D&D General The Sales of D&D vs. AD&D vs. AD&D 2nd Edition

The 2nd edition of AD&D sold well when it was released. Combined, the Dungeon Master’s Guide and Player’s Handbook sold over 400,000 copies in their first year. That’s a lot of books. Not the most ever sold by TSR, but a lot. To give some historical comparison, the 1981 D&D Basic Rules Set sold over 650,000 copies in its first year. To compare to previous editions of AD&D, the 1st edition DMG and PHB together sold over 146,000 copies in 1979. Putting those numbers together makes AD&D 2nd edition look like a solid hit. But it hides a deeper problem.

The 2nd edition of AD&D sold well when it was released. Combined, the Dungeon Master’s Guide and Player’s Handbook sold over 400,000 copies in their first year. That’s a lot of books. Not the most ever sold by TSR, but a lot. To give some historical comparison, the 1981 D&D Basic Rules Set sold over 650,000 copies in its first year. To compare to previous editions of AD&D, the 1st edition DMG and PHB together sold over 146,000 copies in 1979. Putting those numbers together makes AD&D 2nd edition look like a solid hit. But it hides a deeper problem.

A1obCF-Ju2L.jpg


Benjamin Riggs shares some D&D history! This was posted on Facebook and shared with permission.


AD&D 2nd edition didn’t have the legs that AD&D 1st edition did. Combined sales of the 1st edition DMG and PHB actually went up at first, selling over 390,000 in 1980, over 577,000 in 1981, over 452,000 in 1982, and 533,000 in 1983 before finally sliding to just over 234,000 in 1984, at the time when TSR began its first crisis. Meanwhile, the 2nd edition DMG and PHB would never sell more than 200,000 copies in a single year after 1989. In short, 2nd edition wasn’t selling like its predecessor.

But if AD&D 2nd edition looks small in comparison to1st edition, both shrink before the altar of Dungeons & Dragons. Including 1st, 2nd edition, revised 2nd edition, and introductory sets, AD&D sold a total of 4,624,111 corebooks between 1979 and 1998. Meanwhile, D&D sold 5,454,859 units in that same period, the vast bulk of those purchases coming between 1979 and 1983.

TSR could no longer put up the sales numbers it once did. Even D&D, which sold better than AD&D in either iteration, didn’t sell in the 90’s like it did in the 80’s. What had changed? Something changed, but what was it? Was it that Gary Gygax was gone? Had something gone wrong with 2nd edition? Was a rule changed that shouldn’t have been? Was it too complex? Not complex enough? Had RPGs been a fad that faded? Should the AD&D lines be canceled entirely to focus on the historically better-selling D&D?

These numbers should have been an occasion for self-reflection and correction all over TSR.

But they weren’t.

These numbers were left in the offices of upper management. Zeb Cook himself said he never saw any concrete sales numbers for 2nd edition. The decision by management under Lorraine Williams to keep sales numbers like those above restricted to the top of the company must be seen as a mistake. The inability of the game designers to know how their product was selling cut them off from economic feedback on their product. I see those numbers, and what I read is that TSR’s audience bought the 2nd edition books, read them, and just weren’t crazy about them. (Although I myself am quite partial to the rules, as they are what I grew up playing.) But Zeb Cook didn’t know that, so how could he make changes to improve his craft in the future?

Benjamin went on to note his source: "I have a source who sent me a few pages of sales data from TSR. It's primary source material. I don't have everything, but I do have the data contained in the post above." He is currently writing a book on the sale of TSR to Wizards of the Coast.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
For the first time in D&D's history it was not the top selling trpg during 4E. Based on number on sites like Roll20, for a period of time Pathfinder took the top spot.

That has nothing to do with edition warring. In addition, I organized or helped organize a couple of game days in a major metropolitan area when the switch occurred, we lost roughly half our players when we switched over. The LFR (4E) game days slowly shrank as time went by. We went from over a hundred people playing in just the two game days I was involved with to barely getting a couple of tables per session.

That has nothing to do with edition wars, it's just a reference to the best estimate of popularity we have.

This is interesting and I'm not disputing any of this - I also don't believe Maul is either.

There are a whole host of reasons why 5E is popular. However, as the article points out, previous versions (after 1E anyway) didn't have as much staying power and didn't see year after year growth like we see with 5E.

Maul's point was that each edition brought new people in the hobby (whether they ended up sticking to previous editions or moving on to Pathfinder doesn't change that the base may have increased due to the new edition). Now you mention 'staying power' of the edition. This makes me think how many people brought into the D&D fold with 4e, now play 5e. That would be an interesting statistic.

EDIT: For instance, and I do not mean to be picking on these people but they are the only stats I know.
@pemerton returned to D&D through 4e but did not continue with 5e. Permerton is also a veteran rpger which throws out that example, maybe.
@Lanefan prefers a homebrewed 1e, but likely still purchases some 5e product. Maybe?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Legend
This is interesting and I'm not disputing any of this - I also don't believe Maul is either.



Maul's point was that each edition brought new people in the hobby (whether they ended up sticking to previous editions or moving on to Pathfinder doesn't change that the base may have increased due to the new edition). Now you mention 'staying power' of the edition. This makes me think how many people brought into the D&D fold with 4e, now play 5e. That would be an interesting statistic.

