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

Stormonu

Legend
All I can speak to is my own experiences. When the ”storyteller” series of RPGs came along, I began to realize how archaic and stilted the D&D system was - especially the rigid class system. At the time, TSR had several strikes against it - poorly written, railroad adventures that treated the D&D world as mundane (such railroads as Roots of Evil and unfantastic environments found in the likes of Swamplight or Murky Deep), pigeonholed classes and a barely tacked on secondary skill system (which prevented you from having “occupation level“ skill because the PCs were locked into being murderhobo good guys) and the perception that the game was good for dungeon crawls and combat and not much else (whereas the likes of Vampire and the like were touting them as games about interpersonal and introspective stories and interactions).

I found myself falling away from playing D&D for more “modern” RPGs as both MtG and Storyteller-like RPGs drew me in. Something about 3E drew me back to D&D - the mechanics not only felt more modern expandable, but it felt as though it loosened the chains on the role playing side to give greater breadth and depth to characters and the overall role playing experience (for example, I remember making my 3E dwarf a weaponsmith with aspirations of being a brewmaster, who was adventuring to test out his creations with aspirations of eventually making enough money to open a successful tavern in a place that was somewhere exciting).

For me, 4E went the wrong direction, and I was glad to see the direction and approach 5E took in taking the best of old D&D and modernizing it, while still focusing on telling stories and not being about “fight of the week”.

Again, just my perception - essentially, I loved 2E when it came out, but it quickly got long in the tooth, with its refusal to modernize eventually ending in me leaving it behind for a while.

<Edit: Also to clarify, I hate MtG, but it’s clear to me that it had an enormous effect on drawing players away from D&D instead of to it, and TSR trying to chase MtG’s tail helped draw the company into it’s own self-destruction>
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Maul

Explorer
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.

Your right.......its a trend.......amongst computer using players.
A lot of old school gamers who play Pathfinder or 5E or 4E or even 3E refuse to use computers when tabletop gaming. So where do they fit into the Roll20 metric? So what if more players play 5E or Pathfinder or older editions but they are not counted in the Roll20 metric? That means it is not an accurate metric for ALL tabletop RPG players.

Some players use computers but don't use Roll20. Again, where do they fit into the stats?

There are a lot of variables not being accounted for when using Roll20 as the all knowing metric.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Your right.......its a trend.......amongst computer using players.
A lot of old school gamers who play Pathfinder or 5E or 4E or even 3E refuse to use computers when tabletop gaming. So where do they fit into the Roll20 metric? So what if more players play 5E or Pathfinder or older editions but they are not counted in the Roll20 metric? That means it is not an accurate metric for ALL tabletop RPG players.

Some players use computers but don't use Roll20. Again, where do they fit into the stats?

There are a lot of variables not being accounted for when using Roll20 as the all knowing metric.

It was also icv2, Paizo, gamestores and lots of anecdotes, online reaction etc.

Rolld20 has more samples than say political polling so it's a good sample size.

It wouldn't be fair comparing YouTube 2008 to now or expecting grogs to play online as a few grog groups have the same players they had in the 80s and they don't play online.

But Pathfinder and 4E were concurrent with each other with no inherent advantage to online gaming. Pathfinder won, both had to deal with the GFC.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Your right.......its a trend.......amongst computer using players.
A lot of old school gamers who play Pathfinder or 5E or 4E or even 3E refuse to use computers when tabletop gaming. So where do they fit into the Roll20 metric? So what if more players play 5E or Pathfinder or older editions but they are not counted in the Roll20 metric? That means it is not an accurate metric for ALL tabletop RPG players.

Some players use computers but don't use Roll20. Again, where do they fit into the stats?

There are a lot of variables not being accounted for when using Roll20 as the all knowing metric.
For your argument to hold you'd have to assume there is not a karge overlap between "computer users" and "rpg players." Or, you have to assume that "computer users" that are "rpg players" skew differently in type of rpg preferred. This is further confounded by apps like Roll20 being long tail enablers -- they facilitate people with similar interests that do not live close to each other to share/participate in that interest. This enables more play of older/niche games rather than discouraging it. And, Roll20 is system agnostic before user chosen options.

Your argument assumes more unlikely things than what your arguing against.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top