harold Johnson, who was in an executive position at TSR. So I would say Gary's numbers are accurate at least at the time.

The big thing is to really get sales numbers, you'd probably have to get Harold to reveal what he knew, as well as WoTC to reveal what they know, and in both cases that information might be privileged or semi-privileged.

The problem with arguing this is that everybody can put a spin on it. WoTC might be "spinning" the numbers, because businesses tend to put a positive spin on anything, but the skeptics also probably want to spin the figures negative, in some ways to possibly justify that D&D's changes will kill the game.

Personally, I really don't care either way. If WoTC made mistakes, they will suffer for it, and hopefully correct things. If it turns out they did the right things, fans who dislike what they did will have to go elsewhere, but since there are a lot of alternatives I don't see this being a problem.

 

[justanobody]

Did you actually read my post?

Yes. It is still subjective, and even hard numbers won't be able to prove something to all people.

How can I prove that? I can't--nobody can.

So the closing section I quoted from you initially is likewise subjective as anything anyone else feels. Such as it is with any opinion.

I could tear apart individual sections of your post, but wasn't intending to do that. Had no interest in it.

You think "the time of D&D is now", others disagree, as is their and your rights to do so.

 

[Roman]

Wow. Cool thread. Sorry I wasn't around to jump in earlier.

I'll answer a few specific points in a minute, but I want to make a couple broader points first.

For starters, for clarity, I don't work for WotC. I used to work for WotC, I know a lot about D&D, I've played for 30 years, and I love the game. (Those points are not unrelated.) I play both 3.5 and 4E. I post on EN World as an enthusiastic gamer, not in any official capacity. (There are a few exceptions to that last point, but they're generally pretty clear.) I'm not here to "sell" anyone on 4E (again, a few exceptions, but they're clear), not that my point is really 4E-specific.

Secondly, I urge everyone to avoid descending into minutiae ("there's been a 36.9% growth in PHB sales, but a 38.7% growth in population") or leaning too hard on the anecdotal ("in my high school we had over a million D&D players!"). This issue requires a broader view. My point is about seeing the forest, not the trees.

And this is the point: We do not live in the post-apocalyptic ruins of D&D's greatness. This is as great a time to be involved with D&D, as great or greater than any. D&D might have been a fad in 1983, but it's now better than that: A successful, well-known, thriving hobby with millions of participants.

How can I prove that? I can't--nobody can. But when I first came to this conclusion, back in 2004/2005, I had access to lots of data that, while not specific, painted a pretty solid directional picture. Most of it, like the much-discussed 1E sales data, was sketchy. (Note: sketchy, not nonexistent.) But it was across the board: Convention numbers, RPGA numbers, media hits, name recognition, and many other bits and bobs. It's very had to tease out exactly how many players any era represents. (Or, as has been pointed out, what the term "player" actually means!) But it was clear to me that while D&D might once have been a pop culture fad, as an actual activity it was roughly as healthy and "big" as it had ever been.

Skeptical? Fair enough. It's a soft issue, and everyone brings different experiences and perceptions to the table. But I urge you to take off any rose-tinted glasses you might be wearing and take a close look at D&D's positions in 1983 society and today's. The situation is definitely different. But truthfully (and edition biases aside), would you rather be a gamer in 1983 or now? Fewer cartoons, fewer PHBs sold at hardware stores and gas stations. But more actual gamers, more real games, bigger and stronger communities.

We don't live in the distant shadow of D&D's greatness. That greatness is now.

Thank you for shedding some light on D&D sales and popularity. Even withouth perfect data your feel for this based on the sketchy data you mention is still surely better than the feel of those of us who have no access to any data whatsoever beyond the few blips that have been released.

However, when you talk about the era of "D&D's greatness" (referring to sales and popularity figures of course) and that it is now... "now" is also a somewhat sketchy concept in this context. Your assertion is mostly based on 3.X sales and data in the early to mid 2000s. Many people get animated by this discussion, because they want to tease out the differences between 3.X edition and 4E in terms of sales and popularity. We don't really know whether your 3.X postulate, although likely correct for its time, still applies now. An edition change is after all an era of flux.