Whizbang Dustyboots
100% that gnome
It's the reverse of the Star Trek movies!So it seems that the even-numbered editions didn't fare as well as odd-numbered ones.
It's the reverse of the Star Trek movies!So it seems that the even-numbered editions didn't fare as well as odd-numbered ones.
I edited my answer but they didn't mean thatA question, you may or may not know, what exactly do people mean when they say "each edition outsold the last"? Are they talking about launch day printings of the core rulebooks?
This looks like fun! Let me try... ahem...Anyhow, we don’t need sales data to see it’s not been from strength to strength with new editions.
1e is the edition that was a cultural phenomenon.
2e the edition when TSR went bankrupt and stopped printing. DOWN.
3e was a literal renaissance (rebirth, after bankruptcy). UP.
4e split the brand with PF taking a substantial part of the audience. DOWN.
5e has been during a cultural renaissance for D&D, where it became nearly pop culture. UP.
What will happen with 5.5/6/One is unknown, but the chances look 50/50 on up or down to me.
I have to say, I haven't heard many people suggesting that it was the OSR that did in 3e. Prevailing wisdom, so far as I've experienced, has been that it just lurched to a close as more and more expansions sold worse and worse mostly because people already had more books than they used.3.5 lost gas after about 3 years on the market because the OSR was born and started the market split and the release of 4e caused an open wound in the market that Pathfinder bandaged up by being the new edition that 3.x players were wanting when 4e came out.
For the English language to appropriate a word from another language but not replicate the pronunciation would be rather quixotic, wouldn't it?It's pronounced groan-yard, right? Not grog-nerd?
And the flinds did reference wind, settling that particular question not at all."How now, brown drow?" said the liches with stitches in their britches, while the kobolds cobbled cobblestones and the goblins gobbled gobbledygook.
The market began to split about and there was a definite change happening before 3.5 was coming to close. If you watch the development and rise of OSR it started in 2006 with OSRIC and 2004 Castles & Crusades and the explosion of BX variants before 4e is even hinted at but sales of 3.5 were obviously starting to hit a downward skid and D20 sales had stalled. Other examples of the nascent OSR movement include the Mongoose version of Runequest in 2006. So the market split was happening before 4e came it was just more pronounced by 4e’s launch and 3.5 players rejecting it. New adopters of 4e are largely ignored in the conversations because someone was obviously buying and playing it because it still led the market. I’m not saying the OSR was a massive threat like Pathfinder was to 4e but it was definitely the beginning of the market split as DMs became burnt out by the complexity of 3.5 and the sub-game of system mastery it encouraged. 3.5 was still THE game, as WOTC learned but the OSR was strong enough that WOTC was actively engaging OSR developers and fans in the development of 5e.I have to say, I haven't heard many people suggesting that it was the OSR that did in 3e. Prevailing wisdom, so far as I've experienced, has been that it just lurched to a close as more and more expansions sold worse and worse mostly because people already had more books than they
In this case there is a whole book of them mentioned in this thread.Its extremely hard to find solid sales numbers on almost any RPG products, and when you do it involves taking the company involved at its word. That's why you see so many attempts to use secondary metrics to determine popularity so often.
Correlation is not causation though. That the OSR and the decline of 3.5 sales coincided doesn't have to mean that OSR prompted the decline. Certainly little OSRIC didn't prompt it by itself. It could well be the reverse - that the 3.5 decline itself prompted the growth of the OSR once OSRIC appeared. Or it could be both - OR it might all be a massive coincidence. One thing is certain though - 4E was a dud that drove a lot of people to other games and other editions, even if SOME people liked it. It wasn't that it was inherently bad - it could have made a fine system with some other name on it. It just wasn't what customers wanted for their D&D.The market began to split about and there was a definite change happening before 3.5 was coming to close. If you watch the development and rise of OSR it started in 2006 with OSRIC and 2004 Castles & Crusades and the explosion of BX variants before 4e is even hinted at but sales of 3.5 were obviously starting to hit a downward skid and D20 sales had stalled. Other examples of the nascent OSR movement include the Mongoose version of Runequest in 2006. So the market split was happening before 4e came it was just more pronounced by 4e’s launch and 3.5 players rejecting it. New adopters of 4e are largely ignored in the conversations because someone was obviously buying and playing it because it still led the market. I’m not saying the OSR was a massive threat like Pathfinder was to 4e but it was definitely the beginning of the market split as DMs became burnt out by the complexity of 3.5 and the sub-game of system mastery it encouraged. 3.5 was still THE game, as WOTC learned but the OSR was strong enough that WOTC was actively engaging OSR developers and fans in the development of 5e.
