D&D 5E I think the era of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had it right. (not talking about the rules).

[Mistwell]

So you've gone and posted a big wall of half truth and twisted it in order to justify your argument.

Gotcha!

That's not a rebuttal it's a blanket empty accusation.

What is half-truth, and what is twisted? If you're going to accuse me of something, back your accusation up.

 

[Zardnaar]

"...has outsold the PHB from any other edition on record"

He said they had some 2e records but no 1e records I believe, but the statement is accurate. For those records they have, it's outsold each edition's PHB.

Fair enough thete are some rough estimates for 1E and 2E No one knows how much the red box sold.

If they can keep it up for a couple more years they will beat 2E but sales tend to peak in the 1st year or two of an edition at kensi since 2E.

 

[Corpsetaker]

That's not a rebuttal it's a blanket empty accusation.

What is half-truth, and what is twisted? If you're going to accuse me of something, back your accusation up.

My accusation is backed up by the fact that it doesn't take everything into account. Do they include PDF sales? No they don't because Amazon and other don't do PDF's. Were the editions sold in the same conditions? No they weren't. Pathfinder doesn't rely on bookstore sales so IcV2 is useless and so is Amazon and the others.

If you are going to present this information as a fact to close down an ongoing argument then you need to display them in their entirety, but seeing as it's impossible they will just remain a piece in the great puzzle.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

My accusation is backed up by the fact that it doesn't take everything into account.

It's impossible to take "everything" into account because don't know "everything". But it takes all objective data I am aware of into account, and to accuse me of half-truths you'd have to believe I am intentionally leaving out data I have to twist the data. Which I did not do.

Do they include PDF sales? No they don't because Amazon and other don't do PDF's.

Right, which is why I said I was listing objective data we have - hence I did not twist anything or give half-truths. With the data we do have, I presented what we know. If you have data on PDFs, let's see it. Otherwise, stop accusing me of stating half-truths when you know darn well I can't state anything about data I don't even have, and did not leave out any data I have.

No they weren't. Pathfinder doesn't rely on bookstore sales so IcV2 is useless and so is Amazon and the others.

Not accurate. Pathfinder absolutely sells books through retail stores (ICv2 is game stores for the most part - they don't cover Amazon as far as I know). Indeed, you already spoke about the "wall of books in a game store" issue and you know darn well Pathfinder is carried heavily in game stores. It in fact WAS beating D&D on the ICv2 list a few years ago and I didn't hear you claiming then it was an unfair measurement of that data. If you're now trying to argue Pathfinder doesn't sell a material number of hardcopy books through retail game stores, I think you're just plain flat wrong. It's a major component of their business, and they are happy to tell you that game stores are a very important part of their business if you ask them. In fact, you should ask them. That will settle that pretty quick. Ask Eric Mona if he thinks retail game shops are an important distribution point for their Pathfinder books and let's see what he says.

They also sell through Amazon by the way, and did previously rank pretty well on Amazon. I am betting they don't consider that meaningless either.

If you are going to present this information as a fact to close down an ongoing argument then you need to display them in their entirety, but seeing as it's impossible they will just remain a piece in the great puzzle.

It is fact. It was not to "close down" an argument it was to RESPOND to an argument, which you seem to have real issues with every time it happens (like when you told people they were illogical for viewing the game differently than you on a matter of opinion). I displayed all the data I have, and said it was a list of the objective information we have available. I can't know what I don't know. I didn't leave any information out which I could know but didn't look for. If you have some actual data to present that runs contrary rather than your personal guesses, please do present it. Otherwise, stop calling me a liar (which is what half-truths as an accusation means) and stop claiming I am misrepresenting things (which is what the "twisting things" accusation means). I didn't do either, so don't make that accusation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When I say this I don’t mean the rules, because I didn’t really like them, but the overall approach to D&D, minus a few things here and there.

Might almost think the opposite - while the rules were solid, the handling failed or blew up again & again - but, hey, I'll listen:

While it took a while to get everything off the ground, I really miss the fact that we had a great online magazine, a character builder, an in house VTT that worked, and we were getting lots of content. Now I would like to break these things down into a few bullet points and discuss in more detail.