EDIT: For instance, and I do not mean to be picking on these people but they are the only stats I know.
@pemerton returned to D&D through 4e but did not continue with 5e. Permerton is also a veteran rpger which throws out that example, maybe.
@Lanefan prefers a homebrewed 1e, but likely still purchases some 5e product. Maybe?
I never claimed that previous editions didn't add some new people. However, as with 2E, there was an initial spike in sale of books for the subsequent 2 releases followed by a decline. There was a great deal of concern that the game wasn't adding enough new people to replace those that were aging out.

With 5E, we continue to see year-in-year-out growth and it has now sold better than all editions since 2E combined. The game continues to grow, even after the initial spike in sales.

That's all I'm saying. Is the brand name and established players part of the story? Sure. But by most indications the player base was shrinking and on average getting older since it's heyday, not growing.

While brand recognition is a big part of that, I think it's a small part of the overall picture. With 5E we've reversed that trend. That's fantastic.
 

This might not be a popular opinion, but I don't believe the system underlying a given edition of D&D has much influence the popularity of the game. The popular zeitgeist sets a climate where tabletop gaming is more popular or less popular. The official system at the time, and the presentation of the game materials, barely factor into it.
 


Oofta

Legend
This might not be a popular opinion, but I don't believe the system underlying a given edition of D&D has much influence the popularity of the game. The popular zeitgeist sets a climate where tabletop gaming is more popular or less popular. The official system at the time, and the presentation of the game materials, barely factor into it.
The fact that Pathfinder continued to grow during the 4E days while D&D sales sank indicates that isn't true.

While the brand has a lot to do with it's ubiquity, a game still has to be approachable and fun to play.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
This might not be a popular opinion, but I don't believe the system underlying a given edition of D&D has much influence the popularity of the game. The popular zeitgeist sets a climate where tabletop gaming is more popular or less popular. The official system at the time, and the presentation of the game materials, barely factor into it.
It's not a popular opinion, appropriately enough, because it undermines appeals to (un)popularity, but it is entirely consistent with observations of the hobby and it's market. Myriad excellent systems have been published in the decades between the fad and the comeback of D&D, and, while they might earn praise from the niche fringes outside the D&D core of (and gateway to) the community, and win the occasional "best new game award," remain completely unknown to the mainstream, so have no chance to achieve any popularity, whatsoever.

In particular, it's worth considering that sales don't exactly correlate to people liking the system, since you haven't had much opportunity to judge the system (nor become apprehensive of or desensitized to its issues), until after you have it your hands. Of course, that was a lot more true of the fad years, when D&D was this mysterious thing adults were all worried about being possibly Satanist and/or suicide-inducing, than it is, today, when you can very likely pre-judge the system before trying, let alone buying, as videos of people playing it, embracing its oddities, & still having fun, as well as fans nerdraging or gushing over it, are all readily available on-line.

But, as long as people are insecure in their own judgement and want the comfort of conformity, popularity will remain an important factor in adoption, and thus sales. Ironically, while that applies to D&D in the context of the TTRPG hobby, that hobby is still very small. (But, I know, 40 million people have played D&D! Sure, at least once, since 1974. OTOH, 250 million play soccer (un-American football), currently, and 3.5 billion, literally about half the world, are fans).
So, the appeal to unpopularity fallacy is always available, too. ;)

But, ultimately, sales due to the positive qualities of a product, and sales due to perceived popularity feeding on itself in a fad (or comeback) cycle, are still sales. And D&D sales are people being introduced to the hobby, even if it's not an ideal introduction, it's better than never having tried any TTRPG, at all.
 
Last edited:

darjr

I crit!
Meh. Sales are influenced by word of mouth and what your table is playing. Both are direct results of individual popularity.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
@Lanefan prefers a homebrewed 1e, but likely still purchases some 5e product. Maybe?
Guilty as charged, I suppose.

For sure I've got the three core 5e books*, the Ghosts of Dragonspear pre-release book, the starter box, PotA, and some minis. Might have a few other bits that I don't remember off the top.

That said, the only 5e I've ever actually played was at a convention; and - for a number of reasons that probably aren't the system's fault - I wasn't overly impressed.

* - true for every edition except 3.5 (and PF).
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The fact that Pathfinder continued to grow during the 4E days while D&D sales sank indicates that isn't true.

While the brand has a lot to do with it's ubiquity, a game still has to be approachable and fun to play.
Hmmm...not sure on this.

4e, for all I might not like it otherwise, is or seems very 'approachable' to players and DMs - perhaps more so than any edition other than 0e/Basic. In contrast, Pathfinder - which I'm also not a fan of - is about as 'approachable' as a wall of brambles.

Which has me thinking: I wonder if this very thing is an aspect of the long-term comparitive success between the two systems. 4e's approachability makes it good for pulling people in but once they're in maybe it lacked the depth to keep them engaged (thus, significant drop-off after the first burst of enthusiasm on release); PF is less approachable but for those who brave the initial brambles there's enough depth to it to keep them around for the long run (thus, less drop-off over time)?

And given the numbers thus far, maybe 5e has hit a sweet spot between these two?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top