Were the 80s really the Golden Age of D&D?

[jdrakeh]

P.S.: If you look at the 1E books, you'll see there was a 3-year gap between the core three books and the next book that came out (Deities & Demigods, I believe). 1E books came out as a trickle.

Not quite true. The MM came out in 77, the PHB in 78, the DMG in 79, and Deities & Demigods in 1980. Fiend Folio came out the following year. So, as far as hardcovers were concerned, the rate was one every year in the beginning. This, of course, discounts modules.

[Edit: NM, I see Mistwell beat me to it.]

 

[Stormonu]

Not quite true. The MM came out in 77, the PHB in 78, the DMG in 79, and Deities & Demigods in 1980. Fiend Folio came out the following year. So, as far as hardcovers were concerned, the rate was one every year in the beginning. This, of course, discounts modules.

[Edit: NM, I see Mistwell beat me to it.]

Ah, I made the mistake of looking at my Legends & Lore, with a date of 1984 - completely forgot about Fiend Folio. I also should have mentioned I was only counting hardcovers, not modules or campaigns (of the latter, there's only two I know of/remember for 1E - Greyhawk & FR). Wait, was the Karu-Tur boxed set 1E or 2E?

Still, one hardcover book a year would likely drive D&D players nuts these days.

 

[jdrakeh]

Still, one hardcover book a year would likely drive D&D players nuts these days.

Probably, but the 4e current catalog is still dwarfed by the AD&D product catalog, especially once you get into the 2e era (where, I think, new products were released with more frequency than at any other time in the game's history). Also, remember that the hardcover book has replaced the saddle stitched books and boxed sets of yesteryear (i.e., what was released as a saddle stitched book or boxed set back in the day, is released as a hardcover now, so you will naturally see more hardcover books released today). At any rate, there absolutely aren't significantly more books being released for 4e than than there were for past editions of the game.

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, but most of that product was allegedly returned — not sold

Most of the product shipped to all retailers in the 1980s? Are you quite sure that's what you mean to say?

TSR wasted "several million dollars" more than seven ways to Sunday, I think. Was not Unearthed Arcana a desperate measure? How much for the settlement with GDW and Gygax over Dangerous Journeys (remaining stock of which of course got pulped instead of sold)?

Random House was the big wheel in the book trade, which was big indeed, but NOT a part of the games shop business (whether "the Dungeon of Dragoons" or "Fit For a King Chess and Cards") -- which also did not have the book stores' return option.

I don't know whose allegations you are representing (or maybe misrepresenting). I think the really big problem with TSR -- much bigger in the 1990s, as one might reasonably figure from its having gone under then -- was not lack of sales but rather mismanagement. Sales are best when they're profitable (i.e., selling for more than the cost of production, for a start). How about a certain quite lovely and popular product starting with a "P" (and ending with a "-scape")?

 

[Ariosto]

Also, if the book trade has given up its return (literal, or just of covers) option then that's news to me. Do you have have figures on WotC sales and returns?

I don't think I have ever before encountered the claim that the 3E core books sold better than any corresponding TSR-D&D line (much less all overlapping lines) in the long run. Perhaps it is indeed the case. Considering the sheer volume of material (even greater, IIRC, than in the 2E era), 3E may well have made up in sales of multiple products even for a shrunken player base.

Even without greater revenue, D&D has almost certainly been more profitable in WotC's hands! That fools manage to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs does not make those any less golden. Or something like that.

 

[jdrakeh]

Most of the product shipped to all retailers in the 1980s? Are you quite sure that's what you mean to say?

