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

darjr

I crit!
It may have been more approachable, at least at first, maybe. But not to enough of current players, it proved not as popular. And system mattered.

System mattering or not isn’t binary. It’s complicated. For instance I think it didn’t matter if 4e was very approachable, at first. Later it was a complicated mess if you were brand new. That wasn’t just the rules fault either, but the system as a whole. Also the system turned off a great many existing D&D players, the very vector of infection at the time.

And by the time online games like the PAX games were getting popular, they were dragging 4e along and it wasn’t moving easily.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
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?

DISCLAIMER: The below is just my opinion and quite possibly complete trash. If you happen to enjoy other versions of the game more power to you! At various times, I've enjoyed (and defended) every version of the game.

In some ways 4E was approachable and a game I enjoyed at lower levels for a while, but it quickly bogged down and complexity seemed to increase exponentially at at mid-to-high levels. There were other issues as well but I don't want to get into because it's pointless.

So in some ways was that it was easy to play but, for lack of a better term, clunky. With 5E the game simply flows more easily and in a fashion reminiscent to early editions with (again IMHO) a cleaner rule set. I guess I don't know how to explain it better than that the rules got in the way of the flow of the story telling.

Obviously this is a completely subjective opinion, it was just one shared by ~95% of the people I personally gamed with. For a lot of people it just didn't "feel like D&D". After a while I agreed with them.

Pathfinder (at least 1E) hit many of the issues that D&D 3.x did with the overwhelming power difference between those who pursued system mastery and those that did not. It's probably going to be an issue with any game, but 5E reduces the spread somewhat. Take a gander at some of the threads that claim that some build is "broken" because PCs average 2-4 points more damage per round at level 10.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
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.
The key to 5e's success is that it's NOT as approachable (accessible) as 4e, NOT as system-mastery rewarding as 3.x/PF, and NOT as traditional as TSR era - but it's threaded a needle among the three that makes it acceptable to long-time fans of the last, yet still somewhat approachable to new players, and barely-adequate with options turned on and a lot of work, to fans of the second*.

Mainly, that is, 5e is acceptable enough to established fans that they don't go nerdraging against it and creating 'controversey' that keeps potential new players from even trying it, in the first place, yet, in spite of catering to their jaded expectations, is still /just/ accessible enough not to loose too many of those new players immediately (or so viciously unapproachable that they feel the need to nerdrage, which seems unlikely, but I could imagine it happening, if some hypothetical edition rose/sunk to the level of outright hazing newbs).









* honestly, I get the impression fans of 3.5 were all but written off since they already had PF1, and fans of 4e assumed because they were, by definition, new-ed-adopters, and had no alternatives, but 5e still mostly avoided offending either them. Much.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
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.

4E had more "problems" than the rules. Love them or hate them, the rules and cosmology combo making such a hard break from the past upset a lot of long-time fans. But 4E didn't really start losing out to Pathfinder in sales until WotC STOPPED PUBLISHING 4E PRODUCTS all together. When they were actively selling and promoting the game, it was still holding the top spot.
 

Hussar

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.

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.

Yeah, @Dire Bare has it. This is an oft repeated bit of tripe that isn't accurate at all. Pathfinder didn't overtake 4e until almost the very tail end of 4e, when they had more or less stopped publishing any books for it. And, then, the market dropped to about 15 million dollars when Pathfinder was king. Guess what, the market didn't grow until 5e was released. Pathfinder didn't bring in large numbers of new gamers, it simply welcomed existing ones. 4e was dead in the water for any number of reasons and most of those reasons have very little to do with 4e as a game.

People tend to conveniently forget that while 4e WAS publishing new books, it was holding its own rather nicely.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
4E had more "problems" than the rules. Love them or hate them, the rules and cosmology combo making such a hard break from the past upset a lot of long-time fans. But 4E didn't really start losing out to Pathfinder in sales until WotC STOPPED PUBLISHING 4E PRODUCTS all together. When they were actively selling and promoting the game, it was still holding the top spot.
IIRC PF first led in the tense period between the announcement of Essentials and it's actual release, then tied for a quarter, then the lead swapped a couple of time while Essentials & post-E ran their course. All ICv2, of course, which is either definitive or misses all sorts of stuff, depending on whether it's giving you the answer you want at the time.

Essentials was mildly hilarious, in retrospect (not funny at all, at time) in that it set out to rationalize the shelf presence and confused the heck out of it, instead.
Pre-E: "So, uh, is the Player's Handbook 2 a replacement and I should start with it?" "No, it's an add-on, start with the Player's Handbook." "Thanks. Whey did they call it '2' if it's not a new version?" "I don't know, I guess because 3.5 did it that way."
Post-E "So, uh, is the Player's Handbook 3 a replacement and I should start with it?" "No, it's obsolete, 'Essentials' is the current version, so you should start with Heroes of the Forgotten Land or Heroes of the Fallen Kingdom, but not both or the Rules Compendium, because there's a lot of the same stuff in them." "Same stuff?" "Yeah, a lot of the rules are in both, but then different classes in each, so it depends on what kind of character you want. If you want a Fighter or Thief or Mage or Cleric, go Fallen Land, if you want a Ranger, Paladin, Druid or Warlock, go Forgotten Kingdom." "Oh, can I just start with the 'Red Box' Basic set, and decide what kind of character I want?" "You can, but it just has the same classes as Forgotten Land, so you might as well start with that, they're the most popular classes, anyway. Besides, it's basically a boxed adventure for a group to try out the game, we ran it here on Free RPG day, it was kinda fun, in a retro sort of way." "Oh, OK, so it's Heroes of the Forgotten Realms, then, for players, not the Player's Handbook?" "Yeah, well, Land.. or Kingdom, either one... Forgotten Realms is a setting... here, why don't you just play a season of Encounters, and figure out which character class you like... "
 

Maul

Explorer
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.

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.
The Roll20 metric is not a good measuring tool because it only measures virtual tabletop users of Roll20.

There might be a swing in the other direction favoring another game system with old school players who don't use computers.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
The Roll20 metric is not a good measuring tool because it only measures virtual tabletop users of Roll20.

There might be a swing in the other direction favoring another game system with old school players who don't use computers.

PF isn't an "old school" game which would tilt distinctly away from computers, nor was 4e. Both were modern games, which were published around the same time in similar formats to the same group of customers who were coming from 3e. Roll20 is a perfectly acceptable estimation tool for that kind of comparison. It might not be a good one for measuring 1e or 2e players, but it's a good one to measure PF and 4e players in those years. And that data also matched ICv2 data, which is also a good measure for current RPG games as it's directly measuring sales from retail stores. When both data points match each other, it's a good sign that's the trend.
 

Oofta

Legend
Yeah, @Dire Bare has it. This is an oft repeated bit of tripe that isn't accurate at all. Pathfinder didn't overtake 4e until almost the very tail end of 4e, when they had more or less stopped publishing any books for it. And, then, the market dropped to about 15 million dollars when Pathfinder was king. Guess what, the market didn't grow until 5e was released. Pathfinder didn't bring in large numbers of new gamers, it simply welcomed existing ones. 4e was dead in the water for any number of reasons and most of those reasons have very little to do with 4e as a game.

People tend to conveniently forget that while 4e WAS publishing new books, it was holding its own rather nicely.

Was it? Seems kind of odd that they released a new edition that completely reversed direction or released Essentials.

In any case, water under the bridge. I'm just happy they came out with 5E. If they hadn't I doubt the main TTRPG I play today would be labeled D&D.
 

darjr

I crit!
Roll 20 in isolation is far from a perfect data point. Luckily we have several and they are pretty much saying similar things.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top