Ravenloft TSR sales numbers

[Jer]

I'd be curious to see the numbers of the Complete books.

I agree.

What's interesting is that Wizards did take that approach - putting out lots and lots of player-oriented material - and now they do the opposite. Every book seems to be assuming a DM is going to buy it and there is some player stuff in the front as well. And that's been working for them from everything we've heard.

 

[Reynard]

What's interesting is that Wizards did take that approach - putting out lots and lots of player-oriented material - and now they do the opposite. Every book seems to be assuming a DM is going to buy it and there is some player stuff in the front as well. And that's been working for them from everything we've heard.

Huh. I feel like it is the opposite. If it isn't an adventure, it is a player book first, with a couple of (crappy) bones thrown to the GM. "Oooh! Puzzles!!!" I guess the original Volo's and Mord's fit the scheme you are talking about: monster books with player incentive sprinkled in.

But really I just would have wanted robust GM support a la the 3.x era, but it was not to be.

 

[Jer]

But really I just would have wanted robust GM support a la the 3.x era, but it was not to be.

What robust GM support was there in the 3.x era other than monster books? I feel like most of the 3.x era was very player-centric.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree.

What's interesting is that Wizards did take that approach - putting out lots and lots of player-oriented material - and now they do the opposite. Every book seems to be assuming a DM is going to buy it and there is some player stuff in the front as well. And that's been working for them from everything we've heard.

The key bit of data from all of these numbers to see why thst is, is the AD&D PHB and DMG sales. Not quite 1 to 1, but weirdly close. WotC has basically said thst moat books are just bought by DMs, whixhbis why they only make the PHB and DM focused books now.

 

[Reynard]

What robust GM support was there in the 3.x era other than monster books? I feel like most of the 3.x era was very player-centric.

There were tons of books, from the environment books to monster theme books to dungeoncraft and cityscape. There were no doubt a lot of polayer focused books, too, but 3.x had huge amounts of GM focused material that wasn't monster books or adventures.

List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jer]

The key bit of data from all of these numbers to see why thst is, is the AD&D PHB and DMG sales. Not quite 1 to 1, but weirdly close. WotC has basically said thst moat books are just bought by DMs, whixhbis why they only make the PHB and DM focused books now.

My own personal experience is that few of my players ever buy books and they all use mine - and it's been that way since I started playing, so that tracks with my experiences. But I always figured I was a weird outlier and that at most tables everyone had their own books and it was just the kind of people I was friends with

 

[MGibster]

I'm a little sad that what I consider the golden age of D&D was actually bad for TSR. In a lot of ways, I miss all those splat books and settings.

 

[Jer]

There were tons of books, from the environment books to monster theme books to dungeoncraft and cityscape. There were no doubt a lot of polayer focused books, too, but 3.x had huge amounts of GM focused material that wasn't monster books or adventures.

List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Huh. The environment books were more like current 5e books in my memory - a mix of player focused stuff at the front and then DM stuff at the back. I just pulled a few off the shelf to see if I was wrong but it matches my memories. Lots of new feats, classes, races and whatnot and then worldbuilding stuff for the DM. I kind of thought of them as players books with some things for DMs in them because Wizards had decided that only player focused books would sell.

And the monster theme books I consider to be monster books - better monster books than a typical Monster Manual, but still monster books. But ymmv of course.

 

[Voadam]

Probably better to compare the two initial boxed sets rather than aggregating all three of Ravenloft's supplements into a single number.

Even there the initial Ravenloft black box set sold ~104K copies over its lifetime, Spelljammer ~83K. The Ravenloft box set started weaker but had a slower drop-off, Spelljammer started stronger but then nosedived quickly.

Why compare just the initial boxed sets?

From the consumer angle this would exclude counting fans of the setting who came in with the revised sets.

From the publisher's perspective this would exclude consideration of the revenue gained/units sold from the revised settings. Some of that might not have been gained if there were no revision for an existing purchaser to buy but if there were no later revision to buy, those who bought the revisions as their entree to the setting might have gotten the older one instead and bumped up its numbers for the relevant comparison.

Greyhawk comes to mind as a particularly sharp case where using the first folio only would probably be less useful for comparisons of Greyhawk versus other settings.

Using multiple revisions can be distorting for some purposes as it could be one purchaser getting multiple versions. For example in the 2e era I bought both the Ravenloft Realms of Terror original boxed set and the Domains of Dread hardcover so if you are measuring groups by units sold that would be an overcount. However for the most part I think for most purposes measuring total sales is more useful.

 

[Jer]

Why compare just the initial boxed sets?

Because the later releases will contain folks who own two or even all three. Triple counting the folks who purchased all of them as if they were three different customers. And I suspect that a LOT of those folks who picked up the later settings are folks who also purchased the first one. If you can make your case comparing just the initial boxed sets it's a stronger case. And since the case is easily made by just looking at initial boxed set numbers I'd go with the stronger case.