Through the 80s and 90s, yes. Go look at most of your old AD&D books and you'll find that they bear the Random House mark. Random House was printing and distributing most of TSR's books by that point in time, not TSR. Here's a quote attributed to Gary from the Acaeum:

"It was no problem finding a printer that could do a stitched binding and school-book cover material, as I wanted the AD&D volumes to be as nearly indestructible as could be managed. Later on the Blumes changed that to save a nickel or two on each copy printed... as if we weren't making enough as it was. Crown Books wanted me to write a special introductory game book exclusively for them, but that was a no-go. Simon & Schuster contacted me about book trade distribution, but they were going to take a year to set it up, so I wasn't too thrilled. Then I got a phone call from Mildred Marmur, then the VP of Sub-Rights Licensing at Random House. They flew me out to NYC the next week and were ready to begin distribution in a month's time. As the remainder of the deal I negotiated assured TSR cash flow and other great benefits, I signed my name up there in their offices on the second day of our meetings. Having Millie as an advocate was a lot of help in cutting a great deal for TSR. Both of her sons were D&Ders!"

There came a point where they (i.e., Random House) declined to print or distribute any more books for TSR until TSR made good on their past debt owed, which (as already mentioned) numbered in the millions. Now, please note that I used the word ALLEGEDLY in the post that you cite. Try to keep that in mind when you read on. I've seen it alleged that the primary source of the debt owed Random House was due to returned or unsold stock.

Now, I don't know how much truth there is to that but, if you read this article by Ryan Dancey, you'll see that he mentions WotC inheriting an entire warehouse full of unsold TSR product when they acquired the company. It lends some weight to the allegations. Specifically of note are questions like:

Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse?

I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s.

Now, I guess if you simply dismiss Dancey as a liar, yes, it's easy to believe that D&D sold better than ever in the 1980s and 1990s, but if what he says is true (and there's no reason to believe that it isn't, so far as I can tell), then this simply wasn't the case. This topic (the Random House distribution and its ultimate role in TSR's demise) has been discussed at length elsewhere, unfortunately, the publisher is so well known as to have made a general Google search useless. If you have a Supporter account here or at RPGNet, you should be able to turn up those discussions (some with input from Gary). You may also want to check the Acaeum or Tome of Treasures.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't think I have ever before encountered the claim that the 3E core books sold better than any corresponding TSR-D&D line (much less all overlapping lines) in the long run.

Multiple WotC employees have made that claim here over the years. More recently, it was claimed that the 4e pre-order surpassed those for D&D 3.5. No figures were presented in either case, to my knowledge (nor did I claim otherwise). But, again, I don't think that Rouse, Mearls, etc would have any reason to lie about that. As for links, you'll have to search for those quotes yourself, as I don't have a CS account.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It was pre-MMORPG, and therefore the Golden Age. This is not to say that there is nothing good about playing in the post-MMORPG era.

 

[Jack99]

Multiple WotC employees have made that claim here over the years. More recently, it was claimed that the 4e pre-order surpassed those for D&D 3.5. No figures were presented in either case, to my knowledge (nor did I claim otherwise). But, again, I don't think that Rouse, Mearls, etc would have any reason to lie about that. As for links, you'll have to search for those quotes yourself, as I don't have a CS account.

To be exact, the "claim" is that 1st print run of 4e was bigger than the 1st print run of 3.5 which in turn was bigger than the 1st print run of 3.0. And the 4e one sold out faster than both the others.

But you were right that it was Mearls that told us.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If Golden Age refers to numbers playing D&D, then maybe. We don't actually know for sure because we've never had the figures.

In terms of innovation then no. D&D has only produced a few innovations in its history, and only one was in the 80s:
1974 - OD&D. Created roleplaying.
1975 - Hit locations, Blackmoor.
1984 - First novelistic adventure, Dragonlance.
2000 - OGL
2008 or later - Digital initiative

Most innovations in roleplaying have come from other game systems, notably Tunnels & Trolls, Traveller, RuneQuest, Champions and James Bond 007. The 1e era produced nothing new except the first novelistic adventure, in the form of Dragonlance. The emphasis on setting of the 2e era had already been done (better) years earlier by RuneQuest and Empire of the Petal Throne. 3e's cohesion was likewise presaged by RuneQuest. The tight balance of 4e is, arguably, unprecedented in rpgs up to this point.