I kinda like print magazines, myself, an 'on-line magazine' is just a web page that only updates monthly. But I'm old. The on-line tools, CB, AT, & VTT were never anything near what was promised, due to tragic human events, sure, but still not what was promised.

Content: I think if the content at the time would have been spread out and not thrown out all at once it would have been better accepted.

There was some initial furor over what was missing at release, so imagine that being stretched out for years. Doesn't sound great. The lack of acceptance seemed to be more about the changes to the game than the pace at which they were introduced. 4e butchered sacred cows like crazy, and, no matter how much 'better' the results might have been in a technical sense, they weren't sacred anymore.

When I look back at all this I don’t see the 5th edition era of D&D as being any sort of “Golden Age”.

It's text-book 'silver age,' hearkening back wistfully to a 'golden age,' that may or may not have even really existed, or been, at the time, what we think of it having been, now. (If that makes any sense - I'm not sure it does.)

The 5th edition rules of D&D are nice but I don’t have the feeling that I did with previous editions that the game is being supported in the way that it should.

Again, I feel the opposite. The 5e rules are so many sacred-cow zombies shuffling around, for the most part. But, I do think they are being supported just as they should be. The slow pace of release and emphasis on adventures (even if big hardcover APs rather than little softcover modules) is what's 'right' for D&D, as it's again being marketed: to the existing fan-base, particularly those of us who fondly remembers the TSR years, when the pace of release was almost as slow (and thanks to being younger at the the time, felt even slower).

What exactly is best for D&D? Is it best for D&D to keep Wizard’s with in specific profit margins with a low overhead and very small release schedule in order to keep making money to keep it going in this direction

Yes. RPGs remain a tiny market compared to MMOs or even board games, and it's a market dominated by D&D, and a D&D customer base dominated by people who have played D&D for a long time. Entry into the hobby is primarily via introduction to it by existing players, so you can't alienate them, and D&D doesn't appeal to the mainstream enough for a lot of new players to try it, nor for many of them to take it up.

So sticking to the current strategy of keeping the brand (and the hobby) stable, in-print, & identifiable, and looking for growth opportunities in other media is probably the best bet.

or is it getting the customer what they want so they will lots of product that they can use from years to come.

The current nostalgic/'silver age' approach /is/ what 'the customer' wants.

Nothing will beat the Red Box sales; estimates (from what I recall from Jim Ward's statements) are that the Red Box sold 100k U.S. per quarter, or ~1+ million in the United States alone in a three year period; it was also very successful in international editions.

It is hard to imagine now (and even remember), but every book store and toy store and even many general retailers carried the Red Box. It was everywhere.

Those were the fad years, and it's exactly what hearkening back to that 'Golden Age' is shooting to approach - not even beat, just get back to the same ballpark. It'd be wild success were it to happen. Especially if it were sales of PHBs instead of box sets.

 

[darjr]

This should be easy for you [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION]
Please point out each half truth from Mistwell.

 

[Zardnaar]

Eric Mona did give figures for PF in 2014. 250k sold of the PF RPG book. That was lower than 3.5 figures he gave and Dancey figures he gave were a bit higher than Mona but not stupidly higher.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Eric Mona did give figures for PF in 2014. 200k sold of the PF RPG book. That was lower than 3.5 figures he gave and Dancey figures he gave were a bit higher than Mona but not stupidly higher.

Which is of course understandable seeing as the rules are free online and available on PDF, and are roughly 16 to 17 years old.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which is of course understandable seeing as the rules are free online and available on PDF, and are roughly 16 to 17 years old.

There is also other bits of information around. The size of the RPG market going from 13 million in 2013 to 35 million 2016, Dancey decade old statement that D& D is a 25 to 30 million yearly business and Paizo's revenue in 2009 to 2012.

Mona provide an figure of 750k to 850k for 3E combined and Dancey provided 1 million on the gimp forums and we also know when PF outsold 4E for example.

I don't think Mearls is lying and if he is wrong it's not by very much.

5E is the 1st D&D to sell more than the previous edition for 30+ years. At least in PHB A.