How popular are RPGs today compared to the 80s?

[johnsemlak]

Unsurprising since the scope of the revisions follows the 1e/2e pattern.

I'm not quite sure that's true (If you mean the extent of the 3.0 --> 3.5 revision is similar to 1.0 --> 2.0)

2.0 did away with several classes. It introduced new ones (the wizard specialists). It revamped several classes very significantly (bards totally reworked, illusionists a wizards specialist, rangers loose magic-user spells, etc).

Some monsters were made a lot tougher, as well.

Admittedly, 1e was more or less compatible with 2e, but I woudl say the revistion was more fundemental than 3.0-->3.5

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not quite sure that's true (If you mean the extent of the 3.0 --> 3.5 revision is similar to 1.0 --> 2.0)

2.0 did away with several classes. It introduced new ones (the wizard specialists). It revamped several classes very significantly (bards totally reworked, illusionists a wizards specialist, rangers loose magic-user spells, etc).

Some monsters were made a lot tougher, as well.

Admittedly, 1e was more or less compatible with 2e, but I woudl say the revistion was more fundemental than 3.0-->3.5

I'd say the scope was very similar. Read your description of 2.0 again and tell me how that fundamentally differs from 3.5 vs. 3.0 with the exception of swapping out some old classes with some new ones.

And that ones a bit of a moot point anyway, with all the classes in print through d20.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

1) Statistics by TSR weren't likely kept in the 80s, and if they were they're likely long gone now.

if push came to shove I could likely dredge up all of my old royalty reports and get the actual sales figures of all the products which I authored or co-authored. However, it's likely that WotC retained the sales information from TSR, as it is highly valuable data.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[MerricB]

I'd say the scope was very similar. Read your description of 2.0 again and tell me how that fundamentally differs from 3.5 vs. 3.0 with the exception of swapping out some old classes with some new ones.

And that ones a bit of a moot point anyway, with all the classes in print through d20.

With 1E->2E and 3E->3.5E, in both cases you could quite happily use the old rulebooks and still find the new adventures, supplements and suchlike useful with only minor alterations. Such is not the case for 2E->3E.

Of course, 3.5E is also more perceived as a "revision" of material rather than a new "edition"; thus something primarily to help new gamers understand the rules, and to satisfy those who are fed up with various inconsistencies in 3E.

IMO, 2E was meant to blaze the way forward to the future, with people abandoning their own 1E books and convert over. 3.5E has never been seen in that light - with the expectation that people will only convert to 3E to 3.5E if they really want to. Of course, I'm probably completely wrong.

What is interesting is if the sales of 3.5E books are similar to the continuing sales of the 3E books, with a spike for their initial release, of course!

Thus, if WotC sold 200,000 copies of the 3E PHB in 2002, if they sell 200,000 copies of the 3.5E PHB in 2004, then not much has changed - it hasn't adversely affected them. For me, that is the interesting comparison.

Cheers!

 

[Xeriar]

I'd say the scope was very similar. Read your description of 2.0 again and tell me how that fundamentally differs from 3.5 vs. 3.0 with the exception of swapping out some old classes with some new ones.

Removing psionics from the core rules, removing the pricing guides for magic items, the power boost that dragons got (and removing the subdual rule), removing demons and devils, the 'code'...

There were many actual changes. 2e was really ugly. While people might think that weapon handedness and various other tweaks in 3.5e might umm, not be appropriate, it is nonetheless possible to go back to 3.0 without too much trouble for just about anything.

Trying to fix 2nd edition earned me comments 'kid, you're making your own system - just drop D&D and do it' 'AD&D isn't flexible enough for that' 'You need to use GURPS or something' (this was in the early 90's mind you)...

And so on.

Now it is not uncommon to hear 'why not just use d20?' - the emergance of 3.5e has not driven players en masse to White Wolf and Steve Jackson like 2e did.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not saying the circumstances or details of the revisions were at all similar, merely that the scope of changes seems to be similar.

Then again, this is from someone who didn't really do much more than read through some 2e when it was new and then leave D&D until 3e came out.