Parmandur
Book-Friend
Thanks, don't know how I coulda gotten those confused.
Where's the 20mil from? (link wouldn't hurt, even)
It came from the same place, lemme look around later.
Thanks, don't know how I coulda gotten those confused.
Where's the 20mil from? (link wouldn't hurt, even)
I'm in no hurry. It sure would be a nice factoid though: "there are as many people playing D&D today, as played it in the preceding 40 years" kinda thing. Lovely sound-bite way of talking about growth.It came from the same place, lemme look around later.
But when the specific quality has proven popular, it is relevant. The 5E adventures, using the 5E adventure guidelines, have been successful, ergo we can conclude that the adventure guidelines are not contrary to the game's popularity.
That's certainly why I own OA, UA, and the Survival Guides for 1e.When there's so little (relative to previous editions) material being released in a year, -anything- gets bought.
That's certainly why I own OA, UA, and the Survival Guides for 1e.
OR
When there's so little (relative to previous editions) material being released in a year, -anything- gets bought.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that was the economic reasoning behind not flooding the market with books.
I'm in no hurry. It sure would be a nice factoid though: "there are as many people playing D&D today, as played it in the preceding 40 years" kinda thing. Lovely sound-bite way of talking about growth.
Same argument, just different side of the pendulum.On the contrary, 4E's publishing history is adequate demonstration that folks won't just buy because it is there.
I can't understand why they wouldn't just volunteer the number of active players rather than the growth %, that chart, in particular, with the first bar just data-free."Wizards reported a 41% rise in the number of active players (year over year) in 2017, and 52% in 2018. Starter Set sales alone increased 65% year over year in 2018. In fact, EVERY YEAR since D&D’s 5th Edition launched has seen the game’s biggest growth."
I can't understand why they wouldn't just volunteer the number of active players rather than the growth %, that chart, in particular, with the first bar just data-free.
It's frustrating.
I mean, I can understand, but I don't like what it implies.