Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4544339" data-attributes="member: 22779">I would point out that in the Evolution of the Fighter article, the vast majority of gamers started with Basic D&amp;D.&nbsp; Almost 50% starting with either the '81 or '83 starter sets.&nbsp; That actually runs counter to your point since you are discussing 1e PHB's, which aren't included on the list.And the EN World poll you link to actually only talks about when people started.&nbsp; Not with what edition.&nbsp; You are ignoring Basic D&amp;D there as well.In other words, your links don't say what you think they say.Look it comes down to the fact that we're all spit balling numbers here.&nbsp; TSR did not keep clear records.&nbsp; We don't know how many people were playing back then.&nbsp; We have an estimate from Gygax, but, let's face it, that's a pretty suspect number.&nbsp; Considering how much more on the ball WOTC is in respects to keeping records and things like actual market research, I'm going to think that WOTC's numbers are likely a bit closer to the mark.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4544339, member: 22779"] I would point out that in the Evolution of the Fighter article, the vast majority of gamers started with Basic D&D. Almost 50% starting with either the '81 or '83 starter sets. That actually runs counter to your point since you are discussing 1e PHB's, which aren't included on the list. And the EN World poll you link to actually only talks about when people started. Not with what edition. You are ignoring Basic D&D there as well. In other words, your links don't say what you think they say. Look it comes down to the fact that we're all spit balling numbers here. TSR did not keep clear records. We don't know how many people were playing back then. We have an estimate from Gygax, but, let's face it, that's a pretty suspect number. Considering how much more on the ball WOTC is in respects to keeping records and things like actual market research, I'm going to think that WOTC's numbers are likely a bit closer to the mark. [/QUOTE]

Verification