I didn’t say or imply it did.Correlation is not causation though. That the OSR and the decline of 3.5 sales coincided doesn't have to mean that OSR prompted the decline. Certainly little OSRIC didn't prompt it by itself. It could well be the reverse - that the 3.5 decline itself prompted the growth of the OSR once OSRIC appeared. Or it could be both - OR it might all be a massive coincidence. One thing is certain though - 4E was a dud that drove a lot of people to other games and other editions, even if SOME people liked it. It wasn't that it was inherently bad - it could have made a fine system with some other name on it. It just wasn't what customers wanted for their D&D.
And yeah, I think 5E benefits more from good marketing and circumstances that managed to get people to look at it than from being all that spectacular of a system. But it's hard for me not to be biased. I still prefer 1 (and 3.5 when 3.5 sticks closer to lower levels).
4e outsold every previous edition.Correlation is not causation though. That the OSR and the decline of 3.5 sales coincided doesn't have to mean that OSR prompted the decline. Certainly little OSRIC didn't prompt it by itself. It could well be the reverse - that the 3.5 decline itself prompted the growth of the OSR once OSRIC appeared. Or it could be both - OR it might all be a massive coincidence. One thing is certain though - 4E was a dud that drove a lot of people to other games and other editions, even if SOME people liked it. It wasn't that it was inherently bad - it could have made a fine system with some other name on it. It just wasn't what customers wanted for their D&D.
And yeah, I think 5E benefits more from good marketing and circumstances that managed to get people to look at it than from being all that spectacular of a system. But it's hard for me not to be biased. I still prefer 1 (and 3.5 when 3.5 sticks closer to lower levels).
No. That is not correct. Preorders and release went well and then it went off a cliff.4e outsold every previous edition.
For a couple of years following 4E's release, the D&D brand slipped so much that another game (Pathfinder) became the #1 RPG on the market. It was the first and only time that has ever happened.No. That is not correct. Preorders and release went well and then it went off a cliff.
False. It outsold 4e in core game stores.For a couple of years following 4E's release, the D&D brand slipped so much that another game (Pathfinder) became the #1 RPG on the market. It was the first and only time that has ever happened.
I'm not making it up. Here's my source:False. It outsold 4e in core game stores.
BASED ON DATA FROM ICV2I'm not making it up. Here's my source:
![]()
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
This is a compilation of the icv2.com retailer surveys of Top Five Roleplaying Games. They are generally compiled quarterly (with some exceptions). ICv2 notes that "the chart [are] based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers." Thanks to jodyjohnson for sterling...www.enworld.org
In Q1 2010, shortly after the release of 4E Essentials, Dungeons & Dragons lost the top spot for the first time ever, and kept falling. It eventually dropped all the way to #5, behind Pathfinder, Star Wars, Fate, and Numinera. D&D didn't get back to #1 until after the release of 5E.
Here are the relevant graphs:
View attachment 262681
View attachment 262682
Yeah, that’s about 4e’s performance in the markets ICv2 polls - mainly the game store market. That doesn’t cover direct orders, mass market bookstores like Barnes and Noble, or Amazon.I'm not making it up. Here's my source:
![]()
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
This is a compilation of the icv2.com retailer surveys of Top Five Roleplaying Games. They are generally compiled quarterly (with some exceptions). ICv2 notes that "the chart [are] based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers." Thanks to jodyjohnson for sterling...www.enworld.org
In Q1 2010, shortly after the release of 4E Essentials, Dungeons & Dragons lost the top spot for the first time ever, and kept falling. It eventually dropped all the way to #5, behind Pathfinder, Star Wars, Fate, and Numinera. D&D didn't get back to #1 until after the release of 5E.
Here are the relevant graphs:
View attachment 262681
View attachment 262682
I think it less displays a failure of marketing but a failure for designing for every major subcategory of D&D player.Now, whatever other sales are, this was NOT good news since it pointed to a failure in marketing to their core market. And that’s a big hit to the hardest core gamer mindshare.
Yep. I have a feeling that the playtest will last 12-18 months, then it will be closed and WotC will do whatever they want regardless of feedback. If OneD&D is just fixes and tweaks to a half version from 5E to "5.5E" why even bother having a playtest? My bet is that we will see an entirely new edition based on the d20 chassis of 3,x and 5E, but thats just my opinion.We’re too early in the playtest cycle for me to say where I think 6e is going