Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3257748" data-attributes="member: 6777">This is kind of a specious argument, given that no one involved in this conversation has access to reliable sales data. You're also comparing an edition that had a 10-year lifespan to one with a four-year (or six, if you merge 3.0 and 3.5). Where are you getting your numbers?Regardless, you could probably make a good case for Spell Compendium, PHB2, and some of the Complete series, as they've been in the Amazon Gaming Top 10 since their release.According to WotC, it's 4 million. As far as I know, these numbers are up from the tail end of 1e and the 2e eras.&nbsp; Ref: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6261698/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6261698/</a>There's also the D&amp;D MMORPG, the various bestselling novels, bestselling CRPGs, Dummies books, movies, minis game... the big RPG wave of the early '80s may be over, but D&amp;D as a brand is strong as heck.That bubble burst a few years ago. I would think this argument would also contradic your previous assertion about 3.x's unpopularity. And if any edition screams &quot;Throw it to the wall, see what sticks,&quot; it's 2e. I mean, TSR went bankrupt partly due to this.Possibly... though I think that both 2e and 3e were objectively better in some ways, at least in terms of textual clarity.Still, sure, it's subjective. Please remember that. It does not follow that, because you like 1e, 3e must be somehow deficient. It's possible for both of them to be perfectly enjoyable, but some prefer one over the other.BTW, you need to go hang out on dragonsfoot.org. You can complain about 3e all day and get resounding agreement. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3257748, member: 6777"] This is kind of a specious argument, given that no one involved in this conversation has access to reliable sales data. You're also comparing an edition that had a 10-year lifespan to one with a four-year (or six, if you merge 3.0 and 3.5). Where are you getting your numbers? Regardless, you could probably make a good case for [I]Spell Compendium[/I], PHB2, and some of the [I]Complete[/I] series, as they've been in the Amazon Gaming Top 10 since their release. According to WotC, it's 4 million. As far as I know, these numbers are up from the tail end of 1e and the 2e eras. Ref: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6261698/[/url] There's also the D&D MMORPG, the various bestselling novels, bestselling CRPGs, [I]Dummies[/I] books, movies, minis game... the big RPG wave of the early '80s may be over, but D&D as a brand is strong as heck. That bubble burst a few years ago. I would think this argument would also contradic your previous assertion about 3.x's unpopularity. And if any edition screams "Throw it to the wall, see what sticks," it's 2e. I mean, TSR went bankrupt partly due to this. Possibly... though I think that both 2e and 3e were objectively better in some ways, at least in terms of textual clarity. Still, sure, it's subjective. Please remember that. It does not follow that, because you like 1e, 3e must be somehow deficient. It's possible for both of them to be perfectly enjoyable, but some prefer one over the other. BTW, you need to go hang out on dragonsfoot.org. You can complain about 3e all day and get resounding agreement. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification